Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New US Aircraft Carrier, CVN-77 George H. W. Bush to be Christened Saturday, October 7, 2006
Northrop Grumman Construction Site ^ | Oct 2006 | Northrop Grumman/US Navy

Posted on 10/03/2006 8:06:52 AM PDT by Jeff Head

CVN-77 to be Christened on October 7th, 2006

From the Northrop Grumman site.

On Saturday, October 7, 2006, Northrop Grumman Newport News will christen the nation’s 10th and final Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, George H. W. Bush (CVN 77). The ship’s namesake and 41st President of the United States, George H. W. Bush, is scheduled to attend the ceremony along with his wife Barbara and their daughter, Doro Bush Koch, Mrs. Koch also serves as the ship’s sponsor and will do the traditional honor of breaking a bottle of American sparkling wine across the ship’s bow during the ceremony. Employees of Northrop Grumman Newport News and their families are invited. The general public is also invited to the ceremony. Visit the links below for additional information.
Here are some of the latest construction pictures...a beautiful site to behold:


CVN-77 nearing completion


CVN-77 props added


CVN-77 Island lift


CVN-77 ready for christening


CVN-77 another view of CVN-77 ready for christening


TOPICS: Announcements; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 41; aircraftcarriers; carrierpics; cvn77; defense; dragonsfuryseries; georgehwbush; navypics; peacethroughstrength; powerprojection; seapower; usmilitary; usn; usnavy; ussgeorgehwbush; worldwariii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-280 next last
To: freedumb2003

I think that the old Midway (CV-41) was converted into a museum in San Diego, but I'm not sure. Look at the pictures at the beginning of this post. Does the island structure look like that? If not, it could be the Midway.
Midway has a distinguishable smokestack in the aft part of the island, with "41" painted on it.


241 posted on 10/04/2006 4:17:41 AM PDT by fredhead (Women want me....Fish fear me....I can dream can't I?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Here is the Midway berthed in San Diego
242 posted on 10/04/2006 4:18:23 AM PDT by fredhead (Women want me....Fish fear me....I can dream can't I?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Sign me up, I'll serve on Her!


243 posted on 10/04/2006 4:18:57 AM PDT by exnavy (God bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

when he ran for the second term, I kept wondering why he wasn't campaigning hard enough? It just seemed to me he maybe didn't want the second term in office.


244 posted on 10/04/2006 4:21:23 AM PDT by television is just wrong (our sympathies are misguided with illegal aliens...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
If I get into office, I'm going to rename those ships wholesale. Goodbye USS Texas, hello USS Bergall. Adios, USS Dallas, hello USS Pomfret. Double-ditto the CVN's. And you'll see the Constellation, JFK, and Kitty Hawk come back from the boneyard faster than you can say "but my peace dividend!....."

Renaming ships once they've been christened is considered bad luck.

245 posted on 10/04/2006 5:01:46 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
If I get into office, I'm going to rename those ships wholesale. Goodbye USS Texas, hello USS Bergall. Adios, USS Dallas, hello USS Pomfret. Double-ditto the CVN's. And you'll see the Constellation, JFK, and Kitty Hawk come back from the boneyard faster than you can say "but my peace dividend!....."

KITTY HAWK has seen her full designed life Connie as well but they can remain as active reserve carriers for training. That is another protocol being broken is the elimination of the reserve as in immediately deployable carrier usually used for training purposes. They generally do not deploy but do have work ups off the coast. JFK unofficially served as such during the Clinton years. The JFK if what I've heard is true is wore out. She was done much like the AMERICA and was refused Ship Life Extension Program. Second option is have NNSB &DD turn out two conventional which do have advantages nukes do not. This allows for far shorter qualification times of the snipes.

The Navy can have a conventional snipe standing second and third skill level Machinery room watches before the Nuke snipe ever see's even a ship and still has to qualify for watch. By a snipes second cruise he should be well skilled in his job for his pay grade and if an E-3 making E-4 right before or during the second cruise. You can do this without the snipe even going to any schooling beyond basic training. The leave basic and do 6 weeks or used to be 6 weeks in either fireman, seaman, or airman advanced training and they go to the ship. Time elapsed about 4 and a half months. NCO status in the Navy is E-4.

This would not only effects Machinist mates but nearly all engineering ratings. Despite the hype nukes require as much down time as conventionals. You are still dealing with steam turbines etc and a 1200 PSI steam system. It's not a matter of the reactor holding up it's a matter of the other equipment that requires maintenance much of it requiring a shipyard environment for safety and needed tooling etc.

