Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Big John Last Visit To Norfolk  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

The aircraft carrier John F Kennedy made it last visit to Norfolk Naval Base today before decoming.

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1897 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3721 times:

"Decoming", a naval term? Is it to be de-commissioned?


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3713 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..


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3700 times:

Calm winds and fair seas, Big John. You have served us well.

User currently offlineStudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 489 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3694 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???
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3684 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.

DeltaGuy


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3667 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.


User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1672 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3567 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.

Marc


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3540 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.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3530 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.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3469 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?

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3457 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.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3419 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.

DeltaGuy


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 3402 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!  Big grin


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3383 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.


User currently offlineStudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 489 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3335 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...

 laughing   no 
Well, I beg to differ!!!  box 

A 'nuke' boat will go much faster then '37-40 knots'~ TRUST ME ON THAT ONE!!!  Wow!  Wink  eyepopping 
I've done speed runs on the Hawk (acceptance runs after SLEP), and on Abe (acceptance runs as well)- one is much, much faster.  shhh 
 scratchchin 
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???
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

Update:

To properly end this thread, CV-67 formally decommissioned.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...k-goodnight-sweet-prince/index.php

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."


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...V-67_USS_JFK_Decommisioning_lg.jpg

Eulogies optional.

[Edited 2007-03-29 06:43:21]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2993 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
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2938 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.


User currently offlineLurch From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2933 times:

? Isnt their a Big Carrier Preserved on the west Coast Non Nuclear that is .

I can not remember the name of the Ship but it was used in that Movie Stealt a while back..


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2917 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)

Andrea Kent


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2841 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
User currently offlineRaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 376 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2798 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!

Amen!


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2768 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 18):
IMO...not reopening Cecil Field was the best decision made.

And why is this? Explain why Oceana's piss-poor situation is better for the Navy.
DeltaGuy


User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2762 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 Post contains images 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Big John Last Visit To Norfolk
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...
Congress OK's Big John Decom posted Sun Oct 1 2006 00:45:29 by 747400sp
Pres. Bush Visit To PTY posted Sun Nov 6 2005 21:57:37 by Snaiks
Last C-141s To Be Retired This Month posted Thu Apr 14 2005 00:56:54 by Socal
Last C-141s To Retire From Active Service 9/16 posted Wed Sep 15 2004 22:39:01 by Ulfinator
Lufwaffe Transferred Last Mig To Poland posted Fri Aug 13 2004 21:35:58 by NoUFO
Snowbirds Make Surprise Visit To Leamington,ON posted Tue May 21 2002 23:07:12 by LY744
Russian AF To Do Stunt-flying In China For Big $$$ posted Wed Mar 1 2006 23:16:00 by USAFHummer
Air Force One To Visit FRA 2/23 posted Thu Feb 17 2005 19:52:29 by Indio66
Nice Place To Visit posted Sun Jan 16 2005 19:38:48 by Blackbird1331
Big RAF Deployment To The Gulf posted Thu Feb 6 2003 19:17:06 by GDB

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format