If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   "'Live long and prosper,' they said and laughed. 'Scotty, I need more power,' they said and laughed. Well, I've got a destroyer, and who's laughing now?"   (seattlepi.com) divider line 119
    More: Amusing, live long and prosper, Starship Enterprise  
•       •       •

15367 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Nov 2013 at 1:58 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



119 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
DAR [TotalFark]
2013-11-25 12:21:25 PM
It's to bad this Capt Kirk was too junior to have skippered the the Enterprise (CVN-65) while she was still active........k/dar
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-11-25 12:37:02 PM
The number of sailors needed to stand watch will be reduced through the use of cameras and video monitors that show what's going on outside.

Too bad it will burn and sink due to lack of damage control the first time a seagull crashes into a window.
 
2013-11-25 01:26:41 PM

ZAZ: The number of sailors needed to stand watch will be reduced through the use of cameras and video monitors that show what's going on outside.

Too bad it will burn and sink due to lack of damage control the first time a seagull crashes into a window.


I'd hate to see them try and deal with a sustained engine room fire or some of the other creative ways a warship can kill its own crew.
 
2013-11-25 01:29:13 PM
Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.
 
2013-11-25 02:03:34 PM

Tr0mBoNe: ZAZ: The number of sailors needed to stand watch will be reduced through the use of cameras and video monitors that show what's going on outside.

Too bad it will burn and sink due to lack of damage control the first time a seagull crashes into a window.

I'd hate to see them try and deal with a sustained engine room fire or some of the other creative ways a warship can kill its own crew.


Yeah, phrases like 'automated firefighting' and 'exterior cameras instead of watchstanders' make me twitch a lot.  Wonder how long it will be before the automatic firefighting gases somebody.
 
2013-11-25 02:05:14 PM
They are. They're still laughing.
 
2013-11-25 02:05:39 PM

Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.


but it will mount a rail gun and or a ship-based laser....now if only we could figured out what a photon torpedo does
 
2013-11-25 02:05:57 PM

Tr0mBoNe: ZAZ: The number of sailors needed to stand watch will be reduced through the use of cameras and video monitors that show what's going on outside.

Too bad it will burn and sink due to lack of damage control the first time a seagull crashes into a window.

I'd hate to see them try and deal with a sustained engine room fire or some of the other creative ways a warship can kill its own crew.


And the number of sailors standing watch will be further reduced so that they can clean the heads.
 
2013-11-25 02:06:31 PM

Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.


Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?
 
905
2013-11-25 02:07:49 PM

Bacontastesgood: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?


Unicorn farts and navy coffee.
 
2013-11-25 02:07:49 PM

Magorn: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

but it will mount a rail gun and or a ship-based laser....now if only we could figured out what a photon torpedo does


It explodes.

A lot.
 
2013-11-25 02:08:33 PM

Bacontastesgood: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?


Oil, same as everything else in the Navy that isn't a supercarrier or submarine.
 
2013-11-25 02:10:26 PM

905: Bacontastesgood: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?

Unicorn farts and navy coffee.



2 Rolls-Royce Marine Trent-30 gas turbines driving Curtiss-Wright generators.
With deisel as an emergency back-up.
 
2013-11-25 02:11:31 PM
$3.5 billion?  For a destroyer?  I know it's mostly an experimental ship, but that still seems pretty ridiculous.  The U.S. has 60-70 destroyers; I really hope the price comes down before their warranties expire.
 
2013-11-25 02:11:56 PM
Just gotta make sure you got the right Capt. Kirk.
i229.photobucket.com
And check those around you for goatees.
 
2013-11-25 02:12:08 PM
I must admit, that ship sounds and looks rather cool. It will be interesting to see if it's innovations works out in the real world.
 
2013-11-25 02:12:57 PM

Bacontastesgood: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?


Lots of sea men.
 
2013-11-25 02:13:34 PM

Bacontastesgood: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?


Why would they make such a small vessel be nuclear powered? That'd be like putting a tank engine in a Ford Festiva.
 
2013-11-25 02:14:08 PM

ZAZ: The number of sailors needed to stand watch will be reduced through the use of cameras and video monitors that show what's going on outside.

Too bad it will burn and sink due to lack of damage control the first time a seagull crashes into a window.


Except now you won't have to evacuate watchstanders before flooding the space with firefighting agents. And you won't have to send in hose teams into a pitch black space to fight a fire. Sounds pretty f*cking good to me.


RangerTaylor: Wonder how long it will be before the automatic firefighting gases somebody.


There are already CO2 flooding systems on ships for paint lockers and such. This won't be much different.
 
2013-11-25 02:15:41 PM

Magorn: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

but it will mount a rail gun and or a ship-based laser....now if only we could figured out what a photon torpedo does


This

This isn't so much a new line a ships as a field active test vessel. It will have its sea trials knocked out and most of the bugs found by the time tech reaches the level they want to mount a rail gun or an energy weapon on a ship.

When that stuff goes into production, should be easier/cheaper to implement.

And no, the Navy doesn't really need those toys...
 
2013-11-25 02:15:52 PM
I can't believe its not nuclear powered.  WTH?

But its a candidate for the newest phaser....errr laser weapon, and it carry a hefty photon torpe...errr missile capacity.  So tis a pretty impressive ship.  But the 3.5 billion price tag is nuts.  Id rather see a lot more smaller vessels using new technology then a large one.
 
2013-11-25 02:17:00 PM

firefly212: Bacontastesgood: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?

Why would they make such a small vessel be nuclear powered? That'd be like putting a tank engine in a Ford Festiva.


Like the 80's/90's Mustangs?
 
2013-11-25 02:20:19 PM

Greywar: I can't believe its not nuclear powered.  WTH?


Why is this hard to believe? The last surface combatant to be nuke powered was a cruiser way back when I was still in and the effort wasn't worth the reward.
 
2013-11-25 02:21:09 PM

firefly212: Bacontastesgood: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?

Why would they make such a small vessel be nuclear powered? That'd be like putting a tank engine in a Ford Festiva.


I don't see why they wouldn't, considering all the smaller nuclear powered submarines that we have.
 
2013-11-25 02:24:13 PM
Episode 1: Can Captain Kirk save his ship from Kernel Panic?

For 3.5 billion, I'm guessing it has a lot of one-off technology they intend to either mass produce or dump overboard, depending on how things go at sea.

With a railgun, it's an obvious nuke ship.  My only guess as to why it isn't actually nuclear powered is that it's so new we have no real idea how things will go and we don't want to leave a state-of-the-art powerplant laying around in the shallows for someone to swipe after she goes down because of something unforseen.
 
2013-11-25 02:27:38 PM

Moodybastard: Magorn: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

but it will mount a rail gun and or a ship-based laser....now if only we could figured out what a photon torpedo does

This

This isn't so much a new line a ships as a field active test vessel. It will have its sea trials knocked out and most of the bugs found by the time tech reaches the level they want to mount a rail gun or an energy weapon on a ship.

When that stuff goes into production, should be easier/cheaper to implement.

And no, the Navy doesn't really need those toys...


well, given no other nation on earth even HAS a Navy worthy of the name.....No we certainly don;t NEED anything besides the 7 Carrier groups
 
2013-11-25 02:27:56 PM
Because of automation and technology, the number of sailors needed to run it will be nearly half the current Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

Replacing people with computers? Yeah, sounds like instead of "Tiberius," the Captain's callsign should be "Dunsel," amiright?

/Live-long-and-prosper high five!
 
2013-11-25 02:30:09 PM

RangerTaylor: Tr0mBoNe: ZAZ: The number of sailors needed to stand watch will be reduced through the use of cameras and video monitors that show what's going on outside.

Too bad it will burn and sink due to lack of damage control the first time a seagull crashes into a window.

I'd hate to see them try and deal with a sustained engine room fire or some of the other creative ways a warship can kill its own crew.

Yeah, phrases like 'automated firefighting' and 'exterior cameras instead of watchstanders' make me twitch a lot.  Wonder how long it will be before the automatic firefighting gases somebody.


You are probably complaining about how that newfangled fuel oil will get all over the place without a battalion of stokers to shovel it.
 
