Skip to comments.
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy repair cost 3 times higher that planned(Clinton Era Military Alert)
GlobalSecurity.org ^
| 13 June 2003
| trueblackman
Posted on 06/13/2003 6:46:34 AM PDT by Trueblackman
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
To: Trueblackman
While both the Midway and the Kitty Hawk are good ships, the Ranger was a better ship. I was in the MarDet aboard the Ranger; the Midway berthed in front of us before it was de-commisioned, and the KittyHawk berth aft of us, before the Ranger was de-commisioned.
Both ships suffer mechanical issues while I was onboard the Ranger; the Kitty Hawk actually missed sea periods because of them. I always felt it was a great disservice to the country to mothball the Ranger, while leaving the Kitty Hawk on active duty.
To: Trueblackman
The Midway is going to become a museum down here in San Diego. She's almost 60 years old, and she was starting to have problems due to overweight and the measures taken to relieve said overweight. (She was blistered in the 1980s, and the result was that she needed very calm seas for flight ops--she also had an unfortunate tendency to slamming in moderately heavy seas.)
22
posted on
06/13/2003 9:01:35 AM PDT
by
Poohbah
(I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
To: stuartcr
"That and all the other incidents. I was on from '72-'77, and you would not believe the number of incidents that ship had....collisions, men-overboard, fires, plane losses, loss of lives, racial incidents, missile losses, etc."
Remember the collision with the tanker in the North Sea? Or the F-14 lost on take off with the loss of the Phoenix missle? Those were heady times. The crew quarters were glorified slums.
To: bribriagain
Right off the port quarter if I remember. Too true about the quarters, and if you were white, forget about going into the crews lounge at nite. I worked out of the ET shop on the 03 level, mostly in transmitter rooms on 03 and 06 or 07 level. It's been a long time, and I can honestly say the only good time I had were when I was on liberty, or otherwise off the ship. I talk to sailors nowadays, and they can't believe what it used to be like. It's a whole new Navy now.
24
posted on
06/13/2003 9:10:19 AM PDT
by
stuartcr
To: Turbo Pig
Well much like the Midway, Independence was all
f*@ked up when she arrived in Japan to the point the JN almost flat out rejected her and only agreed to accept if the Navy allowed JN Contractors to work on her and you know what we got a better ship back than we did out of Philly(thanks union thugs)and at the time of Indy's as well as Midway's decommissioning the US got back two ship in better shape than when they left.
25
posted on
06/13/2003 9:12:57 AM PDT
by
Trueblackman
(frinking rules)
To: Poohbah
They cut slots into those blisters and pretty much restored her water line. From what I have heard and saw Kitty Hawk is nearly in the best shape of her life. The JNs know how to repair and take care of a ship unlike the old ship yard at Philly I was happy when they closed that rat hole.
26
posted on
06/13/2003 9:15:46 AM PDT
by
Trueblackman
(frinking rules)
To: stuartcr
A month before I went aboard her in Jan. 86, an enlisted sailor smuggled a pistol on board and murdered an officer over some petty reason. I wonder if he thought that the murder would help is evals out?
27
posted on
06/13/2003 9:20:07 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: stuartcr
"Right off the port quarter if I remember"
Right you are. I was in the shower, about to go on watch when the collision alarm sounded. Scared the beejezus out of me.
To: Trueblackman
From what I have heard and saw Kitty Hawk is nearly in the best shape of her life.Which explains why her skipper got relieved last year because of massive 3M deficiencies...
29
posted on
06/13/2003 9:21:37 AM PDT
by
Poohbah
(I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
To: Blood of Tyrants
I pity any CO that gets committed to that ship.
30
posted on
06/13/2003 9:22:02 AM PDT
by
stuartcr
To: bribriagain
I always hated having to shower during flight-ops.
31
posted on
06/13/2003 9:23:38 AM PDT
by
stuartcr
To: Poohbah
I said the ship not the CO.
32
posted on
06/13/2003 9:23:39 AM PDT
by
Trueblackman
(frinking rules)
To: Trueblackman
Makes you wonder what all else got cannabalized under B.J. Clinton in order to send silly missile attacks to divert from his domestic problems without asking for proper amounts to do what was needed. We know that he cannabized R&D budgets for another example.
33
posted on
06/13/2003 9:30:39 AM PDT
by
AmericanVictory
(Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
To: Trueblackman
Yeah, but he got so seriously busted BECAUSE his ship was in such bad material condition.
34
posted on
06/13/2003 9:31:30 AM PDT
by
Poohbah
(I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Sorry, but you are wrong.
The you don't have to refuel every 3 days like a conventional carrier. is based on fuel for the ship to run. But nuclear power doesn't fuel the planes that fly! Under high tempo operations, like those just experienced for the Afghanistan or Iraqi Freedom campaigns, a visit by the local AOE to pass more av-gas and ordnance is required regularly -whether or not the carrier needs fuel for its engines. Without the av-gas refueling every 5-6 days, the carrier becomes an overlarge dance floor!
A nuclear carrier might be able to transit from point A to point B without worrying about refueling - but then remember that the Carrier Battle Group has several Aegis Cruisers/Destroyers and other ships, that require regular refueling.
A nuclear carrier has several advanatages - primarily no high temperature exhaust plume that can affect the jets that are coming in for a landing. Also - no need for the exhaust stacks that occupy so much space up the "island".
But if you include the cost of the cut-up and disposal of the reactor compartment, the disposal costs of the nuclear fuel, the higher manpower costs for the engineering crew (including training and nuclear proficiency pay) the nuclear power ship has a life-cyle costs that is about 10% greater than for a comparable fossil fuel powered ship.
For submarines, where the amount of fuel that can be carried is limited, and the ability to conduct sustained operations undetected - nuclear power is a definite plus. There are many benefits without considering costs to justify using nuclear power. But for surface ships - the cost factor just isn't there!!
Mike -- former Nuc Submarine Officer
35
posted on
06/13/2003 9:47:39 AM PDT
by
Vineyard
To: Blood of Tyrants
I wouldn't mind a bit so long as the ship was the Iowa, Missouri or Wisconsin.
To: Mr. Lucky
Got something against the New Jersey? Huh?
37
posted on
06/13/2003 9:56:45 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Vineyard
But if you include the cost of the cut-up and disposal of the reactor compartment, the disposal costs of the nuclear fuel, the higher manpower costs for the engineering crew (including training and nuclear proficiency pay) the nuclear power ship has a life-cyle costs that is about 10% greater than for a comparable fossil fuel powered ship. If a ship was originally designed to be an oil-burner, I can understand that. But, the purported problem with the Kennedy is that it was not designed to be an oil-burner. I don't know how much extra maintenance can be attributed to the late change, but those that have worked on it seem to think it wasn't a cost-effective decision.
To: justlurking
The Big John ain't such a bad boat (from the air side). Sure she's old, leaks, and vibrates while at speed but come on who here doesn't?
39
posted on
06/13/2003 10:48:31 AM PDT
by
Chief_Airframer
(Initiated..... And PROUD of it!)
To: Chief_Airframer
As an airdale, it was probably ok for you, you didn't have to live on it at pier 12 NOB... in Feb, with little heat. We had a bent shaft for 3 yrs, anything over 24kts, and your fillings would vibrate out.
40
posted on
06/13/2003 11:05:07 AM PDT
by
stuartcr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson