Page 1

Freedom at Work H USS

George H.W. Bush CVN 77 H

Navy League of the United States Hampton Roads Publication covers 2.indd 1

12/16/08 5:09:07 PM


www.ipaa.org PreSIdenT GeOrGe H.W. BUSH SerVed On THe IPAA BOArd OF dIrecTOrS FrOm 1955 TO 1957.

ipaa on temp.indd 1

4/7/08 10:27:33 AM


The Independent Petroleum Association of America

We thank President George H.W. Bush for his

is proud to support the United States Armed

service to IPAA and the United States of America,

Forces and President George H. W. Bush at the

and the men and women of our armed forces for

commissioning of the U.S.S. George H. W. Bush.

their service, loyalty and courage.

IPAA Leadership: H.G. “BUddy” KleemeIer, cHAIrmAn BrUce H. VIncenT, VIce cHAIrmAn dIemer TrUe, TreASUrer BArry rUSSell, PreSIdenT And ceO

ipaa on temp.indd 2

4/7/08 10:27:46 AM


cwright on temp.indd 1

3/3/08 3:10:42 PM


flaherty letter.indd 3

12/16/08 1:04:43 PM


CV-41 Congratulates our 41st President

George H.W. Bush & the Commissioning Crew of CVN-77 Godspeed from the crew of the USS Midway Museum, America’s West Coast symbol of strength, freedom & peace.

USS Midway on temp.indd 1

12/2/08 1:23:54 PM


USS GEORGE H.W. BUSH (CVN 77) commissioning committee Ship’s Sponsor Doro Bush Koch

Honorary Chairmen The Honorable John Ellis Bush, Marvin P. Bush, Neil M. Bush

Honorary Co-Chairmen The Honorable and Mrs. Lamar Alexander, The Honorable and Mrs. James A. Baker, III, The Honorable Barbara H. Franklin and Mr. Wallace Barnes, The Honorable and Mrs. William P. Barr, The Honorable and Mrs. Nicholas R. Brady, The Honorable Andrew H. and Reverend Kathleene Card, Vice President and Mrs. Richard B. Cheney, The Honorable and Mrs. Edward J. Derwinski, The Honorable Robert Dole and The Honorable Elizabeth Hanford Dole, The Honorable and Mrs. Lawrence S. Eagleburger, The Honorable Carla Hills and The Honorable Roderick Hills, The Honorable and Mrs. Jack Kemp, The Honorable and Mrs. Manuel Lujan, Jr., The Honorable Lynn M. Martin and The Honorable Harry Leinenweber, The Honorable and Mrs. Robert A. Mosbacher, Sr., General and Mrs. Colin L. Powell, USA (Ret), The Honorable and Mrs. J. Danforth Quayle, Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft, USAF (Ret), The Honorable and Mrs. Samuel K. Skinner, The Honorable and Mrs. Louis W. Sullivan, The Honorable and Mrs. John H. Sununu, The Honorable and Mrs. Richard Thornburgh, Admiral and Mrs. James D. Watkins, USN (Ret), The Honorable and Mrs. Clayton K. Yeutter

Commissioning Committee Chairman Captain Louis P. Lalli, USN (Ret)

commissioning Committee The Honorable and Mrs David H. Adams, The Honorable and Mrs. Hushang Ansary, Mr. Placido Arango, The Honorable and Mrs. David Q. Bates, Jr., The Honorable and Mrs. Stuart Bernstein, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Busch, Mr. and Mrs. Phil Carroll, The Honorable and Mrs. James W. Cicconi, The Honorable and Mrs. Thomas J. Collamore, The Honorable and Mrs. Peter R. Coneway, Mr. and Mrs. Tom Cooke, Mrs. Flora C. Crichton, The Honorable and Mrs. Walter J.P. Curley, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Davidson, The Honorable David Demarest, Mr. and Mrs. Archie Dunham, The Honorable and Mrs. Donald L. Evans, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Farmer, The Honorable and Mrs. Marlin Fitzwater, Mr. and Mrs. Charles C. Foster, Mr. and Mrs. Dan Freidkin, Mr. and Mrs. Marc Ganzi, Mr. and Mrs. Victor Ganzi, Mr. Walter J. Ganzi, Jr., The Honorable and Mrs. Bruce Gelb, The Honorable C. Boyden Gray, Mr. John Griffing, Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Haagen, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Hall, Rear Admiral William Hayden, USN (Ret), Mr. and Mrs. Williard S. Hemmingway, Jr., The Honorable and Mrs. Glen Holden, Mr. and Mrs. John Hrncir, Mr. and Mrs. David B. Jones, The Honorable Ronald C. Kaufman, Mr. and Mr. John C. Kerr, Mr. and Mrs. Herbert V. Kohler Jr., Ms. Virginia Lampley, Mr. and Mrs. John H Lindsey, The Honorable and Mrs. Frederic V. Malek, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Marchand, Mr. and Mrs. John L. Marion, The Honorable and Mrs. Fredrick D. McClure, Mr. and Mrs. Jim McGrath, Mr. and Mrs. James McIngvale, Mr. and Mrs. Drayton McLane, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. McNair, Mr. and Mrs. Steven L. Miller, Mr. and Mrs. John A. Moran, Mr. Robert Mosbacher, Jr., Mr. Jim Nantz, Dr. and Mrs. Charles Neblett, The Honorable and Mrs. Edward N. Ney, Mr. and Mrs. Chuck Norris, The Honorable and Mrs. C. Gregg Petersmeyer, Mr. and Mrs. Frank Reidy, Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Rich, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Richard Robinson, Mr. and Mrs. David Rubenstein, Mr. and Mrs. Jin Roy Ryu, Mr. and Mrs. Ali Saberioon, The Honorable and Mrs. Melvin F. Sembler, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Scully, Mr. and Mrs. Chip Shotwell, The Honorable and Mrs. Alan Simpson, The Honorable and Mrs. Dorrance Smith, Mr. and Mrs. Lester Smith, Mr. and Mrs. George W. Strake, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Straus, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Tom Super, Mr. and Mrs. David M. Underwood, The Honorable Marilyn Ware, The Honorable and Mrs. William H. Webster, Mr. and Mrs. Owen W. Wells, The Honorable and Mrs. G. William Whitehurst, The Honorable and Mrs. Roger Williams, The Honorable and Mrs. Joseph Zappala

Finance Committee Chairman The Honorable James W. Cicconi

Finance Committee Deputy-Chairman David B. Jones

finance Committee Members The Honorable David H. Adams, The Honorable David Q. Bates, Jr., The Honorable Thomas J. Collamore, Mr. Walter J. Ganzi, Jr., Mr. John Griffing, The Honorable Ronald C. Kaufman, Mr. John C. Kerr, Mr. Jack L. Oliver, III, The Honorable C. Gregg Petersmeyer, The Honorable Melvin F. Sembler, The Honorable Roger Williams, The Honorable Joseph Zappala

Chief of Staff for President George H.W. Bush Jean Becker

Navy League Commissioning Coordinator Maryellen Baldwin

Deputy Linda Ermen

Navy Commissioning Coordinator Joseph Hanna

Deputy William Huesmann

CVN 77 H 

committee 12.16.indd 5

12/16/08 5:26:10 PM


Yale University proudly salutes its distinguished alumnus

President George H.W. Bush Yale College Class of 1948 Left: George H.W. Bush as Captain of the 1948 Yale Baseball Team Photos: Michael Marsland (top). Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library (bottom).

yale on temp.indd 1

3/13/08 1:01:29 PM


petter letter.indd 3

12/15/08 4:03:32 PM


IBM and the IBM logo are trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Other company, product and service names may be trademarks or service marks of others. Š2007 IBM Corporation. All rights reserved. P19913

P19913 Defense Ad 2-Monica Debban.qxd:P19913

1/17/08

1:47 PM

Page 1

HONOR, COURAGE, COMMITMENT We Salute You! At IBM, we have always set high standards for the way we conduct business, and we are proud to recognize the honor, courage, and commitment of our nation's 41st president, George H.W. Bush. It is fitting that the most modern, sophisticated and technologically advanced aircraft carrier in the world is named after him. IBM is committed to positive change and constant improvement . With deep experience in helping military forces all around the world, we offer a unique combination of innovative industry insights and proven end-to-end technology solutions to help you be a more responsive and flexible organization. Integrating processes, information and technology across departments and agencies. Transforming the way you work, collaborate and deliver services. All in a cost effective and secure manner. For more information visit ibm.com/aerodefense

ibm on temp.indd 1

1/17/08 4:50:56 PM


contents Interview: President George H.W. Bush. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 By Charles Oldham

Interview: Dorothy Bush Koch, Ship’s Sponsor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 By Charles Oldham

Interview: Capt. Louis P. “Lou” Lalli, U.S. Navy (Ret.),. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Commissioning Chairman and President, Navy League of the United States, Hampton Roads Council By John D. Gresham

Shipbuilder: An Interview with Mike Petters,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 President, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding By John D. Gresham

Capt. Kevin E. O’Flaherty, Commanding Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Capt. S. Robert Roth, Executive Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 CMDCM(AW/NAC) Jon D. Port, Command Master Chief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 USS GEORGE H.W. BUSH (CVN 77) SEAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Getting the Message Out: The Navy League of the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 By John D. Gresham

Navy League Ship enhancements for USS George H.W. Bush. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 By John D. Gresham and Erica J. Tingler

Navy league of the united states Commissioning donors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Vital to The United states today and tomorrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Aircraft carriers – 100,000 tons of combat power, wherever and whenever needed By Edward H. Lundquist

Building American Carriers From Nimitz to Bush … and Beyond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 By John D. Gresham

CVN 77 H 

toc.indd 9

12/15/08 4:06:44 PM


T:9 in S:8.5 in

S:10.375 in

8.8 million reasons to choose Sony 4K. With 8.8 million pixels — more than four times the pixels of conventional HD — Sony’s 4K SXRD™ projection has an overwhelming advantage. Now a single projector can unleash PC graphics at a jaw-dropping 4096 H x 2160 V or show up to four full-res HD images. In fact, just one 4K projector can do the work of four HD projectors — without unwanted color shifts or pixels lost to image blending. No wonder Sony 4K projectors are taking command in Simulation, Visualization, and Command/Control. So ask your systems integrator about Sony 4K. You’ve got millions of reasons to make the call. High Definition. It’s in our DNA. click: sony.com/sxrd

Sony Electronics congratulates the men and women of the US Navy on the launch of the USS George H.W. Bush CVN 77.

© 2008 Sony Electronics Inc. All rights reserved. Features and specifications are subject to change without notice. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. Sony and SXRD are trademarks of Sony.

sony on temp.indd 1 4159_CVN77_08_P4CB.v4.indd 1

5/7/08 12:40:13 1:54:41 PM 4/28/08 PM


Information Technology and USS George H.W. Bush. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 by J.R. Wilson

Training and Simulation Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 by J.R. Wilson

USS George H.W. Bush: Hometown FPO AE 09513-2803. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 By John D. Gresham with Susan Kerr

Making Life Aboard Better: USS George H.W. Bush Quality-of-Life Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 By John D. Gresham

Fighting Flattops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 U.S. Navy Carrier Strike Groups By John D. Gresham

Main Battery: The Carrier Air Wing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 By John D. Gresham

CARRIERS AT WAR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 From World War I to the Present Day By Dwight Jon Zimmerman

U.S. Naval Aviation from birth to the present day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 By Robert F. Dorr

AIRCRAFT CARRIER EVOLUTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 By Norman Friedman

The Postwar aircraft Carrier Revolution: From Props to Jets and Angled Decks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 By Robert F. Dorr

UNDER WAY ON NUCLEAR POWER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 By Norman Friedman

TOMORROW’S CARRIERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198 By Norman Friedman

CARRIERS AROUND THE WORLD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 By Norman Friedman

WHERE ARE THE CARRIERS?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 By Norman Friedman

USS George H.W. Bush Plankowners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232 CVN 77 H 11

toc.indd 11

12/15/08 4:07:09 PM


FROM BRIDGE TO PROPELLER, ONE INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR POWER AND CONTROL.

Congratulations and best wishes to Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding and the U.S. Navy on the commissioning of the last Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, the CVN 77 USS George H.W. Bush. At L-3 Marine & Power Systems, we value our long-standing partnership with you, and we’re honored to have contributed our systems and expertise to this outstanding new addition to the U.S. fleet. We wish the USS George H.W. Bush and its crew great success in the many years ahead. For more information, visit L-3com.com/MPS.

SPECIALIZED PRODUCTS > C 3 ISR > GOVERNMENT SERVICES > AM&M

L-3com.com

Marine & Power Systems

L_3 on temp.indd 1

12/2/08 11:54:19 AM


Freedom at Work USS George H.W. Bush CVN 77 Published on behalf of the Navy League of the United States Hampton Roads

by

North American Headquarters 701 North West Shore Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609 Tel. (813) 639-1900 Fax (813) 639-4344

Freedom at Work H USS

George H.W. Bush CVN 77 H

Navy League Hampton Roads Executive Director Maryellen Baldwin Navy League Hampton Roads Project Manager Linda Ermen Editorial Director Charles Oldham, chuck.oldham@faircount.com Editors Rhonda Carpenter, Ana E. Lopez Assistant Editor Iwalani Kahikina Art Director Robin K. McDowall Project Designer Rebecca Laborde

Navy League of the United States Hampton Roads Publication

Chief Operating Officer Lawrence Roberts, lawrence.roberts@faircount.com Vice President, Business Development Robin Jobson, robin.jobson@faircount.com Manager, Business Development Edward J. Matthews, ted.matthews@faircount.com Project Manager Darren Lewis, darren.lewis@faircount.com Advertising Account Executives Richard Baughn, Arthur Dubuc III, Joe Gonzalez John Griffin, Dustin “Doc” Lawson, Chris Lewis Mark Logsdon, James Pidcock, Jay Powers Patrick Pruitt, Derek Robinson, Adrian Silva Matt Sublette, Bob Wilson, Tanya Wydick Controller Robert John Thorne, robert.thorne@faircount.com Director of Information Systems John Madden, john.madden@faircount.com Information Systems Assistant Anson Alexander Office Administrators Gabrielle Rams, Aisha Shazer

Design & Production Daniel Mrgan, Lorena Noya, Kenia Y. Perez Production Assistant Lindsey Brooks Contributing Writers Robert F. Dorr Norman Friedman John D. Gresham Susan Kerr Edward H. Lundquist Erica J. Tingler J.R. Wilson Dwight Jon Zimmerman Publishers Ross W. Jobson and Peter M. Antell Assistant to the Publisher Alexis Vars European Headquarters 5 Ella Mews, Hampstead, London NW3 2NH UK Tel. 44 (0) 207-428-7000 Fax 44 (0) 207-284-2118 Asia-Pacific Headquarters Level 21, Tower 2, 101 Grafton Street, Bondi Junction, NSW 2000, Australia Tel. +61 (0) 2 8063-4800 Fax +61 (0) 2 8580-5047

©Copyright Faircount LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction of editorial content in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. Faircount LLC and the Navy League of the United States do not assume responsibility for the advertisements, nor any representation made therein, nor the quality or deliverability of the products themselves. Reproduction of articles and photographs, in whole or in part, contained herein is prohibited without expressed written consent of the publisher, with the exception of reprinting for news media use. Printed in the United States of America. Permission to use various images and text in this publication was obtained from U.S. Department of Defense and its agencies, and in no way is used to imply an endorsement by any U.S. Department of Defense entity for any claims or representations therein. None of the advertising contained herein implies U.S. Government, U.S. Department of Defense endorsement of any private entity or enterprise. This is not a publication of the U.S. Department of Defense or U.S. Government.

masthead CVN77.indd 13

12/16/08 5:12:58 PM


interview

Interview: President George H.W. Bush By Charles Oldham

Forty-first President of the United States George Herbert Walker Bush began a distinguished military career in 1942. On his 18th birthday, June 12, 1942, Bush graduated from Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., and enlisted in the U.S. Navy as a Seaman Second class. A year later, still 18, he became the Navy’s youngest pilot at that time when he received his wings and commission. Bush, who was born in Milton, Mass., flew a Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo-bomber off USS San Jacinto during World War II. On active duty from August 1942 to September 1945, Bush flew a total of 58 wartime missions. On Sept. 2, 1944, during a mission to bomb radio towers on the Japanese-held island of Chichi Jima in the Bonins, anti-aircraft fire hit his plane. Bush managed to successfully bail out, despite taking a glancing blow to his head from the horizontal stabilizer and ripping his parachute. The two other crewmembers aboard the Avenger were killed. The Navy submarine USS Finback rescued him just offshore of Chichi Jima, and he spent a month aboard the submarine as it recovered other shot down aviators and carried out the remainder of its war patrol against enemy shipping. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and three Air Medals for courageous service in the Pacific Theater. On Jan. 6, 1945, Bush married Barbara Pierce of Rye, N.Y. Today, they are the parents of five children: George, John “Jeb,” Neil, Marvin, and Dorothy Bush Koch. The Bushes, who are residents of Houston, Texas, also have 17 grandchildren. Following World War II, Bush entered Yale University, where he pursued a degree in economics and served as captain of the varsity baseball team. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 1948.

After his graduation, the Bushes moved to Texas and he embarked on a career in the oil industry. Bush has held numerous important leadership positions over the years. He served two terms as a representative to Congress from Texas, and served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, chairman of the Republican National Committee, chief of the U.S. Liaison Office in the People’s Republic of China, and director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In 1980, Ronald Reagan selected Bush to be his running mate. Bush was sworn in for the first of two terms as vice president of the United States on Jan. 29, 1981. He served as United States President from 1989 to 1993, facing a changing world with the passing of the Cold War. The greatest challenge he faced was when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, then threatened to move into Saudi Arabia. Vowing to free Kuwait, Bush marshaled a 30-nation coalition and successfully opposed Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. President Bush graciously agreed to be interviewed at his office on the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine. His easygoing grace and wit during the interview often had everyone in the room laughing. A brass plaque across from his desk reads CAVU, or “ceiling and visibility unlimited,” and is one hint of his naval aviation career’s importance to his later life. Despite a long and distinguished political career filled with many achievements, Bush still treasures his years in the Navy as one of the best times of his life, and has said the commissioning of the carrier bearing his name “means everything“ to him.

14 H CVN 77

Bush interview 12.15.indd 14

12/15/08 4:08:03 PM


interview

Freedom at Work: The commissioning of USS George H.W. Bush is unique in that, not only will you be there to see it, but also that you were a naval aviator and, to the crew, you’re one of them. What are your feelings on having this carrier named for you? President George H.W. Bush: Well, it’s very emotional for me, because the three years that I was in the Navy meant everything to me and it was very important. I was a young, scared kid, but I went into the Navy at 18 years old, my 18th birthday, and emerged three years later a mature guy, reasonably mature, and I loved the Navy, I loved naval aviation, and I am deeply honored to have this carrier named for me.

George Bush Presidential Library and Museum

It’s a far cry from San Jacinto, the carrier you served aboard when you were in the Navy. You certainly have been on an American supercarrier since then. What sort of contrasts are there, and what do you think has endured as far as service on a carrier? Well, I think the spirit of naval aviation has endured and will continue to endure. Mechanically, the contrast is enormous between a big carrier like this and the CVL 30 [San Jacinto], the one I was on. The deck is wider. We had no canted deck … it was all straight: If you missed the wire, you ended up in a steel barrier. So the mechanics of them were different. The speed of the planes is much different. We could bring ours in fairly slow. The deck is much more stable than our deck was. Some things stay the same. The spirit of naval aviation stays the same. The thrill of getting in a landing pattern and coming around and landing, I’m sure it’s the same, although I’ve never done that; though I’ve landed on a carrier with an arresting wire there was a difference – it was just as a passenger. There are similarities, but there are big differences: the differences lie in technology; the ship itself; navigational devices, which we had almost none; and the actual arresting operation, which has changed and matured. I think it’s been made much easier. But it’s all flying an airplane and trying to land on a small target. But I’ll tell you, it means everything to me that this ship has been named after me. I have read that after the original USS Houston was sunk in the battle of Sunda Strait, there was a collection taken up by the citizens of Texas to build a new Houston, and that there was so much money contributed that the excess paid for the San Jacinto.

I have not heard that. There were several others, the [Independence-class light carriers with] a converted cruiser hull, converted with a deck on top of it. They had a very narrow hull, narrower deck, than an [Essex-class fleet (CV)] aircraft carrier. This being a cruiser, it could run with the fast carriers. Unlike an escort carrier, a CVE, the CVL was a fast ship, and we operated it with two CVs and another CVL, in a task force usually of four carriers. I don’t know about the financing of it; I had heard something like that but I don’t know if it’s true or not. Have you ever thought that even then, in your young life, there were those connections to Texas?

CVN 77 H 15

Bush interview 12.15.indd 15

12/15/08 4:08:16 PM


maginst on temp.indd 1

5/7/08 3:39:49 PM


interview

George Bush Presidential Library and Museum

USS San Jacinto (CVL 30), the Independence-class light carrier that future president George H.W. Bush served aboard. No, I hadn’t really dwelt on that at all, but I’ll tell you, my going down to get my wings at Corpus Christi gave me an insight into Texas and that weighed on me when I had to determine where to go to make a living. I mean I liked Texas and I wanted to go back to Texas. I didn’t know it very well, just from being a naval aviation cadet at however many fields around Corpus. When World War II began for Americans, after Pearl Harbor, you were still at Andover, you had been accepted to Yale, you didn’t have to enlist. What motivated you to do it? To serve my country. It was clear that this was going to be a major conflict and would last for some time, and I

was just motivated by wanting to serve and never had any regrets about it. None. Then when the war ended, I was lucky to get out on … points, and then went to college. When you went off to pre-flight school, near Chapel Hill in North Carolina, what was your impression on meeting and training with all these other inductees from all over the country? Well, you know, I had led what many considered a sheltered life, properly considered a sheltered life, and I didn’t know anybody. I don’t think I knew one single person when I got on that train in New York that was going down to Chapel Hill. But I quickly made friends. I was the youngest guy, it was my 18th birthday, but it

CVN 77 H 17

Bush interview 12.15.indd 17

12/15/08 4:08:53 PM


mclanegroup on temp.indd 1

5/29/08 3:28:14 PM


interview

George Bush Presidential Library and Museum

George H.W. Bush in the cockpit of his TBF Avenger during World War II. The large size of the torpedo-bomber is evident.

was a wonderful group of people, all motivated by the same thing, wanting to serve their country, and I made a lot of friends. There were a lot of different backgrounds represented there, but nobody gave a damn whether your father had money. In my case, my father was successful on Wall Street, probably the last thing I’d want them to know, and you were just accepted for what you were. That seems to come up a lot from people who served with you, that they didn’t know your background initially. It seems like you wanted to be taken at face value.

Well, it gave me more of an understanding of the real world. Everybody had families, everybody’s family was concerned about the service of my squadron mates and others in naval aviation, and so there was a commonality there that transcended family background. Properly so. And it was very revealing to me, having come from a rather cloistered background. Earlier you were talking about technology and how it’s changed over the years; for a generation of young men and women serving on this carrier who only know jets, I wonder if you could describe the first aircraft you soloed in. How was it constructed, and what were the landing and take-off speeds?

Well, I think that’s true, and I hope that’s the case. How do you think meeting these people from different walks of life affected your public service later on?

The first one I soloed in was an N2S Stearman. It had an open cockpit, two-place, with an instructor in the front and the cadet in the back, and the first solo was a huge thrill. It’s all so different now, the technology.

CVN 77 H 19

Bush interview 12.15.indd 19

12/15/08 5:15:24 PM


5)&,*/(%0.0'

4"6%*"3"#*" $0/(3"56-"5&4

1 3 & 4 * % & / 5 ( & 0 3 ( &  )  8  # 6 4 ) 0/ 5)&

$0..*44*0/*/( 0' 6 4 4 ( & 0 3 ( &  )  8  # 6 4 )

/03'0-, 7*3(*/*" +"/6"3:  Ç° F  3PZ B M  & N C B T T Z  P G  4B V E J  " S B C J B 8B T I J O H U P O  % $

kingdomsaR on temp.indd 1

12/9/08 4:02:43 PM


interview

George Bush Presidential Library and Museum

Downed pilots rescued by USS Finback shown with the officers of the Finback. Rescued pilots and crew: front row (kneeling), left to right: Ensign Tom Keene, USS Enterprise; Ensign George H.W. Bush, USS San Jacinto; Ensign James Beckman, USS Enterprise; Crewman Stovall, USS Enterprise; Crewman Dougherty, USS Enterprise. Officer Complement, USS Finback (SS 230), back row (standing), left to right: Lt. James Griswold, Lt. j.g. William H. Parkman, Lt. j.g Jack Peat, Ensign William Edwards, Lt. Cmdr. Dean Spratlin, Lt. Cmdr. R.R. Heyworth, Lt. Jerry Redmond, Lt. j.g. Ollie Brostrom. Circa September 1944.

But it was low and slow and a biplane – two wings, a very stable aircraft. I remember making a solo night landing, out in Wold-Chamberlain [Field], and I got too low and the wheels on my plane crushed the top of a tree. It scared the hell out of me, and it could have easily flipped over. But it was a stable aircraft and it could recover from something like that. So, you know, you had to pull the propeller through and had to get out there and freeze in the open cockpit. There’s a picture circulating in the annals of my Navy life that I hope never resurfaces that shows me with a frozen face. You had to wear a leather face mask because it was so icy cold out there in Minnesota.

Yes, [the Stearman is] a fabric plane, like a model airplane. But it was a good plane, a steady plane; you learned to do your acrobatics in it. It was safe; you could get it out of a spin and you learned the fundamentals of what you might call acrobatic flying in that airplane. It was a safe plane to recover from a spin, for example, and learning that was good to know when you’ve got a more advanced aircraft.

But the Stearman was a wood- and fabriccovered aircraft?

Oh, yeah. You could choose what you wanted to be. That happened at the next stop down in Corpus Christi.

Was there a process at that time, according to how you were doing in flight school, that would decide whether you were going to fly a multi-engine aircraft, fighter, torpedo-bomber, or other aircraft?

CVN 77 H 21

Bush interview 12.15.indd 21

12/15/08 4:09:35 PM


AbilityOne Honors AbilityOne honors the commissioning of the USS George H.W. Bush CVN 77 and nearly two decades of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H.W. Bush. Providing employment to more than 40,000 people, the AbilityOne Program is the largest single source of jobs for people who are blind or have other severe disabilities in the United States. For more about the nationwide AbilityOne network, visit AbilityOne.org.

nish on temp.indd 1

5/14/08 1:00:10 PM


interview

You went there for advanced or intermediate training. I forget what it was called, but it was there they asked if you wanted to be a fighter pilot or a torpedo-bomber pilot, seaplane pilot, whatever. For some reason being a torpedo pilot appealed to me. I wasn’t particularly good at acrobatics, didn’t like it that much. I had to do it, had to qualify, but torpedo-bombers just seemed real exciting, and the big planes we flew I was told – I hadn’t flown it but I was told – were very stable, and proved to be so – the TBM and TBF. It was a really good choice. I forget what my roommates chose, whether they wanted to be fighter pilots – that was the main difference, the main choice – fighter pilots or torpedo-bomber pilots. They had dive-bombing too, SBDs – so, I made the right choice. You spoke about the Avenger. What was your first impression? Can you describe the aircraft for somebody who’s not familiar with it? The biggest single engine aircraft in the fleet. The biggest aircraft in the fleet, period. It was a stable aircraft. You could slow it down on landing, which was good for coming aboard the carrier, get down to 80 knots, something like that, don’t quote me on that number … but it was a large wing and a very stable wing, which made it easier to land in rough weather and things like that. It was a great big thing, heavy plane, three-place, pilot, turret gunner, and tail gunner, and I was very pleased that I was in that airplane. It was the workhorse of the fleet. Was it responsive on the controls or was it kind of truck-like?

George Bush Presidential Library and Museum

It was heavier than a fighter plane. I checked out on the Corsair, the F4U, which, of course, was considered to be a real hot airplane. I didn’t land that on a carrier, just flew it, but there was a night and day difference. You had to use the trim tabs a lot on it for landing, but it was a pretty responsive airplane. Today, it is fairly uncommon for a naval aviator to have a mishap, such as a ramp strike, or having to ditch. But from what I’ve read, you had a few close calls, several emergency landings with duff engines, and a ditching. Would you be able to talk about any of that? Well, in ... June 1944, our ship came under attack, and we had to get the planes off. We got them off, I was in the air, and my plane hadn’t

properly warmed up, there was no oil pressure, so I had to decide to try to come back aboard the ship. They wouldn’t take me on because the deck was cluttered, and so I went around and landed in the water, but the sea was pretty calm. I was a little concerned because I had four 500-pound depth charges in the body of my ship, and they weren’t armed, but here you are landing in front of your own fleet, you don’t want to blow up your own fleet. That would not have been good, but they went off way, way, way, way down deep in the Pacific.

Lt. j.g. George H.W. Bush in the cockpit of an Avenger aboard USS San Jacinto.

CVN 77 H 23

Bush interview 12.15.indd 23

12/15/08 4:09:59 PM


interview

Former President George H.W. Bush in his Kennebunkport office.

Is that why they called the N2S the Yellow Peril? [Laughs] No, this was in a TBF. It might have been the same thing in the Yellow Peril, I don’t know that I did there, otherwise I might have been washed out. And then, of course, the big one was Sept. 2, 1944, when I was shot down. That’s all been documented, but it was scary. …

As you said, the Sept. 2, 1944, mission has been fairly welldocumented and I want to go past that to when you came back to flying. You had obviously lost friends and even in training there were people who were crashing and you lost friends that way, but there’s an account where, after returning to the squadron, you were flying a strike on shipping in Manila Bay, and one of your crew told you that flak had blown a hole in one wing, and you were said to have responded, “You’re right, there’s a hole in the wing.” And then you went in for a second attack. Well, I don’t remember being quite that heroic, but the plane was hit, I think, and we made it back to the carrier all right. Do you think you’d had enough experience, having gone through so much at that point, that it wasn’t as …

How did you feel taking off on your first combat mission?

Traumatic? Yeah, I don’t – frankly, I don’t remember it as vividly as I do Sept. 2, obviously. It was hostile, you could see the flak, but I don’t remember the details of it, and I don’t want to make them up.

Scared. Why not admit it? Everybody else was too, I think. The first combat mission was at Wake Island, and we didn’t know what to expect, but it wasn’t a terribly hostile environment, so we got that one out of the way.

You are one of a fairly small group of naval aviators that have experienced a war patrol in a submarine, as well, and considering there is a traditional rivalry between carrier sailors and submarine sailors, what did you come away with after that experience?

Photo by Ross Jobson

So that was scary, but on that one, the crewmen didn’t even get wet, they just stepped out of the turret and climbed onto the wing or to the life raft we had and paddled away. The plane went down and we went over to get rescued by a destroyer. It was a scary experience. We just wanted to be sure we did it right, and the sea was a calm sea state, like today, so it wasn’t a big heroic adventure. But it was ... well, you never know, you get it done and that was the first real close experience like that. I had a couple of ground loops in training, did in a wing or two on these planes.

24 H CVN 77

Bush interview 12.15.indd 24

12/15/08 4:10:17 PM


interview

Great respect for the submarine service. It was terrifying. In the plane, you’re controlling – to a degree you control your own destiny. Sitting in a submarine – they put us up in the wardroom and said, “You guys stay here” – two other pilots were on the submarine when we were depthcharged and all that. We got bombed by a Nell bomber, we got depthcharged by God knows what, and it was scary, I was scared. It shook … and this wardroom guy, not a particularly well-educated fellow, said, “I like that.” I said, “What do you like about it?” [He said,] “That means they won’t come any closer, when they get in that close, they won’t come any closer.” Wham! Another one came in. It was just unbelievable. You were confined, you couldn’t move, but overall, I have great respect for the service. Our skipper, [Capt. Robert R.] Williams, on that submarine, got decorated big time – pretty high decoration, Silver Star or something like that – for sinking Japanese tonnage when I was on there, and he let me come look through the periscope to see the Japanese ships that [we] were about to launch a torpedo at. It was very exciting, and it was a very disciplined crew. They became great friends. We all met ashore when we [got to Pearl Harbor.] They let me off at Midway, and I flew back, then hitchhiked down to Pearl Harbor to a rest home, and then I caught up with the submarine crew when the submarine came in. I went down, and we knew it was coming into port, and then we went out, all those good old boys and a couple of the air guys. How do you think your experiences during the war affected the moments in your presidency when you had to send young Americans into battle? Well, I think it made me more sensitive to the awesome responsibility. I mean, sending somebody’s kid to war is the toughest decision that a president makes by far, and only he can do it; there’s nobody to blame, you can’t do it by committee. The ultimate responsibility is your own. So it felt, I never felt kind of dramatic about it, but I knew that that was the way it worked and yet you had to proceed anyway. We sent troops down to Panama, we sent troops of course for Desert Storm, and [with] all of those, the buck stopped there and properly so. I always felt it was less bad because I had very good people whose advice I listened to, but they couldn’t pull the trigger, they couldn’t make the decision. I knew when we went to war in the Gulf that very sensible men and women felt that we should go ahead and that this was the thing to do. That was very reassuring. Congress didn’t. We had to fight and battle Congress on Desert Storm. They made it a partisan political vote if you can believe that. I think that the vote was 53-47, or something like that, and we managed to peel off a handful of Democratic votes. But the leader, George Mitchell, made it a partisan vote. Even good defense people like Sam Nunn voted against giving the president the authority granted him under the U.N. resolution. So that made it more difficult, but we did it right, got the United Nations resolutions. I had confidence in the military and that confidence was properly placed. You’ve got to remember back in that time, after the Vietnam experience, people were thinking, “Well, the damn military can’t do anything right.” Well, sure enough we set the record straight on that. Someday, fairly soon, it’s not unlikely that there will be young men and women launched into battle from the carrier that bears your name. What would you want to tell them? Do your duty, serve with honor, and have confidence in the greatest country in the world. It might be that that would happen, no question,

but they should also know that the U.S. Navy will do everything in its power to find them and keep them safe. That was reassuring to me when I was floating down under a parachute. Having parachuted into the sea, I knew that. I’m not sure if I knew I was going to be safe, but I knew that if it was in their power, the Navy would do what it could to save my little 19-year-old, 20-year-old life. I think that kids flying today have got to know that that’s the way the Navy works and they’ll go the extra mile to support an individual – not just pilots, that’s the crewmen or whoever else it is. It was a wonderful thing that the Finback happened to be pretty close by. Very. And I didn’t know whether it was or not. I just sent out a coded message that we were in trouble. We knew there was a rescue sub in the area; we didn’t know what the name of it was; I didn’t know if it was the only one in the general area. I knew there was a submarine diverted from its war patrol that would be on rescue duty. And lo and behold there they were. Thank God. It wasn’t that long ago that there was a story in Naval History magazine, with a picture of you on the cover, and the headline on the magazine read something like, “Why Me, Why Did I Survive?” I wonder, after all you’ve accomplished in your life, do you still ask that question? Yeah. I still wonder because these two kids were killed with me. I’ve still, you know, gotten on with my life, but I have certainly food for thought there. Well, you hit your head on the way out of the aircraft; you might have been a casualty as well. Yeah, I hit it on the horizontal stabilizer going out. I’m not too proud of that because I pulled the rip cord too early going out of the plane, forgot to unhook the radio lead, and I finally got that unhooked. Though you were supposed to dive out of the plane, I did on the starboard side, but I guess I was scared. I pulled the rip cord early and hit my head a glancing blow on the tail, and the chute temporarily got hung up on the tail; it must have, because I looked up as I was floating down, three or four of the panels were ripped out, and the chute was accelerating faster than it should to float me gently down to sea. It was a close call. That was my own fault. I didn’t do that right. How do you feel about the Navy League’s role in the commissioning and in its initiatives for the Navy at large? The Navy League of the United States, and specifically the Hampton Roads Council, has been instrumental in bringing this ship into the fleet. They have held true to their core mission. The Hampton Roads Council has tremendous experience in working closely with the Navy on many initiatives that include commissionings. The commissioning team will have provided many upgrades that will improve life aboard the carrier when it deploys. All of this is done with private funding. They recognize the importance and the magnitude of placing a highly skilled crew together to man the Navy’s most advanced warship. I am honored that they have continued this outstanding support for CVN 77.

CVN 77 H 25

Bush interview 12.15.indd 25

12/15/08 4:11:00 PM


interview

Interview: Dorothy Bush Koch, Ship’s Sponsor By Charles Oldham

orothy Bush Koch, known as Doro, is a Houston, Texas, native who currently lives in Bethesda, Md. She is the daughter of President George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush and is married to Robert “Bobby” Koch, president and CEO of Wine Institute. The Koches have four children – 12-year-old Gigi, 15-year-old Robert, 22-year-old Ellie, and 24-year-old Sam. Koch earned a bachelor’s degree from Boston College. She is involved in various community activities. She serves on the board for the National Rehabilitation Hospital in Washington, D.C., where she formerly worked in the development office. The hospital specializes in treating people with physical disabilities caused by spinal cord and head injuries, stroke, arthritis, amputation, multiple sclerosis, post-polio syndrome, and other neurological and orthopedic conditions. Koch also has an interest in education and serves on the board for the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy. The foundation’s mission is to establish literacy as a value in America by helping every family in the nation understand that the home is the child’s first school, that the parent is the child’s first teacher, and that reading is the child’s first subject. The foundation supports the development of family literacy programs where parents and children can learn and read together. Koch is the founder of the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy Maryland Initiative, which raises money to support family literacy programs all over the state of Maryland. Koch is the author of My Father, My President: A Personal Account of the Life of George H.W. Bush, published by Time Warner Books.

Courtesy of Dorothy Bush Koch

D

26 H CVN 77

interview doro bush.indd 26

12/15/08 4:11:25 PM


interview

Freedom at Work: How did you come to be the ship’s sponsor? Doro Bush Koch: Well, my dad asked me to be the ship’s sponsor. It’s traditionally a woman, I am my dad’s only daughter, so he asked me to do it. What does being a sponsor entail? What sort of things have you been doing? It entails generally having a relationship with the ship and its crew. I was at the laying of the keel, where I made some remarks, and I was at the christening of the ship. I recently sent a letter to the crew, and have given them an e-mail address so that we can correspond, before the commissioning and after the commissioning, so that I can be in touch with them and know what life is like on the George H.W. Bush. So far, that’s what my responsibilities have been and it has been a lot of fun. Also, I am working on getting books donated to the library/chapel on the ship from authors I have worked with through the Barbara Bush Foundation. I plan to bring “A Celebration of Reading” to the ship. The Celebration is what we do at the Barbara Bush Foundation. It’s our fundraiser where we raise money for family literacy programs. We have best-selling authors do readings and we give out their books. On the ship, it would simply be for the crew – not a fundraiser. But it would promote the importance of literacy. The ship’s crew already volunteer in a local school reading and mentoring, and United Through Reading is working with the ship on a program where parents will be able to read books to their children on video and send them home. My hope is that the George H.W. Bush will be an “Ambassador of Literacy” throughout the world. What do you feel like you have learned about the Navy and sailors in your experience so far? First, I am just amazed at how the Navy, along with Northrop Grumman, can build an enormous city on water. It’s incredible to have seen a ship progress through the different stages; the enormity of the task of putting this thing together. It’s been interesting to watch the captain put together the crew and how it has grown over time. The military does everything so precisely and so beautifully. I have also enjoyed seeing how the military has honored my dad. This is a huge deal for him, to be alive and to see a ship named for him, and he himself is a proud Navy man and was commander in chief and commander of all the armed services. So those have been impressive things. I mentioned that to your father as well. Carriers have been named after presidents before. But in this case, not only, as you said, was your father commander in chief, but he is a former naval aviator, and I would imagine that means a lot to him.

It does. It really does. He spent some time on an aircraft carrier, a very different kind of aircraft carrier than the ones being built today, but it just means the world to him. He thinks about it. We talk about it a lot and he is really excited about it. I imagine that the contrasts are pretty strong, as you said, between the carrier he served aboard and the one that is being built now. Yes. I mean, from the length of the flight deck to the capabilities, just the little things that you don’t think of on a regular basis like the cable – how many miles and miles of cable line there are, or all the details of an aircraft carrier today are just so mind-boggling really. I was struck in reading your book, My Father, My President, by what people who would have been, I guess, your father’s political enemies said about him. It seems that despite their differences, they all show tremendous respect and even affection for him. Why do you think that is? My dad is a person who has more friends than anybody I know because he tends to look at the positive side of people. I mean, he just has a great way with people. He is very charismatic and genuinely likes people no matter who they are. His friendship with Bill Clinton is a case in point. They are two diametrically opposite people [laughs] and they are good friends. I never thought that I would see the day that Bill Clinton would come and spend time at our home in Kennebunkport, Maine. It wasn’t any different when he was in public service; he worked closely with people on the other side of the isle. He was genuinely friendly with Tip O’Neill and people like that. He and Geraldine Ferraro just appeared together on a news show because of the difficulty of male/female debating [in reference to the Sarah Palin/Joseph Biden vice presidential debate]. She had nothing but incredibly nice things to say about him, because my dad is a gentleman; he is a kind person; he is a people person; he loves people. In your book, you document your father’s feelings about sending young men and women into battle, considering his own experience of war. It must have been very difficult for him to commence Operations Just Cause and Desert Storm as a president when he knew, as a young man, realistically what the cost might be. That’s true. He always said that the hardest decision he had to make as president was that one, and he knew, as a very young man – he was 18 when he enlisted – what it was like to be very scared and to leave your family, and so he knew firsthand what a decision like that would mean, and it was a tough call to make.

CVN 77 H 27

interview doro bush.indd 27

12/15/08 4:11:34 PM


interview

“There are still people out there who want to serve their country and who believe that this kind of service is noble and good. I really admire our military today. I think they are an incredible bunch of people and we should honor them more.” In meeting the young men and women who are going to be aboard this ship, do you think that the spirit and patriotism that motivated your father to join the Navy more than 60 years ago still survives today? I think so, from some of the e-mails that I have received already from different crewmembers. They tell me why they enlisted and how excited they are to be on the George H.W. Bush, and I have to believe that it has to be similar. There are still people out there who want to serve their country and who believe that this kind of service is noble and good. I really admire our military today. I think they are an incredible bunch of people and we should honor them more. When sailors go aboard this ship, they will, at least, know the high points of the biography of the person for whom their ship is named, but what would you want them to know about your father that is not in that standard biography? I would want them to know that he cares about each and every one of them, that he appreciates their service; that he knows the importance of family, and how difficult it is to leave your family, and how important it is to care for their family while they are away. I hope to be a part of some of that and be involved in some of the programs that are part of this whole endeavor. I would want people to know that he was a guy who was proud to be a public servant, who really cared about his country just as they do. When you mentioned that you wanted to stay involved with the ship and its crew, is that a standard thing for a ship’s sponsor? No! It really is not. When I thought of the e-mail idea, no sponsor has ever done anything like that, so I was excited that that was one thing I could do. There is a society of sponsors and I think it can be ceremonial, but I think you can be creative and do more with it, which is what I hope to do. And the e-mails that I have received I sent to my dad, and we both answered them. So I think that is kind of a fun way to stay in touch, and hear what is going on, and people’s concerns. So, after the commissioning, I am hoping that there will be more things that I can do. I hope to go visit. I think that would be amazing. I am going to keep on thinking of ways, but I am just so honored that my dad

asked me that I hope to make the most of whatever this role can be. I was going to say that it seems to me the sort of thing your father would do. Yes. He is excited about it and I hope that the crew will know what this means to him. Because, you might think the president is famous, he gets things named for him all the time, but this is really special to him. Again, it seems that this is a situation where there is this connection of sailors being able to understand or maybe feel more of a connection with someone who has gone through the same things that they are going through. Not just the aspect of going into battle but the fatigue, the long work hours, the danger of working aboard an aircraft carrier, not just for the air crew but for the young men and women who work on the flight deck or down in engineering. I would hope that they would feel even more of a connection with your father because of that, in contrast to serving aboard a ship that has been named after the first president of the United States or the 16th. I think so. I think the fact that Dad is around and showing up for all these preliminary events that happen before the ship goes to sea, that kind of thing, [builds] that personal relationship going on with their namesake. That really makes for a strong connection to what they are doing on that ship, I think. He will probably go visit the ship when it’s out somewhere when he can. I’d imagine that it would be an amazing thing to go back and stand aboard the ship that has been named for you and watch young men and women doing what you did so many years ago. I think that’s very true. Is there anything else that you would like to add? I am just so touched and honored to be part of it and I really look forward to all the different ways I can participate in the life of the ship.

28 H CVN 77

interview doro bush.indd 28

12/15/08 5:18:04 PM


Doro Bush Koch

Ship Sponsor salutes her mother & America’s First Lady of Literacy

Barbara Bush on the 20th anniversary of the

Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy

T

he mission of the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy has not changed from

the very first day my mother opened its doors. Although much progress has been made, America’s literacy challenges are still great. The Barbara Bush Foundation will continue to work to make literacy a value in every family, and to support programs in which parents and children learn and read together.

T

hanks to my mother and the generous support from so many, thousands of parents

and children who were without the most basic literacy skills can now read, write and comprehend.

Inspired by her mother, Doro Bush Koch founded the Maryland Initiative of the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, along with her sister-in-law, Tricia Reilly Koch in 2003. The Maryland Initiative will hold its 6th annual Celebration of Reading on May 11, 2009. For more information, call 800-222-5652, or go to www.barbarabushfoundation.com.

barbarabush on temp.indd 1

12/2/08 10:32:38 AM


interview

Interview: Capt. Louis P. “Lou” Lalli, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Commissioning Chairman and President, Navy League of the United States, Hampton Roads Council By John D. Gresham

or those fortunate enough to attend the commissioning of USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), the day will be a ceremony and spectacle unlikely to be seen again. A father and son, one a former president and the other the sitting chief executive, will be in attendance, speaking to a crowd of more than 25,000. What few of those present will know, however, is that while the U.S. Navy will be an active participant, a nonprofit civilian group will be making the event possible: the Navy League of the United States. Leading this event will be the commissioning chairman, Capt. Louis P. “Lou” Lalli, U.S. Navy (Ret.), president of the Hampton Roads Council of the Navy League. Lalli, whose day job is that of director of operations for Boeing for Naval and Joint Commands, is a native of Philadelphia, Pa. He entered the Navy in 1968 and began his Navy career as the events coordinator and interim announcer for the Blue Angels flight demonstration team. Lalli spent most of his 27-year career as a naval aviator, with more than 4,500 flight hours and 1,000 arrested landings in A-6 Intruders and F-4 Phantom IIs. The Navy League’s Hampton Roads Council has sponsored 21 commissionings, and many months of work go into each one. But the Navy League doesn’t just do commissionings; it provides many services and programs for Navy personnel and their families such as ship enhancements, and Lalli takes pride not only in the work he and his Hampton Roads Council team have done to make the entire process of commissioning USS George H.W. Bush run smoothly, but in the many things the Navy League Hampton Roads Council does for the Navy every day.

