I found this to be interesting. Tulsa has not had a ship named after it sense the end of World War II. It was a Patrol Gunboat.
(http://www.tulsahistory.org/learn/photos/uss_tulsab.jpg)
"The USS Tulsa was built at the Charleston S.C. Navy yard, was launched in 1922, commissioned on December 3rd, 1923, and retired after World War II. She was 241 feet from stem to stern, and had a beam of 41' 3", and a displacement of 1270 tons. Her crew consisted of 157 enlisted men, and nine officers. She was one of the last US ships to be outfitted with auxiliary sails."
You can read on from the Tulsa Historical Society at: //www.tulsahistory.org/learn/usstulsa.htm
I found it interesting that there was also a U.S.S. Oklahoma City that was a light cruiser Little Rock class. It was also decommissioned, but it looks like Oklahoma City got a new ship not too long ago, a sub.
(http://www.military-graphics.com/CLG-5.png)
(http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/news/2004/041026_s88-33a_lowrez.jpg)
So where is Tulsa's new ship?
Looks like there will be a new USS Tulsa.
QuoteOn June 6, 2013, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced the construction of the USS Tulsa. USS Tulsa is an Independence-class littoral combat ship and is being built by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala. It will be 419 feet long and have a beam length of 103.7 feet and be capable of operating at speeds in excess of 40 knots.
This is what the Independence-class looks like
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/USS_Independence_LCS-2_at_pierce.jpg)
Quote from: Snowman on September 02, 2013, 09:56:50 PM
Looks like there will be a new USS Tulsa.
This is what the Independence-class looks like
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/USS_Independence_LCS-2_at_pierce.jpg)
Getting a low radar profile makes for some strange looking ships.
Here's a view aft.
Very weird looking indeed.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/US_Navy_100329-N-1481K-293_USS_Independence_%28LCS_2%29_arrives_at_Mole_Pier_at_Naval_Air_Station_Key_West.jpg/1024px-US_Navy_100329-N-1481K-293_USS_Independence_%28LCS_2%29_arrives_at_Mole_Pier_at_Naval_Air_Station_Key_West.jpg)
Cool! It's a floating basketball court. Do you think they'll let us throw up a Thunder decal on it?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 03, 2013, 06:02:28 AM
Cool! It's a floating basketball court. Do you think they'll let us throw up a Thunder decal on it?
I'm guessing your sarcastic donkey knows that's a helo pad. ;D
It's just a floating pad for choppers & Whirlly-Byrds.
Something like that would be perfect for Grand Lake!! Talk about a party barge!!
40 knots my backside....I bet closer to 80!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 03, 2013, 02:38:49 PM
Something like that would be perfect for Grand Lake!! Talk about a party barge!!
40 knots my backside....I bet closer to 80!
With that hull design, I bet it cuts across the water a pretty good rate. The tri-cat design is really cool. It also looks like a jet system instead of props, and it looks shallow in the water sitting still, so it could go almost anywhere.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 03, 2013, 02:38:49 PM
Something like that would be perfect for Grand Lake!! Talk about a party barge!!
40 knots my backside....I bet closer to 80!
My thoughts exactly. And if someone power doosh wants to ski too close...
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on September 03, 2013, 08:26:01 PM
With that hull design, I bet it cuts across the water a pretty good rate. The tri-cat design is really cool. It also looks like a jet system instead of props, and it looks shallow in the water sitting still, so it could go almost anywhere.
Beautiful boat! Here are some pictures - some pretty good of the hull. Found one earlier that I cannot find now - in dry dock. Very cool stuff!!
