Can't speak for the nuke boats but I know the ole Midway could do at least 30 kts which she exceeded on a high speed run after a dry dock period. She was shakin' like a _itch and IIRC the engineers said the prop shafts were twisted a turn and a half from the turbines to the props.
NRA Life,Endowment,Patron or Benefactor since '72.
I suspect you won't ever get a number you could take to the bank, MM. Years ago I had a former Navy nuke sub driver as a student worker at NU Law, and while he'd share wee snippets and anecdotes, was tight-lipped, as he well should've been. One I recall well when I asked him about the rough speed and maneuverability of the boat went like this: 'they're a lot more agile, faster and will run deeper than you'd ever believe, probably, but that stuff is classified. I will say though that I used to love when we drilled on emergency blows. I could make that bitch sit up and bark for me!"
I remember when I was a kid, I asked my father if he had been through a hurricane while on the USS Constellation. He said no that she was so fast that they just ran around the big storms.
"If it wasn't for the pu**y and the prestige.....nobody would want to be a gunsmith." MColeman
I suspect you won't ever get a number you could take to the bank, MM. Years ago I had a former Navy nuke sub driver as a student worker at NU Law, and while he'd share wee snippets and anecdotes, was tight-lipped, as he well should've been. One I recall well when I asked him about the rough speed and maneuverability of the boat went like this: 'they're a lot more agile, faster and will run deeper than you'd ever believe, probably, but that stuff is classified. I will say though that I used to love when we drilled on emergency blows. I could make that bitch sit up and bark for me!"
I do know the speed and max depth on some classes of subs and I know why some are so quiet but will die with that info.
Don't know about the carriers, but we used to fish the horseshoe off Long Beach, and it was just awesome to watch the Tico class cruisers creep past the breakwall and goose it. The turbines would wrap up and the stern would squat down, and they would just take off, right there.
I'd swear they would do it just to show off.
The smoothest application of power I've ever seen.
Originally Posted by captain seafire
I replace valve cover gaskets every 50K, if they don't need them sooner...
Don't know about the carriers, but we used to fish the horseshoe off Long Beach, and it was just awesome to watch the Tico class cruisers creep past the breakwall and goose it. The turbines would wrap up and the stern would squat down, and they would just take off, right there.
I'd swear they would do it just to show off.
The smoothest application of power I've ever seen.
I bet it was impressive. Here's the maneuver the gent I wrote about was talking about in his submariner days; 'emergency blow' as he called it. The USS Greeneville.
Edit: oops.
Just might want to make sure you don't do it when there's a vessel above you when you breach...
As a goal, an aircraft carrier should be able to do at least 40 knots because it needs that airspeed across its deck to launch planes. The USS Midway was capable of that in the late 70s although you'd think she was coming apart. I'm sure the nuke ships are capable of much more.
"A free people (claim) their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
When I was in college, 1980 - 1985 on the central coast of California my roommate and I came to befriend a Navy pilot out of Lemoure (sp?) that flew A6's off of a carrier. Can't recall the carrier he ran off of on a tour. We would get him drunk beyond belief and query him an carrier speeds, and though he could not stand up, he would never say. Cocky little sawed off [bleep] and the only Navy man I can say that I kicked his azzz in what started as a bit of wrestling. I must admit that his visits were always welcomed as he brought the suckers for us po'boys.
Doubt it is much over 35 to 37 knots, but their is a formula that supposedly gives a fair estimate of maximum hull speed which I believe is 1.34 x the sq of water line distance between the bow and stern waves at speed. Or a close estimate just using the length at water line. Just guessing waterline at around 900' which would put close at 40 knots. Even with 4 screws, don't see it reaching much past that even if wanted. Damn sure they're not going to let it our run their support group.
He is also the only guy I drug out of bed drunk when he dove into it with my wife to be (1984) and I, he more than stumbling. Not a good representation...Tossed him in the hallway, as I said he was a little chtitt, and went to bed. Married her three years later and we, last week, banged (oops ) 28 years celebrating here in Idaho.
I do know the speed and max depth on some classes of subs and I know why some are so quiet but will die with that info.
Scott,
With your back ground and interest in subs, you might be interested in reading about Operation Barmaid Its amaazing to think just how quiet our subs are..
For a modern nuke boat (the only ones left) think highway speeds. There's nothing on the ocean that can keep up including all the escort cruiser/destroyers.
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
In late May of "81 I was working on a 140' Feadship that was enroute to Washington D.C. from FT. Lauderdale on the night that the plane crashed on the deck of the Nimitz. We were 20 or so miles offshore of Myrtle Beach S.C. when the incident on the Nimitz happened off the coast of Jacksonville. We were cruising at 16-17 knots. The next afternoon the Nimitz crossed our bow at the mouth of the Chesapeak heading into Nofolk. Our captain figured out it had to be making at least 40-45 knots.
