OK so the USS Regan just left Pearl Harbor, and the Honolulu Advertiser printed some really cool facts about the ship.
Here are some pictures first:
That is the Regan being towed to port. The white building to the left is the Arizona Memorial, which floats over the sunken USS Arizona that was bombed in WWII.
This is a picture taken from Iroquois Point as the Regan navigates Pearl Harbor's narrow entry. Note that in both pictures, the white things lining the deck of the ship are people.
Coming from San Diego to Hawaii, the Regan encountered stormy seas.
Now for facts on the Regan:
Capability
Top speed exceeds 30 knots
Powered by two nuclear reactors that can operate for more than 20 years without refueling
Expected to operate in the fleet for about 50 years
Carries over 80 combat aircraft
Three arresting cables can stop a 28-ton aircraft going 150 miles per hour in less than 400 feet
Size
Towers 20 stories above the waterline
1092 feet long; nearly as long as the Empire State Building is tall
Flight deck covers 4.5 acres
4 bronze propellers, each 21 feet across and weighing 66,200 pounds
2 rudders, each 29 by 22 feet and weighing 50 tons
4 high speed aircraft elevators, each over 4,000 square feet
Dates
Dec 8, 1994 Contract awarded to Newport News Shipbuilding
Feb 12, 1998 Keel laid
Oct 1, 2000 Pre-commissioning Unit established
March 4, 2001 Christened by Mrs. Nancy Reagan
May 5, 2003 First underway
July 12, 2003 Commissioned
July 23, 2004 Arrived at homeport in San Diego, CA
Capacity
Home to about 6,000 Navy personnel
Carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days
18,150 meals served daily
Distillation plants provide 400,000 gallons of fresh water from sea water daily, enough for 2000 homes
Nearly 30,000 light fixtures and 1,325 miles of cable and wiring
1,400 telephones, 14,000 pillowcases and 28,000 sheets
Costs the Navy approximately $250,000 per day for pier side operation
Costs the Navy approximately $2.5 million per day for underway operations (Sailor's salaries included)
Here is an aerial picture of Pearl Harbor's South Channel, on the East side of Ford Island.
The landmass to the left is Ford Island, near the middle of the picture, the small white line pointing North East is the Arizona Memorial. Down and to the left a little bit is the current home of the Battleship Missouri, which is where the Pacific theatre of WWII ended.
Now here's another cool ship that was here right after the Tsunami hit Indonesia. It is the USNS Mercy, a Hospital ship. This thing was frigging huge.
Coming across the Pacific to refuel at Pearl Harbor, before going off to aid tsunami victims.
This is it being tugged to port past the Missouri, mentioned earlier, and seen in the aerial.
This it docked, taken from the Arizona Museum, where you watch a short historical video about the attack on pearl harbor, then you board a boat and they take you out to the memorial, which floats above the sunken ship, where there are still bodies trapped inside, and oil still leaks from the hull.
To the right of the second palm tree from the right, you can make out the Battleship Missouri
Ok ok sorry if I bored you but I just thought those ships were really neat. Every day when I drive down the hill to get to school I look forward to seeing what new and unusual ship has come to visit.
The arrow marks where I live, so I have a pretty good view of what happens at Pearl Harbor.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
I agree with noodle about the carrier being a waste of resources, 2.5 million a day to operate something useless is retarded. But the Hospital ship is cool, and it provided much needed releif in indonesia.
And pete, I don't think the term 'neat' accurately describes something where 2,403 people died.
Here's another picture of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese sunk a ship right in the opening so the US couldn't readily escape or launch an immediate counter attack.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
I agree with noodle about the carrier being a waste of resources, 2.5 million a day to operate something useless is retarded.
2.5 million to maintain reactors, a full 6,000 crew compliment and a shitload of 35 million-dollar fighters isn't all that much. And carriers kick ass in combat. That's why it's called a Carrier Battle Group rather than a Gay Hospital Ship Battle Group. Carriers at sea are considered sovereign territory, and in the long run it's probably cheaper and more efficient than maintaining relationships with host nations for land-staged aircraft operations.
They aren't currently doing anything except dicking around in the pacific posing for pictures and glaring menacingly at n. korea and china. It's good when turkey and saudi arabia won't let us stage air operations to baghdad on their turf, but they aren't much use in the desert. Thats why they're phasing out battle ships.
anyway 2.5 million dollars per day could buy a lotta oatmeal for the ethiopians.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
"Aircraft carriers were the primary stage for air assault during the iraq war."
Yeah thanks for confirming what I said here: "It's good when turkey and saudi arabia won't let us stage air operations to baghdad on their turf"
Destroyers in the Spruance class have been phased out, of the 31 built, only two are in service, and they have been heavily modernized.
The last of the Kitty Hawk class, America, was never built and decommissioned in 1996.
Also note that ALL U.S. battleships have been retired, although two Tomahawk-capable ships remain in "Inactive" Reserve. They were retrofitted with tomahawk missile capability in the gulf war, but now have been retired. The last two to see active duty in the '90's are now museums. The Missouri, and New Jersey are now museums at Pearl Harbor and Camden, N.J. respectively. Wisconsin also functions as a museum (at Norfolk, Va.), but is still on the NVR, and the public can only tour the deck, with the rest of ship closed off. Iowa (at Suisun Bay) an
The Nimitz class, the super-carriers, are the only ones being actively used, with the addition of George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) coming soon. They cost about US $4.5 billion each
The future of the navy is carriers and guided missile cruisers. There just is no sea to sea combat anymore, eliminating the old school battleships like the Mighty Mo. Even the subs are being equipped with tomahawks.
