Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
here's an interesting video on Russia's only "heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser" so labeled because Turkey doesn't allow aircraft carriers passage so the vessel built in Ukraine during the USSR era would have been confined to the Black Sea.
this carrier is rather famous .. for being a unreliable piece of shit. it requires ocean going tugs to follow it around waiting for the engines to fail so they can tow the hunk of junk into port.
The Gerald Ford is operational. as of last year. it took several years longer than usual to shakedown the new design, mainly because many of the new systems such as the electromag launch and recovery system were being designed and tested while the Ford was under construction. this led to several years of refitting these new systems before the carrier was finally certified for active service.
interestingly the new Chinese type 03 carrier also uses electromag launch and recovery systems. it'll be interesting to see how many issues they have in getting their new carrier fully operational.
Let me clue you in about what "operational" means in navy parlance. When the Ford left on deployment there were probably a number of civilians on board that represented the companies that installed the equipment. These are tech reps. They were probably on board for a few weeks to fix and troubleshoot problems. At some point they would leave because the system worked now. However, somewhere in the US some people had their bags packed and were supposed to walk at the sound of a phone call to make connections. Their goal was to get on board the Ford within 12 hours. I've never been on a brand, spanking new ship before but I have been on older ships with radically new equipment installed to replace the older things. That is how it was done then. That word "operational" may not mean what you think it does.
By the way, it's called JANE'S SHIPS or just plain JANE'S but it is not manual. There are also various versions like JANE'S Submarines, JANE'S Aircraft, JANE'S destroyers, etc.
Once again the barley guy is completely wrong about the branch he claims to have served.
"Yes, The Chinese Navy Has More Ships Than The U.S. Navy. But It’s Got Far Fewer Missiles."
China now possesses the biggest navy in the world by number of hulls, the U.S. Defense Department confirmed in its recent report on Beijing’s armed forces.
But that’s not necessarily the metric that matters. “There’s more to the comparison than number of hulls,” Jerry Hendrix, author of To Provide and Maintain a Navy. “The real number in the competition is the number of missile tubes.”
Comparing the offensive missile capacities of the U.S. and Chinese fleets is illustrative. Yes, the People’s Liberation Army Navy has 355 front-line warships at least as large as a corvette—and more than 400 if you also count small coastal missile boats. The U.S. Navy by contrast has just 305 front-line ships.
But the American ships pack more than twice as many offensive missiles—and that’s not even counting the missiles that the U.S. fleet’s carrier air wings could bring to bear.
In your ignorance, you call for impeachment. If only you were smarter. You would realize China wouldn't let your lack of knowledge onto their ships. You try to undermine our navy by talking theirs up.
Kowtow much?
Talk about being wrong...
I didn't call for impeachment, I said that I consider it an impeachable offense. Is English your second language?
You pull a quote out of your ass but don't tell us where it came from. Why don't you do that now.
If we go to war with the Chinese, it will be done off the coast of China, Japan, and the Philippines. You're forgetting the Chinese made "Silkworm" missiles on shore batteries. They are designed to overwhelm the defenses of the carrier group and wound or sink a carrier. If we're fighting them between Hawaii and San Fransisco, things have gone very badly.
Oh, you can take that "claim" shit and put it back where it belongs.
Let me clue you in about what "operational" means in navy parlance. When the Ford left on deployment there were probably a number of civilians on board that represented the companies that installed the equipment. These are tech reps. They were probably on board for a few weeks to fix and troubleshoot problems. At some point they would leave because the system worked now. However, somewhere in the US some people had their bags packed and were supposed to walk at the sound of a phone call to make connections. Their goal was to get on board the Ford within 12 hours. I've never been on a brand, spanking new ship before but I have been on older ships with radically new equipment installed to replace the older things. That is how it was done then. That word "operational" may not mean what you think it does.
i was in the Navy too. i know what operational means. i have been on a brand spanking new ship the USS McKee AS-41. we took it out for shakedowns with Lockheed Martin engineers onboard. had a formal commissioning in Seattle where the Navy took possession of the ship, some "important person" smacked it with a champagne bottle on a tether then we all boarded by ranks and division Captain and Exec officer leading the way then we sailed it to San Diego. Naval Base Point Loma. i could tell you about the ufo incident on the way down to San Diego. but it's classified.
bahhaa. who cares? i'll tell everyone anyway. it was early one morning and i was on third shift in data processing division about 3:30 am and after chow i went out on deck to have a smoke. the watch lookouts were already gathered around talking and pointing up in the sky. so i look up and there's three blue-white orbs in a triangle formation off the port side. after about ten minutes watching, the three orbs moved in perfect formation in an instant twenty miles to starboard. radar guy i knew told me radar had them less than half a mile above the ship and about ten mile to one side of the bow so when they moved they crossed twenty miles. then after a few minutes they did it again. this went on for about an hour. they probably crossed about ten times.
the Captain and XO were out on deck with binoculars observing for most of this, yeah they wake up Captains for stuff like this. then suddenly the orbs dived down directly in front of the ship about 500 yards up and hovered. i used a pair of binoculars a buddy had to get a good look but you couldn't make out much due to the shimmering blue-white light, they were estimated to be completely round about 200 yards in diameter. then they suddenly split up and climbed away in three different directions. my radar room buddy told me later they tracked the speed before they lost radar track on them at 30-35 thousand miles an hour. never saw them again the rest of the trip. the Captain turned around to leave with the XO and told everyone out on deck the matter was now classified top secret and no one was to speak of it again. of course we did, we jokingly referred to it as "The McKee Incident".
