quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

it's quite today i wonder where bob is?

Just finished a turn! [8D]

For a second I forgot which thread I was in and wasn't sure if it was Bob...or Bob being referred to. Turns out Bob was with Bob so I suppose the answer was mute...or redundant...or something...

Well, maybe a little redundant - since i don't know if Bobo actually ever visits the BOB thread (i suspect not, or at least not this time since he didn't know i was working a turn (as posted on BOB)).

Good thing BOBO isn't in our 3x3 - we'd have Bob, BOB, and Bobo... [X(] [8|] [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Today's Odd Ship contest (for Threadsters only). No looking it up!

[image]local://upfiles/16369/3334C2522FEE4139990780DC4C09E4C3.jpg[/image]

That's the US Navy's massive carrier project that was cancelled following the design of the USAFs B-36(?). USS United States? (or something similar)

EDIT: IIRC it was cancelled as the USAF saw the design as a threat to it's independence, as it would have carried nuclear bombers which the air force thought would have negated the need for SAC. Again, IIRC, the design was cancelled as the USAF launched a series of long range flights and mock attacks using AAR equipment which convinced the US government that the USAF was a better strategic deterrent.

yep dixie is right. they did lay the kiel if i remember but that was about it. interesting how it had no islan. the us navy also planned to operate some big bombers off it if i recall correctly.

Dixie is correct. This is the USS United States, laid down in the summer of 1949 and cancelled less than a week later. The reason it has no island is to maximize the number of big nuclear-capable bombers it could carry. It had four catapults, two at the front and two slanted to launch over the sides.

It was basically meant to be a weapon of nuclear war and nothing else.

So where was the bridge? What bombers was it planning on carrying. They look like first generation jets. Of course, I realize this is an artists interpretation.

It was meant to carry about 20 of the new North American AJ Savage nuclear attack bomber, and about 50 or so McDonnell FH-1 Phantom fighters.

There was no bridge, obviously, but I have no idea where the ship was meant to be conned from.

There was supposed to be a retractable conning area on the port side. One bit of trivia (and Irony) is that Harry Truman cancelled the ship 8 days after the keel was laid. There were no ships to be named United States till the Mid 1990's. At which point Bill Clinton , renamed the carrier USS Harry S. Truman. So it can be said that twice Harry Truman "sank" the United States. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

quote:

the answer was mute

Must have been hard to hear.........[:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

quote:

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom
our department will get the hot brunettes and brazilian chicks. [:D]

Ahem. The alcohol department declares that all your boo..babes are belong to us. And they will agree. [:'(]

Fear not, I will lease them inexpensively to other departments as needed. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

quote:

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom
our department will get the hot brunettes and brazilian chicks. [:D]

Ahem. The alcohol department declares that all your boo..babes are belong to us. And they will agree. [:'(]

Fear not, I will lease them inexpensively to other departments as needed. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

quote:

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom
our department will get the hot brunettes and brazilian chicks. [:D]

Ahem. The alcohol department declares that all your boo..babes are belong to us. And they will agree. [:'(]

Fear not, I will lease them inexpensively to other departments as needed. [:D]

I hearby call "dibbs" on the Head of Human Resources position. All hiring (and auditioning) of assistants will have to be approved by me. [8D][:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Today's Odd Ship contest (for Threadsters only). No looking it up!

That's the US Navy's massive carrier project that was cancelled following the design of the USAFs B-36(?). USS United States? (or something similar)

EDIT: IIRC it was cancelled as the USAF saw the design as a threat to it's independence, as it would have carried nuclear bombers which the air force thought would have negated the need for SAC. Again, IIRC, the design was cancelled as the USAF launched a series of long range flights and mock attacks using AAR equipment which convinced the US government that the USAF was a better strategic deterrent.

yep dixie is right. they did lay the kiel if i remember but that was about it. interesting how it had no islan. the us navy also planned to operate some big bombers off it if i recall correctly.

