Not at all. Our Ticonderoga cruisers, Burke destroyers, and Perry frigates all use gas turbines. As far as I know, the only naval vessels that are nuclear powered are our aircraft carriers and our submarines.
Most powerful Navy's in the world today?
- Thread starter steveedster
- Start date
Not at all. Our Ticonderoga cruisers, Burke destroyers, and Perry frigates all use gas turbines. As far as I know, the only naval vessels that are nuclear powered are our aircraft carriers and our submarines.
Verbose
Deity
And that is not a relative waste in the sense that the full potential of the carriers can't be used?
Have I hit upon a limit to US resources and military spending-power?
That's not a really good argument, as I believe most Italian sports cars would quickly sink on the ocean.
Disgustipated
Deity
regarding nuke power (I used to run nuke plants on the Enterprise)
The biggest advantage is not having to take up space for millions of gallons of fuel. This space can be used to store more jet fuel (usually a few million gallons). Thus improving operational capability.
The thing about carriers is, they aren't necessarily nuclear so they can go long times without taking on fuel. That isn't true. We did UNREPs like every few days. We liked to keep our JP-5 (jet fuel) tanks topped off for operational reasons, and we liked to have fresh milk.
.
So you guys are confusing carriers with SSBN's which don't need refuelings or don't even need to take on food (iirc they go out with all they need for 3 months).
Carriers still need to refuel for jet fuel and need food supplies. So in this regard, the rest of the fleet does not slow down a carrier. Though sometimes the speed of the frigates may slow down a carrier, since a carrier is one of the fastest ships in the fleet.
Gas turbines on smaller ships are used because they save space, more efficient, and just plain better. Beutiful piece of work. I've seen them up close (but never worked on them).
The biggest advantage is not having to take up space for millions of gallons of fuel. This space can be used to store more jet fuel (usually a few million gallons). Thus improving operational capability.
The thing about carriers is, they aren't necessarily nuclear so they can go long times without taking on fuel. That isn't true. We did UNREPs like every few days. We liked to keep our JP-5 (jet fuel) tanks topped off for operational reasons, and we liked to have fresh milk.
. So you guys are confusing carriers with SSBN's which don't need refuelings or don't even need to take on food (iirc they go out with all they need for 3 months).
Carriers still need to refuel for jet fuel and need food supplies. So in this regard, the rest of the fleet does not slow down a carrier. Though sometimes the speed of the frigates may slow down a carrier, since a carrier is one of the fastest ships in the fleet.
Gas turbines on smaller ships are used because they save space, more efficient, and just plain better. Beutiful piece of work. I've seen them up close (but never worked on them).
from wiki
Speaking of nuclear aircraft carriers, I would just like someone to tell me (hopefully knowing what they are talking about) just exactly how fast maximum/flank speed is, on the Nimitz class vessels, on a calm sea.
-Because, during my time in the Marines I served with a quite a few sailors and Marines that had served on them (older, senior staff enlisted, and officers - not some 19y/o that's full of crap), and they always had some pretty... uh, hard to believe statements as to how fast they could actually go, when responding to a hotspot, at max speed.
I mean, they were talkin' ~55-70+ knots or some crap like that. With the water splashing up onto the deck, at the bow of the ship. Now, I'm sure they built these things to go impressively fast, but come on... what are they really capable of, when they crank the nuke powerplants to max?
I guess they always arrive within a few hours on short notice, anywhere in the world - so that gives you a clue. But come on... 55-70+ knots?!! What should I believe? It's not like they're going to release this kind of info to the public. So, just take the old rule of take what number the military 'officially' gives you (in this case 35+ knots), and double it. What-da-ya know, it fits.
I guess there's no way to really know the specs of the nuclear reactors, and the rest of the propulsion system. It's all classified, and under heavy guard on every ship. All I can say, is that I was a Marine air traffic controller, and my MOS school was NAS Pensacola, where my primary instructor was a Navy E-6 (cool guy) that spend most of his ATC career on carriers. He didn't know for certain, but felt confident they were capable of speeds approaching DOUBLE what they are 'reportedly' capable. -And this jives with numerous other eye witness accounts, from people that have spent time on carriers that I've talked to.
So, are all these people full of crap, or are these ships really capable of "highway speeds", out on the open waters?
-Because, during my time in the Marines I served with a quite a few sailors and Marines that had served on them (older, senior staff enlisted, and officers - not some 19y/o that's full of crap), and they always had some pretty... uh, hard to believe statements as to how fast they could actually go, when responding to a hotspot, at max speed.
