Ask An Expert- Naval Forces

[85 gt kid]

If we had lost more ships in the Pearl Harbor attack (complete losses were higher then the 3 we had and maybe lost our carriers that were out to sea) and we lost more naval battles then we did do you think they would have put ships like the Olympia back into service? Or would it still be better to build new ships instead of tying up valued and limited drydocks?

[desertswo]

If we had lost more ships in the Pearl Harbor attack (complete losses were higher then the 3 we had and maybe lost our carriers that were out to sea) and we lost more naval battles then we did do you think they would have put ships like the Olympia back into service? Or would it still be better to build new ships instead of tying up valued and limited drydocks?

Have you ever been aboard Olympia? I have, and it had no business being in the fleet in WWII. Drydocks and other repair facilities were built in WWII, and even those in Pearl Harbor weren't unduly tasked in the months after the attack. You know, one of the points about the war in the Pacific that people rarely take the time to understand is that there was an agreement forged at the Atlantic Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill that the war in Europe would take precedence. In effect, the US fought the war in the Pacific with one hand tied behind its back, and still prevailed.

[ChrisV71]

I recall reading sometime back that Olympia was evaluated early in the war for reactivation potential, as a training ship, and was rejected as having minimal to no value and the ship needed way too much work to achieve even that minimally useful purpose. Among the reasons were her being coal fired and all her equipment was now unique to that ship. I don't recall where I read that info, but like the Captain said, Olympia had no business being in service.

[85 gt kid]

Yea I got to tour her last year and I've been on a few WWII ships and she was ANCIENT compared to the WWII ships I've seen (they were modern in comparison). I didn't get to see the engineering spaces though which was a bummer :(. Anyways I was just wondering if we were really hurting would she be used but I got my answer :).

As always thanks guys!

[gunnut]

This question is mostly for desertswo, since he seems to have a lot of experience working with carriers, but anyone else with an opinion is definitely free to respond as well.

I was surfing the web and came across this blog post by someone who doesn't exactly seem... fond of aircraft carriers. He mentions the Millennium Challenge exercise a few times, and it seems that his general premise is that carriers are "useless," could be destroyed by "fishing boats, private planes, anti ship missiles and a few patrol craft," and "wouldn't survive one day if the Iranians ever got serious about using some power projection." The jist of it seems to be that carriers are just " gaudy toys" only useful for presence missions, and the only really useful weapon systems are submarines and missiles.

Out of curiosity -- what's your opinion about that? Also, were the Millennium Falcon exercises really the end-all proof that carriers are "useless" that the author suggests they are?

The War Nerd: Iran is building a “fake” aircraft carrier? How can you tell? | PandoDaily

I checked the author's credentials to see if he had any relevant experience (military service, an engineering degree, etc), but it seems like he's an English professor. So I'm not exactly convinced by his Fred's, but I figured I'd run this by you guys to see if any of his opinions were correct.

Did you just find the naval version of Mike Sparks? The guy is hilarious.

[SteveDaPirate]

Is the Navy drifting the Nimitz?

Makes me wonder if a turn like that is enough to cause the inside prop to breach the surface and start cavitating.

[Squirrel]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39422[/ATTACH]

Is the Navy drifting the Nimitz?

Makes me wonder if a turn like that is enough to cause the inside prop to breach the surface and start cavitating.

This is a full power turn. They are a blast on any ship, provided you have secured for sea. This is typically a torpedo evasion evolution. And I wouldn't worry about those props, they still got plenty of water to turn.

[desertswo]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39422[/ATTACH]

Is the Navy drifting the Nimitz?

Makes me wonder if a turn like that is enough to cause the inside prop to breach the surface and start cavitating.

They're all cavitating at that speed, but it's got nothing to do with the turn. It's because they're doiing Warp Factor 8. I suspect the Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) is on board. They were even bigger pricks than we guys on the old Propulsion Examining Board were. That's when you try to break the ship on purpose, because Congress requires that we do every three years. They'll swing those rudders from hard left to hard right and back again, drop the anchor in deep water and see if the windlass brake can stop its fall, and all kinds of other dopey shit.

[Native]

My first ship, I love when we are going so fast that the stop showing the speed on the monitors.

[Stitch]

They're all cavitating at that speed, but it's got nothing to do with the turn. It's because they're doiing Warp Factor 8. I suspect the Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) is on board. They were even bigger pricks than we guys on the old Propulsion Examining Board were. That's when you try to break the ship on purpose, because Congress requires that we do every three years. They'll swing those rudders from hard left to hard right and back again, drop the anchor in deep water and see if the windlass brake can stop its fall, and all kinds of other dopey shit.

I'm assuming that everything on the ship is well-secured when they decide to do this kind of a maneuver! I can't imagine a Tomcat or two sliding around in the hanger!

[desertswo]

I'm assuming that everything on the ship is well-secured when they decide to do this kind of a maneuver! I can't imagine a Tomcat or two sliding around in the hanger!

You notice there are no aircraft on board, yes? During that inspection, they are looking at the ship and only the ship. Beyond that, we are not allowed to have more than three degrees of heel with aircraft on deck. I estimate she has 15 or more on in that photo and ships always heel away from the direction of turn. As to whether everything else is properly stored, I guess they'll find out. In a cruiser or destroyer that's standard fare because we always take a beating from the seas; carriers not so much.

[desertswo]

Here, might as well watch it "live."

At one point you hear the lee helmsman report, "All engines are ahead full, indicating one zero zero RPM." That's OPDEC. That's only a 20 knot bell on that class. Trust me, when doing those turns, they had a flank bell on, and light loaded like that, she was probably pushing 38 knots or so, or 44 MPH if one prefers.

[tbm3fan]

This is a full power turn. They are a blast on any ship, provided you have secured for sea. This is typically a torpedo evasion evolution. And I wouldn't worry about those props, they still got plenty of water to turn.

Definitely secured as we wouldn't want to lose a tug, Tilly or a plane

[Zad Fnark]

I've got a question regarding amphibious ships.

Looking at the America class, the Wasps and Tarawas, they all appear to have the same function.

Their hull classification symbols are, respectively are

LHA(R)
LHD
LHA

What is the difference between these designations? I'm not sure what makes one different from another.

Ed

[Covert_Shores]

Budgeting purposes, big programs need big acronyms and policy papers ;)

Joking aside, designations are often self-serving and the linkage between requirements and doctrine is often circular.