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

Skip to comments.

Build To Order: One Aircraft Carrier
Fortune ^ | July 22, 2002 | Philip Siekman

Posted on 07/16/2002 7:56:02 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-136 next last
To: cva66snipe
The excuses given don't add up. Scuttle butt in the ships web site says there's some activity going on in Philly with her and it's not good news at all.

Lack of maintenance during the Clinton years?

41 posted on 07/16/2002 10:10:23 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
The excuses given don't add up. Scuttle butt in the ships web site says there's some activity going on in Philly with her and it's not good news at all.

What website would that be?

42 posted on 07/16/2002 10:14:24 PM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Lack of maintenance during the Clinton years?

Goes back further than that and I can prove it. Seems the GHW Bush years wern't to kind to her either. Three six month deployments in three years. That's a five year cycle minus yard times. Proof? Here it is. Drop down to the {below decks} portion. But remember this story started in August of 1993. Here is what was reported then.

The America needs constant attention. Commissioned in 1965, it is showing its age. A month before leaving Norfolk, a senior enlisted crew member complained to his congressman: The ship was operating on only two of its six electric generators, without radar and unable to pump fuel. This would be its third six-month cruise in three years, and without the standard 18 months at home for repairs, salt water and full steaming had taken their toll. AMERICA was history by summer 1996. Seems Clinton didn't do much to stop it though.

Here is the source of that information.

Click here to get to the link

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/940224-cr.htm

43 posted on 07/16/2002 10:42:13 PM PDT by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
What website would that be?

www.ussamerica.org Click on preservation and look at the letters from Senator McCain. One describes a detiorating hull. From 6 years at Philly or what I don't know.

44 posted on 07/16/2002 10:49:42 PM PDT by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon; cva66snipe
With all due respect, your discussion of statute vs. nautical miles is somewhat flawed. You listed them both as being 1,852 meters. In fact, only a nautical mile is 1,852 meters; a statute mile is 1,609 meters.

Why the difference? Statute miles came first, and are probably a contraction of the latin "mille passuum" or "thousand steps." The Roman roads had (actually, the Appian way STILL has) "mile markers," useful for walkers trying to figure out how far they had come, and nominally set 1,000 steps apart. Note that each mile is 5280 feet, so this system assumes a step legnth of 5.2 feet, which seems about right for a full left-right-left step while carrying stuff.

The nautical system is, as one might expect, better for nautical purposes. One nautical mile is one minute of arc across the equator. In case that's not clear, I'll explain in a different way: if you envision the equator as a circle around the planet, then one minute of arc around that circle is one nautical mile. As you can imagine, this makes long-distance navigation much easier. The circumference of the earth in nautical miles is a nice, even 21,600 nautical miles. That same circumference is 24,857 statute miles.

I hope this was helpful.

45 posted on 07/16/2002 11:16:33 PM PDT by Jubal Harshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jubal Harshaw
With all due respect, ....

Mea culpa. You are right.

Thank you for being respectfully correct.

46 posted on 07/17/2002 12:09:58 AM PDT by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Thanks for the link
47 posted on 07/17/2002 7:51:34 AM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Deep mines in transit channels, not just off China's beach. Sorry for going a bit Clancy, but... As "land" is rarely over a mile or two down, a nuke mine anchored on the bottom could be remotely detonated sinking any ship near the burst. As China is exporting its aggression towards us, why not mine M.E. choke points as well.
48 posted on 07/17/2002 9:56:02 AM PDT by SevenDaysInMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Goes back further than that and I can prove it. Seems the GHW Bush years wern't to kind to her either. Three six month deployments in three years. That's a five year cycle minus yard times. Proof? Here it is. Drop down to the {below decks} portion. But remember this story started in August of 1993. Here is what was reported then.

Well, there WAS a war fought with six carrier battlegroups in theater. The Navy's maintenance establishment was very upset over the war, as it screwed up their oh-so-sacred CVBG rotation plans. One wonders how the Navy would have dealt with a NATO/WP conflict if a regional war strained them so hard. BTW, the Norfolk piers didn't get maintained properly, either.

Notice that the Navy never mooted the idea of cutting down the carrier presence in-theater once there was enough land-based air to support offensive ops. They were going to have their piece of the war even if it ruined the Navy in the process.

There's a ton of blame to go around about the overall decline of Naval Aviation. The Navy gets a big share of it (read The $5 Billion Misunderstanding for a gory account of the A-12 Avenger II program--begun illegally, maintained in a steady atmosphere of deceiving the contractors, the Navy civilian leadership, and Congress, and cancelled when NAVAIR told Dick Cheney "Uh, well, we need another few billion dollars" in the middle of post-Cold War euphoria). Congress gets a huge helping (not supporting a 15-carrier fleet--I think 15 is the bare minimum for supporting current OPTEMPO with a reasonable reserve for wartime surge).

It's a manure sandwich, and EVERYONE in DC should be taking a big bite.

49 posted on 07/17/2002 11:48:29 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SevenDaysInMay
Deep mines in transit channels, not just off China's beach. Sorry for going a bit Clancy, but... As "land" is rarely over a mile or two down, a nuke mine anchored on the bottom could be remotely detonated sinking any ship near the burst.

And convince the entire world that they're nucking futs.

As China is exporting its aggression towards us, why not mine M.E. choke points as well.

That move threatens us a lot less than it threatens Europe. They need to ask Saddam how well annoying EVERYONE at the same time works.

50 posted on 07/17/2002 11:50:29 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
What about the USS James K. Polk. Polk was one of the most succesful presidents who ever served.

The USS James K.Polk was part of the "41 for freedom" Boomer submarines.


http://www.subnet.com/fleet/ssbn645.htm
51 posted on 07/17/2002 12:10:25 PM PDT by Honcho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen; CheneyChick; vikingchick; Victoria Delsoul; WIMom; one_particular_harbour; ...
Great article, thanks!



52 posted on 07/17/2002 12:10:47 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Honcho
The USS James K.Polk was part of the "41 for freedom" Boomer submarines.

Since that submarine has been decommissioned, the name is available again. I just think that the next aircraft carrier should be named for an important president. There is no way in hell that it will be name the USS BJ Clinton.

53 posted on 07/17/2002 12:26:09 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
The statute mile in the U.S. differs slightly from that of the U.K.
54 posted on 07/17/2002 12:34:24 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
CVN-77 looks like a cow ...
55 posted on 07/17/2002 12:35:27 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth; Stand Watch Listen
Bump!
56 posted on 07/17/2002 12:48:39 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Thanks for the heads up!
57 posted on 07/17/2002 1:03:44 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Index bump, for later perusal.
58 posted on 07/17/2002 1:04:50 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The statute mile in the U.S. differs slightly from that of the U.K.

Must be because of the warm beer and driving on the left side of the road :o)

59 posted on 07/17/2002 1:07:04 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Marine Detachments were there for nuclear weapons (not propulsion machinery), if a warship (other than an SSBN) carries nuclear weapons there is a Marine Detachment ready.
60 posted on 07/17/2002 1:13:58 PM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-136 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