Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516 LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 226

Thread: Final deployment for Enterprise (CVN-65)

  1. #211
    Regular thebard's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by 96Daksport View Post
    Question in regards to the Nimitz class, since they will be retired next. Can they use the reactors to provide shore power? They have to still train sailors to operate the reactors for quite some time, why not just disperse the decommed ships in major Navy ports around the country and let them backfeed the grid?
    I believe your idea would be very unpopular among citizens and politicians who think that wind and solar are wonderful sources for base load power generation.

  2. #212
    Regular thebard's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    104
    Now that the projected cost to dispose of Enterprise has approximately doubled (to $1.5B), with the job little done, and seeing how all things that are government estimates are usually well below actual cost, does this in any way lend support for a second RCOH for Nimitz carriers? Since the AAG and EMALS systems seem unlikely to ever achieve the promised sortie rates, the argument that retrofits for the Nimitz class is cost prohibitive kind of goes out the window. As the new Ford class carriers are projected to cost $12B+, not to mention we are still in catch-up mode to achieve a 12 carrier fleet, it seems at least an option to consider that a couple of the Nimitz class could undergo a 2nd RCOH to fill the gap. The latest cost projections I have seen list the RCOH at approximately $3.1B.

  3. #213
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,548
    Quote Originally Posted by thebard View Post
    does this in any way lend support for a second RCOH for Nimitz carriers?
    You'd have to know the material condition of the ship overall before considering that.

    I mean, I'd be all for it personally, but if she's in the same shape as, say, the Franklin D Roosevelt was, then it's a non-starter right off the bat.

    For that matter, look at the Ike. She's been rode hard and it's showing.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  4. #214
    Regular thebard's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    104
    [QUOTE=TopHatter;1046293]You'd have to know the material condition of the ship overall before considering that.

    I would be very surprised if any of the Nimitz class ships are maintained in less than top condition. Not to say that one may be preferable for retention than another, but these remain as our front-line ships, despite their age.

  5. #215
    Military Professional JCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Apr 05
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by thebard View Post
    I would be very surprised if any of the Nimitz class ships are maintained in less than top condition. Not to say that one may be preferable for retention than another, but these remain as our front-line ships, despite their age.
    Heh, if only that were true! The fact that the IKE's yard period tripled in length speaks to the condition that she was in. The article that TopHatter linked states how she was run down:

    Prior to its 24-month maintenance availability from 2013 to 2015, Eisenhower had deployed four times from 2008 to 2013 with just one maintenance availability, USNI News has reported, due to operational needs.
    The havoc this extended maintenance availability caused with other CVN schedules continues to reverberate. There are only so many facilities that can support a CVN.

  6. #216
    Regular thebard's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by JCT View Post
    Heh, if only that were true! The fact that the IKE's yard period tripled in length speaks to the condition that she was in. The article that TopHatter linked states how she was run down:



    The havoc this extended maintenance availability caused with other CVN schedules continues to reverberate. There are only so many facilities that can support a CVN.
    I read the article when it was published, and I understand that material condition and availability is fluid, depending on the situational requirements. I can only assume that the extended availability is addressing all of the significant issues and she should return to the fleet in top condition. As far as the available maintenance facilities, building new carriers does not address or improve that situation. It's just the same old process of kicking the can down the road.

  7. #217
    Military Professional JCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Apr 05
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by thebard View Post
    I can only assume that the extended availability is addressing all of the significant issues and she should return to the fleet in top condition.
    The fix what they have the money to fix and sometimes things are just left tagged out until funding is approved to fix it. I just saw a cannibalization request from one carrier to steal a low density item from another carrier. So yes, the ball keeps getting kicked down the road, but at some point somebody gets stuck with the broken gear.

    Just because an item is identified as failed and needing replacement means that it gets fixed or replaced pronto. Ships have a limited budget in which to purchase repair parts and when it's exhausted, they're stuck unless higher HQ decides to fund the part. Even if funding is available, the part is not always available. Its not uncommon for low failure rate items or obsolete parts to have a 12+ month lead time.

    This issue is not limited to the Navy or ships. Aircraft and vehicles have the same problems. I had an LAV deadlined for 9 months while we waited for a wiring harness to be built. Another time we sent in a piece of equipment (I cannot remember what it was) and had to wait for it to be repaired at the depot as there were no replacements on the shelf.

  8. #218
    Contributor bbvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 14
    Location
    Mocksville, NC
    Posts
    348
    JCT wrote:
    The havoc this extended maintenance availability caused with other CVN schedules continues to reverberate. There are only so many facilities that can support a CVN.
    And once again BRAC closures bite us in the ass again!!! I've always thought that politicians are the LAST people who should be making military decisions - esp. ones that effect out nation's safety and protection - they simply don't understand what long term implications arise from one wrong vote.

    One of my colleagues is in the National Guard and was complaining basically about the same issues with his unit after returning from Iraq and the sad state of maintenance that was available for upkeep of the deployed equipment once it reached stateside. These decisions cover all branches, all units regardless.

  9. #219
    Regular
    Join Date
    05 Sep 13
    Posts
    41
    The consultation process for recycling CVN 65 has started (again) today. A website has been put up to invite public comment on alternative methods in order to prepare a new Environmental Impact Study (EIS/OEIS - the O indicates that the carrier may at some point be towed outside the 12 mile limit, not overseas scrapping). Documents and links are being added at regular intervals so it's worth keeping an eye on, but there's a lot of interesting stuff already.

    The address is

    https://carrierdisposaleis.com/
    Last edited by tyrosalt; 31 May 19, at 21:49.

  10. #220
    Military Professional JCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Apr 05
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    427
    Fill her reactor spaces with concrete and open the scuttles...it's the only way to be sure.

  11. #221
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,548
    Quote Originally Posted by JCT View Post
    Fill her reactor spaces with concrete and open the scuttles...it's the only way to be sure.
    Yeah... look, JCT, this is a multi-billion dollar warship, OK? You can't make that kind of decision. You're just a grunt! Uh, no offense.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  12. #222
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    1,765

  13. #223
    Regular thebard's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Yeah... look, JCT, this is a multi-billion dollar warship, OK? You can't make that kind of decision. You're just a grunt! Uh, no offense.
    I see what you did there. We're in some real pretty s#*t now, man!

  14. #224
    Contributor bbvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 14
    Location
    Mocksville, NC
    Posts
    348
    Tyrosalt,

    Thanks for the link to the EIS website - just out of interest to see what develops, I've requested to be added to their email list. At least, I think I have (not exactly straight fwd.). If these agencies are anything like Congress, nothing will get done for years...

  15. #225
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,548
    Quote Originally Posted by thebard View Post
    I see what you did there. We're in some real pretty s#*t now, man!
    lol thanks! And I'd say that describes the Navy right now vis-a-vis the Enterprise :(
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Captain of USS Enterprise removed
    By USSWisconsin in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06 Jan 11,, 16:47
  2. Haynes manual for the U.S.S. Enterprise
    By ZekeJones in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03 Nov 10,, 03:53
  3. Big E preps for final combat deployment
    By Ken_NJ in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06 Oct 10,, 06:35
  4. Future of USS Enterprise
    By KRON1 in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05 Oct 09,, 18:29
  5. USS Enterprise: What do these terms mean?
    By Tronic in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 18 Jun 07,, 04:58

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •