U.S.S. Tulsa vs. U.S.S. Oklahoma City

[AquaMan]

I believe that huge hovercraft the Russians have does 70 knts. They better get some speed to outrun that thing.

[heironymouspasparagus]

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.

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.

[sgrizzle]

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.

Sorry, had to beat Griz to the punch.

And it ra-ah-an.. It ran so far a-way-a-ay

[heironymouspasparagus]

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!!

[Conan71]

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.

[Gaspar]

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.

[heironymouspasparagus]

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.

[AquaMan]

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.

[heironymouspasparagus]

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.  

[Gaspar]

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.

[Ibanez]

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.

[heironymouspasparagus]

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'....)

[Hoss]

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.

[heironymouspasparagus]

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!

[Hoss]

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.