USS Ronald Reagan Commissioning Tomorrow

wessman writes "Being an employee at Northrop Grumman's Newport News shipyard, I cannot help but be proud to see one of our products commissioned by the U.S. Navy, especially considering how long it takes to build a $5 billion Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. And I'm sure the other 18,000 workers here feel the same way. The ship is being commissioned Saturday, July 12 at the Norfolk naval base. It is obviously the most technically advanced carrier in the fleet, taking the term "hardware" to new levels. Pick a local story. From the Hampton Roads Daily Press: Anchors Aweigh, Changes Abound Aboard Carrier, Some Wanted CVN-76 Named after Daredevil Flier, 20,000 Expected for Reagan's Rite, USS Constellation Retiring Too Soon?. From the Virginia Pilot: The Carrier Reagan - Ahead of Its Class, Carrier Construction is All in the Family, Former President's Son Michael Reagan Excited about Commissioning."

I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder who is going to be skipper for the USS Gipper.

Re:I wonder

[Mother Gibber]

From the Daily Press: The Reagan's skipper, Capt. John W. "Bill" Goodwin, looked at the model and suggested some changes. The program allowed the shipyard to save millions of dollars by catching problems earlier in the process, Gunter said.

Re:I wonder

[kfx]

You act as if you seriously expected a first-posting AC to have RTFA... this is /., remember?

Re:I wonder

[tenchiken]

Very few people understand the pure detterant force that us a Navy Carrier Group tho. Imagine Hitler trying to take the Rhine if a full air wing with enough power to wipe the force off the map was hanging around. Carrier groups are not designed to be subltle, or designed to kill a lot of people. They are just reminders that we can reach out and touch someone if they start misbehaving (ie, China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea and Japan, etc).

Sorry to be a realist, but people have been misbeahving since the dawn of time. Sometimes the only thing that works to avoid violence is the threat that you will get beat up more then your opponent.

Re:I wonder

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

"They would do better to put the money into smaller "airstrip" size carriers (UK HMS Invincible) instead of the "airfields" (USS Nimitz, etc) they have."

Well simply, the US doesn't want Aircraft carriers with dumb little ramps at the end. Besides if your going to build one you might as well build one to handle all ones needs. We do have ships that are platforms for verticle takeoff vehicles.

The brits can get away with the small ships since they largely use Harriers (sp). The also don't have the amount not even have the size of planes the US launches off their carriers.

There is little that is bad about the big carriers, unless your going sight seeing in a small harbor. Fuel isn't much an issue, so it takes an extra few pounds of uranium every 20 years, not a big deal. Also the military gets there money no matter what they do. If they didn't spend it on a carrier it would go to other weapons, it's not going to get used for anything else if they don't use it.

Re:I wonder

[jhunsake]

I'm sorry, but Ronald Regan was the greatest president, and probably the greatest leader, of all time.

You said it!

[jokell82]

Yeah! He's up there with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt! I mean look at everything he did! Saved the economy while he was in office only to put the country into a huge debt after he left! What other leader could do a great thing like that???

Oh yeah, forgot the [/sarcasm]

Heh, a coworker once called me a socialist for saying that Reagan wasn't the greatest president that ever lived. So I guess if you don't like Reagan, you must be a socialist! I love the logic of Republicans.

Re:You said it!

[delcielo]

The President carries a significant amount of weight with his party in Congress. So while he may not constitutionally be in charge of spending, he definitely influences it. A case in point is the economic policy of his administration. He convinced congress to increase spending and lower taxes.

While you could say that the men and women of congress are adults who are responsible for their own actions, you can't ignore that it was the President who goaded/inspired them to do it.

These changes did accelerate the endgame of the Cold War; but the seeds of the endgame were planted much earlier. After all, the coup attempt on Gorbachev was about Perestroika and its attendant lessening of power for many in the system. Gorbachev's autobiography (though self-serving at times) is a good reference here.

You could, of course, say that the form of the Soviet government was flawed to begin with and could never succeed in the long run. But as far as the problem of spending so much on the military to keep up with the U.S., that began as soon as the Cold War itself. It also spiked after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

A weird sort of irony is that Khruschev put missiles in Cuba thinking they would be an easy way to appease his hard-liners, allowing him to spend more money on domestic issues. After all, the Americans had missiles closer than those to the USSR. Even the U.S. military acknowledged that while they weren't insignificant, the missiles posed less of a threat to the U.S. than did submarines. Beschloss' "The Crisis Years" is a good reference here.

The tough break for Khruschev was that unlike Eisenhower, who carried enough of the people's trust that he didn't need to respond bellicosely every time the Soviets did something, Kennedy did. He even did it proactively, making a statement that the placement of any offensive nuclear weapons in the region would not be allowed. He then was stuck backing it up to keep his own people happy.

After Khruschev backed down, any thoughts of increasing domestic spending went out the door. Khruschev was pushed from power, and the direct seeds of the USSR's dissolution were planted with the increase in military spending that resulted from the "defeat" in Cuba.

You can imagine that Castro was pissed off; but if you want a good scary story, read about relations between the USSR and China at the time.

Reagan didn't create deficit spending Congress did

[Nova Express]

He convinced Congress to increase spending and lower taxes.

On the issue of Reagan convincing Congress to increase spending you are demonstrably mistaken.

From Fiscal Year 1981 through Fiscal Year 1981, only once did the Reagan administration propose more spending than Congress approved; for the other eight years, Congress spent more money than Reagan proposed. Here are the actual figures Reagan proposed, and the actual amount Congress authorized (in billions of dollars):

FY1981 Reagan: $655.2 Congress: $678.2

FY1982 Reagan: $695.3 Congress: $745.8

FY1983 Reagan: $773.3 Congress: $808.4

FY1984 Reagan: $862.5 Congress: $851.8

FY1985 Reagan: $940.3 Congress: $946.4

FY1986 Reagan: $873.7 Congress: $990.3

FY1987 Reagan: $994.0 Congress: $1003.9

FY1988 Reagan: $1024.3 Congress: $1064.1

FY1989 Reagan: $1094.2 Congress: $1144.2

Note that the Democratic party controlled the House all eight years of Reagan's presidency, and the Senate the last two. Had it not been for excessive spending by Congress (which also increased the amount of "locked in" spending for each successive budget), the budget deficit would have disappeared by the end of Reagan's term.

