Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Aircraft Carrier Status Update

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
US Navy Carrier Strike Group Deployments: 04/02/14

CVN-68 Nimitz is in home port, Everett, WA (2/26/14).
CVN-69 Eisenhower is in home port, Norfolk, VA, DPIA (8/28/13).
CVN-70 Vinson is underway in the Pacific (4/02/14).
CVN-71 Roosevelt is in home port, Norfolk, VA (02/26/14).
CVN-72 Lincoln is in home port, Norfolk for RCOH & non-deployable, Avail 2016.
CVN-73 Washington is in home port, Yokosuka, Japan (02/26/14).
CVN-74 Stennis is in home port, Bremerton undergoing 14mo DPIA (05/03/13).
CVN-75 Truman is in the 6th Fleet AOR (04/02/14).
CVN-76 Reagan is underway in the Pacific (04/02/14).
CVN-77 Bush is in the 5th Fleet AOR in the Gulf (04/02/14).
-------
CVN-78 Ford construction at Newport News. Avail 2015, replaces Enterprise.
CVN-79 Kennedy construction at Newport News. Avail 2018, replaces Nimitz.
CVN-80 Enterprise, planned, Avail 2024, replaces Eisenhower.

RCOH=Refueling and Complex Overhaul, takes about four years.
DPIA=Docked Planned Incremental Availability, takes six months to a year.
COMPUTEX=Composite Unit Training Exercise, pre-deployment Strike Group coordination.

The above are all Carrier Strike Groups that normally travel with about 7-8 support ships including one cruiser, several destroyers (usually a squadron of 4), a fast attack supply ship, some frigates ,and a fast attack submarine or maybe two. The support ships are designed to protect the carrier. A CVN is about 100,000 tons displacement and can carry approximately 85 aircraft. CVNs are nuclear powered and run 25 years between refueling, which takes three to four years to complete.

Explanation of Areas of Responsibility (AOR)

3rd Fleet AOR – Eastern & Northern Pacific, Alaska, Bering Sea
4th Fleet AOR – Central & South America
5th Fleet AOR – The Middle East, Arabian Gulf, East Africa
6th Fleet AOR – The Mediterranean Sea, Europe
7th Fleet AOR – Asian Pacific. Indian Ocean to International Date Line

Below are the Amphibious Ready Groups/Marine Expeditionary Units. The main ship here is a "baby" carrier that is about half the size or less of a CVN, about 40,000 tons displacement. It is designed to hold helicopters and Harrier VTOL jets. These guys can pull off a minor invasion, if necessary. They usually carry a handful of tanks. Marines, by and large, are light infantry. LHA is a “Landing Helicopter Assault.” LHD is a “Landing Helicopter Dock.”

LHA-5 Pelelieu is in home port, San Diego (04/02/14).
LHA-6 America is undergoing sea trials. Available 2014.
LHD-1 Wasp is in home port, Norfolk (02/26/14).
LHD-2 Essex is in home port, San Diego in drydock – non-deployable (11/28/12).
LHD-3 Kearsarge is in homeport Norfolk, VA (02/26/14).
LHD-4 Boxer is in the 7th Fleet AOR (04/02/14).
LHD-5 Bataan is underway in the 5th Fleet AOR in the Gulf (04/02/14).
LHD-6 Bonhomme Richard is underway in the 7th Fleet AOR (02/26/14).
LHD-7 Iwo Jima is in home port, Norfolk (04/02/14).
LHD-8 Makin Island is in home port, San Diego (03/06/14).
------
LHA-7 Tripoli, contracted Avail. 2018, HII Ingalls, Pascagoula. $2.3B

Official Status of the Navy: www.navy.mil... (This is not always accurate.)
Carrier Locations: gonavy.jp... (Usually very accurate.)

