Article

2005-05-24 Home Front: Tech

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-05-24 10:14|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I suspect that the America has always suffered because of superstition. Ships named after continents, oceans, and countries have long been held as unlucky by the sailors who tend towards superstition. Which is most of them.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-24 11:13|| 2005-05-24 11:13|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm always curious how effective these tests are, since there are so many flammables aboard a working ship to begin with that are probably stripped out of a ship like this that is slated to be sunk. The weapon itself usually isn't powerful enough to sink any substantial craft unless it touches off the aviation fuel or a magazine. I'm thinking of those first three Japanese carriers at Midway that were covered with planes in the middle of switching from bombs to torpedoes, and the USS Forrestal fire off Vietnam in '67.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-05-24 11:25|| 2005-05-24 11:25|| Front Page Top

#3 I wonder what kind of weapons they used. Would be nice if they had some Russian missiles or torpedoes, since those (or knockoffs of those) are the most likely to be hitting a US carrier.

Posted by Laurence of the Rats">Laurence of the Rats 2005-05-24 11:52|| http://www.punictreachery.com/]">[http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2005-05-24 11:52|| Front Page Top

#4 I think I can assure both of you that *nobody* outside of tight US navy circles was able to get anywhere near these weapons tests. Not that they wouldn't love to; in fact, just outside the security perimeter there were prolly all sorts of foreign trawlers, submarines, and aircraft desperate to observe any detail they could.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-24 12:11|| 2005-05-24 12:11|| Front Page Top

#5 Well the weapon data is all well and good, but that ship is going to be a fish magnet! Get that location loaded into the GPS pronto cause there are going to be some whoppers swimming around there before long.

Posted by remoteman 2005-05-24 12:30|| 2005-05-24 12:30|| Front Page Top

#6 Simulating most foreign weapons is fairly routine (e.g. expodling a warhead of the same class as that of a Russian 660mm torpedo underneath the keel). What is more interesting, were real pilfered Russian weapons, that the west does not have an analog, (E.g. mach 2 Sunburn missiles used by China and Iran) fired at the carrier or were they simulated (e.g. large supersonic target drone outfitted with a 750 lb. warhead).

Carriers can take a lot a damge. Even as far back as WW2 no Essex/Ticonderoga class carrier (41,000 tons full load) was ever sunk, even with the horrible damage suffered by the USS Franklin.

Posted by ed 2005-05-24 12:41|| 2005-05-24 12:41|| Front Page Top

#7 Better have a long fish line, remote.
the actual sinking was done as a âcontrolled sinkingâ in 6,000 feet of water
They sunk her in 6,000 feet of water. Don't want just anyone checking to see just how much damage those weapons did.

Posted by Steve ">Steve 2005-05-24 12:55|| 2005-05-24 12:55|| Front Page Top

#8 Dar, look up the USS Franklin for the worst fire damage ever suffered by a US ship. When hit by 2 bombs, she had a heavy aviation fuel and weapons load. An addition, during the USS Forrestal accident, multiple bombs detonated on her deck and jet fuel poured below.

If the weapons magazines blow, then that's all she wrote, but keep in mind magazines are the most heavily armoured areas and will be flooded if threatened by fire.

Posted by ed 2005-05-24 13:03|| 2005-05-24 13:03|| Front Page Top

#9 I guess the best way I put my interest in this is:

I am terribly curious about the results, but will be very pissed off if I ever read about them anywhere (meaning somebody leaked).

Posted by Laurence of the Rats">Laurence of the Rats 2005-05-24 13:06|| http://www.punictreachery.com/]">[http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2005-05-24 13:06|| Front Page Top

#10 ed -- Thanks, I just did exactly that. There's a fantastic article on the Franklin here, continuing on four good-sized pages. Some truly incredible stories of heroism and perseverence here.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-05-24 13:26|| 2005-05-24 13:26|| Front Page Top

#11 Damn--just found an excellent and hefty interview piece there with Maj. Richard Winters. That is definitely worth a read!

My favorite bit, when he describes the Band of Brothers, Episode 5 "Crossroads" bit where he led the charge that resulted in the destruction of two SS companies:

I remember when I was interviewed for the movie, I told one of the writers that as I shot the German, he looked up at me and smiled. Well, I kept going with my story, but later, as it turns out, the writer wanted to play up the thing about the smile. He wanted to play that up as a flashback, the type of bad flashbacks you can have. I have flashbacks every day. But the writer wanted to play up that point. And that is why in the series that German is portrayed as a kid and why later on when I am in Paris they portray me looking at this kid on the train and having another flashback. It's stupid, but I didn't get the chance to review the scenes.

Also regarding his choice of Lt. Ronald Speirs as the replacement under fire for Lt. Norman Dike who froze up during the Foy attack:

The stories about him [Speirs] are true. When I first heard, I was speechless. What he did was unbelievable, inexcusable. If you talk to somebody in today's Army, they would say, well, how come he wasn't court-martialed? Well, you needed every man you had. ... At Foy, he was the first officer I saw when I turned around. It could have been anybody, but it was Speirs. I didn't ask, "OK, would you mind taking over?" No, I just turned around, saw him and said take over. It was just a roll of the dice that he was standing there when I needed someone.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-05-24 13:45|| 2005-05-24 13:45|| Front Page Top

#12 I imagine there is going to be some amazing scuttlebutt about this for years to come. For reference, check out the salvage and re-scuttling of the Maine. Even back then, there were uncanny amounts of intrigue involved, and everything was Top Secret.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-24 13:49|| 2005-05-24 13:49|| Front Page Top

#13 Shushssssssssss......

10 shaped charges on the keel were required. It was ugly. Don't tell anyone.

Posted by Shipman 2005-05-24 16:47|| 2005-05-24 16:47|| Front Page Top

#14 With respect to diesel fuel tanks, weapons and aviation fuel, I think a carrier is pretty safe. I think the JFK is the last of the conventially fueled carriers. Fuel tanks are generally located at the bottom of any ship to ensure stability - they can be ruptured by a mine but they are kept relatively full so there is no oxygen to explode. Ordinance is stored well inside the skin of the ship. Aviation fuel is closer to the flight deck but tanks are, again, kept full.

A carrier is vulnerable during operations where it is transfering flammable liquids through pressurized piping or moving ordinance about below decks. A terrorist/enemy would be very lucky to time an attack to hit during these vulnerable periods unless the captain/crew of the carrier increase their vulnerability through sloppy practices.

Posted by Super Hose 2005-05-24 21:00|| 2005-05-24 21:00|| Front Page Top

#15

Posted by vote 2005-05-24 21:07|| 2005-05-24 21:07|| Front Page Top

22:34 DEMOCRAT YES
22:34 VOTE YES
23:52 BH
23:49 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
23:28 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
23:26 trailing wife
23:03 CrazyFool
23:03 DMFD
23:00 Fred
22:50 2b
22:41 mojo
22:40 Minni Mullah
22:35 Mike
22:34 VOTE YES TROLL
22:34 DEMOCRAT YES TROLL
22:31 SC88
22:30 Fred
22:28 Fred
22:28 Fred
22:28 Fred
22:27 .com
22:24 Destro
22:24 Omotch Sheasing8304
22:23 Minni Mullah