First Ford Class Carrier Readies for Launch

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by spartacus699

 

Umm.. Wow... Check that hatred for America for JUST a moment to get back to some reality, eh?

- First, please supply anything RELIABLE to support a MILLION dead civilians for Iraq and Afghanistan. That figure is laughably wild and off base...but I'd love to see backup to it. Then we can get into how many of those died by Coalition action and how many went at the hands of the terrorists we were a bit busy fighting. A US Aircraft Carrier wasn't blowing up busy markets (still are to this day, for that matter) full of women and children to make a political point. The "rebels" in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan get the award for willful murder in wholesale numbers.

- Second, please, explain to me how Aircraft Carriers were instrumental in the war for Afghanistan? They were useful in the opening stages of Iraq but Afghanistan wasn't an air war at any stage and..umm.. Checked a map for distances lately??? Aircraft Carriers DO have limitations and Landlocked nations like Afghanistan are not their strong points.

- Third, If we went to war for oil...WHERE IS MY OIL?! We haven't even seen favorable contracts, let alone TAKEN any Oil as spoils of war. If we'd done any of that, it may be fair to say it was about Oil. We didn't though, and in fact are more screwed for oil now than we were in 2001. It's ignorance to say it's about oil, IMO, when the facts say 100% the opposite.

Now, for general reference, those terrible ships that 'kill millions' in your view, also SAVE AND SERVICE MILLIONS on a regular basis, whenever a disaster strikes. Somehow that shouldn't count or mean anything tho right?

Due to the wars of the last 10+ years, the good the US Navy has done for the past 200 just go down the crapper, right?

ya you buy it with money that's fresh off the press. I'm not mad at the the you es as a whole just sectors of the g-v is out of control. Canada's no different but not so much the mil. Just the g-v is turning the country into nazi germany.


These stats are BS but still it supports the point:

en.wikipedia.org...

orangetom1999

truttseeker
I work on the Enterprise right now. Im a nuke taking care of decomming her. The Ford is over at the pier next to me and looks really interesting. Looking at it side by side on my carrier, its really just an astonishing difference. Orangetom, did not know you worked in the shipyard. Thats pretty cool. Maybe I'll see you around sometime. Anyway, the Enterprise is truly depressing to look at. After doing a crazy workup cycle in 2010, then back to back deployments that ship is like my second home. Up until recently I'm pretty sure I spent more time on the ship than I did at my house. So its really sad to see her go and help take her apart.

Back on topic. Im probably gonna walk over to the Ford probably this week and take a tour. I'll report back with any cool stuff. Some of my buddies have gone over there and looked at it and said it is HUGE!! The plants are really really cool, but thats stuff I cant post on here.

truttseeker,

I had no idea you worked there..nor were a nuke. Are you in the Navy??

PM me some time.

Yes...the Enterprise is in pitiful shape being disassembled for decommission. But she was in bad shape before she went out for her last cruise. Long overdue for being decomissioned. Just like the Kennedy and Connie and others. They all have a huge number of miles and years on them.

Yes...certain things we cannot talk about on here.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I would say that the enterprise wasn't overdue for decom. I was on there since we came out of the edsra in 2010. I would say the prise was outdated and shows its' however she performed wonderfully while I was out. We had a couple major things break
while we were out this time. I would say that all made us better operators though. Anyway, yeah I work on the enterprise. Work center sup down in 3 plant.

reply to post by truttseeker


Ahhh..ok Truttseeker. Yes..as I recall, though it has been some time since I read the post, that you had sworn in.


Ok..no problem. I'll be onboard her soon enough. Probably next summer.

I do have an idea why the Big E is being put out to pasture..though it is not something which I will put on here.

The age of the ship is only part of it. When and if we meet some time I will clue you in.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Phoenix
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

I also have to think that the GIUK gap was where USSR attack subs transited to the open Atlantic may not have been a place to station a CBG.

Sosus network and Submarines like the 688 made sense along with land base anti-submarine aircraft.

I agree that its expensive no matter how you cut it as 9/10ths any of this is costs to support and maintain the ships.

I say its even more expensive by far to lose Super Carrier(s) because of hubris. Not only in $$$ but also the resulting collapse of confidence and credibility of a 70 year plus belief in Carrier supremacy.

I alluded to vulnerability of CBG's to submarine attack something that's happened in fleet exercises but not talked of much. It can be said that in the thirties fleet exercises exposed the fallacy of Battleships invulnerability to air attack, that was likewise ignored and swept under the rug till hard facts showed otherwise.

Phoenix,

My apologies for taking so long in responding to this post of yours but I went back just tonight and re read many of the posts on here and caught this, your well thought out post.