For a modern nuke boat (the only ones left) think highway speeds. There's nothing on the ocean that can keep up including all the escort cruiser/destroyers.
While in Ike (CVN 69), cruising the Med in 1988, we answered bells and hauled bootie from near France to off the coast of Lybia. We left the rest of the battle group behind. A nuke boat can move!
Cruised in JFK (CV 67) in 1990/1991, and while not as fast, she was fast enough. JFK's keel was laid as a nuke, but outfitted conventional because the family didn't want the name associated with nuclear anything.
A carrier typically only needs to be able to get 15 to 20 knots of wind over the deck to launch because the catapults are strong enough to fling an aircraft with enough airspeed to fly. Usually 5 kts or so above stall.
As a goal, an aircraft carrier should be able to do at least 40 knots because it needs that airspeed across its deck to launch planes. The USS Midway was capable of that in the late 70s although you'd think she was coming apart. I'm sure the nuke ships are capable of much more.
No way Midway could anywhere near 35, much less thirty, especially with the stabilizing bulges added in her senior years. As far as "wind", sure you can generate your own wind, but depending on aircraft launch weight, 25kts is a good rule of thumb.
Nimitz Class carriers have only TWO reactors. Enterprise has eight, she was the first nuke carrier and what they did there was install 8 SSN reactors and BTW she was the fastest of all our carriers, because of her hull SHAPE which really plays a big part in determining realistic attainable speeds. I can tell you that I saw 36 kts on NIMITZ.. j
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Doubt it is much over 35 to 37 knots, but their is a formula that supposedly gives a fair estimate of maximum hull speed which I believe is 1.34 x the sq of water line distance between the bow and stern waves at speed. Or a close estimate just using the length at water line. Just guessing waterline at around 900' which would put close at 40 knots. Even with 4 screws, don't see it reaching much past that even if wanted. Damn sure they're not going to let it our run their support group.
Phil
THIS.
As to JFK, she was (is) not a CVN 68 class. She, along with America CV 66 were to have been nukes originally and Bart is correct McNamara changed that and that is why both were maintenance nightmares throughout their service lives. Ostensibly, think of them as what the North Carolina class of Battleships were to the Iowas; test beds..
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I suspect you won't ever get a number you could take to the bank, MM. Years ago I had a former Navy nuke sub driver as a student worker at NU Law, and while he'd share wee snippets and anecdotes, was tight-lipped, as he well should've been. One I recall well when I asked him about the rough speed and maneuverability of the boat went like this: 'they're a lot more agile, faster and will run deeper than you'd ever believe, probably, but that stuff is classified. I will say though that I used to love when we drilled on emergency blows. I could make that bitch sit up and bark for me!"
P.S. His uncle was lost on the USS Scorpion.
Damn.. I was on the USS Redfish when we heard about the Scorpion.. Lots of very quiet boys on the boat for a while after that..
Originally Posted by kamo_gari
Originally Posted by Rancho_Loco
Don't know about the carriers, but we used to fish the horseshoe off Long Beach, and it was just awesome to watch the Tico class cruisers creep past the breakwall and goose it. The turbines would wrap up and the stern would squat down, and they would just take off, right there.
I'd swear they would do it just to show off.
The smoothest application of power I've ever seen.
I bet it was impressive. Here's the maneuver the gent I wrote about was talking about in his submariner days; 'emergency blow' as he called it. The USS Greeneville.
USS Pickerel did a similar blow before that.. IIRC, the boat dropped back to near test depth before they got it back under control.. Bacon stripes were abundant..
Originally Posted by Greyghost
Doubt it is much over 35 to 37 knots, ...............
Phil
...and you'd be wrong..
Originally Posted by PVT
Originally Posted by Pugs
For a modern nuke boat (the only ones left) think highway speeds. There's nothing on the ocean that can keep up including all the escort cruiser/destroyers.
While in Ike (CVN 69), cruising the Med in 1988, we answered bells and hauled bootie from near France to off the coast of Lybia. We left the rest of the battle group behind. A nuke boat can move!
Oh, yes they can...
Even back in WWII the 'fast carrier groups' could steam at 35 knots under full power. My father was on one of 'em, under the overall command of Admiral "Bull" Halsey.
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
For a modern nuke boat (the only ones left) think highway speeds. There's nothing on the ocean that can keep up including all the escort cruiser/destroyers.
That's the best answer, and the most appropriate, you'll get on this subject; along with a rather impressive (and accurate) hint.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
As a goal, an aircraft carrier should be able to do at least 40 knots because it needs that airspeed across its deck to launch planes. The USS Midway was capable of that in the late 70s although you'd think she was coming apart. I'm sure the nuke ships are capable of much more.
No way Midway could anywhere near 35, much less thirty, especially with the stabilizing bulges added in her senior years. As far as "wind", sure you can generate your own wind, but depending on aircraft launch weight, 25kts is a good rule of thumb.
Nimitz Class carriers have only TWO reactors. Enterprise has eight, she was the first nuke carrier and what they did there was install 8 SSN reactors and BTW she was the fastest of all our carriers, because of her hull SHAPE which really plays a big part in determining realistic attainable speeds. I can tell you that I saw 36 kts on NIMITZ.. j
Truth.
It takes 10 knots of wind to make a whitecap and that is good flying weather on a carrier.
I launched 2 planes off the Kennedy while at anchor in Hurghada, Egypt. Any guesses as to which airframes?
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I wouldn't be surprised if it could top 40, or maybe even 50, knots. Likely twist herself up into a knot before she ran out of power and 4 20+ foot diameter screws can move a LOT of water.
Not sure I'd hang my hat on the old hull speed formula being the limiting factor either. You can increase maximum hull speed with modified bow shapes.
“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
Rode around on them for years and don't honestly know the answer. We did do a high speed run off So Cal once where we attached max chains to the jets on the flight deck and they pulled the rods. I peeked outside and thought to myself "holy [bleep]". Had I been on water skis I'd have been skipping off the water. They are impressive!
From what I found I saw speed in excess of 30 knots.
When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are something to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honors are something to be ashamed of . Confucius
I was on the the Teddy Ruxbin CVN-71 when we left Norfolk on Dec. 27th and prior to launch of the first Tomahawk in Jan 16th we were through the Suez and well into the Red Sea so those big girls can make time. I was also on board for Sea Trials after dry dock and the high speed turns and shake outs tell you there is some power under the hood.
I well respect Highway speeds as that is what I had heard also.
No way 50. Forty maybe but I never saw it and the hull shape is an issue. That is why the Enterprise was so fast, but it had a trade off, less stability roll-wise. I "drove" both NIMITZ and JFK..
Last edited by jorgeI; 07/01/15.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
For a modern nuke boat (the only ones left) think highway speeds. There's nothing on the ocean that can keep up including all the escort cruiser/destroyers.
^ This.
I was on an escort DDE behind the Enterprise when the Norks grabbed the Pueblo. We could do 33 knots give or take a few depending on the seas. That works out to pretty close on 38 MPH. We left the gulf where we could see Haiphong Harbor's lights after 2200 hours and by 0600 when I rolled out it was cold outside and the Enterprise was nowhere in sight and could not be found on surface search radar which would pick that beast up near 100 miles out.
Figure 8 hours to open ~100 miles on us and she had at least 12 MPH on us. Since when I hit the rack we were in normal plane guard station and launch/land ops it was that much advantage at a minimum.
At that time Enterprise always traveled with us, the O'Bannon and the nuke cruiser and four fast attack nuke boats underneath her. The O'Bannon had 3-4 knots on us and the cruiser a couple on the O'Bannon. The only thing that could keep up with her was the fast attack nuke boats. When we cranked up to 33 knots the DDE pounded and shook to where you thought it was coming apart. Not a fun ride.
I have seen the Enterprise launch F4s in no wind conditions. Anyone who's seen an F4 come off the catapult in normal launch winds learns to hold their breath until the bird comes back up to the level of the carrier deck. Back then, they hit the water way too often. Enterprise could turn into the wind and spit A5s and those funny looking things with the hook thingy on top of tip of the nose (E6s?) off the deck like a swarm of bees and not bother with the cats when necessary.
I was on the the Teddy Ruxbin CVN-71 when we left Norfolk on Dec. 27th and prior to launch of the first Tomahawk in Jan 16th we were through the Suez and well into the Red Sea so those big girls can make time. I was also on board for Sea Trials after dry dock and the high speed turns and shake outs tell you there is some power under the hood.
I well respect Highway speeds as that is what I had heard also.
I was on that same cruise in VAQ-141. After we lost our jet of Bermuda and on the transit they would pan the flight deck cameras aft and we were throwing a rooster tail that almost reached the flight deck. Triple tie-down chains on everything.
Also did shakedown on Lincoln with CVW-8. On the shakedown we had half an airwing and light loads of fuel/weapons we left the Pegasus class hydrofoils out of Key Weird standing.
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
I was on a fast attack submarine for three years in the mid-90's. I have done sea trials workups where we tested the limits of the boat doing full and flank speed maneuvers, emergency blows, the whole bit. What I know is that some of those nuke carriers are damn fast. Fast enough that a MK-48 ADDCAPP torpedo on slow speed won't catch one, if the carrier is wound out. It has to be on high speed, and even then you better have a relatively close shot and good angle. Now I'm not going to say how fast a Mk 48 is, but I will say that the guys saying some of those carriers can run 45+ knots answering a flank bell are not wrong.
I was on a fast attack submarine for three years in the mid-90's. I have done sea trials workups where we tested the limits of the boat doing full and flank speed maneuvers, emergency blows, the whole bit. What I know is that some of those nuke carriers are damn fast. Fast enough that a MK-48 ADDCAPP torpedo on slow speed won't catch one, if the carrier is wound out. It has to be on high speed, and even then you better have a relatively close shot and good angle. Now I'm not going to say how fast a Mk 48 is, but I will say that the guys saying some of those carriers can run 45+ knots answering a flank bell are not wrong.
Spot on..
The 48s were still in the testing stage when I was in - but I heard bits and pieces of what they could do.. VERY impressive piece of equipment..
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
With your back ground and interest in subs, you might be interested in reading about Operation Barmaid Its amaazing to think just how quiet our subs are..
I will look it up. I was the LPO of a submarine sound silencing teem. I spent 17 years repairing and working on subs but never rode one.
I wish I knew, but suffice to say I was impressed by the Enterprise back in the late 60's. We were doing a downwind run with plans to turn back into the wind when the flyers geared up for their landing qualifications. Like many speed boats, the appearance from the stern was that if they backed off the throttles the trailing wave would have overrun the flight deck. Some serious vibrations going on as well that were not evident at all during normal operations.
Another impressive thing was how that boat could lay over when hanging a serious turn. I was aboard when a deck hand lobbed a 55 gallon drum over the rail during flight operations. Someone on an elevator below saw it drop out of the side of their eye and called in a man overboard. They put that ship on its side and had it turned around and back on spot in a couple minutes. All were accounted for, and we resumed the run. Warnings are issued during those maneuvers (i.e. keel to port), as planes, tractors, and other equipment needs to be ready.
Many things can be done to hull shapes to somewhat change that general formula or guesstimate for a displacement hull, but you also reach a point to where you need twice the power or more just to increase speed by a couple knots. Stability and practicability also come into play, you can plow a barge through the water at speed with enough power, but why would you want to do it? I'll stick to my 35 to 37 knot estimate. But also didn't know the question was what the red-line speed might be or whether a new carrier could or would do a speed that could be more than safe or one in which she could tear her self apart.
40+, sure could be, but wouldn't bet her normal or crisis running speed being that high...
Several times, during a crisis, I have heard of a carrier being off the east coast of the US and then in a couple of days it would be in the Mediterranean. That's around 4000 miles. 4000 / 60 mph = 66.6 hours which is almost 3 days, not 2. 4000 / 48 hrs = 83 mph
Could be the carrier wasnt where the news reported it to be, at the beginning of the trip. Or, off the east coast covers a whole lot of the N. Atlantic.
83 mph sounds way to fast, but 60 mph wouldnt surprise me.
Just my .02
Old Turd- Deplorable- Unrepentant Murderer- Domestic Violent Extremist
I can't begin to tell you whilst on NIMITZ, America, Saratoga and JFK, we were called to raise steam and proceed to somewhere. One time we were in port St Thomas for chrissake when a "fishing" boat of ours lost power and was drifting into Cuban waters (circa 1985). A lot of us were on the beach [bleep] when we saw NIMITZ go by with a rooster tail. I [bleep] not. Sameshit different day after Lebanon blew up and we were off Livorno. The three fossil burners couldn't come close. 37 kts is realistic....
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
MadMooner: I was on routine patrol in my Seattle Police Harbor Patrol craft back in 1990-something off of Magnolia Bluff when through my binoculars I see a United States nuclear powered aircraft carrier "steaming" N/B out of Bremerton Harbor! I think out loud to myself and my partner lets go west and get a photo of it. Unbeknownst to us that aircraft carrier had been called out to sea from maintenance due to some long forgotten arab/muslim dust-up. I start directly W/B to "intercept" the carrier as it headed N/B in Puget Sound - and then to standby once in position to photograph it. That carrier passed us so fast we never got close to it! And with very little wake I might add. Our twin engined (twin Caterpillar 3208's!) craft swung huge props and could muster 40 knots top speed! Once the carrier beat my intercepting angle of attack I tried to pace it on a parallel course from behind. I am guesstimating here but myself and my partner thought that carrier was doing AT LEAST 55 knots (60 M.P.H. approximately!)! I have NO idea if that carrier was at full throttle or not? Our pictures were taken at a distance of 1.5 miles or so as the carrier passed us. MadMooner you ask a good question, that I can not answer, but this I know for a fact, whatever their top speed is it IS impressive for such a huge craft. Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
[quote=Greyghost]Doubt it is much over 35 to 37 knots, but their is a formula that supposedly gives a fair estimate of maximum hull speed which I believe is 1.34 x the sq of water line distance between the bow and stern waves at speed. Or a close estimate just using the length at water line. Just guessing waterline at around 900' which would put close at 40 knots. Even with 4 screws, don't see it reaching much past that even if wanted. Damn sure they're not going to let it our run their support group.
