DO not forget the 3000 innocent people that died in the WTC in NY the 11th September 2001.
I was in the WTC exactly 20 years earlier, september 1981 and have plenty of pics of it.
I can tell you the WTC was HUGE.
Thanks for letting all of us remember and never forget 9/11.
Andre
You are talking great sense, I agree with every word you have just written. I too saw the WTC against the NY skyline and it was a superb sight.
Those who condemn the Iraqi and Afghan bombing happliy forget the number of innocent people murdered by terrorists, they seem to think it is wrong to hunt down and punish terrorists, but why is it?
I know two families who lost love dones on 11th September, and I know where my sympathies lie.
Sabena and Sobelair - gone but never forgotten.
Louise
"When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that
the first question that comes to everyone's lips is:
'Where's the nearest carrier?'"
President Bill Clinton March 12, 1993
aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt - Carrier Strike Groups
Evolution Carrier Dates
Deployed
CVN-65 Enterprise
Ready to Deploy
CV-63 Kitty Hawk
Basic Training
CVN-74 Stennis
CVN-76 Reagan
CVN-73 Washington
Maintenance
CVN-69 Eisenhower
CV-67 Kennedy
CVN-72 Lincoln
CVN-75 Truman
Training of Northern Fleet Carrier Pilots on Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier Deferred to 2004
Russian Northern Fleet carrier pilots were not able to perfect methods for taking off and landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier during 2003, the chief of combat training for the Russian Federation navy’s ship-based aviation, Colonel Mechislav Savitskiy, reported to Interfax-AVN.
“The protracted overhaul of the only aircraft carrier in the Russian fleet, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has not allowed the airmen to perfect methods for landing and takeoff on the ship's deck," M. Savitskiy said.
He reported that according to orders of the navy commander-in-chief, the airmen were able ((sic)) to be involved in combat training on the ship until 15 November. “Meanwhile, the period for departure of the aircraft carrier from the factory after the completion of overhaul is being postponed, and the Polar night is getting longer. Right now daylight is equal to approximately 3 hours," the colonel said.
According to him, “a decision also was adopted in this connection to move the training to next year."
M. Savitskiy recalled that the training of the carrier pilots was supposed to take place as early as the summer at the "Nitka” simulator (Saki, Crimea). However, because of unresolved financial problems between Russian Federation and Ukrainian departments, young airmen and aces of the Northern Fleet sat for several weeks at airfields at Ostrova (Pskov Oblast’) and near Voronezh and returned back in hopes of training in the fall, when the only Russian aircraft carrier came out of repairs. However, the plant did not fully complete overhaul of the ship.
M. Savitskiy said that over 2 of the summer months, more than 20 carrier pilots should be able to perfect takeoffs and landings on a simulator which imitates the deck of an aircraft carrier. “Seven carrier-based Su-33 fighters, one Su-27 and four Su-25 were ready for the flights,” he said.
The independent ship-based Northern Fleet Fighter Aviation Regiment is the only flying unit in Russia, the pilots of which have experience landing and taking off from the deck of a ship.
After the break up of the USSR, the land-based scientific and test aviation training complex (NITKA) remained in Ukraine, on the Crimea. The simulator was developed specially for perfecting takeoff and landing on the deck of aircraft carriers without a catapult.
The heavy aircraft carrying cruiser “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" (Project 11435, code “Orel” ((Eagle)), Kremlin ((sic)) in NATO classification) is the only ship in Russia designated for carrier-based aircraft. The ship entered the fleet in 1993. Displacement is 55,000/67,500 tonnes, length is 302.3 meters. The maximum speed is 30 knots. Self-sustainability ((AVTONOMNOST’)) is 45 days. Crew is 1,960 men. The aircraft wing is 626 men. Typical composition of the air group is: 36 Su-33 airplanes and 16 Ka-27 helicopters.
Will Indians buy Russian Aircraft-carrier "Admiral Gorshkov"?
On November 11, 2003 Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has visited Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Russia. Their meeting is of major importance for Russian shipbuilders. During an unofficial meeting, both leaders plan to reach mutual agreement concerning Russia's transfer of its aircraft-carrier "Admiral Gorshkov" to India. The aircraft-carrier has been awaiting its hour for many years while being moored at one of the military wharfs of "SevMash" production facility.
Among those purely "technical" aspects, there also exist several "political" ones prepared for discussion between the two leaders. However, it appears that those will be mainly "political" aspects playing crucial role in deciding "Admiral-Gorshkov's" destiny.
According to the information from several Internet Agencies, Putin's primary concern is to persuade India to change its discriminatory import politics towards Russia. Such strategy has been explicitly explained in a document addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation.
Papers collected specifically for India's Prime Minister contain the following thesis, "to be discussed at a meeting of top official level." Judging by the information obtained from Internet-mass media, this has been stated for a reason. Present-day India is second after EU in the amount of law suits aimed at Russia antidumping investigations. Experts have noted that the main reason for such high rate of law suites is due to the fact that India still has not accepted Russia as a country with developing market economy. As a result India refuses to consider Russia-s production priced and prefers to calculate prices using its own methods. What does it mean in reality? In the course of the initial talks about the aircraft-carrier "Admiral Gorshkov", India has made its own calculations according to its own methods, relying on their own sources of information and trusting their own experts. In the end, their offer varied greatly from ours. According to our experts, if Mr. Putin and Mr. Vajpayee finally reach consensus, "Admiral Gorshkov" will most likely be Indian.
However, there still remains a "political" aspect of the current negotiations. The aspect mainly concerns Europe than it does India. According to western media sources, India is thinking about purchasing American airplanes "Orion" for navy patrol. India motivates its actions in the following manner. It claims that Russia has persuaded India to purchase three "IL-38" airplanes in a single packet with "Admiral Gorshkov" as well as several seaborne airplanes "MIG-29K" and bombers. It turns out, that such information is an absolute lie. Russia has never even attempted to link its trade of its "IL-38's" with "Gorshkov". In addition, the fact that India is willing to purchase American "Orions" has nothing to do with IL-38's contract of acquisition.
As for the aircraft-carrier, certain actions have already been taken in regards to its acquisition. India plans to purchase the aircraft-carrier along with twelve seaborne airplanes. Everything seems to be working out well. The only remaining thing is for the both parties to reach consensus.
A report (on PA2 propulsion) from the defence committee of the French parliament will be published next week (November 5th), first leaks indicate that it favours the nuclear propulsion.
A lot of rumours are reporting that the final decision (end of this year – beginning of next year) will be mainly political (restore the relationship with the UK?, airbus selected for the tanker program?...).
While I’m on the topic of discarding retired aircraft carriers, here’s something else I’m wondering. With the Constellation’s decommissioning there are now six retired super carriers lying around at various naval stations across the country. Of the six only the Ranger and the Independence are being held in reserve status as mobilization assets on the miniscule chance that World War III were to suddenly break out. The other four: Forrestal, Saratoga, America and now the Connie, have exactly 0.0% chance of ever going to sea under their own power again. So my question is what in the world is the Navy waiting for on making a decision on how to discard these ships? I know the process of getting rid of a ship like a carrier can take time but with the exception of the recently retired Connie, these ships have been lying around gathering dust for between 5-10 years. I hate to see such magnificent vessels sold for scrap or expended as target ships, especially the Connie on which I served for three years, but they can’t all be saved as museum ships and I would rather see them sunk or scrapped than see them literally rot away (anyone who’s seen the America recently knows what I mean) and have taxpayer money, which should be helping to maintain the active fleet, go to helping maintain ships with no future serving this country. Does anyone with more connections than I have any idea if the Navy is planning to dispose of these ships anytime soon or are they just going to wait around for another decade by which time the Kitty Hawk and Enterprise will have joined them in these graveyards. My guess is nothing is going to happen anytime soon, after all this is the same Navy that kept the CV-6 Enterprise in mothballs for 13 years before deciding she was obsolete and selling her for scrap which, IMHO, is the most disgusting, heartless decision the Navy ever made. If any ship deserved to be towed up the Potomac and made a memorial in Washington D.C. it was her. Instead the Navy was too damn cheap to foot the bill and the greatest ship this country has ever had was turned into razor blades and car fins.
Here we go again, almost two years later!
For those who don’t know what I’m talking about: you didn’t miss anything, don’t worry!
First, my definition: a «Fleet Carrier» is any aircraft carrier that operates first and foremost as part of the fleet, providing air cover and adding to the overall firepower of the whole ensemble but not representing its sole raison d'être, in contrast with «Attack Carriers», which have the whole fleet supporting them in order to deploy air power from the sea.
Now, there’s this little silly idea I had, that «Fleet Carriers» were an endangered species… But now I think it’s simply an extinguished species. The only partial exceptions would be the Andrea Doria, which indeed comes some ten years later than required, as an overdue replacement for the Vittorio Veneto.
I’m just wondering what do you think about this suggestion: does it make sense? Do you foresee other navies will pursue similar plans and get their fleet carriers, or everybody will choose attack carriers, that is to say floating airbases for power projection?
I see that all aircraft carriers are inherently flexible platform, so I’m not specifically addressing physical characteristics but rather the doctrine that stands behind of such ships.
Will the Nimitz class and other large carriers be obsolete ?
No. And why do nations and naval experts from the world's leading navies all desire carriers. The leading navies in the world including the US, UK, France, Spain, Italy and to a very limited extent Russia all operate aircraft carriers of significant size and capability.
Instead of decreasing in size or eliminating them, the RN and MN have very advanced plans to build large carriers. Other nations like India are actively seeking to expand their carrier fleets, though India's like the PRC's ambititions are surely greater than their ability to carry out their plans. For that matter the PRC has stated they have no active plans for a carrier but for political reasons and not military reasons.
Even according to your own claims the PLAN are planning one, even though they have no capability to build one.
And what else can provide the power projection, deterence and immediate support capabilites of a CVBG? What else can provide a nation with an instant bit of soverign territory with no requirements of a host nation to project power, intimidate an enemy or to substain a fighting force away thousands of miles away from friendly soil? What else can provide the absolute volume of sea control and air superiority over such thousands of square miles of sea and air space?
It could be argued that current large carrier plans are motivated more by issues of national pride and politics, than by serious strategic considerations.
The current resurgence of interest in conventional carriers makes an interesting sea change from the view of most nations in the 1970's and 80's, which either believed that such carriers were on their way out because of the (proposed or otherwise) introduction of new weapons (e.g. sea skimming missiles, orbital weapons systems), or that they were far too expensive to buy and operated in relation to any possible benefit. This might be something to cover in a separate thread (if somebody hasn't already beaten me to it).
As to your question about what could replace large carriers for Power Projection and Strategic deterence roles , well, what about land, sea (and air?) based missiles, land based bombers, VSTOL carriers, orbital weapons systems (if any are yet deployed), battlecrusiers, all these and more are viable (and in the long term, far less expensive) alternatives to large carriers. What would be your objection to these alternatives?.
By the way, haven't the French had a very bad time with their new Carrier, the MN Charles de Gaule, because of design and shipyard problems?. Although I suppose that could be the usual teething problems that any new weapons system experiences.
Here's the answers to your points, in no particular order.
The UN Treaty is not enforceable, it's not even worth the paper it's written on. And isn't a carrier a very big, hard to hide (unlike a Ohio class Boomer for example) "expensive floating base", which is less survivable against subs than say, a Spruance class destroyer?. And no, land based missiles aren't necessarily restricted to fixed bases, go look up the histories of the Peacekeeper, Minuteman, and Midgetman programs. (Not to mention operational Russian ICBMS). I notice you didn't properly answer my point about air-launched missiles (they can be even launched from transports or large converted commercial types, such as a B707).
By the way just how much direct involvement did Naval Aviation have in Afghanistan?.
You're claiming that the Super Hornet is a superior weapons delivery system to the B-52, B-1 and B2. I'm sure the USAF would be interested in that(after they stopped their uncontrollable laughing on the floor). True the B-2 is hideously expensive, but that is mainly because it's production run was prematurely ended, something that hopefully be corrected soon.
If the A-6 was still in service, or if the A-12 had made it out of the pit of Hades that is the Pentagon's procurement process, then you might have had a case to argue. As it is, you're without a leg to stand on on that score.
By the way, with the Tomcat and the Viking on their way to that big runway in the sky, and no proper replacement in sight (plz correct me if I'm wrong), isn't the Nimitz class carrier about to lose an awful lot of it's capability???.
VTOL carriers not cheaper than or as effective as a conventional carrier?. [disbelieving] Care to elaborate?.
Battlecruisers, well IMHO, they're far more able to defend themselves against repeated attacks from multiple vectors and sources than a Nimitz class in it's current form. Russian carriers(conventional and VSTOL),well that's debateable (some of them could be nearly classified as Battlecruisers themselves!).
As for studies on carriers and alternatives, try fas.org for starters.
You can't hide a CVBG, or a single (vulnerable) carrier for long from Satellite surveillance for ever, even with Electronic Warfare. You might lose it for a few hours at most, but thats all.
Now you're claiming no-one will dare attack a carrier using a sub(like no-one would ever attack Pearl Harbour from the air?).
I'm afraid you're the one not being realistic.
Aegis is primarily an anti-air platform, its ASW capability is primarily for self-defense. It is not as good an ASW platform as a dedicated platform such as the soon to be much missed Spruance. And Arleigh Burke may have good sensors, but neither is it as good as the Spruance at ASW and, anyway, isn't it a bit underarmed(anti-air, anti-ship, anti-sub)???.
You appear to be ignoring the fact that the S-5 was the Nimitz's best ASW asset, the Seahawks being too short ranged.
As I have mentioned already, land based aircraft can loiter far longer than carrier based aircraft. And isn't the USAF providing a huge chunk of carrier aviations infight refueling needs these days?. :)
Bombers can do SEAD with stand-off weapons, thank you very much. And carriers can't field anywhere near as many support assets as can be fielded from land bases, via inflight refuelling.
Interesting, so you think that the CVBG never needed either the A-6 or the A-12???.
Carriers are supposed to carry out both strategic and tatical roles, last time I checked. Are you saying they can only handle tactical duties now???.
I also noticed you didn't even try to compare the F/A-18F against the A-10, F-15E and the A-6.
More hulls, less eggs in one basket, easier to defend, not to mention cheaper to buy and cheaper and far easier to maintain (unless cost is not a factor to you). Can be harder to spot too, even by sats, if you play it right.
Your case is looking increasingly treadbare.
As for battlecrusiers, Russian and otherwise, I think you need to do a bit more research.
By the way, where did you come up with that info about Wabpilot, or was it just a bluff on your part. Nice try if it was!!!.
By the way I must inform the Federation of American Scientists that you consider their data rubbish, as well as Hazegray.org and other various other organs, online or otherwise.