Recent decommissioned/inactivated carriers:

CV-59 Forrestal, 1955—1993, Brownsville, TX, Fate: sold for scrap 10/23/13
CV-60 Saratoga, 1956—1994, Newport, RI, Fate: scrap pending 10/23/13
CV-61 Ranger, 1957—1993, Bremerton, WA, Fate: scrap (save effort underway)
CV-62 Independence, 1959—1998, Bremerton, WA, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-63 Kitty Hawk, 1961—2009, Bremerton; WA, Fate: reserve until 2015
CV-64 Constellation, 1961—2003, Bremerton, Fate: scrap pending 10/23/13
CVN-65 Enterprise, 1962-2012, Norfolk for reactor removal, Fate: scrap
CV-66 America, 1965—1996, Fate: scuttled in live fire exercise, 2005
CV-67 John F Kennedy, 1968—2007, Philadelphia, Fate: donation hold

Foreign Carriers (in progress: ATS: Any help appreciated on this section)

INDIA
R-22 INS Viraat, UK Built, 1959, 23,900 tons, 30 aircraft
R-11 INS Vikrant, launched 2013, service beginning: 2018-20, 40,000 tons
INS Vikramaditya, Russian built, 1987, 45,400 tons loaded, late 2013.
INS Vishal, 65,000 tons. Proposed: 2025

UNITED KINGDOM
R-06 HMS Illustrious, 1982, 22,000 tons, 22 helos
R-08 HMS Queen Elizabeth, 2016, 65,000 tons. aircraft = 40
R-09 HMS Prince of Wales, 2018, 65,000 tons, aircraft = 40

FRANCE
R-91 Charles de Gaulle, 2001, 42,000 tons, 40 aircraft, nuke

JAPAN
DDH-183 Izumo, 2015, 19,800 tons, 14 helos

ITALY
551 Giuseppe Garibaldi, 1985, 10,000 tons
550 Cavour, 2008, 27,000 tons, 30 aircraft

SPAIN
L-61 Juan Carlos I, 2010, 27,000 tons

CHINA
Liaoning, Russian built, 1988, 55,000 tons, 30 jets

RUSSIA
Kuznetsov, 43,000 tons, 42 jets, 1990
Vladivostok, LHD, 22,000 tons, 16 helicopters, French built, launched 2013

BRAZIL
A-12 Sao Paulo, French built, 1963, 24,000 tons, 22 jets

THAILAND
Chakri Naruebet, 1997, 11,000 tons




posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Discussion:

The above post is a summary of US Aircraft carrier deployments as of April 2, 2014. I've also added a "Foreign Carrier" section. Any help on this section appreciated. I'd like to list all foreign carriers and I'm not entirely sure it is 100% accurate yet.

Since last report the USS Forrestal, CV-69, has been moved from Inactive Ships to Browsville, Texas, where it has been sold (for a whopping $1.00) for scrap. The Saratoga, CV-60, and the Constellation, CV-64, await similar fates.

Deployments in the Gulf region are normal with a single Carrier Strike Group, CVN-77 GHW Bush, and a single Amphibious Ready Group, LHD-5 Bataan. Both these groups are home ported in Norfolk. The USS Truman, CVN-75, has transited the Suez and is now in the Med. It will probably have at least one port visit before it heads across the Atlantic back to home port Norfolk. All in all this is completely normal for the 5th and 6th fleet areas.

In the Pacific we have some activity. Both the USS Vinson, CVN-70, and the USS Reagan, CVN-76, are underway from San Diego. They appear to be hugging the west coast and are probably on training missions. In the Far East two Amphibious Ready Groups are hanging around off of Korea, the USS Boxer, LHD-4, and the LHD-6 USS Bonhomme Richard. The Richard is home ported in Sasebo, Japan and would normally be in the area, but the Boxer is from San Diego.

The Boxer is probably ultimately headed to the Gulf to relieve the Bataan, and it probably is off of Korea because of the North Korean missile launches. In any case that's a lot of propellers turning in the Pacific and bears some watching.
edit on 4/3/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


US Navy Carrier Strike Group Deployments: 04/02/14
CVN-70 Vinson is underway in the Pacific (4/02/14). CVN-75 Truman is in the 6th Fleet AOR (04/02/14). CVN-76 Reagan is underway in the Pacific (04/02/14). CVN-77 Bush is in the 5th Fleet AOR in the Gulf (04/02/14).



Is 4 deployments on the same day common amongst Carriers, or are we seeing the precursor to something else in your opinion..?


Thanks for the 411.





posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by facelift
 


Those aren't the deployment dates, they are the date of the update. As in yesterday that is where the carriers were.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Montana
reply to post by facelift
 


Those aren't the deployment dates, they are the date of the update. As in yesterday that is where the carriers were.



Wow...I didn't figure that one out. I'm not surprised...


Thanks for the clarification Montana.





posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Hmm, six US carriers at home and only four deployed. Seems like their activity has been reduced somewhat from what it used to be. Probably due to budget cuts.

Question: If the day of the carrier is "over" as many folks like to shout, why are so many nations developing a carrier force and/or carrier building program?

Cue Winnie-the-Pooh voice "Think...Think...Think"



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

schuyler


Recent decommissioned/inactivated carriers:

CV-59 Forrestal, 1955—1993, Brownsville, TX, Fate: sold for scrap 10/23/13
CV-60 Saratoga, 1956—1994, Newport, RI, Fate: scrap pending 10/23/13
CV-61 Ranger, 1957—1993, Bremerton, WA, Fate: scrap (save effort underway)
CV-62 Independence, 1959—1998, Bremerton, WA, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-63 Kitty Hawk, 1961—2009, Bremerton; WA, Fate: reserve until 2015
CV-64 Constellation, 1961—2003, Bremerton, Fate: scrap pending 10/23/13
CVN-65 Enterprise, 1962-2012, Norfolk for reactor removal, Fate: scrap
CV-66 America, 1965—1996, Fate: scuttled in live fire exercise, 2005
CV-67 John F Kennedy, 1968—2007, Philadelphia, Fate: donation hold





Such a sad, sad thing that all the bird farms I sailed with/on are now decommissioned. Well, except for the Nimitz and the Ike.

They were beautiful boats, one and all.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


They had to delay maintenance and refueling when sequestration hit. Lincoln was delayed at least two months for her refueling/refit, which delayed other maintenance for at least one other carrier. Now that they have at least some budget they're catching up.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 

The reason why so many other countries are developing and wanting carriers, is that the age of where the US is a superpower and a military might is slowly drawing to an end and is no longer needed. The problem with the Air Craft Carrier is the cost for such. If you consider that each Air Craft Carrier has to have a crew, and equipment, along with the strike force that goes along with it, it gets expensive for the US to keep them afloat, along with the system updated along with the newer technologies.

An air craft carrier, just carries aircraft, once those aircraft are launched, it is a target and has no real defense against any attack, hence the strike force. And if the ship is attacked before aircraft can get off of the ship, there can be the lose of equipment as well.

Perhaps it is a good thing that the number of ships are reducing down, that the US is no longer going to take the lead into the military affairs around the world, letting other countries take the lead in a military way and just be what they were once, back up and support.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I don't think the numbers of carriers are going down, worldwide they are going way up. US deployments are down right now is all. Not only is the US in the middle of an expansion program, but many other nations are starting one as well. If the carrier is such a useless platform, other nations would not be spending the huge amount they cost to develop, build and operate.

I think the carrier/CVBG concept has proven to be such an influence on the world stage in the current era that those other nations really really want to play the game as well. It says something to me that the folks spending the most money right now on carrier type platforms are the very countries everyone points to as having developed weapons systems that supposedly made the carrier obsolete. Time to re-think that issue...
edit on 4/3/2014 by Montana because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Cool info. I didn't realize there that many carriers in service. Side note, a fraternity brother of mine served on the Nimitz. He had some crazy stories.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
The carrier numbers and deployment are actually pretty normal. This list isn't any different than you would have seen five years ago. We're down one carrier until the Ford gets online, and two more are under construction. The amphibious ships are also normal and we've got a brand new one, America, fairly close to entering the rotation. If they cancel a carrier, then okay, that represents a decline, but that hasn't yet happened. In terms of planning, we're good to 2024.

IMO the carriers are still viable and today, nothing else touches them. Countries appear to favor the helicopter-based smaller carriers (40,000 tons or so), rather than the much larger 100,000 ton jet carriers, cost being a major factor. I believe this represents a "surgical" approach rather than an all-out approach, which is befitting brushfires as opposed to total war. In terms of an all-out war I agree that the carriers wouldn't stand much of a chance against current weaponry, but I maintain that this is not the point of the carriers anyway. It's simply force projection, and for that they work pretty well, though they never have been a "total answer."

My mistake on being sloppy with dates. I usually put the last date that I am aware of a change to show I got that far in updates, but that leaves some of the dates far in the past when no changes have taken place, such as the Lincoln refueling. Those aren't deployment dates as I have not tracked those that closely. That might not be a bad idea because it would show how long a ship has been away from home port, and that will generally tell you how close they are to returning. The original document includes some shading effects to tell you the status of any given ship, deployable or not, but this is lost information when posting to ATS.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler

Great post. The only thing I didn't know beforehand were Italy's 2 carriers. I look forward to any future updates on this thread.

As for doubts, the carrier is a great projection of force and diplomacy for any nation. This will hold true for quite some time. I speculate the future of on-demand intercontinental ballistic munitions may downgrade carriers when the technology is fully developed and deployed. Note I say, "downgrade", not replace.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
These mega exspensive ships are good when you want to fight a rag tag country like Africa but they are sitting ducks against Russia or China and whilst they can preject power across the world they can also become a big case of having all your eggs in one basket and the world seeing that basket smashed.

Britain ruled the waves but the ports in blackpool are empty these days

it's those little flasks sitting in a fridge in the middle of Israel you need to keep an eye on if you are talking more than political foreplay.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Hi just messaging to keep updated. Can't really provide much info. But just reading and hearing of different fleets (5th fleet , 7th fleet etc) it all sounds pretty funky. If only the Royal Navy was still the navy it was 80 odd years ago. I think I've got more bath toys than the Royal Navy

Thanks for the thread


Edit: stupid question time, what happened to the 1st and 2nd fleets ?
edit on 7-4-2014 by ThePeaceMaker because: Added text



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Carriers are also good for emergencies, such as typhoons, earthquakes, tsunamis, all that muscle on board, food, drinking water, doctors, operating theaters, helicopters from the attending fleet, inshore boats, yep, not just a pretty sight.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

ThePeaceMaker
Hi just messaging to keep updated. Can't really provide much info. But just reading and hearing of different fleets (5th fleet , 7th fleet etc) it all sounds pretty funky. If only the Royal Navy was still the navy it was 80 odd years ago. I think I've got more bath toys than the Royal Navy

Thanks for the thread


Edit: stupid question time, what happened to the 1st and 2nd fleets ?
edit on 7-4-2014 by ThePeaceMaker because: Added text


1st Fleet was disestablished in 1973, with 3rd Fleet taking over it's duties.

en.wikipedia.org...

2nd Fleet was disestablished in 2011. Reorganized under Fleet Forces Command. Essentially same job just different name.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePeaceMaker
 


Yeah, "fleet" can be confusing because it's not a "fleet of ships" but an "area of responsibility" with ships assigned to it. The flagship normally stays the same over time, but individual ships can be swapped out at will. The same is true of a "Carrier Strike group." Normally a CSG contains a carrier and assigned support ships: 4 destroyers, one cruiser, one submarine, and one supply ship, but in practice ships join and detach from a CSG during a deployment. The number of ships can double in a CSG very easily. This is not always based on need, but on proximity to maintain command and control.

Two more Arleigh Burkes have been assigned to the 7th fleet to float about North Korea. As you may know, Japan has ordered that any further North Korean missiles be shot down if launched near Japan. the Burkes have the Aegis defense system that is capable of doing this.

I, too, lament the loss of the British fleet, so I read the Patrick O'Brian novels over and over...



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
it cost a lot of cash to fill their tanks .



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 





I, too, lament the loss of the British fleet, so I read the Patrick O'Brian novels over and over...


It makes me sad every time I think of this.


The Brits ruled the oceans for so long and had such a magnificent fleet. They *were* the yardstick that other nations used to measure themselves by.

How diminished has it become today? They must have something for the Royal Navy to sail around with...





new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join