Ask An Expert- Naval Forces

[desertswo]

Kind of a general question...

To serve on a surface warfare combatant, are there restrictions with regard to color vision (or lack thereof) in the USN as an officer or enlisted person?

ZF-

As an officer yes; one cannot be color blind for a whole lot of reasons, not the least of which the navigational running lights are green on the starboard side and red on the port. Once can easily imagine being the conning officer on a destroyer and screwing that one up, especially when travelling in company with an aircraft carrier. People make the mistake of thinking that a carrier cannot turn on relative dime; they couldn't be more wrong, and when 100,000 tons moving at 30 knots is suddenly staring you in the snot locker it's too late to learn to distinguish port and starboard. In some enlisted ratings, it is also a show stopper; any electronics where one has to distinguish colors, etc. Personally, from my point of view, all the really cool stuff is thereby eliminated. Sort of leaves cooking and doing the books.

[Zad Fnark]

Thanks for the answer, sir -- pretty much what I expected.

It pretty much wrecked my dreams with USAF. All the "fun" jobs need good color vision. I'm not sure what I would have wound up doing had I not been downsized from AFROTC.

When I finally finished school, I was flirting with the WI ANG recruiter for awhile. We were trying to a find a job where color vision didn't matter and they finally came up with "plumber". I kinda gave up at that point.

Fortunately, my kids don't have that problem. The elder one's in USAF Security Forces at Minot AFB.

ZF-

[desertswo]

Thanks for the answer, sir -- pretty much what I expected.

It pretty much wrecked my dreams with USAF. All the "fun" jobs need good color vision. I'm not sure what I would have wound up doing had I not been downsized from AFROTC.

When I finally finished school, I was flirting with the WI ANG recruiter for awhile. We were trying to a find a job where color vision didn't matter and they finally came up with "plumber". I kinda gave up at that point.

Fortunately, my kids don't have that problem. The elder one's in USAF Security Forces at Minot AFB.

ZF-

How about Air Force personnel officers, etc.? I knew a bunch of those guys in the J-1 at the Pentagon who didn't only do that sort of thing. They got to be the base ground operations guys, provost marshal, etc. I seem to remember one of them being color blind.

[Zad Fnark]

I'm sure those were available. I had always wanted to be near the pointy end.

I couldn't really get a list of careers segregated by color/no color at the time (1989-1990), so I kinda had to find branches and look them up from there. With 20 years of hindsight, it occurred that maybe Intel would have worked. Just didn't think of it at the time.

ZF-

[desertswo]

I'm sure those were available. I had always wanted to be near the pointy end.

I couldn't really get a list of careers segregated by color/no color at the time (1989-1990), so I kinda had to find branches and look them up from there. With 20 years of hindsight, it occurred that maybe Intel would have worked. Just didn't think of it at the time.

ZF-

Actually, not Intel per se, but cryptanalysis almost certainly would have been open. Everyone thinks they are the same things; but they are not. In order to be an intel officer, you have to be able to interpret photography both black and white, and color. It's almost 70% of the job as a 2nd/1st LT; but cryptanalysis is another kettle of fish altogether.

[Native]

I was navy intel from 1986-2000, my understanding back then that you could be color blind. When reading imagery, color blindness was not a factor.

[desertswo]

I was navy intel from 1986-2000, my understanding back then that you could be color blind. When reading imagery, color blindness was not a factor.

You might be right. I was an end user and not a collector, although I used to spend my fair share looking at imagery in the J-2 spaces on the Joint Staff and I seem to remember some pretty color pictures being used now and then, but it's been a while.

[85 gt kid]

How do they replace fuel rods for Nuclear warships (particularly carriers) for their mid-life overhauls? I was curious cause I know they're going to cut 8 holes above each of Enterprise's reactors to remove the fuel rods and that that was a big reason why she wouldn't be available as a museum but then I wondered "how do they do that on a Nimitz?" Is it not a big deal on a Nimitz cause they only have 2 reactors or is there a different process for a RCOH?