Source: Edwin S. Rubenstein, The Right Data, P. 235.

Re:Reagan didn't create deficit spending Congress

[Nova Express]

1. You comments display a fundamental misunderstanding of how federal government budgeting works. Once an appropriation for a Fiscal Year has been passed, budget rules stipulate that those spending levels, plus increases for inflation, plus population increase, beceoms the baseline for next year's budget. Thus each amount that Congress increases spending each year has a cumulative effect by raising the baseline each year. And keep in mind that liberals and the press screamed bloody murder anytime Reagan tried to actually cut spending (see Stockman's The Triumph of Politics for how hard Washington's poltical elites fight against budget cutting, and how budgeting rules rig the system in favor of higher spending); just imagine what they would have said if Reagan tried to "change the ground rules" of baseline budgeting. Taking out those cumulative increases, and it would indeed have erased the budget deficit. Could Reagan have vetoed those budgets? Yes, and he should have, but the political and media firestorm for doing so ("Ronald Reagan is killing our babies!" said Senator Kennedy today) would have dwarfed Monicagate. Just look at the fallout from the brief closure of some federal offices during the Gingrich-Clinton budget showdown.

2. The Carter figures are misleading because they are not inflation-adjusted dollars. After 1982, inflation was a very minor factor in increasing budgets and revenues, but during the hyperinflation of the Carter years they were a major factor. Subtract the rate of inflation from the Carter revenue increases and you're left with very little. (I would calculate the exact figure, but my Almanac doesn't go back that far, and I don't have a copy of Statistical Abstract of the United States handy.)

Re:You said it!

[irix]

While the Republican party likes to claim that Reagan's hard-line policies were responsible the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's not clear that that was the case. In fact, hard-line American policies made it easier for the Soviet government to justify repressing its own people.

Sure. So persuasive when you back it up with...

After all, the US had invaded the Soviet Union in 1918

No they didn't. The Soviet Union didn't even exist in 1918. The western powers participated in the Russian civil war in 1918-20 by allying with the forces opposed to the Communists. Small numbers of troops from western nations participated, but those were mostly British and French. The assertion that the the US invaded Russia in completely false.

and the Treaty of Versailles required that German troops to continue occupying large areas of conquered Russia after the war

No it didn't. Versailles required the Germans to give back large pieces of territory in the East, primarily to Poland. It isn't like there were large pieces of Russian territory in the East occupied by the Germans by 1920. Besides, Versailles was hardly dictated by the Americans.

so how could they trust the US when it was building up its military?

Claiming that the events that transpired after WWI directly affected Soviet attitudes towards the US 70 years later is a joke. That it kept the Communists in power longer even more so. Try picking up a history book before you go making ridiculous assertions.

Re:You said it!

[Matrix272]

The spread of AIDS in the early years was an exponential function. Had the government made some effort to prevent its spread, the "epidemic" would have turned into nothing of the kind.

What would you suggest? Government-sponsored surgically overlaying condoms on your penis, so when you go bang a hooker, you won't get AIDS?

Re:You said it!

[Imperial Tacohead]

Well, that would be thoughtful of them. But the fact is that at some point, public awareness of the virus became high enough that its spread slowed rather dramatically. My point is that we might have reached this point several years earlier -- thus preventing hundreds of thousants of HIV infections -- had the Reagan administration seen fit to push the issue.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but Ronald Regan was the greatest president, and probably the greatest leader, of all time.

I agree. And thank you for all the weapons and training.

Sincerely,
Osama

Re:I wonder

[Mournblade]

As you can see here [taxfoundation.org], it's lower (as a % of GDP) than it was when Reagan left office.
So I guess it's doing just fine.
More concerning is the massive amount of consumer debt that we have piled up over the last 15 years.

How 'bout letting us know which country you are from so we can ask you some smarmy, ill-informed questions?

Re:I wonder

[gessel]

Let's see about your list:

Iran Hostage crisis ---> Started under Carter. Ended under Reagan.

Actually it started [thirdworldtraveler.com] in 1953 when Eisenhower ordered the CIA to overthrow the popularly elected (as in a real democratic election) prime minister of Iran, Mossadegh, by pushing Reza Pahlava, the Shah, to expel him. Riots ensued, the Shah fled, the CIA put the riots down, brought the Shaw back, and trained SAVAK; who went on to earn Amnesty International's award for "worst human rights record on the planet" in 1976. That's the year Carter was elected, he didn't take office 'till 77. I'm not sure how you can imply he was responsible for the revolt in 79 to overthrow a brutal and repressive regime.

As for Reagan's illustrious involvement in the hostage crisis: He traded weapons to the Ayatollah Khomeini, the forces of darkness, to secure their release. Even Reagan admitted [grolier.com] it. A very clever move, now known as the October Surprise, which was significant in defeating Carter.

Star Wars ---> Dreamed up in the 70's continues today. Even Clinton continued to fund it.

"When President Reagan first issued his challenge to America's scientific community to find a defense against ballistic missiles..." [heritage.org] Clinton did continue funding, but then Clinton governed as a moderate republican, unfortunately.

Grenada ---> Warehouses full of Soviet weapons seized just before the 'rebellion' was to start. Talk to 82nd airborne vets about what they found and saw before you think it was a joke.

Greneda was no joke for the Grenadines. They had made the mistake of electing Maurice Bishop who, alas, was mildly socialist. CIA destabilization began shortly thereafter under Carter in '79, actually, but given the animosity and outright betrayal of Carter by the UberRight in the defense organization (Ollie et al, see above), it's not clear he knew anything about it. Given that Grenada was a managed news event, you should be careful of any "news" you read about it, and the dangerous weapons they had [guardian.co.uk]. Remember pfc Lynch's "Rescue." [guardian.co.uk]

War on drugs ---> Bush Sr., Nancy was "Just say No to drugs." Not to mention drug use DID decline through the end of the 80's and early 90's. The war is 'lost' because we (people and government) lost focus not because it could not be won.

US prohibition has quite a long history, all of it embarrassing. Reagan did declare the "War on Drugs," [serendipity.li] but what that really meant, and continues to mean is difficult to ascertain. One thing is for sure, it is not about helping people. [uni-bremen.de] Mentioning Gary Webb's [pbs.org] careful and exceptionally well documented journalism runs contrary to the charade, but the evidence is strong [webcom.com] that under Reagan the CIA was supporting the sale of cocaine in the US to fund the Contras after congress confronted the CIA's arms sales underwritten funding.

Central America ---> What part? And no fair bringing up Nicaragua. You already have Iran-Contra on the list. And if you thing the Sandinistas were better than the Contras you're frikin' nuts.

The difference is the Sandinistas were the popularly elected government and the Contras were the private army of Samoza, evacuated, rearmed, retrained, and reinserted

Re:Friggin Troll or what? Bush is a Fascist Pig!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the thought ever cross your feeble little mind that perhaps some people love the country and its ideals but hate the leaders and their methods? Suddenly if you point out the problems you're un-patriotic, if you call for people to look at the problems in the system you're a commie, and if (God forbid!) you'd actually like to do something about the problems you see in the country you love, you should just shut up and leave.

Yeah, smart thinking. That Jefferson didn't like the British taxes? Then he should have left! The Northern states didn't like the South keeping slaves? They should all have left! Yeah, right on!

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Friggin Troll or what? Bush is a Fascist Pig!

[Jucius Maximus]

"...and if (God forbid!) you'd actually like to do something about the problems you see in the country you love, you should just shut up and leave."

Correction:

...and if (God forbid!) you'd actually like to do something about the problems you see in the country you love, you're a terrorist.

Re:Friggin Troll or what? Bush is a Fascist Pig!

[The Dobber]

Yeah, but at least I didn't post as an Anonymous Coward.

Gerald Ford

[Jack Comics]

Whew, at least it's not the U.S.S. Gerald Ford, or the U.S. Navy would be in big trouble. I mean, Gerald Ford tumbling while getting out of a helicopter is one thing, but I can only imagine what kind of manuever problems the U.S.S. Gerald Ford would have. It could potentially destroy half a sea port while attempting to dock.

Re:Gerald Ford

[Eslyjah]

The USS Jimmy Carter wouldn't even have weapons on it. It would be used to distribute leaflets with handy fuel-saving tips. Amy Carter would be constantly on hand to give advice to the Admiral.

Re:Gerald Ford

[hype7]

dammit, why stop there.

USS Bill Clinton gets really close to some of the not-quite-commissioned submarines, and gets them to stick torpedoes in places where torpedoes shouldn't be stuck.

Then there's the USS George W Bush, which comes with faulty radar that is always detecting incoming Weapons of Mass Destruction.

-- james

Re:Gerald Ford

[ath0mic]

Unfortunatley aboard the USS Bill Clinton, seamen always seem to go AWOL.

Bah.

[Surak]

It'll just lose all the data stored in its memory systems after every mission. Particularly secret CIA ones.

Re:Bah.

[Surak]

It's NOT an Alzheimer's joke. Read your history books. Reagan had "convenient" memory problems well before he contracted Alzheimer's, during the Iran-Contra hearings in which Reagan couldn't recall answers to important questions that would have indicated his level of involvement in the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal.

How appropriate...

[sting3r]

...that a $5 billion aircraft carrier that we really don't need during this time of budget crunches and economic weakness bears the name of the man who invented modern deficit spending in America.

Ronald Reagan's pro-spending, pro-big-government, anti-labor policies are undoubtedly going to lead my beloved country to her death. But with our large military, at least we will make a hell of a lot of noise when everything finally collapses.

Re:How appropriate...

[letxa2000]

that a $5 billion aircraft carrier that we really don't need during this time of budget crunches and economic weakness

Believe it or not it takes more than a few days to plan and build one of these things. We were still in an economic boom (bubble, but who knew) at the time.

Plus, these things don't last forever and you don't wait until one of your existing carriers is toast to start thinking of buying another one. The defense of the country is an ongoing investment.

Ronald Reagan's pro-spending, pro-big-government, anti-labor policies are undoubtedly going to lead my beloved country to her death.

Wow, you take the cake. A liberal that can blame today's problems on a president from two decades ago. Nevermind that social spending far exceeds military spending, but blame the military spending for the deficit. Whatever.

Budget Deficits: Blame Congress, Not Reagan

[Nova Express]

the name of the man who invented modern deficit spending in America...Ronald Reagan's pro-spending, pro-big-government

You are demonstrably mistaken. It was not Ronald Reagan but Congress that was "pro-spending," and "pro-big-government." From Fiscal Year 1981 through Fiscal Year 1981, only once did the Reagan administration propose more spending than Congress approved; for the other years, Congress spent more money than Reagan proposed. Here are the actual figures Reagan proposed, and the actual amount

Re:How appropriate...

[the gnat]

Reagan was pro-defense (USSR hadn't fallen yet) but not really pro-big-goverment.

True, but remember that the concept of trickle-down economics was invented in the Reagan era as a faux-conservative justification for massive deficit spending. The idea was that heavy government purchasing would boost the economy without involving direct meddling. I guess it worked, sort of, at least better than whatever the Commies were doing (not that this wsa difficult) but it did lead us with that pesky deficit.

Reagan did also slash quite a bit of government spending in other areas, but he certainly didn't set much of an example for fiscal moderation. It remains to be seen whether Bush will surpass Reagan's record of bloat (or Clinton's record of lying. . . heh).

