Todays United States Navy

[bd popeye]

desertswo I fully respect your views, opinion's and knowledge. However I do not believe the names were switched. Never have. and I must state that I would not be surprised if this switching of the names were true..by the way this was one of the very first sailor myths I ever heard in the navy. ..And I do not intend to argue the subject.

Here's a news reel report of the day. Interesting that the SecNav never mentions the names Kitty Hawk or Constellation.

[PrevaricationComplex]

Roger that. I find the photograph above rather interesting in a way that I believe is unintentionally "intentional." I know you know the answer because it is sort of your stock and trade, but if I were to ask our friends from across the pond to look at the picture and tell us what, if anything, leaps out at them, I'm not sure what answers I'd get. However, I'm going to ask it anyway: "OK, gentlemen, what leaps out at you?"

2 guesses.

- They're not meant to be in that formation.
Dangerous in some way according to protocol. I see 3 'radar planes' on the first and 2 on the second meaning one is either airborne (probably not enough) or in the shop. Also I'd imagine if both radar systems/comms equipment from the ship were on, they'd interfere with each other in some way?

- One isn't flying a flag.
That warrants a beating for some of the ratings?

Just like to add, your tangential meanderings are appreciated. My high school physics teacher served under the ensign and had really cool stories, as it seemed to our class of nerds anyway. He managed to teach us more about the importance of science when 'we'd set him off', than he did following the curriculum. I've found the generalities to be more useful to me as a citizen than understanding the current, voltage and resistance trifecta. A case in point:

Pseudo science is rather popular here, it has a fertile breading ground thanks to the general ignorance of the population, something perpetuated by the way our media operates. If it's not GM food that 'might' do something strange to you, it's the MMR vaccine that'll give your child Autism, to the more complicated to debunk idea that cell phone masts will fry you with cancer.

Anyway, a phone company wanted to give our school some money for playing ball with the plot to radiate the locals. The headmaster's consigliere in this endeavour was my physics teacher. Someone asked "Why is it dangerous, like it has to be somehow"...

We learned that it can be, but not in this case. Apparently, if one doesn't turn the radar* off while going under a bridge in Portugal that has lots of sightseers on it, there are no consequences. It's a strange world.

* Not sure what ship, definitely not an aircraft carrier though.

[bd popeye]

Here's the best picture I could find of the fire on the ship. the island is pictured ..however I cannot see the hull number..

Brooklyn had its second catastrophe in a week on Dec. 19, 1960, when a fire on the aircraft carrier Constellation killed 50 workers. It took firefighters 17 hours to put out the blaze. Three days earlier, a plane crash killed people in the Park Slope neighborhood.

[desertswo]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Here's the best picture I could find of the fire on the ship. the island is pictured ..however I cannot see the hull number..

Trust me; the references I go by aren't here. They are in the blue prints and plane diagrams for DC and engineering systems and the like. All with "Kitty Hawk" typed therein and all with a single line, initial, and "Constellation" stamped in after the fact. Whether the same conditions existed in Kitty Hawk, I cannot say, but I know what I had to use on a daily basis. Also, in 1979 we had more than a few crew members who were plank owners back in 1961 who would tell you the same.

[desertswo]

Originally Posted by PrevaricationComplex

2 guesses.

- They're not meant to be in that formation.
Dangerous in some way according to protocol. I see 3 'radar planes' on the first and 2 on the second meaning one is either airborne (probably not enough) or in the shop. Also I'd imagine if both radar systems/comms equipment from the ship were on, they'd interfere with each other in some way?

- One isn't flying a flag.
That warrants a beating for some of the ratings?

Just like to add, your tangential meanderings are appreciated. My high school physics teacher served under the ensign and had really cool stories, as it seemed to our class of nerds anyway. He managed to teach us more about the importance of science when 'we'd set him off', than he did following the curriculum. I've found the generalities to be more useful to me as a citizen than understanding the current, voltage and resistance trifecta. A case in point:

Pseudo science is rather popular here, it has a fertile breading ground thanks to the general ignorance of the population, something perpetuated by the way our media operates. If it's not GM food that 'might' do something strange to you, it's the MMR vaccine that'll give your child Autism, to the more complicated to debunk idea that cell phone masts will fry you with cancer.

Anyway, a phone company wanted to give our school some money for playing ball with the plot to radiate the locals. The headmaster's consigliere in this endeavour was my physics teacher. Someone asked "Why is it dangerous, like it has to be somehow"...

We learned that it can be, but not in this case. Apparently, if one doesn't turn the radar* off while going under a bridge in Portugal that has lots of sightseers on it, there are no consequences. It's a strange world.

* Not sure what ship, definitely not an aircraft carrier though.