[desertswo]

How do they replace fuel rods for Nuclear warships (particularly carriers) for their mid-life overhauls? I was curious cause I know they're going to cut 8 holes above each of Enterprise's reactors to remove the fuel rods and that that was a big reason why she wouldn't be available as a museum but then I wondered "how do they do that on a Nimitz?" Is it not a big deal on a Nimitz cause they only have 2 reactors or is there a different process for a RCOH?

Very carefully.

In the case of Enterprise, it isn't just the rods, it's the entire "primary side" containment that has to go to be buried in Hanford, WA. So they cut it all out, eight times over. Those are submarine plants. Enterprise was almost as much a proof of concept as it was practical warship.

An RCOH is a very complex procedure, that will I suspect, involve cutting holes in the decks above the reactor cores, removing the fuel and replacing it. These aren't things one hurries along. The US Navy has a fairly good safety record with regard to its nuclear fleet; it's because we are VERY careful.

[85 gt kid]

The US Navy has a fairly good safety record with regard to its nuclear fleet; it's because we are VERY careful.

Yea I remember my aunt's (that's not my real aunt lol) stepfather telling me that same thing and that the plants themselves are very safe (he served on some Nukes as a boiler tech I believe). Thanks for the reply though!

[ChrisV71]

RCOH involves cutting access holes in the decks above the reactors. Recycling involves cutting out the whole reactor compartment, sealing it and shipping it to Hanford for eventual burial. Any Naval Nuclear powered ship must have the reactors removed. It's much easier with a sub to cut out the reactor put in a dummy plug in it's place and welding the whole thing back together. (IE: Nautilus and what would have happened with Drum and/or Narwhal if their museum efforts succeeded) By the time they cut the Enterprise's reactors out, the middle 3rd of the ship would have been destroyed, making it financially too expensive to restore the ship. The Nimitz's are in the same situation, but with only 2 larger compartments. Here's a picture of the trench at Hanford that I got from Wikipedia. The upright ones are from the CGN's (excluding Long Beach, which aren't there yet) the rest are subs. The Enterprise's reactor compartments will be a bit larger than the CGN's already there (as will Long Beach's) and will stand out a bit when they get there.

[85 gt kid]

Hope this ok putting this here I didn't wanna clutter up the forum with another thread but does anyone know of anything on CLs 154-159? I saw it while trying to remember the name for the Worchester class cruisers. Only thing I could find was this from hazegray.org "All cancelled 26 March 1945. These ships had been originaly planned as AntiAircraft Cruisers (follow-on Atlanta class)." . Sorry if theres actually more info out there but I have to head off to work. Hi ho hi ho it's off to work I go :slap:....

[85 gt kid]

Ok new question lol. Now I know the reactor cores on carriers are good for around 20-25 years depending on their "heat cycles" (i think thats the phrase) and I know that once a reactor is online they stay running even if they were decommed due to the metal changing somehow. Now if for some reason a reactor/ship went online and was then mothballed right away and maintained wouldnt the core last a lot longer?

Also they startup a reactor when it'salready installed in a ship correct?

[Albany Rifles]

85, to your earlier question on the USS Worcester class here is info from the always excellent Naval Weapons website on them.

USA 6"/47DP (15.2 cm) Mark 16

The main reason they were cancelled was they were no longer needed.


And note that's Worcester (WOOOSTAH) not Worchester!

[85 gt kid]

85, to your earlier question on the USS Worcester class here is info from the always excellent Naval Weapons website on them.

USA 6"/47DP (15.2 cm) Mark 16

The main reason they were cancelled was they were no longer needed.


And note that's Worcester (WOOOSTAH) not Worchester!

Well I thought it was a new type of cruiser cause nav source listed them as CAs and then I just thought it was a new class of cruisers til I counted them and counted 10 for the Worcester class :slap:. Those last 30 or so cruiser numbers are confusing as......something really confusing . I remember reading on Nav Weaps on the even newer 6" DP for those with a triple mount or 3 gun mount. Would have been an impressive AA platform for WWII.

O and good call on the name lol another :slap: for me (worst part is I lived near there before :scared:).