Iowa class BB, they don't build them like that today

Are you sure you aren't referring to metamaterials ?

 

A Metametal is a Metamaterial.

But it is defined when activated as acting as a Metal.

There are Metamaterials that act as Polymers and many other things.

AboveAlpha

 

I have a friend who's a metallurgist, he works for Cal-Tech and JPL. There are all kinds of new metals out there. But you wont be seeing them coming down the pipe line any time soon especially as long as Obama or any other leftist is in the White House or in control of Congress.

I can tell you one thing, those at JPL and Cal-Tech haven't been happy campers with Obama going back to 2009.

Electrical energy can be measured in volts, watts, joules, etc. and even BTU's. (British Thermal Units) Energy is heat.

Electrical conductors must have a low resistance like silver being the best and copper coming in number two. But conductors have to also be able to handle the heat that is produced from electrical energy. It also has to be able to disperse the heat.

 

Well with this Metametal sort of the way the new light bulbs using Ionized Gas do not give off heat and produce more light than a standard bulb that burns a filament.....well the Molecules and Atoms align and all Superconductivity with VERY LITTLE in the way of heat production.

Their outer electron orbital fields can accept many more electrons than copper can.

AboveAlpha

 

Often times we do. As a relay, the controllers are not in the aircraft.

So you still have the control time from the control station (most of the time in the US) through various ways to that aircraft, then to the drone, and back again.

And I am not even sure if we are using optical, since it is purely a LOS form of communication. That makes you highly limited to weather conditions and location. LOS relay range is measured in a handfull of miles, most Predator drones hoperate at distances much greater then that.

We have talked about that before.

Great against point targets in direct LOS of the weapon system. Worthless when the weapon has to fire on the other side of something like a hill or another building. Plus it is kinetic kill, great against say a bunker or tank or another ship. Worthless against a platoon or company of infantry preparing to perform an assault.

Remember, I love a great many of the high tech aspects of our military. After all, I have worked on it myself for over 8 years.

But that being said, my having worked on and with it also lets me know the limitations of said technology. No matter how advanced we may get in the future (EM waves that confuse the brain, optical waves that confuse the eyes, etc), sometimes the only solution is the liberal use of HE on a target to eliminate the threat.

 

The Optical Guidance aspect of the new modified Tomahawks is basically turned on when the Tomahawk is GPS guided at sea to the area that the ship or ships are.

At that point either someone on the ground, in the air or on a ship takes over and the signal is relayed via aircraft and the Tomahawk is optically guided to target.

We started using this back in 1991 when we dropped JDAM's from F-111's that once in the area of the target were switched over to optical guidance and they were able to directly it the target.

The rail guns are not ready....at least not the way we want them to be...and neither are the FEL's as we want them at between 1 to 300 Megawatt beams.

But they are close with the Over the Horizon Satellites.

They will launch enough for a worldwide targeting system which will use a type of Prism as standard mirror optics will melt when reflecting close to solar core temp. Laser beams.

It is in the future...but it will happen.

AboveAlpha

 

Sorry, fact check time here.

The only ship transfered form the Reserve Fleet to a museum ship was the USS Missouri, in 1999. All of the others (USS New Jersey 2001, USS Iowa 2006, USS Wisconsin 2006) were done during the Bush 43 administration.

Remember, I really do not care for politics, as much as I do accuracy. And this was done by Congress (and the Navy), not the President.

Uhhh, not even then.

You have to realize that in our current Navy (and future), there is really no ship capable of handling this weapon.

The TICOs are being phased out, with no replacement. And with the weight of this weapon, it would really need a crusier at the least to handle the size and power requirements.

And the Arleigh Burke Flight III does not have this in consideration as a factor either. And the "Future Surface Combatant" not expected until at least the mid-2030's, do not wait around for that either. Many of the real experts are expecting the Burke's to continue in production for at least another 20 years.

Of course, the same experts expect that the KK and energy weapons will remain purely as point defense and air defense weapons, not replacing the guns for ground level attack at all. For that, expect the AGS and LRLAP to continue in that role.

Every nuclear ship ever made was basically "electric".

The nuclear plant makes electricity, that drives electric motors.

I think pretty much every naval ship since WWII has been "electricly driven". The power plant connected directly to the propeller is long obsolete.

Uhhhh, got a reference for that? Because if you did, I would absolutely love to see it.

Hell, I can tell you right from the name that what you are claiming is wrong.

The A in "A1B" stands for "Aircraft Carrier". And considering that they are designed to operate a vessel orders of magnitude larger then a destroyer, I can safely bet dollars to doughnuts that they will not really fit in a destroyer.

And I can tell you the odds of another nuclear powered destroyer, slim to none. We have had exactly one (1) nuclear destroyer, the USS Bainbridge, originally DLGN-25, reclassified as CGN-25. And it's reactor was the "D2G", the D standing for "Destroyer". Hell, we do not even have an nuclear cruisers any more. Our only nuclear ships are the carriers (of course) because of their size, and our SSN and SSBN because of their endurance and quietness.

And our other "Nuclear Ship" that was not a sub or carrier? Why, the USS Long Beach, CLGN-160/CGN-160/CGN-9. It's reactor was a C1W reactor. And yes, once again, the C stood for "Cruiser".

And what do the Bainbridge and Los Angeles have on common? Well, they were 1 ship classes, and never repeated.

I expect the Navy to agree to a new DDGN at about the time that the Constitution is dissolved and an openly gay Communist Roman Catholic President is elected by an 85% majority.

In other words, never.

Remember, I actually do research on my posts. And everything I listed above is common knowledge. But please, some kind of reference for your future claims, because I have not found one from a reputable source anywhere.

 

Uhhh, do you know what optical guidance actually is?

Here, let me educate you here real quick.

It is not "optical communication", as in a LASER link from point to point. It is following a visual image.

Tomahawks have 3 forms of guidance.

First of all is the primary, inertial. In other words, it uses information from it's internal gyrocompass to fly X distance at Y degrees, then turn to Z degrees and fly for A distance, before making it's terminal phase and impacting at J location.

It's secondary is "optical", which means that essentially a projection of it's path as seen through a TV camera is loaded into memory. And for this it requires set landmarks, roads and rivers are the most common. This is why for decades, there are tons of videos of Tomahawks flying right above roads to reach their destination. They literally are "following the road" to the target.

GPS is the final fallback system. Generally it is only there in the event that the target is somehow missed by all other forms, in which it ttiggers a self-destruct (which has never happened yet). GPS is a back-up to the back-up, it is not really considered part of the "guidance".

And it is purely pre-loaded. Once a Tomahawk is launched, it is 100% autonomous, no further corrections possible (but this is still being worked on).

And no, even if they are it will be via radio signal, optical transfer of data is 100% LOS, not possible with a cruise missile like a tomahawk, they are designed to operate as low as possible to the ground.

 

I was talking about the carriers.

I know I also posted Ticonderoga Class Cruisers but although they intend to install new Nuclear reactors in them they are still up in the air on which design as there are a few new designs.

And a Cruiser won't need 2 of them.

AboveAlpha

 

[video=youtube;2vhxDjh27Cc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vhxDjh27Cc[/video]

It was not freak chance that all of these missiles were flying over the same area. They were all following the exact same road to their target.

After all, it is pretty much impossible to move a road. GPS can be jammed, birds can be knocked out of the sky. Inertial is impossible to jam or spoof, and roads are pretty damned hard to erase.

GPS is a fallback to the fallback.

 

The Ship to Ship reconfigured Tomahawks use GPS to get them close to target and then basically some guy takes over visually and fly's the missile right where he want's it to hit.

The new configuration allows the Tomahawk to..."LOITER"....around targets.

That is not my word...it's the U.S. Navy's.

AboveAlpha

 

Oh, I would so love to see your reference for that!

Because at this time, there is no replacement program for the TICOs. None, zerio, zip, zilch. The current plan is to just let them go out, and replace them with more Arleigh Burke destroyers. The Navy is thinking it may at the soonest start a replacement for the TICOs in the mid 2020's at the soonest, with the first replacements being fielded in the mid 2030's.

And I have not heard of any plan to retrofit the TICOs with nuclear plants.

Reference please?

Reference please?

 

I am fully aware how a cruise missile gets to target on land.

I am talking about the new program to adapt Tomahawks to be launched at sea and get to targets and then they are FLOWN by an operator to a target of choice.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

I posted a LINK on this topic earlier in a conversation with Apy.

AboveAlpha

 

They are not "flown", it is "mid-course correction".

Basically, in this technique the missile is launched with the projected target (being moving target) being at location X at the time of projected impact. At point Y, it get's an update to it's terminal point, and is told that instead of impacting at Point X, it instead impacts at Point Z.

It is not "steered" to it's target, it gets a correction, not 100% control. It is a relatively minor change, based upon projections.

Akin to an aircraft taking off from JFK in New York to LAX in Los Angeles, and because of something happening being redirected over Colorado to SAN in San Diego.

Remember, missiles were my career for several years. I do not think you really understand what mid-course correction is.

And BTW, it is the Harpoon that is getting the mid-course correction module, not the Tomahawk. However, the next generation of Surface Launched Cruise Missile, the Next Generation Strike Capability (NGSC) is planned to also get the mid-course correction capability. But the B3 module for the Harpoon is still in testing, expected to see service (hopefully) in the 2020-2025 timeframe.

But the NGSC is not expected to be seen for another 10-15+ years.

 

Well I will defer to you on this as I am not Navy but according to the LINK...they were adapting this to the Tomahawks.

I did post that link on this topic.

AboveAlpha

 

What dates that are important are when the Iowa's were struck from the Navy's Vessel Registery.

All four of the Iowa's were struck from the registery January 12th 1995 in violation of the Law.

Congress would step in and return two of the Iowa's back on the registery list on February of 1998.

 

Uhhh, no, they were not.

USS Iowa:
Commissioned: 22 February 1943
Decommissioned: 24 March 1949
Recommissioned: 25 August 1951
Decommissioned: 24 February 1958
Recommissioned: 28 April 1984
Decommissioned: 26 October 1990
Struck: 17 March 2006

USS New Jersey:
Commissioned: 23 May 1943
Decommissioned: 30 June 1948
Recommissioned: 21 November 1950
Decommissioned: 21 August 1957
Recommissioned: 6 April 1968
Decommissioned: 17 December 1969
Recommissioned: 28 December 1982
Decommissioned: 8 February 1991
Struck: 4 January 1999

USS Missouri:
Commissioned: 11 June 1944
Decommissioned: 26 February 1955
Recommissioned: 10 May 1986
Decommissioned: 31 March 1992
Struck: 12 January 1995

USS Wisconsin:
Commissioned: 16 April 1944
Decommissioned: 1 July 1948
Recommissioned: 3 March 1951
Decommissioned: 8 March 1958
Recommissioned: 22 October 1988
Decommissioned: 30 September 1991
Struck: 17 March 2006

If I remember correctly, there was a rush for the USS Missouri, so it could be set up at least in place for the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII. But I was sure that the writing was on the wall by that point. With the Mighty Mo gone, that left only 2 other BBs. And after 10+ years in mothballs, there was simply no way the Navy would bring them back again.

 

A nuclear reactor only produces steam that turns a steam turbine that will turn a generator to produce the ships electrical power and the steam turns the reduction gears that are attached to the shaft that turns the ships screws.

The Zumwalt class DDG's has no steam, it's all electric except for the gas turbine that turns the electric turbines that produce the electrical power. The Zumwalt's two shafts are directly attached to two electric motor, there is no reduction gears.

Most of today's U.S. Navy warships have gas turbines. The turbines will be hooked up to a generator to produce electrical power but it's the gas turbines that are turning the ships screw (propeller) shafts.

 

What your dates don't show when they were first struck from the Naval Vessel Registery.

Being decommissioned doesn't mean the Navy no longer owns it. Once a ship is struck from the registery, it's no longer part of the naval reserve fleet, no longer part of the mothball fleet.

Mushroom, you live near the Baghdad by the Bay and you see what's left of the mothball fleet rusting away at Suisun Bay, all of those ships are still on the Naval Vessel Registry. Well there aren't that many ships left at Suisun Bay today because the liberal loons want all military ships out of San Francisco Bay.

 

Remember, I do know the difference. But I would love to see your reference, because every reference I have for the striking from the registry dates it to a single ship in 1995, the rest following afterwards. But what is your reference?

As for steam for turbines, I will concede to that, naval power plants was never an area of particular interest to me.

And yea, I know about the mothball fleet. I remember when it was huge, and we used to do boarding training on the old destroyers at Mare Island while they were being stripped. I remember when the fleet was huge and filled the bay, and the Glomar Explorer was held seperately in the event it was needed to recover a sub.

 

Back to the original topic, I doubt they will ever be built that way ever again.

At one time, most of our equipment was designed and built to take a horrible beating. That was true with a lot of the stuff, designed and built through the 1970's. But after that, the "High Tech" mindset seems to have taken over. Instead of designing it to take a pounding and survive large amounts of battle damage, they are concentrating entirely on avoiding such damage.

Now that is all well and good, but when you play the odds, eventually something will get hit. And when it does, it also needs to be able to survive such damage.

Now at the far end, we have the A-10. Those things can take a hell of a lot of damage, and more often then not still return to base with the most important part intact.

Then you had the F-117. Able to avoid lots of damage, but when it was hit it was toast.

