Remove ads

Changing Destiny (Kancolle)

Reader mode
Spectre said:
and that Disney took Wedge's callsign for the last movie...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It seemed more like someone on the writer's team was trying to keep from alienating the EU crowd, as it seemed like it was an 'origin story' for Rogue Squadron, the baddest of asses.

Anyway, back to Shipfus: Shenanigans of Future Past.
 
Actually, IIRC Rouge Squadron never gave Wedge the call sign of Rogue One, merely Rogue Leader. One fan theory is that this was to respect the folks who first used Rogue One as a call sign.

On topic, what kind of ship do you think is going to wind up being named after Admiral Thompson in this timeline? My guess is the local Nimitz-class equivalent, due to him being a carrier admiral and helping innovate new carrier-borne fighter tactics. Along with whatever he gets up to during the War.
 
Ash19256 said:
Actually, IIRC Rouge Squadron never gave Wedge the call sign of Rogue One, merely Rogue Leader. One fan theory is that this was to respect the folks who first used Rogue One as a call sign.

On topic, what kind of ship do you think is going to wind up being named after Admiral Thompson in this timeline? My guess is the local Nimitz-class equivalent, due to him being a carrier admiral and helping innovate new carrier-borne fighter tactics. Along with whatever he gets up to during the War.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If that was why Nimitz was named, well, Nimitz, CVN-68 would have probably been named after Marc Mitscher. Or perhaps CVN-69.

Nah, like every naval hero, Thompson is getting a destroyer named after him.

I don't like naming carriers after people. Period. There's plenty of WW2 legacy names. Intrepid, Hornet, Yorktown, Lexington, Independence, Saratoga, Wasp, and, obviously, Enterprise.

There's eight of the twelve carriers that Congress wants the Navy to have.

Then we add Midway, Coral Sea, Philippine Sea, and we have eleven names.
 
Last edited:
PAGDTenno said:
If that was why Nimitz was named, well, Nimitz, CVN-68 would have probably been named after Marc Mitscher. Or perhaps CVN-69.

Nah, like every naval hero, Thompson is getting a destroyer named after him.

I don't like naming carriers after people. Period. There's plenty of WW2 legacy names. Intrepid, Hornet, Yorktown, Lexington, Independence, Saratoga, Wasp, and, obviously, Enterprise.

There's eight of the twelve carriers that Congress wants the Navy to have.

Then we add Midway, Coral Sea, Philippine Sea, and we have eleven names.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What about United States?
 
Cue United States, supercarrier shipgirl, being unable to use another term other than Chair Farce when referring to the USAF.

And when I say unable, it's literally unable. Somehow, any attempt to use other terms transforms into variations of the derogative nickname.
 
Dalek Ix said:
BB-66: "By the Airforce."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Less that and more the fact that if ANYTHING went wrong with the carrier, it's errors would be viewed as national errors from the name. USS America at least can be seen as being named for the continent. USS United States (USSUS...*snickers*) is just asking for Murphy to step in.

Now if they'd renamed it to something else? Then I'd be a lot more sympathetic towards the Navy, whom I nominally align with over the chair force, in that whole disaster.
 
We all seem to have forgotten that there is a passenger liner, the SS United States. It was built to be ready to use as a troop ship, so it's a little tougher than the average liner. And, she's got engines the same power as a Forrestal-class carrier. She's faster and longer than an Iowa. She can do 38 knots, maximum, with a serviceable speed of 32.
 
Burning Baron said:
We all seem to have forgotten that there is a passenger liner, the SS United States. It was built to be ready to use as a troop ship, so it's a little tougher than the average liner. And, she's got engines the same power as a Forrestal-class carrier. She's faster and longer than an Iowa. She can do 38 knots, maximum, with a serviceable speed of 32.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And thus did Shimakaze have a rival.
 
Burning Baron said:
An ocean liner, no less. That's gotta hurt. :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

After 9/11 USS Enterprise CVN-65 which was returning to the States after a deployment in the Persian Gulf turned right back around and went straight back there, out running her escorts in the process. You have to a remember while a Burke's top speed is classified it can probably do thirty-five knots and the Ticonderoga's well that class of ship I wouldn't be surprised if it's top speed was in the same range. This means that Nuke E could probably do thirty-eight knots or their about, hell some people on the Internet think if she really stretched her legs that the World's First Nuclear Powered Carrier could crack forty, which I wouldn't rule out given her Cruiser-like hull form. Man, if Shimakaze hear's about that, let's just say shocked would probably be an understatement.

But that's slightly off-topic.
 
Thorthemighty said:
After 9/11 USS Enterprise CVN-65 which was returning to the States after a deployment in the Persian Gulf turned right back around and went straight back there, out running her escorts in the process. You have to a remember while a Burke's top speed is classified it can probably do thirty-five knots and the Ticonderoga's well that class of ship I wouldn't be surprised if it's top speed was in the same range. This means that Nuke E could probably do thirty-eight knots or their about, hell some people on the Internet think if she really stretched her legs that the World's First Nuclear Powered Carrier could crack forty, which I wouldn't rule out given her Cruiser-like hull form. Man, if Shimakaze hear's about that, let's just say shocked would probably be an understatement.

But that's slightly off-topic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Maximum speed for CVN-65 was 33.25 knots. Now, what lets her outrun her escorts is that she can sustain flank speed literally for years, because she doesn't need to worry about fuel consumption. Nuclear, yo!
 
PAGDTenno said:
Maximum speed for CVN-65 was 33.25 knots. Now, what lets her outrun her escorts is that she can sustain flank speed literally for years, because she doesn't need to worry about fuel consumption. Nuclear, yo!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
She does have to worry about the *rest* of her machinery. Flank speed not only was hard on the fuel stocks, it was hard on the machinery too.
 
Dirtnap said:
She does have to worry about the *rest* of her machinery. Flank speed not only was hard on the fuel stocks, it was hard on the machinery too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, but she could do, say, twenty-five knots for a very long time, and not worry too much about the strain on her machinery. The point is, the stories of any CVN doing 40 knots are horseshit at best.
 
Burning Baron said:
We all seem to have forgotten that there is a passenger liner, the SS United States. It was built to be ready to use as a troop ship, so it's a little tougher than the average liner. And, she's got engines the same power as a Forrestal-class carrier. She's faster and longer than an Iowa. She can do 38 knots, maximum, with a serviceable speed of 32.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And she needs our help!!!!!!

SS United States Conservancy
 
Thorthemighty said:
33.25 knots, that's the "official" released speed. Her actual top speed is still classified. But get a load of this: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-true-top-speed-of-a-USN-nuclear-aircraft-carrier
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's the maximum hull speed, or the maximum speed with infinite power, without the hull crumpling on itself like a tin can.

With her actual installed power, her maximum speed is 33.25 knots.

Seriously, read further down. Several posters point out the physics reasons that a 36+ knot top speed is implausible at best.
 
Per NavWeaps, CVN-65's real top speed, on trials after getting her last set of reactor cores, was 33.6 knots. That's in a calm sea with a clean bottom and all laundry aloft.
 
Thorthemighty said:
Oh, shows what I know about boats. Still Shimakaze will probably be surprised at how fast Nuke E's hull could theoretically go.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Okay, did a little more research. Hull speed is mostly important for displacement hulls, not planing hulls. As I understand (And please note that this understanding is based on a 20 minute wiki check), water resistance increases exponentially above 25 knots, and hull speed is mostly useful for counting how many waves are gonna be generated, which factors into the calculation.
 
Note: This is why water speed records are horrifically dangerous. Boats have to just barely skim the surface of the water otherwise the drag would flip them over or slow you down to the point of uselessness, but without having much downforce a tiny bit of unstable lift later, now you're a high speed top smacking the water at 100+ mph.
 
Sooooo....

Writing got sidetracked by Sky checking his old flashdrive and finding unposted projects=playing a game he hasn't played in years. This said, tomorrow I'm planning on focusing primarily on writing.

I've also apparently been tossed off to a different teacher for my student teaching. Four (freshman) Geography classes- thank god for my Paradox addiction :V -one elective on the Cold War.

...and one elective on World War Two. Hoo boy.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top