You came the closest, so I'll just end the mystery. There are only so many ways that "birds of a feather" can "flock together" and maintain a deck that can be made ready for flight operations with relative ease. We don't park aircraft below decks as a rule unless they are down there for maintenance that cannot be accomplished topside, so it's always rather crowded up there, and the Air Boss, Flight Deck Officer, and Handler have to get it all arranged in a way that makes sense. Ergo, you are seeing pretty much an optimum arrangement for a transit situation in both ships, and it is pretty much the same. Again, unintentionally "intentional," and by that I didn't mean it was done solely for the photo-op. You could launch an Alert Five F-14 with the way everything is spotted, but you'd have to move a lot of things around to do anything like cyclic ops.

As regards science; yeah, I learned a lot more about physics and chemistry actually "doing it" than I ever did sitting in a classroom. Just about everything to do with a warship is applied physics and chemistry in one form or another. From material science to heat transfer and fluid mechanics to electrical generation distribution, etc., etc. For instance, I never "got" stoichiometry in school but I had to do it in a couple of emergency situations where boiler water chemistry was so out of whack the chart in the manual didn't even cover the situation. Suddenly it all made sense to me. I had to do it in order to determine the amount of di-sodium phosphate, tri-sodium phosphate, or caustic soda to shoot the boiler with before we ruptured a tube. Necessity really is the mother of invention.

[bd popeye]

Originally Posted by desertswo

Trust me; the references I go by aren't here. They are in the blue prints and plane diagrams for DC and engineering systems and the like. All with "Kitty Hawk" typed therein and all with a single line, initial, and "Constellation" stamped in after the fact. Whether the same conditions existed in Kitty Hawk, I cannot say, but I know what I had to use on a daily basis. Also, in 1979 we had more than a few crew members who were plank owners back in 1961 who would tell you the same.

Thanks desertswo.. I worked with a man while stationed in the Philippines that told me that the name Kitty hawk was stamped in several places in the MMR's spaces on the Connie...he was a civillian that worked at NSRF Subic.

[desertswo]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Thanks desertswo.. I worked with a man while stationed in the Philippines that told me that the name Kitty hawk was stamped in several places in the MMR's spaces on the Connie...he was a civillian that worked at NSRF Subic.

Yeah, the name plate data on the boiler fronts for one thing! I'm serious, it was all over the place. Boilers are built for a specific ship's installation; as are other pieces of gear. It was Kitty Hawk's gear on my CHENG's deck plates!

[Cal_Escapee]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Here's the best picture I could find of the fire on the ship. the island is pictured ..however I cannot see the hull number..

Yuck. Fires. Another reason I hate carriers. The only one I served on (briefly) was the Forrestal (AKA "Forestfire"):


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...tus;025916.jpg

[bd popeye]

excellent photos.. all those ships "Lived" to serve for many years..

you did not show a picture of the Big E fire of 14 January 1969..This fire was 43 years ago.. the Big E still is in service..in fact she is deployed right now to the Persian Gulf region.

Black smoke rises from the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) in the aftermath of a fire that occurred while she was underway conducting air operations near Hawaii (USA) on 14 January 1969. The massive fire started when a Zuni rocket accidentally exploded under the wing of an F-4. Some of the subsequent 18 explosions were 500-lb. bombs cooking off in multiples, leaving 20-foot holes in the armored flight deck. Losses totalled 28 dead, 343 wounded, and 15 aircraft destroyed.

the last major fire on an USN aircraft carrier was aboard the USS George Washington CVN-73 on May 22nd 2008.

Some great PIX from the USN. There was a severe fire onboard the USS George Washington CVN-73.


Download HiRes

PACIFIC (May 22, 2008) Fire Team Leader, Machinery Repairman 2nd Class William Neault, guides his team into Hangar Bay 3. The comprehensive firefighting effort extinguished all fires while limiting shipboard damage and preventing any serious injuries for the crew. The cause of the fire and the extent of the damage are currently under investigation as the ship continues on course for San Diego. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Christopher Delano (Released)

Download HiRes


Download HiRes


Download HiRes


Download HiRes


Download HiRes


Download HiRes


Download HiRes


Download HiRes

PACIFIC (May 22, 2008) Crew members aboard USS George Washington (CVN 73) conduct comprehensive firefighting efforts to extinguish a fire that spread to several spaces via cableways, creating extreme heat and smoke. The crew was able to contain the fire while limiting shipboard damage and preventing any serious injuries to the crew. The cause of the fire and the extent of the damage are currently under investigation as the ship continues on course for San Diego. U.S. Navy photo (Released)

Download HiRes


Download HiRes

PACIFIC (May 22, 2008) Commander, Carrier Strike Group Eight, Rear Adm. Philip Hart Cullom speaks with crew members whom are recovering after having been trapped in a fuel pump room during a shipboard fire, aboard USS George Washington (CVN 73). The comprehensive firefighting effort extinguished all fires while limiting shipboard damage and preventing any serious injuries for the crew. The cause of the fire and the extent of the damage are currently under investigation as the ship continues on course for San Diego. U.S. Navy photo (Released)

