top speed of a cvn
|
|
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan)
Data: 1996/12/01
Assunto: Re: top speed of a cvn
kdsnumb...@aol.com reshaped the electrons to say: > The original (implied) question still exists. Rephrased slightly, has the Non-nuclear Nimitz class carriers? What planet is this? > technological advancements in propulsion plants and hull design proceeded > at rates that would allow today's submarine to "outrun" today's Nimitz > (nuclear ones only) or Enterprise class carriers? The answer to your question is "yes". -- É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: msar...@moose.erie.net (Matthew Saroff)
Data: 1996/12/02
Assunto: Re: top speed of a cvn
: kdsnumb...@aol.com reshaped the electrons to say:
: > The original (implied) question still exists. Rephrased slightly, has the : > technological advancements in propulsion plants and hull design proceeded : > at rates that would allow today's submarine to "outrun" today's Nimitz : > (nuclear ones only) or Enterprise class carriers? : Non-nuclear Nimitz class carriers? What planet is this? : The answer to your question is "yes". -- É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: Midn Brian M Campbell <m980...@nadn.navy.mil>
Data: 1996/12/02
Assunto: Re: top speed of a cvn
I've got an uncle who served on a DE(?) in the 60s that was in the JFK BG bmc <snip> > Hi, Sorry to cut the cool sig file. I'm having trouble posting with a lot of É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan)
Data: 1996/12/01
Assunto: Re: top speed of a cvn
Karsten Paczkowski reshaped the electrons to say: > Is it true that modern subs are slower when they're surfaced as they are Yes. > submerged? > (Maybe because parts of the propeller are out of the water?) No. The hullform is terribly inefficient on the surface. Just look at that -- É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
3rd world Navies, you make the call; (a mental expiriment).
|
|
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: Matt Clonfero <M...@aetherem.demon.co.uk>
Data: 1996/12/01
Assunto: Re: 3rd world Navies, you make the call; (a mental expiriment).
Harold Hutchison <hhutchi...@cornell-iowa.edu> wrote: And your carrier isn't? It's a target easily identified by ISAR; and > Dunno about that. Land bases are fixed points. Much easier >to hit with any sort of preemptive strike. A carrier can be helpful >in keeping the other side guessing as to where a portion of your >assets are. 48kt carrier may be a bit much, but something along that >line may be worht a peek. It's much harder to find a carrier. easily killed by Spearfish. If you only have one, then killing it takes all your naval air away. Note - last time, when we sunk Belgrano the carrier went to port and stayed there. >> That's certainly the way it should be. Well, we'd notice the prelude to invasion. Maybe this time we'd do > True, but how much does it take to hit those islands in the >first place? And suppose the Argies DID learn a few lessons from >their `82 buttkicking? something about it - like the time before '82 when we sent the SSNs down early. If the Argentines prepare to fight the '82 conflict again, they'll lose Aetherem Vincere É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan)
Data: 1996/12/01
Assunto: Re: 3rd world Navies, you make the call; (a mental expiriment).
Harold Hutchison reshaped the electrons to say: > I'd add a carrier, and some `phibs, call it three or four LSTs I'm sure USN isn't interested in giving warships to Argentina. > from the USN (we got a few sitting around, IIRC). -- É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: Chris Manteuffel <foxba...@aol.com>
Data: 1996/12/01
Assunto: Re: 3rd world Navies, you make the call; (a mental expiriment).
hhutchi...@cornell-iowa.edu (Harold Hutchison) wrote: And, carrier airplanes sacrfice some performance to be able to succesfully >> Since we're only really concerned with operations near the Argentine >> mainland, the carrier is a distraction. The money can be better spent on >> land-based assets. > Dunno about that. Land bases are fixed points. Much easier >to hit with any sort of preemptive strike. A carrier can be helpful >in keeping the other side guessing as to where a portion of your >assets are. 48kt carrier may be a bit much, but something along that >line may be worht a peek. It's much harder to find a carrier. land and take off again from a CV.* The weight of the gear, and strenghtned airframe, nessacary for CV ops, cuts down on your performance. Unless you blow him out of the sky at 100+ nm, when it doesn't matter how much weight you sacrificed. And, land based air is cheaper(at least according to SAC), and is easier to start up. It is very difficult to simply 'start up' a real CTOL system. Big $$$$. We are a 3rd world nation, remember. Chris Manteuffel *except for a C-130, but that doesn't count. É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: "Paul J. Adam" <p...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>
Data: 1996/12/01
Assunto: Re: 3rd world Navies, you make the call; (a mental expiriment).
