Posted on 02/27/2012 9:23:02 AM PST by EnjoyingLife
USS Kittyhawk (CVN 63) I believe has been decommissioned since this picture was taken in 2007. The Kittyhawk goes all the way back to my days in the Corps ... nearly 50 years ago.
Wow look at those boats.
. . . and of course, what is not visible, are the X number of nuclear powered submarines that a below the surface. In my humble opinion, I say, “bring it on Iran, try to close the Straights of Hormuz”. Of course, the caveat there is whether or not the bozo sitting in the Whitey House Oval Office would have the balls and/or wherewithal to use the naval might.
Yeah, but do we have the proper number of pregnant lesbians and “minorities” crewing that hardware?
look how much black smoke that big old bird puts out. I thought they had new engines that were more efficient?
Spent four years on the USS Nimitz. Still brag about it today. n/s
Is this typical (standard!?) of the number of ships for each carrier? It doesn’t look like enough support, but I’m probably just thinking of the old WW II photos that IIRC show a LOT more ships nearby. I imagine with better weapons and aircraft we don’t need as much support for each task force as we did back then?
No worries mate. ALGORE bought a sh!tload of carbon credits for the BUFFs enough to last through 2050.
The 4 jets ahead of the carrier on the left are USN.
Why is it that all the destroyers are trailing the carriers?
I’m totally ignorant on this sort of stuff - is it likely that there are subs in the lead and/or on the flanks? What makes the destroyers to the stern of the carriers their best deployment?
Ah, I’m a moron - I got so hung up looking at the out-of-position destroyer that I totally missed the two escorts on the flanks and the two surfaced subs in the lead.
So let me modify that - are there likely any other submerged subs there?
This is strictly a photo op. This is NOT tactical steaming.
Those are not boats. A boat is something you carry on a SHIP.
I love how the subs are leaving bigger wakes than the carriers. They’re not meant to be very hydrodynamic on the surface, and actually have higher top speeds submerged.
Probably new tactics/armament. In the early '50s I served on the diesel boats as a sonarman. During war games we used to routinely penetrate the advance destroyer screen. Our WWII gear could pick up the sound of a convoy from MILES away and we could plot their general course. Then it was just a matter of getting on the surface and running ahead of them, go down to 150 feet and wait for the cans to pass overhead. Then we'd go up and pick off the tankers, which were the main targets. The same with carriers if we were up against a naval force. (On a snorkel boat we once ran through the screen at periscope depth with the snort mast still up (idiot Ensign had the deck) - stuck up six feet and left a wake as big as an outboard. We could easily read the numbers on the bows of the DDs. The skipper said he was going to tell the Admiral the names of the comic books their lookouts were reading.
That worked well until about 1954 when new surface craft sonar came out. Back then they used concussion grenades as depth charges and one time one went off really CLOSE. The skipper said "They missed." The exec reported that the "miss" knocked some cork off the hull. (snicker) That's when I knew the days of a free ride were over.
Old picture and impressive but the image is fading.
ping
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.