Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    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.
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Tanker View Post
      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
      Last edited by Gun Grape; 13 Jan 12,, 04:59.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
        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.
        Last edited by Tanker; 13 Jan 12,, 17:12.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Tanker View Post
          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

          Comment


          • #80
            Interesting. So, the Navy was actually BIGGER (biggest?) under a Democratic President (Clinton)?
            "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Tanker View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by ChrisV71 View Post
                  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 :)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                    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.
                    Last edited by Dreadnought; 14 Jan 12,, 00:25.
                    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      [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.
                      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        [QUOTE=Dreadnought;856928]
                        Originally posted by Tanker View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Tanker View Post
                          Here are pictures from my personal collection. This is the Forrestal and the Saratoga sitting at dock in Newport, RI June 21st 2007


                          [ATTACH]27999[/ATTACH]



                          [ATTACH]28000[/ATTACH]
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by dundonrl View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by dundonrl View Post
                              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!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Tanker View Post
                                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.
                                Attached Files
                                Last edited by Dreadnought; 17 Jan 12,, 22:03.
                                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X