USS Ronald Reagan Question

IIRC, I believe the Kitty Hawk is the oldest in the fleet now...and now the
last conventional.




The Kitty Hawk is home based in Japan, which will not allow a nuclear carrier
in their ports for fear of resurecting Godzilla.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

RM, CR Division USS America 1983 - 1987.



"Grumman-581" wrote in message
. ..
"Jeff Franks" wrote ...
IIRC, I believe the Kitty Hawk is the oldest in the fleet now...and now
the
last conventional.

The America is no longer in service? When I was stationed aboard the
Nimitz, the America was also there in Norfolk... I knew some guys from ET
'A' school who were stationed aboard her...

Now, if they would take some of these carriers that they are retiring and
sink them as artifical reefs, that would make for some interesting
diving...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , Big John
wrote:

[snipped]

As an aside, what did Jimmy ever do to warrant naming a carrier after
him (

iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.


I thought Carter was the man who presided over the "Hollow Navy" at the time
the Soviets had announced their intention to build a true blue-water fleet
with long reach. Reagan was the man who started the build-up to a "600 Ship
Navy", wasn't he?

Chip, ZTL

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...


Jeff Franks wrote:

IIRC, I believe the Kitty Hawk is the oldest in the fleet now...and now the
last conventional.

According to the CV-64 news, Constellation is "one of only three remaining
conventionally powered aircraft carriers in its arsenal." And, since the
Constellation won't actually be decommissioned for a few more weeks, there
are still three in the fleet.

The Constellation, the Kitty Hawk, and the John F. Kennedy are the three remaining
CV's.

Bob Noel wrote:


iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.

Not hardly. Reagan and John Lehman built the Navy back up.

On 15 Jul 2003 12:40:26 GMT, ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

The Kitty Hawk is home based in Japan, which will not allow a nuclear
carrier
in their ports for fear of resurecting Godzilla.

Don

What are they gonna do when the US has only nuke carriers?


Pay for their own damn defense?

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Newps" wrote

Bob Noel wrote:

iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.

Not hardly. Reagan and John Lehman built the Navy back up.

When Carter took office, the Navy had about 182 surface warships.
When he left office, the Navy had 196. When Reagan left office,
that number had grown to 212. That's a 7.7% growth under
Carter and a 8.1% growth under Reagan. That's rather insignificant,
IMO, especially since the *overall* strength (including non-surface
warships) only changed by *eight* from the time Carter left office to
when Reagan left office. Carrier forces increased by one.
Carter added 10 subs; Reagan 12.

One thing Reagan did do was postpone the retirement of some
ships and bring others out of mothballs to increase the strength
during his Presidency. Obviously there's been a major force
reduction since then with the end of the Cold War and the
Navy has the fewest number of surface warships now since
1921, IIRC.

At any rate, Carter was President when the Navy started to
grow again after the post-Vietnam force reduction.

Wolfe

Six lashes with a wet noodle (

Thought I read someplace that one of the next new carriers would be
'Carter' but must have dozed and blinked when I was reading GShows
how exciting the reading was.

A sub would be more appropriate since he was in that service. Being
President, no matter how smart or dumb you were, probably warrants
something to commensurate you?

Thanks for getting me back on the track. My train sometimes takes the
wrong turn at a 'Y with the speed I'm running'. Need to slow down
below Mach One I guess G


Big John

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:47:18 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote:


"Big John" wrote

The "Jimmy Carter" is under construction and will probably replace the
one that is oldest now.

The next carrier (the 10th Nimitz class) will be the
"USS George H. W. Bush."

The "USS Jimmy Carter" will be a Seawolf class
submarine.

As an aside, what did Jimmy ever do to warrant naming
a carrier after him (

He graduated (with distinction) from the US Naval Academy,
for one. Served seven years in the Navy for another, including
being selected by Rickover for the nuclear navy. He resigned
to take over the family business when his father died or he'd
probably never have went into politics.

All in all, I'd say he's *far* more appropriate a choice than
Reagan. And arguably a better choice than Bush. But he
gets a sub named after him, which seems to be appropriate
since he's the only submariner to serve as President.

As an another aside, ships also have sponsors, as Nancy
Reagan is for the USS Ronald Reagan and Rosalind
Carter is for the USS Jimmy Carter. For the USS George
HW Bush? Doro B. Koch, Bush's daughter. What's up
with that? Koch is the Bush's sponsor?

The navy got to 600 ships under Reagan(or was it 500? I forget, it was
some large round number.)

Wolfie wrote:

"Newps" wrote

Bob Noel wrote:


iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.

Not hardly. Reagan and John Lehman built the Navy back up.


When Carter took office, the Navy had about 182 surface warships.
When he left office, the Navy had 196. When Reagan left office,
that number had grown to 212. That's a 7.7% growth under
Carter and a 8.1% growth under Reagan. That's rather insignificant,
IMO, especially since the *overall* strength (including non-surface
warships) only changed by *eight* from the time Carter left office to
when Reagan left office. Carrier forces increased by one.
Carter added 10 subs; Reagan 12.

One thing Reagan did do was postpone the retirement of some
ships and bring others out of mothballs to increase the strength
during his Presidency. Obviously there's been a major force
reduction since then with the end of the Cold War and the
Navy has the fewest number of surface warships now since
1921, IIRC.

At any rate, Carter was President when the Navy started to
grow again after the post-Vietnam force reduction.

"Newps" wrote

The navy got to 600 ships under Reagan(or was it 500? I forget, it was
some large round number.)

Close but not quite. Post-Vietnam peak was 594
total active ships (with 223 surface warfare ships, 14
carriers, and 139 submarines) in 1987.

I wouldn't rule out a "publicity stunt" active force of
600 at some moment, though, although the Navy
provides the above peak numbers officially.