Military FAQ thread
- Thread starter rommel
- Start date
The_Zergling
Junior Member
Technically the US doesn't actually *give* Israel all of its modern weaponry, but what actually goes on is that Israel gets huge amounts of aid from the US, most of which is used to buy weapons. So in a sense, yes the US does give Israel weapons for free.
joshuatree
Captain
Re: Aircraft Carriers
All of these are great ideas. Also shows the diversity in thoughts on what second life an ex-carrier can live. But I like to play devil's advocate just to spice up the discussion.
Life as a commando ship would work but it appears there's already plenty of assets in that arena. Don't LHDs in the USN already play the role of commando ship? And also, I thought one of the primary roles for the latest LCS program would be a littoral ship that can insert commandos and associated equipment?
As for disaster relief ship, that's a viable option though I wouldn't put it under FEMA's control, they currently have zero credibility with the American public. Of course, we were discussing with the assumption of funding as not being an obstacle but if we factor in reality, would two or three hurricane prone states have enough funding to finance such a ship?
Speaking of ships like the Forrestal as being too stripped down to be worthy of refurbishment. Wouldn't that actually be ideal? I assume carriers end their useful lives not because the hull has deteriorated to unserviceable levels, but usually it is the equipment on board that has been used up. To refurbish the equipment or to install new equipment would not justify the costs vs building a new carrier. So if one were to refurbish an ex-carrier for other uses, wouldn't it being stripped down actually be better? You would want to install new propulsion systems anyway to simplify and reduce crew requirements. An ex-carrier that would be refurbished for second line military duty or civilian use would have no need for four shafts and associated machinery rooms.
One other use I can think of for a carrier like the Forrestal or the JFK would be a floating medical facility. I think this would be of great use specifically to the state of Hawaii. The majority of Hawaii's population reside on the island of Oahu so the other islands with much smaller populations such as Maui, Hawaii, Kauai usually don't have large medical facilities, hard to justify the associated costs vs small pop base. And this actually has become an issue because people who live on these islands usually need a medevac to Oahu. I think it would work really well to have a floating medical facility that simply tours around these islands. Then it would make financial sense because the floating medical facility would service the combined populations of Kauai, Maui, Hawaii, Molokai, and Lanai.
All of these are great ideas. Also shows the diversity in thoughts on what second life an ex-carrier can live. But I like to play devil's advocate just to spice up the discussion.
Life as a commando ship would work but it appears there's already plenty of assets in that arena. Don't LHDs in the USN already play the role of commando ship? And also, I thought one of the primary roles for the latest LCS program would be a littoral ship that can insert commandos and associated equipment?
As for disaster relief ship, that's a viable option though I wouldn't put it under FEMA's control, they currently have zero credibility with the American public. Of course, we were discussing with the assumption of funding as not being an obstacle but if we factor in reality, would two or three hurricane prone states have enough funding to finance such a ship?
Speaking of ships like the Forrestal as being too stripped down to be worthy of refurbishment. Wouldn't that actually be ideal? I assume carriers end their useful lives not because the hull has deteriorated to unserviceable levels, but usually it is the equipment on board that has been used up. To refurbish the equipment or to install new equipment would not justify the costs vs building a new carrier. So if one were to refurbish an ex-carrier for other uses, wouldn't it being stripped down actually be better? You would want to install new propulsion systems anyway to simplify and reduce crew requirements. An ex-carrier that would be refurbished for second line military duty or civilian use would have no need for four shafts and associated machinery rooms.