If nuke carriers aren't seeing a standard 3 month yard period after each deployment then something bad is wrong. As well they also like a conventional should see drydock after the third six month deployment or every 5 years. This is for valve replacements, hull maintenance, screw repairs, rudder repairs, etc. It still must be done. At half life Nuke carriers require a 5 year overhaul for refueling and reactor issues.

246 posted on 10/04/2006 5:05:14 AM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Victor

He won't go away, so they'll name a hover craft after him...cigar shaped.


247 posted on 10/04/2006 5:34:22 AM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
In addition, during his incumbency, SecDef Dick Cheney ordered the jigs and dies for the F-14 Tomcat cut up, to "prove something" to Grumman during a contract tiff.
As a Grumman employee I was directly affected by Cheney's decision, with which I vehemently disagreed, and still do to this day. It took the Slick Willy presidency to make me so fearful for the continuance of the Republic that I would overlook that blunder on Cheney's part and vote for the man for VP.

But as to the statement I quote above, I recall no contract tiff at that time worth mentioning (early in the F-14 program is another matter entirely). And as to the destruction of the tools, which I can confirm, I ruefully note that whenever an aircraft program is cancelled its opponents will drive a stake through its heart it that way. They never are content to allow for the possibility that it might ever be prudent to change that decision in light of future events.

That's a scandal, of course - but there it is. Politics 101.

I hate this business of naming our capital ships after politicians -- especially politicians who haven't shown us the courtesy of dying first.
  1. Ronald Reagan's funeral was in '04 because that's when he stopped breathing - but in the operative political sense he gave a whole new meaning to the term "committing political suicide" when he wrote his famous letter revealing that he had Alzheimer's Disease. So I think that the naming of the good ship Gipper was entirely justifiable.

  2. However, it did give cover for the incumbent president to name a carrier after his father, whose place in history should be political heir of Ronald Reagan and one of only three sitting VPs to be elected POTUS. But he abandoned that legacy with "read my hips" and has the place in history that he lost to the most venal president in US history. A mediocrity, other than for raising a successor president and a governor of Florida who may never be president but who is in fact worth serious mention for the 08 Republican nomination.

  3. It has to be said that there is also the precedent of the nuclear sub Carter, named for a living former POTUS who was formerly as submariner as George H.W. Bush was formerly a crewman on an aircraft carrier (but I'm not sure whether that is a precedent for or a result of the naming of the GHW Bush).

248 posted on 10/04/2006 5:34:57 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
But as to the statement I quote above, I recall no contract tiff at that time worth mentioning (early in the F-14 program is another matter entirely). And as to the destruction of the tools, which I can confirm, I ruefully note that whenever an aircraft program is cancelled its opponents will drive a stake through its heart it that way. They never are content to allow for the possibility that it might ever be prudent to change that decision in light of future events.

Cheney didn't do it to spite your company. A freeper a while back explained it that he did it to spite the Pentagon. It seems one of his pet programs the Pentagon had issue with {possibly the Osprey} had some funding for it used for other more pressing purposes and as a result or rather punishment he canceled production of F-14's. I wish I could find that thread and post if I do I'll ping you to it. Canceling the Tomcats has to be one of the worst planning moves in modern Naval Aviation. It was the best carrier based Navy fighter. Funding for Avionics upgrades and keeping the F-14 would have been a far better use of money and resources.

249 posted on 10/04/2006 5:57:08 AM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Beautiful ship. Thanks for the post.


I wonder how long, if ever, it will be until the large aircraft carrier is obsolete.

Multiple small stealth ships carrying a smaller number of planes with VTOL (example one variant of Joint Strike Fighter) seem make a compelling case at least initially.
250 posted on 10/04/2006 7:10:54 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
There have been several studies doen on smaller Sea Control Carriers (which many smaller countries are adopting), and on a concept called the Corsair, which would be a very small carrier employing maybe half a dozen F-35Bs.

After all was said and done, given the mission profile required, the US Navy and our planners have (in my estimation rightly so) decided to go forward with the large deck nuclear carriers for the forseeable future...at least 50+ years. These carriers will continue to get provide more and more capability, be more and more efficient, be less manpower intensive, be more stealthy, and be more modern/furutristic as time goes on.

251 posted on 10/04/2006 7:44:05 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector

...I just might add, that in my own estimation, we need 14-16 of them rather thanb 12...or the 10 some are proposing.


