I do value the discussion, but not as it is framed. It has been put to the group that we have the choice of spending a set chunk of money on A submarine, or an aircraft carrier. It doesn't balance that way though, because budgets are different, crews are different, missions are different, and capabilities are different.

A balanced force has both. The better discussion is not an either-or proposition, but rather a debate on what the balance of a combination of both should be.

Doing 30 knots remaining undetected to anyone i consider it fast yes, but if you think you can compare a sub with an F/A 18 well... :roll:

Maybe you should re-read the original thread. It was between a Virginia Class sub (cost $2.6 billion US) and a B-2 Stealth bomber (approx. cost $2 billion US). ;)

and the legend still lives... ;) A CVN makes 30kts. Maybe a bit more :)

No. I think a CVN has to go as fast as it's slowest assets i.e. 30 knots. Left on it's own, I think a Carrier can reach 40 knots. 4 screws etc...

I have personally "paced" a CVN (Carl Vinson) at about 36kts while in a helo, we had a Photog aboard with us taking pics of the fleet.

The actual top speed is secret. So you have to read between the lines. Here's a post I found on one forum which gives a pretty good idea of what this ship is capable of:

Quote:

" The top speed of an air craft carrier (or any ship for that matter) is determined by many factors. How the steam is generated is just one, and perhaps one of the less significant factors that determine top speed. Screw design and hull shape may be more critical, in that respect the nuc carriers are identical to the last remaining conventional Carrier, the USS JFK. I would bet that there is little difference in the top speed of the Kennedy and say the Enterprise, which is of the same generation and very similar design. I served aboard the JFK for 2 years ('71-'73) so am a little bit familiar with the operations of a carrier. First of all I do not recall much concern about doing a "dragster" race to top speed. It is very rare for a carrier to come to a full stop in the open sea. I only saw it once or twice in the time I was aboard (btw, of the 24 months I was aboard we spent 15months deployed to the Med. so I did spend significant time at sea!) When we did get under way from a dead stop I would guess we were at cruising speed (somewhere around 20kts ) in about 10 min. It should be well known that a carrier (any modern carrier) can do 30kts with out breaking a sweat. During air ops we cruised into the wind to give the planes 30kt of airspeed, we could create a 30kt wind if needed. Further an aircraft carrier can do 30kts in any sea condition short of a full hurricane. One of our high speed runs occurred as we were leaving the North Atlantic in heavy sea conditions, the Capitan tired of the Russian cruiser tailing us. He cranked it up and walked away leaving the poor cruiser and our destroyer escorts far behind, fighting the 10ft + seas. During the high speed runs you could feel the whole ship vibrating and the decks became noticeably warmer as they probably had to bring additional boilers on line to maintain the speed. Once again from cruising to top speed took another 10-15min. So my guess for a dead stop to top speed would be more like 20-30min. I do not think that the source of the steam will have a tremendous effect on this, since the hull shape and drive trains from turbine to screw are nearly identical. As a side note, while aboard the Kennedy I served with a fellow who in civilian life was a mechanical engineer working for the Newport News ship yards, he had been working on the USS Nimitz before joining us. It seems that the common design tactic was to go to the drawings for the Kennedy and simply copy them when ever possible. Now if you are talking from a cold ship start to top speed perhaps the nucs would have an advantage. but that is not a very realistic condtion as the only time that the JFK went cold was when it went into the yards for refurb. The boilers are always on, generating, if nothing else, electricity and water (fresh and hot) .

So it's pretty safe to assume a CVN would reach 40 knots. :up:

One or two good subs could take out a fleet of carriers and their escorts if they lack sub protection of their own. Case closed, a carrier without subs is just another target. Carriers are also very vulnerable to attack from other task forces and especially large air formations lobbing cruise missles at them. Subs are not vulnerable at all. :rock:

The biggest issue is stealth however. You could ask the chinese or Russians or any other sizeable country where are carrier task forces are and they could tell you within a few hundred miles. Ask them where our subs are and the best they could do is shrug. When it comes to gathering intel or inserting Spec Ops teams this is critical.:yep:

Actually, it doesn't. It is highly doubtful it can do 40 knots (or much better than what they think it can do) simply because of how the power requirements increase geometrically with speed. And this article suggests nothing to the contrary.

Quote:

How the steam is generated is just one, and perhaps one of the less significant factors that determine top speed.

Actually, it arguably has almost no importance. How the thrust is generated affects ACCELERATION, not top speed - as in why we went to Gas Turbine.