One other use I can think of for a carrier like the Forrestal or the JFK would be a floating medical facility. I think this would be of great use specifically to the state of Hawaii. The majority of Hawaii's population reside on the island of Oahu so the other islands with much smaller populations such as Maui, Hawaii, Kauai usually don't have large medical facilities, hard to justify the associated costs vs small pop base. And this actually has become an issue because people who live on these islands usually need a medevac to Oahu. I think it would work really well to have a floating medical facility that simply tours around these islands. Then it would make financial sense because the floating medical facility would service the combined populations of Kauai, Maui, Hawaii, Molokai, and Lanai.
joshuatree
Captain
Re: Aircraft Carriers
Still yet, another thought. What about refurbishing the JFK as an operational carrier for NATO? Considering she's just been decommissioned, refurbishing her wouldn't be hard. But under NATO, the USN doesn't have to pay for the costs. It would give NATO more assets to use. One of the issues I've read is that usually smaller NATO members can't provide assistance in certain areas. With a NATO carrier, smaller members like Poland or Norway can help with enforcing No-Fly Zones, etc., with a little more ease.
Still yet, another thought. What about refurbishing the JFK as an operational carrier for NATO? Considering she's just been decommissioned, refurbishing her wouldn't be hard. But under NATO, the USN doesn't have to pay for the costs. It would give NATO more assets to use. One of the issues I've read is that usually smaller NATO members can't provide assistance in certain areas. With a NATO carrier, smaller members like Poland or Norway can help with enforcing No-Fly Zones, etc., with a little more ease.
Solid Fuel anyone?
Hi,
Something just pop up in my mind, I am wondering if it was feasible to use solid fuel as the basic fuel for fighters? It seemed feasible since the motor used in missiles that are intercontinental could make use of solid fuel.
Just a thought, might be a load of rubbish though.
Thanks for some input.
Hi,
Something just pop up in my mind, I am wondering if it was feasible to use solid fuel as the basic fuel for fighters? It seemed feasible since the motor used in missiles that are intercontinental could make use of solid fuel.
Just a thought, might be a load of rubbish though.
Thanks for some input.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Re: Solid Fuel anyone?
I don't think you can control a solid fuel burn. Once you start it you can't do anything until it burns out. You're basically turning a fighter into a missile. The only thing it'll do is give the fighter a boost and only for a short distance since it can't carry much solid fuel.
They do have solid fuel pods (there's name that I just can't remember) for aircraft like transport planes to lift heavy loads and take off on short runways.
I don't think you can control a solid fuel burn. Once you start it you can't do anything until it burns out. You're basically turning a fighter into a missile. The only thing it'll do is give the fighter a boost and only for a short distance since it can't carry much solid fuel.
They do have solid fuel pods (there's name that I just can't remember) for aircraft like transport planes to lift heavy loads and take off on short runways.
Chinese Spitfires?
Hello,
I understand that the Chinese made official requests for spare parts for Supermarine Spitfire aircraft and wondered if there is any information about which mark they flew and how were they obtained?
My best guess is that the machines would be ex-Soviet aircraft and would have served with both Nationalist China and the Peoples' Liberation Army Air Force.
Anybody know for sure or have photos?
Gary
Hello,
I understand that the Chinese made official requests for spare parts for Supermarine Spitfire aircraft and wondered if there is any information about which mark they flew and how were they obtained?
My best guess is that the machines would be ex-Soviet aircraft and would have served with both Nationalist China and the Peoples' Liberation Army Air Force.
Anybody know for sure or have photos?
Gary
Ex-Japanese Seaplane - Jake?
Hello,
Robert Miekesh mentions in his book about Communist Chinese Air Power that an ex-Japanese seaplane operated by the People's Liberation Army Air Force was downed by the United States 7th Fleet as the Americans pushed into the Sea of Japan at the outbreak of the Korean War.
Has anyone any idea as to what type of seaplane that might have been, its markings and who the crew were? My best guess is it was a Jake.
Many thanks,
Gary
Hello,
Robert Miekesh mentions in his book about Communist Chinese Air Power that an ex-Japanese seaplane operated by the People's Liberation Army Air Force was downed by the United States 7th Fleet as the Americans pushed into the Sea of Japan at the outbreak of the Korean War.
Has anyone any idea as to what type of seaplane that might have been, its markings and who the crew were? My best guess is it was a Jake.
Many thanks,
Gary