Photo courtesy of Navy League

F

30 H CVN 77

lalli interview.indd 30

12/10/08 12:52:08 PM


interview

Freedom at Work: How did you start out with the Navy League? Lou Lalli: One thing we were encouraged to do at Boeing is to become active in the communities in which we live and work, especially contributing to the community via nonprofit organizations. So, I became a member of the Association of Naval Aviation [ANA], and then I joined the local Navy League council. As an active member of the service, you’re not allowed to join the Navy League because of its activities in the legislative arena. I then worked my way up, starting on the board of directors and on the executive board and was elected three years ago to be the organization’s president. As the commissioning chairman for USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), what is your perspective on the naming of this carrier, and how significant is it? I wouldn’t want to marginalize in any way that he was the 41st president and our commander in chief, but he is the first naval aviator who has had an aircraft carrier named after him. He was also a carrier pilot during World War II, who was recognized for his heroism with a Distinguished Flying Cross as a result of his actions during the bombing of the island of Chichi Jima in 1944. As a former president and commander in chief, it obviously makes him much more eligible, but if ever there was a carrier named after someone, I couldn’t think of a better former naval aviator and person than George H.W. Bush. As commissioning committee chairman, what role have you and the Navy League Hampton Roads Council played in this commissioning of George H.W. Bush thus far? We basically serve as the nucleus of the committee. There are honorary chairmen, three sons of the former President Bush: Neil, Jeb, and Marvin; and a list of luminaries such as former Vice President Dan Quayle and Secretary of State Colin Powell, who are honorary members. Our major task is to raise funds to provide shipboard enhancements for the crew of CVN 77, as well as all the major events associated with the commissioning. These include the Sponsor’s Luncheon, the Honorary Reception, Precommissioning Breakfast, the reception before the Crew’s Reception, and the Cruise Reception. I’m happy to say we just secured comedian and host of The Tonight Show Jay Leno to perform at the reception. All the ship enhancements and the events cannot be supported by public funds – they are funded by private donations that have been collected by the finance committee. The lion’s share of the donations we’ve received have come from the Honorable Jim Cicconi, the deputy chief of staff of the White House under the president, and his deputy chairman, Mr. David Jones, from Houston, Texas. We also have received significant donations from

the defense sector, but also many other people from all over the U.S. who want to get involved and support the military. All our committee members are volunteers led by our executive director, Maryellen Baldwin. When you think about all the subcommittees and arrangements and logistics associated with the commissioning events – 25,000 people or more attend all the commissioning ceremonies – you can imagine all the scheduling and logistics involved. Especially those related to the ship enhancements and coordination with the Navy to be sure that all the ethics rules, regulations, and laws are followed and everything is done in the manner of form befitting a former president and the major ship in the line of U.S. Navy. What makes this commissioning different from others that you’ve been involved with? It’s an absolute privilege and honor. To have a former, living, and very active president and commander in chief who was also a World War II naval aviation combat hero and recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross to be there from every aspect of the ship’s evolution has been amazing. He’s attended most of the events associated with the ship from the naming and keel laying ceremonies, to the day when he and Capt. Kevin O’Flaherty placed their naval aviator wings down onto the deck and the 700-ton island structure was lowered over those wings. He also came down and served as the catapult officer – he actually gave the signal when Newport News Shipbuilding [part of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding], did the first deadweight catapult shots last January. President George W. Bush has reportedly made the comment that “… this ship has given my father extra years of life.” What are your thoughts on that? I believe that. He’s [George H.W. Bush] looking forward to going on the first fleet trials of the ship, so he can watch the crew start to mature, and the ship turn into 90,000 tons of diplomacy. What are “ship enhancements,” and how do they add value to the life of the crew? Also, how do you manage the funding and installations of these with all of the U.S. Navy bureaucracy involved? It’s a challenge, but an awful lot of fun. This is a capital warship built and provided to the U.S. Department of Defense under a contract with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding with stringent government-defined specifications. It has most of the modern conveniences that you would associate with a very large ship, and is a modern city afloat. It’s very comfortable, a hospitable environment to live in when a crew of almost 6,000 is embarked. However, public monies cannot be used to provide the quality-of-life enhancements that help to make life a little nicer and easier. That is where the Navy League comes in.

CVN 77 H 31

lalli interview.indd 31

12/10/08 12:52:22 PM


When Quality Counts

Guaranteed for Life.

Tactical Flotation ● Bags ● Packs ● Load Bearing Equipment ● Tactical Gear ● Pouches London Bridge Trading Company (LBT) is committed to designing and manufacturing the finest tactical load bearing equipment on the planet. LBT serves the DOD, supporting the entire special military operations community, Homeland Defense, and many Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement agencies. LBT manufactures exclusively in the continental United States providing the finest in medical, EOD, tactical flotation and a wide variety of load bearing nylon equipment. LBT is active in the research and development of innovative and effective ways to provide our users with solutions to their equipment needs.

Partners In Protecting Our Nation’s Most Valuable Assets – One Life At A Time. www.londonbridgetrading.com ADS is an exclusive provider of LBT Products. Contact us for more information or order our Tactical Products Catalog online. 800.948.9433 • WWW.ADSTACTICAL.COM

WORLDWIDE DLA PRIME VENDOR • DOD EMALL • GSA CONTRACT HOLDER © 2008 LBT Photo courtesy of US Navy.

ads on temp.indd 1

3/20/08 6:49:07 PM


interview

“I feel the same way that most of my team feels: it’s been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life.” There are all different types of enhancements, such as improvements that are made to the ship’s library and chapel. One of our major sponsors, who is selling an estate, is about to donate his entire collection of books to the ship in addition to a generous donation of funds – we receive a lot of donations of that kind. We’re also going to upgrade and provide more equipment to the gym, the ship’s media center’s capabilities will be improved, there will be computers provided for a shipboard Learning Center and all kinds of learning technology added. The local ANA squadron here at Hampton Roads is providing a larger-than-life-size bronze statue of the former president as a 20-year-old naval aviator on the ceremonial quarterdeck, looking as though he’s heading to climb into an aircraft ready to fly a mission. It is so lifelike! The Tribute Room will highlight the amazing major global accomplishments of this man, this president, this commander in chief, this citizen of the 20th and 21st centuries, a “tail-hooker,” a World War II hero, a U.S. congressman, a U.N. ambassador, and an envoy to China. To make this all happen, we work with the commanding officer of the Pre-commissioning Unit [in this case Capt. O’Flaherty of Bush] and the Navy’s Judges’ Advocate General Office to be sure we are in complete legal compliance with all laws and statutes. What does it mean to you personally to be the commissioning chairman for USS George H.W. Bush? I feel the same way that most of my team feels: It’s been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. I’ve had the opportunity to work personally with former President Bush, Mrs. Bush, members of his family, his Cabinet members, and other members of his former administration. We’ve worked with the Bush Library at Texas A&M University and members of his current staff. Many years ago, a teacher told me, it’s nice to be important, but that it’s more important to be nice. George H.W. Bush epitomizes that statement. He’s kind; he’s caring. When you talk with him about this new warship, you have his undivided attention and he is conveying to you how he feels about one of the most important things in his life – all this to little old me, a retired Navy captain, being treated like someone special. I’ve been to Kennebunkport [Maine]; they invited me to go to lunch with them at College Station, they brought me into his home and office. You’re in awe that you’re there with a former leader of the free world, but he personally never has that air. He just exudes being “normal,” and sometimes it is hard to explain. You can see his eyes light up when you talk about politics, golf, family, and friends, because he’s totally

dedicated to all of them. The whole family and staff exude the same type of feeling because of having the opportunity and privilege of being around him. Can you tell us about the Navy League’s roles and mission? In 1902, the Navy League was formed at the encouragement of former President Theodore Roosevelt. Our mission is to foster and maintain an interest in a strong sea service – the Coast Guard, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and Merchant Marine – as integral parts of a sound national defense that’s vital to the freedom of the United States. We also want to inform and educate the American people in the role of sea power in the nuclear age, and the overall role of defenses in the dangerous age in which we live. Navy League also wants to improve the understanding and appreciation for the individuals who wear the uniform of our four sea services, and promote better understanding of the conditions under which they serve. We want to also provide support to the Reserve forces in our local communities, and see them grow. We also sponsor and are also active in the Naval Sea Cadet Program to educate and train our youth about the four sea services. We want to become strong advocates for those in uniform and support the policies of sea services. What other sorts of things, other commissionings, does the Navy League do?

than

We’re involved in legislative affairs in support of the sea services, support, and work with many nonprofit organizations on the local and national level, and publish our magazine, SEAPOWER. In the local Hampton Roads area, we are involved in numerous community awards and recognition programs for many of the local sea service commands. We sponsor workshops for spouses and dependents, along with occupying many spots on various boards of directors. Finally, we sponsor continuing efforts like Operation Homecoming and the Wounded Warrior program, the U.S. Fleet Forces Command Sailor of the Year program, and many sea service-related scholarship funds. Who is allowed membership in the Navy League and how do they join? Any citizen of the United States who is interested in the sea services can join. The only exceptions are activeduty military personnel who cannot participate because of our involvement in legislative activities. You can apply right online, quickly and easily, at http://www.navyleague.org.

CVN 77 H 33

lalli interview.indd 33

12/10/08 12:52:31 PM


usnavymR on temp.indd 1

12/9/08 11:10:20 AM


interview

Shipbuilder:

An Interview with Mike Petters, President, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding By John D. Gresham

Courtesy of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding

D

Corporate Vice President of Northrop Grumman and President of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding Mike Petters.

espite public perceptions otherwise, there are still some leaders of American businesses who make a living by running companies that build real things and deliver them to customers. Despite the growth of the service and information economies here in the United States, there are a few places where heavy industry still flourishes. One of those is military shipbuilding, which remains a bastion for skilled workers like welders, pipe fitters, and electricians. But 21st century shipbuilding also is a place for environmental engineers, computer technicians, and other postindustrial tradesmen. This melding of the old and the new is key to making the shipbuilding business work in this day and age, and the corporate leaders who can do it are a rare breed. One of these leaders is Mike Petters, corporate vice president of Northrop Grumman and the president of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding (NGSB), the melding of three great 20th century shipbuilders into the largest such concern in the world today. Created in 2008 by Northrop Grumman Corporation through the acquisition of Newport News Shipbuilding, Litton Ingalls Shipbuilding, and Avondale Shipbuilding, NGSB builds a greater variety and number of warships for the U.S. Navy than any other company in America. And when the Northrop Grumman board of directors decided who it wanted to lead this massive new industrial concern, it chose Petters, who was already running the massive shipyard at Newport News in the Virginia Tidewater region. Petters is a native of Florida, where he grew up as one of six children in a farming family. It was there he learned the value of national service, and something of the importance of producing things people really need.

CVN 77 H 35

petters interview.indd 35

12/10/08 5:16:38 PM


ARINC Salutes USS GEORGE H.W. BUSH Developing innovative solutions to solve challenges on land, sea, and air is ARINC’s legacy. For the past 80 years, we’ve built communications and navigation systems for our customers. In fact, we helped plan and integrate the C4ISR mission systems for Warfighter capabilities and solutions in USS GEORGE H. W. BUSH. At ARINC, we’re proud to serve our Navy’s warriors. And we salute them.

Our people. Our products. Our solutions.

dedication beyond expectation arinc.com/navy

George H.W.Bush-Ad-2008.indd 1 Arinc on temp.indd 1

12/3/08 11:23:32 AM 12/10/08 12:52:11 PM


interview

Freedom at Work: Please tell us a bit about your origins and how you became so involved with the sea, the military, and shipbuilding. Mike Petters: I was born in Florida in an orange grove community north of Tampa, so I’m a native Floridian. There aren’t many folks who are thirdgeneration Floridians, particularly these days. Dad had orange groves and cattle. Days were full; nothing like growing up on a farm! My dad had a view that everybody that was born in this country was pretty darn lucky to be here and you owed something back to the country. There were six of us; I’m the oldest and all six of us went to college on

– I learned an awful lot that day. I went into the nuclear submarine force, went through all the training pipelines, and served on a ballistic missile submarine that was going in and out of Kings Bay, Ga. It was a great place to be from and I thoroughly enjoyed my time in the Navy. That said, beyond the basics of how these ships operate and beyond gaining the technical background, what I really gained was an appreciation for in the Navy was how much of a full-contact sport leadership is. When you are on a ship with a hundred other folks, everyone is counting on everyone else to make sure the ship stays submerged and stays safe. You very quickly learn how to do “deckplate” leadership. I would venture to say in my observations over my years in corporate America

“I think that the Navy is a forging place for developing your sets of leadership principles for how you want to create teams and accomplish things.” Uncle Sam. I managed to go to the Naval Academy; I have another brother who was a helicopter pilot; I have three brothers who went into the Air Force; one of them is still in the Air Force today, and he is in a place called Kabul, Afghanistan. I have a sister who is in the Army who has been in every combat zone the U.S. has been involved with in the last 15 years. She is a colonel serving in Hawaii right now, getting ready for her next duty station. You came from a very service-oriented family? Dad was in the National Guard, but he was a farmer, no question about it. He was a guy who could walk into an orange grove, look at a leaf and tell you what a tree needed – but one weekend in the month and two weeks out of the year, he was an officer in the National Guard and he would do his drill. Artillery was his specialty, but he did infantry, and even later in his career, he was involved in the setup of a M.A.S.H. [Mobile Army Surgical Hospital] unit. At the time of his retirement, he was the highest-ranking officer in the Florida National Guard Bureau without a college degree. You went to the U.S. Naval Academy, trained as a nuclear-propulsion engineer, and served aboard submarines. Can you tell us how that affected your approach to your civilian job, which has been building, maintaining, and operating warships? I went to the Naval Academy to go into nuclear propulsion – I was a physics major there. I had an opportunity to interview with Adm. [Hyman] Rickover twice in just one day, and it was a learning experience

that the folks who get that kind of experience when they are 22 to 25 years old have a pocketful of experience that our senior corporate executives never, ever get a chance to see. I think that the Navy is a forging place for developing your sets of leadership principles for how you want to create teams and accomplish things. You came out of the Navy, joined Newport News Shipbuilding – the old name – and you started working on the Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine construction program there. What did you bring from the deckplates that made you good at building submarines in the late 1980s? I’m not sure that I, or anyone else, would ever say that I was terribly good at building ships. That said, I’ve had the opportunity to lead some very good folks who taught me a lot about the way ships get built. When I came to the shipyard, I had spent an entire year of my life underwater. I was 27 years old, and had spent one of those years submerged. Not once during that underwater time did I ever think about the quality of a weld, the spacing of a frame, or that a pipe didn’t fit. It never occurred to me as an operator that I should be worried about such things. In the five years that I served [aboard] submarines, I never had to deal with that kind of an issue because of the quality of the construction. So when I came to the shipyard, I had my eyes opened as to how much effort, work, and attention, and all that is done the right way, so the operators don’t have to think about it. That was [a] very eye-opening experience for me. I loved being in the Los Angeles-class program; frankly, we could see [USS] Seawolf [SSN 21] program on the horizon and I knew that someone I had gone to

CVN 77 H 37

petters interview.indd 37

12/10/08 5:16:46 PM


Technology that simply works

Sub-Atlantic is a fast growing business at the forefront of ROV manufacturing technology, offering the widest range of advanced subsea robotics in the world. Passion, enthusiasm and pushing the boundaries underpin everything we do. Commitment to our ongoing R&D programme is the key to our value in the marketplace and enables us to take exciting and unique new products to the market.

• Vessel Hull Inspection • Port Security • Surveillance Operations • Diver Support • Mine Countermeasures • Munitions Detection • Intervention • Deep Water Recovery

Sub-Atlantic Inc. USA, Houston, Texas T: +1 713 329 8730 E: sales@sub-atlantic.com

Sub Atlantic on temp.indd 1

12/5/08 3:15:58 PM


interview

school with would have command of one of the ships that had my fingerprints on it. That was motivation to be sure we got it right. In fact, my roommate at nuclear prototype school, who was a groomsman in my

up one morning and say, “I will be really good at this.” There are great advantages of having absorbed it over a lifetime. Sometimes, starting that absorption when you are young gives you an advantage. I was driving tractors

“I knew when I walked in the door at Newport News that my Navy friends would take these ships into harm’s way and we needed to make sure they had everything they needed.” wedding, was the second commanding officer of the Seawolf. I knew when I walked in the door at Newport News that my Navy friends would take these ships into harm’s way and we needed to make sure they had everything they needed. At age 48, you’re one of the youngest presidents of a major manufacturing concern in America. What’s your vision for it as a part of Northrop Grumman? As far as being young, there are days when I age a lot more quickly! I have spent 20 years in Virginia at Newport News Shipbuilding and now NGSB. I know people throughout the shipyard; I know the shipbuilders – I’ve gone back and forth through the gates with them every day. They are noble Americans and I’m awfully proud to have the opportunity to associate with them. Building ships is hard work. It’s hot work in the summertime and cold work in the winter. These folks, for five generations here at Newport News, have been going back and forth in the shipyard building the ships that America’s Navy needs. I’m pretty proud to say that I put “shipbuilder” on my tax returns. In January of 2008, I was given the chance to take over responsibility also for the shipyards on the Gulf Coast. We also have a facility in Gulf Port, Miss., and a small operation in San Diego [Calif.] at Continental Maritime that does repair. Basically, Northrop Grumman has put shipbuilding all under one roof, and the charge from the board was, “Go figure out how to make shipbuilding as efficient and effective as you possibly can.” All of these operations have been independent for generations, so now we need to ask, “What does it mean to have an integrated operation that is the largest non-governmental employer in three different states?” What value is there in having that community and family involvement in this large business concern that you’re trying to form out of these five business units? There are lots of examples of children going into the same business as their parents. I don’t think you can wake

for my father when I was 10 years old. I would probably be growing oranges today if my dad hadn’t been so adamant about me joining the service. Would you like your kids to work at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding? In fact, my daughter did work in the Newport News shipyard one summer and she does work for Northrop Grumman today in another part of the corporation. We tell our leaders that part of their job is to make this a place that we all would like our kids to work. You are dealing with legacy industrial operations that are building some of the most advanced and complex weapons systems in the world today. Can you please tell us about your business approach and how you reconcile those two realities in the real-world situation of building warships? I fundamentally believe, at the end of the day, somebody, somewhere has to be making something. You can’t just be doing services for everybody. If we’re all doing services for each other, that rat race will come to a grinding halt. For me, watching manufacturing move offshore has been very troubling. Now I’m watching people start to figure out that we ought to bring manufacturing back, and they’re starting to realize that the fact that making things means the start-up costs are going to be much more than they ever thought. They moved offshore only because transportation costs were lower than wage costs and now that is reversed, so we’re looking at bringing it back in. I think that’s very shortsighted and it plays to some of the “quarter-by-quarter” myopia we have in this country. I do think that the advantage and luxury I have as a shipbuilder is that my business is not quarter-by-quarter; it’s measured in years. At the Newport News facility, we just signed a contract for a new class of aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford [CVN 78], the first one [of] which we’ll deliver in 2015. I concede that there are not many businesses out there that can draw their business profile in 2015 with any kind of accuracy, the way we can at Newport News, so that allows me to be a

CVN 77 H 39

petters interview.indd 39

12/15/08 4:12:52 PM


,   /  , " 1   Ê , - 1  / - ° Ê   6 , Ê + 1  /  9° 6/ʈVœ“Ê`œiؽÌʓ>ŽiʓÕV…ʘœˆÃi°Ê7iʵՈȉÞÊ`iˆÛiÀÊÌiV…˜œœ}ÞÊ܏Ṏœ˜ÃÊ >˜`ÊÃiÀۈViÃÊvœÀÊ}œÛiÀ˜“i˜ÌÊ>˜`ʈ˜`ÕÃÌÀÞ°Ê"ÕÀÊÛ>ÕiÃ\Ê*iœ«i]Ê*>À̘iÀˆ˜}Ê >˜`Ê*iÀvœÀ“>˜ViÊ>ÀiÊ܅>ÌÊÜiʏˆÛiÊiÛiÀÞÊ`>Þ°Ê Ê ÕÌÊޜÕÊ`œ˜½Ìʅ>ÛiÊ̜ʏˆÃÌi˜Ê̜ÊÕÃÊÌ>Ž°Ê9œÕ½ÀiÊ>Ài>`ÞÊLi˜iẅ˜}ÊvÀœ“Ê ܓiʜvʜÕÀÊLiÃÌÊܜÀŽ]ʅi«ˆ˜}Ê̅iÊ i«>À̓i˜ÌʜvÊ ivi˜ÃiÊ«ÀœÌiVÌʜÕÀʘ>̈œ˜]Ê «ÀœÛˆ`ˆ˜}ÊÌiV…˜œœ}ÞÊvœÀʜÕÀʓˆˆÌ>ÀÞÊ>˜`Ê>`Û>˜Vi`ÊVœ““Õ˜ˆV>̈œ˜ÊÃÞÃÌi“ÃÊ vœÀʜÕÀÊwÀÃÌÊÀi뜘`iÀð Ê 7i½ÀiÊ>ÊVœÃi‡Ž˜ˆÌ]ʅˆ}…Þ‡“œÌˆÛ>Ìi`ÊÌi>“ÊœvʙääÊ«ÀœviÃȜ˜>Ãʈ˜Ê iˆ}…Ìʘ>̈œ˜Üˆ`iʏœV>̈œ˜Ã]ʈ˜VÕ`ˆ˜}Ê̅iÊ`ޘ>“ˆVÊ>“«Ìœ˜Ê,œ>`ÃÊ,i}ˆœ˜°Ê V̈œ˜ÃÊëi>ŽÊœÕ`iÀÊ̅>˜ÊܜÀ`Ã]Ê>Êȓ«iÊÃÌ>Ìi“i˜ÌÊ>˜`Ê>Ê}œœ`ʓi>ÃÕÀiÊ œvʅœÜÊÜiÊÃiÀÛiʜÕÀÊVˆi˜ÌÃ°Ê Ê /œÊi>À˜Ê“œÀi]Ê«i>ÃiÊۈÈÌÊÕÃÊ>ÌÊ6/ˆVœ“°Vœ“°Ê7iÊÜ>˜ÌÊ̜ÊŜÜÊޜÕÊ …œÜÊÜiʵՈȉÞÊ`iˆÛiÀ°

6/ˆVœ“°Vœ“

Vœ˜˜iV̈œ˜Ãʓ>`iÊ`>ˆÞ

vtnelson.indd 1

12/10/08 10:33:07 AM


interview

“We have the rare opportunity to see the products that we build show up on the news often, doing presence missions, tsunami relief or evacuations, or whatever the nation needs done; we get there first and do it best.” lot more strategic in my approaches to solving various kinds of problems. Regarding integration, if you looked at these three shipyards, we’re trying to integrate from a facility and technology perspective. We can compare them as if they were three banks. Somewhere in the first 24 months following a merger, you’d take on a large restructuring charge to get everyone on the same software, get everyone to same forms and payroll system, and you’d have one bank name. I can’t do that. It would completely disrupt the work I have in process today. I need to look at where do I want the operations to be in 2020? What kind of capital investments do I need to be making so I can achieve it? I have the luxury of a strategic horizon that is substantially different than many people can afford. On the other hand, other people have to make themselves take long-term, strategic perspectives. Northrop Grumman Newport News has had a unique community relationship with the surrounding area, your workforce, your vendors, and the surrounding merchants: What value do you place on that kind of a relationship, both looking back and looking forward? I’m a big believer in community involvement by the corporations. Businesses have a responsibility to get themselves involved at the level of their success in business. I have a workforce of 40,000 people; we have jobs for them, but they need to have a community full of the kind of things that are important: Good schools, good places to live, good community activities, things that impact the effect of the job they’re doing. All of our facilities believe this: Most of the institutions of the communities we’re in were either founded by or run by shipbuilders. That becomes very important when things are going well, but is also important when things aren’t going well – when there may be a downturn in the local economy, or a downturn in the shipbuilding business. If you’re working together when things are going well, it’s a lot easier to work together when things aren’t going so well. You are fitting out the 10th and last ship of one of the most amazing classes of warships in history, the Nimitz-class (CVN 68) nuclear aircraft carriers. Can you tell us something about that legacy from your point of view?

How about I tell you a little story? At one point in my career, I was responsible for the aircraft carrier program back in March 1996, when President [Bill] Clinton allowed the president of Taiwan to visit the U.S., and the mainland Chinese did a series of ballistic missile exercises to threaten Taiwan. In response, the USS Nimitz sailed on nuclear power from the Indian Ocean towards the Straits of Taiwan at high speed. Suddenly, USS Nimitz is sitting between Taiwan and mainland China. My wife’s cousin was on board the Nimitz at the time, so we paid attention to it over that weekend. So I went into my morning meeting on Monday, with my team of general foremen, [and] I asked, “How many of you actually worked on the Nimitz? Probably two-thirds to three-quarters of their hands went up. Then I asked, “Do any of you know how many lives the Nimitz saved this weekend?” Then I told them the story about what the Nimitz had done over the previous days. I can tell you that they all walked out with a little more lift in their step to go out and work on USS Harry S. Truman [CVN 75]. We have the rare opportunity to see the products that we build show up on the news often, doing presence missions, tsunami relief or evacuations, or whatever the nation needs done; we get there first and do it best. That is something our workforce is exceptionally proud of, and is something we will absolutely endeavor to always make sure we live by. You’re getting ready to come to the end of this program, and getting ready to start work on USS Gerald Ford (CVN 78). What are you, the Navy League, and the community doing to commemorate not only the last ship of this class but the name that goes on it as well? It’s not often, in fact it’s rare, that you have the opportunity to interact with the namesake of the ship. However, former President George H.W. Bush, the namesake, has had the opportunity to be in the shipyard on several occasions to assist us, be with the shipbuilders and assist us with the evolutions that are going on. He comes for the main commemorative events, but he came last January, just after back surgery, and he was launching the deadweights off the catapults. To give our shipbuilders the chance to interact with someone like that is good for everybody. We’re pulling out the stops on this ship to hit our commissioning. We think that it’s going to be a tremendous event, maybe not be seen before and probably ever again.

CVN 77 H 41

petters interview.indd 41

12/15/08 4:13:23 PM


commanding officer USS George H.W. Bush

Capt. Kevin E. O’Flaherty Commanding Officer C

Adapted from PCU George H.W. Bush Web site materials

U.S. Navy photo

apt. Kevin E. O’Flaherty hails from Los Angeles, Calif., and was commissioned through the U.S. Naval Academy in May 1981. He was designated a naval aviator in April 1983 and completed a tour as SERGRAD instructor in VT-23, flying the T-2 Buckeye. After completing training in the A-6E Intruder in November 1985, O’Flaherty served in two A-6E Intruder squadrons, including tours with the Eagles of VA-115, and a department head tour with the Milestones of VA-196. He transitioned to the FA-18 Hornet in 1996 and served as the executive officer and subsequently the commanding officer of the VFA-94 Mighty Shrikes from June 1997 to December 1999. Subsequent sea tours include a tour as the executive officer of USS Abraham Lincoln and commanding officer of USS Juneau. He participated in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Ashore, O’Flaherty served on the staff of the Naval Strike Warfare Center in Fallon, Nev., as a tactics and air wing training instructor. He also attended the Air Force Air Command and Staff College, graduating with distinction, additionally earning a Master of Arts degree in history from the University of Alabama. He subsequently served on the staff of headquarters of U.S. Air Forces in Europe as Navy Liaison and joint exercises planner. He completed Navy Nuclear Power training in May 2001. He reported to commander, Naval Air Forces Carrier Requirements in March 2005. He reported to his current duty as commanding officer, Precommissioning Unit George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) in July 2006. During his career, O’Flaherty has accumulated more than 4,000 flight hours and 600 carrier-arrested landings. His personal awards include the Legion of Merit, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal, the Navy Achievement Medal, and various campaign, unit, and service awards.

42 H CVN 77

bios.indd 42

12/10/08 2:50:34 PM


Executive officer USS George H.W. Bush

Capt. S. Robert Roth Executive Officer

U.S. Navy photo

C

apt. S. Robert Roth was born in Summit, N.J. After graduating from West Morris Mendham High School, Mendham, N.J., in 1977, he attended Lafayette College, receiving a baccalaureate degree in civil engineering in 1981. He later earned a master’s degree from the Florida Institute of Technology in 1999. In 1986, he was commissioned an ensign from Aviation Officer Candidate School, Pensacola, Fla. After earning his wings, he served as a flight instructor with VT-25 for two years in Beeville, Texas. He completed his FA-18 Hornet Initial Training at VMFAT-101, Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, Calif. His first sea duty was with the “Privateers” of VFA-132 as the assistant operations officer and aircraft division officer. In 1992, he joined the “Golden Warriors” of VFA-87 and served as the NATOPS officer and quality assurance officer. Roth completed deployments on USS Forrestal (CV 59) and USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). From 1994-1997, Roth attended U.S. Naval Test Pilot School and received a follow-on assignment as an ordnance test pilot at Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Md. In 1997, Roth transferred to the “Knighthawks” of VFA-136, where he performed department head duties in administration, maintenance, and operations. Roth then attended the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I., where he received his second master’s degree, this time in National Security and Strategic Studies, graduating with highest distinction. Roth was assigned to the commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, as flag aide from 1999 to 2000. He then joined the VFA-34 “Blue Blasters” in 2001 and served as executive officer and commanding officer. The squadron deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom aboard USS George Washington (CVN 73). After attending the Joint Forces Staff College, Roth joined U.S. Joint Forces Command and served as an observer trainer, participating in several combatant command exercises and headquarters assistance visits, including Multi-National Force-Iraq and Joint Task Force Horn of Africa, Djibouti. He completed nuclear propulsion training in December 2007 and reported in March 2008 to his current assignment as executive officer, Pre-commissioning Unit George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). Roth has amassed more than 3,500 flight hours and has logged more than 800 carrier arrestments. His awards include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, two Meritorious Service Medals, two Strike Flight Medals, three Navy Commendation Medals, two Navy Achievement Medals, and numerous unit and campaign awards.

Adapted from PCU George H.W. Bush Web site materials

CVN 77 H 43

bios.indd 43

12/10/08 2:50:46 PM


command master chief USS George H.W. Bush

CMDCM(AW/NAC) Jon D. Port Command Master Chief aster Chief Jon D. Port enlisted in the Navy in May 1986. He completed basic training in Orlando, Fla., and served a tour of duty as a non-rate seaman prior to reporting to the Defense Language Institute, Monterey, Calif., for Russian language training in August 1988. He graduated near the top of his 112-member class in September 1989 and was selected to remain for extended intermediate Russian language training, graduating in March 1990. He completed technical training at Naval Technical Training Center Detachment (NTTCD) Goodfellow Air Force Base, San Angelo, Texas, and reported for Naval Aircrew Candidate Training in Pensacola, Fla. Upon successful completion of Aircrew Candidate School in September 1990, he reported for Morse code training at NTTC Corry Station prior to reporting to his initial assignment to Naval Security Group Detachment, Brunswick, Maine. During his tour of duty in Brunswick, he accumulated more than 600 combat flight hours in support of Operations Desert Storm, Southern Watch, Provide Hope, and Continue Hope, earning an Individual Action Air Medal for a particular mission flown over Mogadishu, Somalia. In 1994, he reported to the Defense Language Institute for the Advanced Russian Interpreter course prior to duty with the On-site Inspection Agency (now the Defense Threat Reduction Agency) in Washington, D.C. He accumulated an additional 1,500 flight hours aboard the OC-135B Open Skies aircraft as well as 110 flight hours flown aboard a Russian IL-38 ASW aircraft, the first Naval aircrewman to do so. Selected to chief petty officer in 1997, he received orders to serve as the first-ever cryptologic liaison to headquarters, Navy Recruiting Command Headquarters in Arlington, Va., during which he moved with the command to its current location of Millington, Tenn. Upon selection to senior chief petty officer, he attended the U.S. Navy Senior Enlisted Academy with orders to the Naval Security Group Activity Kunia. Arriving in April 2001, he assumed duties as the senior enlisted advisor to a multiservice operations department, later serving as the Fleet Support LCPO, which led to his selection to master chief in March 2003. Selected to command master chief during the January 2004 CMC Selection Board, he attended the Capstone Command Master Chief Course at the Senior Enlisted Academy, graduating the two-week course in April 2004. From April 2004 to May 2006, he served as command master chief of AIRLANT’s largest deployable squadron, Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 15 (HM15) in Corpus Christi, Texas. In June 2006, he became the first command master chief for Pre-commissioning Unit George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). Port holds an MBA in management, a bachelor’s in political science, and is a designated Master Linguist. His personal awards include two Defense Meritorious Service Medals, Air Medal (Individual Action), two Navy Commendation Medals, and four Navy Achievement Medals.

Adapted from PCU George H.W. Bush Web site materials

U.S. Navy photo

M

44 H CVN 77

bios.indd 44

12/10/08 2:50:59 PM


USS George H.W. Bush seal

USS GEORGE H.W. BUSH (CVN 77) SEAL E

U.S. Navy

ach element of the seal is significant for its relevance to the ship’s namesake, naval aviation, naval service, and our great nation. There are six prominent features of the seal, beginning with the 41 white stars. These stars symbolize the ship’s namesake and the nation’s 41st president, the Honorable George H.W. Bush. After taking the executive oath of office, with his hand on the same Bible George Washington used in 1789, Bush inspired the nation to use power to help people. The rays of light that appear on the seal’s horizon represent Bush’s concept of a thousand points of light. He urged Americans to find meaning and reward by serving a purpose higher than themselves, to imbue the timeless ideas of “duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in.” The crew of CVN 77 stands ready every day and takes pride in pitching in. The graphic depiction of the aircraft carrier reflects the carrier as both a symbol and instrument of American strength as “a force for good.” Bridging the past, present, and future of naval aviation are the overhead profiles of the TBM Avenger torpedo bomber, the FA-18 Hornet strike fighter, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Avenger was selected for its relevance to Bush’s days as a Navy pilot. The foiled anchors and shields, as seen centered on naval aviators wings, honor the ship’s namesake’s aviation history. The youngest pilot in the Navy when he earned his wings, he later flew an Avenger bomber during World War II. During one combat mission, his aircraft received heavy anti-aircraft fire. Although his plane was afire and severely damaged, he courageously completed his bombing run before heading out to sea, where he bailed out and was rescued by a Navy submarine, USS Finback. Finally, the motto “Freedom at Work” is adapted from Bush’s inaugural speech, during which he said, “We know what works: Freedom works. We know what’s right: Freedom is right.” USS George H.W. Bush and its crew, proud to serve a higher purpose, are the finest examples of Freedom at Work.

Adapted from PCU George H.W. Bush Web site materials

CVN 77 H 45

bios.indd 45

12/10/08 2:51:12 PM


the navy league of the united states

Getting the Message Out: The Navy League of the United States By John D. Gresham “We believe that the security of our nation and of the people of the world demands a well-balanced, integrated, mobile American defense team, of which a strong Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marine are indispensable parts.” Statement of Policy, Navy League of the United States

F

or more than a century, the Navy League of the United States has been the keeper of a vital truth, which is encapsulated within the Statement of Policy above. It states that the United States is, first and foremost, a maritime nation and power, and always will be to both its benefit and peril. This simple idea, that without free and open sea lanes for trade and transportation America will be at risk and its basic ideals will be threatened, is pretty powerful stuff for a humble nonprofit organization formed in 1902 at the behest of President Theodore Roosevelt. However, given the fact that the 20th century is now called “the American Century,” in great part because of our ability to project power across the oceans and keep most threats at arm’s distance, the Navy League’s point has obvious merit. It was with that spirit that the Navy League came into existence in 1902.

46 H CVN 77

navy league section 1.indd 46

12/15/08 4:13:57 PM


the navy league of the united states

Since that time, Roosevelt’s vision has been proven correct time and time again. As the mood of the nation supporting its sea services has ebbed and flowed, the message of the Navy League has remained as constant as the oceans themselves. Quite simply, the reasons for the League’s existence breaks down this way: • To foster and maintain interest in a strong Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marine as integral parts of a sound national defense and vital to the freedom of the United States. • To serve as a means of educating and informing the American people with regard to the role of sea power in the nuclear age and the problems involved in maintaining strong defenses in that age. • To improve the understanding, appreciation, and recognition of those who wear the uniforms of our armed forces and to better the conditions under which they live and serve. • To provide support and recognition for the sea service Reserve forces in our communities in order that we may continue to have a capable and responsive maritime Reserve community. • To educate and train our youth in the customs and traditions of the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, and the Merchant Marine through the means of an active and vigorous Naval Sea Cadet Corps. So how does the Navy League manage to foster all the above goals? In a word: communications. Few nonprofit organizations have been so effective over such a long period in getting their ideas and messages out, be it through placement of editorials in the mainstream press, or the huge Sea-Air-Space exposition it holds every year in Washington, D.C. Key to this communications effort is its magazine, SEAPOWER, which can be found monthly in the offices of contractors and members of Congress, as well as on the shelves of libraries and coffee tables of interested citizens. Quite simply, when a particular message about America’s sea services needs to get out to the world, the Navy League can get that message heard loud and in a hurry! Helping the Navy League to spread the message of America’s need for sea power are a number of partners, including corporate members, and associated organizations such as the Association of Naval Aviation. Other nonprofit organizations like Operation Homefront, Military Spouses’ Career Network, and America Supports

You are just a few of the groups that benefit from their association with the Navy League. In addition to its mass media messages, the League also supports long-term educational efforts, like the reading programs of the Chief of Naval Operations, the U.S. Marine Corps, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The support of America’s sea services is a neverending campaign for the League, and it makes a point of effectively using all the tools at its disposal. The key to the Navy League’s success is found in its membership, which is organized into a series of regional councils across America. From Los Alamos, N.M., to Hampton Roads in Virginia Tidewater, the Navy League councils are organizing events for speakers, placing stories in local media, recognizing outstanding sea service personnel, and making the mission of the U.S. sea services relevant for Americans, no matter how far they are from an ocean or river. Sometimes that message is simply pointing out how much of the local economy is tied to use of the sea lanes to import or export goods in and out of their area, or how even the smallest landlocked congressional district has a significant contractor/employment contribution from the sea services. Other times, the League is in the midst of a national discussion, as it was in the 1970s and 1980s during the battle for what became President Ronald Reagan’s 600-ship Navy. Whatever the question of the day, count on the Navy League being there to make itself known on behalf of those in the sea services who are not allowed a voice of their own. This last point is vitally important, as active service members are not allowed membership in the Navy League. The Navy League is deeply committed to the fundamental Constitutional principle of civilian control over the military and its operations, while helping give the sea services and its personnel a voice in the national media and discussions about sea power. Therefore, the League walks a fine and delicate line, while always promoting the ideals originally set forth by Roosevelt back in 1902. That said, however, the League has now done so for more than 100 years, and clearly has become a cornerstone of any discussion about national defense and sea power. This respect for the Constitution and propriety is one of the reasons politicians, military leaders, and the captains of American industry have no concerns about speaking and appearing at Navy League events like Sea-Air-Space. Perhaps the most visible promotion of America’s sea services by the Navy League is its program of sponsoring the commissioning of new vessels into the sea services. Federal law, ethics rules, and service regulations heavily limit the sea

CVN 77 H 47

navy league section 1.indd 47

12/15/08 4:14:22 PM


America today is a proud, free nation, decent and civil, a place we cannot help but love. We know in our hearts, not loudly and proudly, but as a simple fact, that this country has meaning beyond what we see, and that our strength is a force for good. —President George H. W. Bush The USS George H.W. Bush, with its 80-plus combat aircraft and 6,000-member crew, weighs anchor to begin its “Freedom at Work” journey, protecting and defending America’s freedom. Named for the forty-first President of the United States, who heroically served our nation as a young naval aviator in World War II, this final and most technologically U. S. Navy photos

advanced nuclear powered Nimitz-class aircraft carrier will be a “force for good” around the world for the next half century. Stewart & Stevenson is proud of its contribution to this world-class addition to our nation’s naval fleet.

www.stewartandstevenson.com The Department of the Navy and the Navy League did not select or approve this advertiser and do not endorse nor are responsible for the views or statements contained in this advertisement.

Ansary Sponsor on temp.indd 1

12/1/08 1:18:56 PM


the navy league of the united states

services in what they are allowed to do during the fitting out and commissioning of new vessels, and the Navy League has made it its mission to help out and finish the job the way it should be done. This is because, in the view of the League, commissionings represent a rare chance in this day and age to allow the public a chance to touch the painted metal of a ship’s hull, and interact with the crew in a way simply not available when the vessel is on cruise or operations. Also, like a newborn child, every ship and its crew deserve a great start to build their own legacy, and the League helps make that possible. The Navy League’s contribution to a ship commissioning begins long before the vessel ever goes into the water, working with the shipbuilders and other contractors, the sea services themselves, and local councils to lay out a program for the ship commissioning that will be supportive of the ship and crew, educational for the community, and, most important, legally allowable for all the parties concerned. Often, more than one Navy League council is involved, as in the case of the new nuclear attack submarine USS New Mexico (SSN 779), due to commission in 2009. The New Mexico council is leading the effort, while the Hampton Roads council, near where the vessel is being built at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding in Newport News, Va., is assisting with hosting and coordination. The roles of the Hampton Roads Council provide an insight into what can be done within the commissioning process itself to promote the mission and messages of the League. Hampton Roads is the largest collection of military power in the world today, with everything from Langley Air Force Base and the U.S. Air Force’s Air Combat Command, to the U.S. Joint Forces Command headquarters and most of the U.S. Second Fleet. It is in this amazing concentration of sea power that the Hampton Roads Council, the largest in the Navy League, operates with more than 1,200 members, supporting the sea services and getting its messages out. The Hampton Roads council controls a number of different Navy League projects during commissioning of a ship like the nuclear aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), from the ceremonial and presentation aspects of commissioning to a discreet process of fundraising to help improve the lives of the crew aboard the ship itself. These include finding funds to provide shipboard enhancements to help make the ship more of a home for the young servicemen and women who will live aboard. Improvements to the ship’s library/chapel spaces, buying gym equipment for crew fitness, and computers and software for ships’ learning centers are just some of the things that Navy League councils help provide for the men and women who sail America’s ships.

Embedded in the ship enhancements program, as in all Navy League activities, is the containing mission of selling the need to support the sea services. On board every aircraft carrier since USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) is a special compartment off of the hangar deck called a “tribute room.” Part museum, part exposition, these spaces provide visitors with a chance to learn about the ship’s namesake, and the lineage of the ship’s name in other ships that have borne the name. This last point is carried on with vessels other than carriers, as was shown several years ago with the nuclear attack submarine USS Virginia (SSN 74). The first of a new class of boats for the U.S. Navy, the Virginia had been preceded by a number of other American warships carrying the same name, including a nuclear guided missile cruiser, a battleship, and one of the first Civil War ironclads. As part of her commissioning, the Hampton Roads Council made sure that the proud name being attached to SSN 774 was recognized as being part of a proud line of American warships called Virginia going back more than a century. Other parts of the commissioning process are specifically geared toward the crew personnel who have worked hard to take their pre-commissioning units and turn them into commissioned American service vessels. Called “plankowners,” these hard-working young men and women have a special status in the history of a ship, and there are events and presentation items especially for them during the final stages of the commissioning process. For all concerned, the Navy League’s contributions are a critical part of the commission in process, and would be empty events without their special aid. Commissionings, however, are hardly the only ways for councils like Hampton Roads to give sea service personnel the recognition they are so richly due. Though a bit smaller, programs like “Sailor of the Year,” which gives ships, squadrons, and shore-based units a chance to recognize their finest young professionals, are a vital part of what the Navy League does to keep the faith with those who go to sea to protect our nation and interests. For more than a century now, the Navy League has kept the faith with the sea services and the nation it serves. Even in times when America was not interested or listening, the Navy League has managed to keep its message of sea power’s influence out in the public domain, where it needs to be if the United States is to sustain itself as the preeminent maritime power in the world. As a nation, the United States owes the Navy League a debt of thanks for its persistence and steadiness, along with the hope that as long as there is a United States, there will be a Navy League. To learn more about the Navy League of the United States, obtain membership information, or make a donation, please contact the Navy League at: www.navyleaguehamptonroads.org.

CVN 77 H 49

navy league section 1.indd 49

12/15/08 4:14:57 PM


navy league ship enhancements

Navy League Ship enhancements for USS George H.W. Bush By John D. Gresham and Erica J. Tingler

ake a tour of almost any World War II aircraft carrier that is preserved as a museum, perhaps USS Yorktown at Patriot Point in Charleston, S.C., USS Intrepid in New York City, or USS Hornet at Alameda, Calif., and you will be struck by the stark and purposeful finish of the vessels. These were mass-produced, Essex-class aircraft carriers, built by Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company (now part of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding [NGSB]) during the early years of World War II, with much more attention given to function than form. While beloved by their crews over the decades of service they provided, nobody ever confused them with a place one might call home. These were warships, plain and simple, conveying several thousand young American draftee sailors and dozens of warplanes into combat, icons of massive, efficient, brute combat force. Today’s Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carriers, while the direct descendants of the USS Essex, are a much-evolved design with a completely different service life plan. While the World War II-era ships were expected to be lost in combat or scrapped when the conflict was won, Nimitz-class carriers are planned with a service life of at least 50 years, and have habitability features much improved over those of the Essex class. Permanent sleeping bunks and private stowage for clothing and personal effects are now standard. So too are more tangible creature comforts, like real-time Internet access and e-mail to and from home, along with vastly improved library, chapel, exercise, and recreation areas. However, this last series of improvements is severely restricted by law. Federal law limits what can be provided in the way of creature comforts and enhancements aboard warships being built by companies like Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, despite the best intentions of taxpayers, a grateful government, and willing contractors. The often-inconsistent layers of ethics laws and federal regulations are an impediment to anything more than a basic, Spartan warship being delivered by contractors like Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding. Thankfully, there is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization that makes it a big part of its mission to try to provide some of the

Courtesy of Universal Exhibits

T

50 H CVN 77

navy league ship enhancements.in50 50

12/11/08 1:26:38 PM


navy league ship enhancements

Courtesy of Universal Exhibits

A pre-construction section of USS George H.W. Bush’s Tribute Room.

enhancements and creature comforts that can turn a stark warship into something of a second home: the Navy League of the United States. The Navy League is known for many things, from its advocacy magazine SEAPOWER to the annual Sea-Air-Space exposition in Washington, D.C., every spring. Throughout the nation and the world, Navy League councils provide a voice for America’s sea services, so that the message of their importance and value to America can be heard by all. But behind the scenes, there also is a discrete set of programs and efforts in place to positively affect the lives of sailors, Marines, Coast Guard members, and merchant mariners while they are aboard ship. One of the most important of these is ship enhancements. Ship enhancements are the Navy League’s way of making the basic warship that is delivered by contractors like Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding into a more comfortable, pleasant, and productive vessel for service personnel to live and work aboard. In addition, the Navy League ship enhancements also try to add some character and context to a

warship, which exerts its presence through port visits and other peaceful pursuits as well as combat operations. What makes these additions both possible and legal is that they are all based upon private donations, fundraising, and endowments, with no taxpayer monies or resources being involved. This said, the story of how the Navy League makes these enhancements become reality illustrates how the public can make a difference for service personnel on duty far from home.

Ship Enhancement 101: Rules and Funding “We, as taxpayers, pay contractors for incredible warships to be built – and that’s what we get,” explained Executive Director of the Navy League’s Hampton Roads Council Maryellen Baldwin. “What we, as the Navy League, provide are enhancements that improve the quality of life aboard ship. Whether that’s building out the library/chapel space, or providing enhancements to the chief’s and crew messes.”

CVN 77 H 51

navy league ship enhancements.in51 51

12/11/08 1:26:52 PM


We’re proud to salute the United States Navy on the commissioning of its newest supercarrier, USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77). This state-of-the-art ship further demonstrates the Navy’s commitment to naval air power and to the brave men and women who will take it to sea in the name of freedom.

BoeingR on temp.indd 1

12/9/08 11:28:22 AM


navy league ship enhancements

The process of adding ship enhancements to a warship like USS George H.W. Bush actually begins years ahead of time, and is part of the larger process of ship commissioning, which is sponsored and organized by the Navy League. Each commissioning is sponsored by a particular Navy League regional council, such as the Hampton Roads council. In addition to the many ceremonies, events, presentations, and speeches is the ship enhancement program, which actually begins during the design phase of the ship. With the support and approval of the U.S. Navy, and with strict adherence to federal laws and guidelines, the Navy League and the shipbuilder combine to provide both the spaces and necessary features to make the enhancements aboard ship possible. In the case of Bush, plans date back to before the first steel was cut in Dry Dock 12 and her keel was laid. Like any other charitable effort, ship enhancements aboard Bush begin with a fundraising campaign. The entire process of commissioning is itself very costly, with an expenditure of privately raised funds well into the seven-figure range. This means that the process of fundraising goes on over a one-year period. Depiction of the Tribute Room on board USS George H.W. Bush. “From the perspective of raising funds … having a name such as former President George H.W. Bush, which is known worldwide, helps a great deal,” Baldwin said. “But raising money is never easy under any circumstances; you have to know what you’re doing • A program of providing the mess and common spaces with artwork and you have to prove to your donors that their contribution will make and other memorabilia reflecting the ship’s namesake, former a significant impact to the crew and to the Navy at large. We at Navy President George H.W. Bush. League take very seriously the obligation we have to the donors – we “The Bush Library [at Texas A&M University] has extended family and never do or say anything we cannot absolutely back up, because our personal artifacts to the ship, and we provide the receptacles that will integrity is at stake.” house those articles, making them permanent and preserved for the life In addition to funds, there are other donations that make the ship of the ship,” Baldwin explained. “We’ve also taken some of the media from enhancements program work. For example, the local Hampton Roadsthe archives, such as photographs, and had them reproduced and placed based squadron of the Association of Naval Aviation has commissioned a throughout the ship. These are not only appealing visually, but also are quite larger-than-life bronze statue of Bush, depicting him as a 22-year-old naval educational and historical as well. They chronicle his life visually, offering aviator in his flight gear. Other donors have supplied books from personal a sense of the history from President George H.W. Bush’s life, spanning libraries, and corporate sponsors have supplied goods and services in his service with the CIA, serving as U.S. ambassador to China, as the vice support of the overall enhancement effort. All of these combine to make up president, and of course, back to his service in World War II and his rescue a package of funding and materials that allow the Navy League to create at sea. The way we’ve been able to put the prints up in various parts of the a tangible set of ship enhancements that will serve the crew of the Bush ship is really quite unique.” for decades. In addition to the actual donations of equipment, media, and other physical resources, Baldwin and the Commissioning Committee are working hard to raise funds for the long-term maintenance and upgrade of One of the key objectives of the Navy League’s ship enhancements to these spaces and gear so that they will be available for future USS George the Bush is to enhance the quality of life for the crew, along with serving H.W. Bush crew personnel. their personal and professional needs. The Hampton Roads Council enhancements package includes the following in the crew spaces: • An enhanced professional learning center, with additional computer For the next half-century, USS George H.W. Bush will travel the equipment and resources for crew advancement and study; oceans of the world, projecting power and influence across the globe. • Improvements to the ship’s library and chapel spaces, including a program of book acquisition from all 50 states, and additional The most powerful conventional weapons system in the world, Nimitzmedia/study resources; class aircraft carriers are a source of awe and wonder when they • Additional exercise and workout equipment for the Bush’s gymnasium visit foreign ports, and often are allowed to have visitors aboard the facilities, including weights and powered equipment; and huge vessels. To help these visitors better understand the ship and its

Courtesy of Universal Exhibits

DOWN BELOW: ENHANCED CREW SPACES

THE STORY OF A LIFE: THE GEORGE H.W. BUSH TRIBUTE ROOM

CVN 77 H 53

navy league ship enhancements.in53 53

12/11/08 1:27:04 PM


Honoring the men and women of the CVN–77

Raytheon is proud to participate in the Commissioning of the USS George H. W. Bush. Raytheon salutes the brave men and women who will man the USS George H.W. Bush, and honors President George H.W. Bush for his service to our country. Just as America’s 41st president championed freedom, so too will his namesake ship safeguard the security and interests of our nation and all freedom-loving nations around the world.

www.raytheon.com © 2008 Raytheon Company. All rights reserved. “Customer Success Is Our Mission” is a registered trademark of Raytheon Company.

RTN374_USSbush_ic02.indd 1

VabeaRathy.indd 1

11/7/08 2:06:25 PM

12/8/08 4:14:06 PM


navy league ship enhancements

Courtesy of Navy League

Refitting of the space on CVN 77 for the Tribute Room.

namesake, along with perhaps winning some “hearts and minds,” the Navy League is funding what is called a “Tribute Room” just off of the hangar deck, near the gangway at which visitors usually arrive when they board the ship. “Every new aircraft carrier since the USS John F. Kennedy [CV 67] has had a space that honors the ship’s namesake; we call it the Tribute Room,” said Baldwin. “In this case, it will be dedicated to former President George H.W. Bush, whose personal honor, courage, and commitment certainly fill that bill. This space, off the hangar bay, is designed to serve dignitaries and people from around the world, along with crewmembers that may come through to see a part of history and the spirit of the ship’s namesake. It’s ceremonial certainly, but it is something tax dollars would never pay for. We’re proud to say that we’re going to make sure that this gets done and will be in place for the next 50 years.” The Tribute Room aboard the Bush will highlight the life of the former president, as a young naval aviator during World War II, a congressman,

an ambassador to the United Nations and China, vice president, and president. There will be depictions of his Avenger torpedo-bomber, and the carriers off which the future president flew. Most of all, there is the story of a great American who has made public service the cornerstone of his life and that of his family. The ship enhancements that Navy League Hampton Roads and the Commissioning Committee are providing are the capstone to a multi-year effort to make the Bush into more than a warship to her crew. In addition, they are helping add character to a vessel that shortly will become what the Navy likes to call, “90,000 tons of diplomacy.” The effort to seek funding and donations to support the ship enhancements for the Bush and other Navy warships continues now and into the future. Already, plans are under way for the planned enhancements that will be included in America’s next aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). To learn more about the ship enhancements program, or to make a donation, please contact the Navy League at: www.navyleaguehamptonroads.org.

CVN 77 H 55

navy league ship enhancements.in55 55

12/11/08 1:27:20 PM


Photo Courtesy Northrop Grumman Newport News

Congratulations USS GEORGE H.W. BUSH (CVN 77)! AT&T salutes the Navy League of the United States on the commissioning of USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). AT&T is honored to support the Navy League through the creation of three Learning Resource Centers on board the vessel to facilitate extended training and continuing education for crew members. Through these state-of-the-art Learning Resource Centers, the carrier’s crew will be better equipped to meet challenges and bring new capabilities to the Navy in support of its vital mission — keeping America safe.

At AT&T, we are proud to keep Americans connected, on land and at sea.

AT&T on temp.indd 1

12/2/08 10:33:53 AM


commissioning donors

Navy league of the united states Commissioning donors Presidential The Honorable and Mrs. Hushang Ansary The Grainger Foundation

Five Star Admiral AT&T Foundation The Boeing Company Northrop Grumman Corporation PMX Industries, Inc./Poongsan Corporation

Four Star Admiral Faircount Media Group Susan and Tom Friedkin and Debra and Dan Friedkin Hearst Communications, Inc. Gloria and Glen Holden Natalie and Herb Kohler and Kohler Co. Anne and John Marion Linda and Jim McIngvale Juliette and Frank Reidy Marilyn Ware

Three Star Admiral PlĂĄcido Arango The Flagship Carole and John Moran Raytheon Company Alice and David Rubenstein

Two Star Admiral BAE Systems City of Virginia Beach City of Norfolk Corporate Express Linda and Archie Dunham Family The Farmer Family Foundation Melissa and Marc Ganzi Palm Restaurant Group – Mr. Walter J. Ganzi, Jr. Adele and Donald Hall Susan and John Kerr Lockheed Martin

Elizabeth and Drayton McLane Mica and Bob Mosbacher The Family of Edward N. Ney Betty and Mel Sembler Isabel and Joe Zappala

One Star Admiral Kathi and Andy Card Trisha and Jim Cicconi Coneway Family Foundation Flora C. Crichton Lynn P. and Richard K. Davidson Farm Fresh C. Boyden Gray Betty and John Hrncir Pat and David Jones Sara and John H. Lindsey Marlene and Fred Malek Northrop Grumman Marine Systems Julie and Gregg Petersmeyer Pratt & Whitney Mindy and Bob Rich Gita and Ali Saberioon Brent Scowcroft Lynne and Chip Shotwell Tri-Tec Manufacturing, LLC Lynda K. and David M. Underwood Astrid and Gene Van Dyke Verizon Foundation Anna H. and Owen W. Wells Patty and Roger Williams

Captain Susan and James A. Baker, III Chris and Bill Barr Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. Cardinal Point Partners, LLC Charlene and Phil Carroll Lou Ann and Steve Caruthers Coldwell Banker Schmitt Real Estate Co. Marie and Walter J.P. Curley David F. Demarest

CVN 77 H 57

commissioning donors.indd 57

12/16/08 5:11:19 PM


USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77)

kohler on temp.indd 1

12/2/08 10:53:56 AM


At your service, Mr. President. We stand in full support.

Herb and Natalie Kohler

kohler on temp.indd 2

12/2/08 10:55:06 AM


PMX ad-PROOF 3.qxd

11/2/08

2:27 PM

Page 1

Vision

Innovation Alloy Offerings C110—ETP Copper C706—Cu10NiFe C715—Cu30NiFe C655—Cu3Si C464—Naval Brass

Copper and Copper Alloy Plate Building a Better Tomorrow

Green Works at PMX Industries, Inc. 5300 Willow Creek Drive Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 1-800-531-5268 www.ipmx.com

PMX on temp.indd 1

12/1/08 1:17:15 PM


commissioning donors

Earl Industries Susan M. and Donald L. Evans Lily Chen and Charles C. Foster Barbara Hackman Franklin and Wallace Barnes Lueza and Bruce S. Gelb Karen and John Griffing Betty and Alex Haagen, III Carla and Roderick Hills Roy M. Huffington Mr. and Mrs. Richard M. Kleberg, III Harriet and Fred McClure Charline and Red McCombs Anne and William McCormick Steven and Sheila Miller Foundation Jim Nantz Sally and Charles Neblett Gena and Chuck Norris Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine Jan and Trevor Rees-Jones Marcia and Dick Robinson, in honor of Ellen Robinson Schwartz Ann and Al Simpson Honey and Sam Skinner Mr. and Mrs. Dorrance Smith, in honor of Kathleen and Sidney V. Smith Sue and Lester Smith Strake Foundation Ginger and Louis W. Sullivan Lunda C. and William H. Webster

Commander Anne Armstrong Anne and David Q. Bates, Jr. Wilma and Stuart Bernstein Kitty and Nick Brady Robert Bryn Catherine and Michael Busch Mary Kate and Rob Cary Henry E. Catto, Jr. Lynne and Dick Cheney Controlled Systems Bonita and Edward Derwinski Cathy and Bob Estrada J.L. Holloway, III Connie and David E. Jeremiah Jean and Manuel Lujan, Jr. Judi and Paul Marchand Paula and Edward McCann Janice and Robert McNair Ginny Mulberger Laurel and Ed Murnane Q.E.D. Systems, Inc. Elizabeth and William K. Reilly Lisa and Matthew Rose Ann and Tom Scully

Joci and Joe Straus James E. Summar, Sr. Ginny and Dick Thornburgh Cristy and Clayton Yeutter, in memory of Jeanne Yeutter

Sponsor a Plankowner Sailor Bonnie and Dave Adams Jake and Tom Collamore Rose Marie and Steve Farrar Melinda and Marlin Fitzwater Spike Heminway Michael E. Melo, President, ITA International, LLC Jane Newman David Oldani Todd Stotler

Petty Officer Honey and Lamar Alexander John M. Bogie Julie and Tom Cooke Gary E. Fendler Theresa and John Gaddy Janet and Harold Gehman Betsy Heminway Roxanne and Tim Neumann Daniel T. Mannerino Paulina and Jim McGrath James Snapper Janet and James D. Watkins Clarkson C. Wormer

Shipmate Barry Akers Meredith Ashley Mark Ashley Jeremy F. Barnes Jessie K. Beavers Eugene C. Book Crusader Industries Herbert Farrington Kathryn and Lawrence Finely Allan S. Forman David Hinnant Jane and Bill Whitehurst, in memory of Captain Douglas B. LaPierre, USN Kelly Moore Beth and Tom Robertson Raymond Sinwell Brian Skon Daniel V. Smith Katherine L. Super Dr. and Mrs. John M. Templeton, Jr.

CVN 77 H 61

commissioning donors.indd 61

12/16/08 5:11:34 PM


The Navy League of the United States Hampton Roads and the Commissioning Committee wish to thank The Grainger Foundation for its generosity in support of the crew of USS George H.W. Bush.

The Grainger Foundation of Lake Forest, Ill., established in 1949 by Mr. and Mrs. William Wallace Grainger, is a generous supporter of educational institutions, museums, health care, human services, and the field of power engineering.

Grainger2.indd 1

12/15/08 2:53:32 PM


commissioning donors

The Navy League takes great pride in acknowledging the efforts of the following individuals who have provided their time and talents during this commissioning process:

Barry Akers Jim Appleby Amanda Aulds Emmett Babb Patrick Baldwin Jeremy Barnes Jack Barry Faye Bauer Laura Baxter Jean Becker Patricia Burchfield Lisa Byard Susan Byrne Bill Cabell Bet Cake Stuart Cake Roni Clymer Janice Comber Gigi Craig Nancy Creech Terri Davis Michele Dempsey Conie Duncan Carrie Eickenroht Linda Eisan Noni Fisher Tom Freeman Lisa Gove Polly Haag Joe Hanna Anne Hart Ruth Hendricks Maria Herring Bill Huesmann Marcus Jones Albert Karpovich Melinda Lamoreaux Nancy Lisenby William Maples Victor Martinez

Elizabeth Mayo Ed McCann Mark McDonald Jim McGrath Kari Mewbourne Christina Murray Louise Nagourney Nancy Newman Eileen O’Hanlon Laura Pears Richard Pearsall Anne Phillips Linda Poepsel Don Randall Mary Sage Lynn Schlemeyer Ursula Stelly Kelsey Stewart Emily Webb Adair Wells

H ampton Roads

Navy League of the

United States

We regret any omissions due to print deadline.

CVN 77 H 63

commissioning donors.indd 63

12/16/08 5:14:03 PM


carriers and the national interest

Vital to The United states today and tomorrow Aircraft carriers – 100,000 tons of combat power, wherever and whenever needed By Edward H. Lundquist

hen we talk about aircraft carriers today, and especially the 100,000-ton “supercarriers” of the United States Navy, we think of “four-and-a-half acres of U.S. sovereignty.” We think of a flight deck that’s bigger than four football fields, loaded with combat power, able to launch anywhere, anytime. Aircraft carriers and the 80 aircraft they carry are a visible symbol of American naval presence. Even more so, they are tangible evidence of America’s resolve. But, these magnificent ships do not exist of and for themselves. Carriers are the high-end of a spectrum of naval warfighting capability that spans all the way to small patrol boats. “The aircraft carrier is the single most important instrument of national power,” said Eric Wertheim, defense analyst and editor of the Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World (Naval Institute Press). The carrier strike group, with its own air wing, has everything it needs. It can be used for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and relatively benign warfighting functions, to major combat operations. “The more independent a carrier strike group is, the better it is,” Wertheim said. An aircraft carrier is basically a floating airport. It is the combat power of its aircraft and its escorts that give the carrier its teeth. But, the carrier is neither stealthy nor subtle. “Its strength is against known threats and powerful enemies,” said Wertheim. Rear Adm. Charles Martoglio is the operations officer (J3) for the United States Pacific Command and its vast area of responsibility, which includes 60 percent of the global population and covers half of the Earth’s surface – most of that being ocean. “America’s aircraft carrier strike groups play critical roles across today’s spectrum of operations from demonstrating our commitment to stability and security, to providing all of the key elements for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, to providing surveillance and strike support in the struggle against violent extremism, to enabling air and sea control wherever they operate, and to maintaining high readiness to fight and win our nation’s wars,” Martoglio said. “Carrier strike groups are enormously capable, maintained in high readiness, and inherently flexible to successfully accomplish today’s complex and diverse mission sets – by themselves, as part of the joint force, or as part of a coalition force.”

credit

W

64 H CVN 77

carriers.indd 64

12/9/08 5:20:19 PM


carriers and the national interest

An idea that took off

cleared of all obstacles. It will be flat, as wide as possible without jeopardizing the nautical lines of the hull, and it will look like a landing field. “Of necessity, the airplanes will be stowed below decks; they would be solidly fixed anchored to their bases, each in its place, so they would not be affected with the pitching and rolling. Access to these lower decks would be by an elevator sufficiently long and wide to hold an airplane with its wings folded. A large, sliding trap would cover the hole in the deck,

and it would have waterproof joints, so that neither rain nor seawater from heavy seas could penetrate below. “The ship will be headed straight into the wind, the stern clear, but a padded bulwark set up forward in case the airplane should run past the stop line.” A century has passed, but some things have not changed that much. In 1910, the U.S. Navy rigged a wooden platform on top of the gun turrets of the cruiser USS Birmingham, and a test pilot for Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company named Eugene Ely flew from the ship to the shore at Norfolk, Va., a distance of only 2.5 miles. That was the first flight from a ship. Navies went about trying all kinds of combinations, but the British, who operated seaplanes in World War I for reconnaissance and spotting, have the distinction of operating the first aircraft carrier, HMS Furious, a “hermaphrodite” aircraft carrier and battle cruiser, in 1917. The Royal Navy (RN) installed a large deck forward, retaining the after 18-inch gun. The Furious, complete with a hangar, was also the first ship to conduct flight operations while under way. When the United States entered World War I, the Navy had 54 operational aircraft. At war’s end, less than two years later, it had more than 2,000 aircraft, but no carriers. The British and Japanese both developed multilevel flight decks, so that aircraft could land on the upper deck while other aircraft could simultaneously take off from the lower deck. In

Official U.S. Navy photo by Chief Photographer’s Mate Spike Call

The Wright Brothers’ first flight took place in 1903, and just four years later aircraft were being used in combat. So it makes sense that flying airplanes onto and off of ships was a pretty good idea. That’s what Frenchman Clément Ader wrote about in his 1909 book, L’Aviation Militaire. “An airplane-carrying vessel is indispensable. These vessels will be constructed on a plan very different from what is currently used. First of all the deck will be

Carriers USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), and USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) cruise together at the start of Exercise Valiant Shield 2006. The Reagan Carrier Strike Group was participating in Shield 2006, the largest joint exercise in recent history. Held in the Guam operating area June 19 to 23, the exercise included 28 naval vessels including three carrier strike groups. Nearly 300 aircraft and approximately 22,000 service members from the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard also participated in the exercise.

CVN 77 H 65

carriers.indd 65

12/9/08 5:20:32 PM


carriers and the national interest

the early 1920s, the United States converted the collier (a ship that lugged coal to refuel other ships) USS Jupiter to become USS Langley, America’s first aircraft carrier, equipped with then-state-of-the-art facilities for homing pigeons located on the stern. Actual operational experience was the turning point, said Norman Polmar, author of Aircraft Carriers: The History of Carrier Aviation and Its Influence on World Events (Potomac Books). “Beginning with Japanese carrier operations over China in the 1930s, and through World War II, carriers became the sine qua non of navies – indispensable for war at sea, strikes against the shore, and for anti-submarine warfare.” During World War II, carriers were in great demand. The famous Doolittle Raid on Tokyo included 16 Army B-25 medium bombers that flew from the flight deck of USS Hornet on a one-way mission to the Japanese home islands. The daring mission called for aircrews to fly more than 2,000 miles, then land in or bail out over China. Carriers participated in the pivotal battles of World War II. Japanese carriers struck the opening blow of the war in the Pacific at Pearl Harbor. While the Japanese inflicted heavy casualties and took negligible losses

themselves, they failed to inflict damage on American carriers, which were not in port. The Battle of the Coral Sea was the first naval engagement where the ships involved never actually saw each other. Each side lost a carrier. At the Battle of Midway, the United States lost USS Yorktown, but U.S. forces sank four Japanese carriers. After Midway, both navies geared up carrier production. Some were built from the keel up as carriers, while others were converted from cruisers while building. The need was so great that smaller “escort” carriers were built with flight decks placed upon converted merchant ship and oiler hulls. These “Baby Flattops,” or “Jeep carriers,” were valuable for hunting enemy submarines, providing close air support for troops ashore, and serving as transports to ferry aircraft. While the United States succeeded in bringing many new carriers to the front lines, Japan was not able to do so. More importantly, Japan was not able to replace losses of carriertrained aviators. There were some curious carriers, too, like USS Sable and USS Wolverine, converted Great Lakes paddle-wheel steamers used to train naval aviators on Lake Michigan. Many Navy pilots made their first

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jay C. Pugh

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) steams through the Atlantic Ocean. The speed and endurance of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers is important because they are usually the first responders in global trouble spots.

66 H CVN 77

carriers.indd 66

12/9/08 5:20:44 PM


Support to Naval Aviation

Technology insertion to support NAVAIR and Fleet Readiness Centers with n System and Component Modernization n Industrial Process Modernization n Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defensive Systems

CVN 77 Ad-0108-FINAL AD

1/15/08

11:16 AM 800.201.2011

Page 1

solutions@battelle.org

www.battelle.org

WBB is a proud supporter of the Naval Aviation Enterprise and Carrier Readiness Team.

photo courtesy Department of Defense

The Department of the Navy and the Navy League did not select or approve this advertiser and do not endorse nor are responsible for the views or statements contained in this advertisement.

BattaWBB.indd 1

12/8/08 4:19:13 PM


carriers and the national interest

The aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) arrives at Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan. George Washington and Carrier Air Wing 5 will be operating from Fleet Activities Yokosuka as the U.S. Navy’s only forward-deployed aircraft carrier.

harrowing landing on one of these two ships, including the future President George H.W. Bush, namesake of this ship. “The time I spent on Lake Michigan was a great preview of things to come. I still remember well my first actual carrier landing aboard USS Sable. With it came all the usual concern and nerves, but in the end, I was filled with a great feeling of satisfaction,” said Bush. “That was the beginning of one of the greatest chapters of my life.” Polmar said the post-World War II era navies understood the effectiveness of carriers. “As long as navies could afford the ships and their aircraft, efforts were made to obtain and operate such ships. They were invaluable for all types of operations,” he said, “although used in combat only by the U.S., U.K., France, and Australia.” The most significant developments in carriers since World War II have been nuclear strike weapons, jet-propelled aircraft, steam catapults (to permit launching very heavy aircraft), and the angled deck (for operation of high-performance aircraft), Polmar said.

Sea Power 21 Carriers contribute to each of the three pillars of the Navy’s Sea Power 21 construct, which are Sea Basing, Sea Shield, and Sea Strike. Sea Basing gives joint force commanders the ability

to operate without having overseas shore bases or host nation permission. It doesn’t refer to one ship, but to the aggregate of naval capability at sea, able to provide persistent presence and sustained operations. Aircraft carrier strike groups operate freely, unrestrained by reliance upon local ports and airfields. The second pillar is Sea Strike, which is the “dynamic application of persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; timesensitive strike; ship-to-objective maneuver; information operations; and covert strike to deliver devastating power and accuracy in future campaigns.” This capability is dispersed throughout the force, in different manned and unmanned platforms and systems, from submarines to surface ships and aircraft. Aircraft carriers play an important role in Sea Strike, with their ability to launch strike aircraft for complex attacks. Sea Shield is the third pillar. It pertains to more than just defense of one’s own ship or the task group, but is envisioned to provide a layered defense of the sea lines of communication, the theater, and the nation. The attributes of the agile, flexible carrier strike group, including persistent forward presence, a robust command and control capability, and the ability of the air wing to project defensive power deep overland, protecting our forces and our friends ashore, are important aspects of defensive operations from the sea.

U.S. Navy photo by Kuji Kawabe

First Responder Nuclear-powered carriers such as those operated by the United States permit extended deployments at high speed. When these CVNs first joined the fleet, it was decided that nuclearpowered combatants were needed to escort the carriers, but today the Navy has no nuclear cruisers. As big as they are, the Nimitz-class carriers have a power plant that can generate 260,000 horsepower, and can achieve sustained speeds of 30 knots. That speed and endurance is important, because carriers are typically first responders to global trouble spots. President Bill Clinton told sailors aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt in 1993, “When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it’s no accident that the first question that comes to everyone’s lips is: ‘Where’s the nearest carrier?’” When naval power is required, an aircraft carrier and its strike group are frequently the instrument of choice. “The forward collective strategy used the oceans as barriers in our defense and as avenues for extending our influence abroad to support our allies and protect our commerce,” Adm. James L. Holloway III, U.S. Navy (Ret.) wrote in his book, Aircraft Carriers at War: A Personal Retrospective of Korea, Vietnam and the Soviet Confrontation (Naval Institute Press). It is no less true today than when he was commander of the U.S. Seventh Fleet or Chief of Naval Operations and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “In so doing, it exploited the principal that, if we had to fight a war, we intended to engage an enemy closer to his homeland than to ours.” Part of that strategy has involved “forward deploying” a carrier strike group to the Western Pacific, to be more responsive to tasking in that part of the world. With the decommissioning of USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), USS George Washington (CVN 73) has arrived in her new homeport of Yokosuka, Japan, as the forwarddeployed aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific and Indian oceans, to contribute to the defense of Japan. As USS George H.W. Bush joins the fleet, it replaces the last conventionally powered carrier, Kitty Hawk, currently undergoing inactivation at Puget Sound Naval Ship Yard in Bremerton, Wash., and scheduled for decommissioning in early 2009. The Kitty Hawk replaced USS Independence as the forward-deployed carrier in Japan in 1998, and recently turned that assignment over to USS George Washington. The Kitty Hawk was commissioned in 1961, and at the time of her decommissioning, and

68 H CVN 77

carriers.indd 68

12/9/08 5:20:56 PM


deloitteRol on temp.indd 1

12/9/08 4:09:03 PM


carriers and the national interest

for the past 10 years, the Kitty Hawk has had the distinction of being the oldest active ship in service.

Carriers and the Maritime Strategy The “Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower” calls for preventing wars as well as winning them. “The first rule of prevention,” said Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, “is strength.” Strength comes from forward presence, deterrence, sea control, and power projection, said Roughead, speaking at the 2008 Naval War College Current Strategy Forum in Newport, R.I. “It comes from our aircraft carriers and our aircraft; it comes from our combatants and submarines. It comes from our sailors, from our Marines, from our Coast Guardsmen, and our international partners. It is what we as a global Navy are about.” To prevent war, however, Roughead said the new strategy calls for two other capabilities: Maritime Security and Disaster Relief and Humanitarian Assistance. “We are operating in all corners of the world, operating with our partners across the spectrum of operations,” said Roughead. “Examples of that include the Lincoln aircraft carrier projecting power through its aircraft day and night in the Persian Gulf, with no need to secure a base or an airfield to remain off station for a long-term presence.” “The basic premise of our newly published maritime strategy is that the United States is a force for good in the world – that, while we are capable

of launching a clenched fist when we must, offering the hand of friendship is also an essential and prominent tool in our kit,” said Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James T. Conway. “That premise flows from the belief that preventing wars means we don’t have to win wars.” “The Coast Guard completely subscribes to this strategy,” said Commandant of the Coast Guard Adm. Thad W. Allen. “It reinforces the Coast Guard Strategy for Safety, Security, and Stewardship and it reflects not only the global reach of our maritime services, but the need to integrate and synchronize and act with coalition and international partners to not only win wars – but to prevent wars.”

Strategy of engagement The ability of U.S. Naval forces to maintain persistent forward presence contributes to regional understanding, as situational awareness is increased through operational experience and the sharing of expertise among partners. For example, during its recent deployment, the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group exercised with coalition partners in the Fifth Fleet area of responsibility, assisted mariners in distress and provided humanitarian assistance, visited ports, conducted community relations projects, and hosted distinguished visitors. The strike group’s air wing flew more than 7,100 sorties and completed more than 22,000 flying hours in support of U.S. and coalition ground forces.

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class N. Brett Morton

The Royal New Zealand Navy Frigate HMNZS Te Mana (F111) sails alongside the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) in the north Arabian Sea. Lincoln was deployed to the U.S. Fifth Fleet area of responsibility to support Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as well as maritime security operations.

70 H CVN 77

carriers.indd 70

12/9/08 5:21:07 PM


carriers and the national interest

Official U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class (AW/SW) Aaron Burden

In an early morning transit, USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) prepares to enter Port Klang, Malaysia, for a scheduled port visit. This port call marked the first time Ronald Reagan visited the country of Malaysia. Reagan and Carrier Air Wing 14 (CVW-14) conducted community service projects at local orphanages, schools, and homes for the elderly.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) Carrier Strike Group recently called at Cape Town, South Africa. Invited by the government of South Africa, the Roosevelt is the first U.S. carrier to visit that country in 40 years. The visit reinforced relationships, improved interoperability between the United States and South African armed forces, addressed regional security cooperative activities, and conducted a variety of community outreach events. The USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group recently called at Port Kelang near Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. In addition to getting out on liberty and meeting the Malaysian people, more than 320 strike group sailors volunteered to conduct community service projects at local orphanages, schools, and homes for the elderly. While a carrier strike group can deter a government or terrorist group from disrupting our national security or prosperity, that same presence can affect stability and peace by offering a helping hand. “We are now working with our partners and allies to address the roots of conflict – from economic instability, to illegal trafficking, to refugee movements, to environmental disasters, and endemic diseases,” Roughead said. “It was the international maritime community that was the first to respond to the 2004 tsunami in South Asia. I can distinctly remember receiving the first phone call in my command center in Honolulu when they said, ‘There has just been an earthquake off the coast of Indonesia. We’re not quite sure what it will involve, but we’ll keep you posted.’ Within hours, we had surged the Lincoln from her port visit in Hong Kong.”

Roughead, when testifying on Capitol Hill in 2007, told lawmakers, “We do this because it is the right thing to do. Our actions send a message to the world that United States seapower promotes security and stability in cooperative ways that do not necessarily resemble conventional applications of seapower.” “What naval forces provide is strength like none other. Just one carrier strike group in the Gulf today is able to launch strikes in support of ground forces in Iraq, it is able to monitor and protect the Straight of Hormuz and it is able to secure the Gulf for legal trade that will support Iraq’s building economy,” Roughead said at the Naval War College. “Its many capabilities act as a strong deterrent and it is able to provide sea-based ballistic missile defense that is responsive, mobile, and respects the principle of sovereignty.” “Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 21, 2003, when naval aviators flying from U.S. Navy carriers helped usher in a new era in tactical warfare, an increase in military capabilities ranking with the introduction of jet aircraft or stealth technology,” said Holloway. “Contributing to the shock and awe of the initial air strikes of the Iraqi Freedom campaign deep into Iraq were five aircraft carriers operating in the Mediterranean and Arabian seas, launching air wing-sized formations into the dark night to deliver their bombs and missiles against key military targets in the Arab capital with a precision and effectiveness never before achieved by tactical combat aircraft. “This was history being made,” said Holloway. “It would be the first battle of a campaign in which precision-guided bombs and missiles would

CVN 77 H 71

carriers.indd 71

12/9/08 5:21:17 PM


101258.qxd

2/19/08

10:22 PM

Page 1

USS GEORGE AD Bleed: 9.25" x 11.125" Trim: 9" x 10.875" Live: 8.5" x 10.375"

Thanks For Reminding Us What Passion Is All About. A message to the crew of USS George H.W. Bush CVN 77–and their families. At Sargento,® we often say that our family has a passion

Not for money or fame, but for the betterment of our

for cheese. And it’s true. After all, cheese has been our

country and of our world.

family’s sole focus for three generations.

So, to each of you, we wish to offer our sincere and

But as committed as we are to our life’s pursuit, we

humble thanks. For your strength. For your courage. And

know there are those whose dedication runs much

for teaching us what it means to live with true passion.

deeper. People like you, who do what you do.

©2008 Sargento Foods Inc. ® Registered trademark and ™ trademark of Sargento Foods Inc.

sargento on temp.indd 1

2/26/08 Jacobson Rost Ad 6532

2:38:30 PM


carriers and the national interest

be used by aircraft against the enemy to the virtual exclusion of unguided bombs. The second historic aspect of this air campaign was the utilization of carrier aircraft at night, in numbers, formations and tactics, which could have previously only been employed in daylight operations. This was a significant breakthrough. Until now, the night had belonged to the unconventional forces, the irregulars, the guerrillas, and the terrorists.”

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Aaron Holt

No permission required “With naval forces, you don’t have to worry about bases,” said Roughead. “You do not have to establish a base, you do not have to negotiate for space, you do not have to build extra infrastructure, you do not have to ask permission, and you do not have to infringe on another’s nation’s sovereignty. Our ability to be present without any permanent infrastructure is an advantage today, and I believe will become increasingly important in the future. It will be a key advantage. And what makes it even more advantageous is that we maintain a constant presence forward. We do not become encamped in one location … we are not a garrisoned force.” This forward presence provides national decision-makers a broad range of options to position credible combat power where our vital interests are concentrated, based upon intelligence or other indications or warnings before a situation escalates. Tactical sorties from carriers have several advantages over land-based aircraft. The carrier aircraft can be positioned much closer to the threat area. With the concept of Time-Sensitive Strike (TSS), the time from assigning the target to having an aircraft on top is further shortened. In fact, most carrier-based strike missions to Afghanistan were conducted without the aircrew knowing the target at launch time. At the outbreak of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, carrier-based aircraft flew the bulk of the sorties and delivered a very large percentage of the precision strike weapons, despite the fact that the closest point in Afghanistan to the ocean is 500 miles. Land-based bombers must fly about 3,000 miles to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The U.S. and coalition partners continue to help the people of Afghanistan. For example, carrier-based F/A-18C Hornets are flying over southern Afghanistan today as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, refueling from British Royal Air Force L-1011 tankers as well as U.S. refueling aircraft. “Forward presence also allows us to combat terrorism as far from our shores as possible. Where and when applicable, forwarddeployed maritime forces will isolate, capture, or destroy terrorists, their infrastructure, resources, and sanctuaries, preferably in conjunction with coalition partners,” said Roughead. Carriers are not affected by the political restraints and restrictions that a host nation might impose on aircraft located at an air base on its soil. And, that presupposes that you do have aircraft based somewhere in the vicinity. And, getting the carrier close to the target isn’t a necessity. Both land- and sea-based aircraft may require tankers to get to their operating area, and land-based tankers may not always be available whereas carriers have their own airborne refueling aircraft. “Because they offer unparalleled mobility, provide sustained military presence, can send signals of U.S. concern and possible actions, and free the United States from having to conduct flight operations from foreign bases or obtain permission from foreign powers to fly over territory, aircraft carriers likely will continue to be an asset of choice for years to come,” stated a RAND study, “Leveraging America’s Aircraft Carrier

Sailors load cases of water bound for the Philippines onto a C-2A Greyhound assigned to the “Providers” of Fleet Logistics Combat Support Squadron (VRC) 30 on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76). Ronald Reagan sent 12,000 bottles of water and 7,500 pounds of rice to the Philippines in support of disaster relief efforts. The Ronald Reagan carrier strike group supported the government of the Republic of the Philippines to help provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to the victims of Typhoon Fengshen. Aircraft carriers are often the first help to arrive at the scene of a disaster.

CVN 77 H 73

carriers.indd 73

12/9/08 5:21:31 PM


  BDUJPO

4FUBDPVSTFPG  5BLFUIFOFYUTUFQJOZPVSDBSFFS

8IFUIFSZPVµSFPOBDUJWFEVUZPSBWFUFSBO ZPVDBODPVOU PO/PSUIFBTUFSO6OJWFSTJUZBOEUIF$PMMFHFPG1SPGFTTJPOBM 4UVEJFTUPQSPWJEFUIFQSPHSBNTBOETVQQPSUTFSWJDFT ZPVOFFEUPBDIJFWFZPVSFEVDBUJPOBMHPBMT … .PSFUIBOVOEFSHSBEVBUFBOEHSBEVBUFEFHSFFT   BOEDFSUJ¾DBUFTBWBJMBCMFDPNQMFUFMZPOMJOF  … 5VJUJPOSBUFTUIBUBSFDPNQFUJUJWFXJUINPTUQVCMJD   BOEQSJWBUFDPMMFHFT  … %FEJDBUFEBENJTTJPOTBOEBEWJTJOHTUBGGUPBTTJTU   NJMJUBSZQFSTPOOFM  … POMJOFUFDIOJDBMTVQQPSUBOEUVUPSJOH

XXXOPSUIFBTUFSOFEVDQT

On active duty? A degree or certificate from Boston University’s Metropolitan College is within reach—wherever you’re stationed. Our graduate programs at select military bases in Massachusetts, Virginia, and North Carolina provide expertise in topics such as project management, business administration, or computer information systems. You’ll also find a variety of graduate and undergraduate degrees available online, and on our campus in Boston. Learn more about our programs for active military personnel, dependents, and Department of Defense employees—and look into specialized scholarships— at bu.edu/met.

Part-time education. Full-time excellence.

bu.edu/met | 617-353-6000

qtr.indd 1

PUB USS George HW Bush CVN 77

12/8/08 4:30:38 PM


PDF07-39 Military Ad USSGB:Layout 1

12/9/08

2:40 PM

carriers and the national interest

Exploring New Combat and Noncombat Roles and Missions for the U.S. Carrier Fleet,” published in 2006. “Indeed, it is entirely possible that, as the United States seeks ways to stretch its defense dollars, pursue the Global War on Terrorism, and meet other nationalsecurity challenges, policymakers will increase their reliance on aircraft carriers, using them more often and in more situations than they have in the past, especially if the vessels have the additional capabilities to respond appropriately.” This forward presence defines the U.S. Navy, enabling the full spectrum of warfighting – from humanitarian assistance to combat operations – to protect U.S. vital interests, assure friends, and deter and dissuade potential adversaries. Aircraft carriers are often the first to arrive at the scene of a disaster. As was mentioned earlier, immediately following the December 2004 earthquake off the west coast of Northern Sumatra, Indonesia, that triggered devastating tsunamis along the coastal areas of Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, and Malaysia, as well as Indian Ocean islands and parts of East Africa, President George W. Bush dispatched the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and other naval and military forces to support relief efforts. In June 2008, Ronald Reagan and other U.S. Navy ships supported the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) humanitarian assistance mission near the central Philippine island of Panay in the wake of Typhoon Fengshen. Closer to home, USS Harry S. Truman responded to Hurricane Katrina, which hit the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005. In fact, carriers can serve as transports, bases for helicopters, floating electric power and fresh water distillation plants, hospitals, warehouses, and command centers to coordinate disaster-relief operations. Forward-deployed naval forces are ideally suited for the challenges of the new security era. Naval forces provide the means of maintaining a global military presence while limiting the undesired economic, social, political, or diplomatic repercussions that often accompany U.S. forces based ashore. Culturally aware forward-deployed naval forces can provide a stabilizing influence on regional factors and can prevent or limit conflict.

CVN 77 H 75

carriers.indd 75

888-PERDUE-2 • perduefoodservice.com

© 2008 Perdue

U.S. Navy photo by Cmdr. Erik Etz

An F/A-18C Hornet, assigned to the “Stingers” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 113, holds in the port observation position on a British Royal Air Force L-1011 tanker aircraft while another Hornet assigned to Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 14 takes on fuel. The Nimitzclass aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) and Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 14 were providing support to coalition forces on the ground in Afghanistan. Ronald Reagan was deployed to the U.S. Fifth Fleet area of responsibility.

12/10/08 10:16:58 AM

Page


carriers and the national interest

Flexible Platforms Naval analyst and author Dr. Norman Friedman published a definitive book, U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History, first published by the Naval Institute Press in 1983 as part of a series by Friedman on the different ship types of the U.S. Navy. “Six decades have passed since the emergence of the aircraft carrier in the U.S. Navy, and four decades since the carrier became the dominant element of U.S. sea power,” he wrote in his introduction. “No other type of warship is nearly as flexible as a carrier, which can operate an infinite variety of weapon systems by changing her mix of aircraft.” Aircraft carriers can be quickly reconfigured for emergent missions. During Operation Frequent Wind in 1975, USS Hancock (CV 19) and USS Midway (CV 41) offloaded their attack jets and fighters, and took on board a full complement of helicopters to evacuate personnel from

Saigon. Likewise, air wings can be varied according to the nature of the operation: For example, in 1994, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) embarked 50 army helicopters instead of her normal air wing for operations off Haiti. As an example of their military utility and flexibility, USS Theodore Roosevelt’s air wing was augmented by elements of Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force (SPMAGTF) in 1993 to evaluate deploying a multipurpose Marine force on a carrier. Because the carriers can be kept current, they have long service lives of 40 or 50 years. The oldest nuclear carrier in the U.S. fleet, USS Enterprise, was commissioned in 1961. Not only are carriers flexible, but as new aircraft, weapons, and systems are available, the air wing can be updated to bring the new capabilities on board. Shortly after commissioning in 1961, USS Kitty Hawk operated with turbo-prop ground attack A-1 Skyraiders, turbo-prop C-1 Carrier On-board

U.S. Navy photo by PH3 Russell

Army troops from the 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y., are escorted to their helicopters by a safety officer during air assault rehearsal on the flight deck of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) en route to Haiti. The flexibility of aircraft carriers allows a wide range of operations.

76 H CVN 77

carriers.indd 76

12/9/08 5:21:51 PM


carriers and the national interest

Delivery aircraft and WF-1 early warning aircraft, A-3 Sky warrior attack and surveillance aircraft, A-4 Skyhawk attack aircraft, and F-4 Phantom II fighters and F-8 Crusader fighters. Over the years, the carrier would be home to A-5 Vigilante reconnaissance aircraft, A-6 Intruder attack aircraft, F-14 Tomcat interceptors, and S-3 Viking ASW aircraft. At the end of her career, Kitty Hawk’s air wing included F/A-18 Hornets, E-2C Hawkeye early warning aircraft, EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, and the C-2 COD. This list doesn’t include the various Navy helicopters flown, from SH-3s to SH-60s, not to mention Army and Air Force helos. The evolution of carrier-based aircraft was introduced without drastic alteration to the ship, indicative of the flexibility of aircraft carriers and their aircraft. From Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, to Iraq and Afghanistan, to Taiwan and Somalia, the Kitty Hawk was just one example of the inherent utility of carriers.

Carriers today While the U.S. Navy operates the largest carriers, and the most, it is not the only Navy that operates “flattops.” The Royal Navy is replacing its two ski jump-equipped carriers, which operate Harriers and helicopters, with the “CVF.” The new ships, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, will displace 65,000 tons, three times larger than the Invincible-class carriers the CVFs will replace. HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal both displace less than 20,000 tons (along with out-ofservice sister ship HMS Invincible), and have served for three decades. They operate Harrier jump-jets and helicopters and are fitted with ski jump ramps to launch the Harriers. While these carriers were used primarily for antisubmarine warfare, the Falklands experience demonstrated the importance of using the carriers for more traditional air power roles of air supremacy and power projection. France has one carrier, the 37,000-ton, nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle. The French navy is now building the follow-on to Charles de Gaulle, but it will feature conventional propulsion. The French carriers have catapults and arresting wires for conventional carrier operations. The new carrier will be very similar in size to the Royal Navy’s new carriers, but will operate conventional fixed-wing aircraft. Russia’s 55,000-ton Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov is conventionally powered, with a complement of helicopters and both fixedwing and VSTOL aircraft. Brazil’s Sao Paolo is the former 30,000-ton French carrier Foch, operating fixed-wing A-4 Skyhawk fighter bombers and helicopters. Several smaller navies have aircraft carriers. Thailand’s carrier, the Chakri Naruebet – actually built to the U.S. Sea Control Ship (SCS) design – conducts both civilian and military operations. The Spanish navy’s Príncipe de Asturias also is a version of the SCS, and operates Harriers and helicopters. Italy’s new 29,000-ton Conte di Cavour will carry fixed-wing V/STOL aircraft and helicopters to accompany the Giuseppe Garibaldi, a carrier of about half the size of the Cavour and presently the flagship of the Italian fleet. India will soon have the word’s third-largest carrier force, after the United States and the U.K. The Admiral Gorshkov is being refurbished in a Russian shipyard and will transfer to India. A new Vikrant-class “air defense ship” aircraft carrier is under construction in an Indian yard. The former HMS Hermes has served in the Indian navy since 1987. The U.S. Navy today operates some sizeable expeditionary warfare ships that are really carriers with well decks. The United States has four remaining 40,000-ton, Tarawa-class amphibious transports and seven active larger Wasp-class helicopter landing ships. An eighth LHD, Makin Island (LHD 8),

is currently under construction. The LHA and LHD classes of ships carry helicopters and AV-8B Harrier jump jets, and will operate the V-22. Some critics say the days of the carrier are numbered. But the former Chief of Naval Operations disagrees. “The concern that carriers may become more vulnerable in future wars has no basis,” said Holloway. “The aircraft carrier is no more vulnerable than any of our fleet units. The carrier is, in fact, the primary source of protection for the conduct of virtually all other naval warfare functions.”

The future Polmar sees a need for “sea-based tac air” in the foreseeable future, although the composition of the air wing might change. With Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles able to accurately hit targets a thousand miles away, the reliance on a large number of strike aircraft on board the carrier might change. Likewise, Polmar sees the new short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 joint strike fighter as being able to operate from smaller flight decks, like amphibious assault ships. Polmar also sees the vertical takeoff V-22 Osprey in airborne early warning and anti-submarine warfare versions. Like the F-35 V/STOL, these aircraft can operate from smaller platforms. But Polmar also points to another emerging technology. Unmanned aircraft, such as the unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV), will be able to conduct strike and SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) missions without placing pilots at risk, or long-duration surveillance missions where aircrew fatigue will no longer be a factor. UCAVs are still at least a decade or more from becoming operational. “To meet combat and noncombat demands in the future, the United States’ aircraft carriers will require a range of capabilities that they do not currently possess. Carriers will need to be better able to mix and match personnel, aircraft, and other assets to emerging and evolving tasks. They will need to perform more extensive surveillance and reconnaissance, conduct air operations at greater distances, and be equipped to operate in nuclear environments. And they will need to be more modular, deploy on shorter notice, and be prepared to handle more casualties than they can today,” the RAND study reports. The next aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), named for the 38th president of the United States and a Navy veteran, is now under contract, with the keel scheduled to be laid in late 2009, and ship delivery in 2015. Formerly called CVN 21, the 100,000-ton CVN 78 represents the first completely new aircraft carrier design in more than three decades. Improvements include a new flight deck; an improved weapons handling system; advanced arresting gear; and a completely re-engineered electromagnetic aircraft launch system. The new nuclear propulsion plant features an electrical power generation system, which provides three times the electrical generation capacity of a Nimitz-class carrier. The new design has an enlarged flight deck and a new island structure. CVN 78, with its air wing of joint strike fighters and joint unmanned combat air systems, represents the future of carrier strike groups, and will contribute to each of the Sea Power 21 pillars of Sea Basing, Sea Shield, and Sea Strike. “For more than six decades, since the earliest days of World War II, the aircraft carrier has been the principal warship in the United States Navy, the fighting ships around which the U.S. fleet has been constructed and organized,” said Holloway. “Over this time, the carrier forces of our Navy have consistently demonstrated their invaluable worth as a principal instrument of national power, through which the military strategy of our country has been exercised in direct support of the nation’s most vital security objectives.”

CVN 77 H 77

carriers.indd 77

12/9/08 5:21:59 PM


carrier building

Building American Carriers From Nimitz to Bush … and Beyond By John D. Gresham “4.5 Acres of Sovereign U.S. Territory.” “90,000 Tons of Diplomacy.” – U.S. Navy nicknames for Nimitz-class (CVN 68) aircraft carriers

he above nicknames are accurate reflections of the potential destructive power and influence of America’s fleet of nuclear aircraft carriers. They accurately portray the strategic impressions delivered when a Nimitz-class (CVN 68) aircraft carrier arrives off the coast of a foreign land and begins to conduct operations. The largest warships in the world, and the most powerful conventional weapons system in history, the 10 ships of the Nimitz class represent the current state-of-the-art in aircraft carrier design. And while their replacements, the new Gerald R. Ford-class (CVN 78) carriers, are on the design computers at the U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding’s (NGSB) Newport News Shipyard, it will be 2015 before the first are commissioned. So for most of the next decade, USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) and her nine Nimitz-class sister ships will remain the gold standard of contemporary aircraft carrier design. This is a rather bold statement, given that the basic design of USS Nimitz is now close to 40 years old, and that ship itself is more than 30 years old. In fact, the design of Nimitz actually traces back to the first American supercarriers of the Forrestal class (CV 59), dating back to the 1940s. Six decades is a pretty impressive run for any particular interpretation of an idea, much less one that remained the linchpin of U.S. naval strategy during that period. Mike Petters, president of NGSB, summed it up nicely when he said, “First, think about how things in your household have changed from 1970 to today. For example, I can recall a time as a kid when TV Guide used to list which programs were being broadcast in color. Today, TV Guide tells us which are being sent out in high definition! Now think about how far that part of our life has come in the time that the Nimitz-class has been built, since the late 1960s and early 1970s. That

gives you some idea of the robust design this ship has at its core. If you are able to hold onto a basic design from the late ‘60s or early ‘70s, such that in the 21st century, it is still the Navy’s dominant battlespace platform – then you have some idea of how good we think this class of warships is.”

EVOLUTION: THE ROAD FROM USS FORRESTAL TO USS NIMITZ The story of the creation of America’s fleet of Nimitzclass nuclear-powered aircraft carriers begins at the end of World War II, when the U.S. Navy had the most powerful fleet in the history of warfare. At the end of the war, the U.S. Navy was a truly two-ocean fleet, the core of which was two-dozen Essex-class (CV 9) carriers, all completed after Pearl Harbor. In addition, a number of Midway-class (CV 41) battle carriers, built around the propulsion system of the cancelled Montana-class battleships, were being constructed (three would be completed). The problem for the Navy was that none of these ships was able to operate aircraft that could carry and deliver the new atomic bombs entering service, something the new U.S. Air Force could do with its fleet of B-29 Superfortresses. The Navy decided to begin design and construction of a new class of aircraft carrier, USS United States (CVA 58), capable of operating aircraft with the ability to deliver nuclear weapons. Just days after being laid down, through, the United States was canceled and scrapped after the Truman administration decided to cut the program to save money, favoring the Air Force’s huge B-36 Peacemaker bomber for nuclear deterrence operations. However, the coming of the Korean War and the Truman administration’s “rediscovery” of the aircraft carrier’s value in conventional conflicts led to the

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Denny Cantrell

T

78 H CVN 77

building bush.indd 78

12/10/08 2:32:54 PM


carrier building

credit

USS Nimitz (CVN 68) steams through the Gulf of Oman on May 22, 2007. Nimitz, as part of the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group, was on a regularly scheduled deployment in support of Maritime Operations. First of the class, Nimitz is now more than 30 years old.

CVN 77 H 79

building bush.indd 79

12/9/08 5:07:53 PM


babwil on temp.indd 1

3/7/08 12:36:50 PM


Photo courtesy of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding

carrier building

Navy designing the Forrestal-class supercarriers, the first of which was commissioned in 1955. The Forrestals were based upon much of the design work of the United States, with a somewhat more conventional layout including an “island” bridge structure on the starboard side. What was different about the Forrestals was their size (more than 76,000 tons full-load displacement), making them able to carry more aviation fuel and ordnance to sustain flight operations; an enclosed “hurricane” bow; and a host of new design innovations originated by the British. These included steam catapults, a stabilized light system to assist pilots during landings, and an angled flight deck configuration that made “touch-and-go” aborts finally possible. This last feature vastly improved flight safety on board carriers, saving countless aircraft and aircrew personnel. Four of the Forrestal-class supercarriers were constructed, followed by four more improved models of the Kitty Hawk class. USS Kitty Hawk (CV 65), which was commissioned in 1961, was even larger (almost 82,000 tons full-load displacement) than Forrestal, again with more stowage for fuel and ordnance, and for the first time on a carrier, surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). The next U.S. Navy supercarrier, the one-off USS Enterprise (CVN 65 –93,500 tons full-load displacement), was the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier ever built, with eight A2W 35,000-horsepower atomic reactors in place of the eight oil-fired boilers on the Forrestals and Kitty Hawks. These made Enterprise the fastest, most powerful warship in the world, able to cruise almost indefinitely, and requiring only food, aviation fuel, and ordnance to stay at sea. This was the state of the Navy’s supercarrier development when the United States entered the war in Vietnam in the mid-1960s, where carrierbased aircraft provided tens of thousands of combat sorties “over the beach” in support of U.S. ground and strike operations. For more than a decade, U.S. carriers became flexible mobile airfields able to move between locations in the northern (“Yankee Station”) and southern (“Dixie Station”) South China Sea. Along the way, a number of lessons were learned about aircraft carrier design and operations. The first of these was that bigger was better, particularly when it involved greater aviation fuel and ordnance stowage, allowing for longer time on station and staying in the fight. Additionally, three terrible fires on board USS Oriskany (CV 34), Forrestal, and Enterprise taught valuable lessons about better weapons handling, firefighting, and damage control on carriers. Finally, the emergence of the Soviet navy as a peer competitor in the open oceans had significant inputs into the design of the lead ship of the next class of American aircraft carrier: the Nimitz. Nimitz (the largest warship in history at 97,000 tons full-load displacement) was designed to be the first of a three-ship class that would provide the Navy with a platform that would take advantage of every lesson learned about carrier design and construction since World War II. Powered by a pair of A4W nuclear reactors (with the same 280,000 horsepower as Enterprise’s eight A2Ws), Nimitz would have the largest stowage capacity possible for aviation fuel, ordnance, and crew consumables. Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia, long a leader in aircraft carrier construction and the builder of Enterprise, was selected to build the first of the Nimitzclass ships, and laid down her keel in July 1968.

THE LONG RUN: USS NIMITZ TO USS RONALD REAGAN “We shall build good ships here. At a profit – if we can. At a loss – if we must. But always good ships,” stated Collis Potter Huntington, founder, Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Company.

Unlike Nimitz, the final carriers of the class have been assembled using modular construction techniques. Here George H.W. Bush’s lower bow section, with its bulbous bow bulb, is lowered into place.

Located on 550 acres on the north bank of the James River in the Virginia Tidewater Region, NGSB – Newport News is the sole builder of nuclearpowered aircraft carriers for the Navy. The key pieces of infrastructure that make this possible can be found on the western end of the company’s property, where Dry Dock 12 is located and Nimitz-class carriers are constructed. Just under 2,172 feet long, Dock 12 is the largest such facility in the western hemisphere, and can be subdivided into two separate wet/ dry construction facilities with the addition of a removable/movable caisson.

CVN 77 H 81

building bush.indd 81

12/9/08 5:08:05 PM


USS George H.W. Bush about to float for the first time, with the flooding of Dry Dock 12.

Running on railroad tracks along the full length of Dock 12 is a huge bridge crane, capable of lifting loads of up to 900 metric tons/198,000 pounds, which is the key assembly tool for the Nimitz-class carriers. When the keel for Nimitz was laid down in Dock 12 on June 22, 1968, Lyndon B. Johnson was president of the United States, and the first manned Apollo missions to the moon were still a year away. In 1968, the state of the shipbuilding art was still one of lowering one piece of a ship at a time into position, and building it to a series of paper blueprints, manually updated by hand daily by hundreds of draftsmen in buildings adjacent to the waterfront at Newport News. It was a different era in industrial production, with slide rules instead of calculators and laptop computers, no robots numerically controlled for cutting and welding, and where the skills of shipfitters on the waterfront were the measure of quality and workmanship for a company like Newport News. Perhaps most telling is

this fact: Petters was still a little boy on his family’s farm near Orlando, Fla., and far too young to drive a tractor! It took almost eight years from keel laying in 1968 to commissioning in 1975 to get Nimitz into the fleet, with more than a few growing pains. Years of high economic inflation in the costs of everything from labor to plate steel resulted in severe financial overruns for the program. The fact that Nimitz was a new design rather than an evolved Enterprise- or Kitty Hawk-class carrier also slowed construction and raised costs. There were, however, some good reasons for the problems. The move to a tworeactor power plant, an improved hull form with more stowage for fuel and consumables, and more “compartmentation” and structural strength all contributed. These last two points were extremely important, as the Nimitz-class carriers were facing a tough new threat from the Soviet navy. Beginning in the late 1950s, following the death of Josef Stalin, the Soviet navy had completely remade itself into a sea denial force, built around a potent mix of submarines, surface vessels, and long-range bombers. Many were armed with new anti-ship cruise missiles, with warheads carrying up to a metric ton (2,200 pounds) of explosives. The expectation was that the Nimitz-class carriers might have to survive a number of hits from such weapons and still be able to conduct flight operations following damage control efforts. And while some contemporary observers may have called the Nimitz-class carriers “sitting ducks,” nobody could deny they were very tough ducks. By 1982, the first trio (Nimitz, USS Eisenhower [CVN 69], and USS Carl Vinson [CVN 70]) of the big battle carriers was in commission and making its presence known. Nimitz had been part of the Iranian hostage rescue mission in 1980, and her aircraft shot down a pair of Libyan Su22 “Fitter” fighter-bombers in 1981. A fourth Nimitz-class carrier, USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), was ordered in 1981. It was, however, the coming of President Ronald W. Reagan’s new Secretary of the Navy in 1981, the Honorable John Lehman, who changed the entire course of the U.S. Navy in general, and the Nimitz-class carriers in particular. Lehman had a mandate from the new president to build a “600-ship navy,” with 15 aircraft carriers as its centerpieces. This resulted in the extraordinary ordering of two pairs of Nimitz-class carriers in 1982 and 1983 from Newport News, which became USS George Washington (CVN 72), USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 73), USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), and USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). Along with the construction of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, these four carriers provided steady work for Newport News for the next 14 years, giving the Navy a chance to ask the question, “What do we want carriers in the 21st century to be like?” Even before the Truman was laid down in 1993, the Navy was working on answering this question, especially in light of the end of the Cold War. What the Navy came up with was a master plan that would order two additional units of the Nimitz class (CVN 76 and 77), with a new class tentatively known as “CVN 21” being planned as CVN 78. The final two units of the Nimitz class, which became Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) and George H.W. Bush, were planned as “transition” carriers to try out new technologies and equipment prior to their installation on board CVN 78. Ronald Reagan was ordered in 1994, laid down in 1998, and spent the next five years being built at Newport News, with a number of the aforementioned improvements and additions being made. These included: • Flight deck – The flight deck of the Reagan was slightly enlarged and the angle of the landing deck altered to allow simultaneous launch and landing of aircraft. In addition, new jet blast deflectors, an improved threewire arresting gear system (versus the four-wire systems used previously),

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding photo by John Whalen

carrier building

82 H CVN 77

building bush.indd 82

12/9/08 5:08:16 PM


carrier building

Courtesy of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding

The bridge crane at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding lifts the upper bow section into place.

and extensions to the deck edges allow safer and more efficient flight operations. Finally, a new high-capacity weapons elevator system was installed, so that fully assembled weapons, including precision-guided munitions and missiles, can be delivered directly from the magazines below to the flight deck. • Island structure/masts – The island structure on the Reagan was reduced in size and height, providing better visibility for both the navigation bridge and primary flight control. In addition, the numerous antennas and masts of earlier Nimitz-class carriers were consolidated to just two mounted on the island. • Hull – For the first time on an American aircraft carrier, a bulbous bow was fitted to reduce drag and increase the efficiency of the entire hull. This has the effect of extending the life of the reactor cores, meaning they only need to be replaced twice during the Reagan’s planned 50-year service life. • ICAN – Reagan was built as the first American aircraft carrier to trade copper wire links for a computerized fiber-optic network system known as the Integrated Communications and Advanced Network (ICAN) system. ICAN can control almost every major function on board, from conning the ship and navigation, to controlling the communications suite and monitoring consumption of water and aviation fuel, managing

power consumption, and controlling the enhanced air-conditioning systems. • Weapons/combat systems – Reagan set a new standard for aircraft carrier defensive weaponry, deleting the Mk. 15 Phalanx close-in weapons system, and replacing it with a pair of 21-round Mk. 31 launchers for the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile. Along with a pair of Mk. 29 launchers for the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow/RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), these weapons are tied into the Cooperative Engagement Capability System, which networks all the sensors and weapons of a carrier strike group together. The numerous changes and additions to the Reagan provided a first step toward the planned transition to CVN 78, and rapidly validated many of the systems that would be needed to accomplish the move. The last of the Nimitz-class carriers, the George H.W. Bush, will take the final step.

NEW AND IMPROVED: USS GEORGE H.W. BUSH When the Navy ordered the Bush from NGSB in January 2001, it was both ending one of the most successful warship classes in the history of naval warfare, and taking the last major step toward CVN 78, now called Gerald R. Ford. It also is worth noting that the entire process of building

CVN 77 H 83

building bush.indd 83

12/9/08 5:08:24 PM


One of Bush’s four giant propellers, of a new, more efficient design, is lifted into place.

the Bush is fundamentally different from when Nimitz was laid down four decades ago. Gone forever are the paper blueprints, replaced years ago by a centralized digital-design database containing every drawing, engineering change order, and materials list. Instead of halls full of draftsmen, there are design engineers working in a number of venues around the NGSB carrierdesign center, doing everything from virtual reality fit checks to sending revised numeric cutting instructions via network to computer-controlled machines on the other side of the yard. Even the waterfront, one of the last bastions of American heavy industry, has fundamentally been altered by the march of time. Mobile phones and personal data assistants provide instant communications between the design shops and assembly supervisors out in the yard. And instead of the “one-piece-at-a-time” construction method used in the 1960s, “modular” construction techniques reign supreme at NGSB. Modular construction, originally developed by NGSB’s Ingalls Shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., builds the ship in large sections in the open-air assembly area just east of

Dry Dock 12, and then lifts the parts into position with the 900-ton bridge crane. This vastly reduces the amount of work required later at pierside, and is much more economical. During the six years she has been under construction, Bush has taken all of the previously described improvements and additions of Reagan, and added a number of others. These include: • Island structure/masts – The reduced-sized island of Bush has been enhanced with larger armored window glass, and upgrades to the navigation and communications systems. In addition, Bush has a new radar tower that has been relocated from the flight deck to the island, and something new for American aircraft carriers: a mast fabricated from composite materials, reducing maintenance and virtually eliminating corrosion. • Flight deck/hull – The aircraft arresting gear has been improved, and a new JP-5 aviation fuel system has been installed. In addition, a new family of lightweight hull and deck coatings is being applied on board the Bush, which will reduce solar heat absorption and resist staining, and cut almost 100 tons of weight. Bush also is receiving a set of newly designed propellers that should be more efficient than those on the nine previous Nimitz-class carriers. • Technology embedding – A number of new technologies are being embedded into Bush, including an all-digital photographic lab (no chemical processing), a new onboard oxygen/nitrogen generation system, an improved medical and dental suite to provide more and better services for the crew, and integrated data screens in the central damage control spaces, tied to the ICAN system. The key to this connectivity is millions of feet of blown fiber-optic network cable, which will link more points and functions around Bush than any other warship in history. • Vacuum collection/marine sanitation system – One of the very real problems faced by the Navy is that an aircraft carrier produces a sizable amount of human waste products each day, all of which must be disposed of somehow. Until now, this has been accomplished by a collection holding tank system, which has had to be pumped off into a municipal sewage system at pierside, if available, or pumped overboard while at sea. This tends to limit the ports at which carriers can call, given the niceties of local regulations. Bush however, has a state-of-the-art vacuum collection and treatment system. Thanks to a system of bacterial/aeration/ultraviolet light treatment, human waste becomes a “green” effluent, which can be pumped overboard in any harbor in the world. Commenting on all these developments, Petters said, “What that means is, on the Bush, there are significant technological advances from the basic Nimitz design. The basic features are the same: It still has four catapults and the same 4.5-acre flight deck. But inside the platform, the subsystems that allow the ship to operate have changed across the board – changed dramatically, in fact. We do electrical power generation differently, and we do oxygen generation differently. The requirements of the computer systems and information technology systems have mandated that we make changes to the way we generate, distribute, and stabilize power on the ship. That’s a major difference that has been built in over the years. The arresting gear system is also different – the kinds of differences that you would expect from a ship we delivered in 1976. That said, the fact remains that nobody else on the planet knows how to build these platforms.” One more point about the updates, additions, and improvements that have gone into Reagan and Bush: Most can be retrofitted back into the rest of the ships of the Nimitz class, even back to the lead ship, because for all the digital and computerized features of these two transition warships, they are still Nimitz-class carriers at their core.

Northrop Grumman photo by John Whalen

carrier building

84 H CVN 77

building bush.indd 84

12/9/08 5:08:33 PM


WÄRTSILÄ POWERS THE

WÄRTSILÄ® is a registered trademark.

POWERING THE WORLD’S NAVIES WORLD’S NAVAL, GOVERNMENT AND RESEARCH VESSELS with machinery, propulsion, sealing and maneuvering solutions. From complete integrated systems to more defined solutions, we offer a unique combination of support throughout all lifecycle stages: design, construction and operation. See what we’re doing for you today at wartsila.com

Picture courtesy of BAE Systems Surface Fleet Solutions Ltd.

We are a team. A team built specically for the needs and demands of the US Navy. We strive to exceed the standards set forth and for decades have achieved this goal with great pride. Our portfolio of increasingly sophisticated pumps, valves and controls, combined with smart technologies, creates the solutions that help drive the eet forward. We are proud to serve you, our country, and the world.

Our products help build the eet, our solutions protect it.

Engineered Solutions for Defense www.colfaxcorp.com

warColfax.indd 1

12/10/08 10:38:27 AM


argosy on temp.indd 1

12/10/08 10:04:27 AM


carrier building

Following maritime tradition in the stepping of the mast, President George H.W. Bush and Capt. Kevin O’Flaherty place their wings beneath the island of USS George H.W. Bush for good luck before it is dropped into place.

Courtesy of Nortrop Grumman Shipbuilding

INTO THE FUTURE: USS GERALD R. FORD As Bush is being commissioned, steel plates and other materials are gathering near Dry Dock 12 at NGSB in Newport News for the final act of the great carrier transition: the construction of Gerald R. Ford. Technologically, Ford will make clean breaks with the past of American carrier and warship design, and provide a roadmap toward the Navy of the mid-21st century. “What the new Ford class allows us to do is decide on what we like about what we’re doing and things we would like even better,” said Petters. “So starting over when the Ford began with a three-dimensional computerized design effort allows us to do things like electromagnetic catapults, or distributive electrical power systems. The other part of it is that we were able to go and factor into the basic design process how we really want to build these ships, and that’s going to lead to some significant efficiencies as well. So, being able to start with a clean sheet – for all the past successes of the Nimitz-class – going forward on the Ford is a great opportunity for us. It allows us not only to re-engineer the platform, but to also re-engineer the shipyard and our workforce. It

allows us to take the best of what we do well and apply that to the ship and its construction.” Key to this, as described previously, will be the elimination of highpressure steam and hydraulic fluid wherever possible, and replacement with computerized and electro-mechanical systems. These include: • Catapults – The familiar steam catapults first seen on board Forrestal in 1955 are finally about to be replaced by Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch Systems (EMALS). Essentially contained electromagnetic railguns, the four EMALS planned for Ford will have fewer moving parts, require less maintenance, provide greater reliability and availability, and be safer than the steam catapults used for the past five decades. Each EMALS will be powered by a 100-megajoule electrical storage system, and can recharge/cycle every 45 seconds. • Flight/hangar deck – Ford will have only three elevators, as opposed to the four of the Nimitz-class carriers, but they will be larger. In addition, there will be an advanced arresting gear system, greater space on the flight deck including “pit stop” refueling/rearming points, and new outboard weapons elevators. The hangar deck itself will be a new two-bay

CVN 77 H 87

building bush.indd 87

12/15/08 4:16:51 PM


TAPATIO® Hot Sauce is available in 5 convenient sizes 5 oz., 10 oz., 32 oz., Gallon and Portion Control packets. Visit us at:

www.TapatioHotSauce.com For a complimentary sample please send a self addressed stamped envelope to: TAPATÍO FOODS, LLC 4685 District Blvd., Vernon, CA 90058 Tel: (323) 587-8933 Fax: (323) 587-5266. 408026_GeorgeBushAd6.qxd

4/3/08

10:40 AM

Page 1

Setting the Standard for Technical Quality in Electronics The Electronics Business Group plays a critical role in supplying cable assemblies, communications cables, wiring harnesses, components, power distribution systems, lighting kits, radio mounts and equipment for the Department of Defense in the United States and overseas. We are under direct long-term agreements with the U.S. military and we are a preferred provider for major military OEM’s. With over 40 years of manufacturing experience, nationwide facilities and a highly skilled labor force…the Electronics Business Group is well prepared to meet your needs.

Electronics Business Group U.S. Department of Justice Federal Prison Industries, Inc. unicor.gov/ussgwb epeipert@central.unicor.gov

tapaFedera on temp.indd 1

12/10/08 10:46:08 AM


carrier building

Photo courtesy of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding

Finishing touches. The big white “77” is painted on the island of the final Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

configuration. One other new feature will be the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS), which should finally make fully automated landings possible. JPALS will be vital if the Navy is to make unmanned air combat vehicles a significant part of future carrier air wings. • Island/masts – The design of the Ford has the island much further aft than on previous carrier designs, providing improved visibility over the flight deck. Ford will also continue the trend toward putting all the masts on the island structure, and reducing the overall number of antennas. Key to this will be the new Multi-Function Radar/Volume Search Radar (MFR/ VSR), a phased array radar system that will be very similar to the AN/SPY3 system planned for installation on board the new Zumwalt-class (DDG 1000) destroyers. MFR/VSR will replace six separate radar systems on board the Nimitz-class carriers. • Propulsion/power plant – To power all the new electrically driven systems like the catapults and new sensor systems, the Ford will have a

power plant arrangement greatly modified from that of the Nimitz-class carriers. While the Ford will still have two large nuclear reactors, the new A1B units will be able to be operated by a smaller crew than the A4W units on board the Nimitz-class ships. In addition, more of the output of the reactors will be devoted to electrical power generation for the catapults and other new ship systems. When Gerald R. Ford is commissioned sometime in 2015, it will replace the most famous aircraft carrier in the Navy: Enterprise. It is appropriate that America’s first nuclear aircraft carrier be replaced by the first of a new class, the Ford-class carriers. It is likely that the sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters of today’s NGSB shipbuilders will build Ford-class carriers well into the mid-21st century. Warship construction is a family affair in the United States, and it is a strength for the nation that the qualities and skills of one generation be passed to the next into such a critical American resource as aircraft carriers.

CVN 77 H 89

building bush.indd 89

12/9/08 5:08:55 PM


UMUC welcomes CVN 77 to the fleet

Andrew Johnson n CHief Petty Officer, U.S. Navy n undergraduate Student, computer studies UMUC serves where yoU serve. Since 1947, University of Maryland University College (UMUC) has served the educational needs of active-duty servicemembers, military families, reserves and veterans. Today, UMUC is the largest provider of education to the U.S. military worldwide, with online courses and more than 150 classroom locations around the world that let you continue your studies without interruption—no matter where the Navy takes you. ™&(%hiViZ"d["i]ZVgijcYZg\gVYjViZVcY graduate degree and certificate programs designed and taught by real-world experts ™CdH6I!<G:dg<B6IgZfj^gZY

™HX]daVgh]^edeedgijc^i^ZhZmXajh^kZan for the military

Visit www.umuc.edu/careeradvantage

™Dca^cZVXXZhhidhijYZcihZgk^XZh! library resources, financial aid and more

Advance your career. Anywhere. Enroll today.

University of Maryland University College Copyright © 2008 University of Maryland University College

09-DOD-030_USSBushMag_R3.indd 1

uomarWalsh.indd 1

11/17/08 4:04:30 PM

12/10/08 10:49:12 AM


Information technology

Information Technology and USS George H.W. Bush

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kristopher Wilson

By J.R. Wilson

I

n a world of constant technological change, few things change more rapidly or significantly than the realm of information technology (IT). With computer hardware generations averaging about 18 months and software almost immediately taking advantage of those evolutions, the concept of open IT architecture is not merely a cost-saving convenience but a mandatory defense against rapid obsolescence. That approach has made USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) a showcase for advances in IT capabilities, versatility, interoperability, and upgradability. The result combines improved ship operations with space and weight savings as well as a vastly improved ergonomic environment in critical areas of the carrier. Upgrades to the Bush from its sister ship, USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), include

navigation and communications systems and integrated display screens in Damage Control Central that have been modernized to improve data integration and display. At the same time, however, tight budgets today and unknown funding availability in the future mean looking hard at commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components, which are continuously updated to meet the needs of a far more affluent civilian market, versus proprietary military specifications (MILSPEC) or even government off-theshelf (GOTS) technology. “Our first approach is to look at what we need as the warfighter in incorporating the latest technology,” Bush’s Combat Systems Officer Cmdr. Bob Sullivan said. “With networks, a tremendous effort is going into COTS products: How do we maintain those items and design, develop,

Sailors observe and track flight operations in the combat direction center (CDC) aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). One of the newer systems that will be installed on board the Bush is the Aviation Data Management and Control System (ADMACS), which will network multiple systems now employed for air tasking and flight operations.

CVN 77 H 91

IT.indd 91

12/10/08 3:05:06 PM


Information technology

install COTS, and still provide a reliable, secure, robust, and battle-ready architecture that not only takes care of us in battle but also is scalable, with which we can continue to develop and integrate newer technology, backfit ourselves to legacy technology, and continue to integrate operations for the fleet? “We’re becoming smarter and smarter as our technology grows smaller and smaller. As we shrink computer size, we increase computer power, so we are making things more powerful, capable, and flexible, but also smaller and lighter, as we strive to make our open architecture scalable.” Other changes brought into the Bush include a greater use of fiberoptic cabling, which provides greater bandwidth at less weight than copper wiring; LCD screens versus hard plexiglass or glass displays; and digital instead of analog for a brighter display with greater color capability. “Being able to use my brain to process the colors to instantly give me the status of a system is a definite advance over older, light-driven analog technology,” Sullivan said. “And because we are using the same technology and display types in all systems, we reduce the number of stores required on board and the footprint, enabling greater configuration management.”

Meeting the IT requirements of the most advanced carrier in the fleet is the result of years of development and testing prior to construction to make sure that technology is properly geared to meet Bush’s mission and requirements. It also means taking a hard took at lessons learned from legacy platforms – including the 5-year-old Reagan – and making changes whenever a new approach offers a better solution. “Some of the things we have advanced on Bush include just the way we are processing navigation-critical data, damage control, monitoring systems – all part of integrated networking, with individualized systems developed to meet a particular need now brought into federated systems,” Sullivan explained. “So as we grew, what we originally thought [might work] may not provide the most robust and reliable path, so we have taken some networks and broken them away from consolidated and into federated networks. “We continue to work the integration of displays and situational awareness types of monitors and displays to make them more network centric. So instead of having a stand-alone system with its own wiring and maintenance, we now incorporate that into a network of applications. We also try to build in redundancy in the servers and network to provide some

Official U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Aaron Burden

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) crewmembers man Damage Control Central under the direction of the damage control assistant (DCA), center, during a ship-wide General Quarters drill May 30, 2005. USS George H.W. Bush will have integrated display screens in Damage Control Central that have been modernized to improve data integration and display.

92 H CVN 77

IT.indd 92

12/10/08 3:05:17 PM


Information technology

type of system availability during a power outage.” One newer system being utilized to that end on board the Bush is the Aviation Data Management and Control System (ADMACS), which networks multiple systems together. “You have classified and unclassified information riding on the ship’s network on what used to be stand-alone remote displays but now are available at an operator’s workstation. They can see how flight ops are going, our whole air tasking, both shipboard and off-ship, within the battle or strike group concept and possibly beyond that,” Sullivan said. “Wind data also is being incorporated into ADMACS and providing more information than was available before on an analog display that the individual had to go to rather than call it up on his own workstation.” A future system planned for installation on the Bush – at a date as yet to be determined – is the Consolidated Afloat and Networks Enterprise Services (CANES). “In our current configuration, we break information up into classified and unclassified networks. CANES is a CNO [Chief of Naval Operations]–directed approach to reducing the infrastructure and providing increased availability across the networked enclave,” he said. “That, then, is a mixture of classified and unclassified information broken down by network, but accessible. CANES takes it to a greater degree of public key infrastructure and down to the individual’s clearance and need-to-know, so if they are going to access something, they not only have to be able to do so but are only able to access the level they need and are authorized to see.” Another important IT development for the Bush is an evolving ability to be independent of land-based data systems that can only be accessed while the carrier is in port. “We’re developing more and more systems that are plug-and-play, where we have a LAN drop attached to a particular network, whether classified or unclassified, so we can plug-andplay that information via a carry-on system. That gives you the system you need when you need it and gets rid of huge equipment racks, instead using

carry-on capability that can break out classified and unclassified as needed,” Sullivan explained. “That gives me the flexible interoperability I need, whether it is networking with a coalition, other services, or U.S. Navy assets.” Plug-and-play also simplifies moving from an onboard box performing one function to performing a different function for which there is no dedicated box on board. “The old technology would require putting a new box in and tearing out the old cabling and power lines. The carryon technology has an equipment rack with connectors and LAN drops; what I need to operate in a particular part of the world and for a specific mission can be flown aboard and hooked into the rack,” he continued. “If we need something else the next day, we just unplug one and plug another in, which could be a different classified system going to a different classified LAN [local area network]. So I have increased capability and decreased need for equipment space and systems, because I’m operating off a common equipment rack and common connectors, with all plug-and-play equipment today made the same size. “Once space and rack design is developed, built, and installed, the equipment size becomes standard and flexible to meet changes to the ship’s tasking. The majority of space work is done only once and overall installation and maintenance costs are reduced,” Sullivan said. The Bush also has a far more flexible and ergonomic IT infrastructure that Sullivan said will only become more so with the introduction of the next level of technology evolution: wireless. “When we first began doing wireless surveys, people thought that meant connecting their laptops, but it’s more complicated than that. It means being able to access the classified LAN through wireless means by incorporating today’s wireless technology on board the ship,” he said. “That provides several advantages, including reduced infrastructure, so we can minimize wiring by not adding those LAN drops. “There also are ergonomic advantages. With LAN drops, if you

CVN 77 H 93

IT.indd 93

12/10/08 3:05:25 PM


The Dewey Electronics Corporation 27 Muller Road, Oakland, NJ 07436

(201) 337 - 4700 www.deweyelectronics.com

Proud Supplier To the U.S. Navy Underwater Log Equipment (Electromagnetic Type) Pitometer Log Division

Mk 6 System

Spares & replacements parts for all US Navy surface ships & Sea Valve

submarines.

Mk 48 Torpedo Components

Rodmeters “Pit Swords”

MK 107 Mod 2 Warheads MK 21 Mod 2 Exploder MK 21 Mod 3 Exploder Mechanisms MK 21 Mod 3 Rigid-Flex Circuit Card Assembly MK 21 Mod 3 Battery Pre-Regulator Assembly MK 94 Mod 0 Fleet Exercise Section Battery Pre-Regulator Assembly FES Shell Leak Detector Dana Hollis, VP Business Development, dhollis@deweyelectronics.com

qtrITS.indd 1

12/10/08 2:33:06 PM


U.S. Navy photo by Journalist 1st Class James Pinsky

Information technology

put them in one corner, you have to put the desk there and no longer can rearrange the space to meet new and changing needs. With wireless, you are free from the need for more infrastructure, space, and weight to meet the operator’s requirements, including arranging desks and tables to their best use and advantage. “And you have a very secure network under NIPRNET [Navy Internet Protocol Router Network]. You will not be able to come on board with a personal laptop with wireless capability and access that network because of the security in place – not the security of the information, but the security of the access.” Although Sullivan said Bush and Reagan, the last of the Nimitz-class carriers are considered to be in a sub-class of their own, they are very similar in terms of IT, Bush nonetheless utilizes newer, faster, and more scalable technologies, including advanced IT servers. But any advances made on the Bush, such as wireless, will be retrofit onto all Nimitz-class carriers, providing substantial space and weight savings. “We’re always driving toward ensuring the strike group commander has the right command and control for his ship, whether older or newer Nimitz class, and can meet the tasking of the Navy and the nation in terms of IT,” he added. “As the systems improve and utilize more fiber and wireless, I think we will find ways to make those more flexible, with less infrastructure.” Due in part to their greater similarity, lessons learned from five years of at-sea operations by the Reagan have been especially important to the design and evolution of the Bush’s IT systems. “One thing we have done as part of our distributed data control network and machinery control management system is federate our voice network. With Reagan, the voice network was integrated with the core network; on the Bush, it is federated, having its own path so we are not riding the same information suite. We learned a lot about the need for dedicated devices and systems versus shared, which is probably the greatest advance in terms of lessons learned from the Reagan applied to the Bush,” Sullivan said. “We now have a federated voice communications and distributed data control network, with Navigation Critical and the Machinery Control and Monitoring System pieced together to provide a whole host of solutions to the ship on things as simple as checking the status of a fuel tank to running the ship’s control

A liquid crystal display (LCD) panel on board USS Virginia illustrates the advantages of the LCD screens that will be used on board Bush.

system, autopilot, and displays. That also applies on lower-end technology, such as single halyard entanglement on radars, where flags might get entangled in the mechanics of a rotating radar. When the radar motors sense an increase in resistance during rotation, the motor stops turning, minimizing any damage to the gear.” Because the Navy’s legacy ships will be in operation for years to come, everything learned from the Bush will be incorporated into future changes for older carriers, just as lessons learned and improvements from installations in older ships also will be incorporated, as needed, across the fleet. But in a network-centric battlespace, the ability of the IT system to communicate with ships and aircraft from multiple allied or coalition nations is paramount. Joint interoperability is key to success. “We use the RF spectrum – line-of-sight or, mostly, satellite – for those communications. The good thing about the open architecture and construct we have is it provides us not just with the increased computing power we need, but is scalable as far as networks are concerned, based on adapting my technology – wireless, for example – so I can grow more systems riding a common network,” Sullivan said. “That goes across the command and control piece, weapons platforms, and distributed combat platforms, shore-, sea-, air-based, across both legacy systems on the older Nimitz

class and providing a working environment with other U.S. and coalition ships. That is a huge concern, piecing together many different types of networks and operating those with our newer gear.” The advances that make interoperability a concern today will only increase as technology continues to evolve and is applied, not only to the Bush, but across the fleet. “As we look to the future, we have to consider what of today’s technology is still applicable for tomorrow and how we will incorporate tomorrow’s technology. Working a smart-ship technology, we are leading edge today on digital monitoring and control of most systems on the ship,” Sullivan concluded. “We have to have tremendous mission flexibility, being able to cross multiple applications and domain solutions, seamless integration with CVN strike groups and in communicating with our allies and coalitions. We do this with these newer systems and must be able to work with both future and legacy technologies. “It’s all a matter of trying to ensure we meet mission tasking. We will be in a multiplemission mode, so we have to be flexible enough to meet each demand with the right amount of computing power, the right software, and the correct personnel trained to operate, administer, and maintain the systems in a Navy-only, joint, or coalition environment.”

CVN 77 H 95

IT.indd 95

12/10/08 3:05:36 PM


training and simulation

Training and Simulation Technology By J.R. Wilson

A

s the last of the Nimitz-class carriers, USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) is far more comparable to its immediate predecessor, USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), than any of the earlier ships in its line. But even the brief gap between the July 2003 launch of Reagan and the early 2009 commissioning of Bush was more than enough to incorporate substantial lessons learned and technology upgrades. Among the most significant are those related to crew training and simulation. As has been the case with each new advance throughout the 33 years since USS Nimitz (CVN 68) first entered service, advances in Bush will be retrofit to the legacy fleet, to the extent possible, as each ship goes through its regular maintenance cycle. For now, however, Bush’s crew will enjoy the most portable and accessible in-port and at-sea training capabilities ever fielded by the U.S. Navy. “A lot of what we have on board is built from previous Nimitz-class carriers, so we’re using a lot of legacy training,” noted Bush’s training officer, Lt. Cmdr. Thaveephong Douangaphaivong. “There is a change in the training of our sailors going from schools ashore to more computer-based courses and online training, allowing our sailors to be more in charge of their training and what they need for the job they’re doing aboard our ship. A lot of the CBTs [computer-based trainings] will be online and available to the sailors, so there are some challenges, but the sailors control the speed at which they are learning and the information they are retaining. “We’re looking at the ability of the sailor to continue this under way, both near home port and on deployments, so our ship is getting the NIAPS [Naval Information Application Product Suite] server, which basically replicates what is available while we are connected to shore-based services so the sailors can continue their training at sea. While we are under way, the servers do periodic uploads to the land-based servers.” Among other advantages, onboard CBT means crewmembers will need to spend less time in school prior to reporting to the ship, “so we get

our sailors on board quicker with sufficient knowledge to perform their duties,” he added. “Throughout their tour aboard the ship, they can use CBT to refresh themselves or do advanced training not previously available. And they can convert to other ratings, using CBTs that support the desired rating so they can prepare themselves for that kind of transition.” With this form of self-paced training available to the entire ship’s crew, both enlisted ranks and officers, Bush will see an unprecedented level of demand for computers and system access. The response to that new requirement marks one of the major changes from previous carriers, including Reagan. “We’re making more computer technology available via our computerlearning centers and upgrading our training classrooms to smart classrooms,” Douangaphaivong said. “We are looking at the technology the students need, which is predominantly laptops, and the environment. They will need more multimedia training, so we also are bringing in projectors and linking the classrooms on board the ship so they can see more DVD-based information. We’re trying to make all four classrooms almost identical. I wish they were located together, but they are scattered throughout the ship. “We have found a donor who will help us with the realization of that concept – linking the classrooms with cameras so they can talk to each other. And we are working with the Navy League, which is talking to various sources [regarding future donations]. We have a total of four classrooms – two training rooms, the computer-learning center, and the indoctrination classroom. We’re looking at roughly 30 sailors apiece, so we could have a virtual classroom of about 120.” Bush will have 2,800 crew and 2,200 in the air wing, slightly fewer crew than other carriers as part of the Navy’s effort to determine the best transition from the Nimitz class to the next-generation Ford-class ship, which will have a significantly smaller complement. But with up to 5,000

96 H CVN 77

training and sim.indd 96

12/10/08 3:08:11 PM


training and simulation

U.S. Navy photo by Seaman Kevin T. Murray Jr.

Cmdr. Carrier Strike Group 10 Rear Adm. William Gortney (right) tests one of many new computers installed in a distance-learning center during its grand opening aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) on Sept. 20, 2007. USS George H.W. Bush’s computerlearning center will be open around-the-clock.

personnel aboard, working in three shifts, and personal laptops unable to connect to the ship’s training system, classrooms and their laptops will be available whenever they are needed by anyone aboard. “We’re making some changes over previous carrier operations, where classrooms are only open during the day. The computer-learning center on the Bush will be open around-the-clock, which should improve their quality of life, solving a lot of their computing needs regardless of shift worked,” Douangaphaivong said. “Right now, we’re looking at trying to provide the computing power needed for each seat – roughly 100 or so computers – and also the audio/video equipment in each classroom, working with the combat systems folks to manage the servers in each classroom and allowing them to connect to one another. “The content is provided by the Navy education and training folks and will be about the same as other carriers, but how we present it to the students will be different, especially allowing them to interact across classrooms. While we are deployed, the Navy PACE [Program for Adult College Education] program will enable them to complete college credits while under way. If we have

enough enrolled, the instructor can teach from any of the four classrooms aboard the ship, with students in any or all of the four.” Even with larger and more frequent use of the four classrooms for group training, their primary application will be individual CBT sessions, with 30 or so sailors of all ranks sharing the room, but doing separate lessons simultaneously. Avoiding chaos and confusion in such an environment was another hurdle to overcome. “One of the areas of interest for me is how do you sanitize the training environment so they are not interrupted by the person next to them,” Douangaphaivong said. “We’re looking at different types of headsets and microphones so they can execute that CBT training in virtual silence.” While USS Gerald Ford (CVN 78) will feature a virtual training environment, where users don virtual-reality (VR) goggles and sensoryfeedback gloves, until the time comes to update the then-legacy Bush, CVN 77 also will incorporate a variety of on board and in-port systems beyond CBT.

CVN 77 H 97

training and sim.indd 97

12/10/08 3:09:17 PM


The backbone of america Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s world-class steel industry generates 1.2 million jobs and contributes $350 billion to our economy.

For more information, visit www.steel.org

A message from the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)

Technology in depth Artificial Submarine Acoustic Target The AUV62-AT resembles a true Submarine for operator training as well as onboard ASW sonar and command system check-up.

www.saabgroup.com

ameriSabb.indd 1

12/15/08 4:26:41 PM


training and simulation

Innovation

In

Costs

Out U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class James E. Foehl

Lt. j.g. Jenna Rauning, assigned to Afloat Training Group Middle Pacific (ATG MIDPAC), acts as the conning officer of a bridge watch team while simulating an approach for underway replenishment during an unveiling and ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Navigation, Seamanship and Shiphandling Trainer (NSST) at ATG MIDPAC. NSST is a new state-of-the-art bridge team trainer designed to replicate the environment found on the bridge of a U.S. Navy ship and utilizes life-like scenarios with visual simulations to train Navy bridge teams.

“Another enhancement to individual and ship’s readiness is something the big Navy is doing to heighten readiness of the individual and watch team, leading to the readiness of the ship, to the mission at hand,” he said. “In that regard, we are looking at the CV-SHARP [Carrier Sierra Hotel Aviation Readiness Program], which looks on an almost daily basis at the individuals, who log in the events they completed while standing watch; it also will tell them a projected readiness posture so they will know what they need to train to while they are on watch. This system will make watch-standing more focused on what they need to do in terms of mission readiness.” CV-SHARP reports individual and shiplevel training readiness to the Defense Readiness Reporting System-Navy and

eventually is expected to replace the Status of Resources and Training System (SORTS) as the readiness reporting tool for all carriers, possibly by January 2010. “It ties training to people, unlike the legacy systems that associated training with the hull of the ship,” explained Capt. Rinda Ranch, Naval Air Forces assistant chief of staff/training. “The application uses the training information recorded for personnel to assess operational training readiness at the unit level. It does this by running a roll-up calculation that builds qualified teams from the trained personnel on board.” Ranch also said CV-SHARP ultimately may be expanded to standardize operations across all classes of Navy ships using a watch team structure.

3M – an American company with diversified technologies to help you get the job done better, faster, cheaper. To discuss a collaborative effort call Norb Biderman, Business Director 3M Defense Markets, 651-736-9733. njbiderman@mmm.com

www.3M/com 3M is a trademark of 3M Company. © 3M 2008. All rights reserved.

3

CVN 77 H 99

training and sim.indd 99

12/10/08 3:11:45 PM


T:8.25 in

Out here, collaboration takes on a whole new meaning.

We help organizations accelerate time-to-value and turn IT into an agent of transformation. We have a $7 billion commitment to research and development, an extensive technology provider network, and decades of serving government agencies. We are prepared to help agencies meet their requirements today and realize their opportunities tomorrow.

From headquarters to the front lines, if itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vital to government, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission critical to Microsoft.

T:4.875 in

Let us help with that. Every day the U.S. Department of Defense entrusts essential functions to MicrosoftÂŽ solutions. We take that trust seriously, whether itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s communications between ships and command centers, or virtual training in theater. Our technology enhances your effectiveness and helps you do more with what you already own.

Learn more about Microsoft solutions for the U.S. Federal Government at www.microsoft.com/federal. The Department of the Navy and the Navy League did not select or approve this advertiser and do not endorse nor are responsible for the views or statements contained in this advertisement.

%LQ 7LQ

Setup

Trim

microTmobi.indd 1

Safety Spreads

78406_080311_FED_NavyPrintAd_f1t0_mg.indd

Title

None

Date

3/11/08 4:48 PM

User

Green, Marc

8.25 in x 4.875 in None 1

Station

Linked Graphics

None

Content

Bleed

Document

Name 78406_NAVY_PrintAd.tif mslogo_reverse_2.ai

Color CMYK

Fonts Eff. Res. 300 ppi

Family Segoe lar

SEA-GREENM_MAC

MS Color Bar

Additional Inks

Style Light, Bold, Regu-

12/10/08 11:19:11 AM


training and simulation

“All training should be tracked at the person level. Ships don’t train, people do,” she said. “Training is something we do from boot camp to retirement and everything in between. The goal of CV-SHARP is to make the documentation of that training more accurate, effective, and efficient while maintaining a user-friendly interface.” Another innovation for Bush is an afloat version of the Navy Information Application Product Suite (NIAPS). “The nice thing about NIAPS is it provides Navy Knowledge Online, but instead of using the ship’s broadband to continually pull data from an onshore server, it brings speed, availability, and decreased use of ship bandwidth by having all that on board,” noted Cmdr. Bob Sullivan, Bush’s combat systems officer. “That’s probably the largest limiting factor on board the ship for anything off-board – what kind of bandwidth we have and for what service.” Bush’s combat watchstanders also will utilize a pier-side simulator – the Battleforce Tactical Trainer (BFTT) system – that will be installed in the ship’s combat systems watch spaces during its first scheduled maintenance period in 2009. BFTT is not a shore-based, stand-alone simulator, but uses actual ship’s systems and displays, with plug-in data simulating radar contacts and procedures to prosecute, detect, and engage. “The BFTT is a very good trainer in that I can vary the level of difficulty from basic to advanced, determine the type of tracks going in, and have an opportunity to grow the watch teams. When we are in port for a month or two, you can really have a lot of training atrophy because skills decrease when not constantly used. BFTT helps meet that need with as realistic a situation as possible,” Sullivan said. “The operators are sitting at their consoles as they would while under way and they practice their rules of engagement and all the pieces that make up being at sea and the multiple variables they will deal with each and every day. And no two days are the same. “I look forward to seeing how we incorporate BFTT and grow the watch teams. When we deploy on a mission, we must have the best qualified and most capable teams to handle all tasking we are given by our country.” In addition, Bush’s bridge team will use the recently upgraded Navigation, Seamanship and Shiphandling Trainer (NSST), a full bridge simulator on which they

can do navigation training, take bearings from navigation aids in practicing transits, perform maneuvers for a man overboard situation, and generally drive the ship in a virtual environment, performing maneuvers they will do at sea or even some they would never do at sea. “The simulations can set up a set of virtual cones we can drive the carrier through, doing high [speed] turns, for example. We wouldn’t actually do that at sea, because we will have planes and personnel on board that would not allow it,” Douangaphaivong said. While Bush’s systems provide the capability to convert actual systems to a training environment at any time, he said considerable reluctance to do that while under way remains, making pier-side the safest and most logical place to utilize the BFTT and NSST. Onboard training is an important part of carrier life, especially as enhanced by Bush’s classroom and individual learning opportunities, which greatly improve the ability of sailors to continue educations otherwise interrupted by months at sea. “Every day we are working our sailors, training in multiple paths as technicians, as watchstanders – and not just for the combat systems environment but for the total shipboard environment. We can’t call 911 at sea; we are the fire department, the medical department, the everything department, which means we have to have cross-trained sailors in multiple disciplines. So they have to know how to be everything from a weapons system supervisor to the combat systems officer of the watch, who is the primary watchstander and responsible for the status of combat systems, reconfiguring, initial casualty response, etc.,” Sullivan said. “Everyone from the basic operator to the combat systems officer of the watch must have confidence in their own abilities to reconfigure combat systems to meet the ship’s mission. There is a huge amount of responsibility on their shoulders and we are trying to grow each sailor to stand his watch with the confidence and ability to succeed – and that is what is needed for the ship to succeed.” Shipboard training did not need to wait for Bush’s official launch, however – nor even the end of construction. Douangaphaivong said the crew were able to go aboard even during final construction and keep their training up-to-date.

T

he Finest

Models in the World

Precision-Crafted Scale Models We understand how you feel wearing the uniform of the United States Coast Guard. These are more than models, they are symbols of pride and a focus of your life and times. Visit NEXCOM and AAFES, go to www.precisionmodelworks.com or call 800.950.9944 for more information and a FREE catalog.

Pride is meant to be displayed.

CVN 77 H 101

training and sim.indd 101

12/10/08 3:12:14 PM


Photo courtesy Northrop Grumman Newport News

The whole is far greater than the sum of its parts Atlantic Positioning Systems Atlantic Microwave Continental Microwave Kevlin Lansdale M/A-COM Nurad REMEC Defense & Space

Sivers Lab AB

Proudly support the men and women of the United States Navy

www.cobhamdes.com

qtrGeico.indd 1

http://coned.colostate-pueblo.edu/ 800.388.6154

12/16/08 2:00:27 PM


Photo by PHC (NAO) Chris Desmond, COMNAVCRUITCOM

training and simulation

“To see the level of involvement our sailors have, reinforcing their experience and training, while going through this PCU [Precommissioning Unit] experience is an eyeopener,” he said. “The contracted training piece for our ship involved 96 curricula provided by the shipyard. The sailors were actually injected into the development of that curricula early enough to have a hand in what information was gathered to be presented to them. “The innovation and integration with the shipbuilders is helping our sailors learn the systems and spaces bolt-by-bolt and plateby-plate as the ship is coming together and preparing for commissioning. I would say that is unique to this ship – and the shipyard folks

say this is the most proactive crew they have seen, doing things seldom seen before during new construction. Even though development was pretty much finalized, once we got here, we still were able to affect some of the content. Once the CBTs are in our hands, we can further update that content.” The ship’s training officer said there really is not a great deal of new technology specifically focused on training and the assimilation of the training materials on Bush, but just presenting a lot of legacy systems in a new fashion and introducing more multimedia into the sailors’ routine, along with the ability to further enhance both content and presentation, has made Bush the most advanced and unique training environment in the Navy.

U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Tom Robson is the officer in charge of the landing signal officer (LSO) school based at NAS Oceana, Va. The 36-year-old F-18 pilot from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., is responsible for teaching Navy officers the procedures as LSO aboard aircraft carriers. Students learn through the aid of a virtual reality (VR) trainer that simulates an aircraft carrier at sea in a variety of weather and lighting conditions. LSOs help guide aircraft on board by using visual and audible systems. The two-week course qualifies approximately 140 students a year; the VR trainer also is used for refresher training classes that occur over three days.

CVN 77 H 103

training and sim.indd 103

12/10/08 3:12:30 PM


the crew

USS George H.W. Bush: Hometown FPO AE 09513-2803 By John D. Gresham with Susan Kerr

F

or more than two years, the pre-commissioning crew of USS George H.W. Bush has been working toward the impressive goal of making her a ship of war that a crew of proud Americans can call a home away from home and serve aboard to protect their own homes and their nation. At the same time, however, they also have been helping finish the construction of a moving metal mountain that is becoming an amalgam of their efforts and their spirit, along with that of the man she is named for: George H.W. Bush, the 41st president of the United States of America.

PLANKOWNERS: THE FIRST CREW Normally when sailors arrive at a ship for assignment, they are joining a commissioned warship as part of an established crew. There is the security of knowing that someone before them has done their job, slept in their bunk, and that they should be able to do the job, too. Such securities, however, are not the lot of crewmembers of a new warship under construction. The early arrivals usually turn up to a rusty pile of metal, swarming with shipbuilders and showing little resemblance to the sleek warship that will emerge in a year or two. They initially have to live in nearby apartments and barracks for months at a time, in a decidedly vagabond lifestyle. Although the Navy technically calls them the “pre-commissioning crew,” there is a better-known name for such first-time crewmembers: plankowners. Plankowners are a unique brand of sailor – part adventurer and part “do-ityourselfer.” They have to be willing to step over cables and packing boxes on the way to the mess area, and live with the smells of carbide cutting tools, lubricants, and drying paint for months at a time. In short, they themselves join the shipbuilders to finish the ship and make their second home away from their home on shore. Most likely it will be the toughest shipboard assignment they will ever have in the U.S. Navy, and for many, the most fulfilling. To meet some of Bush’s plankowners is to begin to understand the growing persona of this new warship, which will be in service until somewhere around 2060. These are men and women who have taken a floating hulk of steel and turned it into America’s newest hometown.

104 H CVN 77

crew at work.indd 104

12/10/08 3:16:03 PM


the crew

All photos by John D. Gresham

COMMAND: THE GREAT RESPONSIBILITY

Capt. Kevin E. O’Flaherty

The captain of a modern warship of the U.S. Navy is perhaps one of the last authoritarian monarchs left in the world. While the captain’s powers of life and death, along with those of pain and punishment, have been reduced since “The Age of Fighting Sail,” the responsibilities have grown exponentially, as have the skills required. In a day when the captain of an Aegis destroyer with a crew of perhaps 300 has almost a hundred surface-to-air and cruise missiles, two helicopters, and a rapid-fire 5-inch gun, the responsibilities of the commanding officer of a Nimitzclass nuclear aircraft carrier are almost impossible to comprehend. Carrier captains have to be able to maneuver a vessel the size of the Empire State Building powered by two nuclear reactors and operate up to 80 stateof-the-art warplanes and helicopters. The ship is filled with upward of 5,000 personnel (with the air wing embarked), most of them young men and women with an average age of 19 or 20. Mix this with millions of gallons of flammable jet fuel and hydraulic fluid and several thousand tons of highexplosive ordnance and you have the potential for disaster and havoc. Now add the fact that the ship in question is a combat vessel of the U.S. Navy, almost guaranteed to see action sometime during a command tour, and you begin to get some idea of what is required of this most powerful of U.S. warship commanders. Add to this the “unusual” additional duties of being a pre-commissioning unit (PCU) captain, and you can see why the U.S. Navy is so picky about the person to whom it hands over the keys. For the job of making PCU George H.W. Bush into USS George H.W. Bush, the man chosen was Capt. Kevin E. O’Flaherty, USN. A native of Los Angeles, Calif., O’Flaherty is a 1981 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. Upon graduation, O’Flaherty was commissioned as an ensign, entered flight training, and was designated a naval aviator in 1983. Over the next 16 years, O’Flaherty flew the T-2 Buckeye trainer as an instructor (with Training Squadron 23, “The Professionals”), along with the A6E Intruder (with Attack Squadrons 115, the “Eagles” and 194, the “Milestones”), and the FA-18C Hornet as a combat aviator. This last aviation assignment included tours as both executive officer (XO) and commanding officer (CO) of Strike Fighter Squadron 94 (the “Mighty Shrikes”), where he flew combat missions during Operation Southern Watch. At the completion of his aviation command tour, O’Flaherty had more than 4,000 flight hours and had made more than 600 arrested carrier landings, or “traps.” O’Flaherty’s decision to take the carrier command career track (there also is a path to command an embarked air wing) came following his squadron

CVN 77 H 105

crew at work.indd 105

12/11/08 11:03:35 AM


the crew

Executive Officer Capt. S. Robert Roth

Command Master Chief Jon D. Port

CO/XO tour, and he completed Naval Nuclear Propulsion training in 2001. From there, he served as executive officer of the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), and then served a deep draft command tour as CO of the amphibious dock USS Juneau (LPD 10). During this part of his career, O’Flaherty participated in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. O’Flaherty arrived to take command of PCU Bush in July 2006, and has been in the midst of the most unique experience any warship CO can have: being a ship’s first captain. Consider this point: O’Flaherty is not taking over the ship from anyone else, and when the Bush goes to the breakers yard sometime around the year 2060, it is his name that will be on the ship’s commissioning plaque. To provide some perspective on that earlier point, consider that the last captain of the Bush has not been born yet, the father of the last pilot to fly off her decks has not yet been born, nor has the grandfather of the youngest sailor to leave the ship before decommissioning. O’Flaherty, who was able to place his own wings next to the president’s when the carrier’s island was landed on the flight deck, has his own views on his place in the history of the Bush. “It’s an honor to be a part of the legacy with the ship’s namesake, George H.W. Bush,” O’Flaherty said. “He’s a man of character, a very visible kind of person out there today. He’s served his country as a president and statesman. He was also a naval aviator. … Putting that package all together, building this crew to try to emulate his service and his character, has been one of the more interesting, enjoyable, and rewarding parts of this job.” But what is life like for O’Flaherty and his PCU crew as they prepare for the commissioning of Bush in early 2009? As this article was being written in the fall of 2008, PCU George H.W. Bush was tied to the outfitting pier at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding’s facility in Newport News, and was each day feeling the footsteps of thousands of shipbuilders and sailors. Every day, O’Flaherty and his crew were working hard to make their massive metal hulk into a ship of war. One measure of their progress was the steady process of “accepting” compartments from the Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding workers who have labored since 2003 to build the Bush. To “accept” a compartment means that the Navy has agreed to take delivery of that space on board PCU Bush, and take responsibility for its operation and upkeep. When the last such acceptance takes place, the ship is prepared for sea trials off the Virginia Capes, and commissioning in early 2009. As talented an officer as O’Flaherty is, he cannot possibly perform every leadership task required aboard a warship the size and complexity of the Bush. O’Flaherty cannot even hope to learn the names of more than a fraction of the crew that he commands. Happily, the Navy has given him two very skilled leaders to take a share of the day-to-day responsibilities: XO Capt. S. Robert Roth, and Command Master Chief (CMDCM) Jon D. Port. More than once, naval analysts have compared Nimitzclass carriers to small cities, which makes O’Flaherty the

106 H CVN 77

crew at work.indd 106

12/11/08 11:03:55 AM


the crew

mayor of PCU Bush. That same analogy would make Roth the city manager. A native of Mandham, N.J., Roth is a graduate of Lafayette College in Easton, Pa., who later earned a master’s degree from the Florida Institute of Technology. Roth entered the Navy in 1986 with a commission from the Aviation Officer Candidate School, and spent two years with Navy Training Squadron 25 (the “Cougars”) as an instructor. Roth is a career FA-18 Hornet pilot, having served in Naval Strike Fighter Squadrons 132 (the “Privateers”), 87 (the “Golden Warriors”), and 136 (the “Nighthawks”). Along the way, Roth managed to attend the Naval Test Pilot School at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland, and received a follow-on assignment as an ordnance test pilot. He later was XO and CO of Naval Strike Fighter Squadron 34 (the “Blue Blasters”), assigned to USS George Washington (CVN 73) during Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan. Like his CO, Roth has made the career choice to take the professional track that can lead to command of a carrier, and is well on the way to his goal. As Bush’s PCU XO, Roth has become immersed in the numerous new systems of the ship while dealing with everything from menu approval to deciding which personnel infractions will be referred to Captain’s Mast. His view is that the progress Bush and her crew have made is quite obvious. “We’ve been taking small steps each week and month toward becoming a fully operational deployable aircraft carrier,” Roth said. “On Aug. 11, 2008, we moved aboard with the crew and the mess, and that was very exciting. We had a special meal that day. We had steak and shrimp. The captain and the CMC and I stood behind the serving line and served the sailors their very first meal aboard. … We were moving 500 or 600 sailors on board the ship that week and it was a big day for us.” Most of the crewmembers aboard Bush are extremely young (think very early 20s) and of these, most are enlisted personnel. Many have joined to leave the places and circumstances in which they have been, and are looking for a professional situation that can provide them with personal opportunity and structure. Others seek the adventure and travel aspects of a naval career, and others the chance to serve the nation. Leading and providing a cohesive environment for all these young hopes and dreams is the job of one very special group of Navy professionals: chiefs. Or, more specifically, chief petty officers (CPOs), who provide the institutional link between COs and XOs like O’Flaherty and Roth. To provide a direct conduit to his CPOs and all of those sailors aboard his ship, O’Flaherty was given the chance to pick Bush’s first command master chief, Jon D. Port. Port is a living embodiment of everything that makes the U.S. Navy the best in the world, and is as much a portal to its future as to its present. Calling Scranton, Pa., his hometown, Port is one of the youngest CMCs in the Navy, advancing to E-9 in an astounding 16 years from his enlistment in 1986. An expert in the Russian language with extensive experience in intelligence operations, Port spent much of his career as

Postal Clerk First Class Leigh Ann Vaughan

CVN 77 H 107

crew at work.indd 107

12/11/08 11:04:11 AM


PR IDE . R ESPEC T. T R A DIT ION.

S A LU T ES T HE T ROOPS ENJOY RESPONSIBLY. Bacardi.com © 2008 BACARDI AND THE BAT DEVICE ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF BACARDI & COMPANY LIMITED. BACARDI U.S.A., INC., MIAMI, FL. RUM – 40% ALC. BY VOL.

bacardi on temp.indd 1

7/10/08 4:11:58 PM


the crew

a “Raven” doing real-time translation of voice communications while flying in the back of EP-3s and ES-3s. Along the way, Port has been part of Operations Desert Storm, Southern Watch, Provide Hope, and Continue Hope, with more than 600 combat flight hours, an Air Medal, and service with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) in his resume. Port’s time with DTRA included more than 1,500 flight hours in support of the Open Skies program aboard OC-135Bs and as the first American aboard Russian Il-38s. Add to this amazing professional journey a bachelor’s degree in political science, a master’s in management, and a Navy “Master Linguist” designation, and it is easy to see why Port has moved up so fast. It also explains his first CMC appointment to Navy Helicopter Mine Warfare Squadron 15 (the “Blackhawks”), the Atlantic Fleet’s largest deployable aviation unit. His appointment as the first CMC of USS George H.W. Bush came after an intense round of interviews with a number of candidates by O’Flaherty. O’Flaherty said he chose Port “because he really played to the basic sailor, this process of ‘Sailorization.’ He knew exactly what we needed to have on a brand-new ship with a brand-new crew. …” Port’s thoughts echo those of O’Flaherty, especially on the notion of Sailorization, the Navy’s process of taking young people who only recently were civilians, and turning them into sailors, shipmates, and crewmen upon whom it can depend. “Capt. O’Flaherty and I have very similar views on putting a crew together,” Port said. “Probably my focus on Sailorization and the foundation of being a sailor is what drew me to him or drew him to me more than anything … he and I have very similar views on putting a crew together. …” Presently, the greatest leadership challenges to Port, O’Flaherty, and Roth involve molding 2,800 young sailors into a crew and helping turn a floating mass of steel into a ship of war.

Mass Communications Specialist Third Class Kyle Patrick Malloy

Boatswain’s Mate Seaman Apprentice Michael Woodward

DECKPLATE SAILORS: THE CREW OF USS George H.W. BUSH It is with a cadre of newly minted sailors, along with a solid core of sea-service veterans, that USS George H.W. Bush will be finished and commissioned in early 2009, and their collective stories are both insightful and inspiring. A surprising number either already have or are working toward college degrees, and many have ambitions of eventually being commissioned as officers. They come from around the globe, and your own backyard. Some of the first sailors who reported for duty aboard PCU Bush had the job of setting up critical functions needed to sustain day-to-day life on the new vessel. One of these is Postal Clerk First Class Leigh Ann Vaughan, who set up the post office on board PCU Bush when she reported aboard in 2006. Born in Gallipolis, Ohio, Vaughan grew up in West Virginia prior to joining the Navy in 1999. Since that time, she has worked at the Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, Md., along with serving aboard the hospital ship USS Comfort (T-AH-20) and the destroyer USS Hayler (DD 997). Vaughan said she wanted to come to PCU Bush both

CVN 77 H 109

crew at work.indd 109

12/10/08 3:17:05 PM


the crew

Yeoman Seaman Jacqueline Borunda

Hull Maintenance Technician First Class Nicholas M. Brunney

for career advancement and the ambition to finish her bachelor’s degree in business administration. She has managed both, being named Bush’s “Junior Sailor of the Year” in 2007. With the ship’s post office up and running, Vaughan has moved over to the training department, tracking personnel training for the entire crew. Like many of the early arrivals aboard PCU Bush, she is ready to get out of the yard and Newport News and take the ship to sea. “I’m looking forward to getting out of the shipyard, taking her over to Norfolk and the commissioning party!” she said. Another early arrival aboard PCU Bush is Mass Communications Specialist Third Class Kyle Patrick Malloy, who works in the ship’s media department. A native of Lisle, Ill., Malloy came into the Navy after attending the University of Iowa and realizing that he did not just want a job, but to get some real-world media experience and more training. PCU Bush is Malloy’s first assignment after “A” School at Fort Meade, Md. His most memorable event aboard came in January 2008, when former president George H.W. Bush came to help with the deadweight tests of the catapults. “That was great,” Malloy remembered. “There were 50 sailors and 50 shipyard workers who got picked to be up there with him. As part of the media department, I got to work it and then later got to meet him. I didn’t realize how funny he was. He had me rolling!” Other first-term sailors are everywhere aboard PCU Bush, experiencing the many challenges and discomforts of the “Yard Navy” before their days at sea begin. For Boatswain’s Mate Seaman Apprentice Michael Woodward, who was born in New Jersey and grew up in Puerto Rico, the Navy was a chance to better himself and to make his family proud. A 2007 recruit, he arrived aboard PCU Bush in March 2008 and was assigned to the deck department. In describing his job aboard Bush, Woodward said, “I do real seamanship. We’ll be the ones doing UNREPs [under way replenishments] … and that takes a lot of training … to get ready for the real deal when that happens. …” Another first-term sailor who helps keep things aboard PCU Bush moving is Yeoman Seaman Jacqueline Borunda from El Paso, Texas. Borunda joined in November 2007 hoping to eventually go to nursing school, and PCU Bush is her first assignment. While her days are mostly spent in an office space processing security paperwork and Plans of the Day, Borunda has a positive attitude about her circumstances. “What I like best is the way the people are, how they’re so willing to help me,” Borunda said. “I’m new, and instead of getting frustrated and mad at me, they’re all willing to help and show me something new.” Somewhere between the CPOs, who represent the middle management of the Navy, and the fresh rookies right out of Naval Station Great Lakes are the experienced sailors who have become seasoned professionals and make ships like Bush work day-to-day. One of these is Hull Maintenance Technician First Class Nicholas M. Brunney,

110 H CVN 77

crew at work.indd 110

12/10/08 3:17:24 PM


the crew

Religious Program Specialist First Class Jason Bocchino

who was a baker in his hometown of Lancaster, Ohio, prior to enlisting in the Navy in 1998. Brunney has spent much of his time in the Navy as a pipe fitter and inspector, serving aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) and the submarine tender USS Emory S. Land (AS 39), along with shore duty in Italy and Pearl Harbor. Needless to say, his particular skills are treasured aboard PCU Bush, where the need for pipe fitters and inspectors is acute. Much of his work is in the area of quality assurance, and Brunney has become a key part of getting compartments turned over from Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding to the Navy. The Navy has been key to Brunney’s life as well. “It’s been fantastic to me,” Brunney said. “It’s given me everything I ever expected that it would. It gave me the travel I wanted. It’s given me the educational opportunities I wanted. It’s given me the trade skills I’ve wanted. I have zero complaints about the Navy!” Perhaps the most surprising sailor we met from PCU Bush was Religious Program Specialist First Class Jason Bocchino, a burly and tattooed native of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., who was a beer truck driver before enlisting in 1993. Built like a bulldozer and

looking tough as a bar fight, Bocchino is actually PCU Bush’s primary religious program assistant working in the Chaplain’s Office. Notwithstanding his powerful appearance, Bocchino is a gentle and focused sailor who has served with several Marine ground units, and most recently in Djibouti with Joint Task Force Horn of Africa. While there, Bocchino helped set up a program to teach reading and writing in English at a nearby girls’ orphanage. Today he is helping the Chaplain’s Office put together a robust religious program for the crew of PCU Bush. “I work with three chaplains and the chief,” Bocchino said, “and I’ve got a lot of sailors learning everything they can … I’m trying to teach them the best I can. We’re taking everything I’ve learned over the years about developing and running [religious] programs, and everything I’ve known about the sailors, and mentoring the sailors, and teaching the sailors, and getting them all the needs that they have – bringing it all together, this is perfect.” The U.S. Navy offers opportunities that draw sailors from around the world into its ranks. One of them aboard PCU Bush is Personnel Specialist Second Class Ilpa Patel, who came to the United States in

CVN 77 H 111

crew at work.indd 111

12/11/08 11:04:32 AM


the crew

Personnel Specialist Second Class Ilpa Patel

1999 from her home in Gujarat state, India. A payroll specialist who met her husband when she was living in Atlanta, Patel was not a citizen when she joined the Navy in 2004. Nevertheless, with the support of her family in India and husband here in the United States, she has prospered in the Navy. With a bachelor’s degree in microbiology and working on a master’s in health services administration, Patel has plans to become an officer soon, and wants to stay in the Navy. She believes that the best thing to do for the nation is to serve. Raised in a very conservative society in India, Patel’s dream has always been to be part of the Navy, having watched the television show JAG, and said of her assignment to PCU Bush, “Bringing a ship to life is a once-in-a-lifetime honor.” Another PCU Bush sailor who brings a foreign perspective is Machinist’s Mate Second Class Babajide Olowu, who, while born in Springfield, Ill., grew up in Lagos, Nigeria. Following his return stateside, he enlisted in the Navy and went to submarine school, serving aboard USS Oklahoma City (SSN 723) for more than four years. Wanting to know what life was like on a carrier or surface ship, Olowu quickly found a slot on PCU Bush, and joined her in Newport News. Despite the hard work of putting Bush into commission, Olowu said, “After growing up in Lagos, this is easy … my plans are actually to go to school and then hopefully be commissioned someday. …”

THE OTHER CREWMAN: “41”

Machinist’s Mate Second Class Babajide Olowu

This account of the PCU crew of CVN 77 would be unfinished if the one crewman who has influenced it most were not mentioned: President George H.W. Bush. Ever since the announcement in December 2002 that CVN 77 would be named after the 41st president of the United States, George H.W. Bush and his family have been passionately and regularly involved in her construction and fitting out. “41,” as the crew respectfully refers to him, has visited Newport News regularly since the announcement, something the crew and shipyard personnel have embraced and of which they are deeply proud. Along with the ceremonial events like the keel laying in 2003 and christening in 2006, Bush has been present for a number of significant construction milestones. When the island superlift was laid onto the deck in July 2006, Bush and O’Flaherty both placed their naval aviator “wings of gold” under the 700-ton structure just before it was dropped into place. Called “stepping the mast,” it is a nautical construction custom going back to antiquity. This was, however, the first time in anyone’s memory that an aircraft carrier’s namesake had participated in such an event. More recently, in January 2008, 41 came to Newport News to assist shipbuilders and PCU Bush sailors as they conducted catapult testing. Signing his name to one of the “deadload” trolleys, the former president gave the signal for the catapult to be fired, and the wheeled load was launched into the James River. Have no doubt 41 is as proud of the ship that bears his name, and the crew that man her, as America is of him.

112 H CVN 77

crew at work.indd 112

12/10/08 3:17:56 PM


&

0

<

&0

0<

&<

0<

.

aafes on temp.indd 1

2/28/08 5:41:25 PM


MWR

Making Life Aboard Better: USS George H.W. Bush Quality-of-Life Improvements By John D. Gresham

“No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into a jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned ... a man in a jail has more room, better food, and commonly better company.” – Samuel Johnson

hile one might disagree with Samuel Johnson’s assessment of sailors and their character, his point about conditions aboard ship have not completely changed since the 19th century. Conditions aboard U.S. Navy warships have always been among the best of any sea service in the world, and remain so today. However, this does not change the reality that nobody aboard any Navy ship of war is sleeping in a king-size bed, or getting made-to-order gourmet dinners in their private stateroom. From the admiral’s cabin down to the berthing for newly minted seaman’s apprentices, life aboard a warship is hard and Spartan, and likely always will be. Interestingly, most other U.S. Navy surface warships like cruisers and destroyers actually are less crowded and more comfortable overall than aircraft carriers; carriers like those of the Nimitz-class are large and have more and different facilities that contribute to crew comfort and morale, but more personnel must share and often stand in line to use those facilities. Add to this the need to provide separate berthing, bathing, and sanitary facilities for female crew personnel, and one quickly finds life aboard an aircraft carrier a little like a crowded college dormitory. That said, the Navy recognizes that improving quality of life while deployed can have an extremely positive effect on sailors in the fleet. Young flight deck crewmen, who may spend up to 16 hours a day among the howling noise and oppressive heat and wind topside, will keep doing it for months at a time for the promise of a hot shower and a cup of “auto dog” soft-serve chocolate ice cream at the end of a long day. Good food, regular mail service, and shipboard movies have been staples of the Navy’s Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs since before World War II, and continue to be to this day.

Aboard the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), Machinist’s Mate 3rd Class Les Sheffield, from Sweetwater, Texas, reads a novel while he relaxes in between two racks after a long day of work on Oct. 18, 2005. While conditions aboard today’s nuclear-powered carriers are often cramped, the U.S. Navy is dedicated to improving sailors’ living conditions through a host of facilities and activities.

U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Konstandinos Goumenidis

W

114 H CVN 77

mwr.indd 114

12/10/08 1:15:07 PM


mwr

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Lawrence M. Shannon

Capt. Kevin E. O’Flaherty, commanding officer of the Pre-Commissioning Unit George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), addresses the crew during a ribbon-cutting ceremony celebrating the opening of the ship’s galley and crew’s mess. Good food is a very basic and necessary support to crew morale. Beginning in the 1970s, with the coming of the all-volunteer U.S. Navy, ship designers and shipbuilders were taking the need to improve creature comforts afloat into consideration to help with retention and crew morale. Fold-down berthing went the way of the hammock, and improvements in MWR facilities and equipment became standard. This was first reflected in the design of the Spruance-class (DD 963) destroyers and Tarawa-class (LHA 1) large-deck amphibious dock ships. Similar improvements were added in the designs of other Navy ships, including the massive Nimitzclass nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Since the 1970s, shipboard MWR facilities and programs have steadily improved, and nowhere has this been more obvious than aboard aircraft carriers. One of the first areas, with the coming of the fitness revolution in the 1980s, was the setting aside of space in the hangar bays for ad hoc gym facilities with workout equipment. On board cable television systems, which have been installed in aircraft carriers since the 1960s, were expanded so that movies and other media could be broadcast throughout the ship. The coming of the Internet in the 1990s, along with the first broadband satellite communications links, revolutionized shipboard life with the addition of e-mail, ship phones, and satellite television. The ability to send daily e-mails with photographs and other attachments has changed the solitary nature of a sailor’s life forever, and created a new dynamic for what is expected in a day at sea. Aboard USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), quite a lot is being done to make life better for the crew. Some of them are a side effect of a number of shipboard improvements originally intended to increase the ability of the Bush to plan and execute information-intensive operations, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, precision strikes, and enforcing no-fly/naval quarantine zones. Millions of feet of new fiberoptic cable are being added to the Bush, for example, with plans to install network access points in virtually every space on the ship. This will allow crewmembers with laptops to plug in almost anywhere, and be able to send and receive e-mail, along with accessing Plans of the Day, training and

qualification materials, technical publications, and other useful data. This will eliminate the need for sailors to wait for computers to send and receive e-mail to and from home. This enhanced and expanded data network will also allow vastly expanded television programming, including live remote feeds from around the ship, along with more satellite television channels of live news and events. One other shipboard network innovation planned for installation on the Bush in 2009 was described by Pre-Commissioning Unit George H.W. Bush’s Commanding Officer Capt. Kevin E. O’Flaherty. “We may be the first ship to have a large-scale wireless LAN [local area network]. It won’t be going in until we come back from shakedown. They’ll build it in the middle of next year,” he said. “That should also be a large benefit professionally as well as in many other ways as far as enhancing the quality of life for the crew … especially in the library, lounge, and chapel areas of the ship.” While many of us take for granted wireless broadband in our homes, offices, and coffee shops, a shipboard wireless LAN will be a real improvement for sailors aboard the Bush. The Navy’s plans for new upright berthing spaces will not be implemented until the new class of carriers, led by USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), is commissioned around 2015. This means that sailors will still need to find other places to take their laptops aboard the Bush, and the wireless LAN goes a long way toward making that easier. Another MWR improvement will be the enhanced gymnasium spaces, which no longer are confined to the hangar bays. The need to keep a carrier crew physically fit is not in dispute, and gyms often represent a necessary resource in maintaining the combat readiness of those with critical skill jobs like aircrews and deck personnel. Consider also the number of officers and sailors who need to maintain their weight, rehabilitate orthopedic injuries, or just relieve stress, and the need for good workout facilities as a critical MWR resource is obvious. While the open-air gyms are still there and favored by some crewmen, the regular deployments to hot and humid climates like the Persian Gulf

CVN 77 H 115

mwr.indd 115

12/10/08 3:52:02 PM


©

©

mars on temp.indd 1

®/TM trademarks ©Mars, Incorporated 2008

3/17/08 2:28:36 PM


mwr

U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Milosz Reterski

Lt. Joel Rolley lifts weights in the main gym aboard the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) as part of “maintain a healthy lifestyle month,” on Dec. 4, 2007. Gym facilities have become a “must-have” aboard carriers.

and the Far East have prompted most carriers to carve out gym areas inside the air-conditioned sections of the ship, although finding space for the gyms in older ships of the Nimitz class has been difficult at times. On the Bush, however, the Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding (NGSB) engineers at Newport News, Va., have made room specifically for this purpose. And, with the assistance of the Navy League’s shipboard enhancements program, these facilities will be stocked with a state-of-the-art array of weights, machines, and other exercise equipment. Now the problem will be trying to share and schedule all of the benches, treadmills, elliptical machines, and other equipment among the 6,000 members of the Bush’s future crews. What other MWR improvements might the Bush and her crewmembers receive in the next few years? That likely will depend upon the march of technology, operational security requirements, and the need to maintain shipboard discipline. One obvious desire by young sailors is for live instant messaging with friends and loved ones back home, and perhaps some type of live, two-way video teleconferencing. This may be an “innovation too far” for now, however, as the bandwidth required and questions of operational security are likely to make the Navy and the Department of Defense think twice before such services are offered to sailors and Marines at sea. For all the technological and other physical improvements that NGSB, the Navy League, and the Navy have put into the Bush, there still

is the need to maintain the MWR basics that go back decades. Keeping good Navy chow on the mess trays has never been more important, and with the growing ethnic diversity of U.S. Navy personnel, menu selections will need to be more varied. Religious diversity also is demanding more of chaplains and their support staffs to keep up with the growing numbers of Muslims, Hindus, and other religious groups in service. There also are the normal emotional needs of young sailors, often away from home for the first time, with personal problems that await them ashore, and the needs of family and friends in mind. Those parts of the MWR equation date back to the time of Odysseus, and will never change. The need to take care of our sailors and Marines afloat has never been more imperative, especially as the United States heads into the eighth year of the Global War on Terrorism, and the need for carriers and their aircraft will never be greater. Given the desire to keep the sea services an all-volunteer force, and the need to retain seasoned sailors and Marines in active service, services and spaces dedicated to MWR aboard ship are only going to be more essential. Recognizing the importance of taking care of the sailors and Marines on every carrier commissioned, Navy League Hampton Roads also makes a major contribution by using commissioning funds to provide many additional upgrades that add to the quality of life for all those serving aboard.

CVN 77 H 117

mwr.indd 117

12/10/08 1:15:33 PM


carrier strike group

The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) leads ships from its strike group into the Indian Ocean Sept. 5, 2008. The group was on a scheduled deployment in the Western Pacific and Indian oceans.

118 H CVN 77

carrier battle group.indd 118

12/9/08 4:25:00 PM


carrier strike group

Fighting Flattops U.S. Navy Carrier Strike Groups By John D. Gresham

W

hen a crisis erupts somewhere in the world, carrier strike groups (CSGs) are the way the United States Navy (USN) sends carriers into harm’s way, surrounded by a collection of warships designed to protect and support America’s invaluable flattops.

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class James R. Evans

AIRCRAFT CARRIER BATTLE GROUP DEVELOPMENT Back in the late 1920s and 1930s, when America had only a few aircraft carriers, the U.S. Navy spent a great deal of effort during its annual “Fleet Problem” exercises to find out the best way to operate carriers. Over the course of several Fleet Problems, the Navy established that flattops were best used with the fast scouting forces rather than being tied to the powerful, but slow, battleships. When the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor sank or badly damaged the Pacific Fleet’s battleships, the only credible combat groups left in the U.S. Pacific were, in fact, “task forces” of one or two carriers with an escort of cruisers and destroyers. Later in World War II, “task groups” were composed of up to four aircraft carriers, several fast battleships, several cruisers, and up to 16 destroyers. The coming of supercarriers in the 1950s saw the development of the modern CSG, returning to a single-carrier configuration. These were regularly assigned nuclear strike missions against targets on the periphery of the Communist bloc, along with operating as mobile airfields during strikes against targets in Korea, Vietnam, and Libya, among others. The development of ship-based surface-to-

air missiles (SAMs) added a new layer of protection for the CSGs, which had mainly depended upon carrier-borne fighters for protection since the appearance of Japanese kamikaze suicide planes at the end of World War II. These hinted at the potential future threat of anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), which, along with nuclear submarines, would become the major threat to CSGs in the decades ahead. The five decades of the Cold War were a back-and-forth race between the USSR and the United States over which side could put the most firepower into the fight between the Soviet navy and CSGs. By the late 1980s, the Soviets had built up a huge force of long-range bombers armed with large ASCMs (with warheads up to 2,200 pounds/1,000 kilograms in size), along with strong surface and submarine forces with similar weapons. The USSR hoped that the CSG defenses would be overwhelmed, and the carriers either sunk or disabled on the first day of the conflict. The American response was the progressive hardening of the CSG’s defenses, including the development of the F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Hornet, the AIM-54 Phoenix missile and AIM120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), and the Aegis combat system and SM-2 surface-to-air missile (SAM). Following the Cold War, CSGs have spent the past two decades supporting U.S. operations ashore in places like Iraq, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. Today’s Navy CSGs reflect the realities of the post-Cold War world, with a U.S. Navy only half the size of its

CVN 77 H 119

carrier battle group.indd 119

12/10/08 9:11:27 AM


carrier strike group

1980s peak, and only 10 to 11 carriers to build groups around, only two to three of which are operational at any one time.

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS: QUEENs OF THE STRIKE GROUPs Today when you think of American aircraft carriers, there are a couple of very safe assumptions. First, the carrier will be nuclear powered, and second, the carrier in a particular CSG is probably one of the 10 Nimitzclass carriers that will be in service following the commissioning of USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). The sole exception to this until the middle of the next decade is the venerable USS Enterprise (CVN 65). The carrier is the reason for the CSG’s existence, with the 40-plus fighter-bombers of its embarked Carrier Air Wing (CVW) able to fly more than 100 strike sorties a day. These aircraft can deliver a truly amazing amount of damage to an enemy, whether at sea or ashore. Down in the carriers’ magazines are thousands of tons of ordnance, ranging from AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship and standoff land-attack missiles (SLAMs)

to unguided “iron” bomb bodies, which can be configured in a variety of different ways including as precision munitions. This gives the carrier group an impressive offensive punch that can be sustained almost indefinitely with under way replenishment. In addition to its offensive qualities, the CVW also is an impressive defensive asset for the CSG, with all the fighter-bombers able to carry a full array of AIM-120 AMRAAMs, along with the new AIM-9X Sidewinder dogfight missile. The new C7 and D model AMRAAMs have excellent capabilities against both aircraft and cruise missiles, forming the outer layer of defense for the CSG. Backed by the CVW’s small force of E-2 Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning (AEW) and EA-6B Prowler/EA-18G Growler Electronic Warfare (EW) aircraft, the entire CSG has an impressive level of situational awareness for hundred of miles in every direction, both in the air and on the sea. Defensively, the carrier itself is modestly armed with SAMs, usually with a pair of eight-cell Mk 29 launchers for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow/RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSMs), and another pair of 21-cell Mk

U.S. Navy photo by Ensign Adam R. Cole

The guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG 60) steams toward the British ship HMS Ark Royal (R-07) in the Atlantic Ocean on April 14, 2008, during a maneuvering event as part of Constant Alliance 08, a U.S.-United Kingdom exercise that builds on existing defense partnerships. Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers are the key air defense element of a carrier strike group, but also have considerable anti-surface, anti-submarine, and land attack capabilities.

120 H CVN 77

carrier battle group.indd 120

12/9/08 4:25:40 PM


carrier strike group

31 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers. Combined with the carrier’s own onboard EW systems, the SAMs provide a “last chance” shield against any “leaker” enemy cruise missiles or aircraft that make it past the CSG escorts. That task is tougher than it sounds, however, as all the SAMs in the CSG, including those of the escorts, are linked via a computerized data link called Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC). CEC takes the radar contact data from all the ships in the CSG, fuses it into a single combined situational picture, then provides firing cues to the ship best positioned or equipped to stop a particular threat against the CSG. This means that an Aegis cruiser might actually provide firing data for a Mk 29 launcher on a carrier to destroy an incoming missile targeted against one of the destroyers of the CSG.

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Grant P. Ammon

AEGIS CRUISERS: SHIELDs OF THE FLEET While the aircraft carrier of a CSG does not have a particularly impressive defensive capability outside of its embarked CVW, the USN makes sure that there are strong defenses organic to every such group. The most capable of these are on board one or two Ticonderogaclass guided missile cruisers, each of which carries the latest version of the USN’s Aegis combat system. Aegis, which came into the fleet in 1983, is a computerized active phased array radar system, able to monitor targets within a vast “bubble” of airspace around the ship, along with objects in low-Earth orbit. The key to its extraordinary sensory prowess is the AN/SPY-1 radar system, which consists of four large phased radar arrays, backed up by the computers of the Aegis system. While built on the same hull and power plant as the earlier Spruance-class destroyers, the 22 remaining “Ticos” can punch well above their weight. Each Tico has a pair of 61-cell Mk 41 Vertical Launch Systems (VLSs), able to carry and launch SM-2/SM-3/ESSM SAMs, BGM-109 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles (TLAMs), and RUM-139 Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rockets (VL-ASROCs) armed with lightweight anti-submarine warfare (ASW) torpedoes. In addition, each Tico has a pair of 5-inch guns, RGM-84 Harpoon ASCMs, ASW torpedoes, two Mk 15 Phalanx 20 mm Close-in-Weapon Systems (CIWSs), a pair of M2 .50-caliber machine guns, and up to two SH-60 Seahawk helicopters. Tonfor-ton, the Ticos are the most heavily armed warships in the world today. The Aegis system has proven extremely adaptable, being upgraded over the past two

decades with new software, computers, and lightweight SPY-1 radars, which allow it to shoot down not only ASCMs and manned aircraft, but also incoming ballistic missiles. Early in 2008, the Aegis cruiser USS Erie (CG 70) used a modified SM-3 SAM with new software to shoot down an errant U.S. reconnaissance satellite over the Pacific. So capable are the Aegis-equipped cruisers that most of the USN fleet air defense duties have been shifted away from manned fighter-bombers so that their sorties can be reserved for strike operations.

The guided-missile destroyer USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81), assigned to the U.S. Fifth Fleet, patrols the Persian Gulf on Feb. 11, 2008. The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are tough, heavily armed ships, capable of air defense, anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, and land attack.

CVN 77 H 121

carrier battle group.indd 121

12/9/08 4:25:57 PM


BUILDING for AMERICA [ DENNIS THOMPSON | president, Kansas City Division ]

Working on military construction projects is a privilege. In all our work, we build community and are thrilled to contribute to the skyline. Through our work for the military, we are honored to contribute to our country. We are proud supporters of our military and privileged to be a part of building our military community with projects throughout the USA.

816.753.2121 | www.waltonbuilt.com

walton construction on temp.indd1 1

12/2/08 10:19:43 AM


carrier strike group

DESTROYERS: GREYHOUNDS OF THE FLEET For over a century, the Navy’s destroyers have been the general-purpose escorts for the fleet. However, the end of the Cold War has seen a significant drawdown in the USN destroyer force over the past two decades, with the legacy Spruance- and Kidd-class ships retired, laid up, transferred to foreign navies, or scrapped. This means that every American destroyer you are likely to encounter on the high seas these days is a unit of the Arleigh Burke class. Like the Ticonderogaclass cruisers, the Burkes are equipped with a lightweight version of the Aegis combat system, along with SM-2/SM-3/ESSM SAMs, TLAMs, and VL-ASROCs nested in a pair of Mk 41 VLSs, each with 96 launch cells. Each Burke also has a 5-inch gun, Mk 15 CIWS, ASW torpedoes, and M2 machine guns. Later units also have hangars for a pair of SH-60 helicopters, without the Mk. 15 CIWS. They also are built to take punishment – built out of steel, with Kevlar® armor, and advanced damage control features. First commissioned in 1990, the Burkeclass destroyers have been in production at two U.S. shipyards for more than 20 years, and continue to be produced today. A total of 62 Burkes have been contracted and have become the standard escort for the USN. Thanks to the application of shaping and other “stealth” technologies, the Burkes have an extremely low radar, infrared, and acoustic signature, and are often used for work inshore. Their hull form, wider than traditional destroyer lines, also provides better seakeeping and sustained speeds in heavier seas. Along with their “big brother” Ticos, the Burkes have regularly launched land-attack strikes with TLAMs, and provide the fleet with its best defense against air and cruise/ ballistic missile attack, as well as providing ASW protection against submarines.

FRIGATES: THE VANISHING BREED Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. Navy had a robust force of small, general-purpose escorts called frigates that were the most numerous combat vessels in the fleet. In fact, at one point, more than 100 frigates were in USN service, doing everything from escorting Kuwaiti tankers in the Persian Gulf to conducting boarding operations searching for terrorists and contraband cargo. Today, fewer than 30 surviving Oliver Hazard Perry

(FFG 7) frigates are in service with the USN, with one usually attached to each CSG when deployed. Each Perry-class frigate is armed with a 76 mm automatic cannon, ASW torpedoes, Mk 15 CIWS, M2 machine guns, and a pair of SH-60 helicopters, and while nimble and well-equipped for ASW, quarantine, and boarding operations, the removal of the frigates’ Mk 13 SAM/Harpoon launchers a few years back has limited their utility. Eventually, their in-shore duties will be taken over by the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), when it becomes operational sometime in the next decade. The USN plans to buy more than 60 LCSs, though financial limitations may reduce that number. Also, the LCS is not really intended to operate with the CSGs, though the need for more escorts may change those plans.

STEEL SHARKS: SUBMARINES AND THE STRIKE GROUP One might logically ask what good a couple of nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) would do for a CSG operating on the other side of the world, and the answer would be “quite a lot.” America’s force of SSNs is perhaps the most versatile and capable in the world, and has evolved a great deal over the past four decades. What was once a force that was focused on hunting other submarines is now also able to provide direct support for CSGs with intelligence gathering, land-attack strikes with TLAMs, and anti-ship operations with torpedoes and RGM-84 Harpoon missiles. It is in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) collection that the SSN has become particularly adept, especially when used as bases for special operations forces (SOF). Most of the SSNs that work with the CSGs are Improved-Los Angeles-class (SSN 688 – also known as “I688”) boats, with four 21-inch torpedo tubes, and a dozen VLS tubes in the bow for launching TLAMs. The I688s are being augmented by the new Virginia-class attack boats, which are specifically designed for inshore tasks such as conducting ISR and supporting SOF missions. Among the quietest and most capable nuclear submarines in the world today, the Virginias will gradually replace the I688s as the older boats come to the end of their reactor core lives.

CVN 77 H 123

carrier battle group.indd 123

12/10/08 10:18:10 AM


%NERGIZER)NTRODUCES0OWERFUL7AYS4O$EFEAT4HE$ARK !!4ACTICAL,IGHT

!!(ELMET,IGHT

s &OUR6ISIBLE,%$S

s 4WO6ISIBLE,%$S n(I)NTENSITY7HITE

n(I)NTENSITY7HITE n"LUE n2ED n'REEN

s 3EPARATE)NTENSITY #ONlGURATIONS

n"LUE

s 3EPARATE)NTENSITY #ONlGURATIONS

s INCHES OUNCES

s INCHES OUNCES

s )NTEGRATED)2AND)&& WITH,OCKOUT

s )NTEGRATED)2AND)&& WITH,OCKOUT

s 5SES!!"ATTERY s )MPACT 2ESISTANT 7ATERPROOF#ONSTRUCTION

s 5SES!!"ATTERIES #ANBE/PERATEDWITH

2UNSONONE!!BATTERY %NERGIZER´5LTIMATE,ITHIUM BATTERIESRECOMMENDED

s -OUNTSON%ITHER3IDEOF(ELMET 2OTATESTO$ESIRED0OSITION

!! WITH3TORAGEFOR A3PARE

s )NCLUDESMOUNTSFORHELMETAND-/,,%

s )MPACT 2ESISTANT 7ATERPROOF#ONSTRUCTION s %RGONOMIC$ESIGN

4ACTICAL'RIP

%NERGIZER´5LTIMATE,ITHIUM"ATTERIES

s ³2OTATING(EAD s #LIPSTO-/,,%OR/46 )NTHEHEARTOFITALL ISTHEWORLDSLONGESTLASTING!!BATTERY 2UNSONONEORTWO!!BATTERIES %NERGIZER´5LTIMATE,ITHIUM BATTERIESRECOMMENDED

s ,ESS7EIGHT4HAN!LKALINE s 3IGNIlCANTLY,ONGER2UNTIMESIN(IGH $RAIN !PPLICATIONS,IKE.IGHT6ISION$EVICES s "ETTER0ERFORMANCEIN4EMPERATURE%XTREMES

â&#x201E;¢

!VAILABLE&EBRUARY#ONTACTYOUR,AW%NFORCEMENT$ISTRIBUTOROR %NERGIZERAT  TOPURCHASE

1-800-459-7622 HardCaseTactical@energizer.com © 2008 Energizer

Gen2 ad Law Enforcement USSGHWB.indd 1 Energizer on temp.indd 1

Energizer and other marks are trademarks of Energizer.

11/20/08 9:17:37 AM 12/2/08 1:10:59 PM


carrier strike group

The Los Angeles-class fast-attack submarine USS Norfolk (SSN 714) leads a formation of ships taking part in Operation Arabian Shark ‘08. Fastattack submarines are an integral part of the carrier strike group.

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Ryan Steinhour

FLEET LOGISTICS: OILERS AND FAST COMBAT SUPPORT SHIPS In the history of CSG development, no innovation has been more important than that of underway replenishment (UNREP). UNREP enables a CSG to stay in the fight almost indefinitely, providing aviation fuel, ordnance, food, and other consumables without having to pull into port. Today’s USN UNREP ships servicing CSGs are usually operated by the Military Sealift Command (MSC) of the U.S. Transportation Command based at Scott Air Force Base, Ill. Their crews are primarily civilians, and they have the reputation of being the finest and most reliable fleet logistics force in the world today. MSC UNREP ships normally come in two types: fleet oilers of the Henry J. Kaiser class and the fast combat support ships of the Supply and Sacramento (T-AOE 1) classes. The Kaiser-class oilers can deliver almost 200,000 barrels of fuel and distillate products, along with dry stores via high-line transfer and helicopter UNREP. The Supply- and Sacramento-class ships can each deliver 156,000 barrels of fuel, 2,100 tons of ordnance, and 500 tons of dry and refrigerated stores, and also have high-line and helicopter UNREP capabilities.

SUPPORT FROM THE SHORE While a CSG coming over the horizon is cause for great concern for any potential U.S. opponent, its striking power and sustainability can

be vastly increased through the addition of land-based support from nearby friendly host nations. Some of the services that can be provided include: • Aerial tanker support – Since the CSG’s airwing does not have any dedicated airborne tanker aircraft (F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with buddyrefueling stores do the job), the appearance of large U.S. Air Force and/ or allied tanker aircraft like the KC-10A Extender or KC-135 Stratotanker vastly increases the striking power of a carrier force. • ISR support – While the CSG does have a good organic ISR capability, it currently lacks any ability to operate unmanned aerial vehicles like the MQ-1 Predator, RQ-4 Global Hawk, or MQ-9 Reaper. In addition, the U.S. Air Force can also provide additional ISR muscle in the form of RC-135 Rivet Joint, U-2, and other ISR aircraft. • Defense suppression support – Should a potential enemy have an advanced air defense system, it may be necessary for the CSG to be augmented with additional defense suppression aircraft. In addition, land-based stealth bombers and fighters can provide a “Day One” ability to “kick in the door” on an enemy, helping reduce potential CVW losses. Right now, a CSG is probably the most powerful single power projection tool in the U.S. arsenal, as much for the message it sends as the striking power it wields. As presently structured, USN CSGs are able to handle almost any threat that may be sent against them, and can deliver a punch few nations can stand for very long.

CVN 77 H 125

carrier battle group.indd 125

12/9/08 4:26:10 PM


carrier air wing

Main Battery: The Carrier Air Wing By John D. Gresham

At

the dawn of naval aviation in the 1920s and 1930s, each U.S. aircraft carrier had a Carrier Air Group (CAG), designated by the hull number of the ship. For example, prior to World War II, USS Enterprise (CV 6) would have carried CAG-6 while operating at sea. Each CAG assigned to a large fleet carrier was made up of a fighter squadron, a pair of scouting/bombing squadrons armed with dive bombers, and a torpedo bomber squadron. This basic structure was continued after Pearl Harbor, though the vast expansion of the fleet with new construction carriers meant that by 1944, CAGs were being moved around the fleet without any particular affiliation with a specific ship. This began the trend of CAGs becoming independent combat units unto themselves, which is reflected in today’s carrier air wing (CVW) structure and operating doctrine. A legacy of this designation is that today’s CVW commanders are affectionately known as “CAGs,” in honor of those early air groups and their leadership. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, including the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, specific CVW organizations for attack, nuclear strike, and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) were raised, modified, discarded, and reorganized, depending upon the specific type and class of carrier upon which they were embarked. This ended in the early 1970s with the Nixon administration’s fleet contraction, and the creation of the standardized “CV Air Wing.” Designed to conduct all the basic warfare missions (ASW, strike, sea control, etc.) with a single air wing configuration, the CV Air Wing structure is the basis for today’s CVW structure.

COMPONENT PARTS: CARRIER AIR WING 101 While the particular CVW that will first be embarked on board the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) when she

leaves on her first operational cruise has yet to be decided, there are a number of things about that unit that we do know. Each CVW is commanded by a Navy captain (O-6), who previously has run a carrier squadron on at least one operational cruise. Known as “Super CAGs,” most come from the strike community, having flown the F-14 Tomcat and/or F/A-18 Hornet earlier in their careers. Within the structure of a carrier strike group (CSG), which is normally commanded by a rear admiral (lower half O-7), the CVW reports directly to the CSG commander, and is on an equal footing with the captain of the carrier itself. Working for the CVW commander is a staff composed of naval aviators, intelligence officers, and a host of chiefs and sailors capable of planning and leading operations of the air wing. One sign that a CVW staff is working well is that a visitor aboard has no sense that the ship and CVW are separate military units; all function as one team for a common purpose and goal. That goal is the smooth operation and assured maintenance of up to 80 combat aircraft with an amazing range of roles, missions, and capabilities. Each of today’s CVWs is built around a core of four strike fighter squadrons (VFAs), each with 10 to 12 F/A18C/D Hornet or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter-bombers. In addition, each CVW normally carries a squadron of four EA-6B Prowler Electronic Warfare (EW) aircraft (VAQ), and another of four to five E-2C Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft (VAW). This is rounded out by a squadron of six helicopters (HS), currently a mix of SH60F and HH-60H Seahawks, along with a two-aircraft detachment of C-2 Greyhound Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) aircraft for logistical and transport duties. This mix of aircraft and personnel is capable of delivering a vast number of combat sorties, with a focus

126 H CVN 77

carrier air wing.indd 126

12/9/08 4:54:29 PM


carrier air wing

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class James R. Evans

Aircraft from Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 2 fly in formation over the Pacific Ocean and the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) during an airpower demonstration on March 30, 2008. F/A-18Cs, F/A-18E/Fs, an EA-6B Prowler, E-2C Hawkeyes, and an SH-60 make up the formation.

CVN 77 H 127

carrier air wing.indd 127

12/9/08 4:54:49 PM


carrier air wing

on precision-strike operations. Within the wing itself, there is the capability of delivering more than 100 sorties a day, more than half of which can be counted on to hit targets ashore or at sea. In addition, the CVW has its own limited capabilities for intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance (ISR), in-flight refueling, ASW, sea control, support of special operations forces (SOF), and other selected operations. With additional support by land-based airborne tankers, ISR aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and other resources, the sortie generation rate can be ramped up even further. The aircraft themselves are of a special breed, able to take off and land from the smallest of airfields – the compact 4.5 acres that is a carrier flight deck – under the most difficult and dangerous of conditions. They are rugged too, able stand up to the maritime environment, which is tougher than you might imagine. Consider

the words of the famous Navy aircraft designer Ed Heinemann, as written in his book Aircraft Design. They are still as true today as in the 1930s when he entered the naval aircraft design trade. One day when I was a young man just beginning to design airplanes, the great person who founded the company that bore his name, Donald Douglas, took me by the shoulder and taught me a lesson that was simple, though vital to success. At the time, we were trying to generate business from the U.S. Navy. “Navy planes take a beating,” he said. “They slam down on the carriers when they land and get roughed up by the unforgiving elements of the high seas. If we want the Navy to buy our airplanes, we must build them rugged. They have to take punishment and still work.”

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class James R. Evans

Capt. John Aquilino, outgoing commander of CVW 2, banks an F/A-18E Super Hornet strike fighter over the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln as he leaves the incoming commander, Capt. Alton Ross, to lead a formation of aircraft during a CVW 2 aerial change of command ceremony on Oct. 6, 2008. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has taken over a number of roles previously held by the F-14 Tomcat and A-6 Intruder. An F/A-18C Hornet is at center.

128 H CVN 77

carrier air wing.indd 128

12/9/08 4:55:01 PM


carrier air wing

THE AIRCRAFT LEGACY: F/A-18C/D HORNET As USS George H.W. Bush commissions, the backbone of U.S. carrier aviation is still the long-serving Boeing F/A-18 Hornet. First fielded in 1981, the Hornet has provided the bulk of the U.S. Navy’s fighter and attack sorties for almost 30 years, and is likely to continue on duty well into the next decade. The U.S. Navy’s first “electric jet,” the Hornet was designed initially to replace the legendary F-4 Phantom II fighter and Corsair II attack aircraft in Navy and Marine Corps service. Long-time workhorses of the CVW, Hornets are designed for both air-toair warfare (AAW) and air-to-ground strikes, making them very versatile. The Hornet has been regularly updated so that today it can carry the latest weaponry in the Navy inventory. Today, the C (single-seat) and D (two-seat) variants are the most numerous models of the Hornet in service, and continue to do most of the heavy lifting out in the fleet. For AAW missions, the F/A-18C/D carries the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), the AIM-9M and X versions of the classic Sidewinder air-to-air missile (AAM), and a 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon. AIM-9X is the newest AAM in the Navy inventory, and is considered the most capable dogfight missile in the world today. Tied to either an APG-65 or APG-73 multi-mode radar, along with the new Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), AIM-9X can be fired at targets up to 80 degrees off the nose, showing the amazing agility of the newest version of this 50-year-old missile. For strikes on ground and naval targets, the Hornet can tote an arsenal of weaponry ranging from unguided rockets and “iron” bombs, to the latest laser, GPS, and electro-optical precision guided munitions (PGMs). To deliver these weapons, the pilot has an impressive host of sensors from which to choose, including the JHMCS, night vision goggles, and either an AN/AAS-38 Night Hawk or AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) laser designator/targeting pod. These targeting systems are integrated into a state-of-the-art “glass” cockpit, meaning that most of the displays are multi-function displays (MFDs). Also, Marine Corps F/A-18D squadrons, which deploy with CVWs on carriers, bring the Advanced Tactical Air Reconnaissance System (ATARS) pod with them, providing the air wing with an organic ISR capability. These systems have allowed the Hornet to stay up-to-date and deadly for almost three decades of service, and should allow it to continue on carrier flight decks well into the next.

TODAY’S STANDARD: F/A-18E/F SUPER HORNET If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then there can be no more ringing endorsement for the basic F/A-18 Hornet design than its replacement: the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Probably the finest fourth-generation strike fighter in service today, the Super Hornet was designed to provide the Navy with an aircraft that had the ability to take over a number of roles previously handled by the F-14 Tomcat and A-6 Intruder. The biggest of these is to act as a PGM “bomb truck,” able to carry and return if necessary

with a large load of precision munitions, while also fulfilling a variety of other tasks for the CVW. Although the Super Hornet looks quite similar to the basic Hornet and shares many of its systems, the F/A-18E/F is a completely new and different aircraft from the F/A-18A/ B/C/D. Larger and with more powerful engines, greater fuel capacity, new and enhanced weapons and sensors, and two more weapons hard points, the Super Hornet has been a gamechanger for the Navy. In addition, the F/A-18E/F has a reduced radar signature in comparison with earlier Hornets, thanks to a redesign of the engine inlets and use of radar-absorbing material at critical locations. The Super Hornet can also carry out a wider variety of missions than the earlier model, including acting as an airborne tanker for other aircraft, and also carrying the Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP). First used in combat during 2002 in the Southern Iraqi No-fly Zone, the Super Hornet is rapidly taking over the Navy’s flight decks as the new workhorse of the fleet. For the Navy, the F model Super Hornet has been a godsend over the past few years. Naval aviators have always known the benefits of two-seat tactical fighters and bombers, and the F/A18F has allowed the Navy to return to roles and missions lost with the retirement of the A-6 Intruder and F-14 Tomcat over the past dozen years. The rear “glass” cockpit for the radar intercept/ weapons officer, which is the finest in the world, is packed with MFDs and is running some of the best software flying. In addition, the new Block II Super Hornets have the new APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, which, along with the arrival of the new AIM-120D version of AMRAAM, will restore much of the fleet air defense capability lost when the F-14 was retired with the AIM-54 Phoenix missile system. Add to this the ability to carry the AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting FLIR/targeting pod, SHARP reconnaissance pod, and every weapon in the Navy inventory, and the Super Hornet looks to be the workhorse of America’s CVWs for decades to come.

THE FUTURE: F-35C LIGHTNING II Somewhere in the middle of the next decade, there will be a new bird coming in to land on the Bush and other U.S. Navy carriers: the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II joint strike fighter. When it arrives, the F-35C will finally bring to aircraft carriers the fifth generation strike fighter qualities the Navy has sought for more than two decades, and in the process, will replace the aging fleet of F/A-18C/D Hornets. Key among these qualities will be stealth, along with the ability to deliver the full range of Navy/ joint munitions up to those in the 2,000-pound class. This will include everything from iron bombs and laser-guided weapons to the new GBU-39/40 Small Diameter Bomb and improved models of the Joint Direct Attack Munition family. In addition to providing the Navy with the ability to penetrate airspace defended by the latest in surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and other defensive systems, the Lightning II will also give the Navy significant improvements in its fleet air defense capabilities. Equipped with an APG-81 AESA radar and the new AIM-120D AMRAAM, the F-35C should provide

CVN 77 H 129

carrier air wing.indd 129

12/9/08 4:55:13 PM


U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Dominique M. Lasco

carrier air wing

130 H CVN 77

carrier air wing.indd 130

12/9/08 4:55:26 PM


carrier air wing

a significant advantage in air-to-air engagements over the best Russian and European fighter designs. This improved situational awareness will be further enhanced by the Electro-Optical Targeting System under the nose of the Lightning II, which will give the pilot an unprecedented view of the battlespace, thanks to a virtual representation that will provide almost 360-degree vision without interference from the airframe. This is the airplane that U.S. naval aviators have wanted for decades, and it appears that their long wait is finally about to be rewarded.

PROWLERS TO GROWLERS: EA-6B AND EA-18G For nearly 40 years, the gold standard for electronic warfare (EW)/jammer aircraft has been the Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler, a derivative of the A-6 Intruder bomber. The four-man Prowler is built around the AN/ALQ-99 EW system, with the actual jamming energy coming from up to five pods carried under the wings and fuselage. In addition, the EA-6B can be configured to fire the AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). However, despite its excellent qualities and reputation, the Prowler is still a four-decade-old design, with a tired fleet of airframes carrying one of the most important support packages in the U.S. military. The good news is that a brand-new EW/jamming aircraft is on the way, and should be on carrier decks soon – the Boeing EA-18G Growler. Based upon the two-seat Block II F/A-18F Super Hornet, the Growler represents a new standard for EW/ jamming aircraft, and will be far more capable and survivable than the Prowler. In addition to being able to maneuver like its Super Hornet brethren, the Growler will retain the ability to fire AIM-120 AMRAAM AAMs through the JHMCS. As an added bonus, the APG-79 AESA radar can be used as a powerful jammer, along with delivering electronic attacks against enemy air and ground systems. In addition, thanks to improvements in its AN/ALQ-218 radar receiver and the addition of the AN/ALQ-227 communications countermeasures system, the Growler will be able to monitor, exploit, and jam signals across a vast portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Also, thanks to an onboard satellite terminal and jam-resistant communications suite, the EA-18G will be able to share its sensor data with the rest of the CVW and joint forces. Finally, the basic HARM is about to be replaced by a new variant, the AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM), which, with a new multi-mode (anti-radiation, millimeter wave, and GPS) guidance system, should give the Growler and CVW greatly improved teeth against enemy air defense systems. Plan on seeing each CVW getting a five-aircraft squadron of the new Growlers when they deploy early in the next decade.

HAWKEYES: E-2C TO E-2D Another late World War II naval aviation development created in response to the emergence of the kamikaze suicide

plane threat is still a critical part of every Navy CVW: the AEW aircraft. Designed to extend radar coverage well beyond the horizon of the CSG, carrier-based AEW aircraft have been a CVW mainstay since the 1950s. The U.S. Navy’s current AEW aircraft, the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, first began appearing on the decks of U.S. aircraft carriers back in 1964. Now, more than four decades and models later, the Hawkeye remains the most produced, portable, and adaptable AEW aircraft in history. The current production version, the E-2C+ (also known as Hawkeye 2000), has an improved APS-145 radar, mission computer, and control workstations, along with new propellers featuring highefficiency, scimitar-shaped blades. As good as the new version of the E-2C is, there is an even better one coming: the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye that is presently in development and test. Northrop Grumman is packing a completely new APY-9 AESA radar system in the E-2D, along with a glass cockpit, integrated satellite communications/data link system, new mission computer, and an in-flight refueling system. The E-2D should be in service by 2011, and given its past record, this oldest of Navy aircraft on flight decks is likely to be around well into the middle of the 21st century. When they are finally deployed, plans are for each CVW to have five of the new Hawkeyes. Also assigned to each carrier while deployed are a pair of “kissing cousins” of the E-2, the Northrop Grumman C-2A Greyhound. Used in the fleet logistics and transport role, Greyhounds are designed to transfer critical personnel, equipment, supplies, and mail out to the CSG from bases around the world. Currently, the entire C-2A fleet is undergoing a major service life extension program of structural upgrades and repairs, including the addition of a GPS-based navigation system and a ground proximity warning system.

SEAHAWKS: SH-60F AND HH-60H TO MH-60R/S For more than two decades, Navy versions of the Army’s venerable Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawk transport helicopter have been serving the fleet in a variety of roles and missions. From the ASW-oriented SH-60B and -F models, to the HH60H Rescue Hawk variant used for SOF transport, search and rescue (SAR), and logistical support, Sikorsky S-70/H60 “Hawks” have been the core of the Navy’s rotorcraft fleet since the 1980s. In 2008, however, a brand-new Seahawk arrived on board the carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74): the Sikorsky MH-60R. The MH-60R is created from either a remanufactured B- or F-model Seahawk, with a new glass cockpit, advanced sensor suite with a FLIR/laser designator, a new data link, and the ability to fire the new Mk. 54 ASW torpedo and AGM-114 Hellfire missile. In addition to the MH-60R, Sikorsky is also building another new version of the H-60, the MH-60S. The S-model Seahawk is designed to replace the long-serving Boeing CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter in the fleet logistics role, along with taking over the

Opposite: An EA-6B Prowler launches off catapult 1 on board the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) on March 9, 2008. The Prowler will eventually be replaced by the EA-18G Growler.

CVN 77 H 131

carrier air wing.indd 131

12/9/08 4:55:35 PM


Military Benefit Association supports our troops and provides security for military families. Military Benefit Association (MBA) is a non-profit association that sponsors excellent life insurance plans to military members, veterans, and federal employees. MBA members may purchase up to $500,000 of group term life insurance; spouses may purchase up to the same amount of coverage and dependent children may be covered at no additional cost. Insurance premiums are competitive and, more importantly, this

coverage stays with you when you leave the military. You do not have to convert to the more expensive VGLI plan. If you would like more information about MBA membership and sponsored insurance plans, please visit www.militarybenefit.org or contact a representative at 1-800-336-0100.

Mosbacher Energy Energy Company Mosbacher Company A GREAT SHIP FOR A GREAT MAN

Life Insurance underwritten by Government Personnel Mutual Life Insurance Company. Not available in all states.

qtrs.indd 1

12/10/08 3:35:19 PM


carrier air wing

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jarod Hodge

E-2C+ Hawkeyes assigned to the Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 115 “Liberty Bells,” line up in formation in front of Mount Fuji in 2007. E-2Cs are slated to eventually be replaced by the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.

duties of the HH-60H. For this new version of the Seahawk, Sikorsky has taken the airframe of the basic UH-60, and merged it with the power train and rotor system of the basic SH-60. Equipped with a glass cockpit, airborne defensive countermeasures system, and door-mounted machine guns, the MH-60S is well equipped for overland duties and SAR/SOF support. Plans are for each CVW to operate a composite squadron of 14 MH-60R/S Seahawks, which will also supply helicopters to the CSG escorts.

FUTURE STRIKE: UCAs-D As much as the planes on America’s carrier flight decks are scheduled to change in the next decade, the notion of unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) becoming part of future Navy CVWs is still a bit extreme to most naval aviators. Nevertheless, in the next few years, a radical-looking experimental aircraft is going to be conducting the basic tests that could make carrier-based UCAVs a reality before the end of the next decade. Northrop Grumman’s X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstrator (UCAS-D), will be an enlarged and updated variant of its earlier X-47A UCAV prototype. Plans are for the Navy to test the UCAS-D on board a carrier in the 2011 time frame, conducting autonomous takeoffs and landings and

demonstrating other mission capabilities such as strike and ISR with an unmanned, tailless aircraft. Should the UCAS-D trials prove successful, the plan is for the Navy to develop and contract for a production UCAV that would be on carrier decks sometime around 2020. This UCAV would have similar qualities to the F-35C, with a 4,500-pound internal payload, multi-mode sensor suite, stealth, and even the ability to conduct autonomous in-flight refueling with any airborne tanker in the U.S. and NATO inventories. CVWs would be assigned a squadron of 10 to 12 UCAVs, with the ability to rapidly deploy additional units anywhere in the world without any manned support other than airborne tankers. Today’s CVWs are the reason why the United States, as a country, spends billions of taxpayer dollars to build nuclear-powered supercarriers like the Bush. On just 4.5 acres of flight deck, which can be moved anywhere in the world with enough ocean under the keel, is a lethal mix of aircraft capable of dealing out killing blows to our enemies, and doing single-handed battle with most of the air forces in the world. This is not to say that CVWs are invincible engines of war; however, most air forces around the world would prefer not to try taking on a well-handled CVW in battle. And that is why when a crisis erupts, every president of the United States since Franklin D. Roosevelt has at one time or another asked, “Where are the carriers?”

CVN 77 H 133

carrier air wing.indd 133

12/9/08 4:55:54 PM


CARRIERS AT WAR

From World War I to the Present Day By Dwight Jon Zimmerman

U.S. Naval Historical Center

Carriers at war

“Fleets built around air power can command any sea and from it project power into any land mass.” – Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman

F

or almost 70 years, the preeminent symbol of a nation’s sea power has been the aircraft carrier. Today, nine nations are members of the aircraft carrier fraternity (with China presumably about to become the newest once it finishes rebuilding of the ex-Russian navy Varyag, now renamed Shi Lang). But only the United States has more than three aircraft carriers in active service. And when the decks of the carrier’s cousins, the amphibious assault ships (LHA, and LHD), are included, the United States has on hand more than 25 warships capable of launching squadrons into harm’s way. From a humble beginning in World War I using converted vessels equipped with cranes for their sealaunched aircraft to today’s specialized superships utilizing steam-powered catapults that fling multiton supersonic aircraft off a non-skid, low solarabsorbing flight deck, the carrier has taken the fight to distant enemy shores, conducted reconnaissance, battled enemy fleets, defended supply convoys, supported amphibious operations, conducted humanitarian missions, defended the international laws of free sea travel, defused regional military tensions, and recovered astronauts – in short, the aircraft carrier has proved to be more versatile than its early advocates imagined. Naval aviation was still in its infancy when on Sept. 5, 1914, just two months after the outbreak of World War I, the Japanese navy conducted the world’s first sea-based naval operation against an enemy installation. For two months, until Nov. 6, the seaplane carrier Wakamiya, converted from a transport ship, launched seaplanes that bombed German communications installations

on the Tsingtao Peninsula and ships in Jiaozhou Bay during the Siege of Tsingtao operation. The seaplanes conducted almost daily reconnaissance and air strikes during the operation – making a total of 49 attacks in which 190 bombs were dropped – and were instrumental in causing the Germans to surrender on Nov. 7, 1914. On Dec. 25, 1914, the British Royal Naval Air Service launched the world’s second sea-based naval aviation operation against an enemy installation. The target was the German Zeppelin base at Cuxhaven, located at the mouth of the Elbe River. At the time, the only German aircraft capable of reaching British soil were the lighter-than-air Zeppelin dirigibles. The threat of large fleets of German dirigibles bombing English cities had caused panic throughout the country. To counter the threat, the Royal Navy planned a preemptive raid. Three seaplane tenders, the forerunners of the aircraft carrier, supported by a combined surface and submarine escort, would steam to a point in the Heligoland Bight, about 40 miles off the German North Sea coast. There each tender would launch its complement of three planes, each armed with three 20-pound bombs. The mission called for the seaplanes to conduct reconnaissance of the installations and, if possible, bomb them. On the morning of the raid, the engines of two of the seaplanes failed to start. The remaining seven aircraft, fighting fog, low cloud cover, and anti-aircraft fire, successfully completed their mission. Though damage was slight, the raid clearly demonstrated that air attacks from ship-launched planes were possible. And as Flight, the official publication of the Royal Aero Club of the United Kingdom, noted,

134 H CVN 77

carriers at war.indd 134

12/9/08 4:48:25 PM


Carriers at war

A view from a TBD-1 Devastator that has just launched from USS Yorktown during the Battle of the Coral Sea. USS Lexington was lost during the battle, and Yorktown badly damaged, but in addition to ship and aircrew losses, Japanese plans to capture Port Moresby were thwarted.

CVN 77 H 135

carriers at war.indd 135

12/9/08 4:48:46 PM


National naval avaiation on temp1 1

12/2/08 11:49:38 AM


Carriers at war

U.S. Naval Historical Center

Aichi D3A1 “Vals” warm up on the flight deck of a Japanese carrier prior to launching. The carrier Soryu is in the background.

because all the ships on the mission wound up fighting the enemy, for the first time in history a naval attack was “delivered simultaneously above, on, and from below the surface of the water.” The British soon added additional seaplane tenders to their fleet and went a step further by converting the battle cruiser HMS Furious into the world’s first aircraft carrier. But, despite the strategic promise that shipbased naval aviation offered, the technology was too primitive for it to make a major contribution to the war effort. Most action came in the form of patrols, particularly in providing convoys aerial protection against Uboat attack. The only other significant naval aviation attack against land installations occurred in July 1918, when the Furious launched a sevenplane raid on the Zeppelin base at Tondern (now the Danish city of Tønder), heavily damaging it. By war’s end, all of the major sea powers had a naval aviation arm of some sort, but Great Britain was the only nation possessing what could be considered a carrier fleet. The U.S. Navy’s formal introduction to naval aviation officially began in 1910, when civilian pilot Eugene Ely successfully flew his Curtiss biplane off a wooden platform constructed on the light cruiser USS Birmingham. Shortly thereafter, a Department of Aeronautics was established within the Bureau of Ordnance. The Navy sent pilots to Europe during World War I, but they operated from land-based airfields.

During the interwar years, the “war-to-end-all-war” mentality and the Great Depression had enormous short-term impact on all military branches. But, crucially for naval aviation, the greatest long-term impact came from the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 (also known as the Five-Power Treaty), the first of three naval treaties during this period. Signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, and Italy, the document was what today would be called an arms limitation treaty. It was the first treaty to regulate the size, type, and number of warships a nation could build and possess. The impact on the U.S. Navy was enormous. New battleship construction ground to a halt, and two battle cruisers then under construction were converted to what would become the aircraft carriers USS Lexington and USS Saratoga. The effect in Japan was equally profound. A battleship and a battle cruiser under construction were converted to the carriers Kaga and Akagi respectively. Two other carriers, Shoho and Zuiho, were based on a flexible design that allowed for conversion to tankers, submarine tenders, or aircraft carriers. The Shoho was launched in 1934 as a submarine tender before being converted to a carrier in 1940. The Zuiho began service in 1934 as a high-speed oiler and was converted to an aircraft carrier shortly before the outbreak of World War II. It is the irony of naval aviation that before it had a “father,” it had what amounted to a “crazy uncle” in the form of airpower visionary and maverick Army Brig. Gen. William “Billy” Mitchell. Shortly after the end

CVN 77 H 137

carriers at war.indd 137

12/9/08 4:48:57 PM


n 2007, The National World War II Museum bestowed our highest honor, the American Spirit Award, to former President George Herbert Walker Bush in recognition of his courage and extraordinary public service. Today, we again salute this great American as the United States Navy proudly launches the USS George H. W. Bush CVN 77. Just as in World War II, the Navy is expanding its fleet to protect and preserve the freedom we hold so dear. The National World War II Museum is expanding to tell the entire story of The War That Changed The Worldâ&#x201E;˘: why it was fought, how it was won and what it means today. Join us on the Road to Victory.

Contact the Museumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Capital Campaign staff to learn how you can help us pave The Road to Victory. Call 877-813-3329 x 250 or email almajane.shepard@nationalww2museum.org. For more information on The National World War II Museum, including how you can become a member, visit www.nationalww2museum.org. WW2-12407_BushCarrierAd_v3.indd 3

7/17/08 4:17:19 PM

natlwwR on temp.indd 1

7/23/08 1:51:04 PM


Carriers at war

National Archives

An Army B-25B Mitchell takes off from USS Hornet’s deck during the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo.

of World War I, Mitchell embarked on a high-profile campaign to create an independent air service, one that would usurp the Navy’s traditional function as the nation’s first line of defense. As Mitchell saw it, just as the Army was responsible for land warfare, and the Navy responsible for sea warfare, the new air service would be responsible for war waged in the air. This meant that in addition to land-based airfields, the air service would also “own” all aircraft carriers. Mitchell’s high-profile efforts caused even the conservative members of the Navy’s “Gun Club” to close ranks in support of naval aviation. In February 1921, the Bureau of Aeronautics was formally established, with Rear Adm. William A. Moffett, considered the father of naval aviation, as its first chief. Though committed to battleship fleets, the U.S. Navy moved aggressively in studying how best to use naval air power. In 1922, the Navy commissioned its first carrier, USS Langley (CV 1), a converted collier. From 1923 to 1940, the Navy conducted Fleet Problems IXXI, a series of exercises that historians regard as being pivotal in the development of U.S. carrier doctrine. Langley’s impressive performance in Fleet Problem VI, an attack on the Hawaiian Islands, caused the Navy to accelerate the completion of the new fleet carriers Lexington (CV 2) and Saratoga (CV 3). Taken as a whole, what is most remarkable about these Fleet Problems is how the planners and ship captains overcame an incredible array of

logistical and technological problems. Lacking sufficient aircraft carriers, they used surrogates (usually battleships) whose catapult-launched scout planes became attack squadrons. They also refused to be blocked by the limitations of the immature aviation technology and imaginatively looked past the fragile, under-powered, and under-armed aircraft and weapons systems they had to work with. When World War II began for the United States in 1941, the country faced a maritime strategic reality of enormous complexity and danger. The possibility of having to fight a two-ocean war was no longer an exercise of war game imagination, but a dread realization of its inevitability. To meet that commitment, the United States had only seven fleet carriers (Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, Enterprise, Wasp, and Hornet), a total of 13 aircraft carriers of all types, including the now obsolete Langley, and it ranked third in naval airpower behind Japan and Great Britain. The situation in the Pacific in the opening months of the war was particularly dire. On Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese Imperial Fleet launched one of the greatest attacks in naval aviation history. The Japanese fleet under Vice Adm. Chuichi Nagumo comprised six aircraft carriers, and achieved total surprise over the U.S. military bases on the Hawaiian island of Oahu. The primary target was the naval base at Pearl Harbor. When the second wave of Japanese squadrons retired, the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet had been gutted. The heart of the fleet, its battleships, were either sunk or badly damaged. The only silver lining in the carnage that left 2,345

CVN 77 H 139

carriers at war.indd 139

12/9/08 4:49:05 PM


“Develop, deploy and maintain a system that improves existing Navy radars for detection and engagement of asymmetric threats in the difficult radar environments where they typically operate?”

Jason F. Vice President AMERICAN SYSTEMS

‘I can do that. I own the company.’ Detecting small, hostile craft within a cluttered sea environment is a difficult challenge requiring state-of-the-art technology, expert systems integration and significant program management expertise. To do this, the Navy turned to AMERICAN SYSTEMS for answers. As one of the largest employee-owned companies in the United States, AMERICAN SYSTEMS has the leadership, experience and resources to deliver the right solution at the right time. Find out what an employee-owned company can do for you. Visit www.AmericanSystems.com. When it has to be right the first time.

asystems on temp.indd 1

3/1/08 3:31:52 PM


Carriers at war

U.S. Naval Historical Center

SBD Dauntlesses of USS Yorktown warm up on deck before launching during the Battle of the Coral Sea.

personnel killed was that Nagumo had rejected launching a third strike to knock out the fuel storage, maintenance, and dock facilities. That, and the fact that the fleet’s carriers were at sea when the attack occurred, gave the U.S. Navy the opportunity to recover. In the short term, the tactical situation shifted heavily in favor of the Japanese. But Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, the planner of the attack on Pearl Harbor, knew the clock was ticking against Japan. When the decision to go to war was made, he replied that he would “run wild” for six months to a year. After that, he had “utterly no confidence” in what would follow. His prediction was uncannily accurate. Japanese ascendancy in the Pacific would come to a fiery end within seven months. America’s first important counter-thrust occurred on April 14, 1942. In the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had urged the Joint Chiefs of Staff to quickly come up with a retaliation operation against the Japanese home islands. Initially such an operation was thought impossible; the short range of Navy dive-bombers would place the precious carriers too close to Japanese air bases. But when it was determined that specially modified Army Air Corps B-25 Mitchell medium bombers could be launched from a carrier deck, the operation later known as the Doolittle Raid, named after the Army Air Corps commander of the operation, Lt. Col. James H. Doolittle, was born. On April 13, Hornet, carrying 16 B-25s on its flight deck, and her escorts rendezvoused with Vice Adm. William Halsey’s Task Force 16, built around the Enterprise. The plan called for the Hornet to launch the

bombers when the carrier was about 550 miles off the Japanese coast. After the bombers had hit their targets, they would then continue to China, where they would land on airfields under Nationalist Chinese control. Unfortunately, Japanese patrol ships discovered the fleet when it was still about 700 miles off the coast. Despite the extreme range, the decision was made to launch, and all 16 bombers successfully took off from Hornet. Tactically, the raid caused little damage, but strategically its impact was enormous. American morale received a tremendous boost. It also caused top Japanese leaders to change the direction of future operations. The destruction of the American carriers assumed high priority. The Imperial Japanese Navy saw its first opportunity to achieve that goal in the southwest Pacific with the New Guinea offensive, designed to capture the strategic harbor of Port Moresby. Thanks to the fact that the Japanese codes had been cracked, Adm. Chester Nimitz, commander in chief Pacific Fleet, was aware of the Japanese plans, and he ordered Rear Adm. Frank Jack Fletcher and Task Force 17, built around the carriers Lexington and Yorktown, to stop the offensive. The result was the Battle of the Coral Sea. It began on May 4, 1942, and was not only the first carrier-versus-carrier battle, but the first time that both sides fought without either fleet being in sight of the other. When the battle ended on May 8, in terms of ships lost, the Japanese had won a tactical victory, with the light carrier Shoho, the destroyer Kikuzuki, and the minelayer Okinoshima sunk and the fast carrier Shokaku damaged. The Americans, however, had lost Lexington, the destroyer USS Sims,

CVN 77 H 141

carriers at war.indd 141

12/9/08 4:49:16 PM


Carriers at war

and the oiler Neosho sunk and Yorktown damaged. But strategically, the Americans had scored a major victory. The planned seaborne invasion of Port Moresby was canceled. Also, the damage to Shokaku and the loss of most of Zuikaku’s aircrews meant that these two carriers would be unable to participate in the next great sea engagement of the war, the Battle of Midway. For the Japanese, the primary purpose of the assault on Midway was to lure the surviving ships of the U.S. Navy, particularly the carriers, into a trap where they would be destroyed. Yamamoto prepared a complex plan composed of eight fleets. Three of the fleets were assigned the diversionary mission of capturing the Aleutian Islands of Attu and Kiska. The remaining five fleets steamed toward Midway. The heart of the attack was the First Carrier Striking Force under the command of Nagumo. It included the four fleet carriers Hiryu, Soryu, Akagi, and Kaga. Against the massive Japanese force that also included 11 battleships and 23 cruisers, Nimitz could only assemble a force composed of three carriers (including the crippled, hastily repaired Yorktown), eight cruisers, and a handful of destroyers. Not only was the U.S. Navy outnumbered and out-gunned, many of the Navy pilots had never seen combat, and their squadrons were composed of generally inferior aircraft. They were going up against some of the finest squadrons in the Imperial Japanese Navy who were flying modern warbirds. As Walter Lord wrote in his classic account of the battle, Incredible Victory, the Americans “had no right to win. Yet

they did.” Through a combination of knowledge of the Japanese plans, determination, courage, luck, dedication, skill, and heroic self-sacrifice, the squadrons of the Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown sank all four Japanese carriers, turned back the assault on Midway, and stopped further Japanese expansion in the Pacific. The cost to the U.S. Navy was high. The damaged Yorktown was further wounded and was eventually scuttled. Torpedo squadrons flying obsolete TBD Devastators were virtually wiped out. But the strategic initiative now shifted over to the Americans. Nimitz and his staff began planning for the first offensive action in the war. Their target was a Japanese airstrip under construction on an island in the southwest Pacific that no one had heard of and whose name was difficult to pronounce: Guadalcanal. If the Japanese succeeded in completing the airstrip, their aircraft could sever the sea lanes that connected Australia to the United States. The Guadalcanal campaign began when the 1st Marine Division assaulted the island on Aug. 7, 1942, and captured the airstrip, which was christened Henderson Field in honor of a Marine pilot killed in action at Midway. The first carrier-versus-carrier engagement of the campaign was the Battle of the Eastern Solomons on Aug. 24-25, 1942. Squadrons from the Enterprise and Saratoga dueled with squadrons from the carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku, and the light carrier Ryujo. Though the Enterprise was heavily damaged in the battle, it ended in an American victory, because

U.S. Naval Historical Center

TBD Devastators of Torpedo Squadron 6 are spotted for launching on the deck of Enterprise during the Battle of Midway. Only four of Torpedo 6’s 14 aircraft returned to the ship from their strike on the Japanese carriers.

142 H CVN 77

carriers at war.indd 142

12/9/08 4:49:27 PM


Carriers at war

National Archives

USS Enterprise maneuvers while under attack by Japanese aircraft during the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands.

the Japanese both lost more ships (three sunk including the Ryujo), and reinforcements intended for Guadalcanal were temporarily turned away. The Japanese later got a measure of revenge when a submarine torpedoed and sank USS Wasp on Sept. 15 while she was escorting a support convoy to Guadalcanal. The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, Oct. 25-27, was the next carrier-versus-carrier battle. This time two American flattops, Hornet and the repaired Enterprise, squared off against four Japanese carriers, Hiyo, Shokaku, and Zuikaku, and the light carrier Zuiho. When the battle ended, only one American carrier remained afloat in the theater, the Enterprise. On the Japanese side, Shokaku and Zuikaku were both damaged, but afloat. Again, however, the Japanese had lost many trained aircrews. When combined with the earlier aircrew losses at Coral Sea, Midway, and the Eastern Solomons, Japanese aircrew quality never recovered. U.S. Navy operations increased in 1943 as more warships, including the new Essex- and Independence-class carriers, began entering the fleet. This growing strength was reflected in the increasing number and range of raids on Japanese island bases up and down the Pacific, from Rabaul to Truk and elsewhere. The high point that demonstrated how much had changed

from the early months of the war occurred when more than a hundred warships, including 17 carriers and 12 battleships (some recovered from Pearl Harbor), participated in Operation Galvanic, the amphibious assault of the Tarawa Atoll. Then, in 1944, two pivotal battles irrevocably established American naval might: the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June and the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October. American amphibious landings on Saipan caused the Japanese to respond with Operation A-Go, which called for the Japanese fleet under Vice Adm. Jisaburo Ozawa to destroy the American fleet and disrupt the landings. This time, though, it was the Japanese fleet that was outnumbered. Ozawa had 55 ships, including five fleet and four light carriers and 473 aircraft. Adm. Raymond Spruance’s Fifth Fleet had 112 ships, including seven fleet and eight light carriers and 956 planes. Even though 300 land-based aircraft from Japanese airfields in Guam and Tinian helped balance the odds, the Americans held an additional advantage. Too many of Ozawa’s squadrons had a majority of “green” pilots while American pilots were all well-trained and experienced. This carrier-versuscarrier battle began on June 19. When it concluded on June 20, Ozawa had lost three carriers sunk and more than 600 planes (carrier and landbased) destroyed. One American fighter pilot commented that the battle

CVN 77 H 143

carriers at war.indd 143

12/9/08 4:49:36 PM


What man is...only his history tells. A young Naval aviator went to war. He flew his plane off an aircraft carrier into battle. While completing his mission he was shot down under a barrage of enemy fire. He not only survived this ordeal but went on to become the 41st President of the United States of America. Gulf States Toyota proudly salutes the commissioning of our Nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s newest aircraft carrier, named in his honor, USS George H.W. Bush.

ToyotaR on temp.indd 1 G7930 USS Bush Ad_FINAL.indd 1

12/9/08 12:24:48 PM 11/14/08 11:18:26 AM


Carriers at war

National Archives

While escort carriers (CVEs) went unheralded, they accomplished a wide range of tasks. In the Atlantic, they were instrumental in winning the war against German U-boats. USS Guadalcanal actually captured U-505 (shown here).

reminded him of a turkey shoot back home, thus giving the engagement the nickname “the Marianas Turkey Shoot.” The battle was notable for one particular act of courage. The last American air attack on June 20 occurred so late in the day that night had fallen by the time the squadrons returned to the fleet. Despite the danger of attack by enemy submarines and night aircraft, Vice Adm. Marc Mitscher, commander of Task Force 58, ordered his flattops to be illuminated and the escorts to fire star shells to help guide the aircraft. The risky move paid off. Out of 216 aircraft in the strike, 116 landed safely. Of the remainder, 20 never returned and 80 either ditched or crash-landed. Mitscher’s fleet escaped attack. In the fall of 1944, the Japanese navy was in desperate straits. Because almost all its experienced pilots had been killed in action, its remaining aircraft carriers were hollow shells. When Gen. Douglas MacArthur landed troops on the Philippine island of Leyte, the Japanese high command decided to risk everything in one titanic knockout blow named Sho-Go (Operation Victory). Three fleets were organized. One, under Ozawa, was built around four aircraft carriers, all but empty of pilots and aircraft. Its sole purpose was to act as a decoy to lure Halsey’s powerful Third Fleet, with its 16 carriers, away from the landing beaches. When that happened, two powerful surface fleets built around battleships and heavy cruisers would attack from the center and south, and blast their way through the Seventh Fleet under Vice Adm. Thomas C. Kinkaid, basically an amphibious support fleet that included battleships raised from Pearl Harbor and small, thin-hulled escort carriers.

At first, things worked out the way the Japanese hoped. Once Halsey’s aircraft spotted Ozawa’s fleet, the aggressive commander commenced pursuit. Though the second fleet, under Vice Adm. Kiyohide Shima, failed to reach the landing beaches, it succeeded in drawing away the bulk of the Seventh Fleet. When the third Japanese fleet, under Vice Adm. Takeo Kurita approached, only three escort carrier task forces, Taffy 1, Taffy 2, and Taffy 3, stood in its way. Kurita had under his command four modern battleships including the gigantic Yamato and its 18-inch guns, six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and 11 destroyers. Despite the overwhelming odds, the aircraft and ships of the Taffys put up such a spirited defense that Kurita thought he was fighting a much larger force. At the moment when he was at the threshold of his objective, Kurita lost his nerve and ordered his fleet to retire. MacArthur’s troops were saved. It was the last Japanese fleet action in the war. While the carrier war in the Pacific produced some of the most famous naval aviation battles in history, the Battle in the Atlantic is notable for the almost total obscurity of its naval aviation action. Exceptions are the Ark Royal’s participation in the sinking of the Bismarck, where its Swordfish torpedo bombers sufficiently damaged the German battleship allowing for the British surface fleet to sink it, and the British attack on the Italian naval base at Taranto in 1940, which influenced Japanese tactics for the attack on Pearl Harbor. The biggest reason for the relative anonymity of naval aviation’s contribution was the nature of the primary enemy threat: German

CVN 77 H 145

carriers at war.indd 145

12/9/08 4:49:44 PM


Carriers at war

U-boats. This greatly simplified the Allied response. With the exception of USS Ranger, which, because of design limitations, remained in the Atlantic, and the Wasp’s participation in resupplying the British at Malta, American fast carriers did not participate in the Atlantic or Mediterranean theaters. Initially, anti-submarine warfare protection of convoys was provided by British and Dutch merchant aircraft carriers, converted bulk grain carriers and tankers capable of carrying three or four Swordfish torpedo bombers. Nineteen merchant aircraft carriers saw service before being phased out by the arrival of U.S. escort carriers. American light and escort carriers arguably became the most versatile warships to see service in World War II. They did it all, from anti-submarine warfare, convoy escort, amphibious landing support, ferrying squadrons, and training, to the spectacular defense of landing beaches during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. In August 1945, the United States Navy was the largest in the world, with a fleet that included 105 aircraft carriers and 24,000 aircraft. Though naval aviation had made a pivotal contribution to Allied victory in World War II, its future proved less than secure in the postwar world. As a result of the across-the-board military drawdown, budgets were slashed and carriers were mothballed. In the new nuclear age, the now independent Air

Force renewed its attack on naval aviation, asserting the supremacy of its nuclear-capable strategic bombers. The “revolt of the admirals” following the cancellation of construction of the supercarrier United States resulted in a pause in further cutbacks that many powerful figures in politics thought was only temporary. Then came the Korean War. In retrospect, the overall weakness of America’s military when North Korean forces poured across the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950, did much to save naval aviation. The only readily available rapid response aviation force was the Essex-class carrier USS Valley Forge, which, together with the British light carrier Triumph, began air operations against North Korean airfields, railroad, and transportation facilities on July 3, 1950. By August, three more carriers had arrived, the first wave of ships that were either reassigned or swiftly brought out of mothballs. During the next several weeks, air operations focused on supporting the cornered troops defending the Pusan perimeter in the southeastern tip of the Korean peninsula. Then, on Sept. 15, MacArthur, supreme commander of the United Nations Forces, launched his strategic counterstroke, Operation Chromite, the amphibious landing at Inchon. To support the landing, Commander Naval Forces Far East Vice Adm. C. Turner Joy assembled six carriers, the greatest concentration of naval

National Archives

F4U Corsairs returning from a combat mission over North Korea circle USS Boxer on Sept. 4, 1951. While the Korean War brought jets to the fore, such as the Panthers spotted on Boxer’s deck, and saw pioneering use of helicopters, much of the heavy work was still done by propeller-driven aircraft such as Corsairs and Skyraiders.

146 H CVN 77

carriers at war.indd 146

12/9/08 4:50:05 PM


Carriers at war

U.S. Naval Historical Center

USS Bon Homme Richard operating in the Tonkin Gulf in November 1964 during the Vietnam War.

airpower since World War II. This operation would prove to be the high point of the Navyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contribution in the war. Because the North Korean navy was a small littoral force containing only 45 vessels, the U.S. Navy was able to quickly establish control of the seas. And, as the North Korean air force was equally small, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force aircraft were able to establish air supremacy within a few short weeks. The carriers became mobile airfields, stationing themselves for weeks off the coast of North Korea and conducting strategic air strikes deep within the country, combat air support, and other missions, including patrolling the waters between China and Taiwan to ensure that the war would not spread into that region. Equally important, the carriersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; success caused Congress to reverse its ship-cutting course and authorize the construction, in 1951, of USS Forrestal and three more supercarriers. The next significant carrier action, the Vietnam War, would prove to be more frustrating. During the Vietnam War, carriers of the Seventh Fleet fought, for the most part, from fixed geographic locations in the South China Sea, Yankee Station off the coast of North Vietnam, and Dixie Station off the coast of South Vietnam. The Seventh Fleet conducted around-the-clock bombings of logistics facilities, fuel and supply depots,

power plants, bridges, and railroads in Laos, North Vietnam, and after 1970, Cambodia. In the first year of the war, carriers launched 31,000 sorties. On average, three carriers remained on station at any one time. For a seven-month period from June 1972 to January 1973, this was more than doubled when seven carriers were assigned to the theater. In the summer of 1972, carriers launched an average of 4,000 sorties a month, amounting to 60 percent of all missions supporting ground operations. The carriers participated in a number of operations, including the episodic Rolling Thunder, and naval air operations succeeded in disrupting enemy supply efforts to a point where they caused a scaledown in the strength and duration of a number of ground offensives. One important contribution was the search and rescue service provided by carrier-based helicopters that retrieved hundreds of downed aviators on shore or at sea. Ultimately, carrier successes were undercut by a failed strategy, restrictive rules of engagement, and the unpopularity of the war. In consequence, no decisive results were achieved, at a cost of 900 aircraft lost and 881 pilots and aircrew members captured or killed. The

CVN 77 H 147

carriers at war.indd 147

12/9/08 4:50:14 PM


holden on temp.indd 1

12/2/08 1:49:54 PM


Carriers at war

carriers’ last mission in Vietnam proved to be not combat but humanitarian. Operation Frequent Wind, the evacuation of American and South Vietnamese personnel in 1975, included the participation of Enterprise, Coral Sea, Midway, and Hancock. The postwar period became another one of reduction and realignment for the Navy. Strategic commitments, including NATO obligations and the concept of a three-ocean navy, were reassessed. The Middle East and its oil fields became a growing priority for the shrinking forwarddeployable assets. But budget cutbacks forced new shipbuilding programs to be extended or slashed. By 1977, the Navy was reduced to 459 ships and did not have sufficient assets to fulfill the requirements of a three-ocean navy. When President Jimmy Carter proposed further cuts, including the cancellation of the Nimitz-class carrier program, he touched off what one historian called the “great carrier war.” Led by Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. James L. Holloway, III, and his successor Adm. Thomas Hayward, the Navy, together with congressional allies on both sides, successfully defeated the president’s attempt to eliminate additional attack carrier construction. Things improved for naval aviation following the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan in 1981. John Lehman was appointed secretary of the Navy, and during his seven years in office, he oversaw the creation of the “600-ship navy” and developed what was called the Maritime Strategy, which was, as historian Robert Love Jr. noted, “predicated on a strong peacetime forward-deployed heavy attack carrier force that could both take the offensive in a general war and provide the president with a quickdraw intervention option in a regional crisis.” Carriers were put to great use in the 1980s. In 1981, aircraft from Nimitz and Forrestal were involved in the Gulf of Sidra incident. Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, in violation of international law, claimed the gulf as Libyan territorial waters and announced a “line of death” for any vessel or airplane that crossed it. Reagan sent carrier groups into the gulf to enforce the international rights of passage laws. A confrontation ensued in which two Libyan jet aircraft were shot down. In 1982, Great Britain and Argentina fought the territorial dispute known as the Falklands War. In it, aircraft

from the carriers HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes supported amphibious operations to liberate the British South Atlantic islands seized by Argentine forces. The following year, the United States launched Operation Urgent Fury, the invasion of Grenada, to liberate American students held hostage. In addition to participation by the carrier USS Independence, the campaign saw the first major operational use of amphibious assault ships (Guam and Saipan). The U.S. Sixth Fleet returned to the Gulf of Sidra in 1986 as part of Operation El Dorado Canyon in order to punish Libya for its support of terrorists, and to once again enforce the international right of freedom of navigation. Three years later, in another incident in the gulf, Navy Tomcats once again shot down two Libyan fighters. The “peace dividend” implied by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1989 proved illusory. The eight-year Iran-Iraq War that ended in 1988 set the stage for a new crisis in the following decade. On Aug. 2, 1990, Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait. The American-led international response, Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, was the largest military operation since the Vietnam War. Six aircraft carrier battle groups participated in the campaign. Coalition victory in Operation Desert Storm also resulted in a watershed bureaucratic victory for naval aviation. Cmdr. James Paulsen observed, “Following Desert Storm, the Air Force recognized the aircraft carriers’ contributions and the independence they offer to global presence. In light of the restrictions of deployable basing rights, the Air Force reversed its 50-year stance against the need for naval aviation.” The importance of this independent capability, free of interference by a host country, was underscored in Operation Enduring Freedom, where carrier-based aircraft from a total of four carrier groups proved to be the only practical air support for the campaign against the Taliban. Operation Iraqi Freedom saw the deployment of six carrier groups, and an unprecedented number of carrier-based night operations. As a result of its recent successes, and the development of new technologies that further enhance the versatility and capability of aircraft carriers, Holloway noted that today, “The U.S. carrier fleet is at a historic peak in its capabilities as the principal element of American sea power.”

Save 20% on your favorite PBS programs and more*!

Visit shopPBS.org and enter code USS20 at checkout to receive the discount.

Every shopPBS purchase supports innovative, independent and original PBS programming.

* Promotion Restriction: Discount does not include tax or shipping, and take effect at checkout. No Cash Value. Void where prohibited, taxed or restricted by law. Valid at shopPBS.org. Not valid on previous purchase, exchanges, special orders or gift-certificates. No substitutions or backorders. Cannot be combined with other offers. ShopPBS reserves the right to amend this promotion at anytime, without notice. Promotion ends 3/31/2009 at 11:59 PM EST.

CVN 77 H 149

carriers at war.indd 149

12/10/08 10:19:40 AM


naval aviation

U.S. Naval Aviation from birth to the present day By Robert F. Dorr

At

the cutting edge of today’s naval aviation striking power, the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) is a modern marvel of technology, prowess, and potential. But the new carrier also is the culmination of a long and proud tradition. Naval aviation is about ships, planes, and helicopters, but above all, it is about people. The carrier Bush – apart from the retired USS Forrestal, the only American carrier ever to be named for a naval aviator – will soon be making history with a new generation of people. They’ll be following in hallowed footsteps. Bush and her crew will add new chapters to those written by naval air heroes like Eugene Ely, who piloted a fabric biplane off a ship deck in 1910, or David McCampbell, who shot down 34 Japanese warplanes in 1944, or Cmdr. Alan Shepard, who became the first American in space in 1961. Just as naval aviation and naval aviators have made their mark from the Coral Sea to Inchon to Yankee Station, the tradition will continue with the new carrier, her ship’s company, and her air wing. And a proud tradition it is: Experts disagree on exactly when and where naval aviation was born, but one early milestone came in March 1898 when Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt directed naval officers to meet with Army leaders to evaluate an aircraft then being planned by air pioneer Samuel Langley. There

was no immediate result to Langley’s endeavors – which included the attempted launch of an aircraft from a boat in a river – but there was more to come. Wilbur and Orville Wright completed humankind’s first sustained, powered flight on Dec. 17, 1903. The Navy was not following the Wrights’ work closely, but it did have a sharp eye on the woodand-canvas airplanes being developed by another early pioneer, Glenn H. Curtiss.

EARLY AVIATION Cmdr. Frederick I. Chapin, America’s naval attaché in Paris, attended the August 1909 Grande Semaine d’Aviation in Reims. In a report to Washington, he suggested that the airplane might be useful in warfare and suggested two ways airplanes might operate from ships at sea. They might be launched from battleships, Chapin wrote, or they could operate from flight decks mounted on auxiliary ships. May 8, 1911, is the date usually cited as naval aviation’s true beginning. That’s when the sea service ordered its first aircraft – from Curtiss. Fully a year earlier, Ely flew a Curtiss biplane from a specially built platform aboard the cruiser USS Birmingham (CL 2). On Jan. 18, 1911, he made the world’s first shipboard landing on the armored cruiser USS Pennsylvania (ACR 4). The modern aircraft carrier, the Bush included, traces its roots to the Birmingham and the Pennsylvania.

150 H CVN 77

naval aviation.indd 150

12/9/08 5:13:35 PM


naval aviation

Library of Congress

Eugene Ely lands on the armored cruiser USS Pennsylvania. A primitive arresting gear of sandbags tied to ropes stretched across the deck brought him to a halt as he landed aboard.

CVN 77 H 151

naval aviation.indd 151

12/9/08 5:13:48 PM


naval aviation

Library of Congress

Lt. Theodore G. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Spudsâ&#x20AC;? Ellyson, the first naval aviator.

152 H CVN 77

naval aviation.indd 152

12/9/08 5:13:58 PM


naval aviation

The Navy did not yet have a pilot of its very own, but that changed, also in 1911, when Curtiss personally gave flight training to Lt. Theodore G. “Spuds” Ellyson, 26, the first naval aviator. Annapolis graduate Ellyson assisted in the search for a shipboard launching device for aircraft and on Sept. 7, 1911, made a successful takeoff from an inclined wire cable device. It was an eventful year. Also in 1911 – a year when half of the aviators in the United States were killed in accidents – the Navy issued a contract for two Curtiss biplanes, designated the A-1 and the A-2. It was inevitable that the sea and the air would be brought together in some kind of flying machine having both wings and a hull. Navy and Coast Guard officers talked repeatedly about some kind of “air yacht” or “flying ship” that would operate on the world’s oceans and take to the sky. Of the two Curtiss biplanes initially built for the Navy, one was completed in a configuration that would become familiar in the Navy for decades. It was a flying boat. In July 1911, this Curtiss A-1 Triad seaplane began flying from Lake Keuka near Hammondsport, N.Y., with Curtiss making the first two flights and Ellyson the next two. Two more naval aviators joined Ellyson: Lt. John H. Towers was trained by Curtiss, and Lt. John Rodgers by the Wrights. These were the days when enterprising upstarts flew frail fabric-and-wood aerial machines with the wind in their wires. Flying was exceedingly dangerous and had inevitable consequences. On June 13, 1913, Ensign William Billingsley was thrown from his Wright pusher 1,600 feet over Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay and became the Navy’s first aviation fatality. His death inspired a requirement for safety belts. During World War I, the Curtiss H-4 flying boat became the Navy’s first twin-engine aircraft. Naval aviation grew at an impressive speed, and the Navy added guns, and later bombs and depth charges, to the long-distance flying boat. Navy antisubmarine patrols made 30 attacks on German submarines in 1918, although postwar studies documented no sinkings. The 22,000 flights over submarine-infested waters by Navy patrol craft contributed to the safe arrival of every American convoy to Europe. Navy surface warships alerted by airmen – usually with hand signals or other crude methods – were given credit for several successful engagements with U-boats.

Library of Congress

ATLANTIC CROSSING In 1917, Rear Adm. David W. Taylor established a requirement for the Navy to develop a flying boat that could span the Atlantic Ocean. Prompted by efforts from Towers, now a commander in the Aviation Section in Washington and renowned for finding new ways to do things, the Navy developed a majestic flying boat, the biplane Curtiss NC (Navy Curtiss) series, with a wingspan of 126 feet (more than the length of the Wrights’ first flight). In May 1919, one of these planes, the NC-4, pulled off the unprecedented feat of crossing the Atlantic in an 11-day air and sea marathon. Three NCs, including one piloted by Towers, started out, but two fell by the wayside and one of these sank. Towers

The Navy’s NC-4 made the first successful transatlantic flight in 1919.

ended up taxiing his aircraft on the ocean surface for more than two days to reach Horta in the Azores. The NC-4 flew a Newfoundland-Azores-Lisbon route, its crew headed by the intrepid and slightly edgy Cmdr. Albert C. Read. In 1919, Congress authorized the ship that became USS Langley (CV 1), the first Navy aircraft carrier. In 1926, Cmdr. (later Rear Adm.) Richard Byrd, together with Floyd Bennett, a noncommissioned naval aviator, laid claim to the first flight over the north pole in a Fokker FVII-3M trimotor airplane with skis. Although experts today believe Byrd and Bennett fell short of the pole, their daring flight – pushing the envelope – began a role in the Arctic and Antarctic that was dominated by naval aviation for decades. The Navy also pressed ahead with development of observation planes that could be launched from a catapult on board a surface warship, and retrieved by crane after landing at sea. These planes were intended to scout ahead of cruisers and to direct long-distance gunfire by battleships. In the 1930s, the Vought OS2U Kingfisher – the most famous and widely used of these catapult aircraft – first took to the air. The mid-1930s also saw the advent of the legendary PBY Catalina, which was already approaching old age when it achieved greatness in World War II. While the Navy’s carrier force grew on the eve of World War II, biplanes gave way to monoplanes, wood-and-canvas construction was replaced by metal, and the Navy acquired new planes like the F4F Wildcat fighter and the SBD Dauntless dive-bomber that turned the tide at the Battle of Midway in

CVN 77 H 153

naval aviation.indd 153

12/15/08 4:18:35 PM


naval aviation

U.S. Naval Historical Center

Lt. Cmdr. John S. Thach (foreground) and Lt. Butch Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Hare in their VF-3 Wildcats in April 1942.

154 H CVN 77

naval aviation.indd 154

12/9/08 5:14:20 PM


naval aviation

1942. The F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat were not far behind. Again, the naval aviators at the controls were pioneers – Lt. Cmdr. John S. “Jimmy” Thach, skipper of fighting Squadron 3, who sat at a kitchen table in Coronado, Calif., and with matchsticks, developed the defensive fighter tactics credited with saving untold Navy flyers throughout the war, like Lt. Edward H. “Butch” O’Hare who became the first Navy ace of the new war and earned naval aviation’s first Medal of Honor when he shot down five Japanese Mitsubishi G4M “Betty” bombers on Feb. 20, 1942.

WAR AT SEA During World War II, as in the early days of flying, naval aviation enjoyed an edge because naval aviators were willing to take risks and push the envelope. Naval aviation, of course, included Marines like Capt. Joe Foss, who shot down 26 Japanese aircraft and was awarded the Medal of Honor for a prolonged effort at Guadalcanal that encompassed 51 days in late 1942 and early 1943. Naval aviation also included Coast Guardsmen, like those in patrol squadron VP-26, who scoured the North Atlantic for wolf packs of German U-boats. Naval aviator David McCampbell, who had been near the bottom of his class at Annapolis, swam away from the carrier USS Wasp when a Japanese submarine sank her in September 1942. He returned to the war and was air group commander in 1944 aboard the carrier USS Essex. “He could be irreverent at times,” said an aviator who knew him. “You might not invite him to a garden party. But he had the stuff of leadership and he knew how to shoot.” McCampbell and his Hellcat took large chunks out of Japan’s navy in the Marianas and at Leyte Gulf. He became the Navy’s top ace, ever, and the only pilot of the Fast Carrier Task Force to be awarded the Medal of Honor. The turn of the tide in the Pacific saw Navy flyers supporting the landings at Tarawa, Saipan, and Iwo Jima. The Navy’s F4U Corsair fighter proved especially adept at supporting ground troops and was more than able to fight its way out of a jam as well. As Americans landed in the Philippines and on Okinawa, moving closer to the Japanese heartland, the primary threat to the fast carriers came from suicide aircraft called kamikaze – the name of a “divine wind” that had interceded to protect Japan from invaders centuries ago. This time, it did not help. On the home front, Coast Guard Cmdr. Frank Erickson defied conventional wisdom

by taking to the sky in a new kind of aerial machine that went straight up. In an HNS1 helicopter, Erickson flew the world’s first helicopter lifesaving mission in January 1944 and soon afterward demonstrated that helos could operate from ships by landing on the CGC Cobb. From 1944 onward, the helicopter would always be part of the Navy’s story. A Navy scientist armed the uranium bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August 1945. Fast carrier forces closed in on Japan. The carrier air groups flew their last combat over Japan on Aug. 1. Naval aviators had shot down 6,826 Japanese aircraft. More than 7,100 Navy and Marine Corps pilots and crew were killed in World War II carrier operations alone. At war’s end, naval aviation had become the Navy’s premier weapon. Demobilization and downsizing followed V-J Day. It was a critical juncture, for the Navy was beginning its long shift from propeller to jet aircraft. The Department of Defense was established in 1947. That year, measures were taken to strengthen the Naval Air Reserve program that has since become an essential component of overall naval operations. For a time, as the world plunged deeper into the Cold War, critics wondered whether the Navy’s biggest enemy was the Soviet Union or the blue-suiters of the U.S. Air Force, which became an independent service branch in September 1947: In the “Revolt of the Admirals,” Navy leaders fought hard for a new supercarrier, USS United States (CVA 58), and found themselves pitted against Air Force generals pushing for the B-36 bomber. The admirals lost, and the Strategic Air Command gained a foothold in Washington’s budget battles that it never relinquished.

WAR IN KOREA The United States was unprepared for the North Korean attack on South Korea on June 25, 1950, and when the carrier USS Valley Forge (CVA 45) rushed to the scene, naval aviation was entering a new era. Navy carriers in the Sea of Japan launched air strikes for 37 months in poor weather or worse (the weather in Korea was almost never good), while landbased Navy aircraft flew reconnaissance and anti-submarine missions. In the air-to-air arena, the Navy was unprepared for the Soviet MiG15. The straight-wing Grumman F9F Panther remained the service’s standard fighter, while MiGs and Air Force F-86 Sabres, with higher performance and swept wings, clashed over the

CVN 77 H 155

naval aviation.indd 155

12/9/08 5:14:31 PM


11/24/2008

9:20 AM

Page 1

WORLD-CLASS PER F O R M A N C E FOR THE NAV Y T- 4 5

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy.

L-3Vertex_T45_BushCVN77_halfpg:Layout 1

Goshawk Training: NAS Meridian, MS | NAS Kingsville, TX | NAS Pensacola, FL The T-45TS is an Integrated Training System that merits an integrated support team, such as L-3 Vertex Aerospace. We are focused on meeting the needs of naval aviation. For more information on how we are leading the way, visit us at www.L-3Vertex.com. AM&M

>

SPECIALIZED PRODUCTS

>

C3ISR

>

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

L-3com.com

Ver tex Aerospace

 B O B E  B O B T  R L V  E P F 7

You can be…by getting your Bachelors or Masters degree Online from The University of Alabama, you’ll earn a degree from a world class university that fits your needs wherever you are. With more than 70 years of experience offering quality, non-traditional education, The University of Alabama has a reputation for creating highcaliber educational programs that fit into busy people’s lives. Visit us on our website at BamaByDistance.ua.edu or for more information call toll free at 1-800-467-0227.

l3UnAla.indd 1

12/10/08 12:32:12 PM


National Archives

naval aviation

Yalu River. One Navy pilot, Cmdr. Guy Bordelon, became the war’s only air ace to fly a propeller plane – using his F4U-5 Corsair to shoot down five night hecklers. Always a leader in rotary-wing aviation, the Navy introduced the world’s first turbinepowered helicopter, the Kaman K-225. By the time of the Korean War, both the Navy and Coast Guard were introducing variants of the K-225 to service. More obscure was the Bell HSL, the world’s first helicopter designed expressly for anti-submarine warfare (ASW); it was not placed into production, but paved the way for a strong emphasis on ASW throughout the Cold War.

During and after Korea, the Cold War always had top priority in the E-Ring of the Pentagon where the Navy’s top officer, the Chief of Naval Operations, resides. In the 1950s, dozens of Lockheed P2V Neptune squadrons stalked the 450-boat Soviet submarine fleet. The Navy pioneered development of air-toair missiles, including the Sidewinder that became a spectacular success. There also were innovative ideas in the 1950s that didn’t quite make the grade: a tail-mounted fighter designed to take off straight up; a jet-powered, flying-boat fighter. The Navy’s submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), starting with Polaris, were

Avengers and Hellcats land aboard Lexington (CV-16) during operations off the Gilbert Islands in November 1943.

CVN 77 H 157

naval aviation.indd 157

12/9/08 5:14:44 PM


naval aviation

central to U.S. planning for the nuclear war that never came. In the 1950s, the admirals’ quest for a truly postwar aircraft carrier was met with the 78,000-ton Forrestal (CVA 59) in the 1950s. In the post-Korea years, the Navy continued making technical and scientific advances. The F8U Crusader became the service’s first jet fighter capable of supersonic flight in level flight. The Navy introduced the mirror landing system and ground-level ejection. The keel was laid for the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise (designated CVAN 65). Not every idea worked. The Navy never fielded a jet-powered flying boat, even though it tested one, the P6M Seamaster. Thoughts of a nuclear-powered flying boat never reached fruition. Turboprop-powered fighter planes that could stand on their tails and take off vertically never became operational and look comical today, but a different approach produced the Marine Corps’ short take-off/vertical landing AV-8 Harrier. The late 1950s and early 1960s were dominated by events in space. Naval aviators were assigned to NASA as astronauts.

In 1961, Shepard rode the Mercury Redstone MR-7 vehicle into space. A year later, Marine Corps Lt. Col. John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth. Former naval aviator Neil A. Armstrong took the first walk on the moon in 1969. Dirigibles and later blimps were an important part of the Navy’s story for decades, but that era ended when the last blimp flew a mission in 1962. Just four years later, when the final mission by a Martin SP5B Marlin was completed in Vietnam, the Navy ended its use of flying boats, although the Coast Guard continued to operate HU-16E Albatrosses for a decade longer. The possibility of some future, high-tech flying boat, that would owe its heritage to Curtiss but draw its design from the digital world, is never far from the minds of naval aviation planners. The Vietnam War was the longest in American history and challenged naval aviation, from carrier decks to inland riverways. One of the first Americans in the Vietnam War was Navy Lt. Ken Moranville, who turned over AD Skyraiders to

U.S. Naval Historical Center

F9F Panthers launch from USS Bon Homme Richard off Korea, including a “photo bird” just becoming airborne.

158 H CVN 77

naval aviation.indd 158

12/9/08 5:15:01 PM


naval aviation

By the time of the Korean War, helicopters were becoming an important part of naval aviation. Here a Sikorsky HO3S-1 of USS Boxer recovers aboard after performing plane guard duty in September 1951.

Saigon’s air arm in September 1960. F-4 Phantom and F-8 Crusader pilots battled North Vietnamese MiGs near Hanoi and, after overcoming early flaws in training and readiness, gave a good account of themselves. But as usual, the real war was closer to the ground. Naval aviators flew armed Huey helicopters and OV-10 Bronco planes on river convoy duty and prowled the coast for North Vietnamese infiltration.

U.S. Naval Historical Center

THEN AND NOW After Vietnam, naval air still had its upstarts and visionaries and was plagued by a material inventory decline, but continued to make progress in research and development, as witnessed by the Navy’s introduction of the F-14 Tomcat and the FA-18 Hornet. Additions to the fleet of the new S-3 Viking and the LAMPS (Light Airborne Multipurpose System) SH-2D Seasprite helicopter were intended to curb the Soviet submarine threat. Another landmark was passed on Feb. 22, 1974, when Lt. j.g.

Barbara Ann Allen – a new kind of maverick – became the first woman naval aviator. In 1982 and 1983, naval aviators fought in Grenada and Lebanon. In 1986, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, who had been a naval aviator in World War II, officiated at a ceremony to commemorate naval aviation’s 75th anniversary. That year, Navy warplanes flew air strikes against Libya. The decade ended with naval aviators assuring passage of friendly vessels in the Persian Gulf, where the threat came from Iran. Two years later, attention shifted to Iraq. It was the beginning of a new era, one that still required vision and a willingness to push the envelope. Iraq’s Aug. 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait led to Operation Desert Storm in 1991 with Navy land- and carrier-based aircraft flying thousands of missions. The war against Iraq vindicated actions that had been made in the 1980s to foster “jointness,” with the military services serving under a single Joint Forces Air Component Commander (JFACC), in this case Air Force Gen. Charles “Chuck” Horner. For once, the Air Force was not the “enemy” and

CVN 77 H 159

naval aviation.indd 159

12/9/08 5:16:07 PM


TIMEX SALUTES

Š2008 Timex Group USA, Inc. TIMEX and KEEPS ON TICKING are a registered trademark of Timex Group USA, Inc. in the US and other countries.

Timex on temp.indd 1

12/10/08 1:32:04 PM


U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Steve Lightstone

naval aviation

A Kaman SH-2F Seasprite LAMPS helicopter prepares to land aboard the destroyer USS Thorn (DD 988). The introduction of the Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS) helicopter gave cruisers, destroyers, and frigates an over-the-horizon antisubmarine warfare capability.

CVN 77 H 161

naval aviation.indd 161

12/9/08 5:16:20 PM


naval aviation

Attack Squadron VA-55, VA-212, and VA-164 A-4F Skyhawk aircraft of Carrier Air Wing 21 prepare to launch from the flight deck of the attack aircraft carrier USS Hancock (CVA 19) for a mission over North Vietnam on May 25, 1972.

cooperation was the order of the day. Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles went to “downtown” Baghdad and wreaked havoc in Saddam Hussein’s capital. Navy F/A-18 Hornets and A-7 Corsairs destroyed more of Iraq’s MiGs on the ground than all coalition air forces destroyed in the air. When the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, took place, the Enterprise turned from its previous course and headed to join USS Carl Vinson and prepare for strikes on Afghanistan. USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Kitty Hawk, and, later, USS John C. Stennis joined Enterprise and Vinson to launch strikes on Afghanistan unlike any flown before. The location of Afghanistan and politics over basing rights meant that U.S. Navy aviators had to carry a major part of the load over Afghanistan. Naval aviators flew

missions up to 10 hours in F/A-18 Hornets and F-14 Tomcats, the latter having been transformed from fleet defense fighters into superb strike aircraft. Squadrons set records for flying hours, and other records as well. Better than 84 percent of Navy sorties hit their targets, 93 percent of the munitions used were precision guided, and on an average mission, each Navy aircraft struck more than two targets. More importantly, because aircraft had to be kept overhead friendly forces at all times, 80 percent of Navy sorties were launched against targets unknown to the pilots when they were catapulted from the deck, and this responsiveness was vital to the soldiers and Marines on the ground. Similar achievements became commonplace over Iraq.

162 H CVN 77

naval aviation.indd 162

12/9/08 5:16:36 PM


U.S. Navy photo

naval aviation

Today, Navy leaders feel they have completed the transition from Cold War priorities to the expected conflicts of the future. The Navy’s carrier decks are increasingly populated with F/A-18 Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet warplanes capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground action, while the service looks ahead to the future F-35B and F-35C Lightning II slated to become operational in 2015. The Navy’s SH-60 Sea Hawk and S-3 Viking aircraft, once used to stalk the mighty Soviet undersea fleet, now perform reconnaissance and conventional fighting duties applicable to smaller-scale actions in Third World crisis spots. Today, the planes fly on microchips, are made of composite matter, and burn JP-8 aviation fuel. Back in the beginning, they were made of wood and fabric, and steered by human muscle. Naval aviation really is leaner and smarter than in the past but still, as always, led by pioneers with an eye on the future.

An aerial view of an F/A-18C Hornet aircraft of Strike Fighter Squadron Seventy-Four (VFA-74) in flight over USS Saratoga (CV 60) during Operation Desert Shield. Other F/A-18Cs as well as F-14A Tomcats and A-6E Intruders are seen aboard Saratoga’s flight deck. Operation Desert Storm was a triumph for naval aviation, and although Saratoga, A-6 Intruders, and F-14 Tomcats no longer serve today, F/A-18s fly on as a new generation of naval aviators, aircraft, and aircraft carriers make their way into the fleet.

CVN 77 H 163

naval aviation.indd 163

12/15/08 4:19:34 PM


carrier development

AIRCRAFT CARRIER EVOLUTION By Norman Friedman

U

SS George H.W. Bush is the current chapter in a carrier story that began almost a century ago, in 1911, when an intrepid aviator named Eugene Ely landed on the cruiser USS Birmingham, whose fantail had been partly covered by a temporary deck equipped with what we might now call arresting gear ropes. He flew off a similar deck rigged over the bow of the cruiser USS Pennsylvania. Senior U.S. officers were impressed; they understood that aircraft could change naval warfare by giving fleet commanders much wider vision. However, landing on and flying off decks at both ends of a ship were seen as an excessive sacrifice. Instead, work proceeded on a catapult whose fixed track would cover the after guns of a large cruiser. Several ships were so modified, carrying large seaplanes that would land alongside when they returned. At about the same time, other navies were experimenting with launching aircraft from ships. Several, most notably the British, converted merchant ships into primitive aircraft carriers during World War I. The British in particular demonstrated that carriers (and shipboard aircraft in general) had become a necessary part of fleets. They seemed so important that the Royal Navy chose to complete a new battleship, HMS Eagle, as a carrier (her sister ship was the battleship HMS Canada). The “large light cruiser” Furious received first a flying-off deck forward (in place of one of her two 18-inch guns) and then a flying-on deck aft. She was the scene of the first British carrier landing, in 1917, but the air eddying around her superstructure caused serious problems, including the death of the first carrier-landing pilot. The British also laid

down a cruiser-size carrier, HMS Hermes. The first ship to be designed as a carrier from the outset, she showed her importance to the Royal Navy in that the resources she consumed could alternatively have gone into a heavy cruiser. At the same time, all British capital ships were fitted with flying-off platforms for fighters. Naval aviation clearly mattered. The Germans used Zeppelins for scouting; in August 1916, a Zeppelin’s warning saved their High Seas Fleet from interception by the British Grand Fleet. The lesson the British took was that they had to take fighters to sea to shoot down Zeppelins (which were outside the range of ships’ guns). This was not too different from the later understanding that it took carrier fighters to destroy enemy bombers, ships’ anti-aircraft weapons generally driving them off or dealing with missiles they launched. The British seem uniquely to have appreciated the offensive potential of their sea-based aircraft. By 1918, it seemed clear that the German fleet would remain in harbor, tying down the British, preventing them from using their sea power offensively. Airplanes offered a unique way to get at the Germans despite their unwillingness to go to sea. In 1916, the British began to develop torpedo-bombers. In 1918, they had enough carrier decks, either ready or in prospect, to plan a recognizably modern carrier raid on the German fleet in harbor. They revived the idea in the 1930s when they had to face war against Italy, and they executed just such a raid against the Italian fleet base at Taranto in November 1940. It, in turn, may have helped inspire the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which had much the same aim.

164 H CVN 77

carrier development.indd 164

12/10/08 1:10:58 PM


carrier development

National Archives

USS Langley at anchor in Pearl Harbor, circa 1928, with a deckload of aircraft aboard. Although a converted collier, Langley helped pioneer development of the U.S. Navyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s carrier aviation arm that would triumph in World War II.

CVN 77 H 165

carrier development.indd 165

12/10/08 1:11:10 PM


gatmKato.indd 1

12/10/08 12:38:10 PM


carrier development

U.S. Naval Historical Center

The face of U.S. Navy prewar aviation circa 1930 is exemplified here by U.S. Marine Corps Vought O2U-2 Corsairs of VS-14M preparing to land aboard USS Saratoga, distinguished from her sister ship Lexington by the broad black vertical stripe on her massive uptakes. The four twin 8-inch turrets were largely useless, but the ships’ size and speed provided the mobility and striking power that would be exploited so successfully, with more modern aircraft, in World War II.

American naval officers attached to the British Grand Fleet were well aware of the potential of this new kind of warship. They reported home extensively. Too, during World War I, British naval constructor Stanley Goodall was attached to the U.S. Navy. He brought with him plans for British carriers, and he helped frame the first requirements for a U.S. carrier. Like several other navies, the U.S. Navy was determined to experiment with this new kind of sea power.

The first U.S. approach was to convert the large collier USS Jupiter into an experimental carrier; she was commissioned as USS Langley in 1922. Affectionately nicknamed the “covered wagon,” Langley was slow, and she had limited hangar capacity. U.S. naval aviation might well have gone nowhere but for two lucky breaks. One was legal. After World War I, the United States and Japan were building large new battle fleets. Many thought that prewar naval rivalry between Britain and Germany had helped

CVN 77 H 167

carrier development.indd 167

12/10/08 1:11:51 PM


carrier development

touch off World War I. The U.S. government sought a way to stop the building race with Japan (and, to some extent, with Britain) by calling a naval disarmament conference in November 1921. The resulting Washington Treaty canceled most of the new battleships and battle cruisers then on order. One clause allowed each signatory to convert two of them into carriers. Because the hulls being built were so massive, the carriers that resulted (in the U.S. case, USS Lexington and USS Saratoga) were far larger – and far more capacious – than any carriers that might have been

designed as such at this time, when carrier aviation was so largely experimental. The same treaty allowed each of the large navies what might seem an unusually large carrier tonnage, given that such ships were still experimental. It happened that the British demanded this tonnage because their own experience showed that a fleet required a large carrierborne air arm, and that they believed – as it happened, wrongly – that no carrier could operate many aircraft. This clause made it possible for the U.S. Navy (and also

U.S. Naval Historical Center

USS Enterprise off Saipan in 1944. Enterprise fought in nearly every Pacific carrier battle, and survived the war.

168 H CVN 77

carrier development.indd 168

12/10/08 1:12:01 PM


carrier development

the Japanese) to build carrier arms powerful enough to dominate the early months of the Pacific War. Ironically, the British found themselves saddled with experimental carriers they had begun during World War I. Even though they knew these ships were obsolete, they doubted that a cash-strapped British government would willingly replace them. Thus, the Royal Navy could not begin its own massive carrier-building program until the overall tonnage limitation lapsed in 1937. This effort proved too late; it was overtaken by World War II. Without any overhang of obsolete tonnage, the United States built the carrier USS Ranger as the first of five that it hoped would give it the best compromise between carrier capability and total aircraft numbers (it was thought at first that relatively small carriers were best). Indeed, it seemed, before they had been completed, that the big Lexingtons would be white elephants. They turned out to be anything but, partly because the U.S. Navy concluded that carriers would have to operate individually (a conclusion overturned during World War II). The Ranger turned out to be too small to be very useful. Before she was completed, U.S. designers were working on a new ship about 50 percent larger, USS Yorktown. She and her sister ship USS Enterprise were followed by a third, improved ship, USS Hornet, once the interwar limitation had lapsed. These were extremely successful ships. The Enterprise fought in every Pacific battle, surviving the war. The others were sunk in 1942, but only after they had helped destroy the Japanese carrier force at the Battle of Midway. The Hornet demonstrated the reach of carrier airpower when she launched Army B-25 bombers to strike Tokyo in April 1942. Although damage was limited, this raid is widely credited with convincing the Japanese that they had to destroy the U.S. Navy’s surviving carriers, the result being Midway – which proved fatal to four of their carriers. Moreover, U.S. industrial capacity could more than replace the four (of seven prewar) carriers lost in 1942, whereas Japan could not replace her losses. Newly built U.S. warships dominated the Pacific War from 1943 on. The other lucky break was that the U.S. Navy of that era tested its ideas on the game floor of the Naval War College, i.e., not only at sea. Thus, the ships and aircraft involved could adopt whatever characteristics seemed relevant to future warfare. Officers could see what the aircraft of the future (rather than existing relatively primitive ones) might contribute to a naval battle. The games showed how important it was to mass aircraft. Capt. (later Adm.) Joseph Reeves took this lesson with him when he assumed command of the aircraft of the Battle Force, which at the time, meant mainly the few assigned to Langley. At the time, U.S. naval aviators followed the British practice of stowing each airplane in the hangar before the next landed onto the carrier, much as aircraft on land would be taxied to their hangars to clear a runway. That made for slow operation and limited numbers (hence the British insistence on large numbers of carriers at Washington in 1921). Reeves understood that he had to find some way to pack more airpower into even the small Langley. He found that airplanes did not need the whole deck on which to land.

Instead of being stowed below, they could simply be wheeled forward, protected from landing aircraft by a wire barrier. In this way, aircraft could be taken on board much more quickly, and they could be massed more easily for attack. Langley ultimately operated about four times as many airplanes as she had before Reeves arrived. The contrast between Reeves’ view and that of the Royal Navy deserves comment. The difference may have been that the Royal Navy surrendered its aircraft to the new Royal Air Force in 1918. When it decided to run tests to see how many aircraft a carrier could operate, it deferred to the expertise of the pilots, who naturally had little interest in risking a crash into parked aircraft as they landed. They were much less interested in providing the mass of aircraft that a fleet commander might want. Reeves had a much broader outlook. He needed numbers, and the pilots were naval officers responsible to him. Their instincts as pilots were secondary. The new method of operation demanded tight discipline and careful control; it was no accident that U.S. officers visiting British carriers in the 1930s were struck by the looseness of their practices. Nor, probably, was it coincidental that U.S. naval aviators understood, and accepted, that theirs was a very dangerous business (the British view was quite different). Aboard U.S. carriers, the number of aircraft depended on the size of the flight deck, on which all of them would be parked before taking off, or after having landed. The U.S. Navy therefore favored long flight decks. It thought of carrier hangars mainly as places where aircraft could be repaired. The British tended instead to emphasize hangar capacity. When they could not get enough on a relatively short hull, they developed double-level hangars. Before World War II, they became interested in armoring the hangar, which included part of the length of the flight deck. U.S. carriers could not have accommodated a similar degree of protection, the theory being that their light wooden flight decks could simply be repaired at sea. When carriers of both navies suffered kamikaze hits in 1945, many U.S. officers were impressed by the British designs, commenting that they simply hosed off what was left of the kamikaze and resumed operations. They did not notice a price the British paid. During World War II, they were compelled to adopt U.S.-style flight deck practices in order to operate enough aircraft, but their designs made for short flight decks. Shorter flight decks made for many more aircraft missing arresting gear wires and bouncing into (or even over) barriers – and many more dead pilots. U.S. carriers were not nearly so dangerous. Given Reeves’ innovation, the two much bigger carriers (Lexington and Saratoga) operated about 100 aircraft each. With such numbers, they could demonstrate the full potential of carrier aviation, to an extent far beyond what the British, who had invented the carrier, could imagine. For example, during her first big fleet exercise in 1929, the Saratoga made a surprise attack on the Panama Canal, showing that carriers could extend the reach of the fleet beyond attacking other fleets. The evolving U.S. strategy for a war against Japan, which was considered the most likely enemy, involved seizing

CVN 77 H 169

carrier development.indd 169

12/10/08 1:12:12 PM


atkTun.indd 1

12/10/08 2:07:04 PM


carrier development

National Archives

An SB2C Helldriver in the upper landing circle above the second USS Yorktown in July 1944. Essex-class carriers such as the Yorktown were produced in numbers that could not be matched by Japan.

island bases as the fleet moved west. Carrier aircraft could provide the Marines with the edge they needed when going ashore. One consequence was that all U.S. naval fighters were designed to carry bombs. By 1929, U.S. strategists understood how important carriers would be in such a war, and they began to discuss converting merchant ships â&#x20AC;&#x201C; particularly fast liners â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to swell carrier numbers. Large carrier capacities justified a large naval air arm, with considerable effect on the U.S. aircraft industry. Naval officers realized that carriers and naval aviation had a future as bright as that of the battleships, which were

then the core of the fleet. It helped that Congress passed a law requiring that commanders of carriers and other naval aviation activities be aviators. By the late 1930s, the Navyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s General Board, responsible for advising the secretary of the Navy and formulating U.S. warship-building policies, was asking when aviation technology would mature to the point that carriers would replace battleships. By that time, the main brake on U.S. carrier building was the treaty structure of the interwar years, the irony being that the 1922 treaty had provided an unusually large allowance for the time. That was because, even though the Washington Treaty

CVN 77 H 171

carrier development.indd 171

12/10/08 1:12:22 PM


carrier development

National Archives

A big AJ-1 Savage nuclear bomber aboard USS Oriskany in 1952. With two piston engines and a turbojet in the tail, the Savage was designed to carry the large, heavy atomic bombs of the day to fulfill the U.S. Navyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nuclear strike role, and was surprisingly fast for its size.