Phil [/quote
I don't know what they have for surface support for a carrier now, but back then there were two threats to carriers. Submarines and missiles/aircraft. the fast attack boats under the carrier were well equipped to deal with anything in/on the water. The aircraft on the carrier could handle anything else.
When the Norks grabbed the Pueblo Enterprise took off and left the three of us to catch up as best we could when we could. the only support they didn't out run was the nukes underneath them. My best guess from being there and having the real numbers to do the calcs was that Enterprise had no trouble managing 50 MPH minimum.
I do know the speed and max depth on some classes of subs and I know why some are so quiet but will die with that info.
Scott,
With your back ground and interest in subs, you might be interested in reading about Operation Barmaid Its amaazing to think just how quiet our subs are..
I had never heard how that all cam about. Thanks, that was a great read and my hat's off tour your boys for pulling that off.
I do know the speed and max depth on some classes of subs and I know why some are so quiet but will die with that info.
Scott,
With your back ground and interest in subs, you might be interested in reading about Operation Barmaid Its amaazing to think just how quiet our subs are..
I had never heard how that all cam about. Thanks, that was a great read and my hat's off tour your boys for pulling that off.
I was reading an account about the history of the Conqueror and that was mentioned.
It seems the Russians "suddenly" fielded a towed array sonar system and both the Americans and Brits wanted to know whether the technology was home grown and or stolen of us..
Both countries had a number of traitors found to be selling sub secrets and I think that turned out to be one of them..
I would be quite happy for the folks caught to be hung, but apparently that's not PC anymore!
I had never heard how that all cam about. Thanks, that was a great read and my hat's off tour your boys for pulling that off. [/quote]
I was reading an account about the history of the Conqueror and that was mentioned.
It seems the Russians "suddenly" fielded a towed array sonar system and both the Americans and Brits wanted to know whether the technology was home grown and or stolen of us..
Both countries had a number of traitors found to be selling sub secrets and I think that turned out to be one of them..
I would be quite happy for the folks caught to be hung, but apparently that's not PC anymore! [/quote]
That is the reason there will never be a Panasonic product in my home or business.
In the late 90's friends and I got on a salmon party boat, out of Berkeley, CA, and rode it through the Golden Gate. We fished off Pacifica and had a fine day with perfect weather and a limit of salmon for the boat.
We were coming back in the afternoon, and maybe a couple miles outside the Golden Gate, when I look back and see a sub surface, about a mile behind us. I yell "Holy [bleep] a sub" and point back so everyone sees the black beast behind us. The party boat is ~50 foot long, one engine, and is making perhaps 10-12 knots. In a couple miles it had closed the distance to maybe a half mile - and people were looking back getting slightly nervous. We continued on into the Gate, and a tug and two Coast Guard boats were there at the bridge, to meet the sub. It slowed at that point and met them. No idea which sub it was, or even type, but even loafing on the surface, it could easily catch us, and I gather they are even faster underwater, than on top.
MadMooner: I was on routine patrol in my Seattle Police Harbor Patrol craft back in 1990-something off of Magnolia Bluff when through my binoculars I see a United States nuclear powered aircraft carrier "steaming" N/B out of Bremerton Harbor! I think out loud to myself and my partner lets go west and get a photo of it. Unbeknownst to us that aircraft carrier had been called out to sea from maintenance due to some long forgotten arab/muslim dust-up. I start directly W/B to "intercept" the carrier as it headed N/B in Puget Sound - and then to standby once in position to photograph it. That carrier passed us so fast we never got close to it! And with very little wake I might add. Our twin engined (twin Caterpillar 3208's!) craft swung huge props and could muster 40 knots top speed! Once the carrier beat my intercepting angle of attack I tried to pace it on a parallel course from behind. I am guesstimating here but myself and my partner thought that carrier was doing AT LEAST 55 knots (60 M.P.H. approximately!)! I have NO idea if that carrier was at full throttle or not? Our pictures were taken at a distance of 1.5 miles or so as the carrier passed us. MadMooner you ask a good question, that I can not answer, but this I know for a fact, whatever their top speed is it IS impressive for such a huge craft. Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
no one cares what a seahawks fan has to say.....