Quote:

should be well known that a carrier (any modern carrier) can do 30kts with out breaking a sweat. During air ops we cruised into the wind to give the planes 30kt of airspeed, we could create a 30kt wind if needed.

No one said you can't. The power curve is such that if we assume flank is say 32, 30 is only like 60-80% power, which arguably isn't breaking a sweat.

Quote:

Further an aircraft carrier can do 30kts in any sea condition short of a full hurricane.

It helps because the ship is so large, so it is less affected by the waves.

Kazuaki...I hope you realise how absurd you sound? I didn't write that!!!!...I was quoting someone who served on Carriers. So yeah, ok, what experience have you got to back up your arguments? :hmm:

Oh and....you conveniantly forgot that swimsalot paced a carrier at 36 knots. :up:

Please....some people should just read posts better. :nope:

edit: The reason I put it was "absurd" is because you mixed what I said (your first quote) with the piece of text I quoted from....making it seem like it was I who had written it all. So yes...I said the first bit, and you can contradict me all you want, because I've never served on a ship, let alone a CVN. But to contradict all the rest, written by someone who served for years on Carriers is a bit pretentious on your part. ;)

He said about 36 kts. Being that is an estimate from an aircraft that is likely lloking at airspeed, not to mention probably has no idea of what water currents were, that carrier could have easily been only doing 30 kts in reality.

I can't say I have been on a carrier at max speed, I have been plot coordinater doing TMA on a few that were fleeing after seeing the flares launched to indicate a simulated hostile weapons launch. I never had to use the 40 kt speed strip. The only time I used that strip was for TMA on a torpedo or on an Alfa.:|\\

Pretty much as rip said. Accurately analyzing speed is a bit tough in an aircraft.

I figured I made it clear enough. Furthermore, you will notice whether it came from you or someone, I was not disputing the observations, but your inference from them:

The man did not say that he ever saw the ship hit 40. He basically just said the ship can easily hit 30. You used that to infer the ship can make 40 if it can "easily" hit 30. Of course, the real trick is the nature of the power-speed curve. In terms of engine power, 75% of 33 knots is about 30.

Ok, Rip, but "..about 36 knots" is closer to 40 then 30. ;) This coupled with the fact that the sailor who served aboard various Carriers said it can "...reach 30 knots without pulling a sweat" leads me to believe it's more likely to reach 40 then 30.

This is a quote from an official source (governmental/military) on the CVN's speed:

"The carrier's two nuclear reactors give her virtually unlimited range and endurance and a top speed in excess of 30 knots."

So, it's already established she can do MORE than 30 knots. :yep:

But how MUCH more? :hmm:

Ok, now I am going to give you solid, undeniable proof that a CVN can reach 40+ knots. You may have heard of the USS Enterprise? You know...the first nuclear carrier? Well, someone had the bright idea of fitting 4 nuclear reactors to it. In trials, by using only 2 reactors powering the 4 shafts, they got her up to 40 knots before abandoning the speed run due to excessive vibration. That's when they decided to go with 2 reactors.

Don't believe me? Ask Tom. No, not Tom Cruise, Tom Clancy. How does he know? Hmmm...:hmm: Maybe an admiral told him when they used HMS Enterprise to film Hunt for Red October? ;)

Anything else guys? :know:

The only reason you'd think that is the more likely solution is ignorance of the laws of the power-speed curves, which dictate exorbitant costs in SHP (thus fuel burn and power requirements) for extra knots at high speed, and in the opposite direction, a speed that is only 2-3 knots away from flank can be maintained or reached "without pulling a sweat".

Not much more.

The first problem with this sea story is that, well, Enterprise had 8 reactors. As for two Enterprise reactors being possibly enough to fully saturate 280000HP, well, it took Nimitz's two then brand-new (and much larger than Enterprise's) reactors to produce 260000HP.

Kazuaki...despite what Wiki says, and it might just be technicalities, but I've always known the Enterprise to have 4 reactors (one for each shaft). And I'm willing to go along with Tom on that.

Though we've made one step forward, because first off you and Rip and Amizaur were trying to make out the CVN could only do 30 knots. At least you are now convinced it can do more. That's a starting point. :yep:

Sea story? I suggest you read this book:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/04...CLZZZZZZZ_.gif

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...0&Go.y=0&Go=Go



Say what you want about Tom. But he gets invited to spend a week on a CVN, a nuclear sub and to go on a trip with Force Recon. Not many people can say that they have...so I'm more willing to believe him then someone on a forum. ;)