USS George H.W. Bush commissioned

[Fly320s]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479087,00.html



I thought naming vessels after living people was bad form.  Guess not.

[I edited the thread subject for spelling]

[Cromlech]

That's quite a thing, to have your name on such a vessel. Impressive.

[Jamisjockey]

Makes the Sugar Mama look like a Dinghy.....
 

[AZRedhawk44]

It amazes me how those things can stay upright in the water.  How much draft does she have?

It just seems that if a 10-ton (or whatever) warplane lands cockeyed to one side, it should capsize the whole ship.

I love aircraft carriers.

[Cromlech]

[Keanu Reeves]Whoah...[/Keanu Reeves]

[Regolith]

It amazes me how those things can stay upright in the water.  How much draft does she have?

It just seems that if a 10-ton (or whatever) warplane lands cockeyed to one side, it should capsize the whole ship.

I love aircraft carriers.

Probably has to do with the deep keel. The weight of the water on both sides keeps it upright, much like how a telephone pole keeps from falling over.

[AJ Dual]

Probably has to do with the deep keel. The weight of the water on both sides keeps it upright, much like how a telephone poll stays keeps from falling over.

And I suspect the pair of nuclear reactor thingys below-decks add quite a bit of ballast too.

Also, immediately below the flight deck, much of the space is a large hangar/maintenance area for aircraft which is mostly air by volume, so such an aircraft carrier is not as top-heavy as it looks.

Personally, I think the aircraft lifts on those ships are the most visually impressive thing. They way a huge chunk of the deck just drops or rises out of sight, with crew, ordnance carts, and a jet or two, and that very smooth acceleration/deceleration looks like something out of a sci-fi movie. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qREhXTubSYU

[Fly320s]

That's faster than many hotel elevators.

[Gowen]

That pic of the bow of the ship makes it look small, here is a pic to put some size perspective:



Look at the number of people on the deck of the USS Ronald Reagan

[Jamisjockey]

http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/bush/

The George H. W. Bush (CVN 77) is the 10th and final Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. This evolutionary ship will pave the way to a new class of carriers. Named after the nation’s 41st president, this powerful warship of the 21st century will feature numerous improvements and modernizations. Learn more about this state-of-the-art ship by visiting the links below.

Size

   

Towers 20 stories above the waterline with a 4.5-acre flight deck

   

1,092 feet long: nearly as long as the Empire State Building is tall

[K Frame]

We've been naming carriers after living people for some time, now.

Looks like all of these ships were christened while the individual was still alive: Carl Vinson, Hyman G. Rickover, Arleigh Burke, John C. Stennis, Bob Hope, Ronald Reagan, Nitze, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush.

I'm not a fan of it, myself, nor am I really a fan of naming carriers after people.

Still, they've at least managed to name the carriers after people who were either in the Navy or who had a deep impact on the Navy, like Vinson, Stennis, and Reagan.

[Gewehr98]

And George H.W. Bush. 

[K Frame]

And George H.W. Bush. 

I wouldn't say that he had that much of an impact on the Navy.

He was in the Navy, served honorably, but his Presidency didn't really affect the Navy in the way that the others did.

His presidency did start seeing the beginnings of the military drawdowns that highlighted Clinton's two terms.

[Gewehr98]

I dunno.

Ronald Reagan was a hell of a fine actor in wartime flicks, I'll give you that.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/military.html

George H.W. Bush got to fly combat sorties, and even served as an observer with one hell of a ringside seat for a short while.

What they did for the Navy afterwards as sitting presidents is open to conjecture.

Reagan's military build-up broke the spine of the Iron Curtain, which is a damned hard act to follow, but I'm appreciative of Bush Sr. and his efforts to revamp the Intelligence Community, as well as getting START I and START II nuclear treaties rolling.  It was a fine start, but had his hands not been tied by the legalities of Gulf War I, maybe Gulf War II would never have happened. All those had some effect on the Navy, but pale in comparison to Reagan's legacy, I'll readily admit.  I don't know if any president since will ever garner that much respect from the military, honestly.

[agricola]

Apparently, to considerably less fanfare, they launched the USS George W. Bush today as well.

[Tallpine]

I wouldn't say that [George H.W. Bush] had that much of an impact on the Navy.

Well, he lost a TBM, IIRC 

I hope we don't lose his namesake CVN ... 

[mtnbkr]

My wife's Cousin, a Northrup Grumman employee, is on the team that built the ship, and will be on the maiden voyage in a support role.

Chris

[Tallpine]

My wife's Cousin, a Northrup Grumman employee, is on the team that built the ship, and will be on the maiden voyage in a support role.

Chris

I see .... apparently the Navy figures that the folks who built it better be willing to go out on it the first time 

[mtnbkr]

He described it as a reward to those who worked on the project.  They'll be expected to help troubleshoot any problems, but he's expecting it to be more of a pleasure cruise than anything.

He's in his early 20s and this is his first job out of college.  Yeah, he's enjoying himself. :)

Chris

[roo_ster]

Hmm, building the Nimitz class since 1972, for a total of 10 carriers.

I guess that lack of a competitor willing to build a real carrier on the scale of the Nimitz has led to a little stagnation in development.

I would have thought 36 years would have seen more than fine-tuning.  But at $6B+ a pop, the cost to develop a new design may be prohibitive.

Makes me wonder about some of our hardware: Might it be in service as long as the old wooden ships of the line, to the tune of 50-100 years, barring accident or destruction?

System   :::::   1st_whatever   :::::   Years_in_Use
B52   :::::   1952   :::::   56
C130   :::::   1954   :::::   54
U2   :::::   1955   :::::   53
UH1   :::::   1955   :::::   53
P3   :::::   1959   :::::   49
E2   :::::   1960   :::::   48
M113   :::::   1960   :::::   48
UH46   :::::   1964   :::::   44
AH1   :::::   1965   :::::   43
C5   :::::   1968   :::::   40
F15   :::::   1972   :::::   36
Nimitz-class carriers   :::::   1972   :::::   36
F16   :::::   1974   :::::   34
E3   :::::   1976   :::::   32
M1 Abrams   :::::   1980   :::::   28
M2/3 Bradley   :::::   1981   :::::   27
HMMWV   :::::   1984   :::::   24

[agricola]

Hmm, building the Nimitz class since 1972, for a total of 10 carriers.

I guess that lack of a competitor willing to build a real carrier on the scale of the Nimitz has led to a little stagnation in development.

I would have thought 36 years would have seen more than fine-tuning.  But at $6B+ a pop, the cost to develop a new design may be prohibitive.

Makes me wonder about some of our hardware: Might it be in service as long as the old wooden ships of the line, to the tune of 50-100 years, barring accident or destruction?

System   :::::   1st_whatever   :::::   Years_in_Use
B52   :::::   1952   :::::   56
C130   :::::   1954   :::::   54
U2   :::::   1955   :::::   53
UH1   :::::   1955   :::::   53
P3   :::::   1959   :::::   49
E2   :::::   1960   :::::   48
M113   :::::   1960   :::::   48
UH46   :::::   1964   :::::   44
AH1   :::::   1965   :::::   43
C5   :::::   1968   :::::   40
F15   :::::   1972   :::::   36
Nimitz-class carriers   :::::   1972   :::::   36
F16   :::::   1974   :::::   34
E3   :::::   1976   :::::   32
M1 Abrams   :::::   1980   :::::   28
M2/3 Bradley   :::::   1981   :::::   27
HMMWV   :::::   1984   :::::   24

Possibly, though (ships aside) ofc very few of the actual aircraft will be 50+ years old.  I think its about what works anyway, in the absence of anyone making anything better, for cheaper - I mean the M1 is still better than the T-90, or whatever T they are at now.

[Cromlech]

Makes me wonder about some of our hardware: Might it be in service as long as the old wooden ships of the line, to the tune of 50-100 years, barring accident or destruction?

Our flagship is quite a veteran, though admittedly it hasn't seen much recent action. 
HMS Victory Fires Full Broadside

[Jamisjockey]

I don't know why when the time comes we wouldn't just retool the carriers as needed.  I bet we could get 50 years out of them. 

[agricola]

I don't know why when the time comes we wouldn't just retool the carriers as needed.  I bet we could get 50 years out of them. 

Probably far more than that - the principal driving force for getting rid of warships since the 1850s has been because they are obsolete, which those ships arent. 

[Jamisjockey]

Probably far more than that - the principal driving force for getting rid of warships since the 1850s has been because they are obsolete, which those ships arent. 

Especially with new designs such as the F35.