Aircraft Carriers III

Oh well I goffed up again..hence forth I shall not post in this thread, I'm to embarrassed.

bd popeye said:

Oh well I goffed up again..hence forth I shall not post in this thread, I'm to embarrassed.

Click to expand...

nah, please keep posting

Jura said:

nah, please keep posting

Click to expand...

Exactly my friend, no need to be embarrassed among your friends, and fans, to be honest, your opinion is worth its weight in gold, the SDF without the Sailor Man's words of wisdom is a hollow shell PopEye.....

Jura said:

well not even ten carriers "guarantee" continuous deployment of at least one of them;

I'm guessing that number should be twelve (or more of course) while leaving it for strategists of the navies building and operating carriers

Click to expand...

It Guaranteed far more carrier availability for 17 years than that found in single nation carriers. Basically I am pointing out much as that article you posted did that the USN had carriers in operation for 17 years with out gap until the period you point to. You however want to jump on that period. Which was the first and a small gap in 1.75 decades. But had there been a need a carrier group could have been pushed to sea.
For about the same time from February 2017-September 2018 the CdG was in refit.
So for a year and a half the CdG was down.
Basically every year and a half in service for the CdG brings the same in Yard. This isn’t unique US carriers do the same yet as you say there are 10-11 of them.
The general scheme is 3 in the yard, 2 under build, 3 in training and 3 ready to or at sea. This is why that was the first carrier gap in 1.75 decades. This is why those Carrier gaps where in no carriers for the US are available are so rare and so short. Because even if a carrier is down for 1.5 years there are sisters ready to go. Now you are correct that the British scheme is not a absolute money back guarantee of carriers being at the ready for any possibility Every year of service. So rather than absolute 365 day carrier at the ready for life of the vessels you get 365 this year 330 next then back to 365. Where the CdG gives you 365 this year 150 next then 10.

"retweeting"

·
USS GERALD R is back at sea for aircraft compatibility testing. Several Mh-60S helos are joined by an EA-6D Advanced Hawkeye of VX20. The ship will also launch & recover T-45 trainers, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets C-2A CODS and EA-18Gs

noticed in Twitter:


·

Cats & Traps: Lanch and recovery flying operations aboard GERALD R on 16 Jan. The ship is carrying out aircraft compatibility testing with at least five different types of aircraft using the launch and Advanced Arresting Gear recovery systems.


[don't know how to link the vid here]

linking to boastful
US Navy’s Ford aircraft carrier begins compatibility testing

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just4Fun said:

It is a dangerous dormant nuclear volcano awaiting a sudden eruption, sending all sailors on board into a Fukushima-like nuclear furnace.

Any warship is sinkable, if it is floatable, especially in an era dominated by space-based surveillance and high velocity glide missiles. This is determined by the law of physics and no warship can get away from it.

A fundamental difference lies between a nuclear carrier and a conventional carrier when being hit by missiles and about to sink during wartime. The nuclear carrier has the potential to become an erupted nuclear volcano, killing all sailors on board and endangering nearby warships with nuclear radiation and contamination, while the conventional carrier will only turn to a dead rock, leaving room for sailors to maneuver a self-rescue, or to be rescued by nearby friendly warships.

Nuclear carriers are white elephants that have no place in a naval battle between two powers in today's world. They may be even unable to sail near the war zone at all. The crew of a nuclear carrier will likely revolt if they know they are sailing into the firing zone of a capable enemy, because no one on board would want to die as a guinea pig inside a Fukushima furnace.

Nuclear carriers are a thing of the past, not a thing of the future.

Click to expand...

oh you're
Just4Fun
Junior Member
from 1400 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1400

Today at 2:21 PM

Jura said:

linking to boastful
US Navy’s Ford aircraft carrier begins compatibility testing

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

more:
USS Gerald R. Ford Set for 11 At-Sea Periods for Tests and Trials

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Jura said:

oh you're
Just4Fun
Junior Member
from 1400 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1400

Click to expand...

If that’s his actual address he must work at the Taco Bell.

None of the reactors at Fukushima turned into nuclear furnaces. That was Chernobyl.
Nuclear reactors have risks it’s true, but at Fukushima the situation was very different and would be different from that of a naval ship as well. In Fukushima the Reactors Went int a scram mode during the earthquake. From there it would have been fine had it not been for the tsunami. This was a double whammy was the earthquake cut outside power and wrecked the roads preventing emergency generators from getting on site fast enough. The tsunami flooded the machine room damaged electrical equipment and the 13 back up generators. without water to run the cooling system or even the sensors the reactors started boiling over This took hours even days.
Fukashuma plants did blow there Buildings but not their tops as the explosions were the result of hydrogen Vented from the reactors. That gas being caused by the heated zirconium of the fuel rods interacting with the steam.
This differed from the Chernobyl #4 event where the crews running the reactor generated an instant disaster, by first crashing the reactor into a scram then removing all the controls of the reactor letting it loose in a instant where it blew it’s top and the core was exposed. And uranium once exposed is highly flammable.
The Hollywood style disaster offered by out friend @Just4Fun however an extreme on par with any super disaster movie taking a real potential and amping it up times a billion. Although Carriers can be damaged it would take a hell of alt to sink a Carrier and a hell of a lot more to rip the core open and expose the cores. If it did happen a naval ship has the critical element that would prevent a nuclear pyre.
Water.
Ships have a almost unlimited supply of it, The Ocean. This can be seen in nuclear submarine sinking where the reactor has flooded containing the event. Thresher, Scorpion, K8, K27, K219, K278, K429, K141 and K159. Despite having reached crush depth with potential for exposed cores no nuclear pyres.
If the Core has been ripped open which is a huge if on par with spontaneous human combustion. Then the reactor would quickly be drenched as the rest of the ship would have had to have been blown into small bits.