Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

I would prefer to think that either something was affected by the fire that for security reasons cannot be disclosed in detail, or that the shipyards and contractors in the San Diego area are simply not able to perform repairs in the preferred time frame - for whatever reason

Click to expand...

Norfolk. San Diego has several shipyards. Including the largest on on the west coast and the only one capable of building warship. NASSCO...

However most of the work will be done by the Puget Sound Naval shipyard detatchment permentaly fixed at NASNI . Their job? To do most repairs on CVNs.

Read the article..as soon as I read JAG investigation that means something is not right on CVN-73. Something is very, very wrong.

Here's another article on the JAG investigation on board CVN-73. Just in case ya' did.nt know . The investigation was ordered by the CNO.

CNO orders investigation of GW fire

By Gidget Fuentes - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jun 20, 2008 16:06:28 EDT

SAN DIEGO — With an assessment "nearly completed," of the damage done
to the aircraft carrier George Washington by its May 22 fire, Chief
of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead has ordered an investigation
into what caused the blaze, Navy officials announced Thursday.

The Judge Advocate General's Manual investigation will be headed by
the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii, fleet officials said in a
statement. The Naval Safety Center in Norfolk, Va., is convening a
safety board and is conducting a separate safety investigation.

"The Navy is accumulating lessons learned on this incident to be
shared with the fleet," said the Pacific Fleet statement.

Meanwhile, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier has settled into a
berth at Naval Air Station North Island, Calif., where it arrived May
27 for what has become a lengthy stay as repair crews and
investigators continue their work. The George Washington was
originally to conduct a turnover in June in Pearl Harbor with the
retiring, conventionally powered carrier Kitty Hawk, but the exchange
is now scheduled for San Diego in August.

The delay for the George Washington's arrival as the new forward-
deployed carrier in Japan doesn't appear to have further delayed the
Kitty Hawk's planned decommissioning in Bremerton, Wash., which
officials said would be done "on schedule."

Navy Secretary Donald Winter on Thursday toured the George Washington
and got briefs on the damage assessment, repairs and firefighting
efforts by the ship's crew. Sailors took four hours to put out the
fire, which had spread to multiple decks and spaces through
ventilation and cable trunks.

"I am impressed with the manner in which they fought this fire,"
Winter said in a statement. "They worked as a well-trained team to
contain the fire and to ensure the safety of all aboard, exemplifying
the fighting spirit of American sailors."

Winter also got a closer look at some of the damaged spaces and has
asked for more details and information on several areas,
including "how the ship's damage control team fought the fire, and
the extent to which ship modifications may have played a role with
how the fire spread," he said. "What we learn here can help us
improve our damage control training, assess our damage control
procedures and equipment, inform future ship alterations and prevent
future accidents of this type.

"Experience has shown that we must complete the removal of material
in the damaged areas before we can make a full assessment of the
necessary repairs and corrective actions," he added.

The Navy has not yet announced what specifically must be repaired or
how much it will cost to do the work, which is being done by
commercial and Navy shipyards.

"I am pleased with the methodological approach the team has taken in
developing a plan to repair the ship. They are making very good
progress," Winter said in the statement.

Last August, the George Washington finished an 11-month, $300 million
yard period at the Northrop Grumman Newport News shipyard in
Virginia. The work included upgrades and modifications as well as
repairs and maintenance to prepare the ship for its homeport shift
from Virginia to Japan.

Popeye when you say that you think something is very wrong on CVN-73 what do you mean? That the damage is very severe? I would agree, because the article said that the fire spread through several decks, which would indicate widespread damage to me.

Finn McCool said:

Popeye when you say that you think something is very wrong on CVN-73 what do you mean? That the damage is very severe? I would agree, because the article said that the fire spread through several decks, which would indicate widespread damage to me.

Click to expand...

First off I do not think the nuke power plant was at all effected. But theere appears to be some major leauge damage to much of the electriacl system in the part of the ship daqmaged by fire.

There may be a leadership problem on that ship. This is a fact..The first weekend the ship was in port 3 "GW" sailors were arrested for DUI(Drunk driving) and a CPO was arrested at the McDonalds on base for assault & battery and being drunk and disordely. He physically attacked one of the counter persons at McDonalds.

A JAG inspection is only conducted in severe circumstances. The USN ,in my opinion, is looking for someone to place the blame for the fire on.

