Navy Takes Delivery of New Carrier

Military.com ^ | 5/11/09 | Anon

[Non-Sequitur]

The Navy took delivery of its newest aircraft carrier, USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), from Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding. George H.W. Bush is the 10th and final Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

[nathanbedford]

So we have the last of the Nimitz class carriers. An emblem of the projection of United States power for more than a half-century. Appropriately named after the last World War II president. I fear that the closing of this class represents more than merely witnessing the normal run out of a given class of technology but a darkening eclipse of American power generally.

If America does not control the seas, just as the British Navy protected the sea lanes while they had the baton, the world will descend into a Hobbesian place. Is this what Obama wants? Does he invite the chaos so that he can submerge America into his vision of one world government? Or does he believe that the left now has sufficient power in America that he can exploit this platform, as American presidents for half a century have projected power from our carriers, to advance his agenda around the world?

The jury is out.

[WellyP]

Bambi will NEVER have one named after him!

[bmwcyle]

Another sea going big submarine target.

[RSmithOpt]

Neither with Clinton....can see it now....the “U.S.S. Slick”

[TSgt]

Though my service was in the Air Force I still maintain a great amount of respect for Naval aviators. I had the great privilege of spending the night on the USS Stennis via a C2 back in 2000. It was one of the most incredible experiences of my life and I left the ship with a great deal of admiration for the Navy.

And the Blue Angels mop the floor with the Thunderbirds. ;)

[TurtleUp]

Bambi will NEVER have one named after him!

I don't know about that. I found a ship worthy of the name "USS Barack Hussein Barry Soetoro Obama", currently a part of the Somali fleet:

And a man worthy to command such a ship:

[TurtleUp]

... the world will descend into a Hobbesian place. Is this what Obama wants?

Is there any doubt on whether life under our Dear Leader will be as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short as he can make it?

[Wildbill22]

For Clinton’s ship name I was thinking more along the lines of a submarine nick named “The Big Willie”.

[CPOSharky]

For Clinton’s ship name I was thinking more along the lines of a submarine nick named “The Big Willie”.

We got short bent submarines?

[dblshot]

The next leap in power projection technology seems likely to be unmanned remotely controled air borne weapons systems which have the advantage of not needing to carry a human and associated life support systems. So they will be faster, can pull more g-s, carry more payload per fuel used etc. Once these things get past the current preditor stage it’s going to be like tanks against calvary only in the air. If we can get over our Star Trek religion taboos about space based weapons systems there is a lot of power projection capability there too. Sad to see the “last” of the big carriers built if that happens. I watched the New Jersey go into mothballs. I doubt though that the Bush will be retired for another 30 years given how we hang on to these old ships and upgrade them as time goes by. I wonder what the motto of the Bush will be. Read my lips, no new taxes doesn’t cut it. If we really wanted to scare the enemy we should have named it the USS Cheney!

[cva66snipe]

Nimitz is about 34 years old. ENTERPRISE CVN 65 the first CVN and only one of her class is a year short of 50. Onbe more carrier has been awarded the Gerald R Ford but the keel has yet to bew laid. Personally I wish they would end naming carriers after POTUS and return to Naval tradition.

[Victor]

You mean “Little Bent Willie”, don’t you?

[cva66snipe]

The Bush has a special automatic built in half life {25 years of service} decomissioning feature built in honor of the Bush Family Naval planning policies. /sarcasm

[Non-Sequitur]

Bambi will NEVER have one named after him!

(*sigh*) Wanna bet?

[wastoute]

Actually they should make ne more. "The Zero" and they can paint a big "Bull's Eye" on the Deck. It would be fitting.

Μολὼν λάβε

[thefrankbaum]

So we have the last of the Nimitz class carriers. An emblem of the projection of United States power for more than a half-century. Appropriately named after the last World War II president. I fear that the closing of this class represents more than merely witnessing the normal run out of a given class of technology but a darkening eclipse of American power generally.

Why? Did you feel the same way with the phase-out of the F-14? This is the natural order of things.

If America does not control the seas, just as the British Navy protected the sea lanes while they had the baton, the world will descend into a Hobbesian place. Is this what Obama wants? Does he invite the chaos so that he can submerge America into his vision of one world government? Or does he believe that the left now has sufficient power in America that he can exploit this platform, as American presidents for half a century have projected power from our carriers, to advance his agenda around the world?

I'm no fan of Obambi, but this was on the schedule long before he cheated his way into the US Senate, let alone the Presidency. I'm not sure I see the causation you are referring to here.

[cva66snipe]

Why? Did you feel the same way with the phase-out of the F-14? This is the natural order of things.

The natural order is to improve when replacing. It's replacement was at best a limited downgrade. F-14 had a near perfect airframe for it's capabilities. Money could have been saved by simply doing future Avionics upgrades instead. Ending the F-14 was one of Cheney's biggest blunders but destroying our capabilities to ever build another was insanity and his biggest blunder of blunders.

Footnote: I fear our next carriers after FORD will be called the USS OUTSOURCED with nothing including the steel built in USA.

[nathanbedford]

I do not mind defending what I said but I find it a bit tedious to have to defend what I did not say. For example, I did not imply that the end of the Nimitz class construction program was anything but in the natural order of things. My fears about the eclipsing of American power projection capability do not have much to do with the loss of this technology which is inevitable, as another poster points out, in the age of drones, missiles, and satellites.

Second I do not feel obliged to defend any reference to "causation" because I did not make any such reference. To the contrary I stated the proposition about Obamas intention to project power or to refrain from projecting power in the alternative.

Are you taking issue for its own sake?

[thefrankbaum]

For example, I did not imply that the end of the Nimitz class construction program was anything but in the natural order of things. My fears about the eclipsing of American power projection capability do not have much to do with the loss of this technology which is inevitable, as another poster points out, in the age of drones, missiles, and satellites.

You originally said the ending of the Nimitz-class is an ominous omen for American power - I assumed that statement was tied to loss of the platform, rather than a general "the world is changing" statement. Apparently you were speaking more in terms of the latter. I mis-read your original post. Sorry.

To the contrary I stated the proposition about Obamas intention to project power or to refrain from projecting power in the alternative.

Well, maybe causation was not the correct term. Perhaps relevance is. I did not see the interplay between Obama's objectives and the ending of the Nimitz-class. In fact, I still don't.

Are you taking issue for its own sake?

Not at all. I believe you and I have had some fruitful discussions in the past, and was merely trying to understand the various points you had offered.