As far as Vietnam is concerned, remember that Reagan first became politically prominent campaigning for Goldwater, who didn't think JFK was tough enough. And NASA isn't exactly cheap, but it's nowhere in the neighborhood of military spending over the past few decades.

Re:How appropriate...

[2short]

"Reagan was pro-defense (USSR hadn't fallen yet) but not really pro-big-goverment"

He increased the federal budget by more than anyone before him, in both real dollar and percentage terms. So either he was pro-big-government, or incredibly incompetent.

New Rule: If you claim to be against big government while increasing government spending, you shall be laughed at. And if you claim it because you are simultaneously cutting taxes, while further claiming to be fiscally responsible, you shall be pelted with

You've oversimplified the question...

[MyNameIsFred]

The Constellation is old for a Navy ship. It has been ridden hard, and needs a lot of work. But some of the things the Navy wants to do, can never been done on Connie, for example installing new, more capable radars. The underlying structure of the ship will not support such changes. Why would the Navy want to upgrade systems? Well when radars, electrical motors, computers etc. get too old you can't buy parts. At some point, it actually becomes cheaper to start all over again.Its a little like telling someone with an original IBM AT to install a new ATI Radeon graphics card. By the time they upgraded everything for the new graphics card, they could have had a whole new machine.

BTW, mothballing old ships is standard Navy practice, just in case a big war causes them to need more ships. For example, in Gulf War I, many of the transportion ships used to move supplies to the Gulf were pulled out of mothballs.

Re:How appropriate...

[dpilot]

Ignoring world domination for the moment, it may also come in handy when nobody wants to let us use there territory as a staging point. Sail the staging point to where it's "needed."

Re:Industrial base

[NecroPuppy]

Who in the hell asked the US to "be the world's policeman?

Recently?

Liberia.

Within the last few years?

Mozambique (Operation Atlas Response).
Timor (USGET and UNTAET).
Venezuala (Operation Fundamental Response).
Turkey (Operation Avid Response).
Kosovar (Operation Allied Harbour).
Central America (Operation Strong Support).
Kenya & Tanzania (Operation Resolute Response).

That just takes us back 5 years to the middle of 1998. Do some research of your own.

Bad Name

[CastrTroy]

Does that make it the U.S.S.R. Regan? :)

Ouch..

[grub]

At $5 billion a pop, I can only imagine what a Beowulf cluster of these would be like..

great...

[painehope]

let me guess, Microsoft designed the onboard software, and it lives up to it's namesake :
the GPS forgets where it is, and the sensory equipment goes to sleep during long meetings.

Re:great...

[hexcentric1]

Actually, the server software is Win2k. Third-party database software (can't say which) does most of the work, though. The Navy's SmartShip program is behind this (try a Google search); the reason everything else is so old is simple. The Navy is very, very slow to adopt technology. Even on a ship as new as the Reagan, there are components with designs nearly 100 years old. Its just how they think. If the technology isn't proven, and then aged a bit, the Navy simply won't adopt it.

Misnamed, I think

[mblase]

The list from "Changes Abound Aboard Carrier [dailypress.com]" includes:

* More space for women
* New island house
* Bulbous bow
* New arresting gear

One can't help but think it should have been named the USS Bill Clinton instead....

Re:Misnamed, I think

[greysky]

Features of the USS Clinton:

*All female crewmembers return to port preagnant.
*When conflict breaks out, it makes port in a non-involved country.
*Has a suite of bedrooms for rent at $50,000/night.
*Equiped with a double compliment of distress beacons and emergency signal flares.
*Flight deck lined with astroturf.

Screenshots of Nimitzes

[SpaceRook]

Here is a hell of a lot of images of these things:

Pictures [fas.org]

Not dead yet

[hawkfish]

How come so many things are being named after this guy when he's not even dead yet? It used to be that you had to be dead to get public objects named after you. But for some odd reason, RWR is getting airports, federal buildings and warships named after him without the traditional respectful pause. This pause was there to prevent overly partisan hysteria from hijacking the public name space. And of course, Conservatives (who ought to know better) are the principal forces behind this flushing of tradition.

In Reagan's case, he is not really a factor, but his partisans (and detractors) are still pretty rabid. If he is really a great as his adherents say he is, why not wait a bit longer until a consensus emerges?

Re:Not dead yet

[StevenMaurer]

This emotional tripe is so full of factual inaccuracies, I'm not sure where to begin...

1] "Like passing the largest tax cuts in history despite the Democrats controling the house AND the Senate".

BUZZ - Wrong. Reagan got control of the house for the first two years of the presidency, and - because of the presence of a highly conservative Democratic caucus from the south, he had effective control of the Senate. Oh, and in addition to "passing the largest tax cuts in history" (on the rich - naturally), he also passed the largest tax increase in history (on the poor). This is something a lot of anti-tax conservatives seem to pass over when reciting the faith.

"Reagan got more judicial nominees in than any president in history."

- TRUE, but meaningless. The country is bigger, so we have more judge positions to fill. You could also credit this to cooperation from Democrats, but the truth is that the GOP has been nearly as cooperative for Democratic appointments (sorry liberals). Between modern presidents, Clinton appointed 357 (or 44%), Reagan appointed 378. On a percentage basis though, no one beats George Washington - who appointed 100% of the judges in the country.

"He was the first president to put his foot down and stop the USSR."

- BZZZT. Wrong. That honor goes to Truman. In fact - there's this little "Doctrine" named after Truman having to do with the USSR, but I don't expect a typical dittohead to know that. They're so ignorant, they can hardly find the planet they're standing on.

You see, every President opposed the USSR. The only difference is the strategy they took: carrot, stick, or carrot and stick. From a global political perspective, it seems pretty obvious that none of these made much difference. It was the system of free trade and free expression that won over the long haul, not any macho posturing from a politician.

However, if you're determined to find a "sole cause", you would do worse that look at Japan. When that little upstart started beating the U.S. at its own game, suddenly the third world saw a model they could emulate, and the Russians began to loose faith. When Taiwan almost passed the GDP of the entirety of mainland China, even the Maoists did too.

