- With this topic I just want to know if some people are also interested in Aircraft Carriers ?
They are enormous ships. Very impressive, no other ship has such an effect on you.
Imagine a ship and an airport at the same time. And this with 100 planes(almost all jets)
For people new to the subject(or others too), have a look at some websites:
Some general sites:
http://www.news.navy.mil/view_gallery.a ... gory_id=10
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
http://navysite.de/carriers.htm#64
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02idx.htm
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/fac ... ip-cv.html
Specific carrier website (CVN = Carrier Vessel Nuclear):
CVN 74 Stennis
http://www.cvn74.navy.mil/
CVN 76 R.Reagan
http://www.reagan.navy.mil/
CVN 70 Carl Vinson
http://www.cvn70.navy.mil/
CVN 75 Truman
http://www.navy.mil/homepages/cvn75/
CV 67 JFK
http://www.navy.mil/homepages/cv67/home.html
CVN 68 Nimitz (first of 'Nimitz class')
http://www.navy.mil/homepages/cvn68/
CVN 71 Roosevelt
http://www.military.cz/usa/navy/uss/car ... elt_en.htm
CV 63 Kitty Hawk
http://www.kittyhawk.navy.mil/
The USA has 12 Super Carriers (10 nuclear and 2 non-nuclear)
USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) (non-nuclear)
USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) (non-nuclear)
USS Enterprise (CVN 65)(unique)(not Star Trek)
USS Nimitz (CVN 68)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70)
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71)
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)
USS George Washington (CVN 73)
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)
The USA has also 12 Amphibious Assault Ships - LHA/LHD(smaller aircraft carriers)
Note: One of these was recently before Liberia (crisis)
http://navysite.de/ships/lha.htm
Andre
Interested in USS Aircraft Carriers ?
Moderator: Latest news team
Interested in USS Aircraft Carriers ?
What a coincidence 777. I was telling a mate about my 1st visit to a carrier back in '75 when I was aboard the Nimitz off Edinburgh during its First cruise to Europe. This was in the days when USN aircraft were very colourful unlike todays grey on grey. A long drive to get to Edinburg through a rainstorm, sleeping in the car at Leuchars then a rough boat ride out to the carrier - but the sight of over 80 aircraft sitting in and on the carrier was just unbelievable. We had a US Mrrine guide (they keep the peace) who explained that there are 5000+ crew and the shop has its own TV station. All the numbers are incredible ( fuel, munitions, food etc)
Since that time I have visited quite a few others including 2 of the smaller ones, the Guam and the Guadalcanal (both now out of commission I believe) which carry only helicopters and AV-8's.
One time I went to the Solent (between Southampton and the Isle of Wight) to see the JFK and the QE2 liner sailed past. The QE2 is a large liner but was dwarfed by the carrier.
Meerkat
Since that time I have visited quite a few others including 2 of the smaller ones, the Guam and the Guadalcanal (both now out of commission I believe) which carry only helicopters and AV-8's.
One time I went to the Solent (between Southampton and the Isle of Wight) to see the JFK and the QE2 liner sailed past. The QE2 is a large liner but was dwarfed by the carrier.
Meerkat
I am happy to hear from someone interested in US Carriers.Meerkat wrote:What a coincidence 777. I was telling a mate about my 1st visit to a carrier back in '75
Most of the nuclear ones have +/- 5500 crews of all grades on board.
From these half have a direct relation to planes.
I think the Guam and the Guadalcanal are LHA/LHD, but I will have to check.
The last link is a LHA/LHD link.
Like you said in comparison to the QE2 (large aleady), Carriers are amazing. In fact this is due to the ship/airport combination.
Andre
Last year I saw a TV program about the USS A. Lincoln.
Indeed enormous in any way !!
Actually such a ship carries about the total Belgian Air Force strike and fighter force ... The Air component of such carrier includes fighters, transport planes, tankers, helicopters, AWACS-planes.
Having such a floating air force is a potent weapon on the international political scene. Within several hours the US can have a considerable air force in the neighbourhoud of every nation in this world ....
Every ship makes "cruises" of ± 6 months. The working up for such cruise takes also about ± 6-8 months (after every cruise about 1/3 of the crew is changed !!). After every cruise the carriers need maintenance which also takes some months ....
Between twe cruises the Carrier Air Group (all the planes) resides at its homebase, preparing for the next cruise.
After the maintenance check and before a new cruise, a carrier often acts as a training carrier for the new naval aviators who need to get carrier qualified during their training.
Indeed enormous in any way !!
Actually such a ship carries about the total Belgian Air Force strike and fighter force ... The Air component of such carrier includes fighters, transport planes, tankers, helicopters, AWACS-planes.
Having such a floating air force is a potent weapon on the international political scene. Within several hours the US can have a considerable air force in the neighbourhoud of every nation in this world ....
Every ship makes "cruises" of ± 6 months. The working up for such cruise takes also about ± 6-8 months (after every cruise about 1/3 of the crew is changed !!). After every cruise the carriers need maintenance which also takes some months ....
Between twe cruises the Carrier Air Group (all the planes) resides at its homebase, preparing for the next cruise.
After the maintenance check and before a new cruise, a carrier often acts as a training carrier for the new naval aviators who need to get carrier qualified during their training.
Sorry 777 but now after introducing military aviation we also going to introduce USS aircraft carriers?
I can see you are very interested in this but how far do we go? Can we also start about companies that take crashed airplanes out of the water like Smit Tak? Don't feel attacked by my comment but I see more and more side topics starting on luchtzak and I became a member of luchtzak for the commercial aviation and not for all the military stuff.
There are a lot of other forums for that, so I don't see the need why we start topics about it here.
I don't know what other people think about this but it starts to bother me.
Greetz,
Erwin
I can see you are very interested in this but how far do we go? Can we also start about companies that take crashed airplanes out of the water like Smit Tak? Don't feel attacked by my comment but I see more and more side topics starting on luchtzak and I became a member of luchtzak for the commercial aviation and not for all the military stuff.
There are a lot of other forums for that, so I don't see the need why we start topics about it here.
I don't know what other people think about this but it starts to bother me.
Greetz,
Erwin
A Whole Different Animal
-
Comet
- Posts: 6481
- Joined: 05 Jul 2003, 00:00
- Location: Scarborough, North Yorkshire, England
- Contact:
Erwin - I am in complete agreement with you.
There are many forums devoted to military matters, and comparatively few (good) civil aviation forums.
Civil aviation is always seen as the "poor relation" compared to military aviation. In the UK there are many magazines for military enthusiasts and just one for civil fans. Even the museums and preservation aviation sections concentrate almost entirely on military (usually WW2) aircraft. Don't airliners need to be preserved? They are as much a part of aviation history as a Spitfire or a Lancaster, yet the preservation groups overlook them.
I like this site as it is - there are many excellent aviation-related forums on here (civil fans are not better catered for anywhere) and don't want to see the whole thing taken over by military talk.
Contrary to the views of certain people on this forum, I am not "anti" military aviation, I just think there are other forums which are there just for military, so why can't we keep this just for the civil stuff?
There are many forums devoted to military matters, and comparatively few (good) civil aviation forums.
Civil aviation is always seen as the "poor relation" compared to military aviation. In the UK there are many magazines for military enthusiasts and just one for civil fans. Even the museums and preservation aviation sections concentrate almost entirely on military (usually WW2) aircraft. Don't airliners need to be preserved? They are as much a part of aviation history as a Spitfire or a Lancaster, yet the preservation groups overlook them.
I like this site as it is - there are many excellent aviation-related forums on here (civil fans are not better catered for anywhere) and don't want to see the whole thing taken over by military talk.
Contrary to the views of certain people on this forum, I am not "anti" military aviation, I just think there are other forums which are there just for military, so why can't we keep this just for the civil stuff?
Sabena and Sobelair - gone but never forgotten.
Louise
Louise
A318 and Comet,
The post on aircraft carriers was posted in the Luchtzak Pub forum. In a pub, you can talk about everything, can't you?
Furthermore, in the name aircraft carrier, there is also the word aircraft.
Finally in Luchtzak, we also speak about airports. Why not about their marine counterparts: aicraft carriers?
The post on aircraft carriers was posted in the Luchtzak Pub forum. In a pub, you can talk about everything, can't you?
Furthermore, in the name aircraft carrier, there is also the word aircraft.
Finally in Luchtzak, we also speak about airports. Why not about their marine counterparts: aicraft carriers?
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
-
Comet
- Posts: 6481
- Joined: 05 Jul 2003, 00:00
- Location: Scarborough, North Yorkshire, England
- Contact:
At the moment Luchtzak is a civil aviation forum - that is the difference between discussing airports (which are civilian) and aircraft carriers (which are not).
I am interested in military aviation, I have books about military aircraft, but I do not enjoy discussing military issues very much, as it always seems to turn around to politics and anti-US sniping. If it remained solely concentrated on aircraft, then it is not a problem, but it never seems to with military stuff.
And I do not want to fall out with anyone on this forum on the military matter.
I am interested in military aviation, I have books about military aircraft, but I do not enjoy discussing military issues very much, as it always seems to turn around to politics and anti-US sniping. If it remained solely concentrated on aircraft, then it is not a problem, but it never seems to with military stuff.
And I do not want to fall out with anyone on this forum on the military matter.
Sabena and Sobelair - gone but never forgotten.
Louise
Louise
-
Mig17pilot
- Posts: 39
- Joined: 21 Oct 2003, 00:00
- Location: Las Vegas Nevada U.S.A ! (former Russsian pilot)
- Contact:
- sn26567 wrote:A318 and Comet,
The post on aircraft carriers was posted in the Luchtzak Pub forum. In a pub, you can talk about everything, can't you?
Furthermore, in the name aircraft carrier, there is also the word aircraft.
Finally in Luchtzak, we also speak about airports. Why not about their marine counterparts: aicraft carriers?
I like very much your diplomatic statement.
As 777 said:
I think for him it is just a question and sort of testing the interest.With this topic I just want to know if some people are also interested in Aircraft Carriers ?
See you.
Lien !
If it does start like that and everywhere it will be military stuff I will probably not be here much anymore.
Let's hope this is and will stay a commerical aviation forum.
On one hand they are correct in what they are saying, this is the pub and all kinds of talk are allowed here, I didn't even noticed when I posted my comment we were in the pub, but still no offence (I was in the military almost 11 years including 7 and a half years with the RNLAF) but please be gentle with our so be loved forum
Greetz,
Erwin
Let's hope this is and will stay a commerical aviation forum.
On one hand they are correct in what they are saying, this is the pub and all kinds of talk are allowed here, I didn't even noticed when I posted my comment we were in the pub, but still no offence (I was in the military almost 11 years including 7 and a half years with the RNLAF) but please be gentle with our so be loved forum
Greetz,
Erwin
A Whole Different Animal
If military aviation is not welcome on this aviation site, why would topics like "favourite pet", "Anderlecht-Celtic", "best fish restaurant in Mechelen", "favourite Belgian Beer", ... be welcome??
I am interested in both military and civil aviation. So I should be able to tlak about civil matters on this site, but I should go elsewhere when I see a nice military plane when I go spotting in Brussels ???
I really don't understand !!!!!!!!!
If people want this site be reserved only for matters of civil aviation, no problem, but then you also should stop talking all the others things (pets, restaurants, beers, food, shoes, football, ....)
I am interested in both military and civil aviation. So I should be able to tlak about civil matters on this site, but I should go elsewhere when I see a nice military plane when I go spotting in Brussels ???
I really don't understand !!!!!!!!!
If people want this site be reserved only for matters of civil aviation, no problem, but then you also should stop talking all the others things (pets, restaurants, beers, food, shoes, football, ....)
I don't know if you've seen it but this topic is placed in theIf people want this site be reserved only for matters of civil aviation, no problem, but then you also should stop talking all the others things (pets, restaurants, beers, food, shoes, football, ....)
The Luchtzak-Pub section.
This section is in fact to talking about football, Cars, Pets ,etc ....
In order not to disturb the aviation fanatics. And at the same time
gives you the possibilty to speak about your other interests.
I think Bart will agree with my explanation.
Lien !