The BBs and other WWII era ships could take a lot of damage. And they were so well built, many stayed in service for decades. And not only the BBs, the USS Midway was in service for 47 years. Primarily because she was built so damned well, and was designed to take huge amounts of damage.

Today, large amounts of our equipment relies upon fancy technology to avoid damage in the first place. Now that is all well and good, but the fact is that the technology does not always work. The USS Stark and USS Cole should serve as sharp reminders of this fact.

I think we need to return to the concept of building good modern defenses, but also good old fashioned engineering, so that if the defenses fail, the equipment will not be destroyed because of it (and the people operating the equipment killed).

To me, making thin skinned ships and relying upon things like CIWS is like putting CIWS on tanks, and reducing the armor to that of an APC.

 

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB61.htm

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB62.htm

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB63.htm

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB64.htm

You know how long it took me to find this that's below ?

 

*nods*

However, realize that "authorized to strike" is not the same thing as actually striking them. The actual striking for most came years later.

However, I do agree it was a foolish thing to do.

 

Being decommissioned is different from being stricken from the Navy's Vessel Register.

Navy ships that have been decommissioned have no Captain in command or crew. But are still maintained.

It use to be SOP many decades ago when a ship went in to dry dock for a major overhaul, the ship was decommissioned and after as year ot two when the over haul was completes the ship was recommissioned.

I remember seeing aircraft carriers, destroyers and even a submarine at Long Beach Navl Station that were still commissioned but had no real crew, just what were called skeleton crews.

What I have been told, you can tell if a ship is still commissioned or not by looking for a red light at the top of the mast. if's it's commissioned the light is lit 24/7 if not lit it's has been decommissioned.

I believe when the ship has been stricken from the Navy's Vessel Register it falls under "Category X " stricken from the Naval Vessel Register awaiting disposal. receiving no maintenance.

But what Congress did when they allowed the Navy to strike the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin from the Vessels Registry and to be turned into museums, that the two Iowa's could be taken back by the Navy and were required to be kept in good shape, not altered where they can't go to sea and fight.

It was the Obama administration who changed that back in December of 2009 ending the requirement for the ships to be preserved for possible recall to active duty.

 

Because new U.S. Navy ships are nowhere near armored like a Battleship they are developing Missile Defense in the form of a newer type of SM-3 AA/ABM/ASAT which will be launched from Ticonderoga Class Aegis Cruisers as well as the inevitable installation on all Carriers and Cruisers of the FEL or Free Electron Laser.

Currently the best they have developed and this is not ready for deployment has been a 1 Megawatt Beam.

The best we had recently was a 100 Kw beam but this has changed due to new superconducting Meta-materials which can conduct over 100 times the amount of electricity that copper can and this enables well over 1 Megawatt Laser beams.

The problem is that the U.S. Navy want's 100 to 300 Megawatt FEL Beams.

This will happen but it will not exist on U.S.Carriers and Cruisers till the mid 2020's.

What I am about to post is also a FACT.

Depending upon the success or failure of current U.S. Military Direct Energy Weapons Programs will determine the direction of U.S. Military Spending and choice of weapons systems for the next 100 years.

The PLAN.....is to install Multi-Megawatt FEL's on the Ford Class carriers which the first 3 will be CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford....CVN-79 J.F.K....and CVN-80 Enterprise.....and install FEL's on Ticonderoga Class Cruisers but there is a question whether they intend to overhaul the Cruisers as a new Nuclear Reactor would be needed to supply the power for the FEL or whether they intend to develop an entirely new ship and even a Sub has been proposed.

The second aspect of this plan is to place in orbit a multitude of FEL Over the Horizon Targeting Satellites for worldwide coverage....and they cannot even use standard optical mirrors as Prisms must be used to reflect an FEL Beam coming in at Solar Core Temps.

The third part of this plan is to have Land Based FEL's and although tey say this is the 3rd Stage I am fairly certain they already have Land Based FEL's developed.

Targeting and Tracking will be handled by the new 5000 and 10,000 Quibit Dual Core Quantum Computers and new IR-Light and Radar and Magnetometer Sensors will be set up along with air and water displacement sensors.

This system will effectively allow the U.S. Military to target and destroy at the speed of light any target it wants at any location be it on land, in air, in space, on water or under water as an FEL beam properly supplied power can vaporize a hole in a sub at any depth.

This entire system should be fully deployed at the late end of the 2020's.

It should render Nuclear Missiles obsolete and no ship, sub, aircraft or mechanized forces can withstand such a system.

And this is NOT the only Direct Energy Weapons System the DoD has planned as we do have a working MEB...Microwave Emissions Beam.....and various forms of Particle Beam Weapons.

AboveAlpha