It's a funny thing. McCarthy and the other 50s conservatives felt they had to emulate some of the methods of the USSR to destroy it. They had less faith in capatalism than many extremely liberal countries, including Sweeden - who proudly call themselves "socialist" even to this day.

Put a submarine up against it any day

[bubblegoose]

From the Pilot Online article Though they tout the Reagan as far more powerful than any threat it might face, Navy leaders insist that the massive cost of an even more powerful ship is easily justified.

They better make sure they commision at least two submarines to escort this thing. The only ship capable of really fighting a submarine is another submarine. The suface ship guys may say they can handle this role, but they can't. If this thing isn't escorted by at least two 688s it will never hear the modern diesel boat running on batteries that launches 4 torpodoes on it.

They have...in training

[jpmorgan]

In one NATO training op a few years ago, one of the American aircraft carriers was 'sunk' (simulated, of course) by one of the older Canadian submarines.

That's the problem with nuclear submarines - they're too loud to hear purely electrical ones. I believe it put some impetous into the Seawolf project.

more than meets the eye

[Dambiel]

From "The Carrier Reagan - Ahead of Its Class [hamptonroads.com]" (emphasis mine)

After the next carrier, the George H.W. Bush, the Navy intends to unveil a new design; it will be roughly the size of a Nimitz-class ship but with automated systems that could cut the ship's company of 3,200 by one-third or more and a new reactor able to power electromagnetic catapults and

directed-energy weapons .

Directed energy weapons! what does that mean? High powered lasers? Something else that's super-secret?

after reading that I half-expected a description of how the next carriers will transform into a gi-normous humanoid robot.

Re:more than meets the eye

[forgetmenot]

Directed energy weapons! what does that mean? High powered lasers? Something else that's super-secret?

Isn't that just a really fancy term for... a gun?
It's directed (you aim it) and bullets have lots of... KINETIC ENERGY! America's enemies will read this thinking they need to blow their budgets on defenses against Laser beams and ion canons only to get pulverized because they're not defended against a good ol' fashioned shelling.

Re:more than meets the eye

[confused one]

It's called a Laser... The navy's been funding free electron laser (FEL) research for about a decade now; and, it's hitting the MW range. It wouldn't be too much of a leap to push it high enough for weapons use.

Re:more than meets the eye

[bbc22405]

Directed energy weapons! what does that mean? High powered lasers?

Close, very close. Directed energy weapons means of course sharks with friggin' lasers.

It's expensive being policeman to the world

[dbrower]

Whether it's unilateral or with world consensus, we need to be able to get planes over targets. With world wide basing for ground based air becoming more difficult, carriers remain relevant. Much dancing and spinning was done to get enough carriers near Iraq, with extended deployments. We'll need to have some near Liberia soon. Having these things is a cost of being a superpower.

An interesting question is whether we can shrink the size of the supporting battlegroup around a carrier in these times of reduced naval competition.

Independant of pointless pissing contests about politics, Reagan was a notable president. I'd fully expect there to be a significant ship named after Clinton some time in the future.

-dB

Simply wrong

[gilroy]

I don't want to get into the flamewars over whether Ronald Reagan was the savior of the US or its most disastrous President, whether he trampled Communism or got lucky, whether his rising tide lifted all boats or swamped the poor and middle class. But I have to say this:

It is simply wrong, indeed, dangerous, to name anything after a living personage, especially a politician. And double especially a President.

This is cult-of-personality gone extreme. It's a small step from this to granting titles to retired Presidents, to granting titles to current Presidents. Rather than an occasion for a solemn acknowledgement of a person's contributions -- as validated by the sweep of history -- we get partisanship, triumphialism, and politicking.

It might sound morbid but they should have waited until he was dead.

Re:Simply wrong

[guacamole]

It is simply wrong, indeed, dangerous, to name anything after a living personage, especially a politician. And double especially a President.

Though, there is a least one precedent, the George Bush Intercontinetal Airport [houstonairportsystem.org] in Houston.

Re:Simply wrong

[paitre]

You also forget the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and the Reagan Office Building in DC.

There's quite a bit that's been named after him.

Re:Simply wrong

[ndogg]

It might sound morbid but they should have waited until he was dead.

Oh, so you're one of those types who think he's still alive?

Re:Simply wrong

[NMerriam]

I agree completely. All the Reagan and GHW Bush naming ceremonies seem a little premature and tactless.

I'm all for naming airports and ships after great people, but to go from the Lincoln and Washington to the Reagan and Bush is entirely too political.

Re:Simply wrong

[WIAKywbfatw]

And following that logic, the next one will be named the USS William Clinton, right?

Who knows. But it's exactly this sort of naming convention that will seriously embarrass the US sooner or later. Imagine a vessel named after a President who later turns out to have stolen millions, or the sort of fuss that'll be kicked up when one's sent to a country that the CinC it's named after had attacked several years earlier?

How good would it look if their was an aircraft carrier called the USS Richard Nixon?

Carriers A Dichotomy

[stoolpigeon]

I served on the U.S.S. Carl Vinson (CVN-70). I also spent a little time on the Nimitz after I came off active duty and was in the reserves.

What always impressed me about carriers- beyond the obvious, was that all that high tech is backed up by very simple means of getting the job done.

I worked in the V-2 division, arresting gear. We had electric motors that set the weight on an arresting gear engine for each trap. But each of those motors had a crank and they could be set by hand if power was not available.

Sound powered phones are still another slick- no power needed tool that impress the heck out of me.

But what everyone should remember - the single thing that make carriers so effective- are the people that run it.

.

I second that

[DesScorp]

I was in G3 and G4 on Enterprise, back in the late 80's. You'd be surprised what's moved by pulleys, steel cables, and compressed air on the same carrier with 4 to 8 nuclear reactors. Ships are a balance of high tech, and simple + reliable, like the sound powered phones. When jets got too heavy to take off of decks under their own power, the Navy started looking for ways to catapult them off. After examining various complicated mechanical measures, the Navy settled on a simple system where steam...that's right, hot water to steam, propels them off the deck.

Directed Energy Weapons?!

[Gothmolly]

Obviously nobody else read the article, or was too busy flaming the US for trying to impose a Pax Americana. The new series of ship (after this one) will have a separate reactor for powering electromagnetic catapults and directed energy weapons. Talk about the ultimate missle defense system:
Detect incoming missle with integrated helicopter radar
Point maser at incoming missle
Destroy incoming missle
Profit!

Piloting the planes off the deck via an electromagnetic catapule will give new meaning to the old Quake 2 'so-and-so rides so-and-so's rail'.

No ship for Clinton, but....

[jdehnert]

...perhaps they will name a submarine after Monica Lewinski!

All Hail the Military!

[jazman_777]

Hey, I'm a geek, and I love gadgets and technological gee-gaws, even the military ones. And I love reading history, and wars make for some of the best history. But is anyone else in the US bothered by how we seem absolutely enveloped by The Holiness and Greatness and Glory of Our Military? It's near worshipful (aka Idolatry). And I don't even watch Fox news.

USS Bill Clinton

[AntiOrganic]

I'm waiting for the USS Bill Clinton, with fully retractable onboard ramming penis.

Hi Res Pics from PCU

[stoolpigeon]

USS Reagan Carrier Pic 1 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13 [navy.mil]

Sick jokes...

[mtrupe]

Love him or hate him, any compassionate person would not make fun of Ronald Reagan (or anyone for that matter) for suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Anyone with an ounce of civility would realize that its just crude. Its not funny whatsoever.

Its odd that so many liberals, so eager to tell everyone who compassionate they are, are so quick to make jokes about such topics.

Presence, cost, and Microsoft

[hexcentric1]

The point of a carrier is not necessarily firepower. There's a reason they call it "100,000 tons of diplomacy." True, the Air Force can bomb anywhere in the world with their long-range bombers, but the fear of a plane that could fly over is a lot less than fear of a big ship parked off your coast. I can't believe there is even an argument over whether a new carrier is needed to replace the aging carriers. The USS Constellation is in really terrible shape, USS Kitty Hawk is almost as bad, USS John F Kennedy is worse, and even USS Enterprise, which was the first nuc carrier, is in really bad shape. I should know, I spend all day on one. What the Navy is trying to do with their new, automated systems is reduce the manning required. It costs well over half a billion dollars each year to maintain and operate a nuclear carrier. If they can automate systems, they will reduce the manning required to operate those systems, and their preventive maintenance through use of these systems (ICAN) will save A LOT of money. If it works. The server architecture is archaic, and runs Win2k. I can attest that other ships have had serious problems with the servers running these systems. And still do. They run Windows because the private companies providing a lot of these systems employ software that only runs on Windows. Its not a very good solution, but now that the Navy has started down a path, they are committed. Maybe the CVN-21 will have a chance...

U.S.S. Grace Hopper

[jhines]

Anybody serve aboard her? That is a ship named after one of the Navy's formost geeks, way before being geeky was cool. (if it ever is)

Just a small ship in a big navy, but they are important to.

The real question is

[goon america]

So, are we going to give it to Iran?

My $.02 on this

[MikeyToo]

OK, I've read all the sarcastic/scathing/vitriolic typical /. comments here. Some people seem very caught up in their own self-importance, others just in ignorance. I'm sure this post will fall to the bottom of the heap. That's not really my concern. Having spent four years aboard another carrier (USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71) and being a member of the commissioning crew, I thought I'd interject some of my own self-importance/ignorance here. The ocean is wide. Ours is an island nation even though it doesn't appear to be. This fact has kept us insulated from two world wars and many other conflicts. Having borders that are largely water requires us to have a naval presence to protect/defend those borders. Bullies. Whether any of us like it or not and whether it is logical or not, people use force to get what they want in this world. Unfortunately, it seems to be in our base nature. Logic, compassion, and reason don't have any bearing on it. The only way to prevent being overrun by bullies is to be strong yourself. Having 4.5 acres of sovereign US territory that you can move anywher on the ocean allows you to keep those bullies at bay. Whether the politicians are capapble of using that force in a way we all agree with is a matter of much disagreement. Being able to place a force in the vicinity of an ally quickly is also a tangible show of support in a tense situation. Technology changes. The basic design for the Forrestal-class aircraft carrier was laid down in the mid 50's. Experience since then has shown that conventionally-powered aircraft carriers are hard-pressed to perform operations that are relatively simple for their nuclear-powered counterparts. There's simply not enough steam produced by the boilers to drive the ship and operate the catapults. In addition, fuel-storage requirements of the carrier mean that there is less fuel aboard for aircraft operations and to support other ships in the battle group. This makes the CVN not only more capable but more self-sufficient. If you don't use it, you lose it. The skills necessary to produce a 100,000 ton 1100ft long, 300 ft wide, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier don't really transfer well to civil shipbuilding. Continuous building projects not only provide new, improved ships, but keep the skills necessary to produce them alive. Salt water is a bitch. Rust starts the moment you lay down the keel to the day the last chunk of scrap goes off to make more razor blades. Naval hardware gets put to hard use through its lifetime. Pride. An aircraft carrier is something to see. It's hard to believe that something that big can move at all. Even after having lived on one for four years, I'm still in awe. Ok.. enough said. Getting down off soapbox.

Interesting Reagan Quote about technology

[mc6809e]

Quotes
In June 1989, Ronald Reagan said, "Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders. ... The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip." [1]

[1] http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=10300367 [informationweek.com]

Re:Interesting Reagan Quote about technology

[geek]

Reagan was big on technology because he believed it scared the hell out of the USSR. Gorbi was scared to death of Reagans Star Wars plans, he knew the USSR couldn't ever possibly compete with us economically and technology was all about investment. Reagan knew this to be their weakness so he increased military spending and investmets in technology and let the USSR bankrupt itself trying to keep up. Every president before him took part in dente which was basically a welfare program, we gave them money and in return they didn't nuke us.

In every summit Gorbi and Reagan had Gorbi pushed to end Star Wars, even coming to the brink of war over it. Reagan never relented and continued to push the technology. He had the forsight to know that overcoming evil, poverty and every other ill on this Earth involved investment in technology.

Bugging me

[JSmooth]

Here's what has been bugging me lately,

Why is it ok to lie about motives, money and politics (see Reagan & the Contras, or W. & Nuclear (prounouced NukeClear) weapons) but NOT ok to lie about sex? (see Clinton and Monica).

I hate Clinton but I could honestly care less who he had sex with. I put him in the same category as Bush Jr. except maybe he was a little smarter.

Just a thought.

- If you wanna see what happens when the dumbest amonst us aspires to lead look no further than the Grand US of A

Re:WTF?

[Planesdragon]

So, what's the deal? Why are we honoring a man who destroyed America by naming the most expensive carrier ever built after him?

He was a president, and whatever his domestic failings, he does get the credit for ending the Cold War without WWIII.

Plus, I suspect that the darn things are just named after the president when they were first proposed.

Re:WTF?

[Aadain2001]

Why are we honoring a man who destroyed America by naming the most expensive carrier ever built after him?

I think it's kind of fitting to name the most expensive carrier ever built after the man who increased our national debt more than all the previous presidents combined.

Re:WTF?

[CommieLib]

the man who increased our national debt more blah...blah...blah..

Ugh. This stuff drives me crazy.

Crack a book. Congress does the budget. Maybe the phrase "Congressional Budget" rings a bell?

Re:WTF?

[s20451]

'cause it's much more likely to strike fear into the hearts of America's enemies than the USS Jimmy Carter (motto: Malaise Forever).

Re:WTF?

[Lord_Slepnir]

I'm in favor of the USS Bill Clinton. Much more fearsome. When enemies see it, they know they're going to go down.... not to mention it will be deploying sea men into the enemy ship afterwards

Re:WTF?

[Getzen]

The only things Reagan destroyed were Democrats, high taxes, lack of confidence in America, the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet Empire. The guy's face deserves to be on Mount Rushmore.

In the meantime, his name on the most advanced aircraft carrier on the planet will do nicely.

Nope

[MAXOMENOS]

It may, however, very well send weapons to Iran.

Re:Mod parent up!

[kfx]

Unfortunately for the Iranians, the missiles will have used up all their propellant getting there...

Rude

[Arbogast_II]

I think Mr Reagan was a second rate President. He was surrounded by a bunch of shady characters.

But, Mr Reagan was an exceptionally decent human being, who cared deeply about the welfare of his nation, and for 8 years did the best he knew how to make this world a better place. That is more than can be said for many Presidents.

He is also a human being, and deserving of more respect than that.

Stop with the flamebait political posts, michael

[schnell]

USS Ronald Reagan Commissioning Tomorrow
Posted by michael on Friday July 11, @11:20AM
from the no-memory-of-those-events dept.

Jebus. I know that most of the Slashdot audience probably agrees politically with Michael, but it's pretty clear to me that this whole goddamn story is just an excuse for people to make snide jokes about Ronald Reagan. I don't care whether you like Reagan or not (I didn't particularly), but when did Slashdot get into the business of just posting Republican-baiting stories?

If I

Re:Stop with the flamebait political posts, michae

[An Onerous Coward]

Umm, excuse me? "No memory of those events" refers to the Iran-Contra hearings, not to Reagan's Alzheimers. I guess many Republicans have scrubbed their brains of those events.

The whole goddamn story is actually a call for us to lust after spiffy new military hardware. Though the choice in naming is just one of an inordinate number of projects being named after our fortieth president. Some have called it "the Reaganization of America."

If you don't like Michael's stories, Slashdot has made it very e

Re:I guess you have no memory of

[schnell]

I guess you have no memory of REAGAN ACTUALLY SAYING THAT DURING IRAN-CONTRA.

Honestly, would it hurt to have a passing familiarity with the subject before bitching and moaning about "political flamebait"?

I recall that incident perfectly well, thank you. Reagan was clearly lying and making an ass of himself. Again, I'm not complaining because I love Reagan.

I'm "bitching and moaning," as you put it, because Michael either a.) just couldn't restrain himself from throwing a political jab into the stor

Re:One question.

[gowen]

The ship is named after Ronald Reagan and he has alzheimers so he has memory loss.

Reagan's memory loss occured long before he suffered from Alzheimers. I suggest you read his testimony to the Iran-Contra affair, in which he (somewhat conveniently) "failed to recall" how much he knew about the deal. He also "forgot" many other facets of it, such as his requirement to inform Congress...

Re:One question.

[b-baggins]

I did better. I watched the Iran-Contra hearings. To anyone but the most militant partisan, Iran-Contra was simply an attempt by administration officials to legally get around the pro-Communist Boland amendment. They didn't inform the President about what they were doing.

Reagan's first words on hearing about it were, and I quote: Ah, shit. Followed up, I believe, by: Those fools.

If Reagan had any shortcoming, it was that he put too much faith in the goodness and integrity of the people he appointed.

Re:One question.

[teamhasnoi]

Get over yourself. Alzheimers is a fact of life, like cancer, birth defects, car accidents, and everything else.

Maybe you are a humorless bastard, who rages every time someone offends your delicate sensitivities, or maybe you just like to laugh like l33t Santa, I don't know.

You should realize that different people deal with tragedy, danger, unfortunate circumstance, and fear in different ways.

Sorry, but I don't see you weeping for starving kids, earthquake deaths, epidemics in 3rd world countries, Billy skinning his knee, or the loss of the best paper airplane ever. All those things are tragedy to someone.

You want to be a selfish bitch about how you're the only one suffering in the world. Guess what? You're not. Grow up and deal. Unless you're a midget...then, just deal.

Re:One question.

[hesiod]

> You have no rhythm.

OMG, you bastard! The rest of the post was fine, but this is UNFORGIVABLE!!!

Seriously, though, the post is so uber-flamebait (like that?) that it surpasses flamebait and moves on to funny.

Re:News for nerds? Stuff that matters?

[hesiod]

Not me

Re:Way too many articles

[badasscat]

At any rate, these are some awe-inspiring machines (Nimitz-class ships were #3 (IIRC) on TLC's Top 10 Military Machines of all time earlier this week). This makes 10, right?

10 aircraft carriers? There will be 12 in active service once the Reagan is out there and the Constellation is retired (there are 12 now). There are also several in reserve for quick activation if need be. See here [navy.mil].

Re:Way too many articles

[WTFmonkey]

You correct. There are 10 Nimitz-class, and several other carriers of other classes.

From your link:
Nimitz-class ships:
USS Nimitz (CVN 68), San Diego, Calif.
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), Newport News, Va.
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Bremerton, Wash.
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), Norfolk, Va.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), Everett, Wash.
USS George Washington (CVN 73), Norfolk, Va.
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), San Diego, Calif.
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), Norfolk, Va.
Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) (under construc

Re:Way too many articles

[iocat]

How do 12 aircraft carriers stop box cutter wielding fanatics hijack a plane and crash it into the White House? Just curious, it's just the USA seems to be armed to the teeth with OFFENSIVE weapons...

Very little can stop box cutter carrying fanatics when you're not expecting it (or when the people at the ground level of your security apparatus are not expecting it, or not thinking that letting people on planes with box cutters is a problem).

But the 12 aircraft carriers are fucking awesome to have w

Re:should come in handy

[Reality Master 101]

Yeah, it would have been so much better for the world if the US had just turned a blind eye to the Soviet Union's goals of conquering Europe.

Considering the US has the most power, it's not surprising that we are involved in most of the war actions. The difference is that the US never starts anything, we just usually end up finishing them. And "start" does NOT necessarily mean dropping the first bomb.

As for me, I'm proud to live in a country that gives a damn and is willing to do something to back it up.

"Peace Through Strength" -- Ronald Reagan.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[SuperDuG]

the decision to go to war is not made by the Military, it's made by a civilian

You're full of shit ..

The vote is made by representatives of the people, who rely on the military to advise them on situations. Hence Bush and other military leaders telling us "weapons of mass destruction" etc. to have congress agree to go to war. As far as killing people goes, rules of engagement are pretty clear.

If the aircraft carrier wasn't designed for war and destruction then what was it made for. If the thing is n

It doesn't "run" on any OS.

[qwijibrumm]

Individual systems on Navy vessels run many diferent operating systems. Many systems run NT or Win2k, others run Unixes, and most are firmware driven. So to ask what OS a freakin' aircraft carrier (read: floating city) runs, is just as vauge as asking what OS IBM uses.

-ET2

Re:U-S-A! U-S-A!

[vandan]

Well said.

But to be fair, we can't really expect Americans to put down their weapons and clean up their own backyards. It's far easier and more profitable to continue on the current path of economic supremacy via military supremacy. Not to mention the fact that both major parties are merely slightly different shades of black. The US 'democracy' is a sad joke of an auction. Both parties for example supported the 10-year + trade sanctions on the Iraqi people which prevented them from buying food and basic me

Re:Answers for Hippies

[joss]

> A $5 billion aircraft carrier probably took nearly 5 years to build. During that 5 years, 18,000 jobs were created (from the /. article) and those 18,000 families had food on the table and contributed large portions of that $5 billion back into our economy, thus helping it greatly. Do you really think that even half of the $5 billion was on materials as opposed to labor? Labor is nearly _ALWAYS_ the most expensive cost in any production.

Woah, listen to the economics professor everyone. You have a point, but you could have got the same benefit to the economy by building a $5 billion gigantic rotating barbie doll. Just how big a barbie could you build with $5 billion. I don't know, but I bet I could figure it out with $1 million. Plus, this would provide lasting employment because you would need to make clothes for it. Include tourist money and we have a winner.

Re:Cue...

[Martin Blank]

He boosted military funding in an effort to stay ahead of the Soviet Union. However, Democrats insisted that if military spending was to jump that much, then social spending needed to jump a lot, too. He gave in and let it happen. If you go back and look at how much has been spent historically in different government sectors, you'll see the same huge leaps in social spending that make up 75% or more of the budget, and that is part of what led to the massive deficits even at a time of skyrocketing revenues (through lower taxes, I might add).

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Star Wars

[f97tosc]

Ah yes .... in the time you read this posting, a thousand children died from not having clean water. Think about where we are spending our money!

I read this in about 3 seconds. That would indicate that about a million kids die from bad water every hour, and 1.5 billion -all the children in the world - die from poor water every year. You just made that up, didn't you?

As much as I would also like to see better living conditions in the third world, it appears to me (and most economists who have studied t

Death of Carrier Reported Prematurely

[AHumbleOpinion]

The thing is is that the technology has moved on - the carriers are now the obsolete weapon. One small atomic bomb, whether it's delivered on a ship-to-ship missile or a torpedo will not only wipe out the carrier but take out its support group as well.

You are echoing a 1950's argument. With nukes [insert technology here] is obsolete. Yet Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Irag again were all conventional and carriers were invaluable. Also consider Cold War and other near-shooting incidents where carriers helped keep things calm, Cuban Missle Crisis for example. One of the various flaws in the argument you echo is that nukes are not like any other weapon. There is an extreme reluctance to use them. Use some conventional weapon on our carrier and we respond with conventional weapons on your military. Use nuclear weapon on our carrier and we respond with nukes on all your industrial and population centers, make an example of you. The preceeding Cold War policy has not been renounced as far as I know.

The US has to be prepared to fight a wide range of wars and carriers are invaluable in many scenarios. Many technologies, some quite ancient, are still valuable in this nuclear age. The spear for example. During the Iraq war I recall Marines clearing some marshy area with dense vegetation, bayonets fixed on their M16s.