|
movax posted:Dunno man, always heard it conjunction with ~~high-speed/low-drag/super black ops/IDR-esque~~ stuff It's definitely military slang I can tell you that.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:We named a sub after Jimmy Carter who was an objectively worse president (hell at least it was a sub so it's out of sight) so meh on the Gerald Ford thing. Jimmy Carter single-handedly created the US craft beer industry. He deserves a Navy ship named after him on that basis alone. Hell, he deserves a state named after him on that basis alone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
movax posted:The Jimmy Carter is the Parche successor that can do all sorts of cool secret squirrel / undersea tapping / etc stuff right? Yes, it is. They basically cut it in half and shoved in this 100-foot special mission section or something and it's off to tap underwater cables and launch drones at North Korea and SEALs via boat (probably also at NK) and whatnot. Let me just say it's been homeported at Bangor for ... eight years? and I think it's come up in the local news approximately never. I doubt it's in port very often.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
Wasn't it Battleships named after states, not carriers? Although now that has transferred more to subs than anything else because ???
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Battleships were named after states. Now it's subs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Wasn't it Battleships named after states, not carriers? Although now that has transferred more to subs than anything else because ??? Because we stopped building battleships 70 years ago and won't be starting again. Old sub names were kind of cool, though. But yeah more battles rather than politicians. I'm willing to accept a few like Washington, Eisenhower, etc, but they were legit military leaders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:"secret squirrel" is an actual jargon term for something?  ]
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Glad you finally fezed up on being so old.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
For a younger generation it made a comeback in, I think, Two Stupid Dogs as the cartoon between the Two Stupid Dogs episodes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Because we stopped building battleships 70 years ago and won't be starting again. Old sub names were kind of cool, though. But yeah more battles rather than politicians. I'm willing to accept a few like Washington, Eisenhower, etc, but they were legit military leaders. Carriers have replaced battleships as the major surface ships, and States are more "important" in my mind than people or battles, being the constituent components of the Union. So we should revive the tradition of naming our biggest baddest ships after them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Alaan posted:For a younger generation it made a comeback in, I think, Two Stupid Dogs as the cartoon between the Two Stupid Dogs episodes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
grover posted:US needs to adopt traditional British naming conventions *crosses fingers for the USS Gay Viking.*
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
USS Cockchafer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_class_gunboat
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Wikipedia posted:Cockchafer: sold for scrap in 1949, the last surviving member of the class. I don't know why you'd keep a Cockchafer around for so long, given other capable alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Slamburger posted:I don't know why you'd keep a Cockchafer around for so long, given other capable alternatives. From the wikipedia article: HMS Cockchafer was a Royal Navy Insect-class gunboat. She was built by Barclay Curle and launched on 17 December 1915 as the fifth Royal Navy ship to carry this name.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
n0tqu1tesane posted:From the wikipedia article: We keep them around in case the french launch another Indomitable or something that we can sink, just for the headlines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
movax posted:The Jimmy Carter is the Parche successor that can do all sorts of cool secret squirrel / undersea tapping / etc stuff right? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Carriers have replaced battleships as the major surface ships, and States are more "important" in my mind than people or battles, being the constituent components of the Union. So we should revive the tradition of naming our biggest baddest ships after them. They already name the baddest boats after states; 24 Tridents can do a lot of damage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
My favorite goofy British ship name is the HMS Glowworm. It was involved in one of the most  bits of the war: While the Germans were getting ready to invade Norway, the Glowworm engaged a German cruiser, the Hipper. The Glowworm was getting shot to pieces, so her captain, one Commander Roope, decided to ram the Hipper. After the battle, he was awarded the Victoria Cross on the recommendation of the commander of the Hipper, who had written to the British Admiralty through the Red Cross.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:USS Cockchafer And here I thought you were going for HMS Battleaxe or something e:   Speaking of - 
Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Name them after naval CMH recipients.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Name them after naval CMH recipients. Commander Evans needs to have 5 warships named after him, at once. That's how he is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