I mean, they were talkin' ~55-70+ knots or some crap like that. With the water splashing up onto the deck, at the bow of the ship. Now, I'm sure they built these things to go impressively fast, but come on... what are they really capable of, when they crank the nuke powerplants to max?
I guess they always arrive within a few hours on short notice, anywhere in the world - so that gives you a clue. But come on... 55-70+ knots?!! What should I believe? It's not like they're going to release this kind of info to the public. So, just take the old rule of take what number the military 'officially' gives you (in this case 35+ knots), and double it. What-da-ya know, it fits.
I guess there's no way to really know the specs of the nuclear reactors, and the rest of the propulsion system. It's all classified, and under heavy guard on every ship. All I can say, is that I was a Marine air traffic controller, and my MOS school was NAS Pensacola, where my primary instructor was a Navy E-6 (cool guy) that spend most of his ATC career on carriers. He didn't know for certain, but felt confident they were capable of speeds approaching DOUBLE what they are 'reportedly' capable. -And this jives with numerous other eye witness accounts, from people that have spent time on carriers that I've talked to.
So, are all these people full of crap, or are these ships really capable of "highway speeds", out on the open waters?
regarding nuke power (I used to run nuke plants on the Enterprise)
The biggest advantage is not having to take up space for millions of gallons of fuel. This space can be used to store more jet fuel (usually a few million gallons). Thus improving operational capability.
The thing about carriers is, they aren't necessarily nuclear so they can go long times without taking on fuel. That isn't true. We did UNREPs like every few days. We liked to keep our JP-5 (jet fuel) tanks topped off for operational reasons, and we liked to have fresh milk.
So you guys are confusing carriers with SSBN's which don't need refuelings or don't even need to take on food (iirc they go out with all they need for 3 months).
Carriers still need to refuel for jet fuel and need food supplies. So in this regard, the rest of the fleet does not slow down a carrier. Though sometimes the speed of the frigates may slow down a carrier, since a carrier is one of the fastest ships in the fleet.
Gas turbines on smaller ships are used because they save space, more efficient, and just plain better. Beutiful piece of work. I've seen them up close (but never worked on them).
from wiki
Man, speak of the devil... please respond to my post above! ^
Verbose
Deity
'Course, but the question if for how long they can make flank speed before having to refuel? A nuclear carrier can keep it up almost indefinately.
Though Disgustipated is of course right about the advantage of not having to store propellant for the carrier itself.
And I think you can also store fuel for the escort ships to.
Disgustipated
Deity
I cannot say what our top speed was. It was classified.
And in truth, even though I worked in engineering, I did not know. We don't have a speedometer in the control room (damn I can't remember the name of it). Basically you got the electrical panel, 2 reactor control panels (Enterprise class had 8 reactors- a bit redundent- but they were based off of submarine designs), and the main engine control pannel.
The orders came down from the bridge/pilot house. If they ordered all ahead flank, we gave it to them. But we had no idea how fast the ship was actually going.
And in truth, even though I worked in engineering, I did not know. We don't have a speedometer in the control room (damn I can't remember the name of it). Basically you got the electrical panel, 2 reactor control panels (Enterprise class had 8 reactors- a bit redundent- but they were based off of submarine designs), and the main engine control pannel.
The orders came down from the bridge/pilot house. If they ordered all ahead flank, we gave it to them. But we had no idea how fast the ship was actually going.
Disgustipated
Deity
I'll go into more detail. The specs of the nuclear reactors on the Enterprise are not classified. 108 megawatts X 8 reactors. Some of that steam is used for electrical generation, steam catapults, steam for shipboard services such as heating/cooking and making water. But a good portion of it goes to the main engines (2 steam turbines per shaft) X 4 shafts. Also, the Shaft horsepower is not classified either. I think on those military sites they say it is 70,000 shaft horsepower. Times that by 4 and you get 280,000. Though I'm not sure if you can use that to calculate a top speed (the weight of the ship is 90,000 tons)
I have heard crazy stuff of the Enterprise going 45 knots at one time with special high speed screws (propellers). I'm not sure if I can believe that. I also heard because of a bent shaft (#4 shaft on the Enterprise was bent when it beached in San Fransisco harbour
), and the age of the ship, the top speed was limited, and couldn't go as fast as it used to.
All official numbers for navy ships read 30+ knots.
I think it was around 35 myself, but cannot confirm this. But 40 or maybe 45 doesn't sound unreasonable.
The reactors can go over 100% without shutting down. If we had to, I'm sure we could squeeze 40 maybe 45 knots. Or at least when the ship was new. Other factors influence this. Marine buildup on the hull and screws, how efficiently the steam plant is running etc.
But the reactor power is not what is limiting. Because at those speeds you aren't doing flight operations anyways. So steam isn't needed for the catapults. The limiting factor is the the amount of steam that can enter the main engines with the throttles fully open.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-65-specs.htm
I have heard crazy stuff of the Enterprise going 45 knots at one time with special high speed screws (propellers). I'm not sure if I can believe that. I also heard because of a bent shaft (#4 shaft on the Enterprise was bent when it beached in San Fransisco harbour
), and the age of the ship, the top speed was limited, and couldn't go as fast as it used to. All official numbers for navy ships read 30+ knots.
I think it was around 35 myself, but cannot confirm this. But 40 or maybe 45 doesn't sound unreasonable.
The reactors can go over 100% without shutting down. If we had to, I'm sure we could squeeze 40 maybe 45 knots. Or at least when the ship was new. Other factors influence this. Marine buildup on the hull and screws, how efficiently the steam plant is running etc.
But the reactor power is not what is limiting. Because at those speeds you aren't doing flight operations anyways. So steam isn't needed for the catapults. The limiting factor is the the amount of steam that can enter the main engines with the throttles fully open.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-65-specs.htm
That's about what I expected, but thanks for shedding light where you can. First of all, let me say that I've had a life-long fascination with aircraft carriers (since I was 7, I wanted to be the Captain of one - fell short however
). Basically, the best we can do is go by personal experiences, weighing some more heavily than others (i.e., my instructor I mentioned previously - I hold what he said in high regard, he worked in the tower/(island), and knew a sailors that worked on the bridge, including a helmsman), and try to piece things together.Anyway, I've had the chance to know a lot of sailors/Marines that did various odd jobs on the Nimitz ships (ordnance, lift operators, aircraft mechanics, etc.) and they've all said the same thing... when the ship decides it wants to haul @ss, it's truly something to behold. Like Neptune himself is under the ship, pushing it through the water at an 'unnatural speed'. 60 knots comfortably. Anything more than that... and you're delving into speculation (difficult to be certain).
But, what speed would be necessary, in order to make the cutting of the water at the bow of the ship be such a large size/volume of water, that it would actually splash up onto the deck on a calm sea?
I knew another Navy air traffic controller (spent time on the ship), when we worked together in a tower as civilians. He didn't know the top speed either, but he had some stories that made me awestruck. But whatever - the ship itself is already impressive. I would just like to know what kind of accomplishments mankind is capable of, when it comes to propelling such a ship. A rough idea, anyway. But, it'll probably remain illusive. -Until I actually befriend a helmsman someday, that confides in me. It would be cool to know - but I do respect why it's classified information, and if I really knew, I'd keep it to myself..
We were talking about the F-15 earlier, btw. What it's top speed? "Mach 2.5+"
Always has been. That's all they'll ever tell us.
Pasi Nurminen
Deity
The Nimitz class carriers cannot travel at 60 knots. Their top speed is not classified, it is just upwards of 30 knots. It is not possible to propel such a vessel at 60 knots.
Disgustipated
Deity
yeah I enjoyed aircraft carriers, even though it wasn't my best command. Too many people- waiting too long in the chow line. . But from an engineering standpoint, they fascinate me.
I love these new electromagnetic catapults- I've love to see them up close. I have seen the steam ones. Those are interesting because they need a water break to slow them down when they reach the end. And when they hit, it shakes the entire ship. You learn to sleep through this (though I slept in the back part of the ship). So for me, I had to deal with the arresting gears. Those are noisy. In fact, at one point our temporary berthing was right underneath the flight deck and arresting cables. tough sleeping through that. Eventually the airdales got that berthing, and we moved down to the second deck. Arresting gears will also be upgraded with the Ford class carriers.
These new catapults will save space, and save energy (I think), and save weight, and of course, improve operational capacity of the flight deck.
They are also getting better shitters.. They are doing some kind of vacuum system for the CHT now. So no more seawater for the urinals and shitters. I never liked the thought of seawater going up my ass. No different from swimming I guess.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-65-specs.htm
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=250&ct=4
don't want to get too far off topic.
As for the best navy, we need to discuss what scenario we are talking about. I think as was discussed above, China would be in a world of hurt if they approached the japanese mainland. But I think Japan would be in a world of hurt if they tried to operate off the coast of china.
Very few countries have the ability to project power over long distances. But for the sake of argument we could say the fight takes place in the middle of the pacific or atlantic oceans. Thus the nations air force does not come into play.
. But from an engineering standpoint, they fascinate me. I love these new electromagnetic catapults- I've love to see them up close. I have seen the steam ones. Those are interesting because they need a water break to slow them down when they reach the end. And when they hit, it shakes the entire ship. You learn to sleep through this (though I slept in the back part of the ship). So for me, I had to deal with the arresting gears. Those are noisy. In fact, at one point our temporary berthing was right underneath the flight deck and arresting cables. tough sleeping through that. Eventually the airdales got that berthing, and we moved down to the second deck. Arresting gears will also be upgraded with the Ford class carriers.
These new catapults will save space, and save energy (I think), and save weight, and of course, improve operational capacity of the flight deck.
They are also getting better shitters.
. They are doing some kind of vacuum system for the CHT now. So no more seawater for the urinals and shitters. I never liked the thought of seawater going up my ass. No different from swimming I guess. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-65-specs.htm
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=250&ct=4
don't want to get too far off topic.
As for the best navy, we need to discuss what scenario we are talking about. I think as was discussed above, China would be in a world of hurt if they approached the japanese mainland. But I think Japan would be in a world of hurt if they tried to operate off the coast of china.
Very few countries have the ability to project power over long distances. But for the sake of argument we could say the fight takes place in the middle of the pacific or atlantic oceans. Thus the nations air force does not come into play.
Disgustipated
Deity
yes it is classified. I'll point to this link again. It says all that needs to be said. They estimate it at 35 knots. sounds about right.
But yes, 60 is unreasonable. I think torpedos go that fast, but not ships. edit: just looked up the speed of torpedos. The new ones can go 200 knots! (using supercavitation torps). Cool.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-65-specs.htm
As for water splashing over the bow, we only had that in rough storms. Kind of fun when you are going up a ladder (steep stairs between decks) up in the bow section. Seems like you could just jump and bypass the entire ladder if you timed it just right.
. Yes, even ships that big can move in rough seas. But the guys in the smaller ships make fun of us, and talk like they are real men because they have rougher times in the cruisers and frigates. But we did skirt around a couple hurricanes. Very rough. It was our job to deploy every time a hurricane threatened our home base. Because it's not a good idea for a ship to be tied up during a hurricane. could damage the ship and pier.
You're right. You're... absolutely right. It IS impossible. Certainly NOT the case.
Make sure you continue thinking that (that it's impossible)... along with everyone else. Because if you can't believe it, you'll never expect it.
<break>
Disgustipated, thanks for sharing your experience. As much as I always thought it would be cool to serve on a carrier... along with the high performance stories, I've also heard just as many similar 'it was tough', and 'I could never sleep' stories, similar to yours.
It's essentially a 24/7 airport, operating right over your head. I'd imagine that could get 'tiresome'... no pun intended.Hard work on the ship, too. I knew one E-6, joined the Navy, went on a ship thinking, "ahh, this'll be fun - there can't be much to do out there, it'll be laid back." He soon found out he was in for a RUDE awakening! They work their butts of, out there underway.
Well anyway, we're in good hands. Our military machines don't cease to impress. I myself as an ATC guy knew a few things that I simply can't share about our tactical radar technology - things like how to wirelessly FRY an inbound enemy aircraft's sensory electronics just as if he had been hit by an EMP, before he even knew what hit 'em. I found it to be incredible, and anybody that goes to war with us is in for a few surprises. But, you can't talk about this stuff. Like I say, we're in good hands - that's it.
Pasi Nurminen
Deity
Even aircraft carriers are bound by the laws of physics. Unless the Navy has developed some kind of warp drive that we're not aware of, they cannot travel at 60 knots.
Well I certainly am 100% incapable of proving otherwise, so let's leave it there. And I'm not about to go sign up for another 4 years as a sailor that works in Navy intel, just so I can work my into find out the true top speed, and come back to CFC tell you guys about it.
You seem to be a fan of Oriental culture... isn't there some kind of law, don't underestimate the opposition... or something like that...
Anyway, I digress (and retire) for the evening. Whatever the USN vessels are doing out there, well, that's what they're doing. And God bless 'em.
Good fight, good night.
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=19084
Apparently, an experimental ship, the Sea Fighter, US navy fastest ship, has a top speed higher than 50 knots
Apparently, an experimental ship, the Sea Fighter, US navy fastest ship, has a top speed higher than 50 knots
Winner
Diverse in Unity
1.) United States (stupid question, really)
2.) Japan
3.) UK
4.) France
5.) Russia
6.) China
7.) India
What about Australia?
2.) Japan
3.) UK
4.) France
5.) Russia
6.) China
7.) India
What about Australia?
Similar threads
