Blackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1892 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2763 times:
"Decoming", a naval term? Is it to be de-commissioned?
Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2755 times:
Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 1): Decoming", a naval term? Is it to be de-commissioned?
Yes it is a naval term, well decom is a naval term, I do not know if any body else put (ing) at the end.
But yes it is to be de-commissioned around March 23-28 time frame in Massport FL..
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2742 times:
Calm winds and fair seas, Big John. You have served us well.
StudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2736 times:
Just a couple of things here...
It may be it's last visit under it's own power maybe~ last word I got was that after this current at-sea period the ship would head back South. Later it'll be towed up North with a stop back in Norfolk to off-load some equipment, then head farther North to the 'mothball' Fleet. I may be wrong, though~ it's something I 'heard' somewhere...
The ship will be de-commed in Mayport, Fl. A sad day for all who have sailed in 'her' for sure.
Nope- that's one flat-top I've NOT sailed around in circles on-- but there are like 8 others I have, though.
Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2726 times:
It's a damn damn shame they're axing her....CNO just needs money, gets rid of another boat. We can only hope she won't be sank like her sister America.
Going down to a 11 carrier Navy is a bad call, IMHO.
Jacksonville won't recover the loss either- since they (stupidly) axed the Cecil Field idea, the Navy has no incentive to put another carrier here.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2709 times:
Quoting StudeDave (Reply 4): It may be it's last visit under it's own power maybe~ last word I got was that after this current at-sea period the ship would head back South. Later it'll be towed up North with a stop back in Norfolk to off-load some equipment, then head farther North to the 'mothball' Fleet. I may be wrong, though~ it's something I 'heard' somewhere...
I think all her de comisioning work is going to be done in Mayport FL.
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 5): It's a damn damn shame they're axing her....CNO just needs money, gets rid of another boat. We can only hope she won't be sank like her sister America.
Going down to a 11 carrier Navy is a bad call, IMHO.
Jacksonville won't recover the loss either- since they (stupidly) axed the Cecil Field idea, the Navy has no incentive to put another carrier here.
DeltaGuy
As much as I like Big John, from what I been told by sailor stationed on her, she is in pretty bad shape. I was talking to some who work in one of her engineering plants. He told me that he was able to put his foot though some of her pipes, also I have herd there are holes though her decks, so as much as I do not like to say it, but time for her rest. Now what I do not get is how could the Navy let her get that in that shape. She should have been kept as a main line carrier instead giving to the reserves, so she could have got a full overhaul. If the Big E can still plow the seas, if Big John was maintained, she would have also. If Big John was kept up and got a full overhaul like the Kitty Hawk and the Constellation did, she would be in dry dock getting ready for a move to Japan instead the GW. It seems like the Navy just wanted to get rid of there diesel carrier since the early 90s. I hope they would not sink this beautiful ship, witch is name after one of the greatest president, if not the greatest president we ever had.
PS: At least I got to see her in person as an active ship.
I just remember this Big John memory, it 2004 and I was standing watch on the my old ship in the Persian Gulf early in the morning. I saw a carrier, and it was Big John on her final deployment. If I could find it, got a distanced photo of her.
Cadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1408 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2609 times:
I don't think the Kennedys will let the Navy scrap her...my bet is within a few years, she'll be a museum ship up in Massachusetts somewhere.
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 709 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2582 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 6): As much as I like Big John, from what I been told by sailor stationed on her, she is in pretty bad shape. I was talking to some who work in one of her engineering plants. He told me that he was able to put his foot though some of her pipes, also I have herd there are holes though her decks, so as much as I do not like to say it, but time for her rest. Now what I do not get is how could the Navy let her get that in that shape. She should have been kept as a main line carrier instead giving to the reserves, so she could have got a full overhaul. If the Big E can still plow the seas, if Big John was maintained, she would have also. If Big John was kept up and got a full overhaul like the Kitty Hawk and the Constellation did, she would be in dry dock getting ready for a move to Japan instead the GW. It seems like the Navy just wanted to get rid of there diesel carrier since the early 90s. I hope they would not sink this beautiful ship, witch is name after one of the greatest president, if not the greatest president we ever had.
A couple of points.
1. The Navy is constantly building carriers and has plans in place to replace the non-nuclear carriers. They are not nearly as useful as their nuclear sisters.
2. The Big E is still around and gets money spent on her for that reason. She is a more important asset than JFK.
3. The Navy has no diesel carriers. The USN has never used diesel engines on carriers.
4. It is sort of a running joke in Navy circles that a carrier was named after a Navy Officer who managed to get the fastest, most manuverable ship in the fleet cut in half by a Japanese destroyer.
5. This ship will amost certainly be sunk. The Kennedys or their supporters, no matter how rich, can in no way afford to get a carrier certified as a museum. You will likely never see one of the large ships in that role, the cost would be huge.
6. One could make a very good argument that the navy has at least 3 serving carriers right now named for greater presidents than Kennedy, but thats neither here nor there.
The ship had a good run but the time for conventionally fired CV's in the USN is comming to an end. Hopefully we start putting the nuke plants back in surface combatants soon.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 8): The ship had a good run but the time for conventionally fired CV's in the USN is comming to an end. Hopefully we start putting the nuke plants back in surface combatants soon.
If they start putting nuke plants in surface combatants again, then you can almost forget about another New York fleet week.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2511 times:
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 8): This ship will amost certainly be sunk. The Kennedys or their supporters, no matter how rich, can in no way afford to get a carrier certified as a museum. You will likely never see one of the large ships in that role, the cost would be huge.
I wouldn't write it off. Bigmouth Ted Kennedy may not be able to save it, but a devoted group of investors certainly can. It's not about 'certification', it's about getting the necessary money for the permits and land for the ship as well as the restoration and upkeep of the vessel. You will see a Supercarrier as a museum soon enough, we've already done it with the Midway, which, while not as large, still is much larger than the other carrier museums.
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 8): They are not nearly as useful as their nuclear sisters.
Not exactly- while they have to refuel often, these carriers are just as versatile and just as mission capable.
And what else is the Kennedy powered by other than Navy-grade Diesel?
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 709 posts, RR: 11 Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2499 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 10): You will see a Supercarrier as a museum soon enough, we've already done it with the Midway, which, while not as large, still is much larger than the other carrier museums.
In addition to just the cost there are huge environmental issues that have to be dealt with to do this as well. Regardless you are right, it could happen if they find someone willing to lose millions of dollars a year on the venture.
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 10): And what else is the Kennedy powered by other than Navy-grade Diesel?
The JFK is powered by Steam Turbines with steam generated from 8 Boilers. You can use diesel or simple fuel oil to heat the boiler with little work. They do not use diesel engines though. If you were just saying they can and do burn diesel fuel at times then yes that would be correct and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2461 times:
Ahhh, those pesky environmental regs. I think anything's possible with people with deep pockets....although I'm not a fan of the Kennedys they do have deep pockets. I hate to see the boat going up to Philly to rot, I miss seeing her everyday here in Jax. Not to mention the last occupant of that pier up there now resides at the bottom of the Atlantic. I'll have to go over and get a visit before she goes away for the last last time.
I was gonna say, I knew they burned diesel as I've smelled it on that boat.
Bottom line, Warner and the CNO have wrongly axed this boat for money. I think the Navy will be better off when both are no longer in command, although with Warner it'll take a long time to get rid of him. Kennedy was cursed with some piss-poor CO's for some time which allowed her to get to such a degraded shape, that too had alot to do with it. Kitty Hawk is older than her but yet is still in tip top shape, it shows how important maintenance is.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2444 times:
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 8): They are not nearly as useful as their nuclear sisters.
Tell that to the late crew members of the USS Constellation CV-64. After her decommissioning some of her ex-crew came to the Bigdawg ( USS Belleau Wood LHA 3) and I was told by some of them that she could haul but! She was pushing 37 to 40 knots on her transit from San Diego to the gulf on her late deployment. The only set back a CV has, is the fact that they drink gas like water, and they have to unrep every other day.
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 11): The JFK is powered by Steam Turbines with steam generated from 8 Boilers. You can use diesel or simple fuel oil to heat the boiler with little work. They do not use diesel engines though. If you were just saying they can and do burn diesel fuel at times then yes that would be correct and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I see your point, but as some body who had to help unrep a LHA, which also use Steam Turbines (eventhough it was just two boilers and they are smaller than the JFKs boilers) I can tell you, the only fuel they will put under those boiler are DFM ( Diesel Fuel Marine). The reason I call CV diesel carriers, is because of what I just stated, but if you are talking about strait diesel engines, then the biggest ships in the USN you will find with those LSDs. Unless you count Military Sealift Command (MSC) ship then you have T-AO and the Bod Hope AKRs.
PS: If there ever was a strait diesel supercarrier, I would really like to hear it's four plants at 30+ knots. I have a feeling it would sound like a beast!
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2425 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 12): Bottom line, Warner and the CNO have wrongly axed this boat for money. I think the Navy will be better off when both are no longer in command, although with Warner it'll take a long time to get rid of him.
The CNO has no control over the amount of money the Navy receives in it's budgets. He can only work with whats given to him. If the Navy can no longer afford to either keep in service and/or overhaul the JFK that fault lies elsewhere.
StudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2377 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 13): Quoting BigJKU (Reply 8):
They are not nearly as useful as their nuclear sisters.
...and I was told by some of them that she could haul but! She was pushing 37 to 40 knots... The only set back a CV has, is the fact that they drink gas like water, and they have to unrep every other day...
Well, I beg to differ!!!
A 'nuke' boat will go much faster then '37-40 knots'~ TRUST ME ON THAT ONE!!!
