We have a new submarine

[jimothy]

G'kar said:

Jimothy, were you MUSL/BAe Systems or whatver name is now being used?

Marconi Underwater Weapons group in Waterlooville, on the test team for only a few months admitidly. Still got my Spearfish logo'd parker ball point somewhere...

[G'kar]

jimothy said:

G'kar said:

Jimothy, were you MUSL/BAe Systems or whatver name is now being used?

Marconi Underwater Weapons group in Waterlooville, on the test team for only a few months admitidly. Still got my Spearfish logo'd parker ball point somewhere...

Did you know a chap that shared his name with a former Man U manager?

[jimothy]

G'kar said:

jimothy said:

G'kar said:

Jimothy, were you MUSL/BAe Systems or whatver name is now being used?

Marconi Underwater Weapons group in Waterlooville, on the test team for only a few months admitidly. Still got my Spearfish logo'd parker ball point somewhere...

Did you know a chap that shared his name with a former Man U manager?

I wouldn't know the name of any Man U managers, sorry...

[G'kar]

jimothy said:

G'kar said:

jimothy said:

G'kar said:

Jimothy, were you MUSL/BAe Systems or whatver name is now being used?

Marconi Underwater Weapons group in Waterlooville, on the test team for only a few months admitidly. Still got my Spearfish logo'd parker ball point somewhere...

Did you know a chap that shared his name with a former Man U manager?

I wouldn't know the name of any Man U managers, sorry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Manchester_Un...

[Shar2]

It's about thime these boats started to come into service. At least they seem to be properly fitted out, unlike the T45's which, whilst looking fantastic, have had almost all the original weapons fit deleted because of lack of funds.

Oh! and stop having a go at the Invincible class ships. Yes they are a lot smaller than the yank carriers, but they were designed for different ops. The USN was always very impressed with the Anti-sub capabilites of the ships and helios. Since it was our job to keep enemy subs from their CBG's, (at least in the exercises we were on), they were always pretty thankful at our successes.

[jimothy]

G'kar said:

jimothy said:

G'kar said:

jimothy said:

G'kar said:

Jimothy, were you MUSL/BAe Systems or whatver name is now being used?

Marconi Underwater Weapons group in Waterlooville, on the test team for only a few months admitidly. Still got my Spearfish logo'd parker ball point somewhere...

Did you know a chap that shared his name with a former Man U manager?

I wouldn't know the name of any Man U managers, sorry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Manchester_Un...

None of the names ring a bell, sorry. It was a fair few years ago though.

[polus]

Kuroblack350 said:

Bushmaster said:

Go on then, what is Vertical Build?



[Gets notebook and pencil out to jot it all down and sell to the Chinese]

Sections of the boat are constructed vertically, rather than the traditional horizontal method, it makes it a shed load easier to install the fixtures, pipework etc, as you can lower into the sections. The sections are then flipped, and connected. It also means that you can use the manufacturing space better.

[Kuroblack350]

polus said:

Kuroblack350 said:

Bushmaster said:

Go on then, what is Vertical Build?



[Gets notebook and pencil out to jot it all down and sell to the Chinese]

Sections of the boat are constructed vertically, rather than the traditional horizontal method, it makes it a shed load easier to install the fixtures, pipework etc, as you can lower into the sections. The sections are then flipped, and connected. It also means that you can use the manufacturing space better.

That's the Devonshire Dock Hall - you can see most of the boat there, although it's more likely that all four boats are in there to some degree. Hard to believe but the Vanguard Class would easily fit in the corner with enough room to build another few...

Edited by Kuroblack350 on Friday 12th December 16:31

[Greg_D]

Dirty Boy said:

America left Britain Right

what surprises me is the relative compactness of fighting vessels compared to commercial vessels, the nimitz class aircraft carrier is 97,000 tonnes gross, whereas a moderately large cruise ship is approaching 150,000 tonnes (Royal Caribbean has a 200,000+ tonne vessel in build at the mo.)

Greg

[S7Paul]

Greg_D said:

Dirty Boy said:

America left Britain Right

what surprises me is the relative compactness of fighting vessels compared to commercial vessels, the nimitz class aircraft carrier is 97,000 tonnes gross, whereas a moderately large cruise ship is approaching 150,000 tonnes (Royal Caribbean has a 200,000+ tonne vessel in build at the mo.)

