Talk:Nimitz class aircraft carrier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Entering service?
I see that, according to this article, CVN-77 George H. W. Bush is set to enter service in 2008? According to theUSS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) article this is when it is due for delivery, to be commissioned the following year. Given that the article on the year 2009 seems to support this, should this in fact read that it is set to enter service in 2009? Or is there some distinction between 'entering service' and 'being commissioned' that I'm unaware of? Angus Lepper 17:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Next class name?
Does anyone know what the name of the next class of navy carriers will be? Has there been an official annoucment or are we being kept in the dark?
- Currently it's called the CVN-21, but the class almost always gets it's name from first ship of the class (CVN-78) which has yet to be named. PPGMD
[edit] Speed claim
I removed the absurd claim that Nimitzes can exceed 60 knots (69 mph, 111km/hr) and edited the debunking response down to just the published figures. Here is the original bullet point:
Enterprise 33.6 knots after last refit Nimitz 31.5 knots Theodore Roosevelt 31.3 knots Harry S Truman 30.9 knots
- Speed: official 30+ knots unofficial 60+ knots (actual top speed is secret) The utility of having a top speed far in excess of its escorts is, of course, dubious. The top speed is likely to be 31-34 knots, as confirmed by people who have served on her, and engineers who analyse ships speeds for a living. See http://www.warships1.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm , which observes that the USN publicly released the speed of the nuclear carriers in June 1999:
The reason that aircraft carriers can achieve speeds of up to 50 kts (and they can!) is that some aircraft have a stall speed such that it is sometimes necessary when the actual wind speed is low to generate apparent wind of up to 50 kts in order for the aircraft to be recovered. jpbp200@hotmail.com
See any naval architecture reference -- see also http://www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/hulls/carrier.html for an elementary analysis. On the other hand, if anyone can cite a reputable source for such incredible speeds, I will apologize most humbly. --the Epopt 16:01, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
No probs. Eugene's site links to my own, so it's nice to see him quoted as an authority!
==
[edit] Why USS deleted?
Why was the USS deleted from all the names of the ships? H Padleckas 12:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A style thing usually - prefixes are not usually used if they would be redundant or obvious. In running text with multiple nationalities, the usual is to include prefix on first use only, or if context might be confusing. For a list like this, there is no consensus - you'll see some with, some not. It would be good to agree on a "house style" - the back-and-forth in articles like this is annoying and wasteful. Stan 16:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The USS prefixes are typically obvious only to people in the Navy, since are familiar with names of ships. Other people could easily confuse the name with its namesake for ships. In formal writing, such as Wikipedia, the prefix USS should be used in front of the names of US Navy ships. This should be the consistent style throughout Wikipedia, even though I understand in informal talk and perhaps in internal Navy messages, USS might be omitted for convenience. Wikipedia is written for the general public. Also, the prefix is useful to show that the name refers to a ship in the United States Navy. Other countries' Navies have their own prefixes to distinguish them. This style (using the USS prefix) is also consistent throughout most of the rest of Wikipedia, except for the lengthy list of submarines which never had the USS prefixes from the beginning. H Padleckas 06:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Usually the names are called out with italics, and on the first use by being linked. The "USS" isn't actually used that much in our narratives - see almost any ship history for an example, USS Wasp (CV-7), USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37), and so on. If you want to propose a change to house style, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships is the place to go, you can get more than just my opinion. Stan 07:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- I agree with the house policy. The first time a ship is mentioned it's USS Shipname, after that it's common to refer to her by her name, and often her nickname. If were are talking about something formal, then you revert to USS Shipname. Also the title of the article correct, but the text is not. A ship's class never starts with USS. The USS is a formal designator meant to show commissioned US Navy ships. This is the second time I have seen this done on Wiki. The first time was with the midget submarine X-1 which was never commissioned (the CNO would never let something like that get commissioned because it counts against his total ship count). PPGMD
-
-
- Absolutely drop it off the class name. Stan 06:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- OK, I'm satisfied with the current USS situation the way it is in this article (Nimitz class aircraft carrier) right now. :-) H Padleckas 09:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Actual displacement?
The displacement figures are wrong, it lists a number for metric tons that's larger than the number in short tones, even though short tons are smaller. This may just be a backwards conversion, so someone should chekc and fix this. Night Gyr 09:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Public trials?
I'm going to go ahead and comment out the trial speeds; I've seen those figures quoted but no links to papers where they were actually published by the Navy, until then they belong in the same category as rumors that the Nimitz class can go 40/50/70/100 knots: Unconfirmed. Feel free, though, to link in any press releases announcing the trial speeds, and then it would be OK to remove the comment. Iceberg3k 11:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Armor?
