Re: Oh so that's what a carrier with fast jets looks like!
Posted: 30 May 2011, 15:19
Well you need to leave them for a while before you cut them up. Not unless you want your workmen to glow in the dark 
Classic British Flight Sim
The home of Classic British Freeware for Microsoft Flight Simulator
https://cbfsim.co.uk/cbfs_bb/
Oh so that's what a carrier with fast jets looks like!
Page 3 of 5
Re: Oh so that's what a carrier with fast jets looks like!
Posted: 30 May 2011, 15:28
yeah ...several thousand years
Re: Oh so that's what a carrier with fast jets looks like!
Posted: 30 May 2011, 16:46
The problem with taking the Enterprise or any of the Nimitz class boats is that you'd need ~1/6th of the RN's manpower to crew the thing. The QE class have been designed to run with a crew of 600 because there's lots of automation etc. and it's designed in, I don't think you could retrospectively lean man a CVN!
Incidentally speaking to an ex-submariner mate, he said that the hulls of the old submarines in Rosyth and Plymouth are classified as low level nuclear waste, hence the disposal problem, the reactors themselves aren't the problem.
Incidentally speaking to an ex-submariner mate, he said that the hulls of the old submarines in Rosyth and Plymouth are classified as low level nuclear waste, hence the disposal problem, the reactors themselves aren't the problem.
Re: Oh so that's what a carrier with fast jets looks like!
Posted: 30 May 2011, 19:17
Hmmm...yep, you're right - the required manning levels didn't occur to me.SkippyBing wrote:The problem with taking the Enterprise or any of the Nimitz class boats is that you'd need ~1/6th of the RN's manpower to crew the thing. The QE class have been designed to run with a crew of 600 because there's lots of automation etc. and it's designed in, I don't think you could retrospectively lean man a CVN!
Re: Oh so that's what a carrier with fast jets looks like!
Posted: 31 May 2011, 04:54
Well, if we gave you the Enterprise, you'd keep the reactors and you'd use them (I'd hope). Incidentally, they're actually submarine reactors, so they're planned to be disposed of in the same was submarine ones are - by burying them after defueling.
As it is, sadly, Enterprise will be one of the first US Navy Ships not to be available as a museum after decomissioning as the decontamination process will result in too much of the structure being compromised. It's unfortunate that the first nuclear-powered carrier will also be the first not to be able to be kept as a museum. Sadly, it also means that most likely none of the Nimitz-class carriers will ever become museums either.
As it is, sadly, Enterprise will be one of the first US Navy Ships not to be available as a museum after decomissioning as the decontamination process will result in too much of the structure being compromised. It's unfortunate that the first nuclear-powered carrier will also be the first not to be able to be kept as a museum. Sadly, it also means that most likely none of the Nimitz-class carriers will ever become museums either.
Re: Oh so that's what a carrier with fast jets looks like!
Posted: 31 May 2011, 16:27
They'll be naming one after his son one day; but it will only ever be based in Texas!Paul K wrote:USS George H. W Bush, just to save people googling CVN 77
Pretty damned impressive too, even without Tomcats.
Re: Oh so that's what a carrier with fast jets looks like!
Posted: 31 May 2011, 17:25
AndyG wrote: They'll be naming one after his son one day; but it will only ever be based in Texas!
I wouldn't name a rowing boat after that dolt.
Re: Oh so that's what a carrier with fast jets looks like!
Posted: 01 Jun 2011, 00:19
you just insulted the word dolt.
Re: Oh so that's what a carrier with fast jets looks like!
Posted: 01 Jun 2011, 01:59
What???airboatr wrote:you just insulted the word dolt.
Re: Oh so that's what a carrier with fast jets looks like!
Posted: 01 Jun 2011, 04:11
By either account, it's my story and I'm sticking to it.