Greg

That would be because the Nimitz only has to carry aircraft, helicopters, bombs, etc., whereas the cruise ship has to accommodate American tourists, and you know how big they are!

[Bushmaster]

S7Paul said:

Greg_D said:

Dirty Boy said:

America left Britain Right

what surprises me is the relative compactness of fighting vessels compared to commercial vessels, the nimitz class aircraft carrier is 97,000 tonnes gross, whereas a moderately large cruise ship is approaching 150,000 tonnes (Royal Caribbean has a 200,000+ tonne vessel in build at the mo.)

Greg

That would be because the Nimitz only has to carry aircraft, helicopters, bombs, etc., whereas the cruise ship has to accommodate American tourists, and you know how big they are!

Be interesting to know the weight of a nuclear fuel system compared to the weight of fully laden tanks of bunker oil or whatever cruise ships burn these day.

[DrTre]

S7Paul said:

That would be because the Nimitz only has to carry aircraft, helicopters, bombs, etc., whereas the cruise ship has to accommodate American tourists, and you know how big they are!

That's not to say the cruise ships couldn't take note of a few carrier innovations...instead of ferrying the passengers to shore in tenders they could fire them using steam powered catapults.

Cheers for the thread guys.

[Tyre_Tread]

Greg_D said:

America left Britain Right

Come on guys, you should all know that it doesn't matter how big it is, its what you do with it that counts.

[Bushmaster]

You mean it's not the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean?

[Snake the Sniper]

Bushmaster said:

You mean it's not the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean?

Nearly, it's all about how hard you row the boat!

[tonyvid]

pablo said:

AngryS3Owner said:

castrolcraig said:

bbc reporting that MOD has confirmed the 2 new supercarriers are to be delayed by at least 2 years......

Tossers, not cutting VAT and ordering them would have done more for the economy, just think of the number of jobs and suppliers that go into one of them!

or rather production will start as planned but the delivery date has been put to the right by two years to move it in line with JCA...so, start date the same, delivery date two years later...everyone understand?

some people should get the facts straight before ranting and raving...

Maybe the whole thing is already behind schedule and it is one way of covering it over....

[S7Paul]

tonyvid said:

pablo said:

AngryS3Owner said:

castrolcraig said:

bbc reporting that MOD has confirmed the 2 new supercarriers are to be delayed by at least 2 years......

Tossers, not cutting VAT and ordering them would have done more for the economy, just think of the number of jobs and suppliers that go into one of them!

or rather production will start as planned but the delivery date has been put to the right by two years to move it in line with JCA...so, start date the same, delivery date two years later...everyone understand?

some people should get the facts straight before ranting and raving...

Maybe the whole thing is already behind schedule and it is one way of covering it over....

Well, it certainly hasn't progressed as far as it should have, given the time & money that's already been pumped into the programme. Or you could take the view that since it's a major UK defence programme, the chances are that it'll be late anyway (so why not plan accordingly). Mind you, it's looking like the carriers will still be ready before the aircraft are available.

[Turbotabby]

Greg_D said:

Dirty Boy said:

America left Britain Right

what surprises me is the relative compactness of fighting vessels compared to commercial vessels, the nimitz class aircraft carrier is 97,000 tonnes gross, whereas a moderately large cruise ship is approaching 150,000 tonnes (Royal Caribbean has a 200,000+ tonne vessel in build at the mo.)

Greg

The cruise ship's figure of circa 150,000 tonnes is its Gross Tonnage, which is not actually its 'weight', but a measurement of its enclosed volume. The Nimitz displacement is its actual weight. The Freedom of the Seas actual displacement is supposed to be around 80,000 tonnes, so it is infact 20% lighter than the aircraft carrier, fat yanks included! This makes sense, if you consider the height of these cruise ships, if they did make use of special construction methods and materials, on the upper decks, their handling would be decidedly 205 GT1 1.9 on ice.

[boxster9]

how about these 'home made' submarines for comparison, made by a terrorrrist organisation known as the LTTE..can't imagine that any of these would would have worked.

http://www.defence.lk/picturegallery/picc.asp?tfil...