Anyone know if the Nimitz Class (or any carrier for that matter), mounts armor? Logic of it being a warship leads me to assume it must mount some kind of protection, but there's no mention of it. Malamockq 02:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Chances are, any specifics about armor, if there is any, would be confidential at the very least. Izuko 02:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I can't imagine why. They release armor specs on tanks, and battleships all the time. Malamockq 07:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Tanks and battleships don't take seven years to build, house two nuclear reactors and six thousand sailors and marines in each one. Nor does one tank or battleship form the backbone for a battle group that is the core of current US military action. Granted, I may be wrong, I wasn't a classification officer. But I do get a feeling that they would like to keep the armor, or at least certain aspects of the armor secret. Izuko 11:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- That doesn't really prove much. Btw, carriers do not take 7 years to build. And battleships used to form the backbone of a naval battle group before the advent of the carrier. But that's besides the point. Bottom line is you are just speculating, I'm looking for some facts. Malamockq 16:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It very much takes seven years to build a carrier (assuming no strikes at the shipyard), and that's not including PSA. I've built two of them. Yes, the battleships used to form the backbone of a naval battle group, but a lot has changed since then. And it's not beside the point, it -is- the point. I'm explaining to you why you are unlikely to find accurate and complete information on the armor of a carrier. Yes, I am speculating, but I'm doing so from known information. You can continue to look for facts if you want. But don't whine when I tell you why you're not likely to find them. Izuko 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No personal attacks please. Be mature, and refrain from flame baiting such as "But don't whine...". As for your points, they are irrelevant. The question was regarding armor on a carrier, not how long it takes to build a carrier. Malamockq 23:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's poor form to contradict someone, then tell them that their point is irrelevant when they correct you. ChrisLawson 19:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If you felt it necessary to counter my statement on how long it takes to build one, obviously you understood the significance and how a carrier differens drastically from a battleship. Izuko 02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The CVN armor belt is 8" (203mm) aluminium. Aluminium armor is 1/2 the protection of rolled steel, but only 1/3 of the weight for the same thickness. However, there were unexpected big problems with Alu armor body of M113 vehicles in Vietnam (not punctured but ripped apart all along when hit with RPG-7). So I would say the CVN belt protection is marginal against established navy and air force weapon hits. Maybe the jihadist TNT rubber dingy would bounce off it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What's the cite for this? (Seems unlikely. Aluminium is expensive, and why would you be more concerned about weight than expense on at 100K ton ship?) Epstein's Mother 12:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Non confirmation policy
Shouldn't a mention be made of the US policy of refusing to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board aircraft carriers? User:Night Bringer
- I don't think it's needed, but I don't think it hurts anything, either. I won't object to it. Izuko 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Women on board mean trouble
I saw on TV there are a lot of chicks serving aboard US CVNs. How can Navy prevent problems, like prostitution, promiscuity, jealousy, pregnancy?
- They'll get back to you on that when they've figured it out. Izuko 20:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Probably the same way the UK Navy solved their problems with "rum, sodomy and the lash" (to quote Churchill). Come on, think it through. That's what discipline is for. Epstein's Mother 12:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Victories
I think the term victory is wrong and distasteful regarding bombing some place in iraq. Is it a victory for the knife to cut the apple?Droben 21:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Victory is victory. You may not like the word or its connotations, but the standards are accuracy and verifiability, not niceness. Izuko 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory and think about if it a victory of the carrier. Is there a battle or a competition with the target? I don't think so. Droben 08:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- I guess this is what happens when people single-source off of wikipedia. Try using a dictionary to find the definition of a word, not an open-source encyclopedia. Izuko 23:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- This advice does not help your side of the argument. Dictionary definitions (see dictionary.com for one example) support Droben's point. When the state executes a man, is it the defeat of an enemy? There's a reason the word "executed" is used. ChrisLawson 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't need either a dictionary or wikipedia to know the meaning of a victory in the military sense: a victory is something which could have been also a defeat. Bombing people in third-world-countries, from the point of view of an aircraft carrier, could be an operation. But the people being bombed have no chance to win, therefore to bomb them is no victory. To call it victory is distasteful and wrong because it gives the people throwing the bombs a heroic touch. This is common sense. Any questions to me the people? Droben 23:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Range
Although powered by nuclear reactors the Nimitz class must have a maximum range? At some point presumably the fuel rods need to be repalced by new ones, the old ones are depleted and the stores of fuel rods are used up. Equally I imagine the old ones have to be removed from the ship and dumped somewhere. Can anyone enlighten me to this process, are they just thrown into the sea? are they taken off the ship and burried in concrete, buried in concrete and thrown into the sea?? anyone know? And equally does anyone know what the maximum range is? I'm trying to make a comparison to the Royal Navys 2 new gas-turbine powered 65,000 tonne carriers. They supposedly will be able to go around 18,000km (11,000 miles) before being refuelled. Although one presumes it will just be followed by a tanker and refilled as it goes. Its a risky move by the UK's MoD seen by some to be a step backwards but I'm afraid im not very knowledgable on this subject. Thanks! --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 02:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Much of the information you're looking for is probably classified, and much of the rest of it, I don't know the answer to ;-) However, one thing I do know is that USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) is in "Refueling Complex Overhaul" right now. She was commissioned in 1982, and this is the first and only time her reactors will be refueled (she is planned to have a 50 year service life). She likely steamed over a million miles before overhaul. Spent nuclear material is sent to, I think, the Naval Reactor Facility in Idaho for storage.
- One important thing to keep in mind about nuclear power is that the rest of the fleet won't have it even if your carriers do, so all of the escorts will need to refuel. An 18,000 km range is not as bad as it sounds. TomTheHand 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Tom is right. The key advantage of a nuclear carrier isn't the range (which will be limited by the non-nuclear escorts), but by the greatly reduced volume of fuel the carrier needs to keep on board for its own propulsion. This translates into much greater storage capacity for aircraft fuel, which really is the endurance-limiting factor for a modern carrier. High-performance jet aircraft use lots of fuel, and under combat conditions an aircraft carrier can deplete its stores of aircraft fuel very quickly. Having extra space for aircraft fuel that would otherwise be be used for a ship's gas turbines is very useful. Epstein's Mother 12:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Where is CVN-77?
Where is the carrier named for President George Herbert Walker Bush? Why is it not listed in the "Ships in Class" section?
Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~)
- The ship hasn't been commissioned yet as a United States Navy Vessel. It has been Christened thats all. The ship is currently named "George H. W. Bush" It doens't become a United States Ship or get its hull designation until it is commissioned. --WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] name selection
who is the commitee(if any) that decides on which us goverment officials will have a ship named in their honour - what are the criteria? are "airport presidents" excluded for example? tali 1/1/07