2013-11-25 02:31:34 PM

DAR: It's to bad this Capt Kirk was too junior to have skippered the the Enterprise (CVN-65) while she was still active........k/dar


He might still be around for CVN-80 to be launched.  That would be fitting - he's running a test bed ship for the kinds of combat systems I'd expect to be standard issue around the time the new Enterprise gets launched.  Wouldn't want someone who wasn't experienced taking out a platform like that for a shakedown cruise.  Plus he has carrier group experience.  So a nice natural fit.  And I'm pretty sure the Navy brass has a sense of humor.
 
2013-11-25 02:31:56 PM

CJHardin: firefly212: Bacontastesgood: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?

Why would they make such a small vessel be nuclear powered? That'd be like putting a tank engine in a Ford Festiva.

I don't see why they wouldn't, considering all the smaller nuclear powered submarines that we have.


Subs are nuclear because it gives them the ability to remain submerged and fairly stealthy for extended periods. A similarly-sized surface vessel has no need for any of the advantages a nuclear reactor gives a submarine given some of the cons involved.
 
2013-11-25 02:33:05 PM
Is 1000 how many points you get when you sink it?
 
2013-11-25 02:33:36 PM

905: Bacontastesgood: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?

Unicorn farts and navy coffee.


Navy coffee isn't allowed by the Geneva Convention.
 
2013-11-25 02:35:49 PM

Hector Remarkable: Just gotta make sure you got the right Capt. Kirk.
[i229.photobucket.com image 260x195]
And check those around you for goatees.


How come evil Kirk is not sporting a goatee or scar?
 
2013-11-25 02:36:26 PM

studebaker hoch: Episode 1: Can Captain Kirk save his ship from Kernel Panic?

For 3.5 billion, I'm guessing it has a lot of one-off technology they intend to either mass produce or dump overboard, depending on how things go at sea.

With a railgun, it's an obvious nuke ship.  My only guess as to why it isn't actually nuclear powered is that it's so new we have no real idea how things will go and we don't want to leave a state-of-the-art powerplant laying around in the shallows for someone to swipe after she goes down because of something unforseen.


Why nuclear? Gas turbines are just fine for power generation. Inexpensive, lower maintenance, fewer parts, no radiation, faster online/offline time. These things aren't going to be floating around by themselves. They will have the floating gas stations with them. Battlegroups operate as a unit, generally.
 
2013-11-25 02:40:28 PM

CheatCommando: RangerTaylor: Tr0mBoNe: ZAZ: The number of sailors needed to stand watch will be reduced through the use of cameras and video monitors that show what's going on outside.

Too bad it will burn and sink due to lack of damage control the first time a seagull crashes into a window.

I'd hate to see them try and deal with a sustained engine room fire or some of the other creative ways a warship can kill its own crew.

Yeah, phrases like 'automated firefighting' and 'exterior cameras instead of watchstanders' make me twitch a lot.  Wonder how long it will be before the automatic firefighting gases somebody.

You are probably complaining about how that newfangled fuel oil will get all over the place without a battalion of stokers to shovel it.


I just remember all of the ways the submarine tried to kill me combined with the terrible uptime of Navy computer systems.  I can only imagine the terror floating about the ship while the ITs are x-bosing the firefighting server.
 
2013-11-25 02:40:59 PM

firefly212: Bacontastesgood: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?

Why would they make such a small vessel be nuclear powered? That'd be like putting a tank engine in a Ford Festiva.


Because theres a lot of discussion about mounting some energy intensive weapons like laser systems on these boats.  I'm kinda surprised they didn't go nuclear and also integrate the active armor systems like they are with the carriers.  Literally it reminds me of the energized armor plates from the Enterprise series.
 
2013-11-25 02:41:12 PM
Meh. I was involved with this ship design way back when it was SC-21 (Surface Combatant 21st Century). Original design was way cooler.

/Navy Hipster
//tech dead end anyway.
///Stealth aircraft are a hole in the open air, thus invisible to radar
////Stealth ships are a hole in the wave clutter, thus can be detected
\\\Navy Stealth will never be as useful as airborne stealth
\\helps a little
\automation helps A LOT
 
2013-11-25 02:44:17 PM
We've come full  circle triangle in ship design.

imageshack.com
imageshack.com
 
2013-11-25 02:44:52 PM

give me doughnuts: 905: Bacontastesgood: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?

Unicorn farts and navy coffee.


2 Rolls-Royce Marine Trent-30 gas turbines driving Curtiss-Wright generators.
With deisel as an emergency back-up.


So, they've found a way to harness the offgassing from the shiat tank? Genius! And, probably they can just feed the sailors an extra hearty serving of beans at every meal and increase gas production!
 
2013-11-25 02:46:56 PM
Sorry not active armor.  the correct term is "dynamic armor", and is a possible upgrade listed for the new aircraft carriers.  Keep in mind-the new carriers can only use half the power that they generate, the idea being that the extra power buffer is needed for new future weapons, defenses, and sensors.
 
2013-11-25 02:48:52 PM

CJHardin: firefly212: Bacontastesgood: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

Yes, I know the joke you are making, but is this thing seriously not nuclear powered?  What does the power plant run on?

Why would they make such a small vessel be nuclear powered? That'd be like putting a tank engine in a Ford Festiva.

I don't see why they wouldn't, considering all the smaller nuclear powered submarines that we have.


I can lay it out for you.

Standard power plant for marine applications is turbine or Diesel.  Either of those burns a rather large amount of atmospheric oxygen to operate.  When you are under water, it is rather difficult to burn oxygen from the atmosphere, as there isn't any.  (or rather it's locked up in water)

So for subs they use nuclear power, which is messy and expensive and difficult to maintain/replace/upgrade, due to all that radiation exposure the parts undergo.

For surface ships, they tend to forgo the expense/difficulty of nuclear power because a turbine running a generator produces equivalent power, for much much lower cost and much much easier maintenance.

Fuel is of course an issue, but that's true on both sides here, and the difference being, you can pick up marine diesel just about anywhere in the world, and you can get refined fuels for the turbine in most civilized places.  Getting nuclear fuel rods is a bit more difficult (also, we're running out).
 
2013-11-25 02:50:01 PM

Greywar: Sorry not active armor.  the correct term is "dynamic armor", and is a possible upgrade listed for the new aircraft carriers.  Keep in mind-the new carriers can only use half the power that they generate, the idea being that the extra power buffer is needed for new future weapons, defenses, and sensors.


It needs ablative armor.
 
2013-11-25 02:51:01 PM

ArkPanda: $3.5 billion?  For a destroyer?  I know it's mostly an experimental ship, but that still seems pretty ridiculous.  The U.S. has 60-70 destroyers; I really hope the price comes down before their warranties expire.


We're only making 3 Zumwalts. IIRC, we're continuing on using the Arleigh Burke class destroyers to fill out the rest of the destroyer fleet. While we had planned on a dozen or so Zumwalts, the thing just turned out to be too expensive. If they end up being used in actual combat they'll probably get tagged for roles where that added stealth comes in handy. Otherwise it's just going to be kind of a test bed class of ship- not that it's not a real combat vessel, it's just seeing how some of that stuff works for real.

Whatever follows it and replaced both Zumwalt and Arleigh Burke classes will probably use a great deal of what we learn with this thing.

studebaker hoch: With a railgun, it's an obvious nuke ship.  My only guess as to why it isn't actually nuclear powered is that it's so new we have no real idea how things will go and we don't want to leave a state-of-the-art powerplant laying around in the shallows for someone to swipe after she goes down because of something unforseen.


Nope. As others pointed out, we've discovered nuclear propulsion is really only worthwhile if you need the very specific advantages you get from it. Submarines with nuke plants don't need to come up to snorkle and don't need refueling. Carriers don't get soot all over the airplanes on the deck and don't need to waste space for its own bunker fuel. For smaller surface combatants the costs don't outweigh the drawbacks- gas turbine engines are plenty capable for ships that size.
 
2013-11-25 02:53:53 PM

lizyrd: I don't see why they wouldn't, considering all the smaller nuclear powered submarines that we have.

Subs are nuclear because it gives them the ability to remain submerged and fairly stealthy for extended periods. A similarly-sized surface vessel has no need for any of the advantages a nuclear reactor gives a submarine given some of the cons involved.


