Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
a Babylon station at sea
TheEXone
Ranger
in Zocalo v2.0
not really, but its close..
just something that caught my attention the other day.
[url]http://xtreme.eng.hawaii.edu/research-projects/vlfs/parts/vlfs1_big.jpg[/url]
[url]http://www.bwxt.com/Products/mob-bwx.html[/url]
[url]http://www.techreview.com/articles/wo_schrope072501.asp[/url]
[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/mob.htm[/url]
One of these could sure come in handy if you have no fixed base from which to launch an attack, or if you just want your own private moving island that can operate free of any country their laws.
just something that caught my attention the other day.
[url]http://xtreme.eng.hawaii.edu/research-projects/vlfs/parts/vlfs1_big.jpg[/url]
[url]http://www.bwxt.com/Products/mob-bwx.html[/url]
[url]http://www.techreview.com/articles/wo_schrope072501.asp[/url]
[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/mob.htm[/url]
One of these could sure come in handy if you have no fixed base from which to launch an attack, or if you just want your own private moving island that can operate free of any country their laws.
Comments
That full size 2km long base would also enable use of normal landbased fighters from sea.
[url]http://mob.nfesc.navy.mil/[/url]
[url]http://www.dt.navy.mil/ip/mfp/paper30.html[/url]
[B]Hmmm, how much would this baby cost, if we wanted to add her to the First Ones Navy[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Indications are that a single module would cost on the order of $1.5B, with a full MOB platform (2-kilometer length) costing between $5B and $8B.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/mob.htm[/url]
No Seriously! We built one a few (hundred) years ago - ish.
Never really caught on though. The entire crew & passanger content got seasick. Kinda induced it. Apart from that though (and the slight breakability factor in rough weather) she was a fairly good ship I think.
[I]Yet another useless fact from Eternity's Brain[/I] :D
And that's all true too!
[B]Another British Invention - Bendy ships!
No Seriously! We built one a few (hundred) years ago - ish.
Never really caught on though. The entire crew & passanger content got seasick. Kinda induced it. Apart from that though (and the slight breakability factor in rough weather) she was a fairly good ship I think. [/B][/QUOTE]
For some reason that reminds me of a [URL=http://users.compaqnet.be/cn117945/deconstr/10deconstrgroot.jpg]firehouse[/URL] I heard of...Apparently it was designed with no right angles at all. Even on the [URL=http://www.stolaf.edu/people/korynta/fire-house.jpg]inside[/URL] . However they had to close it as all the firepeople became ill/crazy from the lack of persepective...heh... I looked for more pictures, but those were the best I could find. Google [URL=http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Zaha+Hadid&btnG=Google+Search&meta=]Zaha Hadid[/URL] (the architect) for more information :)
-Φ
[B]...reminds me of a [URL=http://users.compaqnet.be/cn117945/deconstr/10deconstrgroot.jpg]firehouse[/URL] I heard of...Apparently it was designed with no right angles at all. Even on the [URL=http://www.stolaf.edu/people/korynta/fire-house.jpg]inside[/URL] . However they had to close it as all the firepeople became ill/crazy from the lack of persepective...heh...[/B][/QUOTE]
I'll understand completely why they didn't like it.
fuck you guys know how to be expansionist whilst still being isolationist...
:confused:
[B]They didn't have any of these in [b]WaterWorld[/b]...
:confused: [/B][/QUOTE]
"DRY LAND IS NOT A MYTH I'VE SEEN IT" 'Kevin Costner, Water World!'
'I don't know what all the fuss was about I saw that movie ten times it ruled!'
That would decrease radar return which would make them much harder targets for vampires when big size and amount of compartments makes these already very tough targets. (like carriers)
[B]Old news but still interesting.
That full size 2km long base would also enable use of normal landbased fighters from sea. [/B][/QUOTE]
I really doubt that will happen. The Navy would fight tooth and nail to avoid having that sort of competition from the USAF. Plus, if it did happen I'd probably be out of a job, being one of the newer engineers at work.
That, and keep in mind that this thing is basically just a mobile airstrip, an overgrown carrier. It certainly wouldn't replace subs or escort vessels or destroyers, and you're not likely to see more than one or two in service at the same time.
[B]Ya don't see B-1s or B-2s launching off of carriers now do ya? :) [/B][/QUOTE]
I think Bones are just little too big for good handling in that small space and "Budget bombers" would require air conditioned special hangars.
[B]It certainly wouldn't replace subs or escort vessels or destroyers, and you're not likely to see more than one or two in service at the same time. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah' actually it would require escorts:
At least one Aegis cruiser for air defense and few destroyers, few frigates and couple hunter-killers because sub is still best weapon against other sub (or SSK).
Also it would need support/supply ships like tankers because it doesn't have ten year "fuel change period". (like in nuclear reactor)
[B]I fail to see how adding a project will remove engineers.[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't fail to see it. I'm working on this right now, as an engineer:
[url]http://www.capitol.northgrum.com/programs/cvn21.html[/url]
If that "mobile airstrip" is built in any numbers, it will be at the cost of some carriers. Thus, many engineers working on CVN 21 would lose their jobs.
[QUOTE][B]That, and keep in mind that this thing is basically just a mobile airstrip, an overgrown carrier. It certainly wouldn't replace subs or escort vessels or destroyers, and you're not likely to see more than one or two in service at the same time. [/B][/QUOTE]
I didn't say it was a sub or destroyer. The Navy does operate all of our carriers. It looks to be something the USAF would use, which would take away the role of sea-based airpower from the US Navy, which isn't about to willingly give up one of its missions.
[B]Also it would need support/supply ships like tankers because it doesn't have ten year "fuel change period". (like in nuclear reactor) [/B][/QUOTE]
Ten year? You're certainly pessimistic :)
[B]Plus it will lack the mobility of a carrier. Even with these things around the carriers of the Navy won't go outta business. Ya don't see B-1s or B-2s launching off of carriers now do ya? :) [/B][/QUOTE]
The Navy's business includes sea-based airpower projection, which is becoming important in the era of losing overseas basing in certain parts of the world. This would cut into that mission, which the Navy wouldn't allow to happen without a fight. My current employment is evidence of that commitment to this particular mission.
[B]I don't fail to see it. I'm working on this right now, as an engineer:
[url]http://www.capitol.northgrum.com/programs/cvn21.html[/url][/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry; thought you were still working on subs.
You didn't answer the thing about there not being more than one or two of these megacarriers in service, though. That hardly seems like a condition in which normal carriers are replaced.
[B]Sorry; thought you were still working on subs.
You didn't answer the thing about there not being more than one or two of these megacarriers in service, though. That hardly seems like a condition in which normal carriers are replaced. [/B][/QUOTE]
Subs, carriers. Both, really, thanks to the government not wanting us to lose our shipbuilding capabilities. It varies from day to day.
About there not being more than 1 or 2 in service - that's more than enough. The money has to come from somewhere - that would probably be from the program it duplicates - that would only make sense, and would happen to be the carriers. The fact it's so large only makes things worse for the carriers, too.