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

Skip to comments.

Navy Set To Retire CV 67 Kennedy
CNO via NAVADMIN 373-06 | 21 Dec 2006

Posted on 12/27/2006 7:37:33 AM PST by libtoken

The US Navy has formally announced it currently plans to retire CV 67 Kennedy (plus some other ships) from its active ship registry by 30 Sep 2007. However, this could still change.

http://www.npc.navy.mil/NR/rdonlyres/B5AA3BD3-C4F0-4FAF-8850-8D26969E1CDB/0/NAV06373.txt


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: kennedy; navy; ussimpeachedpres
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-219 next last
To: The Great RJ

Oh come on.

Are you saying an 80,000 ton oil fired Aircraft Carrier with 80+ aircraft aboard it is obsolete because it is fueled by Naval Distillate?


41 posted on 12/27/2006 8:32:15 AM PST by rlmorel (Islamofacism: It is all fun and games until someone puts an eye out. Or chops off a head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: libtoken

I'd convert it to a giant cruise missile launcher.


42 posted on 12/27/2006 8:32:25 AM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Yes. I am not sure where all of this pooh pooing of underway replenishment is coming from...

Most ships in the USN are NOT nuclear powered.


43 posted on 12/27/2006 8:34:47 AM PST by rlmorel (Islamofacism: It is all fun and games until someone puts an eye out. Or chops off a head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

I thought the Navy kept a few oil fired carriers to be stationed in Japan. The Nips, excuse me, Japs, are a little sensitive about the whole nuclear thingy. I think the Kennedy is the youngest oil fired carrier we got.


44 posted on 12/27/2006 8:35:29 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (The artist doesn't have to have all the answers; he must, however, ask the right questions honestly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

True...we did refer to her as "The Big John", and...not in the complimentary way...:)


45 posted on 12/27/2006 8:37:01 AM PST by rlmorel (Islamofacism: It is all fun and games until someone puts an eye out. Or chops off a head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
But the logistical capacity...widely deployed for multiple ocean coverage and adverse contingencies... appears to be.

We have roughly half the oilers we had at the height of the fleet under Reagan/Bush. We also have about half the ships so the logistical capacity has not diminished proportionate to the ships requiring it.

Hence a contributing factor to the USS Cole disaster.

And that is pure nonsense. The oilers in the area were where they were supposed to be, with the fleet. You cannot detail an oiler to follow around each ship as its own personal gas station. Then you will certainly not have the logistical capacity for world wide operations you spoke of.

Captains think constantly of fuel states. So to task force commanders. The goal at the time was to have assets arrive in theater with their fuel tanks full or nearly full. Hence the decision to refuel ships at Yemen. Topping off there meant that they could be dispatched immediately to wherever the task force commander wanted them, and kept the oilers on station to service the task force. As it turns out it left the ships open to attack, so they've stopped it. Now I've no doubt that ships arriving on station have to seek out the nearest oiler and fuel before they can do anything else. And we probably have to have more oilers on station as a result.

46 posted on 12/27/2006 8:42:09 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

It is my understanding that rather than get a much older ship such as the Kennedy in exchange for the Kitty Hawk, the current Japanese leadership is willing to have a newer carrier, even if it IS nuclear.


47 posted on 12/27/2006 8:42:48 AM PST by libtoken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
True...we did refer to her as "The Big John", and...not in the complimentary way...:)

I believe that she was also referred to as "The Head of the Med", also not in a complementary way.

48 posted on 12/27/2006 8:43:39 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
Most ships in the USN are NOT nuclear powered.

Carriers may be nuclear powered, their aircraft are not. They have to be replenished at sea with aviation fuel on a regular basis.

49 posted on 12/27/2006 8:44:55 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The minesweepers were an idea that seems not to have worked out too well in the past. They have their place, but I understand Navy has considered other means of dealing with the mine threat.

The old amphibs are being phased out in favor of the new ones, "old lamps for new".


50 posted on 12/27/2006 8:44:55 AM PST by libtoken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: libtoken
The minesweepers were an idea that seems not to have worked out too well in the past. They have their place, but I understand Navy has considered other means of dealing with the mine threat.

During the Reagan years when the Navy was escorting tankers through the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf, the means of dealing with mines was letting the tankers go first so that they would hit them and not the escort.

We keep saying we don't need minesweepers because we have a deepwater navy. And yet we spend a whole lot of time in areas that could be closed off very easily with a few mines. And we're doing away with the resources that defeat them.

51 posted on 12/27/2006 8:48:49 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Pretty misleading to go by numbers of ships rather than tonnage.

Not misleading at all. You cannot divide a larger tonnage vessel to go to two separate places. The British ruled the world BECAUSE of their navy. Neglecting the ability to project force (carriers are the best way to do that) is dangerous.

USS Independence CV-62 1992-1994

52 posted on 12/27/2006 8:49:41 AM PST by ibheath (Liberal psychosis: Don't force me to make any tough decisions - you make them, and I'll second guess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

And sailors need food. And liberty.

There is a lot that can be done to improve the Military in general and the Navy in particular, but I think some things I have seen here are just ill informed.

Sure, I have been out of the USN since 1979, but...underway replenishment is done pretty much the same way it has been done since WWII. It was well planned and executed in the dark military days of the mid-late seventies, and I am sure they do it just as well today.

Well...well planned and executed unless you got too close to the JFK when doing it, like the USS Bordelon...:)


53 posted on 12/27/2006 8:50:30 AM PST by rlmorel (Islamofacism: It is all fun and games until someone puts an eye out. Or chops off a head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: libtoken
CVN-68, the Nimitz, eponym of its class, is over 35 years old. IIRC, all carriers constructed since are Nimitz Class and hence CVN's and nuclear.

I was at the contractors kick off meeting for the CVN-77 and there was some discussion of whether the 77 was the last of Nimitz class or first to a new class. "They" wanted to replace the SPS-49 with a phased array, the VSR (volume search radar) which would have been a phased array conformal to superstructure, giving it an altogether different look. The shipyard guys (Newport News) maintained, correctly I believe, that a ship class is determined by the Hull, not the outfitting. A Nimitz class with a phased array is still a Nimitz class.

54 posted on 12/27/2006 8:53:26 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (The artist doesn't have to have all the answers; he must, however, ask the right questions honestly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ibheath

And like I said, the USN in terms of combat power right now is more dominant relative to the rest of the world than the RN ever had in its entire history.

And a general naval trend over time is, of course, smaller numbers of larger ships.

I guess we COULD crank out huge numbers of limited capability small ships with limited range, limited habitability, and limited ability to deal with seas, just to humor someone's odd desire that we have more numbers of ships than we had in 1914.


55 posted on 12/27/2006 8:53:28 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
Well...well planned and executed unless you got too close to the JFK when doing it, like the USS Bordelon...:)

The JFK did have a thing for B's - the Belknap, the Bordelon. I served with a guy who swore they decommissioned the Basilone rather than risk having her sail with the JFK. But he always was one for sea stories.

56 posted on 12/27/2006 8:54:18 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

No Loss.


57 posted on 12/27/2006 8:55:08 AM PST by jocko12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ibheath

U.S.S. Independence CV-62 1993-1995 V-1 Division.


58 posted on 12/27/2006 8:55:35 AM PST by Trueblackman (Terrorism and Liberalism never sleep and neither do I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The basic problem with mines is they aren't sexy.

You're never going to see a Navy recruiting commercial with a minesweeper put-putting along. And getting into minesweeping deesn't exactly fast-track someone for high command.

Mines have always been the great ignored naval superweapon. In both WWI and WWII the number of ships sunk per mine deployed was always amazingly high. It's never been something adequately funded between wars though.


59 posted on 12/27/2006 8:55:55 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Congressman Vinson rightfully deserves to have a carrier named after him. It was because of his dedication to the Navy and the military in General that our Navy become so strong. The USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) is a great ship and is honored to have the name of the man that lead the way of creating such a powerful Navy in the 20th Century.

I for one am glad and proud to have served on a ship named after such a great man.

Carl Vinson The Man

Carl Vinson's service in the House of Representatives exceeds that of anyone elected to the Congress of the United States since it first convened in 1798. During his unparalleled tenure of fifty plus years, he also completed a record breaking twenty-nine years as Chairman of the House Naval Affairs and Armed Services Committee. In that position, Congressman Vinson forged and moved through Congress the landmark Vinson-Trammel Act which provided authority for the eventual construction of ninety-two major warships, the birth of the two ocean Navy. From Capitol Hill, he also guided the establishment of a separate air academy and the launching of the Navy's first nuclear powered submarine.

Stating that, "The most expensive thing in the world is a cheap Army and Navy," Congressman Vinson became a powerful force in the growth of America's land, sea and air forces. His skilled legislative abilities assisted in the creation of the Army Air Corps, the improvement of aviator and aircraft procurement, and the pre-World War II expansion of the Navy's air arm.

Few men in American history have made so profound an impact on the nation's defenses. The crew of this aircraft carrier is proud to serve on the ship that bears his name and proud to honor his outstanding service to the United States of America.

http://www.cvn70.navy.mil/vinson/vinson.htm
60 posted on 12/27/2006 8:56:27 AM PST by FloridianBushFan (Support Our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-219 next 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