USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)

**Stitch** · 13 Jan 12,, 02:24

I hope Romney takes a page from the Reagan playbook, and really does push hard for a stronger Navy; that's where we're headed in the 21st century. We DO NOT need to be involving ourselves in any more Mid-East land wars, but freedom of the seas IS critical to the US's future.

**Gun Grape** · 13 Jan 12,, 03:24

Originally Posted by Tanker

The Soviet Union fell in 91 and it was Reagan who established the 600 Ship Navy plan which activated the big 3 battleships.

And it was Reagan's Sec of the Navy that resigned because he could not get anything but lip service from the White House for building the 600 ship Navy.

The 600 Ship Navy conituned to gain steam until the Clinton era when Billy Boy scaled back all Reagan and Bush era military projects. The Seawolf was one of those 600 Ship projects cancelled by Clinton in 1995.

No it didn't. We started cutting ships in 1988

US Ship Force Levels

9/30/87 Warship/total ships 223 Reagan Highest Number as President
9/30/88 Warship /total Ship 217 Last year of Reagan

87 had the fleet at its largest. And the year the Wall comes down.Which was what I meant to use as my reference point instead of fall of Soviet Union.

The draw down has started.

Reagan decreases the fleet by 6 warships.

9/30/89 Warship/total 212 President Bush first year
9/30/92 Warship/total 156 President Bush last year

Bush cuts the fleet by 56 Warships

9/30/93 Warships/total 148 President Clinton First year
9/30/00 Warships/total 128 President Clinton last year

Clinton cuts 20 Warships

9/30/01 Warships/total 127 Bush IIs first year as president
9/30/08 Warship/total 118 Last year.

Jr cut 9 Warships

Seems to me, as I stated earlier Reagan started the draw down and Bush Sr cut the most fighting ships

**Tanker** · 13 Jan 12,, 16:06

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

And it was Reagan's Sec of the Navy that resigned because he could not get anything but lip service from the White House for building the 600 ship Navy.

No it didn't. We started cutting ships in 1988

US Ship Force Levels

9/30/87 Warship/total ships 223 Reagan Highest Number as President
9/30/88 Warship /total Ship 217 Last year of Reagan

87 had the fleet at its largest. And the year the Wall comes down.Which was what I meant to use as my reference point instead of fall of Soviet Union.

The draw down has started.

Reagan decreases the fleet by 6 warships.

9/30/89 Warship/total 212 President Bush first year
9/30/92 Warship/total 156 President Bush last year

Bush cuts the fleet by 56 Warships

9/30/93 Warships/total 148 President Clinton First year
9/30/00 Warships/total 128 President Clinton last year

Clinton cuts 20 Warships

9/30/01 Warships/total 127 Bush IIs first year as president
9/30/08 Warship/total 118 Last year.

Jr cut 9 Warships

Seems to me, as I stated earlier Reagan started the draw down and Bush Sr cut the most fighting ships

Using the link you provide and the US Navy's own Status of the Navy site I think you read the numbers wrong. The US Navy has 285 ACTIVE warships at its disposal as of 13 January 2012. Of that 137 are underway or on station somewhere in the world. The number you give (118) was the number of ships underway not the number of ships in the Navy.

Total ACTIVE Warships in the US Navy under Reagan Averaged 568 ships with an average of 220 ships deployed at any given time. George Bush Sr. averaged just over 520 ships on active duty with an average of about 200 ships deployed at any given time. Clinton however is the different story. Clinton's active duty warship total went from 450 active ships to 318 ships in about 6 years.

**ChrisV71** · 13 Jan 12,, 16:15

Originally Posted by Tanker

Using the link you provide and the US Navy's own Status of the Navy site I think you read the numbers wrong. The US Navy has 285 ACTIVE warships at its disposal as of 13 January 2012. Of that 137 are underway or on station somewhere in the world. The number you give (118) was the number of ships underway not the number of ships in the Navy.

Total ACTIVE Warships in the US Navy under Reagan Averaged 568 ships with an average of 220 ships deployed at any given time. George Bush Sr. averaged just over 520 ships on active duty with an average of about 200 ships deployed at any given time. Clinton however is the different story. Clinton's active duty warship total went from 450 active ships to 318 ships in about 6 years.

Actually, the term Warships is what's confusing. It should be Surface Combatants. Surface Combatants do not count Submarines, Minesweepers, Amphibs or Auxiliaries, which make the difference between the 223 and 594 of 1987.

So the 223 for example in 1987 was:
3 battleships
36 crusiers
69 destroyers
115 frigates

3+36+69+115=223

As of 9/30/11, we had 122 Surface Combatants
11 aircraft carriers
22 crusiers
61 destroyers
26 frigates
2 lcs

11+22+61+26+2=122

The interesting thing I see here is that Aircraft Carriers are NOT counted in the surface combatants in 1987 but they are in 2011... I'm not sure when they changed it, I guess the whole list needs to be scrubbed to determine that.
3+36+69+115=223 total

**Stitch** · 13 Jan 12,, 17:23

Interesting. So, the Navy was actually BIGGER (biggest?) under a Democratic President (Clinton)?

