Skip to comments.On board the gargantuan behemoths of the sea: The USS George Washington
Posted on 08/03/2013 4:16:01 PM PDT by naturalman1975
THE steel deck shakes as the steam powered catapult and the deafening roar of 40,000 pounds of jet thrust propels the 20-tonne Hornet strike fighter from zero to 260km/hr and skywards in just two seconds.
On maximum afterburner, where fuel is injected into the engines downstream of the turbines creating jets of flame from the exhaust, a Hornet's two engines generate 20,700 pounds of thrust each and every launch from the carrier's flight deck feels and sounds like a mini volcanic eruption. Clouds of steam from the catapult enhances the effect as each sleek fighter plane is flung on its gravity defying 100-metre journey down the deck and into the air. Knowing there are another 64 of these lethal killing machines on board the 100,000 tonne American flat top would give pause to even the most daring adversary.
This is raw and precise power projection and News Corp Australia was invited on board the Nimitz Class aircraft carrier USS George Washington about 200km off the coast of Rockhampton to witness it first hand.
One of 10 carriers in the United States Navy, the USS George Washington, or "GW" as it is fondly known, was the centrepiece of the three-week biannual "Talisman Saber" (TS) 2013 military exercises between 10,000 Australian and 20,000 US personnel last month in and around Queensland. It is the biggest bilateral military exercise conducted by either country and takes the ability of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to fight alongside US forces anywhere on the planet to a whole new level of seamless "interoperability".
"Our two navies and out two armed forces in general have a high degree of interoperability that is not matched anywhere else in the world. Our commanders think similarly and our crews are trained to a similar standard."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
That “high degree of interoperability” is seriously threatened by the BHO2 administration.
Odd way to describe our gems of the ocean.
I thought Oprah and Michelle had gone swimming or something
That depends. I imagine that there will soon be a high degree of interoperability planned with a 4th-century inbred culture.
I came for the pictures of big boats and guns and planes. We have rules for that, too.
I’ve given up on posting images from articles - they nearly always get removed by a moderator, because of the number of copyright issues and conglomerated ownership of news images.
See reply at #8
Can you imagine one of the US media writing this?
I don’t think it would read the same at all.
There, is that a little better?
The pictures with the article are actually kind of lame.
Surer is damm that's some boat..
Read the article ??
Shirley you can't be series !
< /snort > d:^)
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Translation into ghetto-ese/ebonics......."they be big".
For me, that ranks right up there with a picture of Yosemite or the Golden Gate bridge.
Being on a ship like that, it was easy to take for granted how big those things are. I stopped thinking about it, but I remember coming back on a liberty launch once and having to go all the way around it. I remember thinking “Holy crap. This thing is frikking big.”
I had a dream one night the ship got sunk. I was treading water at night, in the water with a lot of other bobbing heads, and the ship was going down. I was directly astern of her.
As I watched, the ship started to go down by the stern, and the bow begin to rise into the night sky. Higher and higher it went, blotting out the stars, and I could faintly see the hull number painted on the bow portion of the flight deck.
When the ship was nearly vertical, the bow looked like it was five hundred feet in the air, then slowly and ponderously, gaining speed, began to fall backwards right on top of me.
I woke up, it scared the crap out of me. In retrospect, I know a ship wouldn’t go down like that, tipping over on top of me in the water. Having thought and read about it a good deal since then, I feel pretty confident even if she did go down by the stern, a large vessel like that would never get vertical in that fashion, much less tip the other way.
Anyway, a bit off topic, but I can say, in my heart (because of that nightmare) I almost DO grasp the concept of just how big they really are. Even though it was only a dream, I sure felt the immensity of the vessel in a visceral way you can’t get by walking around on her or seeing her tied p somewhere.
Great ship, but, I do dislike the trend of naming carriers after Presidents. Has a political tinge to it and seems lazy.
For the days of Hornet, Ranger, Midway, Cowpens, Independence, Intrepid, Saratoga, Constellation, etc.
A new carrier named Glory or Benjamin Franklin or Concord or some such would be fantastic to hear.
Nice pic, but it dosn’t look anything like a US CVA or CVN that I’ve seen. ....Must be the Aussie carrier.
I did serve on a CVA in the catapults (V-2) division when on active duty in the US Navy. The pic’s flight deck doesn’t look anything like a US carrier; nor do the markings on the aircraft. ...The carrier looks much too short and does not have two bow catapults with ‘horns’ to catch the bridles.
Right click on the pic, and choose Properties. You’ll see that (according to the image source) it’s the USS George Washington. Better yet, use Dogpile image search, and you’ll see about 2 dozen shots of the ship on the first page.
It's from the USN, so I would think they know whose ship it is...
To your #25 and #26.....
I appreciate your reply. I went to Google images and found nothing that looked like that. If your pic in #26 was accurate, then why does it look like the aircraft all facing aft and no indication of catapults?
Not pickin’ an argument with you... and I’ve been up waaaay too long. Just doesn’t look like the flight deck I lived on when in the Navy, as the catapults aren’t right and there’s no LSO station on the port side.
My ship was small compared to the huge CVNs of today, but we had three operating catapults and normally had about 80-100 aircraft on board. The aircraft were NOT parked on the catapults or JBDs, but were positioned to allow launches and traps.
Have a good Sunday!
If you look at the larger shot, there is an E-2c lined up on the port cat. The reason for the F-18's facing aft on the other cat is beyond me, unless they are just showing off how huge the deck is.
In the first shot, you can see two swabbies standing on the port cat near the hook-up zone. There appear to be a couple of cats that sort of cross paths on the bow end of the capture deck as well. What they are doing there is beyond me.
Wiki is correct in this instance. I was in the RAN at the time, and the decision hit us very hard - especially those of us who had hoped to spend our careers serving on carriers.
Our new Canberra class Landing ships (Landing Helicopter Docks) may eventually give us some limited carrier capacity again - the design allows for something like the STOVL F35 when it becomes available, although initial plans don't call for fixed wing aircraft.
The future HMAS Canberra nearing completion, at Williamstown, Victoria, Australia.