PDA

View Full Version : USS Ronald Reagan Question


Jay Honeck
July 15th 03, 03:58 AM
Someone has posted some cool pix from the launch of the new super carrier
over on the binary channel (alt.binaries.pictures.aviation), which got me
wondering...

Is the new USS Ronald Reagan a *replacement* carrier? If so, which one is
being retired?

Or did we just add another battle group to the fleet?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

john smith
July 15th 03, 04:17 AM
> Is the new USS Ronald Reagan a *replacement* carrier? If so, which one is
> being retired?

The Constellation.
It just returned from an extended tour due to the Afghanistan/Iraq
thing.

John Bell
July 15th 03, 04:44 AM
> The Constellation.
> It just returned from an extended tour due to the Afghanistan/Iraq
> thing.
>
The results of a little quick Googling:
http://www.navy.mil/homepages/cv64/noflash/home.htm

John Bell

Jay Honeck
July 15th 03, 04:52 AM
> The results of a little quick Googling:
> http://www.navy.mil/homepages/cv64/noflash/home.htm

Thanks, John. Interesting that they are de-commissioning the SECOND oldest
carrier in the arsenal, the Constellation.

Why not put the FIRST oldest (whatever it may be) carrier out to pasture
first?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jeff Franks
July 15th 03, 05:27 AM
IIRC, I believe the Kitty Hawk is the oldest in the fleet now...and now the
last conventional.



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:7UKQa.63719$Ph3.7087@sccrnsc04...
> > The results of a little quick Googling:
> > http://www.navy.mil/homepages/cv64/noflash/home.htm
>
> Thanks, John. Interesting that they are de-commissioning the SECOND
oldest
> carrier in the arsenal, the Constellation.
>
> Why not put the FIRST oldest (whatever it may be) carrier out to pasture
> first?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

G.R. Patterson III
July 15th 03, 05:47 AM
Jeff Franks wrote:
>
> IIRC, I believe the Kitty Hawk is the oldest in the fleet now...and now the
> last conventional.

According to the CV-64 news, Constellation is "one of only three remaining
conventionally powered aircraft carriers in its arsenal." And, since the
Constellation won't actually be decommissioned for a few more weeks, there
are still three in the fleet.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

Big John
July 15th 03, 07:21 AM
Jay

The "Jimmy Carter" is under construction and will probably replace the
one that is oldest now. It's condition inspection may have shown it to
be in best shape so was extended until the Carter comes on line?

As an aside, what did Jimmy ever do to warrant naming a carrier after
him :o(

Big John


On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 03:52:35 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> The results of a little quick Googling:
>> http://www.navy.mil/homepages/cv64/noflash/home.htm
>
>Thanks, John. Interesting that they are de-commissioning the SECOND oldest
>carrier in the arsenal, the Constellation.
>
>Why not put the FIRST oldest (whatever it may be) carrier out to pasture
>first?

Wolfie
July 15th 03, 08:47 AM
"Big John" wrote

> The "Jimmy Carter" is under construction and will probably replace the
> one that is oldest now.

The next carrier (the 10th Nimitz class) will be the
"USS George H. W. Bush."

The "USS Jimmy Carter" will be a Seawolf class
submarine.

> As an aside, what did Jimmy ever do to warrant naming
> a carrier after him :o(

He graduated (with distinction) from the US Naval Academy,
for one. Served seven years in the Navy for another, including
being selected by Rickover for the nuclear navy. He resigned
to take over the family business when his father died or he'd
probably never have went into politics.

All in all, I'd say he's *far* more appropriate a choice than
Reagan. And arguably a better choice than Bush. But he
gets a sub named after him, which seems to be appropriate
since he's the only submariner to serve as President.

As an another aside, ships also have sponsors, as Nancy
Reagan is for the USS Ronald Reagan and Rosalind
Carter is for the USS Jimmy Carter. For the USS George
HW Bush? Doro B. Koch, Bush's daughter. What's up
with that? Koch is the Bush's sponsor? ;)

Grumman-581
July 15th 03, 09:22 AM
"Jeff Franks" wrote ...
> IIRC, I believe the Kitty Hawk is the oldest in the fleet now...and now
the
> last conventional.

The America is no longer in service? When I was stationed aboard the
Nimitz, the America was also there in Norfolk... I knew some guys from ET
'A' school who were stationed aboard her...

Now, if they would take some of these carriers that they are retiring and
sink them as artifical reefs, that would make for some interesting diving...