Download HiRes

PACIFIC (May 22, 2008) Crew members rest aboard USS George Washington (CVN 73) after conducting comprehensive firefighting efforts to extinguish a fire that spread to several spaces via cableways, creating extreme heat and smoke. these firefighters will return to the fire fighting efforts

[bd popeye]

http://thetension.blogspot.com/2008/...ssessment.html

SAN DIEGO, June 7, 2008 -- Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet released the following statement surrounding the damage assessment of the USS George Washington (CVN 73) following a fire at sea on Thursday, May 22:

Navy officials have nearly completed a comprehensive damage assessment following the shipboard fire aboard George Washington that occurred on May 22 while at sea. The source of the fire has not yet been determined, but the fire was located in a ventilation intake/exhaust trunk that led from the lower decks of the ship to a ventilation port on the ship's outer hull several decks above. In addition to providing a ventilation path for non-critical machinery components that are located below the ship's waterline, the trunk has numerous piping and cabling runs located within it.

Damage to USS George Washington is primarily electrical in nature with some associated structural and mechanical repairs required. Fire and heat affected electrical cabling and components running through approximately 80 spaces of the more than 3800 total spaces on the carrier. The heat generated by the fire damaged a small portion of interior structural plating which will require either repair or replacement. Piping and related valves that were exposed to heat from the fire have been inspected and will require a minimal amount of repairs. Electrical cables in the vicinity of the intake/exhaust trunk were damaged and will require repair and in some cases, replacement.

Personnel from Naval Sea Systems Command, Program Executive Officer - Carriers, Commander Naval Air Forces, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Southwest Regional Maintenance Center, Norfolk Naval Shipyard and the local private sector are involved in the assessment.

[desertswo]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Download HiRes

It would appear that Admiral Cullom has his fecal material in one set of hosiery.

[bd popeye]

Originally Posted by desertswo

It would appear that Admiral Cullom has his fecal material in one set of hosiery.

Amen to that....

[smartster]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

excellent photos.. all those ships "Lived" to serve for many years..

you did not show a picture of the Big E fire of 14 January 1969..This fire was 43 years ago.. the Big E still is in service..in fact she is deployed right now to the Persian Gulf region.

I'll bet the blood in the ONO (is that the right term for the office of naval operations?) was waist deep after that! Big E severely damaged, several dead, aircraft wasted. Even if it was an accident, they'll surely have wanted to know what wasn't done to prevent it?

[desertswo]

Originally Posted by smartster

I'll bet the blood in the ONO (is that the right term for the office of naval operations?) was waist deep after that! Big E severely damaged, several dead, aircraft wasted. Even if it was an accident, they'll surely have wanted to know what wasn't done to prevent it?

OPNAV. It's all changed, but the OPNAV Office Codes that would today have cognizance would be OPNAV N00N (those are zeros and not "Oscars"), OPNAV N1, and OPNAV N8. However, CNO and his staff might be culpable as well, because by public law, Title 10 of the US Code, CNO commands no operations whatsoever. He "recruits, equips and trains the force," and that's it. His title is anachronistic by about 60 odd years. In ascending order the commanders of 7th Fleet, Pacific Fleet, and Pacific Command will be asking why CNO and his "Type Commander," Commander, Naval Air Forces, Pacific (who owns the training and maintenance of the carriers as well as their aircraft), gave them a poorly trained crew with which to operate the CVN that was chopped to their operational control. We on the Joint Staff would have sat back and watched the food fight between the "administrative commands" (AIRPAC, a three-star, and CNO, a four-star) and the "operational commands" (7THFLT, PACFLT, and PACOM, a three-star and two four-stars respectively).

[bd popeye]

In ascending order the commanders of 7th Fleet, Pacific Fleet, and Pacific Command will be asking why CNO and his "Type Commander," Commander, Naval Air Forces, Pacific (who owns the training and maintenance of the carriers as well as their aircraft), gave them a poorly trained crew with which to operate the CVN that was chopped to their operational control.

these disasters, Oriskany, Forrestal & Enterprise is why every single sea going sailor is required to attend firefighting and damage control school. back in 1991 before I deployed on Nimitz I had to attend DC & Firefighting school after nearly 20 years in the USN..I coulda taught the whole works..no brag..just fact..

See this photo below..this is one of my all time favorite USN pix..These are senior "deck plate sailors" The CPO on the left with his coverall drenched in sweat was apparently (to me) leading his shipmates into the midst of the fire. I salute them both.


Download HiRes

[smartster]

but how is the CNO supposed to vouch for every man aboard every ship? Surely that's the guys who trained him?

