Meet the Navy's New Warship
 

The Navy Christened its newest Warship The USS Wichita. It is set to join the Navy Fleet in 2017

http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/wonde...hip/vi-BBwlTkn

Sorry, I am a slow learner, or I would embed :cuss:

Frigate? Smaller than that?

Odd lookin' ship...

Little larger than 3500 tons.


Looks huge in the video, but small by US Navy standards. 45 knots, though. :eek:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...al_combat_ship

Pretty cool.

Nice. 360M seems cheap for government work.

Can it play Guard ?

The littoral combat ship (LCS) is a class of relatively small surface vessels intended for operations in the littoral zone (close to shore) by the United States Navy. It was "envisioned to be a networked, agile, stealthy surface combatant capable of defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in the littorals."

If ya really want to know:

https://gdmissionsystems.com/maritim...l-combat-ship/

Does it have the technology to see wide open rb's in the end zone

Actually, it can.

The Navy missed an opportunity for a historical reference here. Wichita's biggest contribution to the Navy (aside from Mariners) has been airplanes... including the F-18 Superhornet. The next USS Wichita should have been a Carrier. (First USS Wichita was a battle cruiser)

I've never seen a Naval vessel launched, so I thought this was a joke video when I saw what looked like the ship falling over sideways. At any rate... Go Army, Beat Navy.

Smaller. It's about the same length as the older DDs. My old DD-781 was 377 feet long and weighed in at 2,235 tons. The DL (frigate) that I served on was 564 feet long and weighed in at 9,150 tons. But then it had two nuclear reactors.

I still can't get used to the new naming convention. Yeah, I'm old school and don't like it. But then, no one asked my opinion.

Does anyone know why they are going to diesel more and more?

Operating simplicity, robustness and fuel economy compared to most other propulsion's. They won't go away from nuclear for subs and carriers. With carriers, it makes more sense to go nuclear. And the added space is used for more aviation fuel. In the case of subs, I suspect they can get another missile in there too.

I guess that ship has sailed though...

BA-DUM-TISH

I presume that the subs and carriers can stay on station a lot longer with nuclear power, too. At least, it seems like that would be the case.

Of course, you can't have the carriers out there without the escort ships, so maybe there's a space factor there, too.

Cool video!

The escorts can be replenished underway fairly easily.

It's smaller than the frigate I served on, which was originally a destroyer escort.

I destroyed an escort when I was in the navy.

Heh, littoral combat. That's what she said.

Seems like a dumb design.

Too big for littoral/coastal waters, not enough combat capabilities for blue water use.

I was on a Spru-can DD-974. 363 ft 3 & 13/16th inches. (Missed it on an oral board.)

We had Tomahawk, Harpoon, Sea sparrows, 5 inch guns, torpedoes, & ASROC/SUBROC. We were considered limited in capability outside o anti-submarine work.

Our ship could & did do 47 knots leaving REFTRA in GITMO. Hydro-static foils are way faster & better suited for littoral work.

We have 11 of those. We're building 2 more in the next decade.

Something tells me they aren't going to name one of them after Wichita, Kansas.

FYP ;)

So my question to all have that been on similar type ships. I was never in the military so I don't know these answers.

How smooth sailing would this be in rough waters?
How noisy is it onboard?
How many crew would this support? How many lifeboats?
I noticed no windows, does this lead to sea-sickness?

Any more information you would be willing to share what life would be like onboard?

It would be rougher than a cob in heavy seas. I went though the North Atlantic in December on a tin can and ,yeah, not pleasant.

Noisy? There would be a lot of fan noise and machinery noise. Nothing overbearing, but noticeable.

Probably no life boats, just automatic inflatable life rafts. These, if the same as we had, would automatically release and inflate upon the ship sinking.

Not to many warships have portholes. Some above deck windows perhaps. It can take a couple of days to get ones sea legs, but if the ship speed and ocean swells are off, yes, it can make a very unpleasant voyage. Some destroyer sized Brit and Kiwi vessels do have stabilizers (like cruise ships) to reduce rocking.

Pretty much this. I'll add that you can look on wikipedia at the ship's specs and it will tell you how many people a ship typically carries. I have noticed that crew sizes have been getting smaller and smaller. I'll also add that it is somewhat disconcerting to see the front of your ship disappear into a wave for a while. It can also be a bit distracting when you see nothing but ocean to port and nothing but sky to starboard, or vice versa. While underway in rough seas you may hear/feel the ship creaking and groaning over and over again as if it were going to tear itself apart and plunge to the bottom of the ocean as well. So that's fun.

modern Carriers are named after Presidents with the exception of the Enterprise (for historical reasons)

each class is named after certain categories (states, cities, etc.)

Subs - Fish or aquatic fish like thingys
DDs - US naval heros
Cruisers - US cities
Battle ships - US States
Carriers - US battle sites - but had a bunch of exceptions

Not sure of naming convention for tenders, oilers, etc.

Subs are named after states, cities and some personages.

I was onboard the AOE Sacramento for a while. I don't know how oilers get their names though. After a cursory check on wikipedia the names are all over the place.

Where does Ronald Reagan fit into those categories?

Under the naming convention adopted in the 70s of naming carriers after presidents, with the exception of the Nimitz which was named after the WW2 admiral.

Wherever we want him to. Because he's Ronald ****ing Reagan.

We were talking about how ship got their names back when, not now.

Yup. That was one of our functions other than ASW and SAR.