Bob Noel
July 15th 03, 11:51 AM
In article >, Big John
> wrote:

> Jay
>
> The "Jimmy Carter" is under construction and will probably replace the
> one that is oldest now. It's condition inspection may have shown it to
> be in best shape so was extended until the Carter comes on line?
>
> As an aside, what did Jimmy ever do to warrant naming a carrier after
> him :o(

iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.

--
Bob Noel

Wdtabor
July 15th 03, 01:40 PM
>
>IIRC, I believe the Kitty Hawk is the oldest in the fleet now...and now the
>last conventional.
>
>
>

The Kitty Hawk is home based in Japan, which will not allow a nuclear carrier
in their ports for fear of resurecting Godzilla.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Gil Brice
July 15th 03, 02:57 PM
RM, CR Division USS America 1983 - 1987.



"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Jeff Franks" wrote ...
> > IIRC, I believe the Kitty Hawk is the oldest in the fleet now...and now
> the
> > last conventional.
>
> The America is no longer in service? When I was stationed aboard the
> Nimitz, the America was also there in Norfolk... I knew some guys from ET
> 'A' school who were stationed aboard her...
>
> Now, if they would take some of these carriers that they are retiring and
> sink them as artifical reefs, that would make for some interesting
diving...
>
>
>

Chip Jones
July 15th 03, 03:12 PM
"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Big John
> > wrote:
>
[snipped]

> > As an aside, what did Jimmy ever do to warrant naming a carrier after
> > him :o(
>
> iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.
>

I thought Carter was the man who presided over the "Hollow Navy" at the time
the Soviets had announced their intention to build a true blue-water fleet
with long reach. Reagan was the man who started the build-up to a "600 Ship
Navy", wasn't he?

Chip, ZTL

Ron Natalie
July 15th 03, 03:25 PM
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Jeff Franks wrote:
> >
> > IIRC, I believe the Kitty Hawk is the oldest in the fleet now...and now the
> > last conventional.
>
> According to the CV-64 news, Constellation is "one of only three remaining
> conventionally powered aircraft carriers in its arsenal." And, since the
> Constellation won't actually be decommissioned for a few more weeks, there
> are still three in the fleet.
>
The Constellation, the Kitty Hawk, and the John F. Kennedy are the three remaining
CV's.

Newps
July 15th 03, 06:09 PM
Bob Noel wrote:


> iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.

Not hardly. Reagan and John Lehman built the Navy back up.

Wdtabor
July 15th 03, 06:48 PM
>On 15 Jul 2003 12:40:26 GMT, (Wdtabor) wrote:
>
>>The Kitty Hawk is home based in Japan, which will not allow a nuclear
>carrier
>>in their ports for fear of resurecting Godzilla.
>>
>>Don
>
> What are they gonna do when the US has only nuke carriers?
>
>
Pay for their own damn defense?

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Wolfie
July 15th 03, 06:57 PM
"Newps" wrote
>
> Bob Noel wrote:
>
> > iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.
>
> Not hardly. Reagan and John Lehman built the Navy back up.

When Carter took office, the Navy had about 182 surface warships.
When he left office, the Navy had 196. When Reagan left office,
that number had grown to 212. That's a 7.7% growth under
Carter and a 8.1% growth under Reagan. That's rather insignificant,
IMO, especially since the *overall* strength (including non-surface
warships) only changed by *eight* from the time Carter left office to
when Reagan left office. Carrier forces increased by one.
Carter added 10 subs; Reagan 12.

One thing Reagan did do was postpone the retirement of some
ships and bring others out of mothballs to increase the strength
during his Presidency. Obviously there's been a major force
reduction since then with the end of the Cold War and the
Navy has the fewest number of surface warships now since
1921, IIRC.

At any rate, Carter was President when the Navy started to
grow again after the post-Vietnam force reduction.

Big John
July 15th 03, 08:04 PM
Wolfe

Six lashes with a wet noodle :o(

Thought I read someplace that one of the next new carriers would be
'Carter' but must have dozed and blinked when I was reading <G>Shows
how exciting the reading was.

A sub would be more appropriate since he was in that service. Being
President, no matter how smart or dumb you were, probably warrants
something to commensurate you?

Thanks for getting me back on the track. My train sometimes takes the
wrong turn at a 'Y with the speed I'm running'. Need to slow down
below Mach One I guess <G>


Big John

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:47:18 GMT, "Wolfie" > wrote:

>
>"Big John" wrote
>
>> The "Jimmy Carter" is under construction and will probably replace the
>> one that is oldest now.
>
>The next carrier (the 10th Nimitz class) will be the
>"USS George H. W. Bush."
>
>The "USS Jimmy Carter" will be a Seawolf class
>submarine.
>
>> As an aside, what did Jimmy ever do to warrant naming
>> a carrier after him :o(
>
>He graduated (with distinction) from the US Naval Academy,
>for one. Served seven years in the Navy for another, including
>being selected by Rickover for the nuclear navy. He resigned
>to take over the family business when his father died or he'd
>probably never have went into politics.
>
>All in all, I'd say he's *far* more appropriate a choice than
>Reagan. And arguably a better choice than Bush. But he
>gets a sub named after him, which seems to be appropriate
>since he's the only submariner to serve as President.
>
>As an another aside, ships also have sponsors, as Nancy
>Reagan is for the USS Ronald Reagan and Rosalind
>Carter is for the USS Jimmy Carter. For the USS George
>HW Bush? Doro B. Koch, Bush's daughter. What's up
>with that? Koch is the Bush's sponsor? ;)
>
>

Newps
July 16th 03, 03:39 AM
The navy got to 600 ships under Reagan(or was it 500? I forget, it was
some large round number.)

Wolfie wrote:

> "Newps" wrote
>
>>Bob Noel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.
>>
>>Not hardly. Reagan and John Lehman built the Navy back up.
>
>
> When Carter took office, the Navy had about 182 surface warships.
> When he left office, the Navy had 196. When Reagan left office,
> that number had grown to 212. That's a 7.7% growth under
> Carter and a 8.1% growth under Reagan. That's rather insignificant,
> IMO, especially since the *overall* strength (including non-surface
> warships) only changed by *eight* from the time Carter left office to
> when Reagan left office. Carrier forces increased by one.
> Carter added 10 subs; Reagan 12.
>
> One thing Reagan did do was postpone the retirement of some
> ships and bring others out of mothballs to increase the strength
> during his Presidency. Obviously there's been a major force
> reduction since then with the end of the Cold War and the
> Navy has the fewest number of surface warships now since
> 1921, IIRC.
>
> At any rate, Carter was President when the Navy started to
> grow again after the post-Vietnam force reduction.
>
>

Wolfie
July 16th 03, 04:08 AM
"Newps" wrote

> The navy got to 600 ships under Reagan(or was it 500? I forget, it was
> some large round number.)

Close but not quite. Post-Vietnam peak was 594
total active ships (with 223 surface warfare ships, 14
carriers, and 139 submarines) in 1987.

I wouldn't rule out a "publicity stunt" active force of
600 at some moment, though, although the Navy
provides the above peak numbers officially.

Grumman-581
July 16th 03, 10:34 AM
"Gil Brice" wrote ...
> RM, CR Division USS America 1983 - 1987.

ET, OE Division USS Nimitz 1982-1983

Grumman-581
July 16th 03, 10:36 AM
"Wdtabor" wrote ...
> The Kitty Hawk is home based in Japan, which will not allow a nuclear
carrier
> in their ports for fear of resurecting Godzilla.

The Japanese kind of have this thing about nuclear weapons... Kid of hold a
grudge, I guess... The way it was explained to me when I was aboard the
Nimitz was that we only admit that our nuclear powered ships carry nuclear
weapons, thus they aren't allowed in Japanese harbors...

Paul Tomblin
July 16th 03, 03:52 PM
In a previous article, "Ron Natalie" > said:
>"Grumman-581" > wrote in
>message . ..
>
>> The Japanese kind of have this thing about nuclear weapons... Kid of hold a
>> grudge, I guess... The way it was explained to me when I was aboard the
>> Nimitz was that we only admit that our nuclear powered ships carry nuclear
>> weapons, thus they aren't allowed in Japanese harbors...
>
>Really, what sort of nukes do you carry on an aircraft carrier?

The US Navy will never confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on
particular ships. I think they will designate certain classes of ships as
never carrying nuclear weapons, like the CVs.

Because of that policy, you'll never know if CVNs carry nuclear weapons,
but don't you think the A-6s or F/A-18s (or even maybe Bombcats?) could
carry tacnukes if the situation called for it?

However, this whole discussion belongs in rec.aviation.military or
sci.military.naval, not rec.aviation.politics^Wpiloting.

--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
"Leave the beaten track occasionally, and dive into the woods. You will be
certain to find something that you have never seen before."
-- Alexander Graham Bell

Ron Natalie
July 16th 03, 04:33 PM
"Wolfie" > wrote in message . com...
>
> "Ron Natalie" wrote
>
> > I figured the last CVN to carry a nuke was the Indianapolis.
>
> The Indianapolis was a CA, not a CV, and certainly not a CVN. ;p
> (CA is a cruiser designation. CVs are carriers, with CVN being
\
Duh, you're right...wasn't thinking definitely not a CVN back then!

Ron Natalie
July 16th 03, 04:34 PM
"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message ...
> There was a CVN named Indianapolis?
>
brainfart, should have just said carrier.

Robert Moore
July 16th 03, 05:47 PM
"Ron Natalie" wrote

> They could, but I wasn't aware we had actually had such (not
> that they would tell me anyway). I figured the last CVN to
> carry a nuke was the Indianapolis.

Well Ron, I don't see a "smiley", but you can't be serious.
The Indianapolis was a Cruiser (CA 35) not a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier
(CVN). During my time in the Navy, we had only one CVN, the
Enterprise (CVN 65) and as a member of a Nuclear Weapons Technical
Inspection Team, I saw enough strategic weapons on board to do away
with the whole Soviet Union. That was the design mission for the
A-4 Skyhawk, one little plane, one big bomb, and one target. Of
course there were maybe 25 Skyhawks on board along with the A-1
Skyraiders, and the A-3 Skywarriors who's primary mission also was
a nuclear one.

Bob Moore

Larry Fransson
July 16th 03, 08:13 PM
In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> Because of that policy, you'll never know if CVNs carry nuclear weapons,
> but don't you think the A-6s or F/A-18s (or even maybe Bombcats?) could
> carry tacnukes if the situation called for it?

I thought there was a big deal made several years ago about the Navy
publicly stating that they no longer carried tactical nukes on surface
ships. In any case, they were doing away with the Weapons Technician
rating (the former maintainers of tactical nuclear weapons) and
retraining them all as Gunner's Mates.

--
Larry Fransson
USS Nimitz 1993-1996
Reactor Controls Division Officer and
Maintenance Support Center Officer

Robert Moore
July 16th 03, 08:59 PM
Larry Fransson wrote
> I thought there was a big deal made several years ago about the
> Navy publicly stating that they no longer carried tactical nukes
> on surface ships. In any case, they were doing away with the
> Weapons Technician rating (the former maintainers of tactical
> nuclear weapons) and retraining them all as Gunner's Mates.

What distinguishes a "tactical" from a "strategic" nuclear weapon?
I spent three years in the Navy's nuclear weapons program and back
then, each weapon onboard the carrier was strategically targeted
as part of the National SIOP (Strategic Integrated Operation Plan),
the same as the Minute Men and Polaris missiles. The SIOP insured
that a B-52 didn't drop his weapon on top of a poor A-4 pilot making
his run-in at 500' and that both of them didn't get wipped out by
the Polaris that arrived at about the same time.
I would consider the Army's "Atomic Cannon" as a tactical weapon.

Bob Moore

FiPe
July 17th 03, 04:17 AM
>From: "Wolfie"

>Tactical nukes for both land and sea attack with selectable yields
>from less than one to 170 megatons.

Pssst. Too many zeros. Nothing with mega- on it is tactical.

Fidel

Wolfie
July 17th 03, 04:57 AM
"FiPe" wrote

> >From: "Wolfie"
>
> >Tactical nukes for both land and sea attack with selectable yields
> >from less than one to 170 megatons.
>
> Pssst. Too many zeros. Nothing with mega- on it is tactical.

Quite right, that should be kilotons.

Wolfie
July 17th 03, 07:35 AM
"Grumman-581" wrote

> "Wolfie" wrote ...

> > The Indianapolis was a CA, not a CV, and certainly not a CVN. ;p
> > (CA is a cruiser designation. CVs are carriers, with CVN being
> > the designation for a nuclear-propulsion carrier.)
>
> There also was the CVA (USS America)...

Well, not "the" but, yes, CVA was also used for carriers. It replaced
both CV (aircraft carrier) and CVB (aircraft carrier, large) designations.
Later the Navy returned to CV (and CVN) instead of the CVA and
CVAN designations as the light (CVL) and support (CVS) carriers
were retired from the force structure.

Carrier designations:
ACV, AVG, AVT, CV, CVA, CVAN, CVB, CVE, CVGH, CVH,
CVL, CVN, CVS, and CVV. Some ships had multiple designations
as the Navy changed designations to match the force structure.

Larry Fransson
July 17th 03, 07:47 AM
In article >,
"Grumman-581" > wrote:

> There also was the CVA (USS America)...

And for what it's worth, USS Nimitz was originally CVAN-68.

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com

Google