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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-280 last
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]

To: W. W. SMITH

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.


261 posted on 10/04/2006 10:15:10 AM PDT by fredhead (Women want me....Fish fear me....I can dream can't I?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Losing the F-14 with its long legs, and the AIM-54 with its long legs, ..... terribly ill-advised, and very dangerous. We need another long range air superiority fighter for the carrier fleet, and we need the ALRAAM.

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.

262 posted on 10/04/2006 11:18:37 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; cva66snipe
[c_I_c] I recall no contract tiff at that time worth mentioning (early in the F-14 program is another matter entirely).

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.

263 posted on 10/04/2006 11:35:45 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
This business of naming CV's after presidents is troublesome to me. It's too political -- and it tells me that the republic is decaying, that the politics of personality has eclipsed the politics of principles. Of course the Democrats started it, putting FDR on the dime and his name on a carrier (and soon thereafter, Sec'y Forrestal's), and then putting Jack Kennedy on the half-dollar and his name on another carrier.

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.

264 posted on 10/04/2006 11:56:27 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: fredhead
Know why DDG-80 is USS Roosevelt and not USS Franklin D. Roosevelt like CV-42?

Because it's named after Eleanor too. The P.C. Navy at its best.
265 posted on 10/04/2006 1:21:17 PM PDT by GATOR NAVY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

"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.


266 posted on 10/04/2006 9:19:14 PM PDT by Rembrandt (We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

"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.


267 posted on 10/04/2006 9:21:45 PM PDT by Rembrandt (We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

"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.


268 posted on 10/04/2006 9:30:47 PM PDT by Rembrandt (We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg
"I worked on the JFK at Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. in 1968 during the final phases of construction and outfitting. Last of the non-nuclear U.S. carriers, I think"

It was the last, I believe. I was stationed on the Kennedy from '76 to '77.

269 posted on 10/05/2006 6:31:46 AM PDT by brivette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: brivette
She was definitely the last convetnionally powered carrier the US built.

She will probably be decomm'ed in 2007 or 2008.

Here's a site you may find some interest in:


270 posted on 10/05/2006 8:37:46 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

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.


271 posted on 10/07/2006 11:49:42 PM PDT by USMMA_83 (Tantra is my fetish ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe; joanie-f; Dukie; betty boop; Noumenon; Grampa Dave; B4Ranch; soundbits; Lurker; ...

She was christened yesterday, Saturday, Oct 7, 2006.

272 posted on 10/08/2006 8:14:08 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rembrandt
"...the front will just be a big zipper..."

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.

273 posted on 10/08/2006 9:25:23 PM PDT by Husker8877
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

>>>> So Ole Slick doesn't get a Nimitz named for him? <<<

USS William Jefferson Clinton CVS1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510710/posts


274 posted on 10/11/2006 6:49:15 PM PDT by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: quietolong
...but, but, I thought this was the USS Clinton:


275 posted on 10/14/2006 12:00:19 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

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.


276 posted on 10/20/2006 3:59:43 PM PDT by omega4179 (Studds (D) MA trend setting pederast in congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

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.


277 posted on 10/20/2006 4:01:48 PM PDT by omega4179 (Studds (D) MA trend setting pederast in congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

Excellent points...and right on the money...all hitting well within the ring.


278 posted on 11/03/2006 5:57:08 AM PST by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Is there a poster somewhere of “90 000 tons of diplomacy”? The picture is great and I need it my wall at home...:)


279 posted on 09/04/2007 8:24:17 AM PDT by thegardenstate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: thegardenstate
Post number 10 on this thread...


280 posted on 09/04/2007 8:41:49 AM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-280 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