And everyone knows how I feel about guns...I love the R2D2 gatling gun there...I want one! Could use that to cover the back yard!
https://www.google.com/search?q=independence+class+hull&client=firefox-a&hs=8Fj&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PJQmUsiAO8ii2AWEt4Ag&ved=0CFQQsAQ&biw=1440&bih=708
I think this is the view....
http://defensetech.org/2008/05/02/uss-independence-lcs-2-launched/ (http://defensetech.org/2008/05/02/uss-independence-lcs-2-launched/)
Speaking of ships, I'm doing a tour on this one this weekend.........
http://www.uss-hornet.org/ (http://www.uss-hornet.org/)
this source:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/15/1516.htm
Says these ships can do 47 kts on a sprint, and can top 50 kts.
Propulsion is two gas turbine engines, two diesel propulsion engines and two waterjet engines.
That's the view. Nice.
I still bet it's closer to 80 knots...that thing is just too streamlined to only do 40. And if the big carriers can do way more than that, this little tug has to be faster. Gotta keep up with Mama Carrier, after all....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 04, 2013, 02:03:53 PM
That's the view. Nice.
I still bet it's closer to 80 knots...that thing is just too streamlined to only do 40. And if the big carriers can do way more than that, this little tug has to be faster. Gotta keep up with Mama Carrier, after all....
I don't think there has ever been a navel ship that can get even close to 80 knots. The fastest is about 40 knots. That's damn fast for a giant hunk of armor.
The appearance has more to do with reduced radar signature than streamlining. These new hull designs are created to reflect surface radar at angles that won't return to the receivers, what little signature that does return resembles a large wave or flock of seabirds.
(http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/dc9/flockofseagulls.jpg)
Sorry, had to beat Griz to the punch.
I believe that huge hovercraft the Russians have does 70 knts. They better get some speed to outrun that thing.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 04, 2013, 04:15:43 PM
I don't think there has ever been a navel ship that can get even close to 80 knots. The fastest is about 40 knots. That's damn fast for a giant hunk of armor.
The appearance has more to do with reduced radar signature than streamlining. These new hull designs are created to reflect surface radar at angles that won't return to the receivers, what little signature that does return resembles a large wave or flock of seabirds.
(http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/dc9/flockofseagulls.jpg)
Sorry, had to beat Griz to the punch.
The big carriers do more than 40. They publish 30, but there is that cute little + sign after the number....Norfolk to Suez in what...?? About 4 days or so...that's probably closer to 50 knots...or more. I'm betting on 60 mph +. Have heard the stories from navy guys that the carriers have to do big lazy circles around the rest of the task force, since the rest of the fleet can't keep up....
Makes you wonder why they wouldn't just run a little slower....?? Fleet speed makes it a pretty choice target, though.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 04, 2013, 04:15:43 PM
I don't think there has ever been a navel ship that can get even close to 80 knots. The fastest is about 40 knots. That's damn fast for a giant hunk of armor.
The appearance has more to do with reduced radar signature than streamlining. These new hull designs are created to reflect surface radar at angles that won't return to the receivers, what little signature that does return resembles a large wave or flock of seabirds.
(http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/dc9/flockofseagulls.jpg)
Sorry, had to beat Griz to the punch.
And it ra-ah-an.. It ran so far a-way-a-ay
Quote from: Gaspar on September 04, 2013, 04:15:43 PM
The appearance has more to do with reduced radar signature than streamlining. These new hull designs are created to reflect surface radar at angles that won't return to the receivers, what little signature that does return resembles a large wave or flock of seabirds.
Ship equivalent of the B2 bomber and the F117.
I always liked the first shot at stealth better - the B1. Beautiful plane, but may be biased, 'cause I got to do some work on system used to test it's 'stealthiness'. It's very stealthy...looks like a Cessna 180 - coming at you at 1200 mph!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 06, 2013, 11:52:43 AM
Ship equivalent of the B2 bomber and the F117.
I always liked the first shot at stealth better - the B1. Beautiful plane, but may be biased, 'cause I got to do some work on system used to test it's 'stealthiness'. It's very stealthy...looks like a Cessna 180 - coming at you at 1200 mph!!
Radar jamming equipment isn't the same thing as "stealth" design. It's like comparing an apple to a rock.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 06, 2013, 11:52:43 AM
Ship equivalent of the B2 bomber and the F117.
I always liked the first shot at stealth better - the B1. Beautiful plane, but may be biased, 'cause I got to do some work on system used to test it's 'stealthiness'. It's very stealthy...looks like a Cessna 180 - coming at you at 1200 mph!!
But it only goes about 650 mph. You seem to be doubling all of your numbers.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 06, 2013, 12:29:37 PM
Radar jamming equipment isn't the same thing as "stealth" design. It's like comparing an apple to a rock.
Not radar jamming equipment...yes, I actually do know the difference. Equipment to 'test' the stealthiness...the other stuff done to the plane to make it less visible to radar.
And the B1 had 'introductory' stealth technology that was not jamming equipment. Probably still has it.
Gas,
B-1B goes Mach 1.25 as admitted to by the Air Force - 950 mph. (The B-1A did Mach 2, 1500 mph) That's like the published ship speeds...they all go much faster than admitted to.
Hmm. Its not like Gas to second guess an engineer. His business degree has to trump you H!
Side note. Detroit used to do the same thing. Their engines easily dyno'd at much higher horsepower than specs showed. They even resorted to measuring the hp at the back wheels. The insurance industry frowned on covering 600 hp passenger cars back then.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 06, 2013, 03:09:12 PM
Hmm. Its not like Gas to second guess an engineer. His business degree has to trump you H!
Side note. Detroit used to do the same thing. Their engines easily dyno'd at much higher horsepower than specs showed. They even resorted to measuring the hp at the back wheels. The insurance industry frowned on covering 600 hp passenger cars back then.
Sales and propaganda types always feel they know more than the engineers...that has been the one constant my entire career - after all, we engineers are merely the oompa loompahs of science. And I suspect it must be true, 'cause they always make a lot more money.
I'm just happy that I got to make that particular contribution to the defense and safety of my country - and help keep the guys flying those things as safe as was physically possible at the time. Just one of many thousands who contributed to the plane. (It was a long time ago...80's). Not likely to ever do something as rewarding as that in the commercial world.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 06, 2013, 02:27:45 PM
Not radar jamming equipment...yes, I actually do know the difference. Equipment to 'test' the stealthiness...the other stuff done to the plane to make it less visible to radar.
And the B1 had 'introductory' stealth technology that was not jamming equipment. Probably still has it.
Gas,
B-1B goes Mach 1.25 as admitted to by the Air Force - 950 mph. (The B-1A did Mach 2, 1500 mph) That's like the published ship speeds...they all go much faster than admitted to.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the B2. I should have read closer.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 06, 2013, 02:27:45 PM
Not radar jamming equipment...yes, I actually do know the difference. Equipment to 'test' the stealthiness...the other stuff done to the plane to make it less visible to radar.
And the B1 had 'introductory' stealth technology that was not jamming equipment. Probably still has it.
Gas,
B-1B goes Mach 1.25 as admitted to by the Air Force - 950 mph. (The B-1A did Mach 2, 1500 mph) That's like the published ship speeds...they all go much faster than admitted to.
My cousin who is a tank commander says the same thing about the Abrams. While deployed in Iraq they were rolling across the desert to intercept a Syrian convoy at 70mph. I think the published speed is 40mph.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2013, 03:37:23 PM
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the B2. I should have read closer.
Actually what was in my mind while writing that was the B-1A. Only 4 of those built. By the time they go to building the B-1B, I was already past that point, so didn't get to do anything with that. Next to the B-17, I always thought the B-1 was the 'second' most 'beautiful' designed plane in history. Suitability of form and function coming together in exceptional implementation for purpose. (B-2 is great implementation of function, but the form really isn't that 'pretty'....)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 08, 2013, 10:53:01 PM
Actually what was in my mind while writing that was the B-1A. Only 4 of those built. By the time they go to building the B-1B, I was already past that point, so didn't get to do anything with that. Next to the B-17, I always thought the B-1 was the 'second' most 'beautiful' designed plane in history. Suitability of form and function coming together in exceptional implementation for purpose. (B-2 is great implementation of function, but the form really isn't that 'pretty'....)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to love the simplicity of the B-2. By that, I mean the simplistic appearance. It's by no means a simple machine.
