Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: CVN 72 USS Abraham Lincoln

  1. #1
    I'll most likely shit myself



    bacpacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    7,609

    CVN 72 USS Abraham Lincoln

    I had heard about this, but hadn't found anything on it until today. This story troubles me. Not only the readiness of our forces, but what AssHat came up with the idea of parking that many carries in one small location? I was amazed at that. Obviously someone or group is uneducated on past American history.

    This just makes me wonder what else is going on that hasn't gone public yet?

    http://news.usni.org/2013/02/08/navy...r-readiness://



    Navy: Lincoln Refueling Delayed, Will Hurt Carrier Readiness
    By: USNI News Editor
    Friday, February 8, 2013

    The aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), USS Enterprise (CVN 65), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) are in port at Naval Station Norfolk, Va. US Navy Photo
    The aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77), USS Enterprise (CVN-65), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) are in port at Naval Station Norfolk, Va. US Navy Photo

    The U.S. Navy will delay the refueling of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) for an unknown period because of the uncertain fiscal environment due to the ongoing legislative struggle, the service told Congress in a Friday message obtained by USNI News.

    Lincoln was scheduled to be moved to Huntington Ingalls Industries’ (HII) Newport News Shipyard later this month to begin the 4-year refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) of the ship.

    “This delay is due to uncertainty in the Fiscal Year 2013 appropriations bill, both in the timing and funding level available for the first full year of the contract,” the message said.
    “CVN-72 will remain at Norfolk Naval Base where the ships force personnel will continue to conduct routine maintenance until sufficient funding is received for the initial execution of the RCOH.”

    Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee released a statement denouncing the need for decision.

    Forbes called the delay, “another example of how these reckless and irresponsible defense cuts in Washington will have a long-term impact on the Navy’s ability to perform its missions. Not only will the Lincoln be delayed in returning to the Fleet, but this decision will also affect the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) defueling, the USS George Washington (CVN-73) RCOH, and future carrier readiness.”


    View RCOH in a larger map

    The move by the navy is the second this week involving funding for carriers. On Wednesday it announced it would delay the deployment of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) to the Middle East do to the ongoing budget strife bringing the total number of carriers in U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) to one until funding normalizes.

    “Canceling and deferring maintenance creates a significant backlog of deferred maintenance and affects future year schedules and cost, as well as future readiness,” said Lt. Courtney Hillson, a Navy spokesperson.
    “The fiscal uncertainty created by not having an appropriations bill — and the measures we are forced to take as a result, place significant stress on an already strained force and undermines the stability of a fragile industrial base.”

    The delay in the RCOH for the Lincoln translates into a carrier that will be undeployable for the foreseeable future. It is ‘not possible to restore,’ the carrier to active service without the $3.3 billion overhaul, Hillson said.

    Under the current Continuing Resolution (CR), the Navy is $1.5 billion short on its accounts. Combined with coming sequestration in March the number grows to $9 billon for FY 2013, according to Navy documents.

    The Navy had budgeted $92 million for the Lincoln refueling in its FY 2012 budget.

    Each Nimitz-class carrier undergoes a refueling and complete overhaul at the halfway point in its 50-year service life.

    HII said the company is, “disappointed with this turn of events,” and said the delay, “is the direct result of the lack of a defense appropriations bill,” HII spokesperson Christie Miller said in a statement.

    “This is not a cancellation of the Lincoln’s RCOH at Newport News Shipbuilding,” Miller said.
    “We intend to continue our efforts on the ship at the Navy base in Norfolk and will work to make as much progress as possible, as efficiently as possible, prior to its arrival.”

  2. #2
    prepguide
    Guest
    I'm not sure I can properly articulate the stupidity of this action. Talk about a target rich environment! Holy smoking cinders Batman! This is dangerous beyond belief.

  3. #3
    Might send you the Swedish Vacu-pump 2000 when you've already said it's not your bag
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NC - Piedmont
    Posts
    215
    How in God's name do you justify "parking" 5 Nimitz class carriers within what, five miles of each other AT PORT?!?! Most likely all but completely powered down. How long would it take to get them under way? Unacceptable doesn't even begin to describe...I am at a loss.

    My brother served on the Stennis. I'm going to have to ask him about this one and see just what kind of a toll could be exacted if something were to go awry. This truly boggles the mind. Not only did someone think this was a good idea...someone else APPROVED IT!

  4. #4
    For the Love of Cats


    Sniper-T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Great White North!
    Posts
    8,943
    wow... can you say deja vu? didn't you guys do that once before?
    Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day!
    Light a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!

    Cat's are food... not friends!

    If you're going to fight, then fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp into Noah's arc... and brother, it's starting to rain.

  5. #5
    prepguide
    Guest
    Sniper, yes it was done before and that time it was disastrous and those were battleships, now to tempt the odds and the ante is FIVE of our carriers????? That would be a crippling blow that we would not recover from, it takes years to build a single carrier let along FIVE. We would not be able to protect our sea lanes, project power or defend our own shores if a significant event happened that disabled or destroyed those ships. And lets not forget its not just the carriers.

    If the big boys are docked then many of their escorts ships will also be tied up next to a pier so right now a significant portion of naval strike power is sitting in ONE spot. It boggles my mind and raises the hackles on my neck something fierce.

  6. #6
    I'll most likely shit myself



    bacpacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    7,609
    Does anyone on here know anything about our pacific fleet? I know we have a lot at Pearl Harbor, but is there not other bases on the left coast as well. San Deigo, LA, San Fran, Washington? Are our ships packed in like that over there as well?

    Never having been in the Navy I am totally clueless about this, but I always assumed we had about 1/3 of our total fleet at sea, 1/3 undergoing pm's, & 1/3 set up and ready to sail. At least in rough numbers. Seems to me than 5 of 6 being out of commision at one time is way to high. In particular with one heading for decomission.

  7. #7
    Might send you the Swedish Vacu-pump 2000 when you've already said it's not your bag
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NC - Piedmont
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by prepguide View Post
    Sniper, yes it was done before and that time it was disastrous and those were battleships, now to tempt the odds and the ante is FIVE of our carriers????? That would be a crippling blow that we would not recover from, it takes years to build a single carrier let along FIVE. We would not be able to protect our sea lanes, project power or defend our own shores if a significant event happened that disabled or destroyed those ships. And lets not forget its not just the carriers.

    If the big boys are docked then many of their escorts ships will also be tied up next to a pier so right now a significant portion of naval strike power is sitting in ONE spot. It boggles my mind and raises the hackles on my neck something fierce.
    Ok, so maybe the tin-foil is on a little tight right now but this just SCREAMS setup. Disassembling our military has been the goal of the left for a long time and giving an enemy the ability to take out 50% of our Naval might in one fell swoop... *raised eyebrows*

    bacpacker - There are actually 10 Nimitz class Carriers at present, not 6. Technically Enterprise is scheduled for decommissioning in March but hasn't been de-fueled yet and is only "inactive". So, we've got 11. It may actually be one of the carriers in the picture as it looks like there are in fact six carriers pictured and one of them is smaller than the other five. Lord have mercy on us all. Those are NUCLEAR powered vessels people!

  8. #8
    I'll most likely shit myself



    bacpacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    7,609
    DL thanks for the info. I actually thought we had a total of 12, 6 for Atlantic and 6 for Pacific. This just amazes me. I'm gonna be digging into this and edumcating myself.

  9. #9
    I'll most likely shit myself



    bacpacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    7,609
    Found this site and it has quite a bit of information about the carriers.This is all on a table, so I'll just put the link up.

    http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •