This Is Why the US Navy Is the Most Formidable Naval Force In the World[]

 

Good find

 

Very cool photo indeed--thanks for sharing!

As a taxpayer though it bothers me seeing so many expensive assets clumped together---talk about a big fat target almost inviting terrorists to take a shot!

 

Yepper, pretty big boys. But, we've got a lake freighter that isn't much shorter, 1013', and 105' wide, here on the lakes, the Paul Tregurtha. Ofcourse, they are totally different types of boats. But we do have 13 boats of 1000'+.

 

Very impressive.

 

A good pic of what the Japanese were hoping to see at Pearl harbor on Dec. 7 1941.

Still seems kinda odd to amass so many assets in one location, even today.

 

Not enough money left to pay for the fuel to get them out?

 

LOL, could be, could just be.

 

It's not so easy getting to work with all those sailors here, either. We (the people that work on the base) love it when a few of them go out to sea.

As for terrorists trying anything, there is a Naval Air Station on the other side of the base with planes flying almost 24 hours a day(top left corner of the photo). It's a radar approach facility. Pretty sure the radar will pick up any inbound, unidentified targets.

The Enterpise is being dismantled. It will be making its way to Newport News in a few months to be de-nuked, then on to the west coast (Washington) for the remainder of the deactivation. I'm pretty sure one or more of the big decks will be starting work ups very soon, others will be moving to Newport News or Portsmouth for a yard period. It's a cyclic thing.

Well, since they're nukes and make their own fuel, I doubt that's the problem. It really is imprerssive seeing them all tied up in such close proximity, though. That, and they are the reason I have a job.

 

As you make your way around the water front, you'll encounter the submarine and destroyer piers before getting to the flat tops.

There's been one hell of a fight to move a carrier to Mayport. Fla. Bad idea. It'll cost hundreds of millions of dollars to create the infrastructure to handle the nuke plant, weapons, ship services, housing, etc.

 

I thought they might be nukes, but I wasn't sure and still had to get that dig in there. Just having some fun.

 

Yeah, but the birds that make an aircraft carrier an aircraft carrier run on jet fuel.......

They're just seagoing parking lots without the birds.......

 

Not entirely true sir. The carrier is the flag ship of the battle group. She has the ability to control air and sea assets, resupply smaller ships, provide hospital services, machine shop services and most anything that can be imagined for a ship at sea.

Even with the air wing detached, she's a very useful afloat asset......and a larger target.

 

You got the last part right for sure. without her airwing to project power the entire carrier group is a sitting duck.

without the air wing they are just floating mini navy bases.

 

Any large warship could fulfill this role, yes?

OK....Going on the assumption (and you mention it below) that there are no air assets........

Parking lot.

We HAVE supply ships, don't we? Like fleet oilers and such? (they resupply carriers, as a matter of fact.....)

Don't we still have hospital ships?

I can possibly see the utility here......Instead of a floating aircraft hangar....It could be like a floating machine shop/dry dock.......(wet dock?).......

True and true.

I would like to add, however, that with the examples above, other ships carry out the various missions much better and efficiently than would a carrier (without aircraft)........

The reason a carrier is useless without aircraft is cost versus reward. The PRIMARY mission of the carrier is to be an any-ocean projection of power. Without the aircraft, this role is lost.......and the cost of RUNNING a carrier can no longer be justified. Even without the aircraft, just running one of these sunzabiches would cost more than the entire naval outlay in most countries which HAVE navies......

Hey....Don't get me wrong.....Even when the carriers DON'T use the aircraft in non-military missions (like tsunami or earthquake relief......see south asia or haiti).....I'm all for them being deployed in those missions. Great practice for the sailors and medical teams.....and the capabilities...such as making mega-gallons of fresh water....are priceless in such situations. And they have the teeth to protect what they're doing also (aircraft....escort vessels....marine contingents....etc.). Absolutely....send in the carriers!

Tim. I just like to argue......