In article <1996Nov30.125...@cornell-iowa.edu>, Harold Hutchison >> Has the USN got Penguin Mk2 Mod 7 in service yet? Doubt it, for a variety of reasons: one of them being, the Pucaras are > We've got them now, but the real nasty piece of news is this: >A chopper using a pair of those is a dead duck if those missile boats >had fighters covering them. IIRC, the Argies had Pucaras mased inthe >Falklands. With about 18 of those covering the missile boats, your >choppers owuld end up being kill decals on the side of a Pucara. sitting ducks for the Sea Harriers. You don't operate platforms in isolation, and you don't send the Lynxes out if there are enemy fighters prowling. Apart from anything else, the SBS took care of the Pucaras at Pebble >> Oh, btw, the Invincible class ships are CVS, not CVV. ??? Sea Harrier packs the Blue Vixen radar and AMRAAM: Harriers have > I see, but they only oeprate the Harrier FA.2, which is an >outstanbding VSTOL fighter plane, but with the pilots being equal, >they stand little chance against MiG-29 or F-16 fighters. also regularly given good accounts of themselves in closer combat. They also have AEW backing them up, while the MiGs or F-16s are going in blind. Sounds like bad odds to me. -- Paul J. Adam p...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: Matt Clonfero <M...@aetherem.demon.co.uk>
Data: 1996/12/01
Assunto: Re: 3rd world Navies, you make the call; (a mental expiriment).
Harold Hutchison <hhutchi...@cornell-iowa.edu> wrote: Yadda yadda yadda. The pucara is a lightweight COIN plane with limited > We've got them now, but the real nasty piece of news is this: >A chopper using a pair of those is a dead duck if those missile boats >had fighters covering them. IIRC, the Argies had Pucaras mased inthe >Falklands. With about 18 of those covering the missile boats, your >choppers owuld end up being kill decals on the side of a Pucara. use in a real conflict; and one raid by the SAS put a lot of them out of service. Are you going to have a standing patrol of 18 over your boats? I think that means that you'll need a minimum of 60 servicable aircraft and crews for that evolution alone. >> Oh, btw, the Invincible class ships are CVS, not CVV. FA.2 carries AMRAAM. Sea King AEW.2 carries Searchwater. Your proposed > I see, but they only oeprate the Harrier FA.2, which is an >outstanbding VSTOL fighter plane, but with the pilots being equal, >they stand little chance against MiG-29 or F-16 fighters. Argentine MiG-29 might or might not have a BVR AAM; it certainly doesn't have AEW. Aetherem Vincere É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: mj27...@janus.swipnet.se (Thomas C. Watson)
Data: 1996/12/02
Assunto: Re: 3rd world Navies, you make the call; (a mental expiriment).
In article <1996Nov30.124...@cornell-iowa.edu>, hhutchi...@cornell-iowa.edu (Harold Hutchison) wrote: They learned that they must be more sure of their allies next time. No > >> You know, the chances of the Argentines in a rematch over the > >>Falklands/Malvinas look VERY slim, indeed. > > That's certainly the way it should be. > True, but how much does it take to hit those islands in the > first place? And suppose the Argies DID learn a few lessons from > their `82 buttkicking? Third world country, or even a regional power like Argentina, can seriously challennge a major industrialized nation without another major industrialized nation at least running interference. I think that Argentina counted on being backed by the US and misjudged. To take the Malvinas they should build up their naval forces to the point of being able to convince a potential ally that they are serious. They should shop around for allies that could keep the US truely neutral, therefor a Pacific nation is out. The US herself would be the best ally of course, but not likely. A better strategy, I think, would be to work to keep the UK out of the European Union and then cozy up to the continental block and make a move before England sees the light and joins the Union. England will be very vulnerable strategically if she hesitates to enter the European Union; maybe other regional powers interested in shedding British influence can be found to make simultaneous moves in other parts of the globe. In order to convince an ally, I think that naval air power capable of holding station over the Malvinas in all weather, and a sub force capable of meeting and harming a British task force in the North Atlantic would be a minimum. TomW É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||