252 posted on 10/04/2006 7:44:49 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe; conservatism_IS_compassion; lentulusgracchus; Non-Sequitur; fredhead; GATOR NAVY; ...
Losing the F-14 with its long legs, and the AIM-54 with its long legs, have in essence given enemy attack aircraft almost another 200 mile window to launch their missiles now that we use the Super-Hornet/AMRAAM combination. IMHO, that is foolish, terribly ill-advised, and very dangerous. We need another long range air superiority fighter for the carrier fleet, and we need the ALRAAM.

In addition, by retiring the entire S-3 ASW capability, we have given enemy submarines a much better chance to get in close to the carrier. With the S-3s ranging well in advance and to either side of the carrier group...with their speed, loiter capability, and ordinance load, our CSGs were much better protected on the ASW front. I keep hoping that an AV-22 variant for ASW will be developed to fill that gap. Another very foolish "peace dividend" in a very dangerous world.

Finally add to that the decomissioning and disposal (More than half by sinking) of the Spruance class destroyers when they had a good 10-15 year service life (or more) left in them, also weakened the prtotective umbrella around a CSG or a PHIBRON. THose vessels were quiet and very well suited to ASW roles which the BUrkes are now having to pick up...diluting their abilities in the AAW role for which they are most suited.

I might add, though I agree with the general prosecution of the WOT that this administration has done, all of these things have happened under the current administration. (BTW, it would have been MUCH worse under any adminstration on the other side of the aisl).

In the face of this draw down (in the last five years we have built 39 new major surface combatants but decomissioned and disposed of 45), we see the PLAN building and buying new modern major surface combatants like crazy. By comparison, in the last five years they have increased their own fleet by 80 major combatants...while we lost 6. They are still behind for sure...but with numbers like that, if they continue, they will catch up very quickly.

See THE RISING SEA DRAGON IN ASIA.

253 posted on 10/04/2006 7:59:01 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Funding for Avionics upgrades and keeping the F-14 would have been a far better use of money and resources.
. Funding for Avionics upgrades and keeping the F-14 in production would have obviated the point to development of the F-18E/F, which is (as you likely know) a look-alike to rather than a different model of the previous F-18 aircraft. Since the F-14 is a bigger and far more capable aircraft than anything which is called an F-18.

With the money spent on the F-18E/F you could likely have built all the F-14s the carriers needed until the F-14 was supplanted by a truly superior (stealthy) aircraft.

Always assuming you could ameliorate the maintenance/flight hour issue.


254 posted on 10/04/2006 8:29:22 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Does this mean that There's going to be a USS KLINTOON?


255 posted on 10/04/2006 8:31:30 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
I wonder how long, if ever, it will be until the large aircraft carrier is obsolete.
CVN's are awfully high-value targets.

When I heard the Navy praising the Reagan and projecting a 50 year operational lifetime for it, I couldn't help wondering if carriers will still be militarily viable in 2050. Stranger things have happened, I suppose . . .


256 posted on 10/04/2006 8:37:09 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: bandleader
Already built and christened...I give you the USS Bill CLinton:


257 posted on 10/04/2006 9:00:41 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

Comment #258 Removed by Moderator

To: Jeff Head
"These carriers will continue to get provide more and more capability, be more and more efficient, be less manpower intensive, be more stealthy, and be more modern/futuristic as time goes on."

One big carrier will be always more efficient in terms of man-power, logistics, spare parts inventories, ammunition storage, one nuclear reactor instead of several etc. and will improve over time w/ engineering, hard work and $$ etc....

I think the question asked is one of risk assessment/vulnerability. How vulnerable is an aircraft carrier, a very large value target, in a real (country with somewhat advanced anti-ship missiles) war? Would we be less vulnerable with several smaller stealthy carriers? At what cost? (several smaller would cost more to operate etc.) How much harder is it for the enemy to find multiple little carriers then one big carrier? If the enemy hit one little carrier, is it a survivable loss? If the enemy hit a big carrier, or two, is that a survivable loss? etc....

The modern aircraft carrier is amazing, and I agree we should have a few more of them. As fast as the world changes, it is wise to look for potential weaknesses, examine vulnerability and not become complacent. Smaller stealthy carriers with a couple of several VTOL planes seem more costly per amount of capability but reduce vulnerability. I hope that the planners have made the best/right assessment.
259 posted on 10/04/2006 9:56:10 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: fredhead
First ship, Forrestal VA85
Second ship, JFK VA34
Third ship, America VA95
Forth ship, America VA95
Fifth ship, America VA95

And last but not least, after 18 years retired, a three day visit aboard USS Bataan (my son is on board) and a command coin.
260 posted on 10/04/2006 9:59:52 AM PDT by W. W. SMITH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-280 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson