Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
2 shipmates are alive today because of a quick pull-up by carrier pilot.

[video=youtube;CVbNRsDxPU4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVbNRsDxPU4&feature=player_embedded[/video]

BD do you think those 2 deckhands will get captain's mast or some kind of disciplinary action?
 
Last edited:
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: 2 shipmates are alive today because of a quick pull-up by carrier pilot.

kwaigonegin said:
BD do you think those 2 deckhands will get captain's mast or some kind of disciplinary action?
Click to expand...

No..but a visit to the air boss is in order. Looks like to me they were inspecting the arresting wire....
 
D

delft

Brigadier
From Marine Forum
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, 6 October:
“Pentagon sources”: Under heavy pressure to find real cuts, Navy officials are seriously considering to cancel aircraft carrier GEORGE WASHINGTON’s three-year-long refueling overhaul, scheduled to begin in 2016, and decommission the ship as its reactor fuel ran out … also disband one of the 10 carrier air wings. Navy officials would not confirm or deny the story.

How serious is this?
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
delft said:
From Marine Forum
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, 6 October:
“Pentagon sources”: Under heavy pressure to find real cuts, Navy officials are seriously considering to cancel aircraft carrier GEORGE WASHINGTON’s three-year-long refueling overhaul, scheduled to begin in 2016, and decommission the ship as its reactor fuel ran out … also disband one of the 10 carrier air wings. Navy officials would not confirm or deny the story.

How serious is this?
Click to expand...
Reported on the US MIlitary News thread as reported from the Stars and Stripes. Clearly being considerred but no official action yet. It would be abject foolishness IMHO, as is stated on the other thread.
 
L

Lion

Senior Member
Jeff Head said:
Reported on the US MIlitary News thread as reported from the Stars and Stripes. Clearly being considerred but no official action yet. It would be abject foolishness IMHO, as is stated on the other thread.
Click to expand...

Not foolish. Given US current financial dirt, they shall cut down 2 CVN. It will prevemt US from sinking further into financial trouble.

They shall learn from China and Soviet Union experience.
Build up yr financial muscle(from China). Spend within your limit(from Soviet Union)
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Lion said:
Not foolish. Given US current financial dirt, they shall cut down 2 CVN. It will prevemt US from sinking further into financial trouble.

They shall learn from China and Soviet Union experience.
Build up yr financial muscle(from China). Spend within your limit(from Soviet Union)
Click to expand...
Well, I will not engage in what is essentially a politcal arguement. The Soviets certainly did not "spend within your limit", they went abjectly bankrupt.

The cost to remove a carrier battle group from Japan, to decommission her, and then maintain her in that state will be tremendous itself and cut into whatever savings signifcantly.

The US, by law, (2006 defense spending acts passed in conjunction with the appropriations) must maintain 11 nuclear carriers. The administration will need ocongressional support to do this...and while the wreckless spending in other areas amounts to trillions of dollars simply given away or blown, a 7 billion dollar price tage to defund critical defense is not likely to get passed as regards the George Washington.
 
Last edited:
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Jeff Head said:
Well, I will not engage in what is essentially a politcal arguement. The Soviets certainly did not "spend within your limit", they went abjectly bankrupt.
Click to expand...

I think that's what he's saying; the Soviets went bankrupt maintaining a massive military they couldn't afford.
 
F

franco-russe

Senior Member
Jeff Head said:
The US, by law, (2006 defense spending acts passed in conjunction with the appropriations) must maintain 11 carrier groups. The administration will need ocongressional support to do this...and while the wreckless spending in other areas amounts to trillions of dollars simply given away or blown, a 7 billion dollar price tage to defund critical defense is not likely to get passed as regards the George Washington.
Click to expand...

Pardon my ignorance, but if Congress mandates the USN to maintain 11 carrier strike groups, the Dept of the Navy has long been in breach of the law, since there have only been 10 CSG’s for a number of years. According to the information available to me, they are CSG 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 in Pacific Fleet and CSG 2, 8, 10, and 12 in Atlantic Fleet.

Furthermore, it has already been announced that CSG 7 will deactivate when CVN-72 ABRAHAM LINCOLN shifts homeport from Everett, Wa., to Norfolk, Va., in August 2012 for recoring and overhaul. At that time, CSG 9 will be reconstituted at San Diego, Cal., around CVN-76 RONALD REAGAN.

Thus, the reduction from 10 to nine carrier strike groups seems to be not a matter for discussion, but a decision already taken. Or is there something I have misunderstood?
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
The USN is only required by law to keep 11 CVNs. CSG & airwings not included. The USN has 9 CVWs. Why? a carrier will always be in RCOH(refueling complex overhaul) and another will be in the shipyard for for minor re-fits.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
franco-russe said:
Pardon my ignorance, but if Congress mandates the USN to maintain 11 carrier strike groups, the Dept of the Navy has long been in breach of the law, since there have only been 10 CSG’s for a number of years. According to the information available to me, they are CSG 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 in Pacific Fleet and CSG 2, 8, 10, and 12 in Atlantic Fleet.

Furthermore, it has already been announced that CSG 7 will deactivate when CVN-72 ABRAHAM LINCOLN shifts homeport from Everett, Wa., to Norfolk, Va., in August 2012 for recoring and overhaul. At that time, CSG 9 will be reconstituted at San Diego, Cal., around CVN-76 RONALD REAGAN.

Thus, the reduction from 10 to nine carrier strike groups seems to be not a matter for discussion, but a decision already taken. Or is there something I have misunderstood?
Click to expand...
As popeye indicated, there is a difference between CVNs and CVWs and CSGs. The law requires 11 carriers. As popeye indicated, you can have less aircraft wings or stirke groups overall because of the maintenance and overhaul schedules for the nuclear carriers themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top