Cool naval pic
Posting Guru
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,612
Likes: 2
Great Pictures...My first job was at Newport News Shipbuilding, Did many a ship check in Norfolk!!
But I must admit that when I saw the title I was hoping someone just miss spelled navel and it was gonna be a picture of a hot blonde with a short shirt on!! LOL
But I must admit that when I saw the title I was hoping someone just miss spelled navel and it was gonna be a picture of a hot blonde with a short shirt on!! LOL
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 40,019
Likes: 1,517
From: Maine, Virginia
Any large warship could fulfill this role, yes?
Yes and they did during WWII prior to the full employment of the carrier.
OK....Going on the assumption (and you mention it below) that there are no air assets........
Parking lot.
True dat
We HAVE supply ships, don't we? Like fleet oilers and such? (they resupply carriers, as a matter of fact.....)
The resupply fleet is shrinking in numbers. In fact, most resupply ships these days are USNS ships which are referred to as the Merchant Marines. They are identified by black and yellow strips around the stack.
Don't we still have hospital ships?
We have two. One on each coast. Hardly enough of a presence to offset the use of a carrier.
I can possibly see the utility here......Instead of a floating aircraft hangar....It could be like a floating machine shop/dry dock.......(wet dock?).......
True and true.
I would like to add, however, that with the examples above, other ships carry out the various missions much better and efficiently than would a carrier (without aircraft)........
The reason a carrier is useless without aircraft is cost versus reward. The PRIMARY mission of the carrier is to be an any-ocean projection of power. Without the aircraft, this role is lost.......and the cost of RUNNING a carrier can no longer be justified. Even without the aircraft, just running one of these sunzabiches would cost more than the entire naval outlay in most countries which HAVE navies......
Hey....Don't get me wrong.....Even when the carriers DON'T use the aircraft in non-military missions (like tsunami or earthquake relief......see south asia or haiti).....I'm all for them being deployed in those missions. Great practice for the sailors and medical teams.....and the capabilities...such as making mega-gallons of fresh water....are priceless in such situations. And they have the teeth to protect what they're doing also (aircraft....escort vessels....marine contingents....etc.). Absolutely....send in the carriers!
Tim. I just like to argue......
Yes and they did during WWII prior to the full employment of the carrier.
OK....Going on the assumption (and you mention it below) that there are no air assets........
Parking lot.
True dat
We HAVE supply ships, don't we? Like fleet oilers and such? (they resupply carriers, as a matter of fact.....)
The resupply fleet is shrinking in numbers. In fact, most resupply ships these days are USNS ships which are referred to as the Merchant Marines. They are identified by black and yellow strips around the stack.
Don't we still have hospital ships?
We have two. One on each coast. Hardly enough of a presence to offset the use of a carrier.
I can possibly see the utility here......Instead of a floating aircraft hangar....It could be like a floating machine shop/dry dock.......(wet dock?).......
True and true.
I would like to add, however, that with the examples above, other ships carry out the various missions much better and efficiently than would a carrier (without aircraft)........
The reason a carrier is useless without aircraft is cost versus reward. The PRIMARY mission of the carrier is to be an any-ocean projection of power. Without the aircraft, this role is lost.......and the cost of RUNNING a carrier can no longer be justified. Even without the aircraft, just running one of these sunzabiches would cost more than the entire naval outlay in most countries which HAVE navies......
Hey....Don't get me wrong.....Even when the carriers DON'T use the aircraft in non-military missions (like tsunami or earthquake relief......see south asia or haiti).....I'm all for them being deployed in those missions. Great practice for the sailors and medical teams.....and the capabilities...such as making mega-gallons of fresh water....are priceless in such situations. And they have the teeth to protect what they're doing also (aircraft....escort vessels....marine contingents....etc.). Absolutely....send in the carriers!
Tim. I just like to argue......
NATO has practically negated the need for an extensive resupply fleet like we had back in WWII.
I like to argue too my friend. As a former bubblehead, I always thought that carrier sailors were spoiled fricken rotten. These guys and gals had the very best of everything while us submarine guys really took the fight right to the throat.
Government Teat-sucker
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,748
Likes: 1
From: Virginia Beach
I like to argue too my friend. As a former bubblehead, I always thought that carrier sailors were spoiled fricken rotten. These guys and gals had the very best of everything while us submarine guys really took the fight right to the throat.
Choose your rate, choose your fate!!!Haha... just kidding. Nothing but respect for the silent service. I wouldn't have been able to make it... submariners are a strange bunch. Truth is, without the airplanes on the carrier, they tend to rock too much. If you can believe it, in my last year or so on the Roosevelt (CVN71), I was seasick almost every day! I know, what a wuss, right?
Also, the carrier platform is great for a makeshift hospital, or even a refugee camp, or staging area for a rescue, etc. The wide empty space on the flight deck (4.5 acres of sovereign US territory) make it a great storage place.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ilovehuhu
General NON-Automotive Conversation
7
Jul 1, 2009 12:48 PM
