Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
USS Enterprise: How Much Longer?  
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10077 times:

Hi folks...
I was thinking about the aircraft carrier Enterprise, the ship & myself coming into existence during the same year 1961. Since I'll be 44 yrs old this year, so will the Enterprise. My question is how much longer will she be in commision? Now don't get me wrong here...I would like to see the Big E carry on for a few more good years yet. So does anyone here have any inside knowledge about the Enterprise's twilight years? All replies appreciated. Regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10048 times:

From Globalsecurity.org:

"CVNX 1, which will replace USS Enterprise (CVN 65) in 2013, is scheduled to begin construction in 2006. Upon her planned replacement by CVX-78 in 2013 she will be 52 years old."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-65.htm

Regards,
Jan


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10036 times:

There are concerns that with the new budget we will move to a 10 or 11 carrier navy and retire the JFK and/or the Enterprise as it is the most complicated reactor setup (eight reactors) as well as being the oldest nuclear carrier and the most expensive to maintain.

The Kitty Hawk should last longer due to the SLEP it received.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10000 times:

I thought Kennedy just got a SLEP, or at least 300 mil of work, and was about to go for another 400 mil!

Do you think they'd just mothball Enterprise, or cut her up right away, seeing as we've never decommed a nuclear carrier before?

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9999 times:

DeltaGuy - Kennedy never got a full SLEP, although she was originally scheduled for one, which would have lasted from 1993 to 1996. Instead, Congress cut the SLEP down to a "Complex Overhaul" that cost roughly half of what the SLEP would have cost (from $600 million to $300 million) and that lasted from 1993 until 1995. I believe part of the reason why it was cut back like this was so Philadelphia Naval Shipyard could be closed on time rather than be kept open an extra year. The problem is, knowing that the Yard was going to be closed anyway, I understand some of the work was shoddy, which is partially why, even though Kennedy is a younger ship, Kitty Hawk is in slightly better condition. According to Global Security, the ship was in poor shape in 2001 and her captain relieved of command.

In December 2001 the KENNEDY failed a pre-deployment readiness inspection, and the ship's captain, Capt. Maurice Joyce, was relieved of command. The ship was seriously degraded in her ability to conduct air operations, due to a shortfall estimated at $300 million in maintenance funds since 1995. Three of four aircraft elevators were out of commission, two of four catapults were degraded, and the overall flight deck firefighting capability was seriously degraded. These major system degradations were in addition to a significant number of deficiencies noted in the fueling system. The propulsion plant was evaluated to be extremely unreliable and determined to be routinely operated out of safe parameters and in non-standard configuration. Two shaft seals had unacceptable leakage rates. Topside corrosion, including the condition of the mast, superstructure and catwalks, was the worst observed in three years.

Of the $400 million in funds you're talking about, it's split up into two. One $218 million dollar rework was done in 2002/2003 to bring Kennedy back up to snuff and then another $200 million in 2005 to basically ensure she would last until she was scheduled to be taken out of service in 2018. However, since Kennedy is being tabbed for early retirement if the USN cuts the carrier fleet, that would, of course, be a moot point.

[Edited 2005-02-17 19:26:10]


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9988 times:

Being bored at work is great - found another board in which someone put up the unclassified "Quick Look" results from the inspection that got Kennedy's captain relieved. Not pretty in the least, and I could definitely understand if Kennedy was decommissioned before Enterprise now.


1. THE BOARD OF INSPECTION AND SURVEY, ATLANTIC, CONDUCTED A MATERIAL INSPECTION OF USS JOHN F KENNEDY (CV 67) AT MAYPORT, FL DURING THE PERIOD 03-07 DECEMBER 2001.

2. SENIOR MEMBER'S COMMENTS:

A.THE SHIP WAS SERIOUSLY DEGRADED IN HER ABILITY TO CONDUCT AIR OPERATIONS. 3 OF 4 AIRCRAFT ELEVATORS WERE OUT OF COMMISSION, 2 OF 4 CATAPULTS WERE DEGRADED, AND THE OVERALL FLIGHT DECK FIRE FIGHTING CAPABILITY WAS SERIOUSLY DEGRADED. THESE MAJOR SYSTEM DEGRADATIONS WERE IN ADDITION TO A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES NOTED IN THE JP5 FUELING SYSTEM AND AESS STATIONS.

B.AFTER THREE FULL DAYS OF PRE-UNDERWAY MATERIAL CHECKS, THE SHIP COMMENCED THE UNDERWAY PHASE OF THE MI WITH THREE MAIN ENGINES AND FIVE BOILERS CLEARED FOR OPERATION. MMR NR 1 HAD SEVERAL UNCORRECTED MAJOR DEFICIENCIES THAT RENDERED IT UNSAFE FOR OPERATION. AN ATTEMPT TO CONDUCT A MODIFIED HIGH POWER DEMONSTRATION AT 23 KNOTS ON THREE SHAFTS WAS UNSUCCESSFUL DUE TO NUMEROUS CASUALTIES. THESE INCLUDED LOSS OF MAIN ENGINE VACUUM, CASUALTIES TO MMR NR 3 FUEL OIL SERVICE PUMPS WITH THE SUBSEQUENT LOSS OF ONE BOILER IN THAT SPACE, AND CASUALTIES TO OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT INCLUDING A MAIN FEED PUMP, A FORCED DRAFT BLOWER, AND MULTIPLE AIR EJECTORS. THE PROPULSION PLANT WAS EVALUATED TO BE EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE AND DETERMINED TO BE ROUTINELY OPERATED OUT OF SAFE PARAMETERS AND IN NON-STANDARD CONFIGURATION. TWO SHAFT SEALS HAD UNACCEPTABLE LEAKAGE RATES AND ONE RECENTLY REPLACED SEAL ON A THIRD SHAFT (ALTHOUGH STILL IN THE BREAK-IN PERIOD) HAD AN OBSERVED LEAKAGE RATE THAT SUGGESTS IT WILL NOT BE SATISFACTORY.

C.TOPSIDE CORROSION, INCLUDING THE CONDITION OF THE MAST, SUPERSTRUCTURE AND CATWALKS, WAS THE WORST OBSERVED IN THREE YEARS. VALVE MAINTENANCE THROUGHOUT THE SHIP WAS EGREGIOUS.

D.IT IS MY CONCLUSION THAT THE SHIP IS NOT CAPABLE OF AN ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENT. NUMEROUS CRITICAL SYSTEMS, REPORTED AS FULLY OPERATIONAL, WERE DEMONSTRATED WITH SAFETY FEATURES BYPASSED, AUTOMATIC DEVICES DEACTIVATED AND WITH INOPERATIVE INDICATORS AND ALARMS. A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF CRITICAL SYSTEMS THAT FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY INCLUDE THE CATAPULT SYSTEMS, THE OIL POLLUTION ABATEMENT SYSTEM, ALL CHT SYSTEMS, AND THE MAIN DRAINAGE SYSTEM. WIDESPREAD EVIDENCE OF PMS NON-ACCOMPLISHMENT AND COMPLACENCY WITH A MASSIVE NUMBER OF SEEMINGLY OBVIOUS ELECTRICAL SAFETY DEFICIENCIES WAS ALSO NOTED.

E.IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND THE EXTENSIVE NUMBER OF PART ONE AND SAFETY DEFICIENCIES PARTIALLY DELINEATED BELOW, IT IS MY FINDING THAT USS JOHN F KENNEDY COULD NOT PRUDENTLY DEMONSTRATE SAFE AND RELIABLE UNDERWAY OPERATIONS.

F.THE SHIP HAD INITIATED A COPPER SERVICE STEAM PIPING INSPECTION PROGRAM (COMNAVSEASYSCOM DTG 130557ZFEB01 REFERS). THE SHIP HAD REPLACED NEARLY 50 SECTIONS OF COPPER STEAM PIPING DUE TO THE DISCOVERY OF STEAM LEAKS. FOUR OF THESE SECTIONS WERE IN BERTHING COMPARTMENTS.

G.A C5RA WAS CONDUCTED 01-21AUG01. HM&E ASSESSMENTS (CAPS) WERE COMPLETED 02DEC01.

3. THE FOLLOWING CASREPS WERE ACTIVE PRIOR TO THE MI:

NUMBERNOMENCLATURECATEGORY 01137 AN/WSC-6(V)42 01141 CONTROL AIR COMPRESSORS 2 01145 AN/UYQ-70 2 01146 NSSMS TRANSMITTER 2 01147 HF TRANSMITTER2 01148 AN/USC-38(V)4 NR1 2 01149 AN/USC-38(V)4 NR2 2 01152 02N2 TANK 2 01153 AN/WSC-8 SHF SATCOMM2 01154 ELEVATORS DECK EDGE NR 32 01155 DOORS 2 01156 AN/WLR-1H(V)7, RECEIVING2 01157 CATAPULT2

4. REQUIRED OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES (ROC): THE SHIP WAS DEGRADED IN 14 OF THE 33 PRIMARY/SECONDARY ROC'S EVALUATED.

5. DEMONSTRATION RESULTS: (SAT (0.8 - 1.0)/DEGRADED (0.60 - 0.79) /UNSAT (0.0 - 0.59)):
- THE SELF-DEFENSE DTE WAS SATISFACTORY (SCORE: 0.97).
- THE FULL POWER DEMONSTRATION WAS NOT CONDUCTED BECAUSE NR 1 SHAFT WAS LOCKED THROUGHOUT THE UNDERWAY DEMONSTRATION. AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO CONDUCT A HIGH POWER DEMONSTRATION ON THREE VICE FOUR SHAFTS, BUT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL.
- THE QUICK REVERSAL DEMONSTRATIONS WERE NOT COMPLETED DUE TO EQUIPMENT CASUALTIES.
- THE STEERING TEST WAS CONDUCTED AT 19.5 KNOTS WITH SATISFACTORY RESULTS, BUT SHOULD BE REPEATED AT FULL POWER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
- THE ANCHOR DROP TEST WAS UNSATISFACTORY (SCORE: 0.40) DUE TO A MISSING LOCKING PIN ON THE STBD ANCHOR BENDING SHACKLE AND RETREIVAL TIMES ON THE BOW ANCHOR THAT WERE NOT IAW PMS STANDARDS.

6. SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL DEFICIENCIES AND EQUIPMENT OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY (EOC) INCLUDE:

A.PROPULSION: 0.52 MMR NR 1:

- SF REPORTED CONSTANT DIFFICULTY IN MAINTAINING VACUUM ON NR 1 MAIN ENGINE WHILE AT SLOW SRPM. THE BOARD COULD NOT EVALUATE THIS CONDITION BECAUSE NR 1 MAIN ENGINE WAS OOC DUE TO CLOUDY LUBE OIL.
- THE MAIN CIRC PUMP WAS OOC DUE TO AN INOP SPEED LIMITING GOVERNOR.
- BILGES WERE CONTAMINATED WITH FUEL AND EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF WATER (CORRECTED).
- NR 1 STEAM LUBE OIL PUMP WAS OOC DUE TO A FAULTY GOVERNOR ASSEMBLY AND HAD A BLOWN GASKET ON THE STEAM ADMISSION VALVE (CORRECTED).
- THE MAIN CIRC PUMP EMERGENCY BILGE SUCTION AND FLAPPER VALVES WERE INOP (CORRECTED).
- MAKE-UP FEED TANKS AND THE FWDCT HAD HIGH CHLORIDE LEVELS THROUGHOUT THE INSPECTION.
- THE MAIN ENGINE LUBE OIL PURIFIER WAS INOP.
- NR 1 SHAFT STERN TUBE SEAL COOLING WATER LOW FLOW ALARM WAS INOP (ENGINEERING TEMPORARY STANDING ORDER (TSO)).
- NR 1B BOILER FUEL OIL QUICK CLOSING VALVE WAS INOP.
- NR 1A FOSP ROOT VALVE HAD A BROKEN PACKING GLAND STUD AND A BLOWN BONNET FLEX GASKET (CORRECTED).
- NR 1C FOSP REMOTE TRIP WAS INOP (CORRECTED).
- NR 1A AND NR 1B BOILER EMERGENCY GAUGE GLASS LIGHTING WAS INOP (CORRECTED).
- NR 1A AND NR 1B BOILER BOTTOM BLOW SYSTEMS WERE PRESSURIZED DUE TO VALVE LEAK-BY (CORRECTED).
- NR 1C MFP LOW LUBE OIL ALARM, ELOP AUTO START, AND LOW SUCTION TRIP WERE INOP.
- NR 1B MFBP COULD NOT BE STOPPED DUE TO WATER INTRUSION INTO THE CONTROLLER (CORRECTED).
- THE FINAL CONTROL AIR LOCK SYSTEM TEST FAILED ON NR 1A AND NR 1B FOCV'S, NR 1B FEED WATER CONTROL VALVE, NR 1A MFP, NR 1A2 AND NR 1B3 FDB'S (CORRECTED).

MMR NR 2:

- NR 2C FOSP STEAM ADMISSION VALVE WAS SEIZED (CORRECTED).
- NR 2A BOILER HIGH/LOW WATER ALARMS WERE INCORRECTLY SET (CORRECTED).
- NR 2A MFP, NR 2B MFP, AND NR 2C MFP SPEED LIMITING GOVERNORS WERE INCORRECTLY SET (CORRECTED).
- NR 2E MFBP AUTO START WAS INOP (CORRECTED).
- NR 2A BOILER BURNER FRONT BALL CHECK VALVES (NR 2 AND NR 3) LEAKED (CORRECTED).
- NR 2B BOILER BURNER FRONT BALL CHECK VALVES (NR 1, NR 2, AND NR 5) LEAKED (CORRECTED).

MMR NR 3:

- THE MAIN CIRC PUMP EMERGENCY BILGE SUCTION VALVE WAS INOP (CORRECTED).
- NR 3 SHAFT STERN TUBE SEAL COOLING WATER LOW FLOW ALARM WAS INOP (ENGINEERING TSO).
- NR 3B FOSP TURBINE OIL SEAL LEAKED EXCESSIVELY.
- NR 3 FUEL OIL SERVICE UNLOADING VALVE WAS INOP (CORRECTED).
- THE FINAL CONTROL AIR LOCK SYSTEM TEST FAILED ON NR 3A3 FDB, NR 3B2 FDB, AND NR 3C MFP (CORRECTED).
- NR 3A MFP AND NR 3C MFP SPEED LIMITING GOVERNORS WERE INCORRECTLY SET (CORRECTED).

MMR NR 4:

- BILGES WERE CONTAMINATED WITH FUEL AND EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF WATER (CORRECTED).
- THE MAIN ENGINE GLAND SEAL REGULATOR WAS INOP (ENGINEERING TSO).
- THE MAIN ENGINE VENT FOG PRECIPITATOR WAS INOP (CORRECTED).
- NR 4 SHAFT STERN TUBE INFLATABLE SEAL EXCEEDED THE MAX ALLOWABLE LEAKAGE RATE WHILE INFLATED (TYCOM DFS APPROVED).
- NR 4 SHAFT STERN TUBE SEAL COOLING WATER LOW FLOW ALARM WAS INOP (ENGINEERING TSO).
- NR 4B BOILER HIGH/LOW WATER LEVEL ALARMS WERE INOP.
- NR 4A BOILER ECONOMIZER OUTLET FLANGE LEAKED AT FLEX GASKET (CORRECTED).
- NR 4B FOSP SPEED LIMITING GOVERNOR WAS INOP.
- NR 4A AND 4C FOSP SPEED LIMITING GOVERNORS WERE INCORRECTLY SET (CORRECTED).
- NR 4A BOILER "C" SOOT BLOWER WAS SEIZED.
- MAIN STM CROSS CONNECT (4MS-8) BYPASS VALVE BONNET FLEX GASKET WAS BLOWN (CORRECTED).
- NR 4B BOILER DESUPERHEATER OUTLET 1ST LP DRAIN VALVE BONNET FLEX GASKET WAS BLOWN (CORRECTED).
- NR 4A 1200 TO 600 PSI REDUCER INLET FLANGE FLEX GASKET LEAKED (CORRECTED).
- NR 4B MFP LOW SUCTION TRIP WAS INCORRECTLY SET (CORRECTED).
- NR 4C MFP WAS OOC DUE TO AN INOP ATTACHED LUBE OIL PUMP.
- NR 4E MFBP DISCHARGE FLANGE GASKET LEAKED EXCESSIVELY (CORRECTED).
- NR 4A AND NR 4C MFP SPEED LIMITING GOVERNORS WERE INCORRECTLY SET (CORRECTED).
- NR 4A BOILER BURNER FRONT BALL CHECK VALVES (NR 1, NR 2, NR 3, AND NR 4) LEAKED (CORRECTED).
- NR 4B BOILER BURNER FRONT BALL CHECK VALVES (NR 3, NR 6, AND NR 7) LEAKED (CORRECTED).
- NR 4B BOILER, NR 3 DRUM SAFETY VALVE FORKED LEVER AND SPINDLE NUT CLEARANCE WAS INCORRECTLY SET (CORRECTED).
- NR 4B BOILER SOOT BLOWER ROOT STEAM VALVE BONNET FLEX GASKET LEAKED (CORRECTED).
- NR 4A AND 4B BOILER EMERGENCY GAUGE GLASS LIGHTING WAS INOP (CORRECTED).

B.AUXILIARIES: 0.71

- THE FIVE EVAPS PRODUCED ONLY 62 PCT COMBINED CAPACITY DURING THE FOUR HOUR DEMONSTRATION.
- 8 OF 11 PACKAGE CONVEYORS AND THE AVIONICS DUMBWAITER WERE UNSAFE TO OPERATE (CAPS) DUE TO EXPIRED WEIGHT TESTS AND INOP LIMIT SWITCHES AND SAFETY FEATURES, MISSING LOCKING DEVICES AND WARNING PLACARDS (5 PACKAGE CONVEYORS CORRECTED).
- 3 OF 8 02N2 HPACS WERE OOC.
- NR 1A CONTROL AIR COMPRESSOR (CAC) WAS INOP (CASREP 01141).
- 5 OF 7 REMAINING CAC LOW L/O PRESSURE SWITCHES WERE OUT OF CALIBRATION (CORRECTED).
- THE HALOCARBON MONITORS FOR NR 5, NR 6, NR 7, NR 8 AND NR 10 A/C UNITS WERE INOP (CAPS).
- 48 OF 77 FAN ROOMS HAD DAMAGED DUCTING, INOP/DEGRADED FAN MOTORS, OR CLOGGED/DIRTY DRIP PANS, COOLING COILS AND FILTERS.

C.ELECTRICAL: 0.57

- 5 OF 6 SSTG'S AND 1 OF 2 EDG'S HAD REPAIR-BEFORE-OPERATE (RBO) DEFICIENCIES (CORRECTED).
- 13 OF 24 ABT'S FAILED PMS OR HAD SAFETY DISCREPANCIES (12 OF 13 CORRECTED).
- THERE WERE 84 THERMAL IMAGING DISCREPANCIES IDENTIFIED. THE 26 THREE- AND FOUR-STAR DISCREPANCIES WERE CORRECTED.
- 5 OF 5 DISTILLATE PLANT SALINITY PANELS FAILED PMS (CORRECTED).
- 4 OF 24 SHORE POWER CIRCUIT BREAKERS WERE INOP DUE TO A RECENT CLASS "C" FIRE.
- THERE WERE NUMEROUS OVER-FUSED AND UN-LABELLED FUSE PANELS.

D.DAMAGE CONTROL: 0.39

- FLIGHT DECK FIREFIGHTING CAPABILITY WAS SERIOUSLY DEGRADED WITH 6 OF 17 DECK EDGE AFFF NOZZLE GROUPS INOP, 6 OF 17 FLIGHT DECK AFFF HOSE REELS INOP, AND 4 FLIGHT DECK AFFF FLUSH DECK NOZZLE ZONES WHICH FAILED TO RECEIVE AFFF DURING SYSTEM TESTING.
- THE SHIP'S ABILITY TO PROPERLY RESPOND TO AND CONTROL MAIN SPACE FLOODING WAS SEVERELY DEGRADED DUE TO 5 MVHC STATIONS WITHOUT HYDRAULIC FLUID (CORRECTED) OR DUAL VALVE POSITION INDICATIONS (ENGINEERING TSO). IN ADDITION, THE CONDITION OF FIREMAIN ISOLATION VALVES PRECLUDED SYSTEM SEGREGATION.
- PERSONNEL SAFETY IN ALL MAIN SPACES WAS JEOPARDIZED BY AN ACCUMULATED NUMBER OF SAFETY DISCREPANCIES WITH ESCAPE TRUNKS, HALON ALARMS AND INDICATORS, AND INOP HOSE REEL NOZZLES (CORRECTED).
- THE SHIP'S ABILITY TO OPERATE IN A CBR ENVIRONMENT WAS DEGRADED DUE TO THE MAGNITUDE OF FAILURES IN WATERTIGHT INTEGRITY DISCOVERED DURING CMWD TESTING AND THE INOP IMPROVED CHEMICAL AGENT POINT DETECTION SYSTEM WHICH HAD RECENTLY BEEN INSTALLED WITHOUT THE MATERIALS NEEDED TO PERFORM PMS.

E.DECK: 0.59

- 2 OF 2 BOAT DAVITS WERE INOP (STBD CORRECTED).
- 2 OF 2 READY LIFEBOATS WERE INOP (STBD CORRECTED).
- THE STBD ANCHOR BENDING SHACKLE WAS MISSING 1 OF 2 LOCK PINS.

F.C5 SYSTEMS: 0.77

- EXTENSIVE CORROSION AND EXFOLIATION ON THE MAST AND CATWALK ANTENNA PLATFORMS, FOUNDATIONS, CABLEWAYS AND WAVEGUIDE RUNS THREATEN RELIABLE COMMUNICATION AND RADAR OPERATIONS. CORROSION ON THE MAST ALSO POSES CLIMBER SAFETY AND FOD HAZARDS.
- THE AN/WLR-1H(V)7 EW RECEIVER SET WAS INOP (CASREP 01156).
- THE AN/SLQ-32 FAILED TO ACHIEVE LEVEL 1 ON THE ULM-4 RANGE.
- 2 OF 2 EHF SATCOMM SYSTEMS WERE INOP (CASREPS 01148 AND 01149).
- THE AN/WSC-6 SHF SATCOMM SYSTEM WAS INOP.
- MT 23 CIWS WAS INOP (CORRECTED).
- THE STBD NIXIE (MC MODE) WAS INOP.
- THE FATHOMETER WAS INOP (CORRECTED TO OPERATE IN REDUCED POWER ONLY).
- THE AN/SPS-48 CEC INTERFACE WAS INOP.
- ALL TOPSIDE READY SERVICE/PYRO LOCKERS HAD SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES.
- LAN SECURITY WAS INADEQUATE. ALL LAN USERS, VICE ONLY LAN ADMINISTRATORS, HAD PRIMARY DOMAIN CONTROLLER ACCESS.

G.QUALITY OF SHIPBOARD LIFE: 0.73

- DECK COVERINGS THROUGHOUT BERTHING COMPARTMENTS AND SANITARY SPACES WERE SIGNIFICANTLY DETERIORATED.
- CREW LOUNGES WERE INADEQUATE AND IN POOR MATERIAL CONDITION.
- WASHER EXTRACTORS WERE NOT SUPPLIED WITH WATER AT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TEMP.
- 41 OF 53 SANITARY SPACES HAD EXHAUST AIR FLOWS BELOW DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS.

H.NAVOSH: 0.69

- 4 OF 4 MEDICAL STERILIZERS WERE INOP (1 CORRECTED).
- 20 OF 27 ACCESS TRUNK SAFETY NETS WERE MISSING OR DAMAGED.
- 42 OF 63 EYE WASH STATIONS WERE DEFICIENT.
- 12 OF 12 HAZMAT, CHT AND JP-5 SPACES HAD INADEQUATE VENTILATION.
- ALL FLAMMABLE LIQUID CABINETS WERE IN POOR MATERIAL CONDITION.

I.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: 0.59

- THE OPA SYSTEM WAS NOT CERTIFIED.
- THE CHT SYSTEM DID NOT OPERATE IN THE AUTOMATIC MODE.
- ALL CHT PUMP AND TANK SENSORS WERE INOP.

J.AVIATION: 0.75

- 1 OF 2 AVIATION NITROGEN STORAGE TANKS WAS OOC DUE TO A FAILED TANK RELIEF VALVE (CASREP 01152).
- THE HANGAR BAY DIVISIONAL DOORS WERE INOP (CORRECTED).
- 23 OF 34 AIRCRAFT ELECTRICAL SERVICE STATIONS WERE INOP.
- 7 OF 17 CENTERLINE STROBE LIGHTS WERE INOP.
- NR 2 ELEVATOR MAIN HYDRAULIC HIGH PRESS CUTOUT SWITCH WAS OUT OF LIMITS.

7. PRESERVATION, CLEANLINESS AND STOWAGE (ON (LOW)0.0 - 1.0(HIGH) SCALE):

- PRESERVATION WAS .38
- CLEANLINESS WAS .42
- STOWAGE WAS .45

8. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING FINDINGS AND TRENDS FROM PREVIOUS MATERIAL INSPECTIONS LOGON TO THE USERID/PASSWORD PROTECTED INSURV CORONA WEBSITE AT WWW.INSURV.CORONA.NAVY.MIL. TO APPLY FOR A PASSWORD, CLICK ON THE "MI DATA" BUTTON ON THE INSURV HOME PAGE AT WWW.SPAWAR.NAVY.MIL/FLEET/INSURV. COMPLETE RESULTS OF THE INSPECTION ARE AVAILABLE BY CONTACTING PRESINSURV (757-462-7325 EXT 3046).

9. RADM TOMASZESKI, COMJFKBATGRU, AND CAPT RAHALL, CNAL N43, WERE PRESENT FOR THE INSPECTION AND DEBRIEF. CAPT DENIS WAS THE SENIOR INSPECTOR.

10. PRESIDENT, BOARD OF INSPECTION AND SURVEY, CONCURS WITH THE FINDINGS.




[Edited 2005-02-17 20:15:56]


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9967 times:

What would a satisfactory inspection report look like?

I've done countless inspections in the Air Force and am curious how bad this really is. Obviously it's enough to get the CO relieved. For example: would a satisfactory inspection have no findings or a few? Would maintenance administration factor in the inspection results or is it strictly material condition?

Was this a special inspection for JFK due to known or suspected defiencies, or a regular scheduled inspection?

thanks


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1444 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9956 times:

Was this inspection done as an acceptance out of the Philly Yard or was it underway for a few month's. I am used to in the AF getting acft back from depot that are a wreck trying to get everything working. How much mx is done underway by USN personal or is everything deferred until you hit port.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9872 times:

The Big E was supposed to be decommioned in 2013 and replace with cvn-21/ cvn-78. I not in a rush to she her decom, because she is a one of a kind and the only nuke that another boring Nimitz class. She has four rudders eight and reactor, she taller and longer than a Nimitz , and she has a 860 ft hanger bay that longer than a LHA/LHD. Do not get me wrong I like the USS Nimitz but there will never be another Big E.


PS If they decommioned the Big E and Big John ( Uss John F. Kennedy) then there goes the two most beautiful carriers in the USN fleet.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9847 times:

I agree, the Big E and the JFK are both gorgeous ships. Don't get me wrong, I love our Nimitz boys, but sometimes a little flavor in your fleet is a good thing. Some of the spaces on the Kennedy (Captain's in port cabin, wardroom, etc) are absolutely gorgeous. And I love that block superstructure on the Enterprise Big grin

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9767 times:

The inspection was performed in December 2001, 6 years after her overhaul at PSY and conducted at Kennedy's homeport at Mayport, FL right before her first deployment after formally returning to the active fleet. It's my understanding that this type of inspection is usually done right after a major overhaul, but since Kennedy was put into the Reserve Fleet immediately after that overhaul, I'm thinking the inspection might have been deferred.

Since I'm not familiar with INSURV's inspection procedures I can't comment on what they would deem passing or not, but I'd think that a few of the more non-critical items that the ship got flagged for (for instance if only a few eye wash stations were inoperable), wouldn't have been enough to fail the ship. Anyone with actual experience being inspected able to answer this one?



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineWoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1053 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9751 times:

INSURV's are Congressional mandated inspections that are done to a ship every five years as long as it's commissioned. The Inspection Board comes on board and the write-ups are already written up. It's just a matter of deleting the discrepancies as the crew demonstrates the equipment working satisfactorily.

The equipment has to work according to specs, otherwise it will be written up. e.g. You have 30 radio transmitters, and let's say 28 of them work when the inspection board shows up. They'll document that 2 of your radios are not working. Then they'll run tests on the 28 remaining working radios. But 10 of the radios do transmit but they transmit at 25 watts instead of 40 watts. Those radios are out of specs. So according to the inspection board these 10 radios are also not operating, and they'll write up 12 of 30 radios inop.

Same for watertight doors, when they do the chalk test, the knife edge has to make an uninterrupted chalk mark all the way around on the rubber gasket in the door. Most high-use doors probably will not pass this test, so those doors are written up as inoperative, even though everyone uses that particular door every day. It's basic door maintenance, but the higher traffic doors get lots of abuse.

When an INSURV board shows up, the crew has to prove that the minimum required equipment is safe to operate. The inspectors will come in and find things wrong and come up with RBO (Repair Before Operate) lists. The crew will work all day and night to clear the RBO list. Usually this will take 2 days.... Things like propulsion plant, navigation equipment, anchors, rudders, fathometer, navigation lights, radars, etc... Once the ship is cleared for underway operations, the ship will get underway. At this point the ship has only demonstrated that the equipment that does work- works in accordance with specs and that it is safe to operate. Once underway the big items are missile systems, combat systems, fire fighting systems, high speed run and maneuvering transient (the crashback), anchor drop test, etc.

An acceptable passing inspection will have just as many write-ups as the Kennedy writeups as there is no ship in the fleet in which every piece of equipment works 100%. The thing that the INSURV board is really looking for is can the crew self-diagnose that equipment is not working to specs, and can they document it for correction.

The crew is always doing preventive and corrective maintenance on a ship (organizational level maintenance). But sometimes it's beyond the capability of the ship to perform, and so it is deferred to a higher level (intermediate level maintenance or depot level maintenance). The ship's port engineer and ship's maintenance officer take a look at all the equipment that is not working (written up by the crew) and is beyond the ship's capability to repair. Depending on how critical the item is to the ship's mission, the two will look at when to schedule the repair to an item...

Normally if it is not a mission critical item, intermediate level items are deferred to the ship's next inport period (if it's long enough to repair within the time frame is in port) or next inport period when the ship will be in port for the required time to repair the item. Depot level items are deferred to the ship's next yard period...

If it is an item that affect the ship's mission, then they move heaven and hell to get that item fixed. A catapult casualty affects a carrier's mission, they'll get that fixed as soon as they can.

The CO of the Kennedy got fired because his crew wasn't capable of determining what equipment was broken. If you don't know it's broken you can't have it scheduled to get fixed. If the crew was able to present to the inspectors a list of things (CSMP) that were broken before the inspectors found it, the outcome would have been different.

I've been unlucky enough to go through two INSURV inspections. And our write-ups for each of the two inspections were just as long as the Kennedy's. But the ships I was on passed our INSURVs -- mainly because we knew our equipment was broken and we showed that the things that were broken or not operating to specs were scheduled for repair or were being repaired at the moment.

Anyways, sorry for the long post.



Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9746 times:

No need to apologize, Woodreau - quite the opposite, thanks for the highly informative post that definitely answers all the questions I had.  Big thumbs up


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9727 times:

Woodreau,

Your post pretty much nails it for me. Jives pretty well with my experience in the AF, i.e. if it's not right show what that you've done everything you can to fix it...

regards


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9724 times:

Woodreau.


Excellent and informative. Same went in the Army. We weren't expected to have perfectly functioning equipment (although it would've been nice), but we were expected to know what was going on with what we had, and what to do about it when it was dead-lined.

DL021



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9693 times:

Insurv is a pain in the neck for the crew of a ship. We had to give up one of or weekend during or Insurv. We had to go underway one day from 0600 to 0200 am the next day with out sleep.

User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9456 times:

Many thanks to everyone who replied. When the US Navy does retire the Enterprise, I certainly hope that she can be saved as a memorial/museum ship.
Regards.



"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9452 times:

Quoting FlagshipAZ (reply 16):
When the US Navy does retire the Enterprise, I certainly hope that she can be saved as a memorial/museum ship.


Nuke ships in a museum? Has it been done? I thought N.S. Savannah was on display. How 'bout SSN or a boomer? My fav, CGN Long Beach, went to the breakers, did any CGNs survive the cutters torch?

Care & maintenance of the reactor spaces would be a real burden on any museum....


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9446 times:

AFIK, no CGNs made it through the Clinton years of cutting them all up....I remember the Long Beach well, seeing her deck completely naked, her beautiful block superstructure long since melted away  Sad That's about the only time I shed a tear for the surface navy  Innocent.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9444 times:

Quoting SATL382G (reply 17):
I thought N.S. Savannah was on display.


Savannah was removed from Patriots Point in 1999 and moved to the James River Merchant Marine Reserve Fleet near Newport News, so she's no longer on display. I do remember going aboard her, but don't remember much...I was much more fascinated with the Yorktown!



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9441 times:

Apparently Nautilus is on display at Groton:

http://www.ussnautilus.org/

Anybody know what was done to prepare her for the Museum? Radioactive components removed I'd guess.

From the Museums history page:

"In recognition of her pioneering role in the practical use of nuclear power, NAUTILUS was designated a National Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior on May 20, 1982. Following an extensive historic ship conversion at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, NAUTILUS was towed to Groton, Connecticut arriving on July 6, 1985."

An Enterprise "historic ship conversion" would be pricey I bet.....

[Edited 2005-02-26 19:14:22]

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9433 times:

Quoting Garnetpalmetto (reply 19):
Savannah was removed from Patriots Point in 1999 and moved to the James River Merchant Marine Reserve


Now that is sad, I visited her in Christmas of 1991.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9395 times:

Quoting L-188 (reply 21):
Now that is sad, I visited her in Christmas of 1991.


Even sadder is how Patriots Point has let Yorktown deteriorate...last time I was there, you could see good amounts of rust around the hull and the deck's nonskid was just gone in places. They are definitely not doing a good job of caretaking (and to be honest they're in pretty tight budgetary conditions), so in a way, maybe it's good that Savannah was moved.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlinePilottj From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9419 times:

The big E will be replaced by NCC-1701  Smile


God was my copilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic USS Enterprise: How Much Longer?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
USS Enterprise CVN-65 Strike Group Deployed posted Fri May 5 2006 01:12:28 by 747400sp
How Much More Lift Does Shuttle Make On The 747? posted Sat Jul 16 2005 15:50:49 by Boeing nut
How Many A10 Thunderbolts Were Made? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 18:49:06 by Bisbee
USS Intrepid posted Mon Nov 6 2006 13:57:24 by Alibo5NGN
How Capable Is The North Korean Military? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 11:01:50 by CHRISBA777ER
How Long Would The US Have Been Giving Away F4U's posted Sun Oct 8 2006 08:47:57 by L-188
How Many C-130s Have Served As Fat Albert? posted Sun Oct 8 2006 00:57:35 by Dl757md
CVN-77, USS Bush, To Be Christened 10/7/06 posted Thu Oct 5 2006 07:07:21 by BladeLWS
140,000 US Troops In Iraq - How Many Troop Flights posted Fri Sep 1 2006 00:46:03 by Gh123
How Does One Invoke New Physics? posted Sun Aug 27 2006 06:32:00 by Lehpron

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format