Milhist Thread: Ok, so get this: we name the army groups 1, 2 and 4...

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Milhist Thread: Ok, so get this: we name the army groups 1, 2 and 4...

«‹›687 »

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

The A-3 was actually the smallest aircraft entered in its particular design competition, which was for a 100,000 lb strategic bomber that could fly from a flush decked carrier with a nuclear bomb on board.

# ? Oct 22, 2023 16:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 00:09

TooMuchAbstraction: Oct 14, 2012; I spent four years making
Waves of Steel
Hell yes I'm going to turn my avatar into an ad for it.; Fun Shoe

Groda posted:

The A-3 and A-5 definitely get the most "they take off from where?" from me.

You can tell they didn't have confidence in the carrier launch, because they have a bunch of outboard motors on the deck there, ready to be attached prior to flight.

# ? Oct 22, 2023 17:01

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

The A-3 has kind of airliner vibes to me. Maybe that weird East German airliner project, baade 152? Or the Fairchild Dornier 328JET. I like it.

# ? Oct 22, 2023 17:06

FuturePastNow: May 19, 2014

My favorite aircraft genre are all the 50s turboprops that failed utterly due to the T40.

# ? Oct 22, 2023 17:09

Zorak of Michigan: Jun 10, 2006

The A-5 Vigilante was too pretty to have failed so badly and I suspect the team that made it into a reconnaissance bird felt the same way.

# ? Oct 22, 2023 17:40

feedmegin: Jul 30, 2008

Urcinius posted:

Something that cracks me up in US Navy records straight through current US Navy journal and magazine articles is the continuous recognition that a carrier is a long-life vessel that needs to be designed as well as possible to age gracefully. What makes me laugh are statements that carriers need to be designed as much as 50% larger than contemporary requirements to account for growth in aircraft size, weight, and takeoff & landing runs. I have zero belief that a carrier designed to a larger size for future operations isn�t going to be immediately operated to its total capacity. For example, a carrier the size of 108 original planes with expectation of being only able to operate 72 in 10 years will be operating 108 upon commissioning not 72. Then the Navy will still complain when the air group eventually shrinks to 72.

Surely the idea - with length especially in mind - is that if you lengthen your carrier then you can put more planes on it now and less, larger ones in the future, but if you don't, you go from putting the current number of planes on it now to zero (0) modern planes in the future because the carrier isn't big enough for them to take off.

# ? Oct 22, 2023 18:20

Urcinius: Mar 27, 2010; Chapter Master of the
Woobie Marines

feedmegin posted:

Surely the idea - with length especially in mind - is that if you lengthen your carrier then you can put more planes on it now and less, larger ones in the future, but if you don't, you go from putting the current number of planes on it now to zero (0) modern planes in the future because the carrier isn't big enough for them to take off.

Nah. At least not for the US Navy. Their concern has been sheer numbers and capability when considering size and operating complement.

(There�s a Navy doc quoted below for those who want to skip my explanation.

It�s a good thought, but basically any prospective propeller plane* can take off from any carrier with at least a 600� deck if not a 500� deck. The key considerations for propeller planes performing a rolling takeoff are 1) wind over the deck and 2) loading condition. Both affect the necessary takeoff run. Generally any propeller plane can takeoff in 25kt wind over the deck unless in an extreme loading condition. When overloaded, 30-40kts wind over the deck becomes necessary to control the takeoff run to an acceptable length of the carrier�s deck.

The Grumman TBF only needs about 440� to takeoff in 25kt wind. That�s why carriers were able to launch planes even while swinging at anchor. Anything north of 600� is capable of operating propeller planes and the greater length only affects the number of planes it can operate - not if.

Hell, most of the carriers of WWII could launch a number of B-25s. That capability was not unique.

Then the jet revolution changed everything. Now the consideration is the design of the catapult - length and capacity of the catapult. No jet aircraft can perform a rolling takeoff from any carrier without other limitations (short-or-vertical takeoff features or limited loading and a ski jump). Even the light but capable A-4 Scooter needs ~1800�-4000� to takeoff in 25kt wind over the deck. This has largely standardized takeoff distance for carriers that use catapults. Now wind over the deck usually only affects loading condition using catapult launch. A lot of planes can be catapulted while the carrier swings at anchor if in light load conditions. This is why the Colossusclass could have a long and useful career into the 1990s operating the A-4 despite their 690� long flight deck.