God bless Texas----------------------- Old 300 I will remain what i am until the day I die- A HUNTER......Sitting Bull Its not how you pick the booger.. but where you put it !! Roger V Hunter
I used to know this fellow that was on subs from the 60's through the 90's. He hinted that there was some sort of lubricating system that would exude a substance that would dramatically enhance a sub's ability to slip through the water on an emergency basis. I wonder if y'all had heard of it, and if it had ever been used on a surface vessel.
this thread is crossing from the sublime to the ridiculous, FAST. 55kts???
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
No way Midway could anywhere near 35, much less thirty, especially with the stabilizing bulges added in her senior years.
I have it on good authority from various MMs and BTs with whom I'd served who'd steamed the Midway and Coral Sea who stated 32 knots was possible on both of those boats, but the boilers were nearly out of air and smoking black. (I suppose the same was also possible aboard the FDR, but I was a west coast sailor.)
I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Originally Posted by safariman
I do tend to fit in well wherever I go in person.
Originally Posted by Fireball2
The campfire is the most outside exposure I get. No TV, no newspaper.
32 is certainly reasonable. Problem was, they installed these huge bulges on Midway in her later years and the parasitic drag was significant.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I asked a retired chief how fast his aircraft carrier went. He replied that he couldn't tell me, but fast enough to get a ticket just about anywhere.
Originally Posted by BrentD
I would not buy something that runs on any kind of primer given the possibility of primer shortages and even regulations. In fact, why not buy a flintlock? Really. Rocks aren't going away anytime soon.
Don't know if its been mentioned here, but 30 or so years ago, a US nuclear carrier was being shadowed by a Soviet Alfa class sub. The US skipper decided to show the Alfa some "tricks" and opened up his speed; the Alfa kept up, so he increased his speed; again the Alfa kept up; again the US carrier increased speed to a "very high level" (according to reports). The Alfa then just opened up his throttle and left the carrier in his wake, causing much consternation in US Navy circles. I heard this from a neighbor when I was living in Virginia Beach (he was a nuclear carrier skipper).
I used to know this fellow that was on subs from the 60's through the 90's. He hinted that there was some sort of lubricating system that would exude a substance that would dramatically enhance a sub's ability to slip through the water on an emergency basis. I wonder if y'all had heard of it, and if it had ever been used on a surface vessel.
The Navy experimented with double hulled ships in the late 1970's and early '80's; the space between the hulls was hollow and high-pressure air was pumped into the space. Small holes in the outer hull would allow bubbles to escape and flow around the hull, thus "lubricating" the hull/water interface and reducing friction. This had a two-fold effect - increasing speed and/or reducing fuel consumption.
The big drawback was increased hull noise as the bubbles surfaced and the compressor noise was detectable.
I used to know this fellow that was on subs from the 60's through the 90's. He hinted that there was some sort of lubricating system that would exude a substance that would dramatically enhance a sub's ability to slip through the water on an emergency basis. I wonder if y'all had heard of it, and if it had ever been used on a surface vessel.
The Navy experimented with double hulled ships in the late 1970's and early '80's; the space between the hulls was hollow and high-pressure air was pumped into the space. Small holes in the outer hull would allow bubbles to escape and flow around the hull, thus "lubricating" the hull/water interface and reducing friction. This had a two-fold effect - increasing speed and/or reducing fuel consumption.
The big drawback was increased hull noise as the bubbles surfaced and the compressor noise was detectable.
As I recall, they ditched the concept for subs, but continued to experiment with in on surface vessels.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
32 is certainly reasonable. Problem was, they installed these huge bulges on Midway in her later years and the parasitic drag was significant.
If I recall correctly, the bulges (sponsons) were intended to increase buoyancy as the Midway became heavier with heavier aircraft, heavier equipment modifications, etc. While they did increase buoyancy, they also resulted in the ship becoming less stable in heavy seas and rolling increased.
I used to know this fellow that was on subs from the 60's through the 90's. He hinted that there was some sort of lubricating system that would exude a substance that would dramatically enhance a sub's ability to slip through the water on an emergency basis. I wonder if y'all had heard of it, and if it had ever been used on a surface vessel.
The Navy experimented with double hulled ships in the late 1970's and early '80's; the space between the hulls was hollow and high-pressure air was pumped into the space. Small holes in the outer hull would allow bubbles to escape and flow around the hull, thus "lubricating" the hull/water interface and reducing friction. This had a two-fold effect - increasing speed and/or reducing fuel consumption.