I could tell you about the foward engine room ghost or the reefer flat (that stands for refrigeration) that had the bodies of the Challenger astronauts.
China and the US aren't the only Navies suddenly in an aircraft carrier building race. both the UK and Japan are also building new state of the art carriers. in the case of the UK it's the Queen Elizabeth class carrier. they built two of the class on the concept of readiness, one in port and one deployed. when you have more the numbers go up, more on deployment. the US has 12 carriers where 7-8 are on deployment and the rest in port but ready to deploy, minus 1 or 2 undergoing extensive refit.
seems the Queen Elizabeth had a rather smooth built out and shakedown. the same can't be said for her sister ship the Prince of Wales. built on the same design by the same lead contractor BAE and at the same shipyard, the Prince of Wales is having a rough shakedown.
this is a new class like the Ford and some build out issues are expected however the Queen Elizabeth went smoothly while the Prince of Wales did not. some idiots in the UK are already talking about mothballing a brand new carrier. stupidity.
the Ministry of Defense was correct. the UK needs two carriers where one can be on deployment and the other at port. in wartime both would be deployed.
would you park a brand new Ferrari because you bought two of them? Nope. you'd drive one one day and the other the next.
the design has one unique feature. two separate air towers. never before done. the thinking was to isolate air ops fore and aft. interesting concept. while the US stayed with the single tower concept the Ford's tower was moved aft for generally the same reason, improved air ops.
good time to recap who has carriers and just how capable they are. most not so much being older designs and several crap ass Russkie designed carriers. only the US, Japan, China and the UK are actually making new state of the art carriers. but here's who has what anyway.
By the way, it's called JANE'S SHIPS or just plain JANE'S but it is not manual. There are also various versions like JANE'S Submarines, JANE'S Aircraft, JANE'S destroyers, etc.
China and the US aren't the only Navies suddenly in an aircraft carrier building race. both the UK and Japan are also building new state of the art carriers. in the case of the UK it's the Queen Elizabeth class carrier. they built two of the class on the concept of readiness, one in port and one deployed. when you have more the numbers go up, more on deployment. the US has 12 carriers where 7-8 are on deployment and the rest in port but ready to deploy, minus 1 or 2 undergoing extensive refit.
seems the Queen Elizabeth had a rather smooth built out and shakedown. the same can't be said for her sister ship the Prince of Wales. built on the same design by the same lead contractor BAE and at the same shipyard, the Prince of Wales is having a rough shakedown.
this is a new class like the Ford and some build out issues are expected however the Queen Elizabeth went smoothly while the Prince of Wales did not. some idiots in the UK are already talking about mothballing a brand new carrier. stupidity.
the Ministry of Defense was correct. the UK needs two carriers where one can be on deployment and the other at port. in wartime both would be deployed.
would you park a brand new Ferrari because you bought two of them? Nope. you'd drive one one day and the other the next.
the design has one unique feature. two separate air towers. never before done. the thinking was to isolate air ops fore and aft. interesting concept. while the US stayed with the single tower concept the Ford's tower was moved aft for generally the same reason, improved air ops.
That fucking ski jump has to be hard on the pilot.
lol you could certainly call it a "leap of faith" but no more so than a catapult. it is a viable launch system and very simple compared to the gear needed for a catapult system.
one of the major problems the Ford class carrier experienced which delayed its operational status for a long time is the new electromagnetic launch system that replaced the old but tried and true steam powered system. one of the advantages of electromagnetic launch systems is that they can be calibrated to the total weight of the aircraft where the old steam system could not.
by calibrating to the actual weight of the aircraft there is less stress on the air frame which for smaller and lighter aircraft was a long term maintenance issue.
lol you could certainly call it a "leap of faith" but no more so than a catapult. it is a viable launch system and very simple compared to the gear needed for a catapult system.
one of the major problems the Ford class carrier experienced which delayed its operational status for a long time is the new electromagnetic launch system that replaced the old but tried and true steam powered system. one of the advantages of electromagnetic launch systems is that they can be calibrated to the total weight of the aircraft where the old steam system could not.
by calibrating to the actual weight of the aircraft there is less stress on the air frame which for smaller and lighter aircraft was a long term maintenance issue.
i am surprised that a steam powered system can't be calibrated. it is after all based on the amount of water pressure that can be brought to bear.
.jpg)
