Skip to comments.New US Aircraft Carrier, CVN-77 George H. W. Bush to be Christened Saturday, October 7, 2006
Posted on 10/03/2006 8:06:52 AM PDT by Jeff Head
click here to read article
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.
...I just might add, that in my own estimation, we need 14-16 of them rather thanb 12...or the 10 some are proposing.
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.
. 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.
Does this mean that There's going to be a USS KLINTOON?
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 . . .
Ship's company on all three of my ships:
Nimitz, 80 - 84
JFK, 86 - 90
Ike, 93 - 96
Worked and got underway on the Enterprise through the summer of 98 (right after retirement) doing an installation as a contractor.
Now I work as a tech rep and have been on every Norfolk based carrier.
At least someone agrees with me about this. Of course, if all the carrier admirals in the Fleet agreed and were making the same argument, we'd never hear it until they retired and got their public voices back.
One implication of all this is that the China Sea is now mare clausum, a no-go area.
What did you think of the idea of trying to buy Su-33's from Putin, or do a license-build deal like the Chinese have for the Su-30? Western avionics and weapons, even engines -- do a bare-bones airframe deal.
We've got zero in the pipeline to replace the Toms. The F-35 is an F/A-18 replacement, and the F-22 -- while it's a great aircraft -- is an Air Force project and isn't designed for carrier operations. I don't know if it could be navalized at all, I don't know if it's all-weather (its spooky forebears are not), and if we tried, would that screw up the Air Force's delivery schedule?
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.
I served in a niche command under "ASWFORESKIN" (ASWFORLANT) in the 70's and read the results of some of the "Rusty Razor" and opposed-transit fleet exercises back then. Letting SSGN's and SSG's get within weapons range of a CBG is a MAJOR, non-survivable no-no. Results of those exercises were always, but always, dismal for the airdales. That's where the submariners' standing joke about "targets" came from.
When Bush went out to meet the Lincoln, he rode in an S-3 in the fourth crewman's spot. Guess he didn't like the aircraft type enough to keep it around.
I don't think the Osprey would have the loiter times you need for ASW missions, or the weapon load. As a cutting-edge system, I anticipate it'll have much higher maintenance hours than the S-3 and existing rotary-wing types, too. I'd rather hang a dipping sonar, an AQA console, and a buttload of Mark-46's on a CH-53, if it got down to it.
I wish I knew who has been telling Dubya that tax cuts for the investor class are his number-one, heart-attack-override priority. I guess we're going to have to wait for Al-Q'aeda or Chia Head to nuke Scarsdale and Stamford, before we get a recension of this priority ladder.
The story put out at the time, which I think I read in the Wall Street Journal, was that Grumman was in financial straits, and so when the Navy asked them for a bid for a production run of additional F-14's (I guess these would have been "E" models), Grumman quoted an aggressive number -- trying to save their company with one sale. The story further goes, that Cheney was incensed and decided to "teach everyone a lesson" about procurement contracts, that the Government can and will say "no" if the contractor gets greedy.
But you know about Washington -- that was just the line someone laid down for a friendly fishwrapper favored by Bush 41's tax-cut-hungry "audience"; the real story could have been anything.
As an aside, that one decision may have landed Big Dick the big chair at Halliburton. Whattaguy! Cost-cutter! Etc.
We never put politicians' names on warships until after World War II. Navy secretaries', yes -- on tin cans.
Much better to be naming our biggest ships after our biggest values. The fact that we are not, suggests to the world that our values are political personalities and programs, not the great abstractions like liberty and independence.
At least the most honored and most glorious ship in the United States Navy is still the USS Constitution.
"I thought many Freepers would be insterested in this US Navy news, and particularly, in this latest US aircraft carrier."
Thanks for the post and thanks to GHWB for four fine years. Then we had to suffer thru the scrub btwn the Bushes.
"When does construction begin on the USS Clinton?"
The USS Klintoon is going to be an LST with lots of bidets on board and the front will just be a big zipper.
"For example, there's an 8-foot stepladder in the bottom pic, at the bottom of the bow.... That ship is f****ing huge!"
Shortly after arriving in the Philippines in 1968, I stood on a dock next to an Aircraft Carrier. I looked up and, relative to me, the deck was at about the height of the top of a five story building! Huge doesn't adequately describe one. I think that was the Eisenhower which was the newest one in the fleet in '68.
It was the last, I believe. I was stationed on the Kennedy from '76 to '77.
She will probably be decomm'ed in 2007 or 2008.
Here's a site you may find some interest in:
The man kept on looking at his watch as if he had more important things to do other than explaining why he would be a better pres and clinton.
She was christened yesterday, Saturday, Oct 7, 2006.
Big zipper? HAH! According to Monica, Paula and Gennifer, a very teensy zipper would do the trick just fine for the very wee Mr. Clinton.
>>>> So Ole Slick doesn't get a Nimitz named for him? <<<
USS William Jefferson Clinton CVS1
if the 76 election was a week later Ford would have won, and if it wasnt for Perot's billions GHW would have been a 2 termer and finished the job in Somalia. Clinton and Carters failed Iran and Korean policies are a huge reason why the
world is not a safer place today.
CVX is pencilled in to have no bridge (dont need it and didnt even need it for Nimitz class) electric drive, rail gun catapults, stealth, etc.
Excellent points...and right on the money...all hitting well within the ring.
Is there a poster somewhere of “90 000 tons of diplomacy”? The picture is great and I need it my wall at home...:)
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.