I've done speed runs on the Hawk (acceptance runs after SLEP), and on Abe (acceptance runs as well)- one is much, much faster.
Some other differences include the fact that because the nukes don't need tanks of fuel for themselves, they have more room for supplies- jet fuel and ordinance being two items that come to mind first...
Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
Quote:
"March 23/07: The USS John F. Kennedy was formally decommissioned in a Mayport, FL ceremony. The 80,000 ton warship, namesake of the 35th President of the United States, saw 18 deployments and 30 commanding officers over its 38 years of service."
DeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2035 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 12): Kitty Hawk is older than her but yet is still in tip top shape, it shows how important maintenance is.
Her days are numbered too, sad but true. What I cant stand to think about is the fate of Big E, she has a while left, but not forever.
Quoting StudeDave (Reply 15): Some other differences include the fact that because the nukes don't need tanks of fuel for themselves, they have more room for supplies- jet fuel and ordinance being two items that come to mind first...
This is a major stratigic advantage that many forget.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
Checksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 996 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1980 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 5): Jacksonville won't recover the loss either- since they (stupidly) axed the Cecil Field idea, the Navy has no incentive to put another carrier here.
IMO...not reopening Cecil Field was the best decision made.
Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1959 times:
I dont' know why they decided on a 12-carrier fleet maximum. In my opinion, they should have kept at least some of those old WW2 carriers, and built as many new supercarriers as they could.
Additionally, I don't know why some time ago they stopped building nuclear-cruisers and stuff-- I mean there's no point in having a nuclear carrier if all the cruisers and destroyers that escort it will eventually run out of gas! (excepting the subs)
DeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1883 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 20): I dont' know why they decided on a 12-carrier fleet maximum. In my opinion, they should have kept at least some of those old WW2 carriers, and built as many new supercarriers as they could.
They did, the USN mothball fleet is the third largest navy in the world. Those ships remained and have been slowly scrapped as newer carriers go into mothball as class b carriers. Remember the Planet of the Apes movie where they escape and hide on a carrier? That ship was a mothballed WWII carrier still there in the late 60s.
Its not that we ONLY have 12 carriers, we have 12, now 11 ACTIVE carriers. We usually have 1 designated as a training carrier, and 3-4 in class b mobilization status, and many more in lower levels of preservation. The 12 carrier force usually had about 15 in fighting condition or very close to it. I assume the 11 carrier force will have at least 3 that can be made ready fairly quickly.
Hell we still have two WWII battleships that can be made ready to fight, the Iowa and Wisconsin, that are used as deck only museum ships while in class b status.
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 20): Additionally, I don't know why some time ago they stopped building nuclear-cruisers and stuff-- I mean there's no point in having a nuclear carrier if all the cruisers and destroyers that escort it will eventually run out of gas! (excepting the subs)
Since the carriers dont need to store fuel oil for themselves, just aviation fuel, in times of war or emergency they can actually store fuel oil for the group as a contingency. But, they have refueling ships just like the AF has KC135s that work quite well though.
They have found that the DC-10 type jet engines used on the Cruisers and Destroyers are an extreemly efficient and reliable method of propulsion with excellent range.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
RaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 372 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1840 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 20): there's no point in having a nuclear carrier if all the cruisers and destroyers that escort it will eventually run out of gas!
FlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1804 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 12): Kitty Hawk is older than her but yet is still in tip top shape,
Based on what I heard from an F-18 pilot that flew off her over the past couple years. That couldn't be further from the truth. He said the ship was falling apart. Cracks and leaks everywhere and that it should have been decommissioned years ago. It was already slated to be decommissioned a couple years ago but the Navy decided to extend her life.
Go Trojans! Fight On!
25 RC135U: They don't call her "Sh***y Kitty" for nothing...
26 Checksixx: Go easy man...Oceana doesn't have a piss poor situation at all--just people that bought houses knowing full well there was a NAS in the area and now
27 Sprout5199: I remember those piers with the Forrestal and Saratoga tied up to them. And seeing the CH-46s landing on the Sara just before she went on deployment
28 KC135TopBoom: No, the JFK will not go to a sinkex. They used the America for that to see how and how long it takes a super carrier to sink (the engineers were all
29 DeltaDC9: Yep, not sure where the notion came from that the big ships are not preserved. Like I said, we have a pretty complete Navy in preservation with examp
30 PADSpot: I remember when I was a little boy (I wasn't able to read yet, somewhere in the early eighties), I found a colorful, illustrated book about the techno
31 DeltaDC9: She still has a lot of years left. The was somissioned in 1960 and the latest word is decom happens in 2015 when the Ford comes on line. 55 years. Am
32 TeamAmerica: We have a single example of a Revolutionary War-era frigate (USS Constitution), a single Civil War-era sloop (USS Constellation), a single cruiser fr
33 DeltaDC9: I disagree. Compared to all the other navys in the world we have an excellent collection representing almost every majore period in US history in fan
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4423 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
