Flynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2692 times:
Kitty Hawk's fate is now sealed. Carrier Air Wing FIVE departed CV-63 for the last time on August 6.
Kitty Hawk will sail to Bremerton, Wash., later this month where it will decommission in January 2009. As the oldest active-duty warship and last diesel-fuel powered aircraft carrier in the Navy, Kitty Hawk made history during its return to the U.S.: it is the only aircraft carrier to have more than 100,000 launches from one of its waist catapults. Throughout its lifetime, Kitty Hawk has had 407,511 arrested carrier landings and 448,301 launches. Kitty Hawk’s voyage home started when the ship left Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan, May 28.
August 6, 2008:
Kitty Hawk during Vietnam, during one of the Bear interceptions:
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2671 times:
Too, too sad to see her go. Though many will complain about the age and deterioration of ships, their souls and history will speak otherwise.
To think, seeing the modern Super Hornet, to past days of RA-5C Vigis and A-4 Skyhawks roaming her decks, she's seen it all. Amazing how a boat will outlive many generations of her birds, and somehow grow and adapt to the changing times. When she was laid down, no one would have thought that she'd have LAN's and personal computers, or even the possiblity that one of her aircraft would have sattelite-guided weapons onboard.
I wonder what will become of her fate, tied next to the sisters Ranger and Connie.
WESTERN737800 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 684 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2627 times:
Hate to see her retired thats a ship with quite a history. Does anyone know what the Navy has planned for her? I hope they make a museum out of her. I hate to see proud ships like that get scrapped.
Studedave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2564 times:
Well, on the 'plus' side---
Kitty Hawk was inport in time to be in photos of my retirement ceremony held onboard the Midway last Friday!!! I decided to do it on Midway because she's Coral Sea's (my first ship) sister. Seeing as I also sailed on Kitty Hawk back when she came out of SLEP ('round 1991 or so) I felt it was very fitting.
We've also been graced with most of CVW-5's (no EA-6Bs to be found) jets along with 6-8 visitors from Fallon for the past week- it's been nice to see/hear something besides Seahawks and Greyhounds around here for a change.
It'd be even cooler if I could be where the jets are mixing it up with each other~ F5's kick butt!!!
Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
JakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1247 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2528 times:
Quoting Studedave (Reply 3): It'd be even cooler if I could be where the jets are mixing it up with each other~ F5's kick butt!!!
Couple of aggressor F-16s (Brown Camo and Aggressor Blue) were here yesterday as well. I wish I could take pictures, as my building is right on the flight line/taxi way. But alas, its forbidden.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
StudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2502 times:
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 4): Couple of aggressor F-16s (Brown Camo and Aggressor Blue) were here yesterday as well. I wish I could take pictures, as my building is right on the flight line/taxi way. But alas, its forbidden.
That's what I meant by the "6-8 visitors from Fallon" comment. Those 2 F-16Ns, along with two F/A-18s, and FOUR F-5Es were all parked together on the "P3" line. They were looking so good in their Aggressor camo~ I love it when they come to town!!!
Last Saturday I took my Family on base for a little tour~ knowing full well they'd get a kick out of seeing all those CVW-5 lawn-darts. After I spied the Aggressors and we went to take a look at them as well. Being that my Dad used to work for Northrop it was sort of a big deal to see those beautiful Tiger IIs.
I have no further comment as to what 'may' have happened next...
Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2444 times:
Why such a difference between take offs and landings? I am missing something here. Typically the air wing flys on, and flys off. In theory the landings and take-offs should be somewhat equal. I can see a take off with no landing because of aircraft mishaps, but those should be equalled out by the planes that land but get hoisted off because they are not flyable. Hoisting aircraft on, especially 40k or so, just does not seem right to me. And I dont think the ship has had 40k or so aircraft have mishaps and not come back.
StudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2404 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 6): Why such a difference between take offs and landings? I am missing something here.
Good question. Helicopters don't use the cats~ maybe that's what we're missing...?
Ha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3492 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2392 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 6): Why such a difference between take offs and landings?
Loss of aircraft in combat and accidents are most likely the reason for the difference. The Kitty Hawk did do a few tours in the Vietnam War.
Studedave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2318 times:
Quoting StudeDave (Reply 9): Helicopters don't use the cats~ maybe that's what we're missing...?
Opps!!! What I really meant to say was that helicopters don't use the arresting gear.
Seems a bit more logical that way, doesn't it?
Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
RaginMav From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 372 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2313 times:
Quoting Ha763 (Reply 10): Loss of aircraft in combat and accidents are most likely the reason for the difference. The Kitty Hawk did do a few tours in the Vietnam War.
Surely they didn't loose 40,790 aircraft in Vietnam!
Quoting Flynavy (Reply 7): Perhaps they are counting catapult shots themselves, not necessarily with an aircraft in tension?
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2239 times:
Quoting Ha763 (Reply 10): Loss of aircraft in combat and accidents are most likely the reason for the difference. The Kitty Hawk did do a few tours in the Vietnam War.
40k losses huh? Have we even had that many aircraft built for the Navy since the beginning of aviation?
Quoting StudeDave (Reply 9): Good question. Helicopters don't use the cats~ maybe that's what we're missing...?
I was under the impression the numbers were for arrested landings and catapult take offs. Now if its arrested landings and all take offs, then I can see their being 40k helicopter landings not included. Just seemed odd to be listed like that.
StudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2214 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 13): Have we even had that many aircraft built for the Navy since the beginning of aviation?
I'd say yes, there have been. Our BuNos are well into the 166xxx numbers.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
, 372 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