I can tell you for certainty, having been stationed at Naval Station Keflavik, Iceland for a year, that the Navy rotated P3 Orion Submarine hunters out there on temporary duty from the states. They were then rotated out with another temporary duty group for six months at a time.

I got to go over to their hangers and take a look a one of these planes both inside and out.
Lots of nations transited their airborne submarine hunters through Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland, usually for gasing up amidst their missions.

We in the Air Force hunted the Russians in the air when making those long hauls from Murmansk down to Cuba with the Bear long range bombers/reconisance aircraft and the Navy hunted their submarines on either side of Iceland.

The Brits often would have their long range Shackelton sub hunters come through Iceland.

Very similar to this one here currently residing in a museum. This aircraft stood out to me because I had never seen contra rotating propellors other than in photos.

www.avroshackleton.com...

I saw lots of other nations submarine hunters ..usually turbo prop aircraft either two engines or four turboprops. You can usually tell them by the long stinger sticking out back of the tail and varieties of bubble blisters on the bottom of them. This combined with some kind of tube launchers, multiple tubes under the bottoms for launching sona bouys into the ocean.

Keflavik, Iceland was a common stopping point for sub hunting aircraft of many nations..not just ours.

So too was Keflavik Iceland a common stopping/refueling point for commercail as well as military aircraft going across the Atlantic.
I saw different groups from Stateside transiting there on the way to the Paris Air Show with their various wares.

Lots to see at a midatlantic waypoint like Keflavik, Iceland. It was good experience.

Yes, It would indeed be expensive to lose a carrier or battle group but I think it is one carefully considered and one for which someone thinks worth the price..at least for now. If it is worth the price...I think it is a price for which a nation has prepared. Exactly how..I will not speculate.

By the way ..in case you have not been told...it is the "small boys"..the destroyers around the carrier which are prepared to take this first hit...you know this correct??? It is they who are expendable and disposable before or until the carriers can launch their birds...yes?? Think that through very very carefully.
Anyone who has served on a small boy ..for any length of time knows this. It is not a warm fuzzy feeling for those who know.

It is the small boys which have taken a significant overhaul and change in their operating and development/envelope in the last 30 years.
This is not accidental.

Hope this helps Phoenix.

Orangetom

orangetom1999
reply to post by truttseeker

 

I do have an idea why the Big E is being put out to pasture..though it is not something which I will put on here.

The age of the ship is only part of it. When and if we meet some time I will clue you in.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I could only guess. It's been over a decade since I've been on it. Hazmat (PCBs, asbestos, lead, etc.), difficulty in keeping that thing from leaking lube oil, or rumors of one of the shafts being bent (Probably wasn't just the screws being worn that made shake as bad as it did once it was hauling. Subs probably knew where it was from the other side of the ocean.), problems with corrosion in some areas, etc. It likely had a couple things "wrong" with the design, since it was a prototype and the only one of its class. Some aspects being more in common with WWII battleships than its sucessors in the Nimitz class - it's more heavily built in some areas. It's being retired now, so such speculation probably isn't that big a deal anymore. I'm somewhat curious about your take on it.

As for the new ship that will (more or less) be replacing it... If everything works as intended, they'll probably have a nicer deal by going electric. You wont get hot spaces from steam piping or have condensation issues from steam leaks. Not to mention cable runs take up much less space, etc. Also electricity is easier to shut off and turn on so you don't need A-div to babysit it like steam, and you don't get things like water hammer, etc. Spaces will be quieter outside of flight ops, etc.

orangetom1999

Yes, It would indeed be expensive to lose a carrier or battle group but I think it is one carefully considered and one for which someone thinks worth the price..at least for now. If it is worth the price...I think it is a price for which a nation has prepared. Exactly how..I will not speculate.

By the way ..in case you have not been told...it is the "small boys"..the destroyers around the carrier which are prepared to take this first hit...you know this correct??? It is they who are expendable and disposable before or until the carriers can launch their birds...yes?? Think that through very very carefully.
Anyone who has served on a small boy ..for any length of time knows this. It is not a warm fuzzy feeling for those who know.

It is the small boys which have taken a significant overhaul and change in their operating and development/envelope in the last 30 years.
This is not accidental.

Hope this helps Phoenix.

orangetom,

Thank you for the very well done response!

Reading and contemplating many fictional stories where authors have based premises on potential real world possibilities plus reading much military history of past battles and naval engagements leads me to believe the Carriers may be more vulnerable than thought or maybe "they" know and just have too much invested career wise, money, wise and strategy wise to change directions. Much as the "Battleship" crowd was before WW II.

Your point about the "little guys" taking brunt of an attack is certainly doctrine for decades, good example is Leyte Gulf in 44' where "little guys" helped break the will of a far superior force.

Our big stick covering carrier battle groups for a long time has been the risk of national level retaliation using strategic forces - this is why I believe there has been no coordinated opposition to carrier operations at certain times and places in the past. The enemies of those times and places weighed the consequences and fought the aircraft but not the ship itself - this has been the case since WW II.

In recent times the umbrella has shrunken along with options in retaliation. At some point the calculation of consequence will shift or possibly be neutered.

When that day arrives its not a stretch for me to believe the true vulnerabilities of large Carriers will be shown in a very blunt fashion just as Battleships that were once thought invulnerable suffered.

My fear is investing in a few really big expensive ships, countered, will leave entire theaters uncountered and wide open to exploitation by virtue of only having 3-5 CBG's available in a practical operational environment.

I am not saying do away with them but have to surmise that just like many of our high value aircraft roles were modified to "stand-off" that it may not be a bad idea to modify Super Carrier operations to a stand-off role in support of smaller Carriers that can be risked without jeopardizing things on a strategic level.

All one has to do to imagine loss of a Super Carrier is to remove the retaliatory umbrella - once that's removed then all avenues become open to a clever enemy in countering our current fleet.

I'm not exactly comfortable knowing that risking WW3 is all that really stands between current operations and disaster. The very nature and value of these ships offers only one response in retaliation for a successful attack.

IMHO, more flexibility is in order.

orangetom1999
reply to post by truttseeker

 

Ahhh..ok Truttseeker. Yes..as I recall, though it has been some time since I read the post, that you had sworn in.


Ok..no problem. I'll be onboard her soon enough. Probably next summer.

I do have an idea why the Big E is being put out to pasture..though it is not something which I will put on here.

The age of the ship is only part of it. When and if we meet some time I will clue you in.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I am definitely interested in hearing your theories on it. Would be interesting to hear. I just know that it performed very very well. Where do you work at for shipyard? I'll be transferring off of her in July. Its super depressing. That place has been my home pretty much for the last 4 years. Ive had some of the worst times of my life on it. On the flipside of that I've had some of the most fun of my life. So idk. Let me know where you work, if I'm close by I might be able to meet up with you. i work till about 10 every day so it would be much of a stretch.

truttseeker


I am definitely interested in hearing your theories on it. Would be interesting to hear. I just know that it performed very very well. Where do you work at for shipyard? I'll be transferring off of her in July. Its super depressing. That place has been my home pretty much for the last 4 years. Ive had some of the worst times of my life on it. On the flipside of that I've had some of the most fun of my life. So idk. Let me know where you work, if I'm close by I might be able to meet up with you. i work till about 10 every day so it would be much of a stretch.

I am going to be on her come summer next year...in the plants.
You work till 10 pm or all night till 10am??

I've been on some ships/boats where the guys are horribly ragged out with the long hours. Many sailors do not like coming into the yards because of the long hours they must work verses being over in Norfolk.

Likewise I've had some of the best times of my life in the yard and also some of the most horrible. Good with the bad. I've learned alot though that I would not have known or learned elsewhere.

Though some of the reasons for the decommissioning have to do with asbestos etc..I do not believe it is for that reason.

No one has directly told me ..but it is more something one knows from exerience and what one sees and hears to connect the dots.

This for all purposes will be "Eyes only Material" It must needs be this way. When we meet I will let you know. Just bring it up.
I am certain at some time we will meet. Sorry Pauljs75 and Phoenix.

To the readers out here...sorry but it must needs be this way.
I have a great respect and concern for the sailors working and living on these ships and boats. Not just them but their families too. For I too was at one time a military brat as they are sometimes called as well as having done my time in uniform.
We must keep the faith.

It is the way it is.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom

orangetom1999

No one has directly told me ..but it is more something one knows from exerience and what one sees and hears to connect the dots.

This for all purposes will be "Eyes only Material" It must needs be this way. When we meet I will let you know. Just bring it up.
I am certain at some time we will meet. Sorry Pauljs75 and Phoenix.

To the readers out here...sorry but it must needs be this way.
I have a great respect and concern for the sailors working and living on these ships and boats. Not just them but their families too. For I too was at one time a military brat as they are sometimes called as well as having done my time in uniform.
We must keep the faith.

It is the way it is.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom

Nothing to be sorry about orangetom, there are many things I would not want to see on a public forum nor are there things folks should expect you to discuss putting yourself in a tight spot.

Its not hard to discern a couple of very good reasons, really eight good reasons, besides possible metal integrity type stuff.

Orangetom,
I work from about 7 in the morning until usually 10 in the morning. Not much to be done now. Im sure you know the inactivation plan so you know how little work is going on. Anyway anytime you want to meet up, im definitely excited to sit down and just talk about stuff. Maybe bounce some ideas off of each other. Let me know. Thanks, trutt