elturner@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edwin L Turner) (01/18/91)
From: elturner@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edwin L Turner) I was surprised to learn that CV's Midway and Ranger have been positioned in the Persian Gulf. This strikes me as fairly risky. Although they are no doubt heavily defended, both by their own fighters and by their escorts' SAMs, it seems quite possible that a determined Iraqi air strike might get through (with heavy losses) to one of them. Since carriers can sink and take a large crew with them, a successful attack on one is much more serious in most respects (including political and psychological ones) than a similarly successful attack on an airbase. Such a success would probably be worth (to the Iraqi's) the loss of far more aircraft than the carrier itself deployed, I would think. Am I missing something here? Is the Navy that confident that they can stop any such potential Iraqi attack (even a pre-emptive one) with essentially perfect efficiency? Ed Turner "Itsu nukera phoenix!elturner soko tomo shirazu oke no tsuki." or elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU - Mabutsu 1874
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (01/19/91)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1991Jan18.001959.6230@cbnews.att.com>, elturner@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edwin L Turner) writes: > >I was surprised to learn that CV's Midway and Ranger have been positioned >in the Persian Gulf. This strikes me as fairly risky. Although they are >no doubt heavily defended, both by their own fighters and by their escorts' >SAMs, it seems quite possible that a determined Iraqi air strike might >get through (with heavy losses) to one of them. Since carriers can >sink and take a large crew with them, a successful attack on one is much >more serious in most respects (including political and psychological ones) >than a similarly successful attack on an airbase. Not to mention the replacement cost of the carrier... >Am I missing something here? Is the Navy that confident that they can >stop any such potential Iraqi attack (even a pre-emptive one) with >essentially perfect efficiency? There are several factors to consider: A) The Iraqi Air Force is a miminal threat. B) There is, for all practical purposes, no Iraqi Navy C) It takes a LOT to kill a carrier. You'd have to score several direct hits with large conventional warheads to do any good. D) There are lots of planes, ships, and missiles which you have to go through in order to accomplish C) Since the Navy is undoubtly getting support from the E-3 AWACS, plus various other assets, a successful attack by Iraqi aircraft is unlikely. Having carriers in the Gulf allows shorter flying time for our airplanes, and faster turnaround time for sorties. My only surprise is that there are two (2) of them; upon reflection, it makes more sense because you could have more effective CAP (Combat Air Patrol) over the forces. Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * Ray Kaplan was right *
martens@cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (01/21/91)
From: martens@cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) In article <1991Jan19.035922.3855@cbnews.att.com> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: [ ... ] >Since the Navy is undoubtly getting support from the E-3 AWACS, plus various >other assets, a successful attack by Iraqi aircraft is unlikely. [ ... ] Doesn't Iraq have Silkworms? Certainly Iran does, but it seems I read that Iraq does as well. Their range is supposed to be on the order of 100 miles. Also, how vulnerable are carriers to an (unlikely, I hope) Iranian missile launch as they pass through the Strait of Hormuz? No carrier in the gulf is ever very far from Iran. -- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) Scissors cut paper, rock breaks scissors, and guy stuff beats girl stuff.
gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (System Administrator) (01/21/91)
From: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (System Administrator) In-Reply-To: message from elturner@phoenix.princeton.edu |I was surprised to learn that CV's Midway and Ranger have been positioned |in the Persian Gulf. This strikes me as fairly risky. Although they are |no doubt heavily defended, both by their own fighters and by their escorts' |SAMs, it seems quite possible that a determined Iraqi air strike might |get through (with heavy losses) to one of them. Since carriers can |sink and take a large crew with them, a successful attack on one is much |more serious in most respects (including political and psychological ones) |than a similarly successful attack on an airbase. It should be noted that neither carrier is in the Gulf at the same time. Both carriers rotate between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman/Arabian Sea area. Gary --- UUCP: ogicse!clark!pro-freedom!gsnow | Pro-Freedom: 206/253-9389 ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom | Vancouver, Wa ARPANet: crash!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Apple*Van InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com | Vancouver Apple Users Group
dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan Smith) (01/22/91)
From: dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan Smith) I noticed something about the carriers listed as deployed: America Ranger Midway Forrestal John F. Kennedy Theodore Roosevelt Aren't all except the last two conventionally powered? And all except the last one, which is brand spanking new (CVN-71?), in the region of twenty-plus years old? Perhaps this is an accident of rotation, but it looks to me as if a decision has been taken to husband the CVNs. Otherwise, where are Enterprise, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Nimitz and Carl Vinsen? Duncan ps Is there going to be a CVN-72(?), maybe named Paul Revere?
lang@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (John J. Lang) (01/23/91)
From: lang@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (John J. Lang) The JFK is conventionally powered. CV-72 is the Abraham Lincoln. CV-73 will be the George Washington. CV-74 is currently suppose to be the United States.
dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) (01/23/91)
From: dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) Enterprise is assigned to the Pacific fleet. All theese carriers in the Gulf is from the Atlantic fleet. Big E would probably take more time to get to the Gulf than JFK for example. The Pacific is big. CVN-72 = Abraham Lincoln ? Stefan Skoglund, dvlssd@cs.umu.se
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (01/23/91)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1991Jan21.035104.3475@cbnews.att.com>, martens@cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) writes: >Doesn't Iraq have Silkworms? Certainly Iran does, but it seems I read >that Iraq does as well. Their range is supposed to be on the order of >100 miles. Also, how vulnerable are carriers to an (unlikely, I hope) >Iranian missile launch as they pass through the Strait of Hormuz? No >carrier in the gulf is ever very far from Iran. An "understanding" was reached between the Iranians and the U.S. before any carriers moved into the Gulf. They will be removed post-haste once the... Kuwaiti Liberation War is over. Doug Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * Ray Kaplan was right *
gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) (01/24/91)
From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) In article <1991Jan22.013926.18118@cbnews.att.com>, dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan Smith) writes: |> |> |> From: dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan Smith) |> |> I noticed something about the carriers listed as deployed: |> |> America |> Ranger |> Midway |> Forrestal |> John F. Kennedy |> Theodore Roosevelt Forrestal is in Jacksonville. The Saratoga is deployed to the Mid-East. |> |> Aren't all except the last two conventionally powered? And all |> except the last one, which is brand spanking new (CVN-71?), in |> the region of twenty-plus years old? Only the Roosevelt is nuclear powered. The only non-Nimitz class carrier with nuclear power is the Enterprise. |> |> Perhaps this is an accident of rotation, but it looks to me |> as if a decision has been taken to husband the CVNs. |> |> Otherwise, where are Enterprise, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Nimitz and |> Carl Vinsen? |> Depends largely on fleet assignments and what ships are in SLEP. |> ps Is there going to be a CVN-72(?), maybe named Paul Revere? CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln CVN-73 George Washington CVN-74 John Stennis CVN-75 United States CVN-72 is undergoing acceptance trials (I think) and 73 is under construction. It is likely that 74 and 75 might be cancelled. If this happens, it will be the second aircraft carrier named the United States to be cancelled (CV-58 was to be the first of the super carriers, but was cancelled and funding was concentrated on the Air Forces B-36). -- Gordon (gordon@meaddata.com)
deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (01/24/91)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) >From: dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan Smith) > >I noticed something about the carriers listed as deployed: > >America >Ranger >Midway >Forrestal >John F. Kennedy >Theodore Roosevelt > >Aren't all except the last two conventionally powered? And all >except the last one, which is brand spanking new (CVN-71?), in >the region of twenty-plus years old? > >Perhaps this is an accident of rotation, but it looks to me >as if a decision has been taken to husband the CVNs. > Actually, the first FIVE are conventionally-powered. The ROOSEVELT is, as you surmised, CVN-71. >Otherwise, where are Enterprise, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Nimitz and >Carl Vinsen? Probably undergoing routine maintenance, overhaul, training, etc. More than 60% of our present-day carriers are conventionally propelled (all five above, plus USS FORRESTAL, USS INDEPENDENCE, USS KITTY HAWK, and USS CONSTELLATION (NCC-1700, right?). >ps Is there going to be a CVN-72(?), maybe named Paul Revere? Yes, there already IS a CVN-72 -- USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN. She was recently in San Diego for a change of command ceremony, and a real beauty! Probably one of the only times I'll ever see a carrier with just one coat of paint! She's homewported in Norfolk, VA. Three more carriers are slated for deployment in the near future; they are: CVN-73, USS GEORGE WASHINGTON CVN-74, USS JOHN C. STENNIS (former Senate Armed Services Comm. Chair) CVN-75, USS UNITED STATES. -shane
davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) (01/24/91)
From: davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) In article <1991Jan21.035104.3475@cbnews.att.com> martens@cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) writes: > >Doesn't Iraq have Silkworms? > Not any more. :-) -- PTD -- -- Palmer T. Davis | davisp@scl.cwru.edu -OR- ptd2@po.cwru.edu Case Western Reserve University | {att,sun,decvax,uunet}!cwjcc!skybridge!davisp ------------------------------------------------------+------------------------ Wake up and smell the cat food in your bank account. | Life is short.
schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (jeffrey schweiger) (01/24/91)
From: schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (jeffrey schweiger) In article <1991Jan23.034242.2353@cbnews.att.com> lang@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (John J. Lang) writes: > > >From: lang@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (John J. Lang) > >The JFK is conventionally powered. > >CV-72 is the Abraham Lincoln. >CV-73 will be the George Washington. >CV-74 is currently suppose to be the United States. CVN-72 is the USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-73 is the George Washington (not yet commissioned) CVN-74 is to the John C. Stennis CVN-75 is to be the United States Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) (01/25/91)
From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) In article <1991Jan22.013926.18118@cbnews.att.com> dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan Smith) writes: |America |Ranger |Midway |Forrestal |John F. Kennedy |Theodore Roosevelt |Aren't all except the last two conventionally powered? And all |except the last one, which is brand spanking new (CVN-71?), in |the region of twenty-plus years old? Well, the J.F.K. is conventionally powered. So I believe Theodore is the only CVN in the region. ############################################################################### # "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu # # MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ Bitnet Use a gateway. Sorry. # ###############################################################################
lang@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (John J. Lang) (01/27/91)
From: lang@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (John J. Lang) > Gordon Edwards > CVN-74 John Stennis > CVN-75 United States > It is likely that 74 and 75 might be cancelled. If this happens, it will > be the second aircraft carrier named the United States to be cancelled > (CV-58 was to be the first of the super carriers, but was cancelled and > funding was concentrated on the Air Forces B-36). I think CVN-74 already has long lead time items ordered, so it would be harder to cancel. Back in the early 19th century, wasn't there a triple deck Ship of the Line named the United States that was also cancelled? I seem to remember reading something about that. Seems that name is bad luck. John Lang HP-GTD - Fort Collins
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (01/27/91)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) >In article <1991Jan22.013926.18118@cbnews.att.com> dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan > Smith) writes: > America, Ranger, Midway, Forrestal, John F. Kennedy, Theodore Roosevelt > > Aren't all except the last two conventionally powered? And all > except the last one, which is brand spanking new (CVN-71?), in > the region of twenty-plus years old? Actually, those Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes carriers have undergone through the SLEP (Ship Life Extension Program), and it is just like their odometers have been reset to zero.
cyclist@hubcap.clemson.edu (Barry Johnson) (01/27/91)
From: cyclist@hubcap.clemson.edu (Barry Johnson) >From article <1991Jan25.031253.10188@cbnews.att.com>, by megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23): > |Theodore Roosevelt > |Aren't all except the last two conventionally powered? And all > |except the last one, which is brand spanking new (CVN-71?), in Speaking of Brand Spanking New, does anyone know where the new Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) is deployed? A friend of mine at Newport News gave me a nice glossy of it in trials so I know it is afloat. Barry... -- Barry Johnson cyclist@hubcap.clemson.edu Consulting & Technical Services Standard disclaimer about me, my Clemson University employer, beliefs, etc...