WT Forums

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>New-build Montana BBGs...New-build Montana BBGs...Nuclear propulsion, chaubom armor, 16-inch scramshells with 1000 nm range, more SM-3s and TACTOMs than you'd ever need to sink the rest of the world's fleets, take out their air forces and ICBMs...COMBINED!...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I do not know way the put the 4 round box TACTOMs on the ships they should have use the 64 missile vertical lurches. They could have place 6 or 8 of them in the same foot print as the armor 4 round missiles box and then could have place any missile in them surface to air, surface to surface, surface to under water.

I was thinking more like BBN-61 Iowa, BBN-62 New Jersey, BBN-63 Missouri, and BBN-64 Wisconsin rebuild them and save the money for other things! Wished they had finished the BB-65 Illinois and the BB-66 Kentucky. We could now replace the 5”/45s with something like the 155mm off of the Crusader!

Bigger is better! And that is just three guns at once.

<img src="http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/img/BB/BB-61_Iowa-broadside.gif" border=0>

The four rd ABL box launchers were pre VLS days. At the time the BB's were last refurbished they were among the few Tomahawk capable warships in the fleet. TACTOM is just now entering service, BTW.

"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

[quote]

Yes and my vote too we need light and heavy but I like the heavy! Plus an all nuke Navy! Even refitting the Iowa’s to nuke.
-------------

We retired surface nuke powered ships for a reason. Too damn costly to operate and even conventional powered carriers would be far cheaper to operate. Especially if they go to the new podded propulsion powerplants that cruise ships are using now.

Navy self regulates itself on nuke powerplants and keeps their mistakes secret. USS Nimitz in 1979 just after 3 Mile Island almost had a complete meltdown. It had a nice little nuke powerplant leak. Sailors bought T-shirts with the logo, " I sailed on Quarter Mile Island". I was based at Norfolk at the time. It was barely a blip on the national news.

In the 50's we spent billions trying to build a nuke powered bomber. Closet we got was a B-36 airborne with an operating nuke powerplant.

Jack

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> We retired surface nuke powered ships for a reason. Too damn costly to operate and even conventional powered carriers would be far cheaper to operate.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

“Sarcastic Mode”
I guess we will just have to keep on fighting for OIL around the world!
I guess I real did not want to know that nuke power sucks!
I guess nothing works as advertise there goes my dream thank you.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[quote] We retired surface nuke powered ships for a reason. Too damn costly to operate and even conventional powered carriers would be far cheaper to operate.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

“Sarcastic Mode”
I guess we will just have to keep on fighting for OIL around the world!
I guess I real did not want to know that nuke power sucks!
I guess nothing works as advertise there goes my dream thank you.----------------

LOL, yeah I recall the PR on the all nuke powered fleet. Think they were designed for 30 years and at the 17 year mark or so, very quietly parked them. Even the first nuke powered sub, USS Nautlis had some serious problems and it damn near sank. Jon Craven, former top Navy Scientist wrote a book on his various adventures, which included the still secret fix to the Nautlis. He was on the design team for the NR-1. This was a little hotrod nuke powered sub that did lots of mapping underseas.

Even more quietly, they dismantled SNAP units around the world. SNAP=small nuke aux powerplant. In reality it could power up a small city. Antartica had one until the early 70's and they ended up quietly dismantling it and picking up the dirt around it and shipping it back to the States.

Jack

I read that book. A good read for sure.

"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

Okay why could we not make nuclear power work? Are we just too stupid!

[quote]
Okay why could we not make nuclear power work? Are we just too stupid!
-------------

Good question. Perhaps if the Navy opened their books up on what works, at what price, and perhaps we could have a safe nuke power plant. There are 103 odd working nuke powerplants in the US. Navy runs close to 70 or more nuke powered ships and lots of data on the other ones.

Snipe, another good read is Blindman's Bluff, Sontagg.

Jack

Yep, that was the one i met. Sherry Sontag correct?

Good book, and lots of really good stories of the days of the Crazy Ivan.



"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

So I guess what y’all are saying is that yes we are too stupid to use nuclear power. And it looks like one reason is that people are to busy covering there own butts that they would let the world blow it self up or run out of oil before they would tell others that they made a mistake.

The 100 or so nuclear power plants left in the US are now on the edge of being retired and with no more even in someone mind not alone on any drawing boards. Nuclear power plants make up from 10 to 20 percent of the electric power in the US and when they are gone we will have no choose but to use oil or have no power. The pictures that are shown on TV of the starving people of other nations of the world will be in a few years the streets of this country because oil will run out by the middle of this century. Plus with over 6 or 7 billions people by 2050 we will be in deep waste! I can picture every street corner looking like blackhawk down in 40 to 50 years!

We once had a program with breather reactors, which looked like a way to make an endless supply of nuclear fuel but that was cut before it got off the ground. The idea was the not only could we make power with nuclear reactors but we could also make more nuclear fuel with the same plants. A half a century ago when I was growing up the future looked so bright but now it does not! Without power this plant can support less then two billion people and there will be no easy way to get to that small a number!

[quote]
Yep, that was the one i met. Sherry Sontag correct?

Good book, and lots of really good stories of the days of the Crazy Ivan.
-------------

Yeah, her and think another dude. Goes back to post WW2 and the games we played.

Since were talking somewhat about armor. In Nam, Armor actually did pretty well on the flatlands.

Jack

Armor was mainly used in the few city fights and as static artillery, but yeah, when the terrain allowed the M-36 Pershings and M-48 Patton's kicked ass.

"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Yep, that was the one i met. Sherry Sontag correct?

Good book, and lots of really good stories of the days of the Crazy Ivan.
-------------

Yeah, her and think another dude. Goes back to post WW2 and the games we played.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Christopher Drew. I'm going to have to find my copy and get it to my dad at some point. His boat is mentioned in it.

Ted

Boring the world, one post at a time.

I'm a MAJOR BB freak! My lifelong dream is to add a (deactivated) 16 inch projectile to my cartridge collection! THAT would get everybody's attention, even if I had to leave it in the front yard (+1 ton, you know!)
Another good read, all true is "Running on Empty" the story of Rickover and the LA class. It isn't pretty

Check out the Naval Fire Support Association website!

http://www.usnfsa.org

"The First Rule in a Gunfight: Have a gun. If you violate this rule, no other rules apply" Jeff Cooper

You guy need to look up the french air craft carrier. Seems they forgot how much sheilding was needed for their reactor, along with the fact that they forgot to balance the prop almost shaking the ship apart during her first cruise. I think they had to tow it to shore after just 55 min at sea.

And we wonder why no body points to great french engineering.

the problem with Nukes for electric is 100% political. We have a number of thermally self regulating (not computer operated mind you but genuinely self regulating because of how the cooling system is designed, some dont even use electric pumps to move the water around it's all acomlished by the differance in temperature) Nuke designs that could be used. And lets not forget that 3 mile isle and Chernobyl were BOTH cused by HUMAN intervention and just plain screwing around. It's the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) syndrome that keeps us from building them.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

[quote]
the problem with Nukes for electric is 100% political------

What do you do with the nuke waste? We have over 77,000 tons of it waiting to be parked somewhere.

Read about some of these new designs. You could make some serious bucks if you came up with a safe way of disposing of nuke waste on site.

Jack