The big drawback was increased hull noise as the bubbles surfaced and the compressor noise was detectable.
As I recall, they ditched the concept for subs, but continued to experiment with in on surface vessels.
Yes, I once had a business partner who was the contractor's project manager on the surface ship project.
32 is certainly reasonable. Problem was, they installed these huge bulges on Midway in her later years and the parasitic drag was significant.
If I recall correctly, the bulges (sponsons) were intended to increase buoyancy as the Midway became heavier with heavier aircraft, heavier equipment modifications, etc. While they did increase buoyancy, they also resulted in the ship becoming less stable in heavy seas and rolling increased.
I flew off the Midway in the '80,'82 timeframe before they put the sponsons on her. She was notorious for a "Dutch Roll" when seas got a bit rough so in addition to the deck moving up and down, it would wallow left and right too...it could cause some severe vertigo and chasing of lineup, especially at night.
The American engineers came up with the idea of the sponsons at the waterline to act sort of like outriggers, thereby helping to stabilize any rolling moment.
The Japanese engineers said the extra weight that far from the centerline would cause more inertia for any rolling motion.
The American engineers said, "no it won't." The Japanese engineers said, "yes it will." "No it won't!" "yes it will!
The Japanese engineers finally gave up.
They put the sponsons on and guess what? The rolling and "Dutch Roll" got a LOT worse.
NRA Life,Endowment,Patron or Benefactor since '72.
The Navy experimented with double hulled ships in the late 1970's and early '80's; the space between the hulls was hollow and high-pressure air was pumped into the space. Small holes in the outer hull would allow bubbles to escape and flow around the hull, thus "lubricating" the hull/water interface and reducing friction. This had a two-fold effect - increasing speed and/or reducing fuel consumption.
The big drawback was increased hull noise as the bubbles surfaced and the compressor noise was detectable.
Hard to believe they would be stupid enough to try it. Bubbles are real bad if you are trying to be quiet.
It sounds like a method of boundary layer control used on aircraft. Some airplanes will have small pores in the skin in certain areas where small amounts of bleed air from the engines are pumped through to break up the boundary layer, thus reducing drag.
The boundary layer on an aircraft (or sub/ship hull) is the area right next the skin where at a microscopic level the air or water kind of "sticks" to the skin. If you can break up that "stickiness" then you can cut down on a lot of the drag so you can go faster with less power.
32 is certainly reasonable. Problem was, they installed these huge bulges on Midway in her later years and the parasitic drag was significant.
The 32 knot capability was less than ten years before decommissioning. And as I stated, at that point the boilers were nearly out of air, meaning that wouldn't have been a normal operating condition for the engineering plant.
I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Originally Posted by safariman
I do tend to fit in well wherever I go in person.
Originally Posted by Fireball2
The campfire is the most outside exposure I get. No TV, no newspaper.
Hard to believe they would be stupid enough to try it. Bubbles are real bad if you are trying to be quiet.
Um, no..
Even the Razorback had the (at the time, new) prairie masker system which generated those microscopic bubbles to quiet the noise.. It worked too.
We were on training ops outside SD with some destroyers and it was getting close to the end. They had little trouble tracking us for the most part (WWII subs are NOT really quiet) and the Cap'n wanted to get home and have a brewski - so he gave the order to fire up the masker.
All of sudden we 'disappeared' from those destroyers, surfaced just outside 1-SD when they were still 50+ miles out and tied up an hour later.. Them destroyer boys were pizzed. We weren't 'supposed to do that'..
Cap'n basically said, "tough chit"...
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
Alfas were FAST but like most Soviet stuff, crap. It was SO noisy, we could pick them up just about every time they put to sea.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
As a goal, an aircraft carrier should be able to do at least 40 knots because it needs that airspeed across its deck to launch planes. The USS Midway was capable of that in the late 70s although you'd think she was coming apart. I'm sure the nuke ships are capable of much more.
No way Midway could anywhere near 35, much less thirty, especially with the stabilizing bulges added in her senior years. As far as "wind", sure you can generate your own wind, but depending on aircraft launch weight, 25kts is a good rule of thumb.
Nimitz Class carriers have only TWO reactors. Enterprise has eight, she was the first nuke carrier and what they did there was install 8 SSN reactors and BTW she was the fastest of all our carriers, because of her hull SHAPE which really plays a big part in determining realistic attainable speeds. I can tell you that I saw 36 kts on NIMITZ.. j
Truth.
It takes 10 knots of wind to make a whitecap and that is good flying weather on a carrier.
I launched 2 planes off the Kennedy while at anchor in Hurghada, Egypt. Any guesses as to which airframes?
