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

Skip to comments.

Three US carrier strike groups steam in formation in Pacific Ocean (Awesome photo)
AP via Yahoo! ^ | 6/19/06

Posted on 06/19/2006 12:49:10 PM PDT by dead

The USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Kitty Hawk and USS Ronald Reagan carrier strike
groups steam in formation during a joint photo exercise (PHOTOEX) in preparation
for Valiant Shield 2006 on Sunday, June 18, 2006, in the Pacific Ocean. The
PHOTOEX featured 14 ships as well as 17 aircraft from Air Force, Navy, and
Marine Corp including a B2 bomber. The Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group is
currently participating in Valiant Shield 2006, the largest joint exercise in recent
history. Held in the Guam operating area beginning June 19-23, the exercise
involves 28 Naval vessels including three carrier strike groups, more than 300
aircraft and more than 20,000 service members from the Navy, Air Force, Marine
Corps, and Coast Guard. (AP Photo/U.S. Navy, Jarod Hodge) Email Photo Print Photo


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: guam; gwot; jointexercises; nationaldefense; northkorea; shipmovement; usaf; usn; ussabrahamlincoln; usskittyhawk; ussronaldreagan; valiantshield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-188 last
To: Alter Kaker

Whatever it cost, IMO it is worth every penny.


151 posted on 06/19/2006 10:40:40 PM PDT by Tammy8 (Build a Real Border Fence, and secure the border!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

Well, since we're putting Naval ships on this page...




USS Peleliu.
My lady for four years.
152 posted on 06/19/2006 10:49:55 PM PDT by RandallFlagg (Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
Good night, BG. Sorry I missed you you missed me....lol.
153 posted on 06/19/2006 10:51:52 PM PDT by onyx (Deport the trolls --- send them back to DU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: onyx

154 posted on 06/19/2006 10:57:11 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE


Aw, that's really cute. Good night, sweet you.


155 posted on 06/19/2006 10:59:00 PM PDT by onyx (Deport the trolls --- send them back to DU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Night, O ... have sugar-sweet dreams.


156 posted on 06/19/2006 11:06:15 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

OK -- although I prefer racy ones.
You have the sugar sweet dreams. :)


157 posted on 06/19/2006 11:09:12 PM PDT by onyx (Deport the trolls --- send them back to DU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: dead
Outstanding!!!

Thanks for posting.
158 posted on 06/20/2006 4:10:57 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grim

ty


159 posted on 06/20/2006 4:14:59 AM PDT by Jonx6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bender2
Well, you've got a good source. It was my understanding that as they abandoned, they were trying to open scuttles so that she'd go down more quickly. In my mind, that qualifies as sinking not 'solely due to enemy action.'

I realize that's splitting hairs, but my point was to the posters who were saying how easy it is to sink a US warship, and in particular a carrier. As I expect you knew.
160 posted on 06/20/2006 5:09:58 AM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
Re: It was my understanding that as they abandoned, they were trying to open scuttles so that she'd go down more quickly.

As far as I can recall, I have never heard that in regard to the sinking of the Yorktown. When the Japanese torpedoes hit both the carrier and the destroyer by her side, the repair crews were having some success in righting the flattop's list. With the new damage and the quick breakup and sinking of the Hammann, the men of the repair crew were ordered to abandon ship, not go down deeper into the ship to open scuttles...

The source I used here on FR was just one of many I could quote that would say the Yorktown was sunk by a combination of Japanese aircraft and the later torpedoes of I-168.

I understand you wanted to point out that large carriers are not that easy to sink. Last year the US Navy used the USS America as a target to see how much damage a large carrier could take before sinking. Admittedly, a empty hulk is not the same as a fully armed and manned carrier. The results are classified, but anyone with a lick of sense would admit if it floats, it can be sunk.

I just hope and pray we don't get too arrogant and put our carriers in harms way from over confidence...

161 posted on 06/20/2006 5:29:09 AM PDT by Bender2 (Gad! The inmates have control... And I'm trying to quit smoking!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Bender2
...if it floats, it can be sunk.

Of course.

It's interesting that a 'show of force' has been a Navy mission since navies first arose. In some cases, placing the ship in harm's way is the mission, and a very effective one. But by definition overconfidence is wrong, and I share your hope that our leaders get the balance right.

As the USS Cole shows, we don't always.
162 posted on 06/20/2006 6:22:09 AM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
..."if the Argentine's exocets had worked properly, the Brits would have been defeated."

Doubtful. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had already indicated that she was prepared to nuke Argentina if necessary.

Ironically, her rattling of the UK nuclear sabre was reportedly to then-French President Francois Mitterand, demanding that France hand over the deactivate codes for the French-built exocets, because the UK was not about to tolerate any more of their ships being hit as was the Sheffield.

Argentina never had a prayer, don't kid yourself otherwise my FRiend. ;)
163 posted on 06/20/2006 5:17:30 PM PDT by mkjessup (The Shah doesn't look so bad now, eh? But nooo, Jimmah said the Ayatollah was a 'godly' man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Grim

Thanks. It's my new background.


164 posted on 06/20/2006 5:19:07 PM PDT by Lurking in Kansas (Nothing witty here… move on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dead

I think Korea's missles are just V1 and V2 rockets with a longer range. Any word on a guidance system other than "point and hope"??


165 posted on 06/20/2006 7:22:08 PM PDT by rfreedom4u (Native Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
So which carrier launched the B-2 in the photo?

None of them?

166 posted on 06/20/2006 7:37:15 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma

167 posted on 06/20/2006 9:23:54 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
Caption for the above photo

In this photo released by the U.S. Navy, three Arleigh
Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, the USS McCampbell
(DDG 85), USS Lassen (DDG 82) and USS Shoup (DDG 86)
steam in formation during a photo exercise for Valiant Shield
in the Pacific Ocean. Valiant Shield focuses on integrated
joint training among U.S. military forces.


168 posted on 06/20/2006 9:41:57 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

You really MUST stop this. I've now bought 7 monitors because I can't decide which one to use....

:)


169 posted on 06/20/2006 10:11:02 PM PDT by Brad’s Gramma (Get right with God....eternity is a long time.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma


170 posted on 06/20/2006 10:18:43 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: omega4412

"The terrorists have won the toss and have elected to receive."

***
I love that!!
I like your tagline, too.


171 posted on 06/22/2006 7:45:40 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Never trust Democrats with national security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: July 4th

Awesome pic, but maybe it isn't the safest thing for the Navy to have this many assets so close together?

***
I know zip about military matters and protocols, but I am confident that our guys have all the contingencies covered. Remember, we don't have Clinton's DOD anymore.


172 posted on 06/22/2006 7:48:08 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Never trust Democrats with national security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dead

Awesome pics ... thanks for the thread.


173 posted on 06/22/2006 7:53:46 AM PDT by Centurion2000 ( Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doohickey

"Joint" means one thing if you were in the military, and quite another if you're Libertarian.

**
LOL


174 posted on 06/22/2006 7:54:38 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Never trust Democrats with national security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono

Excellent! I spent almost my entire Navy career on carriers. Send along a big Bravo Zulu to your son from a old Navy Chief.


175 posted on 06/22/2006 7:59:26 AM PDT by P8riot (Stupid is forever. Ignorance can be fixed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: dead
There isn't another country on the planet that can claim to have this many of these. Let alone one.


176 posted on 06/22/2006 8:11:35 AM PDT by P8riot (Stupid is forever. Ignorance can be fixed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hc87
More like 30.5 or 31 knots for the carriers. - Officially. shhhhhhhhhhh!
177 posted on 06/22/2006 8:18:58 AM PDT by P8riot (Stupid is forever. Ignorance can be fixed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

I forget who came up with that line about the terrorists. The B-52 picture is at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/images/b-52_11.jpg


178 posted on 06/22/2006 8:25:01 AM PDT by omega4412 (Multiculturalism kills. 9/11, Beslan, Madrid, London)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Paco
That's exactly what I was thinking. NK is supposed to test fire a missile...what if they armed it and launched it at the battle group? Not much of a chance they'd do that, but...why give them such a fat, juicy target?

These ships are only this close for the photo shoots. In reality chances are they would be spread out so much that it is likely no two ships would have visual contact with one another. They could cover many thousands of square nautical miles, it'd take a sh!tload of nukes to take them out.

179 posted on 06/22/2006 8:26:12 AM PDT by P8riot (Stupid is forever. Ignorance can be fixed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu

"I don't have a problem with that. In fact I'd rather that most of my taxes go to the military, instead of "social programs"."

Amen, that's the only constitutional use of our public money anyway.


180 posted on 06/22/2006 8:32:15 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (In a world where Carpenters come back from the dead, ALL things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
Excellent! I spent almost my entire Navy career on carriers. Send along a big Bravo Zulu to your son from a old Navy Chief.

You bet I will Chief!