I can t remember all of my sources but my offhand knowledge comes from the fieldtrips we took to Pearl Harbor in elementary and High School, the Honolulu Advertiser, and the local news stations, not to mention the Discovery channel and History channel. Also the military rents houses for active duty servicemen in the neighborhood I live in, so I get a lot of firsthand accounts. I was lucky enough to tour the nuclear submarine Greenville before they restricted civilians after the Ehime Maru incident. Of the ships I have toured the Wasp class amphibious assault ship has been my favorite, just because of the unique rear well deck and the hovercraft inside.
Anyway you have to admit it would be a lot nicer if there were no need for the military at all.
Edit: of course I can't remember everything I have heard, so I used wikipedia for the details.
Edited by the Author.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
The Nimitz class, the super-carriers, are the only ones being actively used, with the addition of George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) coming soon. They cost about US $4.5 billion each
So basically, you admit carriers aren't useless.
And note there's a difference between a battleship and a warship. I can understand the lessened need for battleships, but you NEED to pair carriers with destroyers unless you want the first wanker with a submarine to mess you up. So no, 'warships' aren't being phased out.
I never said they were phasing out warships, I also never said carriers were useless, spending 2.5 million a day for the Regan's visit to Hawaii is useless, as you undoubtedly know we are not engaged in war on this side of the earth.
I also never mentioned warships being phased out.
Six posts up, "That’s why they're phasing out battle ships.
If you want to get technical on my ass then:
The term warship is a general term that includes carriers, battleships, battle cruisers, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and frigates. So yes some warships are being phased out because all classes of the battleships are being phased out.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
I agree with noodle about the carrier being a waste of resources, 2.5 million a day to operate something useless is retarded.
You very clearly stated that you think the carrier is a waste of resources. You did not qualify that you were referring to a specific use of the carrier; you made a general comment about the carrier being useless and now you're backpedalling.
They aren't currently doing anything except dicking around in the pacific posing for pictures and glaring menacingly at n. korea and china. It's good when turkey and saudi arabia won't let us stage air operations to baghdad on their turf, but they aren't much use in the desert. Thats why they're phasing out battle ships.
Since you've stated you think carriers are useless, and battleships aren't carriers, the implication is you were suggesting all warships are being phased out.
You then talked about destroyers being phased out. Destroyers aren't battleships, further supporting the case that you don't know what you're talking about.
So yes some warships are being phased out because all classes of the battleships are being phased out.
Some is not all. That's like saying "I don't eat fruit," and expecting everyone to know you were only talking about oranges.
You've got the comprehension of an aimbot text parser. I saw that you needed more clarification and in my second post I clarified myself. Now your main argument is something I fixed 6 posts ago but you're still bitching about it and filling the empty spaces with your own take on the matter.
"You very clearly stated that you think the carrier is a waste of resources. You did not qualify that you were referring to a specific use of the carrier; you made a general comment about the carrier being useless and now you're backpedalling."
I 'backpedaled' one post after I made the comment, quit whining.
"They aren't currently doing anything except dicking around in the pacific posing for pictures and glaring menacingly at n. korea and china. It's good when turkey and saudi arabia won't let us stage air operations to baghdad on their turf, but they aren't much use in the desert. That's why they're phasing out battle ships."
"Since you've stated you think carriers are useless, and battleships aren't carriers, the implication is you were suggesting all warships are being phased out.
You then talked about destroyers being phased out. Destroyers aren't battleships, further supporting the case that you don't know what you're talking about."
This is where I clarified my original thought, carriers such as the Regan have no business in the pacific and are a waste of resources, they are useful however when used in war.
Note that I specifically mention Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Baghdad one post before you say "Aircraft carriers were the primary stage for air assault during the iraq war. That's hardly useless."
At this point I should think that any implication or generalization has been corrected.
I also specifically say "That's why they're phasing out battle ships." There is no mention of phasing out carriers or warships, and this is intentional.
The next post is where you get confused I guess when you say "Phasing out warships? I'd like to see your source for that. "
So now you have changed the subject to warships in general being phased out, so I went out of my way to find you sourced. Warships includes battleships and destroyers, the only ones being phased out.
You then talked about destroyers being phased out. Destroyers aren't battleships, further supporting the case that you don't know what you're talking about.
Correct you are, destroyers aren't battleships, but at that point you had changed the discussion to warships, which I thought was an intentional move.
"So yes some warships are being phased out because all classes of the battleships are being phased out."
Some is not all. That's like saying "I don't eat fruit," and expecting everyone to know you were only talking about oranges.
And here is where you get your comments and my comments confused again, you were the first to mention warships, an err on your part.
" He said carriers are useless, I said they aren't, now he agrees they aren't. That's it I guess."
I said carriers in the pacific are useless, I still say carriers in the pacific are useless, That's it.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
Whatever dude, you aren't fooling anyone. The question remains as to why you were talking about battleships at all (if that is in fact what you meant: if you hadn't been talking about warhships in general you would have said "I wasn't talking about warships, only battlehips have been phased out")--their effectivess has absolutely nothing to do with the application of carriers; they aren't even standard CVBG vessels.
I said carriers in the pacific are useless, I still say carriers in the pacific are useless, That's it.
Carriers are actually far more useful in open water than in coastal assaults, which is a big reason China are doing everything they can to keep them out of the Taiwan Strait. It's in the Pacific because, as you may have noticed, there's a naval base there. Pearl Harbor is the HQ for the entire Pacific fleet. That's half the ocean.
If it's not involved in an active operation it doesn't matter where it is.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
