If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Gil Brice" wrote ...
RM, CR Division USS America 1983 - 1987. ET, OE Division USS Nimitz 1982-1983 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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. The Japanese kind of have this thing about nuclear weapons... Kid of hold a grudge, I guess... The way it was explained to me when I was aboard the Nimitz was that we only admit that our nuclear powered ships carry nuclear weapons, thus they aren't allowed in Japanese harbors... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In a previous article, "Ron Natalie" said:
"Grumman-581" wrote in message . .. The Japanese kind of have this thing about nuclear weapons... Kid of hold a grudge, I guess... The way it was explained to me when I was aboard the Nimitz was that we only admit that our nuclear powered ships carry nuclear weapons, thus they aren't allowed in Japanese harbors... Really, what sort of nukes do you carry on an aircraft carrier? The US Navy will never confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on particular ships. I think they will designate certain classes of ships as never carrying nuclear weapons, like the CVs. Because of that policy, you'll never know if CVNs carry nuclear weapons, but don't you think the A-6s or F/A-18s (or even maybe Bombcats?) could carry tacnukes if the situation called for it? However, this whole discussion belongs in rec.aviation.military or sci.military.naval, not rec.aviation.politics^Wpiloting. -- Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody "Leave the beaten track occasionally, and dive into the woods. You will be certain to find something that you have never seen before." -- Alexander Graham Bell |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Wolfie" wrote in message . com... "Ron Natalie" wrote I figured the last CVN to carry a nuke was the Indianapolis. The Indianapolis was a CA, not a CV, and certainly not a CVN. ;p (CA is a cruiser designation. CVs are carriers, with CVN being \ Duh, you're right...wasn't thinking definitely not a CVN back then! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Nouak" wrote in message ... There was a CVN named Indianapolis? brainfart, should have just said carrier. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote
They could, but I wasn't aware we had actually had such (not that they would tell me anyway). I figured the last CVN to carry a nuke was the Indianapolis. Well Ron, I don't see a "smiley", but you can't be serious. The Indianapolis was a Cruiser (CA 35) not a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (CVN). During my time in the Navy, we had only one CVN, the Enterprise (CVN 65) and as a member of a Nuclear Weapons Technical Inspection Team, I saw enough strategic weapons on board to do away with the whole Soviet Union. That was the design mission for the A-4 Skyhawk, one little plane, one big bomb, and one target. Of course there were maybe 25 Skyhawks on board along with the A-1 Skyraiders, and the A-3 Skywarriors who's primary mission also was a nuclear one. Bob Moore |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Fransson wrote
I thought there was a big deal made several years ago about the Navy publicly stating that they no longer carried tactical nukes on surface ships. In any case, they were doing away with the Weapons Technician rating (the former maintainers of tactical nuclear weapons) and retraining them all as Gunner's Mates. What distinguishes a "tactical" from a "strategic" nuclear weapon? I spent three years in the Navy's nuclear weapons program and back then, each weapon onboard the carrier was strategically targeted as part of the National SIOP (Strategic Integrated Operation Plan), the same as the Minute Men and Polaris missiles. The SIOP insured that a B-52 didn't drop his weapon on top of a poor A-4 pilot making his run-in at 500' and that both of them didn't get wipped out by the Polaris that arrived at about the same time. I would consider the Army's "Atomic Cannon" as a tactical weapon. Bob Moore |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Wolfie"
Tactical nukes for both land and sea attack with selectable yields from less than one to 170 megatons. Pssst. Too many zeros. Nothing with mega- on it is tactical. Fidel |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"FiPe" wrote From: "Wolfie" Tactical nukes for both land and sea attack with selectable yields from less than one to 170 megatons. Pssst. Too many zeros. Nothing with mega- on it is tactical. Quite right, that should be kilotons. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
General Zinni on Sixty Minutes | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 428 | July 1st 04 11:16 PM |
~ I WISH RONALD REAGAN WAS STILL ALIVE ~ | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 1 | June 9th 04 12:49 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |
Wildcat on the Ronald Reagan | Charles Talleyrand | Naval Aviation | 30 | September 27th 03 04:54 AM |