Article

2005-05-21 Home Front: Tech

Retired Carrier (USS America) Sunk Off Atlantic Coast

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ed 2005-05-21 11:42|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 When's Zarqawi going to claim credit for this?

Posted by Raj 2005-05-21 12:07|| 2005-05-21 12:07|| Front Page Top

#2 Wow. I figured the Charles de Gaulle would be the first.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-05-21 15:10|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-05-21 15:10|| Front Page Top

#3 6000 Ft down and 60 Miles off the coast - guess they didn't want it as a dive attraction or reef

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-21 15:12|| 2005-05-21 15:12|| Front Page Top

#4 No they wanted data ... with very few observers.

Posted by Super Hose 2005-05-21 17:15|| 2005-05-21 17:15|| Front Page Top

#5 yep - how many/much shots does it take...

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-21 17:32|| 2005-05-21 17:32|| Front Page Top

#6 We will see the results in the next carrier. Will it be double-hulled?

Posted by Super Hose 2005-05-21 17:38|| 2005-05-21 17:38|| Front Page Top

#7 I'd assumed all new ones (the Reagan) were already...guess I'll have to do my research, huh?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-21 17:54|| 2005-05-21 17:54|| Front Page Top

#8 The America was a nuke wasn't it? The JFK is oil fired and older. Why didn't they drop the JFK?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-05-21 18:07|| 2005-05-21 18:07|| Front Page Top

#9 They wanted data on how to improve the design, the JFK wouldn't give them any data they didn't already have.

Posted by Charles 2005-05-21 18:37|| 2005-05-21 18:37|| Front Page Top

#10 the JFK might have given good data on the De Gaulle, though ;-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-21 18:58|| 2005-05-21 18:58|| Front Page Top

#11 I thought the America was oil fired steam.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-05-21 19:05|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-05-21 19:05|| Front Page Top

#12 America was a Kitty Hawk-class, with conventional power plant.

Posted by Mike 2005-05-21 19:59|| 2005-05-21 19:59|| Front Page Top

#13 Frank, the Reagan probably is - I have dated myself. I knew they were looking at that as some of the Russian ships were supposedly proof against a torpedo attack. The JFK is newer and was designed as a nuke. The Kennedy family desired not to be associated with nuclear power so the JFK instead was oil fired. (Funny how nuclear is now acceptable to some greens.)

Posted by Super Hose 2005-05-21 22:27|| 2005-05-21 22:27|| Front Page Top

#14 SH - saved me time, thx. Good thing our carriers didn't ski or drive campaign helpers home, no?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-21 22:45|| 2005-05-21 22:45|| Front Page Top

#15 Couldn't we have changed the name of the carrier instead of the type? Going from Nuclear to Oil fire Steamed over the name seems stupid.

Posted by Charles 2005-05-21 22:49|| 2005-05-21 22:49|| Front Page Top

23:52 .com
23:31 BH
23:27 Angavimp Flailing4010
23:19 Atomic Conspiracy
23:15 Hee Hee
23:11 Fred
23:01 BH
22:59 BH
22:59 Jackal
22:58 Jackal
22:56 Bomb-a-rama
22:49 Charles
22:48 Frank G
22:45 Frank G
22:44 Barbara Skolaut
22:44 Charles
22:43 Jackal
22:33 Frank G
22:33 Frank G
22:27 Super Hose
22:20 Angavimp Flailing4010
22:16 NA$A
22:12 Mrs. Davis
22:09 Frank G