U.S. stone frigate ??
dott.Piergiorgio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(BLDG_7115)#Facilities
Last time I checked, US Navy don't have the custom of stone frigates;
Knowing the very erratic reliability of the Wikipedia, I can ask if some
can explain this ?
TIA and
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Jack Linthicum
Probably a weak attempt to combine two non-U.S. traditions, naming a
shore installation after a ship and insuring that no ship will be
called "Enterprise" until the Star Trek people start up.
Raymond O'Hara
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:02eb69d9-ed50-424f...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we already have a ship called the Enterprise.
The USN pretty much has always had a ship called the Enterprise, that name
along with Wasp and hornet are the oldest and most used names in USN annals.
the Star Trek Enterprise took its name from that tradition.
deem...@aol.com
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(BLDG_7115)#Facilities
>
> Last time I checked, US Navy don't have the custom of stone frigates;
> Knowing the very erratic reliability of the Wikipedia, I can ask if some
> can explain this ?
>
> TIA and
It's a barracks at the USN's training base. There's already a USS
Enterprise....with her retirement looming, hopefully the navy will
make an exception from the current idiotic ex-President-naming
policies. shoot, at least wait until they die.
Raymond O'Hara
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7c1476c0-c24c-4b88...@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
at least bush 1 served on a carrier.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
Agreed...and then there was Carl Vinson (the worst example of naming
a carrier?)
cman...@gmail.com
> Agreed...and then there was Carl Vinson (the worst example of naming
> a carrier?)
Well, other than John C. Stennis.
Chris Manteuffel
deem...@aol.com
You got me there.....that's actually who I was thinking of.
Raymond O'Hara
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a5ce1097-48f9-4626...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinson you can make a case for.he was intrumental in the nuke navy.
Raymond O'Hara
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a5ce1097-48f9-4626...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a5ce1097-48f9-4626...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 12:38 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7c1476c0-c24c-4b88...@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 19, 9:46 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>
> > <dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> > > Wandering on the 'pedia I stumble on this:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(BLDG_7115)#Facilities
>
> > > Last time I checked, US Navy don't have the custom of stone frigates;
> > > Knowing the very erratic reliability of the Wikipedia, I can ask if some
> > > can explain this ?
>
> > > TIA and
>
> > It's a barracks at the USN's training base. There's already a USS
> > Enterprise....with her retirement looming, hopefully the navy will
> > make an exception from the current idiotic ex-President-naming
> > policies. shoot, at least wait until they die.
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > at least bush 1 served on a carrier.
>
> Agreed...and then there was Carl Vinson (the worst example of naming
> a carrier?)
>
>
> Vinson you can make a case for.he was intrumental in the nuke navy.-
Brain fart...I meant Stennis.
Dennis
>> Last time I checked, US Navy don't have the custom of stone frigates;
>> Knowing the very erratic reliability of the Wikipedia, I can ask if some
>> can explain this ?
>
> It's a barracks at the USN's training base.
There were some concrete merchant ships in WWI and WWII, due to steel
shortages. Apparently no warships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_ships
Dennis
Raymond O'Hara
"Dennis" <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B988504BBC6Dts...@130.133.1.4...
youcan get a ferro-cement sailboat, they are klight and strong but very
brittle
as long as you don't bump anything your fine.
Jim H.
From memory, there was the USS Recruit, TDE-1. It was a 'dummy' or
mock-up ship set in concrete, at Naval Training Center (or Command?),
San Diego, when I went thru boot camp there in fall of '67. It had
the shape of a ship, but most of the shipboard systems were either a
bit sketchy, or (mostly) totally lacking. My recollection, maybe
faulty, is that we spent a few hours on it, mostly on sound-powered
phone drill and knot-tying. I really don't recall spending much time
'on board'. I have no idea whether that was because of the problems
with scheduling lots of boots thru it, or simply because the training
command folks thought it was too much trouble. An excellent idea
perhaps, but either poorly or not fully realized, at least when I went
thru. But ISTR that it was treated as a fully commissioned ship.
Dunno what Great Lakes NTC used for such purposes.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uss_recruit.jpg
and http://www.quarterdeck.org/book/recruit.htm
Jim, "Entropy never sleeps. Do y'all?"
vaughn
"Jim H." <irond...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9be7a20-f726-4982...@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>From memory, there was the USS Recruit, TDE-1. It was a 'dummy' or
>mock-up ship set in concrete, at Naval Training Center (or Command?),
>San Diego, when I went thru boot camp there in fall of '67.
>Dunno what Great Lakes NTC used for such purposes.
When I went through Great Lakes in '65/66, there was no such thing.
However, I remember seeing some sort of ship mockup at the Orlando RTC.
Vaughn
Fred J. McCall
:
:From memory, there was the USS Recruit, TDE-1. It was a 'dummy' or
:mock-up ship set in concrete, at Naval Training Center (or Command?),
:San Diego, when I went thru boot camp there in fall of '67. It had
:the shape of a ship, but most of the shipboard systems were either a
:bit sketchy, or (mostly) totally lacking. My recollection, maybe
:faulty, is that we spent a few hours on it, mostly on sound-powered
:phone drill and knot-tying. I really don't recall spending much time
:'on board'. I have no idea whether that was because of the problems
:with scheduling lots of boots thru it, or simply because the training
:command folks thought it was too much trouble. An excellent idea
:perhaps, but either poorly or not fully realized, at least when I went
:thru. But ISTR that it was treated as a fully commissioned ship.
:Dunno what Great Lakes NTC used for such purposes.
No such critter at NTC GLAKES that I was ever aware of when I was
there. I found the whole idea rather amusing when I saw the thing in
Sandy Eggo.
--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell
dott.Piergiorgio
Thanks for everyone for the interesting replies; In my opinion, esp on
USS Enterprise, I'm sure that in due time, around 2012 [1] the USN ship
naming conventions will be finally streamlined and armoured. so where
should be placed the next USS E will be duly done
[1] no political meaning; it's simply the scheduled decommission year of
the current USS Enterprise, the CVN-65....
Richard Casady
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>youcan get a ferro-cement sailboat, they are klight and strong but very
>brittle
>as long as you don't bump anything your fine.
Wood, plastic, steel, and aluminum are all lighter and stronger. In
other words, concrete is a lousy boat building material. It is
difficult to i8mpossible to insure a cement boat. All it has going for
it is cheap material. Lots of labor required, so iut isn't really
cheap.
Casady
Dennis
> Wood, plastic, steel, and aluminum are all lighter and stronger. In
> other words, concrete is a lousy boat building material. It is
> difficult to i8mpossible to insure a cement boat. All it has going for
> it is cheap material. Lots of labor required, so iut isn't really
> cheap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_ships
"The advantage of ferrocement construction is that materials are
cheap and readily available, while the disadvantages are that construction
labor costs are high, as are operating costs. (Ferrocement ships require
thick hulls, which means extra mass to push and less space for cargo.)"
All you're likely to want to know about concrete ships, including
where the wrecks are if you want to dive on them:
"Concrete ships on the water, very free..."
- after Dave Crosby
Dennis
george
:-)
Dennis
> Does this thread include 'Rock' Class Frigates ?
>:-)
Dunno, but maybe it includes Stonefish mines:
http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/autoGen_10691917525.html
:-)
Dennis