Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Bye Bye USS ForrestalPosted: November 9th, 2013, 2:40 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
BB1987 wrote:
More then ten, i would say twenty (1993-2013). and anyway Forrestall is (was, already?) nearly 60 years old.
If Canada would ever consider such possibility i think the only "viable" choice would be the former USS Kennedy (CV-67), as she is some 13 years younger.
None of the CVs the US has retired were in good shape when they left service, and just because the hulls have been floating doesn't mean they were good for anything but scrap.

_________________
๐Œ๐€๐“๐‡๐๐„๐“- ๐‘ป๐’ ๐‘ช๐’๐’ˆ๐’Š๐’•๐’‚๐’•๐’† ๐’‚๐’๐’… ๐’•๐’ ๐‘บ๐’๐’๐’—๐’†


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Bye Bye USS ForrestalPosted: November 9th, 2013, 6:07 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
I for one am at least glad the steel will be returned to the U.S. economy rather than sent uselessly to the bottom of the ocean.

Plus explain to me how Canada can use a supercarrier when even the Chinese and Russians can by stretch of the definition barely field one each.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: Bye Bye USS ForrestalPosted: November 9th, 2013, 7:39 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4126
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
klagldsf wrote:
Plus explain to me how Canada can use a supercarrier when even the Chinese and Russians can by stretch of the definition barely field one each.
The only thing separating the Canadian Navy and the Russian or Chinese Navies is experience. The RCN used a fixed wing aircraft carrier in the past and so it had some (albeit very little) experience of carriers' operations

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tagger 1-1
Post subject: Re: Bye Bye USS ForrestalPosted: November 9th, 2013, 7:41 pm
Offline
Posts: 27
Joined: November 9th, 2013, 5:06 am
Location: BC
klagldsf wrote:
I for one am at least glad the steel will be returned to the U.S. economy rather than sent uselessly to the bottom of the ocean.

Plus explain to me how Canada can use a supercarrier when even the Chinese and Russians can by stretch of the definition barely field one each.
Clearly, you have no knowledge of the requirements of the Canadian forces. I will point out that Canada has more coastline than the US and China (combined), and a carrier (of any sort) would be the right thing for Canada to operate.

I personally will shortly be drawing FORRESTAL as well as KENNEDY in order to properly show them in Canadian colors. Good call BB1978 on CV-67 KENNEDY, by the way, I had not thought of that ship as a potential candidate for a Canadian force upgrade proposal.

S/F Tagger sends


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tagger 1-1
Post subject: Re: Bye Bye USS ForrestalPosted: November 9th, 2013, 7:42 pm
Offline
Posts: 27
Joined: November 9th, 2013, 5:06 am
Location: BC
Novice wrote:
klagldsf wrote:
Plus explain to me how Canada can use a supercarrier when even the Chinese and Russians can by stretch of the definition barely field one each.
The only thing separating the Canadian Navy and the Russian or Chinese Navies is experience. The RCN used a fixed wing aircraft carrier in the past and so it had some (albeit very little) experience of carriers' operations
I am glad to see that this forum isn't entirely full of maniacs.

The Canadian forces have the experience to operate a carrier, but sadly not the political will or the budget. Take a look at the ARROW program as an example of government waste and lack of prudence affecting a good, solid program. Shameful.

S/F Tagger sends


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Bye Bye USS ForrestalPosted: November 9th, 2013, 8:08 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
wow wow wow..... you are saying you are going to draw some USN carriers? please do them in USN livery as well, because they are now severely lacking in the archive. the people who want to and can draw USN carriers are currently all pretty busy, so it is not going fast. I would check the forums though, as IIRC at least the forrestal was on someones worklist (and possibly the kitty hawks too, but I haven't heard about it in a long time so my memory is not clear on it and it might be that the progress is stopped, and you might be able to take over an work in progress drawing)

in case you will be doing this, I hereby offer you my assistance for parts, details and maybe even some work on the tricky parts, so these drawings will come out great, as the USN carriers should be represented.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Bye Bye USS ForrestalPosted: November 9th, 2013, 8:12 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9101
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
I can clean up reference drawings for other member, but they need to scale it down for me, because I am not going to do that.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tagger 1-1
Post subject: Re: Bye Bye USS ForrestalPosted: November 9th, 2013, 9:54 pm
Offline
Posts: 27
Joined: November 9th, 2013, 5:06 am
Location: BC
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... 13#p104313

I offer this post as an example of the level of clarity and detail i hope to achieve with FORRESTAL and CV-67. Stay tuned.

S/F Tagger sends


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Bye Bye USS ForrestalPosted: November 10th, 2013, 1:23 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Tagger 1-1 wrote:
Clearly, you have no knowledge of the requirements of the Canadian forces. I will point out that Canada has more coastline than the US and China (combined), and a carrier (of any sort) would be the right thing for Canada to operate.
Fuck whatever a "budget" or "mission requirement" means my nation deserves supercarriers because coastline and tacticool

- every post complaining about why their country needs supercarriers, summed down to its true points
Novice wrote:
klagldsf wrote:
Plus explain to me how Canada can use a supercarrier when even the Chinese and Russians can by stretch of the definition barely field one each.
The only thing separating the Canadian Navy and the Russian or Chinese Navies is experience. The RCN used a fixed wing aircraft carrier in the past and so it had some (albeit very little) experience of carriers' operations
There are two very fundamental differences between the type of fixed-wing carriers Canada used to operate, and the type of carriers the USN operates now (i.e., "supercarriers," which is why I used that word, very specifically). And those differences boil down to "cost" and "manpower." According to Wikipedia and some quick math, a single Nimitz is worth a whole damn quarter of Canada's. Entire. Military. Budget. And that's before you factor in manpower. Enterprise costs around half a billion dollars just to decommission.

A supercarrier is not under the mission requirements of the Canadian Navy. Supercarriers are not used to patrol coastline. Supercarriers are used to conduct offensive strikes against enemy assets. This is their primary mission.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charybdis
Post subject: Re: Bye Bye USS ForrestalPosted: November 10th, 2013, 9:52 am
Offline
Posts: 1003
Joined: November 8th, 2011, 4:29 am
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Contact: Website
As much as they look cool, super carriers are a total waste of money. The uk is building a couple that won't be ready till 2020 and will probably cost about ยฃ10bn... All paid for by an ever increasing national debt.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 30 posts ]  Return to โ€œOff Topicโ€ | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]