Departed NS Mayport FL, in JFK one calm morning with the full wing aboard. I launched in an A-7E with ship doing around 5 Kts just as we passed the breakwater. Light jet, but still impressive kick in the pants from Cat 1. Hell of a lot of fun!
Hard to believe they would be stupid enough to try it. Bubbles are real bad if you are trying to be quiet. [/quote]Pretty much the opposite, bleed air from the turbines make the bubble layer to mask acoustics signature. Apparently works pretty well as they put a lot of money into them to ensure they work.
S-3 if memory serves was the only jet certified to launch whilst at anchor and even downwind. I've done the downwind thing and yeah, hell of a kick in the ass from the CAT!>
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
S-3 if memory serves was the only jet certified to launch whilst at anchor and even downwind. I've done the downwind thing and yeah, hell of a kick in the ass from the CAT!>
That was one of the aircraft I kicked off at anchor in Hurghada during Desert Storm, the other was a Hawkeye. In the middle of the war we were down to 2 cats and launching alpha strikes off 2 cats was difficult at best. We anchored off Hurghada to bring in the VRT and Tech Reps to expedite getting us back in the fight.Can't remember the importance of needing to get those 2 birds of the deck though. Supposedly a COD and Hawkeye can free deck but I never saw it happen.
I wonder what they set the cat at for a S-3 downwind launch? I would worry a Tomcat stroke might rip the launch bar/nose gear off and sling it in the water.
We did a lot of SUCAP during Desert Storm. One of our DHs took out an Iraqi Patrol Boat with a D-704 Buddy Store when the idiot right seater selected the wrong weapon station and another squadron destroyed Saddam's boat (converted DE) with a Maverick. All we needed was 10KT excess, which makes for a hell of a shot!
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
S-3 if memory serves was the only jet certified to launch whilst at anchor and even downwind. I've done the downwind thing and yeah, hell of a kick in the ass from the CAT!>
"Flanker Ops" (fly at anchor)
NRA Life,Endowment,Patron or Benefactor since '72.
It sounds like a method of boundary layer control used on aircraft. Some airplanes will have small pores in the skin in certain areas where small amounts of bleed air from the engines are pumped through to break up the boundary layer, thus reducing drag.
The boundary layer on an aircraft (or sub/ship hull) is the area right next the skin where at a microscopic level the air or water kind of "sticks" to the skin. If you can
break up that "stickiness" then you can cut down on a lot of the drag so you can go faster with less power.
The F-4 N's and J's had both leading edge and trailing edge BLC on the leading edge slats and the flaps to energize the boundary layer to move it faster. It allowed us to fly slower w/o stalling. It also created the distinctive howling noise you'd hear from a jet in the landing pattern.
NRA Life,Endowment,Patron or Benefactor since '72.
I spent 24 years in the Navy and never had anything to do with anything other than carriers and big deck gators. When I retired I took a job working on DDG's and I will never forget the first time I went into the MMR. I looked around for about 5 minutes and said "who is the silly bastard that decided to put jet engines on a boat? If we light the afterburners can this sumbitch pop a wheelie?" Never had a clue what ran those tin cans in the entire 24 years.
I spent 24 years in the Navy and never had anything to do with anything other than carriers and big deck gators. When I retired I took a job working on DDG's and I will never forget the first time I went into the MMR. I looked around for about 5 minutes and said "who is the silly bastard that decided to put jet engines on a boat? If we light the afterburners can this sumbitch pop a wheelie?" Never had a clue what ran those tin cans in the entire 24 years.
And yet another example of your meeting my expectations of your intelligence: not much.
I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Originally Posted by safariman
I do tend to fit in well wherever I go in person.
Originally Posted by Fireball2
The campfire is the most outside exposure I get. No TV, no newspaper.
Hard to believe they would be stupid enough to try it. Bubbles are real bad if you are trying to be quiet.
Pretty much the opposite, bleed air from the turbines make the bubble layer to mask acoustics signature. Apparently works pretty well as they put a lot of money into them to ensure they work. [/quote]
Tridents work a little different and a LOT quieter.
35 plus when I was on temporary duty on the JFK. It was the only Nimitz class that wasn't a nuke(thank you Jimma Carter).
Uh, the JFK was commissioned in 1968. Jimmy Carter wasn't in office until 1977.
You are right about that... I know it was supposed to be a nuke but politics got in the way of the propulsion.I've been on a few carriers and don't remember that there was much difference than the Nimitz class ships.
---------------------------------------- I'm a big fan of the courtesy flush.
) 28 years celebrating here in Idaho.
![[Linked Image]](http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr288/Bwnci/welsh-flag-large-anim.gif)
