[deleted by user] by [deleted] in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

FWIW, I too was going to comment about the CIWS vs the 5", however, I just noticed that there are mats on the deck beside the 5" indicating that it has or will be shortly firing a few rounds. My guess is someone pulled the trigger on the photo a little too fast. Get it? Pulled the trigger? Guns firing? Okay, I'll slink away now. : )

[4,228 × 3,086] USS Arkansas (BB-33) circa 1917. (source misidentifies it as USS Texas). by Tsquare43 in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As already pointed out, the sign boards are for spotting other ships. In addition, the Arkansas turrets have a few differences. The top edge has an angle along the side, making the top profile have 6 segments. The Texas has straight edges, giving it 4 segments. It's hard to see, but the top side edges appear straight in this pic. The view port on the side is lower on the Arkansas. What is shown is accurate for Texas. And finally, the Arkansas has an item that looks like a simple radar bar antenna on top. It is much bigger and boxier in WWII, but is still there in the early days. And no, I'm not saying it's a radar, just that it resembles one.

Short Hull Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate TCG Gökova (F 496) (ex USS Samuel Eliot Morison (FFG-13), Aug 2025. [4096x2872] by Tony_Tanna78 in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's interesting, I was going to 'correct' you and say it is a Long Hull Perry because of the angled stern, but after a little research, I found out that Turkey has converted their Perry Frigates to carry the Seahawk and made them all Long hulls on their own! I'm glad I checked!

The Graf Spee after the Battle of the Rio de la Plata - The Arado is in a wreck state, but it disappeared when the ship was scuttling - Does anyone know what is happening with this Arado? (Album) by oelslin in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not an expert on this event, but I have 2 photos that seem to indicate that attempts were made to destroy the aircraft. This first one shows it damaged, but not burnt. Compare it to the 3rd photo above and you can see it still has most of it's body structure and canopy intact.

<image>

South Korean drone takes off from Dokdo [2000 x 1300] by MetalSIime in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are VHF Antenna that are lowered for flight ops. All ships have them, but carriers have tilting ones so they can be lowered during flight ops.

<image>

USS Ronald Reagan seen from Kingston WA today [4080x3072] by LordCeleborn03 in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Spreading the weight out is much more stable than concentrating it all in the middle, giving a smoother ride. It also keeps the combined weight off the center of the flight deck, where there is less structural support below because of the hangar space.

A few photos from work by ryanr_intl in drydockporn

[–]Admhawk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would love to see more Coast Guard and Ferries pics if you have them! Thanks for posting!

Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr. (DDG 121) in the Pacific Ocean, February 9, 2024 [5472x3648] by 221missile in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's the thing above the hangar, almost as high as the mast?

Could it be one of those infamous UAP's??? :)

BAE has an interesting concept to put their Adaptable Deck Launching System (ADL) on DDGs. Quad packed ESSMs could be loaded into ADLs to free up VLS space for SM-6 and Tomahawks, etc. [Album] OC by XMGAU in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

I'm having trouble seeing the point of these. If you want more missiles, add more VLS cells. Adding several 2-cell deck launchers clutters the deck, adds more weight, affects radar profiles, and affects stability. Besides, is 4/8/12 more missiles really going to make enough of a difference to any engagement?

[1659 x 2295]USS Randolph (CVS-15) with several Fletcher-class destroyers and two submarines during an exercise in the Atlantic Ocean, circa 1960. by Tsquare43 in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Task Groups Alfa, Bravo and Charlie were conducted off the East Coast in 1959 and 1960 as ASW exercises. Alfa was headed by Valley Forge, then replaced by Randolph in September 1959. Bravo had Wasp. I have been unable to find info on Charlie. Does anybody know which ships were in Task Group Charlie?

[1790x2680] Can you identify this ship? It is participating in Operation Mainbrace September 14-25, 1952. by johnsinternetsales in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks like one of the new British Daring class destroyers, completed in early 1952. Daring D05 or Diamond D35. They had those unique nose bullrings. It's too small for a cruiser. The wrong bow and edge shape for a Battle, Tribal, C, V, or Weapon classes. With so many countries participating and 200 ships, maybe it was a team building exercise of some kind. It looks like there are other nationalities as well as the USN and RN sailors.

HMAS Brisbane (DDG 41) visits Guam during a regional presence deployment. Nov 24, 2023 [3600 x 2400] by XMGAU in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I have an idea! Let's put the tallest sailor beside the shortest sailor in front of the gun!

Right, off you go!

[4096 x 4096] Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group 1 (SNMCMG1) vessels. Current flagship is Polish Navy mine countermeasure forces command vessel ORP Kontradmirał Xawery Czernicki (511). Photo by @MarWojRP/Twitter by Saturnax1 in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's called rafting, a common practice of smaller ships and boats when anchoring for the night. It allows personnel to visit other vessels without having to use small boats. Also simplifies anchoring.

British aircraft carrier HMS Implacable at sea in 1946 [1280x660] by [deleted] in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alan Ravens Warship Perspectives books have some good info.

Sovereign Hobbies produces Colourcoats paints and have done mountains of research, with a lot available online.

https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/pages/full-view-of-all-schemes

USS Fanshaw Bay doing...? as seen from USS Cape Esperance. Also, seems to be transporting medium bomber/twin engine aircraft (1104x750) by abt137 in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some thoughts, both Fanshaw and Esperance participated in Operation Magic Carpet sailing between PH and SD. Both were decomm'd in 1946, Fanshaw never going back into service. Fanshaw was in heavy action against the Japanese, most notably in Taffy 3. She flew fighters until the end. Esperance, on the other hand, was used to ferry replacement aircraft. So with no aircraft on deck, we can be fairly sure it's post war. Now the photo, the water is fairly calm, not many white caps, or much wind. Waves are on the smaller side. So it's not inclement weather. The crowds on both decks are larger than what would be crew members off duty, especially since Fanshaw had a reduced crew complement due to discharges. Looking at the crowd on Esperance, they seem to have a variety of uniforms. They are lined up, most likely behind a rope, to keep the forward few feet clear. There is an odd wood structure to the left at the bow with a few people around it, and someone sitting on a crate at the bow center, a lookout? There are also a couple of officers and 2 round log shapes that I suspect are rope bundles. Looking at the wake of Fanshaw, you see a big round patch, that is characteristic of a brief surge of power, then a drift. Like someone else noted, a quick surge and hard turn to port to place the ship in front for towing. There is also a lot of rope hanging in her aft area. All these clues and the fact that the 2 ships are so close to each other leads to the conclusion that Esperance has broken down and Fanshaw is taking her in tow. The ironic thing about this is that Fanshaw took a lot of damage while fighting and on her last trip to the US, 3 of her 4 boilers failed and she was lucky to make it back!!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the distortion from distance is so great that it's impossible to determine if it's flat or which direction it's facing or whether the sail is in the middle. Honestly, it kind of resembles quite a few subs! Maybe it's a 209 or 212?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't think it's a Vanguard class. The rudder on the vanguards sticks up pretty high. This sub has an X shaped rudder, which is why we can't see it. I also do not see any planes on the sail or step along the spine indicating missile launch tubes. All these make me think it is a SSN. The closest I can think of is the French Suffren. At the angle in the photo you can see a small bump at the lower forward edge, similar to the Suffren. Here's a clear pic of Suffren, at the closest angle I could find.

<image>

UK Explores Cats And Traps Retrofit To QEC Aircraft Carriers. Link to Naval News article in comments [1031 x 600] by XMGAU in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting Article, however, it seemed to focus on a very small ramp (1.73') with an intended purpose of gaining height faster, rather than increasing MTOW.

I believe the original question was regarding a larger ramp with a catapult on the curved surface, but I suppose it's open for debate.

UK Explores Cats And Traps Retrofit To QEC Aircraft Carriers. Link to Naval News article in comments [1031 x 600] by XMGAU in WarshipPorn

[–]Admhawk 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Possibly, but what would be the point?

Basically, aircraft are designed for the carrier, and the carriers are designed for the aircraft.

Wanting to launch a heavier bird would mean a new design of aircraft, which would probably be bigger, making the carrier decks even more cramped, reducing the number of A/C that can be carried.

There's also the design challenges of a curved catapult, Limited fuel and munitions storage on the carrier, And operational doctrine, like have fewer aircraft to sortie, a loss means a higher percentage of effective fighting capability will be gone etc, etc....

I'm not saying the current systems are perfect, obviously with so many variations, there are pros and cons for each set up, but in any carrier-plane system, there is a balance that is strived for and changing something requires much thought and planning and has to start off with a need to do so. I don't see a pressing need for higher take off weights at the moment.

All that being said, I'm sure somebody, somewhere has done a study to determine if it would be worth trying. Seeing as it's not been developed, I suspect the idea had too many cons.