Question regarding Russian carrier's size

The displacements of most carriers are pretty consistent in most reports. Nimitz is arround 100,000 tons, Enterprise around 90,000 tons, Forrestal around 80,000 tons, Charles de Gaulle around 40,000 tons, and Invincible around 20,000 tons. Admiral Kuznetsov, on the other hand, have reported displacment ranging from 57,000 tons to 67,500 tons. To me, 57,000 tons seems to be a little small for a ship that is over 300 meters long. The only othe carrier I can think of that is comparable in size is Midway-class, which is around 60,000 tons in displacement and is 295 meters in length. I think 65,000 tons is about right for Kuznetsov. What do you guys think?

Re: Question regarding Russian carrier's size

F40Racer said:

The displacements of most carriers are pretty consistent in most reports. Nimitz is arround 100,000 tons, Enterprise around 90,000 tons, Forrestal around 80,000 tons, Charles de Gaulle around 40,000 tons, and Invincible around 20,000 tons. Admiral Kuznetsov, on the other hand, have reported displacment ranging from 57,000 tons to 67,500 tons. To me, 57,000 tons seems to be a little small for a ship that is over 300 meters long. The only othe carrier I can think of that is comparable in size is Midway-class, which is around 60,000 tons in displacement and is 295 meters in length. I think 65,000 tons is about right for Kuznetsov. What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

It also depends if you are referring to metric tons, short tons, or long tons.

Also, watch for differences between full load displacement, and standard displacement. One refers to a fully loaded and provisioned ship, the other refers to a virtually empty ship.

Re: Question regarding Russian carrier's size

Pointblank said:

It also depends if you are referring to metric tons, short tons, or long tons.

Also, watch for differences between full load displacement, and standard displacement. One refers to a fully loaded and provisioned ship, the other refers to a virtually empty ship.

Click to expand...

I usually look for the full displacement. If I remembered correctly, Jane's warship recognition guide shows that Kuznetsov's standard displacement is around 46,000 tons and full displacement 58,500 tons. That seems a bit too small considering the same book states a Nimitz-class has 102,000 tons full displacement.

Re: Question regarding Russian carrier's size

F40Racer said:

I usually look for the full displacement. If I remembered correctly, Jane's warship recognition guide shows that Kuznetsov's standard displacement is around 46,000 tons and full displacement 58,500 tons. That seems a bit too small considering the same book states a Nimitz-class has 102,000 tons full displacement.

Click to expand...

Here are a number of sites you can usually rely on as regards Kuznetsov:


Lists Kuznetsov as 66,600-67,500 tons full load


Lists Kuznetsoz as 67,000 tons full load


Lists Kuznetsov at 67,000 tons full load


Lists Kuznetsov as 65,000 tons full load


Lists Kuznetsov at 67,5000 tons full load.


Lists Kuznetsov as 65,000 tons full load


Lists Kuzenmtsov at 66,600-67,500 tons full load


Lists Kuznetsov at 67,500 tons full load


Lists Varayag as 67,500 tons


Lists Kuznetsov as 67,000 tons

All of these are close, from 65,000 tons to 67,500 tons full load.

I find only two well known sites, Janes and Naval-Technology that list her as just under 60,000 tons full load.

Personally, I go with the 65,000 ton designation and figure that is probably very close, though a preponderance of evidence indicates that the 67,000 ton value may be closer.

Re: Question regarding Russian carrier's size

I must add that those all are western sources which Jeff presented, good ones tough.

...But still western ones. Usually when speaking of russian/soviet vessels, russian sites and sources are better. However in this case there are quite large disperension over the displacement size of Kuznetsov in russian sites as well. However the most realible ones gives around 71 000 tons full load and 51 000 tons standart.

Re: Question regarding Russian carrier's size

Gollevainen said:

I must add that those all are western sources which Jeff presented, good ones tough.

...But still western ones. Usually when speaking of russian/soviet vessels, russian sites and sources are better. However in this case there are quite large disperension over the displacement size of Kuznetsov in russian sites as well. However the most realible ones gives around 71 000 tons full load and 51 000 tons standart.

Click to expand...

Actually, three of the sites I listed, Russian Aeronautics (created buy a native born Russian who now resides in PA), Russian Abroad (located in New York City, but made by and for Russian immigrants), and Wipolczesne (a polish site), are not what I would call western sources.

Certainly Global Security, FAS, my own site, and others would be considered western.

But that's just how I see it. Others may well differ in their view.