**Gun Grape** · 13 Jan 12,, 17:46

Originally Posted by Tanker

Using the link you provide and the US Navy's own Status of the Navy site I think you read the numbers wrong. The US Navy has 285 ACTIVE warships at its disposal as of 13 January 2012. Of that 137 are underway or on station somewhere in the world. The number you give (118) was the number of ships underway not the number of ships in the Navy.

Total ACTIVE Warships in the US Navy under Reagan Averaged 568 ships with an average of 220 ships deployed at any given time. George Bush Sr. averaged just over 520 ships on active duty with an average of about 200 ships deployed at any given time. Clinton however is the different story. Clinton's active duty warship total went from 450 active ships to 318 ships in about 6 years.

Not reading wrong. As Chris V said you are getting confused with Total Numbers and Warship Numbers. All those 568 ships in Reagans Navy were not warships. Unless you include tug boats and tankers warships.

**Gun Grape** · 13 Jan 12,, 17:54

Originally Posted by Stitch

Interesting. So, the Navy was actually BIGGER (biggest?) under a Democratic President (Clinton)?

And the smallest since 1921 happened half way through G.W. Bushes term.

Crazy isn't it.

**Tanker** · 13 Jan 12,, 19:47

Originally Posted by ChrisV71

Actually, the term Warships is what's confusing. It should be Surface Combatants. Surface Combatants do not count Submarines, Minesweepers, Amphibs or Auxiliaries, which make the difference between the 223 and 594 of 1987.

So the 223 for example in 1987 was:
3 battleships
36 crusiers
69 destroyers
115 frigates

3+36+69+115=223

As of 9/30/11, we had 122 Surface Combatants
11 aircraft carriers
22 crusiers
61 destroyers
26 frigates
2 lcs

11+22+61+26+2=122

The interesting thing I see here is that Aircraft Carriers are NOT counted in the surface combatants in 1987 but they are in 2011... I'm not sure when they changed it, I guess the whole list needs to be scrubbed to determine that.
3+36+69+115=223 total

Giving you and Gun Grape credit I noticed that the top 4 or 5 added up but after looking at that the the deployed number on the US Navy link I provided I contacted a friend of mine (US Navy) who looked at the links and believed the numbers were deployed ships. Also as for the tugs and other vessels they fall under Auxillary vessels. But I will stand corrected

**Dreadnought** · 13 Jan 12,, 23:22

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

actually it was Reagan that started the Navy cuts after the fall of the Soviet Union. Bush decided to kill the BBs.

More new and more capable ships were added during the Clinton years than either the Reagan or Bush terms.

*Bush didnt kill the BB's. The Naval budget bean counters bought their careers to an end. Even the inspections themselves proved they were fit but recommended being removed from service.

**Dreadnought** · 15 Jan 12,, 16:13

[QUOTE=Tanker;856253]Here are pictures from my personal collection. This is the Forrestal and the Saratoga sitting at dock in Newport, RI June 21st 2007

Nice pics Tanker.

**Tanker** · 15 Jan 12,, 16:21

[QUOTE=Dreadnought;856928]

Originally Posted by Tanker

Here are pictures from my personal collection. This is the Forrestal and the Saratoga sitting at dock in Newport, RI June 21st 2007

Nice pics Tanker.

Thanks! I have pictures of the Roberts in drydock I'll share once I get them gathered. I was a police officer at NETC Newport for over a year.

**dundonrl** · 17 Jan 12,, 04:18

Originally Posted by Tanker

Here are pictures from my personal collection. This is the Forrestal and the Saratoga sitting at dock in Newport, RI June 21st 2007

Attachment 27999

Attachment 28000

hmmm, they are at the same spot I saw them in 2004, when the USS Momsen DDG 92 was moored where the FFG is.. wonder if they have moved since 2007?

**Tanker** · 17 Jan 12,, 15:03

Originally Posted by dundonrl

hmmm, they are at the same spot I saw them in 2004, when the USS Momsen DDG 92 was moored where the FFG is.. wonder if they have moved since 2007?

There was also an old LST at dock in Melville just up Defense Highway from the that point but not sure if it is still there.

**NavyDoc** · 17 Jan 12,, 19:56

Originally Posted by dundonrl

hmmm, they are at the same spot I saw them in 2004, when the USS Momsen DDG 92 was moored where the FFG is.. wonder if they have moved since 2007?

Sara is still there today! Forrestal is now alongside the JFK in Philly being stripped for scrapping!

**Dreadnought** · 17 Jan 12,, 20:59

Originally Posted by Tanker

There was also an old LST at dock in Melville just up Defense Highway from the that point but not sure if it is still there.

PNSY Reserve fleet still has one as well ex USS Boulder LST1190. She still has the 3"/50's on her top as well as the other armamnet.

A pic I took a few months ago.