ron5864 Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 The article mentions the ship will carry F/A-18C Hornet, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters, E-2C/D Hawkeye, EA-6B Prowler, EA-18G Growler and other future aircraft-carrier based aircraft. I hope "other future aircraft-carrier based aircraft" means VF-1, VF-1 Super Strike fighters and ES-11D Cat's Eye. It might happen, since it is suppose to be in service until 2059. By then it might even carry a few VF-25. Saturday, January 10, 2009 Navy to commission USS George H.W. Bush Sara A. Carter (Contact) Former President George H. W. Bush will be honored for his military career when the U.S. Navy commissions its new aircraft carrier Saturday at Naval Station Norfolk. The president's son, President Bush, will speak as the Navy commissions the 1,092-foot CVN-77, which will be named the USS George H.W. Bush. "The president is honored to participate in the commissioning of the USS George H.W. Bush both as the commander in chief and as a proud son," White House spokesman Carlton F. Carroll told The Washington Times. On Friday, workers finished the last details on the nuclear-powered carrier, which towers 20 stories above the waterline and has a flight deck width of 252 feet. More than 10,000 people are expected to attend the 11 a.m. event Saturday, according to Navy officials. Dorothy "Doro" Bush Koch, the former president's daughter, will give the order to "man our ship and bring her to life," following tradition. Mr. Bush, 84, is a decorated Navy pilot in World War II. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Bush, who was then 18, decided to join the Navy. After finishing his 10-month course, he became the youngest naval aviator to that date. Mr. Bush flew the Avenger torpedo bomber in combat from the carrier USS San Jacinto. He nearly lost his life during an attack on enemy installations near Chichi Jima in September 1944, when his plane was hit by enemy fire and heavily damaged. Nevertheless, he completed a strafing run on the target before bailing out of the doomed craft. Mr. Bush parachuted into the sea and was rescued by the Navy submarine USS Finback. Mr. Bush flew 58 combat missions. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals and the Presidential Unit Citation, which was awarded to his squadron based on the USS San Jacinto. Los Angeles Capt. Kevin O'Flaherty, who graduated from the Naval Academy in 1981, will be the new carrier's first commanding officer. He will lead a crew of more than 5,500 men and women, including embarked air wing personnel, according to Defense officials. The USS Bush will initially homeport in Norfolk and be assigned to the U.S. Atlantic Fleet. Construction of the 10th Nimitz-class ship began at Northrop Grumman-Newport News, Va., in September 2006. The ship will support the F/A-18C Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters, the E-2C/D Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning aircraft, the C-2 Greyhound logistics aircraft, the EA-6B Prowler and the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, multi-role SH-60 and MH-60 helicopters and other future carrier-based aircraft, according to a Defense Department news release. The USS George H.W. Bush will be the 77th aircraft carrier to be delivered to the Navy since 1922, when the Navy commissioned the USS Langley. The aircraft carrier will be the 10th and final Nimitz-class sub and the ninth in the Navy's fleet.
taksraven Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Mr. Bush flew the Avenger torpedo bomber in combat from the carrier USS San Jacinto. He nearly lost his life during an attack on enemy installations near Chichi Jima in September 1944, when his plane was hit by enemy fire and heavily damaged. Nevertheless, he completed a strafing run on the target before bailing out of the doomed craft. Mr. Bush parachuted into the sea and was rescued by the Navy submarine USS Finback. One story goes that he bailed out of his Avenger without letting his crew know what he was doing. Taksraven
David Hingtgen Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 They're interpreting CNV-77 too literally. It may be number 77, but it's not the 77th. There's always some gaps. Most of the 50's are missing when it comes to carriers.
Vifam7 Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 I wish the navy would stop naming carriers after ex-presidents.
Macross007 Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 (edited) I wish the navy would stop naming carriers after ex-presidents. Especially when the ex-President (George F*cker Bush) is an apeface and a war criminal. Edited January 11, 2009 by Macross007
azrael Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Please keep politics away from this forum. Thank you.
Knight26 Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Especially when the ex-President (George F*cker Bush) is an apeface and a war criminal. It's named after Bush senior, not the current president, it is illegal to name a carrier after a standing president. THe one that is really upsetting people is the next carrier, the Carter, or is it Ford, since it was to be the next Big-E.
VFTF1 Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 QUOTE (Macross007 @ Jan 10 2009, 11:24 PM) * Especially when the ex-President (George F*cker Bush) is an apeface and a war criminal. It's named after Bush senior, not the current president, it is illegal to name a carrier after a standing president. THe one that is really upsetting people is the next carrier, the Carter, or is it Ford, since it was to be the next Big-E. Yes - and George W is not an "ex-President" ... as of today he is still the sitting President. Although I was wondering whether that was a froth-at-the-mouth attack on the current POTUS or an intelligent jab at the record of his dad, who also presided over a war (although the "ape-face" term doesn't seem to fit)... In any event, it's an American tradition to name ships after Presidents and States it seems. And it is fitting to name an Air Craft Carrier after a decorated pilot. My interest in such things is vague, but I did read an article once describing what it was like to be on such a ship, and it sounds really awesome (as in awe-inspiring and in "woooww!").... As for the VF-1 actually happening - who knows? Given the Fourth Generation Wars that are now afoot, a variable armored fighter of some sort which could adapt to various terrains; be they rugged and mountainous or urban would actually be a very practical thing. Pete
David Hingtgen Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Next carrier is Ford, but AFAIK it was hoped to be the America, not Enterprise. I don't mind Ford much as an individual ship name, but as CLASS name? That sucks. America-class would rock, and it'd be the effective flagship for a while. But the Ford as class leader and flagship?
F-ZeroOne Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 "The aircraft carrier will be the 10th and final Nimitz-class sub and the ninth in the Navy's fleet." Looks like the ol' plane-carrying submarine concept is making a comeback.
Agent ONE Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Especially when the ex-President (George F*cker Bush) is an apeface and a war criminal. This carrier is being named after HW (as in Reagan's VP), not W. So you either can't read well, or you are so blinded by hate you weren't patient enough to read. Or maybe you don't know your history. Come on. Grow up and don't act like this. There are fans of both Bush presidents on this board so lets keep it nice.
Beltane70 Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 I personally think that one should be deceased before having a ship named after him, but that's just me.
doodler7 Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Yeah, crazy huh? These ships are amazing! and huuuuuge! It's almost unbelievable once you're on it and inside. I think the USS HW is the last of the Nimitz class. They started on this carrier back in 2003. The Ford will the be first of the new carriers, CVN-78. They started on it back in 2007. So for you future pioneers who are worried about find jobs, check out Northrop Grumman cuz they've been contracted for a long time. Ron5864, I share your optimism. These new carriers from CVN-78 and on up will have close to 800 fewer members. All electronics and networking will be streamlined. I think they may have better handling of weapons too and less airmen/women to handle fighters. If you guys get a chance, please check out the special on the Joint Strike Fighter program either by the History Channel or TLC. I only saw the last half of it. The tv show depicted two companies and their fighters. Both planes must be able to hover and take flight while hovering. Talk about valkyries, just to see these planes hover and take off...it's exciting...reminds me of the YF-19 vs YF-21 program. This show is about Boeing versus Lockheed Martin, X-32 vs X-35. Not to spoil it, but the winner came out to be the X-35, now F-35. I haven't checked out any info lately, but it's suppose to replace the F-16, F-18 and A-10s. Not sure if the Navy are planning to get these fighters, but it'll be cool to see them take off with less effort from aircraft carriers due to the new vertical thrusts. Do you guys know why the Navy cannot exceed the 400 meter length with the aircraft carriers? Is this an engineering issue?
the white drew carey Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 I personally think that one should be deceased before having a ship named after him, but that's just me. I agree. I also think that Naval vessel should ONLY be named for states, naval battles, and Naval personnel. I'm glad that Carl Vinson did a lot for the Navy, but he never served so, IMHO, he shouldn't have a ship named after him (and an aircraft carrier, no less).
David Hingtgen Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 I would guess the length max is due to existings berths, dry dock, etc.
VFTF1 Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 I personally think that one should be deceased before having a ship named after him, but that's just me. I personally respectfully disagree. I have always been very moved when I would read about soldiers who were terribly wounded and acted bravely and heroically and ended up with a Purple Heart and a job a Wendy's at best. I understand why the military doesn't dish out awards left and right, since most of the top awards are given to the deceased and when you read what they did you realize why, but still - plenty of living heros to go around. Independent of your political views and your view of Bush I or II, Bush I was a decorated pilot who was very heroic and I think it is fitting that he is getting an aircraft carrier named for him while he is still alive. I see it as having less to do with him being President once and more to do with him being a pilot hero two generations before most of us were even born. If you think about it that's pretty amazing. Also, he never made any pretense of bragging about it; he never ran on his record as a veteren, and I don't really ever remember him bringing up his service. In this day and age, when everybody seems to be doing everything to pretend how tough and bad-ass they are, people like Bush I who don't wear their service on their sleave and don't brag about it but just have done heroic things are really cool - again - independent of your political views. I'm not trying to bring politics into this, but comments like the "apeface war criminal" one are totally out of line and terrible. And it's not just because - as Agent One pointed out - there are fans of both Bushes on the board. I'm not a fan of either one. My politics are as far from both of them as you can get. But I hve huge respect for veterens (no matter what party they are from) and I think that if you're going to level a charge of "war crime" against somebody, then you really should not do it in the same breath as calling them an "ape face" - it completely dilutes from any legitimacy you might have to your view. I would say more, but I don't want to go too far out of the bounds of what's allowed and get Azreal mad at me. But there, I felt like I had to get that much off my chest. Pete
Noyhauser Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 I would guess the length max is due to existings berths, dry dock, etc. The HW Bush and her predecessors are limited by the "Suezmax" standard, which means the maximum limitations of the Suez Canal. Carriers prior to Forrestal class could fit in the Panama Canal, but since then the only limitation has been the Suez. The ability to rapidly move ships to and from the Indian Ocean was seen as critical during the Cold War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suezmax
Noyhauser Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Just a note on why George H.W. Bush got a carrier named after him. In addition to his war service and irrespective of your politics, George H.W. Bush is considered by most professionals as likely one of the finest foreign policy presidents since Nixon, Eisenhower or Truman. He managed the transformation of the Cold War to the new era and prosecuted the Gulf War successfully. He definitely had the best relationship with the military since Eisenhower, experiencing no major crises during his presidency despite making massive budget cutbacks. There are few individuals who were so uniformly respected as him, which is why he had a carrier named after him.
David Hingtgen Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Nothing in that article mentions length limitations though.
azrael Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 I just wish they would stop naming carriers after people, period.
reddsun1 Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 All I want to know is: when will they announce commissioning ceremonies for super-sized Assault Landing Vessels, with clamshell bay doors located at the bow for loading/unloading [and surprise attacks] of large, bipedal armored Destroi--er, fighting vehicles...
Dobber Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Next carrier is Ford, but AFAIK it was hoped to be the America, not Enterprise. I don't mind Ford much as an individual ship name, but as CLASS name? That sucks. America-class would rock, and it'd be the effective flagship for a while. But the Ford as class leader and flagship? Yup, America and Enterprise where the front runners for the name, with America as the Favorite. I think that there are 3 planned so far so there are hopes that the next 2 will be named America and Enterprise. Since the Ford is replacing the current Enerprise I really want one of themto be Enterprise, best legacy name in the navy. Chris
taksraven Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 I personally think that one should be deceased before having a ship named after him, but that's just me. Hey, I remember that line in the film "The Final Countdown" in regards to the Nimitz! Taksraven
the white drew carey Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 I just wish they would stop naming carriers after people, period. Yeah, we should start naming them after Ikea furniture. The USS Smolsgub Bookshelf (in white, black, or tan) has a nice ring to it.
Noyhauser Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Nothing in that article mentions length limitations though. Well everything is linked; you can't just increase the length of the ship, without altering its performance, layout or size. If you increase its length and expect the same speed you're going to give it larger engines, likely meaning either the draught and beam will require an increase, thus preventing it from using the suez. Edited January 12, 2009 by Noyhauser
David Hingtgen Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Current carriers have nowhere near the max draught nor beam listed for the Suez though. Plenty of room.
bandit29 Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 We need a ship named after Clinton...clothing optional
ron5864 Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 The George H.W. Bush carrier will still use the old steam catapult system to launch aircraft. The next generation of aircraft carrier will likely switch to the EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) to launch planes.
Roger Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 We need a ship named after Clinton...clothing optional Naval ships wear clothing?
Ghost Train Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 I can't wait for the USS George "Dubaya" Bush.
bandit29 Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 I can't wait for the USS George "Dubaya" Bush. Ya it can say this on the side: "They misunderestimated me." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism
the white drew carey Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Ya it can say this on the side: "They misunderestimated me." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism It'll have a big "Mission Accomplished" banner on the island all of the time!!!
David Hingtgen Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Mod comment: Current POTUS has nothing to do with carriers.
JB0 Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Next carrier is Ford, but AFAIK it was hoped to be the America, not Enterprise. I don't mind Ford much as an individual ship name, but as CLASS name? That sucks. America-class would rock, and it'd be the effective flagship for a while. But the Ford as class leader and flagship? I demand the Ford class be equipped with a PINTO missile system.
taksraven Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 I demand the Ford class be equipped with a PINTO missile system. I think that would be a bit risky because if they were defective Ford would not recall them. Taksraven
Recommended Posts