181 posted on 06/22/2006 9:00:42 AM PDT by Inyo-Mono (Life is like a cow pasture, it's hard to get through without stepping in some mess. NRA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
Ready for another monitor ??


182 posted on 06/22/2006 3:30:04 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
Caption for above:

The USS Cowpens (CG 63) leads the formation of USS
Lassen (DDG 82), USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), USS
Vandegrift (FFG 48) and USNS Tippecanoe (T-AO 199)
in the Western Pacific Ocean on June 18, 2006,
to start exercise Valiant Shield 2006. The joint
exercise consists of 28 naval vessels including
three carrier strike groups and more than 300
aircraft and approximately 20,000 service members
from the Navy, Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and
Coast. DoD photo by Airman Benjamin Dennis, U.S. Navy.

183 posted on 06/22/2006 3:32:54 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus

So you really think the Kitty Hawk, with an FFG in train, can make better than 31 knots?

What's the shaft pressure like on a Nimitz when it gets beyond 33 knots?


184 posted on 06/24/2006 10:06:56 AM PDT by hc87
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: dead

Wow! That's a great picture!


185 posted on 06/24/2006 10:09:44 AM PDT by NRA2BFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

LOL!!


186 posted on 06/24/2006 10:10:35 AM PDT by NRA2BFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Waverunner

I just set that as my background. It looks awesome! Thanks!


187 posted on 06/24/2006 10:17:00 AM PDT by NRA2BFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hc87
So you really think the Kitty Hawk, with an FFG in train, can make better than 31 knots?

In reasonably low sea states (less than 4), and with no engineering casualties . . . absolutely.

Hull speed for an aircraft carrier is about 44 kts, and with their hull forms there's no reason they can't make hull speed.

I don't have the book in front of me so I can't remember the author, but I have "Introduction to Naval Architecture" (I know you can get it through Naval Institute Press.) which shows how to calculate top speed for simple displacement hulls. You can also see the calculation at:
http://www.sailingusa.info/cal__hull_speed.htm

The real question is how much past hull speed they can go. If you're not familiar with 'hull speed' you need to go look it up, but the short version is that it's the speed at which the ship's wave pattern approaches the ship's length, and in effect the ship is steaming 'up' its own bow wave. It takes power to do that (unless you transition to planing as a ski boat does). At speeds less than hull speed, the increase in power required for more speed is fairly linear and not particularly challenging.

Also through Naval Institute Press, you can get a series of books on the design history of US warships. The one on Destroyers says that a distinguishing characteristic of destroyers is that they can typically go faster than hull speed. Hence, a Charles F Adams class destroyer (with hull fineness ratio similar to the carrier - the Spruances and Burkes are relatively fat) gets about 37 kts on 70,000 horsepower (20 hp/ton) while a Nimitz class carrier gets about 45 kts (or so, it's classified and I don't know the real number) on 280,000 horsepower (3 hp/ton) because the destroyer has a hull speed of about 25 kts and uses brute force to get faster than that.

The Oliver Hazard Perry class FFGs are rated at 28 kts, but if you check the US Destroyers book you'll see that the US Navy rates ship speed with lots and lots of decrements. For example, it's at sea state 3, with hull fouling equivalent to 6 months at sea, with full fuel, weapons, crew and food, with engines nearing overhaul, etc., etc.

As a result, Perry's have been observed going 38 kts, which is way beyond hull speed.

If I were going into harm's way, in a transition-from-peacetime scenario where ships have not been in continuous combat for months, I'd make sure my escort ships could make a fleet speed of at least 30 kts. Fleet speed for TF 38/58 during combat in WWII was typically 25 kts, and there are multiple examples of carriers with half their engineering plant down due to damage yet still able to make fleet speed.

By the way, this is not all theory. While you're free to think I'm lying, I had a friend (since deceased) who was the engineering duty officer on a FRAM II destroyer sailing as escort on Enterprise when she was making her sea trials. At one point, Enterprise blinkered over to the destroyer that she was going to go make her speed run and she'd come back and get the destroyer later. The Captain called down to my friend and said, "I don't care if this ship blows up, we're not going to let Enterprise leave us behind."

They were up to 37 kts, with all the safeties bypassed . . . and the Enterprise sailed off over the horizon, then came back and rendezvoused with them later.

I don't know what the shaft pressure on a Nimitz at any speed, but I've been in the Engineering spaces of a couple of battleships, and the shafts are a bit bigger than those on your average pickup truck. I don't doubt each can carry its share of the 280,000 hp at which the ship is rated (see "Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet").
188 posted on 06/24/2006 8:06:05 PM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-188 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