[desertswo]

Originally Posted by smartster

but how is the CNO supposed to vouch for every man aboard every ship? Surely that's the guys who trained him?

Because, he owns all of the training facilities that put those officers, Chief Petty Officers, and sailors on the deck plates. By the way, before I go any further, I just want to say that I was engaging in a bit of irony when I said the crew of Enterprise was "poorly trained." In fact, I don't know what their status of training was, but when you look at the cause of the fire, it would seem that "best practices" weren't being used. All that said, CNO is responsible by law, and while he might not see every sailor, that's the nature of "the chain of command," and he must bear the brunt of criticism if training practices aren't up to snuff.

I was one of the cogs in that machine for six years. I taught engineering and damage control for three years as a Lieutenant to other officers, and then as a Commander, I was the director of that same organization. I had 32 officers and chiefs working for me, and our job was to train officers, from brand new Ensigns on their way to their first ships, to Captains on their way to command of a CVN (I didn't teach Nuclear Power; that's another kettle of fish altogether, but the nukes don't teach hydraulics, HVAC, etc., so I got them, and when I say "I", I really mean me. Can't have someone less than a Commander teaching those guys or they get pissed off). I saw them all; some 1200 per year all told. Moreover, we wrote the course curriculum that was then used at the various damage control and fire fighting schools fleet wide. So if something happened in the fleet, and it did, the ball of shit came rolling uphill and I, and my boss, a Flag selectee, would have to defend our operation. By that time in one's career, one knows how to withstand those sorts of onslaughts. Basically, you have your stuff together so that some Inspector General or Board of Visitors cannot ruin your day. My stuff was always together.

The bottom line is that you can only do so much in the classroom or the trainer (and the fire fighting and damage control trainers were VERY realistic); dealing with an actual emergency is where the rubber meets the road. From what I read about George Washington, there will be some shit rolling uphill, but it's headed NAVSEASYSCOM's direction by way of OPNAV N8. As described, there are some shipboard design problems that more or less guaranteed something like this would eventually happen.

By the way, the fact that both gentlemen are ESWS and EAWS qualified leads me to believe they are probably both chiefs. I know you know from the flight deck that those proximity suits are hot, but they are even hotter in an enclosed space. Real easy to suffer a heat stress casualty fighting a fire in a confined space. Also, am I the only one who thinks that the Chief in the proximity suit looks a little like Smokin' Joe Frazier?

[El Mariachi]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

This is one of the best photos I have seen of an aircraft carrier. Thanks for posting! I love seeing older photos of Manhattan with these large ships and docks a stones throw from skyscrapers.

[bd popeye]

Thanks!!

Also, am I the only one who thinks that the Chief in the proximity suit looks a little like Smokin' Joe Frazier?

Oh no.....I do..

By the way, the fact that both gentlemen are ESWS and EAWS qualified leads me to believe they are probably both chiefs. I know you know from the flight deck that those proximity suits are hot, but they are even hotter in an enclosed space. Real easy to suffer a heat stress casualty fighting a fire in a confined space.

I think if you click on the hi-res link you will see for certain that the shipmate on the left is at least a CPO. More than likely an ABHC. Avation Boatwains mate (handling) CPO.

[desertswo]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Thanks!!



Oh no.....I do..



I think if you click on the hi-res link you will see for certain that the shipmate on the left is at least a CPO. More than likely an ABHC. Avation Boatwains mate (handling) CPO.

Something tells me we could have some long conversations about boxing. People can take all that ultimate fighting stuff and stick it where the sun don't shine; give me the "sweet science" any day. Man, I really miss that era that encompassed people like Ali, Patterson, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Jimmy Ellis (best freaking counter-puncher I've ever seen), Ken Norton, and all of those other colorful heavyweights. Even tomato cans like Jerry Quarry (another great counter-puncher) and George Chuvalo were fun to watch, and really skilled in the ring. The tragedy of Quarry is that the cruiser-weight division didn't exist yet. He was often outweighed by 30 or more pounds. In the end, it killed he and his brother Mike. In any event, I haven't watched a heavyweight match in years because there is no one out there who really captures my imagination. I loved all of those guys I mentioned; all skilled in different ways, and the matches they fought against each other were often about contrasting styles. In some ways, it was metaphor for the stuff we discuss here; "asymmetry" in warfare. Anyway, I miss it a lot.

Apropos of nothing whatsoever, I remember once the great Notre Dame football coach Ara Parseghian remarking that if Ali had pursued football, he would have put him at cornerback and just watch him take over the game. Can you imagine that; a 6'3" 220 pound corner back in those days? There were offensive guards back then that weren't much heavier. Actually I can see it. With his hand/eye coordination and his quick feet he'd have been the perfect ball hawk. I don't know if he ever ran a forty for time, but something tells me it would have been no worse than 4.6 or so, which would have been fine in 1967.