Dixie is correct. This is the USS United States, laid down in the summer of 1949 and cancelled less than a week later. The reason it has no island is to maximize the number of big nuclear-capable bombers it could carry. It had four catapults, two at the front and two slanted to launch over the sides.

It was basically meant to be a weapon of nuclear war and nothing else.

So where was the bridge? What bombers was it planning on carrying. They look like first generation jets. Of course, I realize this is an artists interpretation.

It was meant to carry about 20 of the new North American AJ Savage nuclear attack bomber, and about 50 or so McDonnell FH-1 Phantom fighters.

There was no bridge, obviously, but I have no idea where the ship was meant to be conned from.

There was supposed to be a retractable conning area on the port side. One bit of trivia (and Irony) is that Harry Truman cancelled the ship 8 days after the keel was laid. There were no ships to be named United States till the Mid 1990's. At which point Bill Clinton , renamed the carrier USS Harry S. Truman. So it can be said that twice Harry Truman "sank" the United States. [:D]

Yeah but the U.S.S. U.S. sounds just silly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers


The United States Air Force never should have been made a separate service. They should still be under the control of the army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

The United States Air Force never should have been made a separate service. They should still be under the control of the army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

One of the most important missions of the air force should be ground support............. It is a job the Air Force (not the USAAF) has never wanted. They have tried to not do it many times. Let's retire the A-10. The F-16C will do the job just fine and we can become a fighter at the drop of a hat and oops you mean those ground troops needed support. Sorry I was busy doing something else.............................

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
The United States Air Force never should have been made a separate service. They should still be under the control of the army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
The United States Air Force never should have been made a separate service. They should still be under the control of the army.

The Air Farce is a separate service? News to me. When I was in it, we always reported to the nearest bartender and hooker ... figured we were subordinate to the Vice President in Charge of Vice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

One of the most important missions of the air force should be ground support............. It is a job the Air Force (not the USAAF) has never wanted. They have tried to not do it many times. Let's retire the A-10. The F-16C will do the job just fine and we can become a fighter at the drop of a hat and oops you mean those ground troops needed support. Sorry I was busy doing something else.............................

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
I will, with great respect, have to disagree with my esteemed colleague from Florida...the primary mission of the Air Force is and should be, to control the air space over the battleground. This is less obvious in times when there is such a great disparity between sides...but ask the Third Reich what cost them the most in terms of winning the Western front...their answer would have to be their inability win the war in the air.

quote:

If anything I think that the Air Forces role has evolved with a lot of the specialized close support missions being adopted by the army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Air superiority is only one aspect of an air force's responsibilities. You can't take and hold ground just by shooting down enemy airplanes. Now, if your air force is going to perform the tasks of air support, ground attack, and the rest of those missions groundpounders appreciate so much, fine. But give them the tools, training, and doctrine to make it possible.

quote:


One of the glaring faults in U.S. military doctrine that has been revealed the hard way is that interservice rivalry still rules the day. Let's face it. They hate each other. They want nothing more than to upstage each other, particularly in the area where the rival service is supposed to be pre-eminent (witness the ad hoc development in Iraq of Army air units equipped with jury-rigged aircraft to perform the missions they have been "disappointed" that the Air Force has not carried out with the desired degree of effectiveness.

The A-10 is an old weapon. It remains highly effective. Attack helicopters have shown limitations and vulnerability requiring thorough rethinking of their correct role (and design). Witness the decimation of the attack helicopter units during the Iraq invasion, and the losses that mounted so severely they have since been applied only sparingly and only in situations where they are not at great risk of loss. What is the substitute for the A-10? I don't think that either the Air Force or the Army have come up with suggestions for the design that ought to supersede it. The ground attack versions of the F-16 have only been of limited utility. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just ask the Marines who wholeheartedly lament the final retirement of the Iowa battleships and those comforting 16-inch rifles with that tremendous range for throwing a ton and a half of HE apiece at anything wants to kill Marines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Today's Odd Ship contest (for Threadsters only).

[image]local://upfiles/16369/3334C2522FEE4139990780DC4C09E4C3.jpg[/image]