http://70yearsago.com/ Neat site I heard about on the radio today. Guy is taking his dad's journal entries from WWII and posting them on the matching day as he goes along. About a year or so into it now. He started in Africa and worked his way up into Italy, so I'm sure a lot of poo poo was seen though I haven't got a chance to go through it myself yet. Whole bunch of photos on here as well for each day. Starts right before he's loaded up on the transport over the Atlantic. Alaan fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Name them after naval CMH recipients. Many destroyers are named after those.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Because we stopped building battleships 70 years ago and won't be starting again. Old sub names were kind of cool, though. But yeah more battles rather than politicians. I'm willing to accept a few like Washington, Eisenhower, etc, but they were legit military leaders. Seriously name boats after fish, this city/state poo poo is bullcrap
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
Flikken posted:Commander Evans needs to have 5 warships named after him, at once. That's how Seriously. I don't know if we're currently building destroyers or what, but we could do worse than to use the names Hoel, Heerman and Johnston. There is a frigate currently in service named Samuel B Roberts, so that's something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Seriously name boats after fish, this city/state poo poo is bullcrap Take the Empire approach, name them after "Imperial" adjectives, strike fear and dread into Ohio-class has all been states, right? Or did they have to fellate an official at some point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
movax posted:Take the Empire approach, name them after "Imperial" adjectives, strike fear and dread into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Henry_M._Jackson_(SSBN-730) E: Naming major ships after big battles or historical figures gets tied up in political correctness, because, hey, each of those battles had losers as well as winners, and no historical figure was perfect, with only a very select few we're willing to let their transgressions slide. Cities and states are easier and appeal to Congressmen's vanity to boot. Until you get to Corpus Christi and either have people flipping over the 'USS Body Of Christ' or you add 'City Of' and bear all the cock jokes. Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
priznat posted:I'd like to see a list of the worst Cold War planes, both com bloc and western. I'm gonna nominate the B-58. First USAF mach 2-capable bomber. Almost a quarter were lost due to accidents. Unreliable engines failing at Mach 2 mean differential thrust basically obliterates you. Great! Also it was so specialized to basically carry a big leaking fuel tank and one nuclear bomb that it couldn't be adapted to any other job. And of course during its service life (which was two months short of 10 years) SAMs got advanced enough to force this unpredictable nuclear-bomb toting lawn dart into a low-level penetration role. At least your death due to engine failure would be over that much faster? And of course it couldn't do supersonic dashes at low altitude so basically, this bomber was: -introduced -effectively made obsolete by the SA-2 before it reached operational service -killed a quarter of its flight crews -retired in under 10 years All at the low, low, bargain price of ~$12.5 million per airframe... in 1960. In 2012 dollars, that's $95 million each. And they made 116. Do that math and cringe. e: I did the math on the 2012 inflation-adjusted price to try and figure out if calling it the "F-35 of the 60s" insofar as huge money pit was accurate, and Google knew.  Psion fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Due to the magic of Wikipedia when looking up introduction-to-service dates for the S-75/SA-2 Guideline (1957), I came across this: RB-57D Canberra taking atmospheric samples during the Juniper test on Bikini Atoll. Coldwar.jpg, right here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard-class_submarine#Boats_of_the_class The V naming tradition continues with our SLBM subs. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
When, exactly, did we transition over to politicians etc. as ship names for major builds? The pattern during WW2 as I always understood it was: Destroyers = Famous/brave individual Navy officers Cruisers = Cities Battleships = States Submarines = Fish CVs = Battles, for the most part, with a smattering of famous names (Enterprise being the huge example - the Yorktown class CV was the sixth of her name in US service) and way old school historical figures (Ben Franklin) transports etc = what the gently caress ever. Politicians, landmarks, cool sounding things, maybe one of the above naming schemes if they started life as a light cruiser and were converted to being a mine sweeper or whatever the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Fearless posted:Apparently every hull from CVN-80 onward will perpetuate a WW2 carrier. They better stick to this. There should always be a Lexington, Saratoga, and Yorktown in commission along with a Big E. A Midway wouldn't hurt either. Beardless posted:My favorite goofy British ship name is the HMS Glowworm. It was involved in one of the most Last known picture of the Glowworm:  Snowdens Secret posted:Seriously name boats after fish, this city/state poo poo is bullcrap The fact that there is not a sub currently in commission named Wahoo or Tang is a shame. Cyrano4747 posted:When, exactly, did we transition over to politicians etc. as ship names for major builds? The pattern during WW2 as I always understood it was: Destroyers have pretty consistently been named after famous/brave Navy/USMC personnel, with the most recent example of this being the Arleigh Burkes, some of whom have been named after individuals who earned the MOH posthumously in Iraq/Afghanistan. With Cruisers everything got screwed up in the '70s with the "cruiser gap" redesignation. The tl;dr version is that the USN was stupid and from the '60s into the '70s were designating vessels that were by any stretch of the imagination cruisers as "destroyer leaders" or "frigates." This led to a non-existent "cruiser gap" with the Soviets that was closed in 1975 with a redesignation...the "destroyer leaders" that were all named after famous Naval officers (because they were "destroyers") now all became "cruisers." There were also some nuke powered "destroyer leaders"/"cruisers" that were given state names during this time period because as nuclear powered vessels they were supposed to super powerful (hence the use of a state name). This clusterfuck is still affecting us today because the Ticonderoga class cruisers (named after famous battles ) were originally supposed to be destroyers (don't ask me why they changed the naming convention from famous naval personnel)...this class was redesignated as cruisers because of the same thought process. Attack subs were pretty consistently named after fish until the LA class. Boomers started out being named after famous historical Americans ("41 for Freedom"), transitioning to states with the Ohio. I'm sure the idea there was that the Trident II SSBNs were the most powerful vessels in the ocean. With carriers you had battles pretty consistently through the '60s, with the Essex and then Midway classes. The change took place with the Forrestal and the shift over to "supercarriers," but that one I can kind of understand, and the rest of the class was named after famous ships, as was most of the follow on Kitty Hawk class. The naming shift to people didn't really start until the JFK and Nimitz-class ships entered service (so late '60s into the '70s).
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Psion posted:I'm gonna nominate the B-58. First USAF mach 2-capable bomber. Almost a quarter were lost due to accidents. It was of a kind with the Blinder, in a way. Though the comical obsolescence I was unaware of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
How could anybody seriously believe there was a "gap" of any kind of ship with the USSR? Didn't the USSR only start really building a navy in the late Brezhnev era?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:How could anybody seriously believe there was a "gap" of any kind of ship with the USSR? Didn't the USSR only start really building a navy in the late Brezhnev era? Depends on how you define "really having a navy." As a force that could project blue water force across an entire globe? Sure, we're deep into the cold war there and even then you're mostly talking SSBMs as far as really major, credible threats go. As a regional force that could gently caress poo poo up in the Baltic or pose a local threat on their Pacific coast? gently caress, they had that poo poo under the Tsars. The Tsarist Baltic fleet was never something to completely ignore and they had a pretty credible Pacific squadron out around Vladivostok. They weren't going to challenge the Royal Navy or anything, but on paper they were certainly a match for the US, Japanese, and German navies of the late 19th/early 20th C. What really, REALLY hosed their poo poo up going into WW1 was the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese war. The Japanese Navy, which was in balls-out modernize and expand mode at this point, thrashed the poo poo out of their Pacific Squadron at the Battle of the Yellow Sea. They took bad enough losses that the Russians re-deployed the Baltic Fleet to the far east, where it too got its rear end handed to it at the even more disastrous Battle of Tsushima. Those two battles pretty much destroyed the Tsarist navy and they were still deep into a rebuilding phase when WW1 and, eventually, the Revolution happened. Following the rear end kicking they got on land in WW1 Lenin and Stalin were much more about beefing up and modernizing the Red Army, a trend that continued through WW2 for rather obvious reasons. After WW2 you're in a whole new world as far as naval power goes, and the USSR went in a largely different direction than massive blue water surface navies as far as their ability to project force over distance. Still, their Baltic fleet was nothing to gently caress with even by the end of WW2. Their submarine arm in particular was making poo poo pretty uncomfortable for the German transports that were running around the Baltic. Their Black Sea fleet was also a pretty credible regional force that you couldn't simply ignore if you were going to do operations in the eastern med. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
And if they named one Tang it'd have done double duty as an honorific for President Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
They'd better name a boomer after Clinton. poo poo they should name the whole next class after him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Good timing: Mr. Chips in the AI thread just posted an infodump on Sukhoi interceptors. The Su-9 is definitely a bad aircraft of the cold war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:How could anybody seriously believe there was a "gap" of any kind of ship with the USSR? Didn't the USSR only start really building a navy in the late Brezhnev era? The USSR had pretty consistently maintained a strong submarine service, and had great masses of destroyers and cruisers as well but didn't really contemplate building something analogous to a USN supercarrier until the late 70s or early 80s. That said, the West also fairly consistently overestimated Soviet military might for most of the Cold War (see, for instance, the grossly inflated figures for nuclear weapons in general, and ICBMs in particular). Fearless fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 16:26
|
|