Kahabut: I can lay it out for you.

Standard power plant for marine applications is turbine or Diesel.  Either of those burns a rather large amount of atmospheric oxygen to operate.  When you are under water, it is rather difficult to burn oxygen from the atmosphere, as there isn't any.  (or rather it's locked up in water)

So for subs they use nuclear power, which is messy and expensive and difficult to maintain/replace/upgrade, due to all that radiation exposure the parts undergo.

For surface ships, they tend to forgo the expense/difficulty of nuclear power because a turbine running a generator produces equivalent power, for much much lower cost and much much easier maintenance.

Fuel is of course an issue, but that's true on both sides here, and the difference being, you can pick up marine diesel just about anywhere in the world, and you can get refined fuels for the turbine in most civilized places.  Getting nuclear fuel rods is a bit more difficult (also, we're running out).


Makes sense.  Never really considered it too much.  My uncle was a nuke tech on one of the fast attack subs but he never really talks about it (probably can't anyways).  I was an Army guy so those floaty things were alien to me. The more you know!
 
2013-11-25 02:55:42 PM
ZAZ: Too bad it will burn and sink due to lack of damage control the first time a seagull crashes into a window.

That issue came up early in the design. How do you save the ship with such a small crew? I proposed a souped up version of a product that already existed - The Yachtsaver . A module you mounted on the wall that contained a CO2 tank and inflatable bag. If your Yacht started to sink, you left the room and triggered the bag. It would inflate and prevent the space from filling up with water. It actually works as advertised and has saved Yachts from sinking.

I wanted hundreds of them mounted all over the inside of the ship. Not only would they prevent spaces from flooding, they could suppress fires. Bag inflates, pushes air out of the space, then bag hits hot stuff, melts through, releases CO2 to completely finish off the fire.

Sadly, this idea and many others bit the dust as the contractors concentrated on delivering a ship that met the minimal requirements for least upfront cost to the contractor. Fark lifecycle costs. They can make up any happy horseshiat they want to make that issue go away. Sigh

/wonders if Starfleet will have these problems
 
2013-11-25 02:59:55 PM

Moodybastard: Magorn: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

but it will mount a rail gun and or a ship-based laser....now if only we could figured out what a photon torpedo does

This

This isn't so much a new line a ships as a field active test vessel. It will have its sea trials knocked out and most of the bugs found by the time tech reaches the level they want to mount a rail gun or an energy weapon on a ship.

When that stuff goes into production, should be easier/cheaper to implement.

And no, the Navy doesn't really need those toys...


I disagree, if the US Navy is going to remain technologically dominant then it does need these new ships. Even if they prove deadly, even if they prove ineffective in their current incarnation. They need test beds for new technology. Also to keep shipbuilders employed. Ship building, like tanks and planes, is a skill set that you need to keep if you want to stay militarily dominant.
 
2013-11-25 03:00:20 PM

Magorn: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

but it will mount a rail gun and or a ship-based laser....now if only we could figured out what a photon torpedo does


They light up stuff so you can see where you're shooting.....
 
2013-11-25 03:02:33 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: Greywar: I can't believe its not nuclear powered.  WTH?

Why is this hard to believe? The last surface combatant to be nuke powered was a cruiser way back when I was still in and the effort wasn't worth the reward.


If the National Ignition Laboratory ever manages to make fusion work those plants should have enough a high enough benefit to cost ratio to be worth putting into boats smaller than subs and carriers.
 
2013-11-25 03:04:48 PM

Magorn: Sybarite: Pfft, not even a nuclear wessel.

but it will mount a rail gun and or a ship-based laser....now if only we could figured out what a photon torpedo does


Combines matter and anti-matter into the kaboom.
 
2013-11-25 03:09:01 PM

PsyLord: Hector Remarkable: Just gotta make sure you got the right Capt. Kirk.
[i229.photobucket.com image 260x195]
And check those around you for goatees.

How come evil Kirk is not sporting a goatee or scar?


That's good Kirk in Evil Spock's universe.  Good Spock has Evil Kirk in jail in the good universe. And it might only go for Vulcans or lesser ranked crew members..
 
Displayed 50 of 119 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report