Quote from: Hoss on September 08, 2013, 11:41:51 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to love the simplicity of the B-2. By that, I mean the simplistic appearance. It's by no means a simple machine.
Has an almost ethereal look to it....they do have a pleasing form. Slightly out of proportion due to wingspan vs body length. They are amazing to watch fly, though. Have seen them and B-1's before, near Omaha.
Also had a flight of 7 B-52's fly over me in western OK (panhandle) at VERY low altitude (slow and low - guessing under 1,000 ft)...could count rivets on the fuselage!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 08, 2013, 11:53:53 PM
Has an almost ethereal look to it....they do have a pleasing form. Slightly out of proportion due to wingspan vs body length. They are amazing to watch fly, though. Have seen them and B-1's before, near Omaha.
Also had a flight of 7 B-52's fly over me in western OK (panhandle) at VERY low altitude (slow and low - guessing under 1,000 ft)...could count rivets on the fuselage!
Seen a B-2 take off from International twice. Once I was on on 244 eastbound right by the Drivein. What a spectacle. Loud. Also loved it when the Tank Killers would do drills here (A-10 Warthogs). Those had to be the loudest attack fighter jet I ever heard.
Quote from: Hoss on September 08, 2013, 11:57:11 PM
Seen a B-2 take off from International twice. Once I was on on 244 eastbound right by the Drivein. What a spectacle. Loud. Also loved it when the Tank Killers would do drills here (A-10 Warthogs). Those had to be the loudest attack fighter jet I ever heard.
A-10 Warthog is my absolute favorite plane. It's like the muscle care of aircraft. Heavy armor on the bottom, massive thrust. Brutal!
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10-19990422-f-7910d-518.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 09, 2013, 07:24:00 AM
A-10 Warthog is my absolute favorite plane. It's like the muscle care of aircraft. Heavy armor on the bottom, massive thrust. Brutal!
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10-19990422-f-7910d-518.jpg)
"So we have this kick-donkey gun. How about we build an airplane around it?"
EDIT - lulz, auto censor. Clbuttic
Saw a B1 at TIA. First time I saw a sign that said "cross this rope and you will be shot"
Quote from: sgrizzle on September 09, 2013, 10:31:13 AM
Saw a B1 at TIA. First time I saw a sign that said "cross this rope and you will be shot"
Remember the big TASM airshow two or three years back?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oilerfan/sets/72157623801169167/
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 08, 2013, 11:53:53 PM
Has an almost ethereal look to it....they do have a pleasing form. Slightly out of proportion due to wingspan vs body length. They are amazing to watch fly, though. Have seen them and B-1's before, near Omaha.
Also had a flight of 7 B-52's fly over me in western OK (panhandle) at VERY low altitude (slow and low - guessing under 1,000 ft)...could count rivets on the fuselage!
B-52's on final approach, due to the size, look like they are about to fall out of the sky they look so slow. I used to stay at the Holiday Inn out on East Kellogg in Wichita every few weeks. About 7pm you could count on the B-1's coming in and they just shook the hell out of the building as they went past.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2013, 11:05:51 AM
B-52's on final approach, due to the size, look like they are about to fall out of the sky they look so slow. I used to stay at the Holiday Inn out on East Kellogg in Wichita every few weeks. About 7pm you could count on the B-1's coming in and they just shook the hell out of the building as they went past.
Went to Wichita to interview with Boeing one time decades ago for an avionics job. They had a B-52 fuselage in a hangar where the work was being done, and I got to climb around inside that thing. It was amazing. Very crowded - I know I would not fit in it today...felt tight then - 40 lbs ago....