- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 4/14/17 at 1:09 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
Just fancy terms for someone who boils water for a living.
And gets fricked out of liberty time due to treaty obligations.
The recruiter didn't tell me that, but the instructors did at A-school.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 1:09 pm to RFK
quote:
Besides, submarines would be a better delivery platform, I would imagine.
So what happens if the submarine because disabled and somehow falls into enemy hands?
quote:
Seems risky.
I'm unclear on how you are quantifying that risk as somehow different, or even more inexplicable, in favor of the submarine?
CVNs operate in a massive flotilla, of which it is the flagship. Certainly they are literally and figurative huge targets, but they are also essentially the forward military "bases" of the navy. Boomers operate alone, in the dark, in the deep reaches, more or less invisibly and we don't want to know exactly where they are. That seems like a MUCH bigger risk to me.
But, to each his or her own, I suppose.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 1:12 pm to seawolf06
quote:
Technically speaking, FA-18 may be capable of carrying tactical nuke
For that matter, the A-4 Skyhawk was a nuclear-capable aircraft and it's just a little bigger than a F-350.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 1:12 pm to RFK
I was on the Kennedy back in the late 70's. I was not an AO but as far as I know there were nukes there. The Marines were very serious when they moved them around.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 1:12 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
So what happens if the submarine because disabled and somehow falls into enemy hands?
The captain would sink it before letting that happen.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 1:16 pm to AUsteriskPride
quote:
The captain would sink it before letting that happen.
But, we're going to let them take a carrier intact? That's the point I was making.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 1:19 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
But, we're going to let them take a carrier intact? That's the point I was making.
It would be quite the undertaking to take an aircraft carrier. A carrier strike group is not something anyone would want to poke or prod. They would be dealt with very quickly.
This post was edited on 4/14/17 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 4/14/17 at 1:21 pm to AUsteriskPride
quote:
It would be quite the undertaking to take an aircraft carrier. A carrier strike group is not something anyone would want to poke or prod. They would be dealt with very quickly.
Ghazi assures me Iran could do it quite easily.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 1:27 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
Just fancy terms for someone who boils water for a living.
Boiling water with style ... and no liberty ... and worked to death.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 1:27 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
Ghazi assures me Iran could do it quite easily.
I'm sure they'll just roll up on their speed boats and toy submarines and board the ships with sidearms.
I'm sure they keep many a captain awake at night.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 1:28 pm to navy
I've been at sea on both the George Bush and the George Washington. To the best of my knowledge, neither carried any nuclear weapons.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 1:42 pm to RFK
Based on what I have read, nukes haven't been on carriers since the early 90s.
However, certain Navy planes are capable of carrying nuke weapons.
From Wikipedia:
The B57 (in use through '93) bomb was able to be carried on anti-sub missions by the S-3 and P-3 aircraft and some helos.
The B61 (in use now) can be carried by the F/A-18 and will be able to be carried by the F-35. It was also carried by S-3s on anti-sub missions.
However, certain Navy planes are capable of carrying nuke weapons.
From Wikipedia:
The B57 (in use through '93) bomb was able to be carried on anti-sub missions by the S-3 and P-3 aircraft and some helos.
The B61 (in use now) can be carried by the F/A-18 and will be able to be carried by the F-35. It was also carried by S-3s on anti-sub missions.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:12 pm to AUsteriskPride
What your picture does not show is what lies beneath the surface. Good luck sneaking up on a carrier.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 3:23 pm to RFK
The whole idea of developing super Carriers back in the '50s was so they could deliver nuclear weapons into the USSR.
A Navy chief told me not to worry about the missile war heads. they will melt before they detonate.
A Navy chief told me not to worry about the missile war heads. they will melt before they detonate.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 3:27 pm to navy
quote:
As a nuke
Nerd
Posted on 4/14/17 at 3:36 pm to RFK
quote:
If the ship became disabled or somehow fell into enemy hands, they would inherit the weapons.
I cannot imagine a scenario where a USN carrier falls into enemy hands. Between the defense perimeter around the ship, the insane number of crew on board, and the inherent air defense available to a carrier, I just can't envision it. Can a carrier be sunk? Absolutely. Can it be boarded by a sizable enough team/crew to take it over? Impossible.
Maybe Seal Team Six could find a way to infiltrate a carrier battle group without being detected, do a boarding, and take and incapacitate the bridge without alarming the crew in general during the night, but even that is an extreme stretch without raising any of a million alarms. It's a fun scenario to think about at least.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 3:53 pm to RFK
I don't know if they do but my brother was in the Navy 1971-1975 and served on the USS Roosevelt (CVA 42). While serving on the ship, he was picked to be part of a specially trained team assigned to load nuclear bombs onto aircraft that were on the ship. He never actually had to load any nuclear bombs but was trained to do so. Can't ask him if nuclear bombs were on the ship as he passed away not long after serving as an Army officer in Dessert Storm. He retired from the military as an Army Major.
He did have to get a special clearance in order to receive this training and a record of having had this training stayed with him as long as he lived. In the late eighties, he went diving out of the country and when he returned back to the US, he was detained by US Customs officials. They mentioned that he had had received nuclear bomb handling training and questioned as to why was he out of the country.
He did have to get a special clearance in order to receive this training and a record of having had this training stayed with him as long as he lived. In the late eighties, he went diving out of the country and when he returned back to the US, he was detained by US Customs officials. They mentioned that he had had received nuclear bomb handling training and questioned as to why was he out of the country.
This post was edited on 4/14/17 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 4/14/17 at 4:00 pm to RFK
Part of the OpSEC was that if a ship was capable of carrying nuclear weapons - that wasn't classified. IF it had nukes on board at any given time - that WAS classified.
Back in the day we were capable of carrying nuclear tipped torpedoes as well as the Poiseidon warheads. Of course those were deployed on the SSBN's.
I feel certain that if the Navy needed to it could deploy air launched nukes from the Carriers. I am surprised to hear they were ever completely removed at all.
Back in the day we were capable of carrying nuclear tipped torpedoes as well as the Poiseidon warheads. Of course those were deployed on the SSBN's.
I feel certain that if the Navy needed to it could deploy air launched nukes from the Carriers. I am surprised to hear they were ever completely removed at all.
This post was edited on 4/14/17 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 4/14/17 at 4:05 pm to navy
quote:
Boiling water with style ... and no liberty ... and worked to death.
Port and Starboard wasn't good enough for you?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News