Even still, takeoff distance, in general, is second to the space necessary for landing as the dominant limitation in deck space available to park planes out of the way of flight operations. The run out distance of an arrested landing is standard for a plane in a given load situation, but overall landing area is further governed by redundancy. Which wire does the plane catch? How many barriers need to be erected to ensure a run-away plane is caught before it plows into planes parked on deck?

Angling the landing area outboard from the rest of the flight deck greatly assisted with controlling the need for extreme redundancy. A plane which misses the arresting wires on an angled deck will continue safely out over the water. Then just 4 arresting wires are necessary and no barriers are needed for regular operations at all. This has also fairly well standardized the required size of landing areas.

Once you have your takeoff area and landing area sized, the remaining space is available for your air group. Basically, anything big enough to land one plane can operate one plane. The extra size is for the ability to operate 10, 25, 50, or 100 planes.

The sizing debates were very much about numbers and defensive features - not about basic capability to even operate planes. Read the materials enough and you start picking up that �can�t operate� is simply a more forceful way of saying �can�t operate the number of planes that we believe is necessary.�

If we wanted to design a carrier that operates just one nuclear bomber, we could probably do so on a flight deck of just 400�.

* by prospective propeller plane I mean any of the propeller planes designed and operated until jet planes supplanted propeller planes. Continued propeller plane development would eventually have required the angled deck and catapults that jet planes needed.

Here�s a historical paper by Admiral (then Lieutenant) James S. Russell that was passed around the Navy in 1940. Not only does he explain what I have already covered well, but he also tackles hangars too. I�ll try to reproduce his charts in the near future for y�all.

A Statistical Analysis of the Growth of Carrier Based Airplanes and Discussion of Effect on Carrier Design and Operation, Prepared by the Carrier Desk, Bureau of Aeronautics (signed James S. Russell) posted:

In studying the design of new aircraft carriers it is necessary to predict the size and weight of the landing and take-off performance of future carrier based airplanes.

The change in these characteristics for the average carrier based airplane during the past fifteen years is shown on the attached charts. Chart 1 shows those characteristics which primarily affect deck length, and Chart 2 those which primarily affect deck area. The average flight deck length and flight deck area of carriers in commission have been plotted on the charts in order to compare the growth of the airplane with the growth of the platform from which it must operate.

The data for the curves were prepared by listing the characteristics of each type of airplane, multiplying the characteristics by the actual number of the particular type assigned to carrier units as of 1 January each year, adding these products, and dividing by the total number of airplanes assigned to carrier units. A discussion of the curves follows:

Chart 1. Take-off Run in 25 Knot Wind.

The amount of flight deck available for the so-called �spotting of airplanes prior to take-off is limited by the length of deck which must be reserved for the safe runoff of the first airplane in the spot. Hence the carrying capacity of the flight deck is directly affected by this feature of the performance of the airplane. The ordinate of the curve or take-off run in 25 knot wind represents the ideal performance of the average airplane in trials. In actual practice about 50% is added to this run to cover variations in piloting technique and an occasional engine which does not develop optimum power in take-off.

An obvious method of improving the take-off run is to increase the relative wind over the carrier�s deck. However, two factors limit the possibility of indefinitely increasing the relative wind. The first and most important is that a relative wind of about 30 knots is the maximum which can be permitted without unduly increasing the hazards attending the movement of planes and personnel incident to launching. The second factor is that in the event of a dead calm at sea the carrier must create the relative wind entirely by her own movement through the water, and the relative wind is then limited to the carrier�s maximum speed. An objection also exists in that higher speeds incident to providing a higher relative wind cause the carrier to lose distance and time along the ocean track she desires to follow.

An inspection of the take-off run curve shows a steady rise at an increasing rate, except for a slight �flat� centered about the year 1936, which is probably due to the introduction of the controllable pitch propeller. It is interesting to note that between the years 1930 and 1939 the take-off run increased 93% and the average carrier deck length increased less than 7% for the same period. Improvement in the take-off run characteristics cannot be foreseen at this time for the reason that the modern demand for higher top speeds in military aircraft require higher wing loading, and higher wing loading inevitably increases the take-off run.

Chart 1. Weight and Stalling Velocity.

The amount of flight deck availability for the so-called �parking� of airplanes during recovery is directly affected by the deck length which must be used for alighting and arresting. The length of the deck which must be devoted to alighting and arresting depends on many variables. However, if a certain standard skill is assumed for pilots and landing signal officers, and if the airplane may be assumed to have average controllability near the stall and average effectiveness of high lift devices in adding drag to prevent �floating� in landing, then the space required for alighting on deck becomes a function of the airplane�s stalling velocity (landing speed) and the velocity of the relative wind over the carrier�s deck. The relative wind is again limited to a maximum permissible velocity of about 30 knots due to considerations of safety in moving planes and personnel on deck. Hence the primary variable in the consideration of deck length necessary for alighting becomes the airplane�s stalling velocity. On Chart 1 the stalling velocity curve shows a steady rise, (about 13.5% for the period 1930-39), due to a gradual acceptance of higher stalling velocities in new airplanes in order to obtain higher top speed and better all around performance. Stalling velocities may be expected to continue to go up. It is interesting to note that the introduction of high lift devices in carrier airplanes which began in 1935 has done nothing to impede the steady upward march of stalling velocities. The advantages of the high light devices have not been applied to decreasing the landing speed, but rather to permit increases in other aspects of performance, and the underlying increase in �acceptable� landing speeds has continued from year to year.

After alighting, the airplane must be brought to rest on deck. This is the �arresting� part of the recovery operation, and is a matter of absorbing the kinetic energy of the alighting airplane. Since the relative wind over the carrier�s deck is fixed at an upper limit of 30 knots for the reasons stated above (25 to 30 knots is actually used), arresting is a function of the mass of the airplane and the square of its stalling velocity or landing speed. The length of the arrested run can be controlled by the carrier up to the maximum energy absorbing capacity of her arresting gear. Further improvements can be, and is, made by a program of progressively increasing the capacity of arresting gear installations on the carriers. The length of arrested run is small compared to the deck length which must be allowed for reasonable safety in alighting on board ship. Arrested runs range from 40 to 100 feet, the usual deck length devoted to alighting is, at the present time, about 315 feet and includes the arrested run. The former length can be controlled to the limit of airplane and arresting gear strength, the latter length must reasonably increase as the airplane landing speed increases. If the deck length devoted to alighting and arresting is not increased as the landing speed increases then a higher barrier crash rate must be accepted (Barrier crash rate for 1937 was 1.11 per thousand; for 1938, 0.96; for 1939, 1.23)

Chart 2

The number of airplanes which can be spotted on that portion of the flight deck which remains after a length is reserved for the take-off of the first plane, or parked on that portion which remains after a length is reserved for alighting and arresting, depends upon the size of the individual airplane.
Two characteristic linear dimensions, span and length, of the average carrier-based airplane have been plotted. These have been multiplied together to make a third curve, �span x length�, indicating the block plan view area occupied by a single airplane. The average total carrier deck area has also been plotted. From the carrier deck area of the plot should be subtracted that area lost to take-off run, or to alighting and arresting.

It can be seen that the average carrier airplane has actually decreased in plan view size up until 1936, despite a gradual increase in weight. Compactness and higher wing loading in biplanes probably accounts for this anomaly. Since 1936, and the belated introduction of monoplanes in the shipboard service, there has been a sudden and decided increase in the plan view size of the average carrier airplane.

No attempt has been made to evaluate the effect of one important feature. This feature is wing folding Wing folding is a very promising means of reducing the span of the airplane. However, folding and spreading must be capable of being done rapidly and in a 30 knot wind. Wing folding is most practical in light and heavy bombers, which are usually spotted aft on the deck. Unless an airplane has an appreciable distance to taxi forward to the point of beginning the take-off, the time consumed in spreading and locking begins to affect adversely the take-off interval.

Another feature affecting the number of airplanes which can be carried on a given deck area is the way in which the airplanes lend themselves to close spotting. Many factors enter, such as whether or not the horizontal tail surfaces of one airplane will pass under the wing tip (stub wing, if folded) of another, whether the wing securing line is so far out along the wing as to prevent this, the width between the wheels, the distance between the propeller and the leading edge of the wing, the distance between the tail wheel and the trailing edge of the aftermost tail surface, etc. To correctly evaluate this feature in comparison of carrier airplane types, models of the airplanes should be spotted on a deck and the ration of projected airplane area to the deck area determined.

The greatest single factor adversely affecting carrier flight deck capacity is the increase of 93% in take-off run in the period 1930-39 represents a loss in carrying capacity of the flight deck of the 1939 carrier of 20%.

To date the alighting and arresting deck length has been greater than the take-off length. To recover the same number of airplanes as the number launched has been possible due to the closer interval which may be employed between planes in parking as against spotting (the propellers do not have to be clear to rotate in parking), and the parking of planes in the hangar. It appears that the take-off deck length and the alighting deck length will both increase in the future, the former somewhat more rapidly than the latter.

It can be seen that the flight deck area available for carrying airplanes is becoming less and less. To further aggravate the situation, the airplane is becoming larger thus reducing the number of airplanes which can be carried on the area remaining.

An obvious and, at first glance, attractive solution is to increase the size of the carrier. However, there are many attending disadvantages. When one considers the service life of an airplane in comparison with the service life of the carrier, it can be seen that a long range forecast of the development of the airplane would have to be made in the design stages of the new carrier. To prophesy what advances will be made in aviation in the next 20 years would be difficult indeed. To carry forward the curves shown in this analysis with constant rate of increase and to build a carrier in keeping therewith would result in a ship of tremendous size. First cost and military economy would forbid it.

Another solution is to stop the growth of the airplane. This cannot be done if the military performance of the airplane is to keep pace with modern developments.

A third solution is to reduce the number of airplanes borne by the aircraft carrier. If the carrier�s capacity is gauged by the pounds of military airplanes carried then it is entirely logical to reduce the number of airplanes as the unit weight increases.

The course to pursue at present appears to be not any one of these three solutions but a compromise between them all.

Future carriers should be larger than the present average carrier, but the increase in size should be in keeping with military economy and such as to avoid the situation wherein the loss of one carrier would too seriously affect the strength of the fleet.

Every effort should be made to build good take-off characteristics into the airplane and yet maintain the excellence of other factors of performance. Emphasis on take-off performance may be varied with type. It should be especially considered in VF and VS types which are almost invariably spotted forward on the flight deck. The introduction of the landplane catapult enables a plane to be launched in a deck length of about sixty feet, however, little capacity can be gained for the carrier because in recovery the alighting deck length must be reserved. While for this reason the catapult cannot be used for substantially increasing the capacity of the carrier, it is an attractive implement for overload launchings for long range and heavy expendable load missions (where the deck length for launching greatly exceeds that necessary for alighting), and for launching from a damaged deck, or from a carrier whose speed has been reduced and is therefore unable to generate the required relative wind. Further, the catapult permits flexibility in the spotting order of planes, as, for example, a scouting squadron can be spotted in the hangar and launched from that level at will, while an attacking group is spotted in readiness for launching from the flight deck. The one deficiency of the present catapult is its slowness in launching. The best launching interval to date has been about five times that of normal flight deck take-off interval. Improvements in operating procedure and the machine itself may be expected.

Finally, as the size, weight, stalling velocity and take-off run of the carrier airplane increase, it will become inevitable that the number of airplanes assigned to operate from each carrier will have to be reduced.
Before this is done, however, some improvement is possible in the direction of operating procedure. This is in the use of the hangar as a reservoir to which planes after alighting can be removed, and in which planes before launching can be warmed-up, made ready for flight, and then taken up to the flight deck during the launching operation. This procedure has been highly developed by the RANGER, which carrier has been forced to it by the small size of her flight deck. The YORKTOWN and ENTERPRISE have employed the procedure to a lesser extent, a squadron and a fraction being struck below during recovery, and sometimes 6 to 9 planes being warmed up and brought to the flight deck during launching. The LEXINGTON and SARATOGA strike a few planes below during recovery, but cannot use the hangar for warm up due to the present lack of adequate ventilation, however, plans for developing ventilation are under way.

In new carrier design the flight deck and elevators must be designed and arranged to facilitate the movement of flight deck traffic to and from the hangar. The elevators of YORKTOWN and ENTERPRISE operate on a 45 second round trip cycle. The carrier desires to launch er airplanes in as short an interval as possible in order to assemble her air strength in the air rapidly, and also to reduce her separation from the fleet or her loss of distance and time along a desired tracking during the time she must steam into the wind during the launching operation. From a flight deck spot an average launching interval of 16 seconds is practicable. It can be seen that if all the planes spotted on the flight deck are launched and then those from the hangar are brought up singly via one elevator the launching interval immediately becomes the round trip time of the elevator, i.e. 45 seconds, which is roughly three times too great. If, however, at the time the elevator platform is uncovered there remain on deck twice the number of airplanes which it is desired to bring up from below via the 45 second elevator, then the elevator can bring up its single airplane and feed it into the taxi line to the take-off point for every two airplanes which pass around the elevator from those spotted aft. Thus an airplane arrives at the take-off point every 15 seconds, each third one from the hangar, and the launching interval of a normal flight deck spot is maintained.

The situation could be improved by having more elevators, faster elevators, elevators with larger platforms (more airplanes per trip) and greater lifting capacity, were it not that structural and machinery space requirements definitely limit these features in the carrier. Three elevators can be provided, and the 45 second round trip cycle may be improved only slightly without excessive addition to the weight and size of the elevator machinery. Limited thus, it is of the greatest importance that the elevators be so placed that they will facilitate to the utmost traffic to and from the hangar. As to transverse location, the elevator should be placed as far to the side of the ship as possible in order to offer the maximum freedom to traffic both on the flight deck and in the hangar. Since the island already offers an obstruction on the starboard side, the elevators should be displaced as far as possible towards the starboard side so that in moving airplanes advantage may be taken of the opportunity of allowing one wing to overhang the port (clear) side of the flight deck. As to longitudinal location, the elevators should be concentrated towards the center of the ship so that two may be available for either operation � launching or recovery. Considering the increasing take-off run of airplanes, and that launching may be undertaken either over the bow or over the stern, a logical arrangement appears to be to divide the flight deck length in quarters and place an elevator at the one-, two-, and three-quarter points of the flight deck length. The location of one elevator at the two-quarter point, or center, of the flight deck length is important so that this elevator may be forward of the alighting area, and just abaft (if such is possible in view of the increasing take-off runs) the start of take-off. Considerations of airplane handling in the hangar favor not having the elevators at the extreme ends of the hangar. When so located there is only one avenue of approach to them through the hangar and this must be kept actively open. Also, in this location the elevator platform when at the hangar level is bounded by three vertical bulkheads so that airplanes parked on the platform can be moved off and into the hangar in one direction only. This restriction increases the time of unloading greatly. Further, space forward of the forward elevator and abaft the after elevator is most desirable as a quiet zone into which damaged airplanes can be segregated and where undisturbed engineering work can proceed on them immediately. Time is gained here both in the movement of the good airplanes by the removal of the damaged ones from hampering the flow of traffic and also in repairing the damaged planes.

An interesting development in airplane elevators, and one which will be of great benefit of its practical operation proves feasible is the deck edge elevator being installed on the WASP. This elevator takes a plane from the side of the flight deck and by parallel linkage carries it down outboard and into the side of the hangar. The great saving in deck space is evident, furthermore the installation requires less room for machinery and may permit a larger number of elevators to be installed per carrier. A difficulty in operation, which is as yet unknown, is the time required to place and secure the airplane on the elevator, and to remove it.

When the use of the hangar is developed to the fullest extent, when wing folding has produced an optimum saving of space, and yet the carrier airplane continues to grow then it will become necessary to reduce the number of airplanes assigned to the individual carrier.

# ? Oct 22, 2023 21:37

Urcinius: Mar 27, 2010; Chapter Master of the
Woobie Marines

I should acknowledge this whole page more and say that yes the need to operate multiple nuclear bombers off of a carrier using 1940s operating practices and technology required a largest carrier yet designed - the USS United States. The �debate� over that carrier led to the Revolt of the Admirals when the United States was cancelled. Therefore, again, yes a debate involved basic capability. However that debate is specific to the few years between the advent of the nuclear bomb and before the development of the steam catapult and angled deck.

# ? Oct 22, 2023 21:47

Groda: Mar 17, 2005; Hair Elf

I don't understand ski jumps. Can someone help me?

They seem like daylight saving.

# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:06

The Lone Badger: Sep 24, 2007

Translate some of your horizontal speed to vertical speed. It's like having your engines point down for a few seconds without actually having to have engines that point down.

# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:20

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Groda posted:

I don't understand ski jumps. Can someone help me?

They seem like daylight saving.

It's an alternative to the conveyor belt deck.

# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:20

The Lone Badger: Sep 24, 2007

Did anyone ever experiment with catapults powered by powder charges rather than steam?

# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:22

Groda: Mar 17, 2005; Hair Elf

The Lone Badger posted:

Translate some of your horizontal speed to vertical speed. It's like having your engines point down for a few seconds without actually having to have engines that point down.

I get that much, but I just... still don't get it.

Are carriers with skijumps by definition not able to get aircraft to a speed where they don't stall in level flight by the end of the runway, and need the extra verticle loft?

# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:29

HookedOnChthonics: Dec 5, 2015; Profoundly dull

ski jump carriers dont have catapults

The Lone Badger posted:

Did anyone ever experiment with catapults powered by powder charges rather than steam?

this is how seaplane catapults on like battleships and stuff work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dmNyts7f1w&t=908s

this timecode should show you the charge being put in the breech, it literally looks & works like an artillery tube but without the projectile

steam is just vastly vastly more convenient, if you have the weight budget for all the associated plumbing

HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Oct 22, 2023

# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:34

ThisIsJohnWayne: Feb 23, 2007; Ooo! Look at me! NO DON'T LOOK AT ME!

And airplanes have wings. The longer you can keep the machine in flight with the engine accelerating it all, the more lift/energy the komplex produces. So the plane can be heavier and still overcome the momentum keeping it from getting airborne

# ? Oct 22, 2023 22:42

Milo and POTUS: Sep 3, 2017; I will not shut up about the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. I talk about them all the time and work them into every conversation I have. I built a shrine in my room for the yellow one who died because sadly no one noticed because she died around 9/11. Wanna see it?

Groda posted:

The A-3 and A-5 definitely get the most "they take off from where?" from me.

This plane needs to go on a diet

# ? Oct 23, 2023 05:25

Quackles: Aug 11, 2018; Pixels of Light.

Groda posted:

I don't understand ski jumps. Can someone help me?

My uninformed opinion: The farther up in the air you go, the farther out you can glide before your wings have to lift you up.

# ? Oct 23, 2023 05:34

Milo and POTUS: Sep 3, 2017; I will not shut up about the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. I talk about them all the time and work them into every conversation I have. I built a shrine in my room for the yellow one who died because sadly no one noticed because she died around 9/11. Wanna see it?

Maybe the question is they're having a hard time understanding how fast they get going before going up since they're not being catapulted? I've had similar thoughts.

# ? Oct 23, 2023 05:48

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Quackles posted:

My uninformed opinion: The farther up in the air you go, the farther out you can glide before your wings have to lift you up.

And also, it also rotates the aircraft closer to an optimal climb attitude. But the main thing is that by trading a little bit of forward velocity for vertical velocity, it gives valuable seconds (even if it was just a parabolic arc from gravity alone) before the aircraft hits the ground to power up to sufficient velocity. Take off rolls are specified in meters/feet but really it is more about time spent at unimpeded full thrust to rotate the aircraft and then fast enough to climb.

# ? Oct 23, 2023 11:30

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

They should just raise the flight deck.

# ? Oct 23, 2023 11:38

MikeCrotch: Nov 5, 2011; I AM UNJUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF MY SPAGHETTI BOLOGNESE RECIPE

YES, IT IS AN INCREDIBLY SIMPLE DISH

NO, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO USE A PEPPERAMI INSTEAD OF MINCED MEAT

YES, THERE IS TOO MUCH SALT IN MY RECIPE

NO, I WON'T STOP SHARING IT

more like BOLLOCKnese

Nenonen posted:

They should just raise the flight deck.

Put a catapult on top of a pagoda mast

# ? Oct 23, 2023 11:55

Terrifying Effigies: Oct 22, 2008; Problems look mighty small from 150 miles up.

Nenonen posted:

They should just raise the flight deck.

Just think about how much hanger space they could fit with a flat top on this bad boy :madmax:

# ? Oct 23, 2023 11:58

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

Terrifying Effigies posted:

Just think about how much hanger space they could fit with a flat top on this bad boy

Thinking about how that thing would behave in anything but a mirror calm sea made me reflexively run to the toilet and start heaving.

# ? Oct 23, 2023 12:21

ChubbyChecker: Mar 25, 2018

MikeCrotch posted:

Put a catapult on top of a pagoda mast

and turn the catapult 90 degrees up

# ? Oct 23, 2023 12:45

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Cythereal posted:

Thinking about how that thing would behave in anything but a mirror calm sea made me reflexively run to the toilet and start heaving.

They are alot more stable than you'd expect (bad experiences at sea don't tend to lead to many return customers). Mostly because the ship extends much further underwater than it looks from the surface - got to house all the crew and stores for months for thousands of people there.

# ? Oct 23, 2023 12:48

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Nothingtoseehere posted:

They are alot more stable than you'd expect (bad experiences at sea don't tend to lead to many return customers). Mostly because the ship extends much further underwater than it looks from the surface - got to house all the crew and stores for months for thousands of people there.

And also awesome stability thrusters, is my understanding.

# ? Oct 23, 2023 13:03

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

They are sophisticated stabilizer fins underwater. These things are moved around by an automatic gyroscopic system.

Hmm, do aircraft carriers have them?

Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Oct 23, 2023

# ? Oct 23, 2023 13:10

HisMajestyBOB: Oct 21, 2010; College Slice

Fangz posted:

They are sophisticated stabilizer fins underwater. These things are moved around by an automatic gyroscopic system.

Hmm, do aircraft carriers have them?

Looks like something you'd use to shiv another boat.

# ? Oct 23, 2023 13:37

MikeCrotch: Nov 5, 2011; I AM UNJUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF MY SPAGHETTI BOLOGNESE RECIPE

YES, IT IS AN INCREDIBLY SIMPLE DISH

NO, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO USE A PEPPERAMI INSTEAD OF MINCED MEAT

YES, THERE IS TOO MUCH SALT IN MY RECIPE

NO, I WON'T STOP SHARING IT

more like BOLLOCKnese

Fangz posted:

They are sophisticated stabilizer fins underwater. These things are moved around by an automatic gyroscopic system.

Hmm, do aircraft carriers have them?

No, because aircraft carriers are about going fast as gently caress (one of the advantages of a nuclear powerplant). If the weather is bad enough you are just aren't launching aircraft anyway.

# ? Oct 23, 2023 14:04

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

MikeCrotch posted:

No, because aircraft carriers are about going fast as gently caress (one of the advantages of a nuclear powerplant). If the weather is bad enough you are just aren't launching aircraft anyway.

While the CVs might not have stabilizers (and I think it is more about conservatism of design rather than worrying about the negligible speed impact), extending the sea state that a carrier can deploy aircraft is very much an important goal.

I watched a doco about a carrier in the southern ocean doing pitching decks practice (ie take off from a carrier in rough weather just to practice landing in rough weather) and the CO launching tanker aircraft to give more goes at bringing aircraft safely back to deck (because the newer pilots were struggling to bring them in). They were thinking they might have to ditch one or two and recovery the pilots by helicopter at one point.

# ? Oct 23, 2023 14:16

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

Apparently the Queen Elizabeth class has them, as does the De Gaulle.

Anyway yeah, I would expect them to be more common in the future. A carrier isn't rushing around at max speed all the time, most of the time they are a floating city so an improvement in livability isn't nothing. Further, you might not have the choice about operating in a bad sea state - if you have planes coming in out of fuel, well, you're gonna land them, or they'll have to ditch.

See also what happened to Halsey's carriers in Typhoon Cobra.

quote:

Planes went adrift, collided, and burst into flames. Monterey caught fire at 0911 (18 December) and lost steerageway a few minutes later. The fire was brought under control at 0945 and the C.O., Captain Stuart H. Ingersoll, decided to let his ship lie dead in the water until temporary repairs could be effected. She lost 18 aircraft burned in the hangar deck or blown overboard and 16 seriously damaged, together with three 20-mm guns, and suffered extensive rupturing of her ventilation system. Cowpens lost 7 planes overboard and caught fire from one that broke loose at 1051, but the fire was brought under control promptly; Langley rolled through 70 degrees; San Jacinto reported a fighter plane adrift on the hangar deck which wrecked seven other aircraft. She also suffered damage from salt water that entered through punctures in the ventilating ducts. Captain [Jasper T.] Acuff's replenishment escort carriers did pretty well. Flames broke out on the flight deck of Cape Esperance at 1228 but were overcome; Kwajalein made a maximum roll of 39 degrees to port when hove-to with wind abeam. Her port catwalks scooped up green water, but she lost only three planes which were jettisoned from the flight deck; it took one hour to get them over the side. Three other escort carriers lost in all 86 aircraft but came through without much material damage."[7]

Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Oct 23, 2023

# ? Oct 23, 2023 14:27

Cessna: Feb 20, 2013; KHABAHBLOOOM

Fangz posted:

See also what happened to Halsey's carriers in Typhoon Cobra.

Those stabilizers aren't going to do that much in a ship-sinking typhoon.

# ? Oct 23, 2023 15:38

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

It'd help a bit in a smaller version of that storm.

Edit: in fact there's a paper that says these fins can reduce the roll by a factor of 3-6. Others state a 90% reduction. These are pretty significant numbers!

waggle waggle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjn_gRuBeV4

Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Oct 23, 2023

# ? Oct 23, 2023 15:50

SlothfulCobra: Mar 27, 2011

While cruise ships have a lot of modern technology that goes into keeping them afloat if the weather turns bad, I think that the most common and important technology is the global surveillance network that monitors the weather so that ships can just change course to avoid trouble.

The way that you can't see any of the bulbous bow beneath the waterline really does make the ship look like it's just sitting on top of the water doesn't it.

# ? Oct 23, 2023 17:36

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

TIL that the laundry on Royal Navy ships was done by Chinese civilians who lived on board and alongside the ship's crew. This old-timey racist tradition was in place until...this week.

https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1716538880415961256

# ? Oct 23, 2023 23:46

Randallteal: May 7, 2006; The tears of time

FMguru posted:

TIL that the laundry on Royal Navy ships was done by Chinese civilians who lived on board and alongside the ship's crew. This old-timey racist tradition was in place until...this week.

quote:

Nepalese Gurkhas will replace them due to fears that Beijing could threaten the servants� families in China to make those on board ships pass on Royal Navy secrets, The Sun has reported.
...
The newspaper reported that at least four Chinese nationals still worked for the Royal Navy, with a source stating that they had passed vetting because their families had moved to Britain to protect them from threats from Beijing.

I like how the first part passes without comment, as if it's only natural you'd go to the Nepalese Gurkhas next instead of just hiring domestic contractors or something.

# ? Oct 24, 2023 00:08

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Randallteal posted:

I like how the first part passes without comment, as if it's only natural you'd go to the Nepalese Gurkhas next instead of just hiring domestic contractors or something.

I mean, yes?

# ? Oct 24, 2023 00:26

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Randallteal posted:

I like how the first part passes without comment, as if it's only natural you'd go to the Nepalese Gurkhas next instead of just hiring domestic contractors or something.

You can get quality service alot cheaper from one than the other.

# ? Oct 24, 2023 00:28

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Do they still employ Somalis in the boiler room because they withstand hot environments so much better and are convenient to kidnap while travelling via Suez?

# ? Oct 24, 2023 03:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 00:09

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

As I understand it, it's not really a racism thing, more a matter of ships picking up workers in the British colony of Hong Kong (and previously, Singapore) who were already doing laundrying stuff for the fleet based there. I'm also not sure about this being a "centuries old tradition", since dedicated laundries in ships were only ordered by the admiralty in the 1950s.

https://www.commsmuseum.co.uk/dykes/smallsnips/laundry/laundry.htm

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...laundry&f=false

Most sources I can find put it as a cold war arrangement.

If you look at navy forums they've been doing this transition for years.

https://www.navy-net.co.uk/community/threads/chinese-laundry.41489/

quote:

Up to the mid 90's, most ships had a pair of chinese laundreymen, who operated the laundry and charged the ship's company for the privelege. This led to a situation where most people would dhoby (wash) their underwear in the bathrooms etc, and stokes would dhobi his ovies down the boiler/engine room.
The laundry man worked under a franchise type agreement through a Hong Kong based businessman, sometimes refered to as "King Dhobi". This term was also used to describe the member of the mess with the largest monthy laundry bill, to whom the duty would fall to collect the monies owed by the rest of the mess.
There where several problems with this arrangement, one being that Jack was paying to have his uniform laundered without being recompensed. This was due to the demise of KUA in 1992.
The handover of HK provided an chance for a chance in contract. The new contract was awarded to a company caled WLS, who operate under different terms. Put as simply as possible, all clothing worn on duty, including bedding etc, is laundered at crown expense.
Many of the chinese laundrymen had problems acquiring a passport after the Handover of HK, so had to quit, to be replaced by Nepalese guys recently put onto the job market by the Tory "reforms" of the Ghurka Bns. (Labour did not invent the concept of downsizing the military.) :thumright:

I mean the source of this story is the Sun so I'd view it with a grain of salt.

Both and the Chinese and the Nepalese are employees of a company called Worldwide Laundry Services, a subsidiary of Serco. I don't think the navy gets to pick Chinese people for their ships, though with the handover of Hong Kong there were apparently a number already working on the ships who chose to stay on under a new contract. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1997/nov/03/navy-laundrymen

Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Oct 24, 2023

# ? Oct 24, 2023 12:52

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Milhist Thread: Ok, so get this: we name the army groups 1, 2 and 4...

«‹›687 »