172 H CVN 77

carrier development.indd 172

12/10/08 1:12:42 PM


carrier development

lapsed in 1936, the pre-World War II U.S. naval buildup was based on a requirement to maintain a modern fleet of the size imposed by the treaty. The foundation built between the wars made it possible for the U.S. Navy to shift toward a carrier-centered World War II fleet. Thus the very successful wartime Essex class, 24 of which were eventually built, was in effect an enlarged and expanded version of the prewar Yorktown, which was unusually large for its time because the Lexington and Saratoga had demonstrated the value of massive numbers of aircraft aboard each carrier. As the United States came closer to war in 1941, work began on converting merchant ships into escort carriers, inspired to some extent by British experience. Once the war began, it seemed urgent to convert warships under construction into carriers. Projects to convert battleships were considered but rejected. However, nine new light cruisers became the Independence-class light carriers, fast enough to serve alongside the larger Essexes. Neither Britain nor Japan could build carriers at anything like this pace. The huge prewar U.S. naval air establishment was relatively easy to expand to train tens of thousands of new pilots and other personnel. It also trained the senior officers to command a much-expanded carrier fleet. By the end of the war, the U.S. Navy had more than a hundred carriers, compared with the seven of the 1941 fleet. Most of them were quick and relatively inefficient conversions of merchant ship and cruiser hulls, but they provided needed air support in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. These ships showed just how flexible naval aviation could be. Before World War II, the main role of naval aircraft was to defeat the enemy’s fleet. Prewar fleet exercises did show valuable potential for supporting amphibious landings and for attacking enemy shore installations (the U.S. carriers often raided the Panama Canal, Pearl Harbor, and Los Angeles), but they were secondary. By 1945, with the Japanese fleet essentially destroyed, U.S. carriers raided Japanese targets, including Tokyo itself. The Navy staff pointed out that carriers could mount strategic attacks comparable in volume to what the Army Air Force was delivering using its heavy bombers. In the Atlantic, small carriers proved invaluable in fighting German U-boats. At the end of the war, the Navy commissioned the first of three large Midway-class carriers. Compared to the

wartime USS Essex, they were longer and had armored flight decks, but they were intended to operate the same type of aircraft (it took a much larger hull to accommodate the sort of armor the British had on their carriers and embody U.S. requirements). Modern carriers like Bush were born in the aftermath of World War II. With the defeat of Japan, it seemed unlikely that the United States would soon again face a major sea power. It seemed likely that the Soviet Union would be the next enemy. What would the Navy’s role be in a war against that land power? The Soviets had had the world’s largest submarine fleet in 1941, and many argued that the main future naval role would simply be to fight a future Battle of the Atlantic. Would the big carriers even feature in such a war? The new U.S. Air Force, founded in 1947 but clearly nascent in 1945, argued that they would be useless. Its strategic bomber men contended that the future of war belonged to long-range bombers armed with nuclear weapons. The main role of the U.S. Navy in such a war should be to defeat Soviet submarines that would threaten supply to the overseas bases from which bombers would fly. To this, one Navy rejoinder was that if the Soviets adopted the new kinds of submarines the Germans were introducing at the end of the war, the best countermeasure might well be attacks on their bases – air attacks mounted by carriers. Even before the end of World War II, the U.S. Navy convened a panel of experienced officers to ponder the future of the carrier, which it now saw as its primary weapon. They soon concluded that the main value of a future carrier would lie in its ability to deliver heavy bombs, for example, to destroy enemy submarine bases. Many must also have remembered the enormous impact of the 1942 raid on Japan. Unlike land bombers flying from fixed bases whose location an enemy knew, carrier aircraft could come from almost anywhere. The threat of such attacks would force the Soviets to spread out their air defenses and thus to pay much more heavily for any level of defense they wanted. This sort of leverage might reduce the resources available for any attack into, for example, Western Europe. The U.S. Navy unsuccessfully urged its value as a flanking force, but when he became the first NATO supreme commander in 1950, Gen. (later President) Dwight D. Eisenhower took much the same approach. He likened Western Europe to a peninsula

CVN 77 H 173

carrier development.indd 173

12/10/08 1:12:53 PM


intermarine on temp.indd 1

12/10/08 1:31:02 PM


U.S. Naval Historical Center

carrier development

down which a Soviet army might try to surge, the carriersupported Navy on its flanks. Throughout his presidency, he saw the mobility of U.S. sea power as the best counter to the massed manpower that the Soviets and the Chinese could deploy. It happened that a carrier-based heavy bomber could also drop atomic bombs, but that does not seem to have been the key consideration in 1945-46. Because the bombs in question were about four or five times as heavy as those carried by existing carrier bombers, the carrier of the future would have to operate much larger aircraft. It would have to be much larger. By 1948, a massive new carrier, more than twice the size of the wartime Essex class, had been designed. Although its keel was laid in 1949, it was

An F8U Crusader over USS Shangri-La in 1968. The Korean War halted attempts to reduce the U.S. Navy carrier fleet, and along with building new supercarriers, the Navy modified Essex-class carriers with the angled decks, optical landing systems, and steam catapults needed to operate high-performance jet aircraft. The modified carriers were vital to the air war over Vietnam.

CVN 77 H 175

carrier development.indd 175

12/10/08 1:13:06 PM


“…Peace, and Play, and Freedom…” Thanks to your efforts, that is what we enjoy. Thank you and Godspeed to the men and women of the USS George H. W. Bush.

“Here, in short, is peace, and play and freedom.”— www.seaisland.com

USSGeoBush.indd 1 sea island on temp.indd 1

Howard Coffin, founder, Sea Island Company, 1928

5/23/08 9:56:53 AM 12/10/08 1:34:21 PM


carrier development

canceled almost at once, a victim of tight funding and, it was said, a campaign by the Air Force to preserve its monopoly on heavy (i.e., atomic) bombing. However, the Navy had already received authorization to use such weapons in war, and by 1949, it was close to having a rudimentary atomic attack capability on board the Midway-class carriers, in the form of large Neptune patrol planes, normally land-based. A carrier nuclear bomber, the Savage, was being developed. In effect ,the largest such airplane that could operate from existing carriers, it did not approach the capability that had been planned for the new carrier. Meanwhile, work began to modify existing Essex-class carriers to operate jets. That involved new catapults and provisions for jet fuel. However, the earliest naval jet fighters could operate even from the unmodified ships still in service in 1950. The Navy had always argued that the value of the carrier lay in its flexibility. That was dramatically demonstrated in June 1950, when U.S. and British carriers provided much of the critical air support when the North Koreans invaded South Korea, overrunning airfields. Later, jets operating from the U.S. carriers challenged the Russian-supplied (and often -operated) MiG-15s supporting the Chinese and the North Koreans. The project for a big carrier was revived, although at least in theory it was a flexible tool of limited war rather than a strategic weapon. The first of the post-World War II carriers, USS Forrestal, was a slightly reduced version of the abortive supercarrier of 1949, USS United States. Attempts to shrink the postwar carrier fleet were reversed, war-built Essex-class carriers were returned to service, and others were modernized specifically to operate jets and Savages. By 1954, moreover, nuclear weapons were small enough to be carried by fighters. There was no longer any question that U.S. carrier aircraft launched from around the periphery of Eurasia could devastate the Soviet Union and its allies. They formed an important part of any nuclear offensive the United States would mount. Entering office in 1953, the Eisenhower administration much preferred the deterrence carriers could help exert to deploying U.S. troops in sensitive places like Vietnam. Thus, when the French were being defeated there (at Dien Bien Phu), the only U.S. support even considered was a carrier air strike (which the administration rejected). Given the value the carriers had shown in Korea, a new carrier was authorized each year between 1952 and 1958, culminating in the nuclear-powered Enterprise. Given her prototype plant, she was followed by the non-nuclear USS America; another nuclear-powered carrier would be authorized when experience had been gained with her. Then new carrier construction lapsed, money going into the crash program to build strategic missile submarines. They took over the carriersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; strategic nuclear mission, but not their mission in support of the United States in crisis areas around the world. The great lesson was that the crisis mission was paramount. Thus, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, a skeptic, felt compelled to approve a new carrier given the experience of valuable carrier strikes in Vietnam. As the U.S. Navy had argued immediately after World War II, simply by

expanding the area from which attacks could come, they enormously complicated an enemyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s task of air defense. At the end of the Vietnam War, only carriers could come to the rescue of the American merchant ship Mayaguez, which had been seized by Cambodians. By that time, the United States no longer had air bases in the area. Administration after administration found that it faced surprise crises in which carriers were the only available air bases. That is why Bush is the 10th Nimitz-class carrier, in a series begun in the 1967 program (the Nimitz was laid down in June 1968). The new carriers and rebuilt Essex- and Midway-class ships were viable in the face of modern land-based aircraft because of two innovations adopted from the British: the steam catapult and the angled deck. They were why the new Forrestal could remain on the front line through several generations of naval aircraft of increasing sophistication and performance. She and her improved sister ships, eight carriers in all, set the very successful flight deck design that we still see in Bush, more than 50 years later. Carriers were successful because they were, in effect, the first modular warships: They could operate successive generations of naval aircraft without needing radical reconstruction for each change. As it happened, the outer limits on size, landing speed, and take-off speed set by the postwar nuclear bombers sufficed for later aircraft such as the F-14 Tomcat fighter and the A-6 Intruder bomber. The current F/A-18 Hornet is smaller than either, and the coming F-35 is still within these limits. In a very broad sense, a carrier is a broad flight deck and an open hangar deck ready for whatever aircraft she can launch. She still needs to carry specialized support equipment for each new airplane, but that entails far less effort than the sort of reconstruction surface warships need to accommodate new weapons. The most important internal change to accommodate a new generation of aircraft was the installation of computer combat direction systems, which began in the 1960s. It radically changed carrier/air group capability, but again it was relatively easy to accommodate from a physical point of view. The same basically modular ship has supported multiple generations of air weapons, of self-defense weapons (beginning with 5-inch guns and now using short-range missiles), and of radars. Thus, the same ship has offered dramatically different capability over the years. That Bush resembles the Forrestal of half a century earlier does not reflect conservatism. The U.S. Navy has periodically looked at radical alternatives. They included different flight deck arrangements, a smaller carrier, and a carrier equipped only with STOVL (short take-off and vertical landing) aircraft, which would be so much smaller that it could be built in larger numbers. The first look at flight deck alternatives came as early as 1955, when the first nuclear carrier, the Enterprise, was being designed. A Forrestal-like arrangement was selected instead of exotica such as two-level flight decks and decks with the carrier island in the center (with an angled deck on either side). The flight deck has been modified over the years, with the island pushed aft, but such changes look cosmetic alongside the more radical ones evaluated.

CVN 77 H 177

carrier development.indd 177

12/10/08 1:13:26 PM


U.S. Naval Historical Center

carrier development

USS Forrestal. Slightly smaller than the canceled United States and conventionally powered, Forrestal nevertheless incorporated innovations such as steam catapults, the optical landing system, and the angled deck as the first of the supercarriers.

178 H CVN 77

carrier development.indd 178

12/10/08 1:13:42 PM


carrier development

Bush differs from the Forrestal in being nuclear-powered. Carriers were an obvious possibility when the U.S. Navy adopted nuclear power, beginning with eight reactors in the Enterprise, completed in 1962. They offered enormous advantages, but at a high price. Thus, the first carrier to be built after the Enterprise was completed, USS John F. Kennedy, reverted to conventional steam power. While that ship was being built, the naval nuclear reactor organization strove to cut the cost of a nuclear plant by cutting the number of separate reactors a carrier needed. The next carrier, the Nimitz, needed two rather than the eight of the Enterprise, making for many fewer special personnel and a simpler overall design. In effect, Bush is an improved version of the Nimitz design. It has been so successful that, despite several efforts to find alternatives, only now, in the next carrier to be built, is the first major departure from that design being made. That is not to deny important improvements. The three in the Nimitz class were succeeded by six Theodore Rooseveltclass carriers and then by Bush. The most obvious hull improvement is a long bulbous bow, introduced in USS Ronald Reagan, the carrier built immediately before Bush. Probably the most important change has been the introduction of a new distributed combat direction system, conceived originally, ironically, for smaller shipsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; selfdefense (ASDS, the Advanced Self-Defense System). The new ship has a redesigned island and mast, adapted for later installation of fixed-array radars (SPY-2/3) and a new arresting gear (Advanced Arrester Gear). Design improvements have reduced the ship complement from 3,227 to 2,900 and the air complement from 2,865 to 2,700, which is important given that the cost of sailors is so high a percentage of overall Navy operating cost. Carriers are expensive, so periodically it is suggested that smaller ones should be built. Such proposals have failed for several reasons. First, any carrier needs certain basic equipment, such as her combat direction system and radars. Hull steel is relatively inexpensive. Shrinking a carrier saves surprisingly little money. On the other hand, a smaller carrier operates fewer aircraft, and the cost per airplane can rise dramatically. Moreover, carriers typically operate one by one. That makes it unwise to cut the number of aircraft they can accommodate. Current

carrier air wings are smaller than earlier ones, the argument being that the emptier flight deck makes for faster turnaround and hence for more sorties per day, and more targets hit per day. However, the large flight deck can still be filled if a carrier must make a more concentrated attack. That would be impossible on a smaller carrier. The question right now is whether the basic hull adopted three decades ago in the Nimitz class should be enlarged, not shrunk. Periodically it is suggested that the future really lies with much smaller carriers operating STOVL aircraft. Other navies have certainly taken that route. This option seems first to have been suggested in 1955, in connection with a hoped-for STOVL fighter that could operate both from carriers and from large surface ships, and thus could be distributed through a fleet. That would have reduced carriers to attack aircraft, which, at the time, seemed not to demand so much in the way of catapults and flight decks (it seemed that long-range nuclear attacks could be assigned to fleet missiles). Technology developed the wrong way. The STOVL then expected never materialized, and it turned out that a new generation of fighters required every bit of carrier capability provided in the first place for long-range bombers. The STOVL idea returned in about 1970, inspired by the success of the British Harrier jump jet. The U.S. Navy seriously considered building a small carrier it called a Sea Control Ship, which was conceived either as a more affordable replacement for big carriers or primarily as a means of dealing with submarines in midocean. The main question was whether a high enough performance STOVL could be built, and the answer at the time turned out to be no. Spain built a Sea Control Ship, but the U.S. Navy did not. The current F-35B does offer high STOVL performance, but no revived Sea Control Ship was proposed. It may be true that a small ship can support a few F-35Bs, but a few such aircraft offer relatively little striking power. The smaller the ship, the less it provides each airplane, for example, in terms of weapons and maintenance capacity. In order to provide as much net striking power as a single large carrier, the U.S. Navy would have to build several times as many small ones, and the overall cost would be far higher. So would vulnerability: It takes a large hull to absorb damage.

CVN 77 H 179

carrier development.indd 179

12/10/08 1:13:56 PM


postwar aircraft carriers

The Postwar aircraft Carrier Revolution: From Props to Jets and Angled Decks By Robert F. Dorr

“A

dvanced technology is indistinguishable from magic,” wrote futurist Arthur C. Clarke. Today’s aircraft carrier surely is the closet thing to wizardry that modern man can create. A ship like USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) bristles with technological solutions to ancient problems. From the bridge to primary flight control (“Pri-fly”), from the three steel arresting cables stretched across the deck to the twin reactors of the nuclear power plant, the aircraft carrier of today is a man-made marvel. We owe today’s high-tech carrier largely to the unique era of the 1950s, that era of rapid change prompted by Korea and the Cold War that produced a completely different Navy carrier force and set the stage for the 21st century’s George H.W. Bush carrier strike group. During the Korean War, jet aircraft proved themselves on carrier decks, the speed and endurance of carrier warplanes changed drastically, and innovations to ship design came one after another. The 1950s gave us the mirror landing system, the angled flight deck, and the supercarrier. By the end of the decade, nuclear power, too, was establishing itself. But the advance of carrier aviation was not always rapid or dramatic.

CARRIER ORIGINS Naval aviation began Nov. 14, 1910, when civilian pilot Eugene Ely flew a Curtiss biplane from a platform on board the cruiser USS Birmingham (CL 2). The American aircraft carrier was a post-World War I development. In 1919, Congress authorized conversion of the collier USS Jupiter into USS Langley (CV 1), the nation’s first aircraft carrier, with an 11,050-ton displacement and capacity for 34 aircraft. Two Langleys could be laid end-to-end in

the space encumbered by today’s 1,092-foot Bush. With the Langley, came the notion of a catapult to send an aircraft hurtling into the air. On Nov. 18, 1922, Cmdr. Kenneth Whiting piloted a PT seaplane in the first catapult launch from the Langley, then at anchor in the York River. On Oct. 26, 1922, Lt. Cmdr. Godfrey Chevalier made the U.S. Navy’s first underway carrier landing on the Langley. Soon afterward, the Navy converted the battle cruisers USS Lexington and USS Saratoga into its second and third carriers while they were on the ways. The first U.S. ship conceived as a carrier from the start was USS Ranger (CV 4), commissioned in 1934. By 1941, the Navy had seven carriers to lead the fleet in the first year of America’s role in World War II. The Japanese demonstrated the power of carrierbased aircraft at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. The Pacific War included 20 surface engagements that were on a scale large enough to be called battles, none more important than the Battle of Midway, where Douglas SBD Dauntless dive-bombers swarmed down on the same Japanese carriers that had mounted the Pearl Harbor attack. Rear Adm. Raymond A. Spruance orchestrated the unfolding air and carrier battles. New aircraft reached the fighting, including the Grumman F6F Hellcat, which shot down 19 Japanese aircraft for every loss in battle. The turn of the tide in the Pacific saw fast carrier groups supporting the landings at Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, and by war’s end, carrier aircraft were approaching the pinnacle of pistonengine technology. Perhaps surprisingly, given the pace of scientific advances during the war, the aircraft carrier of 1945 remained quite similar to the aircraft carrier of 1941. Introduction of the Essex class and mobilization of U.S.

180 H CVN 77

modern aircraft carrier.indd 180

12/9/08 2:21:51 PM


postwar aircraft carriers

U.S. Naval Historical Center

A Navy F2H-2P Banshee with “everything down” about to trap aboard USS Oriskany in 1955. Note the straight “axial” deck of Oriskany, the erected barrier, and the crowded deck park forward. This photo makes the difficulties of landing jets aboard unmodified carriers obvious.

CVN 77 H 181

modern aircraft carrier.indd 181

12/9/08 2:22:03 PM


The Beechcraft T-6B is the world’s premier integrated pilot training solution — one which mirrors the systems and capabilities of today’s front-line military aircraft. Its upgraded integrated avionics system greatly expands training and simulation into areas such as tactical radar intercepts, simulated and actual weapons delivery training, and more. Yet for all its capability, the T-6B remains a superior value, offering common primary, advanced and proficiency training in a proven platform that is backed by unmatched support, production and sustainment.

HBC1334 T-6B Ad Revs Dec 08.indd 1 Beechcraft on temp.indd 1

12/4/08 3:08:49 PM 12/10/08 1:39:18 PM


postwar aircraft carriers

Lt. Joseph J. MacBrien, a Royal Canadian Navy exchange pilot serving with VF-781, snags a wire aboard USS Oriskany (CVA 34) off the coast of Korea. Without angled decks, there were no “bolters,” and a jet either caught a wire with its tailhook or ended up in the barrier.

industry enabled the Navy to reach an unprecedented strength of 101 aircraft carriers in 1945. The carriers had lighter armor, better power plants, vastly improved radar, and more effective guns, but the fundamental size and shape of the aircraft carrier was little changed during the war years. At the end of the war, as at the beginning, an aviator approaching the deck was guided down by a landing signal officer (LSO) waving flag-like paddles. This “landing system” had begun with the Langley and had been refined significantly to the point where limited carrier operations could now be conducted at night, but the basic concept was little changed. During the war, the “air boss” on a carrier typically mistrusted the era’s H4-1 hydraulic catapult, which was an improvement on the earliest catapult used by the Langley but not exactly a giant step forward, and routinely instructed sailors not to use it whenever aircraft could take off on their own power. Many of the innovations found on carriers like today’s George H.W. Bush came later.

National Archives

ENTER THE JET In fact, the postwar era introduced far more change than during World War II. The Navy was suddenly operating jet aircraft. Very little planning went into deploying jets on carriers, and the transition from props to jets proved complex, troublesome, and difficult. On July 21, 1946, a McDonnell XFD-1 Phantom (later known as an FH-1) piloted by Cmdr. James Davidson made the Navy’s first jet takeoff

from, and landing on, a carrier – USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CVB 42). Soon, the Navy was fielding a variety of gas turbine- and turbojet-powered warplanes. In the early days, however, even rudimentary considerations often were left out of the Navy’s planning. Early jets could use aviation gas but operated more effectively on kerosene: No one in the Navy initially looked at the costs, logistics, and other issues related to having two types of fuel on board a ship. Eventually, the fuel issue got plenty of attention – in the Cold War years, carriers typically stocked both avgas and JP-4 jet fuel – but at first, the change was given little thought. Former Lt. j.g. Louis North, who flew early jets, remembered that the Navy simply wanted to treat them like propeller planes with different engines – not understanding that they possessed wholly different performance characteristics. “My early jet was pretty much like a prop-driven Skyraider with a jet engine in it. No computers, some black boxes that didn’t work and some that gave ambiguous information, a VHF [very high frequency] radio that couldn’t pick up anything useful if you flew circles around the transmission tower, an autopilot that might hold altitude and then again might not, and a radar that couldn’t pick up the Golden Gate Bridge on a clear day. I used a grease pencil to mark the gunsight for left and right corrections.” Another early naval aviator, retired Capt. James Stebbins, remembered that the first turbojet engines were cantankerous, unreliable, and sometimes downright frightening. “It was not for nothing that we referred to the early

CVN 77 H 183

modern aircraft carrier.indd 183

12/9/08 2:22:53 PM


Congratulations Mr. President on this historic day! From your distinguished service during World War II as the youngest naval aviator in history, to your selfless and dedicated leadership as the 41st President of the United States, your commitment to our country is a great inspiration to the women and men who will serve on this aircraft carrier. Thank you for your service and your friendship.

Photo Credit: George Bush Presidential Library and Museum

Ware family on temp.indd 1

12/10/08 1:40:42 PM


postwar aircraft carriers

An artist’s conception of the stillborn aircraft carrier USS United States. United States was designed too early to incorporate an angled deck, but the deck-edge elevators were carried into later designs.

jets as ‘flying blowtorches.’ It’s a miracle more of us didn’t burn up in them. To start engines, pilots had to simultaneously manipulate fuel pump and throttle, a tedious and time-consuming process which, when rushed, led to a 20- to 30-foot whoosh of flame shooting back from the engine.” Today, start-ups are automated.

Image courtesy of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding

PROPS TO JETS Harold Andrews, retired Navy aeronautical engineer and author, served as 1991 Verville Fellow at the National Air and Space Museum to conduct a study of the Navy’s transition from props to jets. “Fundamentally, there were two problems,” Andrews said in an interview. “First, no one understood that the issue of ‘time in flight’ was important. Jet flying times were totally different from those of props. It took an entirely different arithmetic to plan how you were going to get a formation of aircraft from point A to point B, and if one of those variables was a moving aircraft carrier, you needed a whole new way to calculate everything. “The second problem was the whole issue of how the airplane’s propulsion system varied differently with altitude. It simply was not well understood that the turbojet engine had relatively constant power, regardless of altitude, and that this translated into not enough power at low altitude. Also, you couldn’t restart a jet engine above a certain altitude, so emergency procedures had to be changed completely.”

Jets introduced a new landing problem. Said Andrews, “You had to find a way to build an appropriate barrier to halt an aircraft when its tailhook didn’t catch a wire. The Navy built more complex and elaborate systems to capture a jet. They wanted to avoid the situation you saw in the movie The Bridges at Toko-ri, where a heavy vehicle had to be parked in Bill Holden’s path to halt his fighter. The notion was, how do you avoid extreme things that solve the problem by killing everybody?” While grappling with the impact of jets, the Navy spent the postwar era striving for a supercarrier, a bigger, better version of its new capital ship for the anticipated nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union. The greatest aircraft carrier never to serve in the Navy was the United States (CVB 58) – which never earned a “USS” in its title because it was never commissioned. This huge warship was a product of World War II experience and would have been a giant of the Cold War – had it been built. It was conceived in April 1945, when fighting was still under way in both major theaters of World War II. And it was planned, initially at least, with little regard for the transition from props to jets.

SUPERCARRIER Carrier task force commanders told the Navy they wanted a larger, heavier aircraft carrier. Even USS Midway (CVB 41)-class ships, arrived too late for combat, were not big enough to satisfy these naval veterans. Adm. Marc Mitscher typified a group of officers who wanted not only a bigger

CVN 77 H 185

modern aircraft carrier.indd 185

12/9/08 2:23:05 PM


The USS Shangri-La, shown in 1960, incorporated the solutions to the problems of operating jets from carriers. The angled deck allowed aircraft to add power and â&#x20AC;&#x153;bolterâ&#x20AC;? if the hook failed to engage a wire. The optical landing system seen at the port side of the angled deck superseded human LSOs, and a new generation of high-performance aircraft such as F8U Crusaders, F4D-1 (F-6A) Skyrays, and A-4 Skyhawks could be launched by the new steam catapults.

U.S. Naval Historical Center

postwar aircraft carriers

186 H CVN 77

modern aircraft carrier.indd 186

12/15/08 4:21:04 PM


postwar aircraft carriers

ship but also heavier, more versatile carrier-based aircraft. The Navy was transitioning to jets like the Grumman F9F Panther, but it was also looking at heavy, carrier-based bombers like the North American AJ Savage, soon to be followed by the Douglas A3D Skywarrior. By the late 1940s – when Navy carrier admirals and Air Force bomber generals locked horns in a Washington, D.C., competition for budget dollars and military influence – the proposed new aircraft carrier was dubbed the 6A Carrier Project. Congress’s 1948 Naval Appropriations Act provided funds for construction of the carrier by the Newport News shipbuilding firm in Virginia. The new carrier, fully 1,030 feet in length, was 75,900 tons and was to be equipped with four catapults. The ship was expected to carry at least 12 AJ-1 Savage three-engined, jet-prop bombers and 65 F2H-2 Banshee or F3H-1 Demon fighters. A widely published artist’s conception of the great ship showed a flat flight deck without the island structure traditionally found on most carriers. Evident in this futuristic vision was a small island on an elevator apparatus, to be lowered during flight operations. One drawback of wartime carriers was that the elevator carrying aircraft up from below the flight deck was situated in the middle of the deck. If the elevator suffered a mechanical glitch, flight operations had to stop. The new ship, United States (a name authorized by President Harry S. Truman in 1949), would have multiple elevators along the sides of the ship. This concept survives today. While leaders in Washington argued the merits of carriers versus bombers – the Navy versus the Air Force, United States versus the B-36 bomber – United States was born and died in April 1949. On April 13, the House of Representatives approved funds. Two days later, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review the need for a new aircraft carrier. Air Force officers were saying that the entire concept of carrier warfare was out of date. On April 18, the keel for CVB 58 was laid at Newport News, Va. Five days later, caving to pro-bomber forces, Johnson ordered work on the carrier stopped. Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan resigned in protest the next day. Soon afterward, top naval officers had a chance to air their views in Capitol Hill testimony in what became known as “The Revolt of the Admirals” – but the carrier United States was dead and could not be revived. The Revolt of the Admirals led to the sacking of Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Louis Denfield. The end of United States marked the beginning of a major assault on Navy funding. Even after the Korean War began in June 1950, the Navy was forced to accept deep cuts in carrier aviation. Only in July 1951, spurred by the impetus of the Korean War, was the Navy finally able to announce a contract for a new large aircraft carrier (CVB 59) to be built at Newport News. This ship became USS Forrestal (CVA 59), the first of the postwar supercarriers.

ANGLED DECK Following the debacle of the unbuilt United States, carrier aviators knew they would need to innovate. The carrier had proven itself in World War II – no one was arguing, any longer, that the battleship was the Navy’s capital ship – but improving the carrier fleet was going to take fresh thinking, which remained easier to acquire than congressional dollars. In retrospect, it seems obvious that a way needed to be found to conduct flight operations without being impeded by aircraft parked or moving around on deck. With parked aircraft situated squarely in the

path of a plane descending to land, there was potential for a small mishap to grow into a near catastrophe. An aircraft on landing approach needed a clear way to take off again should its tailhook fail to engage the arresting wire. Today, the angled deck seems all too obvious. By canting the deck so that aircraft have a straight-through landing roll, flight operations can continue while other activities take place elsewhere. The British devised the angled deck, and the first U.S. carrier to use it was the converted USS Antietam (CVA 36). Antietam’s flight deck angled 10.5 degrees to the left of the longitudinal axis. In December 1952, Capt. S.G. Mitchell made the first landing aboard Antietam’s angled deck in a North American SNJ-5C Texan trainer. While studying the angled deck, the Navy also looked carefully at a British-devised optical landing system that would project an approach path in the sky for aircraft to follow to land precisely at the same point each time. The mirror landing system was first demonstrated by a British innovator who used a woman’s pocket mirror, a tube of lipstick, and a flurry of motion to demonstrate a new method of guiding a plane to a landing. The first version of the system, shown to Americans by the British at the Farnborough International Airshow in 1953, consisted of a polished aluminum mirror formed to a cylindrical concave shape with a 10-foot radius. A light source created a circular image that became known as the “meatball” or, simply, the “ball” (initially, because of its resemblance to the Japanese national insigne) to aid a pilot in lining up to land. In the center are amber and red lights with Fresnel lenses. Although the lights are always on, the Fresnel lens only makes one light at a time seem to glow, as the angle at which the pilot looks at the lights changes. If the lights appear above the green horizontal bar, the pilot is too high. If it is below, the pilot is too low, and if the lights are red, the pilot is very low. If the red lights on either side of the amber vertical bar are flashing, it is a wave off. Only when the pilot can confidently “call the ball” can he land safely on deck. American naval aviators Capt. Al Kopelewski and Cmdr. (later Vice Adm.) Donald Engen first tested the mirror landing system in 1954, using a borrowed De Havilland Sea Vampire F.A.W. Mk. 21 and the British carrier Illustrious. Engen, who later became director of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, wrote of the mirror landing system in his book Wings and Warriors: The mirror provided a means of carrier landing descent control that we had never had before. The mirror approach was easier to fly than a paddles approach and would be safer at night because it was flown higher. I particularly liked it because the pilot flew what he saw and did not have to rely on the judgment of an LSO. ... In my report to the [chief of naval operations], I recommended that the Navy procure the mirror immediately. In 1955, test pilot Cmdr. Bob Dosé made the first mirror landing aboard the Antietam, which now had the mirror system added to its canted deck. While the mirror landing system was still under consideration, the Navy moved ahead with the canted or angled deck. The second U.S. carrier with an angled deck was USS Lexington (CVA 16), reconstructed under the SCB 27 and SCB 125A plans – part of a massive overhaul of the wartime carrier fleet conducted in the 1950s – and recommissioned in August 1955. Even the new carriers of the late 1950s, beginning with Forrestal, were begun with straight decks: The first U.S. carrier conceived with an angled deck from the start was USS Ranger (CVA 61), commissioned in 1962.

CVN 77 H 187

modern aircraft carrier.indd 187

12/9/08 2:24:10 PM


Following WWII, DeVry was one of the first schools to be approved under the original G.I. Bill.

FOR OVER YEARS…

60

helping military, veterans, and their families achieve their goals through education.

• Earn an associate, bachelor’s, or master’s degree, or complete a graduate certificate • Access classes online from anywhere in the world or onsite at 90+ locations nationwide—days, evenings, and weekends • Special pricing for military, their spouses, and veterans Call us at 877.894.6388 or please visit military.devry.edu DeVry University is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association, www.ncahlc.org. Keller Graduate School of Management is included in this accreditation. Program availability varies by location. In New York, DeVry University operates as DeVry College of New York. DeVry is certified to operate by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, 101 North 14th Street, Richmond 23219, (804) 255-2621. AC0060 © 2009 DeVry University. All rights reserved.

devryR on temp.indd 1

12/10/08 1:47:03 PM


postwar aircraft carriers

USS Forrestal incorporated all of the improvements made over the years into the large deck of a supercarrier. Among her aircraft are FJ-3 Furies and the big A3D Skywarrior bombers that could carry nuclear weapons.

U.S. Naval Historical Center

STEAM CATAPULT Along with the angled deck and mirror landing system, the catapult was refined and developed over the years. On June 4, 1947, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Vice Adm. D.C. Ramsey approved a program to replace wartime H4-1 catapults with more modern (and still hydraulic) H-8 catapults, which were able to launch the heavier, modern aircraft. But after nine carriers received the H-8s, the Navy adopted the Britishinvented steam catapult. USS Hancock (CV 19) was the first aircraft carrier to be fitted with a steam catapult. On June 1, 1954, at the controls of an FJ-3 Fury, Cmdr. H.J. Jackson became the first pilot to be steam-catapulted from a Navy carrier. Soon afterward, the Forrestal appeared with steam catapults and (for the first time) an all-metal surface on its flight deck. Carriers were vital in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. In 1961, the Navy hit another milestone when it commissioned USS Enterprise (CVAN 65), the first carrier driven by nuclear power. Although plans to develop a nuclear-powered surface Navy were eventually discarded, beginning with USS Nimitz (CVN 68) that year, all

carriers have been nuclear-powered. Unlike the Enterprise, a pricey and unique design that relied on eight nuclear reactors, modern carriers, beginning with Nimitz – and including George H.W. Bush – require just two reactors. They now have the capability to remain at sea without refueling for as long as any contingency might last. The speed, mobility, and flexibility of a 21st-century flattop like George H.W. Bush – and the fact that, unlike an airfield, it requires no sovereign permission from another country – makes today’s supercarrier more suitable for 21st-century warfare than ever before. A carrier with its complement of 60 to 80 warplanes can deliver more than 150 strikes a day. A carrier routinely stocks more than 4,000 bombs. The flight deck crew can launch two aircraft and land one every 37 seconds in daylight, and one per minute at night. From its four catapults, an aircraft carrier can launch an aircraft every 20 seconds. The Navy eventually will have fighter/attack squadrons equipped only with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In a new age of microchips, computers, digital warfare, and stealthy warplanes, today’s supercarrier is a creation of the hard work of many in the past, now poised to serve the United States in the future.

CVN 77 H 189

modern aircraft carrier.indd 189

12/9/08 2:24:38 PM


nuclear power

credit

USS Enterprise (CVN 65), under way at sea, conducting flight operations in 1998. Enterprise was the first U.S Navy nuclear-powered carrier, and is the only one of its class.

190 H CVN 77

underway nuclear power.indd 190

12/9/08 4:59:28 PM


nuclear power

UNDER WAY ON NUCLEAR POWER By Norman Friedman

U.S. Navy photo

I

t has been a little more than half a century since the first nuclear-powered warship, the submarine USS Nautilus, signaled that she was under way on nuclear power in 1955. Carriers like USS George H.W. Bush are among the main beneficiaries of the naval revolution she represented. Nuclear power can drive such a ship at full speed for years on end. It provides the sort of electric power needed for modern electronics and, in the next carrier generation, for new devices like electric catapults and, possibly, lasers for self-defense. As a side benefit, a nuclear carrier does not suffer from the sort of smoke corrosion that used to destroy carrier radars and other electronics, not to mention carrier aircraft themselves. The U.S. Navyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s journey to nuclear power began in 1946, when two scientists at the Office of Naval Research (ONR) pointed out that a submarine so powered would have unlimited underwater endurance at high speed. There was intense interest in high underwater speed because the Germans had pioneered it during World War II. The batteries that then powered submarines offered about an hour or less of endurance at maximum speed. The Germans had partly developed a closed-cycle Walter power plant that promised 10 hours at high speed. Nothing more seemed possible because a submerged submarine had no access to air for her diesel. The Germans had pioneered the snorkel, through which the diesel could breathe when the submarine was at periscope depth, but a submarine could not operate at maximum speed when snorkeling, and no submariner wanted to be limited to periscope depth. At that time, the only reactors in the world were used to make plutonium for atomic bombs. It was widely expected that atomic reactors would soon produce plentiful electric power, but that was a dream rather than a reality. Much of the enormous industrial team assembled to build the wartime atomic bombs (and the plutonium-making reactors) had dispersed, and the wartime bomb program ran down to the point where, in 1946, the United States had no usable atomic weapons at all. Submariners were interested in new kinds of propulsion, but that generally meant various forms of closedcycle engines, like the semi-developed German Walter plant. Surely it would

CVN 77 H 191

underway nuclear power.indd 191

12/9/08 4:59:41 PM


McingvalR.indd 1

12/10/08 1:51:38 PM


National Archives

nuclear power

be decades before nuclear power reached any sort of potential. The Bureau of Ships formed a small nuclear propulsion team, headed by Capt. Hyman Rickover. Rickover sponsored studies of various alternative power reactors from which heat might be extracted in the form of hot water or molten metal or gas. Rickover’s decisive contribution was to realize, as early as 1948, that he knew enough to build a prototype power plant. That was very courageous. Money was tight, and further studies might easily have uncovered some unsuspected problem. Indeed, Rickover initially bet on liquid metal, and only later switched his main focus to water. However, his decision led to the construction of a prototype plant. Rickover further accelerated development by deciding that the land-based prototype would be matched by the prototype planned for installation in the first nuclear submarine. Changes to the prototype to solve problems as they were encountered would be duplicated in the submarine reactor. By 1950, the Bureau of Ships was designing the prototype submarine. Rickover contributed further by demanding that it be armed as a combatant, rather than limited to power plant tests. There was already interest in arming such a submarine with guided missiles, but Rickover wanted to separate the test of the power plant from the tests of such new weapons. Rickover’s program was viable despite tight defense funds because major companies like Westinghouse and General Electric saw it as an opening into a potentially huge civilian power market. In 1948, Rickover attended a Submarine Officers’ Conference in Washington that discussed progress in the new power plants. Captains in charge of various programs complained that companies would not assign their best engineers because it seemed unlikely that the Navy would ever build many such plants and because they had no civilian applications. Then Rickover spoke. He had no such problems. The companies were building the necessary laboratories at their own expense. They were pushing their best people into the nuclear program. It turned out that his plant was ready years before any of the others – and it was inherently far superior because the closed-cycle plants offered only a few hours underwater at high speed. Even in 1952, he offered weeks, and that soon extended to months and then years, before a submarine had to be refueled. Rickover was interested in the potential of nuclear power throughout the Navy. His whole career had been built in naval propulsion machinery, and he had witnessed several major U.S. advances leading up to the remarkably efficient and reliable high-pressure, high-temperature power plants of World War II. Their technology had given the wartime Navy unprecedented mobility. One lesson was that new power-plant technology had to be spread across the fleet if it was to offer its full potential. For example, a nuclear fleet would gain high-speed mobility, which would protect it from submarine attack (in a pre-nuclear submarine era). It would not be tied to tankers, which themselves might be attacked by an enemy. Once he felt he understood nuclear engineering, he proposed design of a range of larger and smaller plants. The smaller ones might be used to build less expensive submarines. The largest were clearly intended for carriers and cruisers. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Robert Carney approved Rickover’s program in 1954, before the prototype Nautilus went to sea. The high end of the series of reactors offered 30,000 horsepower, twice what Nautilus plant put out. The new Forrestal-class carriers required 280,000 horsepower, so eight of the high-end reactors could power a carrier, particularly if their power could be boosted slightly. Preliminary design work on a nuclear carrier began in 1955; USS Enterprise was included in the fiscal year 1958 program, for the year beginning July 1, 1957. She was a spectacular achievement, but she also

Hyman Rickover headed the team that worked to bring nuclear propulsion to the U.S. Navy, and has been called the father of the nuclear Navy.

was spectacularly expensive to build and to maintain. Each of her eight reactors required its own operators, for example. The hull large enough to accommodate this power plant was far more massive than that of a prenuclear carrier. Rickover argued vigorously that all future carriers should be nuclear, but the sheer cost of the new ship was a deterrent. After one more (non-nuclear) carrier, construction of new carriers paused for a few years (it had been running one per year) when money was diverted to the crash program to build Polaris strategic submarines – another type of warship that Rickover’s new kind of propulsion had made practicable. Meanwhile, Rickover’s Naval Nuclear Reactor organization strove to simplify carrier power plants. It realized that the key was cutting the number of reactors. It proved possible almost to double reactor power, so that a carrier could be built with four reactors rather than eight, albeit with less power than Enterprise. This ship was not built. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara argued that it would still be so much more expensive than a conventional carrier as not to be worthwhile. Rickover and other nuclear

CVN 77 H 193

underway nuclear power.indd 193

12/9/08 4:59:54 PM


1SPVEMZ'VFMJOHUIF'VUVSF "CPBSE"NFSJDBÂľT(SFBU$7/

For more than 40 years, the employees of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. have proudly helped fuel freedom. As the supplier of fuels for Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nuclear fleet, our team of professionals congratulate the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and the men and women of CVN 77 on charting a course to excellence.

nucVelan.indd 1

XXXOVDMFBSGVFMTFSWJDFTDPN

12/10/08 2:13:49 PM


nuclear power

U.S. Navy photo

The nuclear-powered Task Force One during Operation Sea Orbit in 1986, a world cruise to commemorate the 1961 cruise of the Navy’s new nuclear-powered ships. The ships included the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65, center), which took part in the first cruise, now accompanied by the guided missile cruisers USS Truxtun (CGN 35, right) and USS Arkansas (CGN 41, left). Nuclear-powered escorts were found at the time to be too expensive to build and operate, and unsuitable for anti-submarine warfare. Truxtun and Arkansas have since been decommissioned.

supporters argued that was an illusion. The nuclear carrier would be far less vulnerable, thanks to her sustained speed; she would need far less tanker support (she would still need fuel for her aircraft); and she would be easier to maintain. McNamara’s decision was embodied in USS John F. Kennedy, the last U.S. non-nuclear carrier. Echoes of McNamara’s arguments could still be heard in the 1980s, in attempts to eliminate nuclear power so as to cut carrier cost. The issue was generally the purchase cost of the carrier compared with the cost of operating her over her lifetime. At the time, it was probably not imagined that the U.S. Navy would typically operate carriers for as long as 50 years, far beyond the operating lifetimes of earlier kinds of warships. That was possible partly because the sheer size of these ships limits the stress imposed by the sea. Compared to a steam plant, a nuclear plant requires a larger cadre of more skilled operators. Rickover was acutely aware that any nuclear accident

would kill nuclear power for the U.S. Navy, so he insisted on high (some would say extravagantly severe) standards for those operating the plants and commanding the ships they powered. Experience suggested that for a small ship, a cruiser, or a large destroyer, nuclear power entailed too high a cost in personnel. That cost was well worth paying in a submarine. A carrier and her air wing require so many highly skilled personnel that the additional cost of a nuclear power plant was bearable as well. If, as advocates of energy independence and conservation suggest, nuclear power will have a larger role in the future, the naval nuclear program will provide most of the new reactor operators needed. The Navy will have to compete with a livelier civilian sector, and the cost of nuclear personnel will undoubtedly rise. So, perhaps, will the cost of reactors, if the companies making them have a larger civilian role. Even in the 1950s, operators were seen as a major nuclear expense, because they required so much specialized training.

CVN 77 H 195

underway nuclear power.indd 195

12/9/08 5:00:28 PM


nuclear power

Thus, the Naval Reactors Program continued to develop larger reactors that would need fewer operators. By the 1960s, the U.S. Navy had not only a nuclear cruiser (USS Long Beach) but even a large nuclear destroyer (USS Bainbridge, later redesignated a cruiser). Each had two reactors. The U.S. Navy was then planning a class of Typhon missile destroyers with huge radars, which, it seemed, would need nuclear power to drive them. Naval Reactors developed a single reactor that could replace the usual pair of destroyer reactors. It never entered service, but the lessons learned made it possible for Naval Reactors to double power again (and then some) into a reactor, two of which could power a carrier. This new reactor was available when McNamara left office (1967) and the design of another new carrier began – USS Nimitz. This was remarkable progress. It was little more than a decade since Rickover had received authority to develop his range of reactors. Now his organization was offering one about four times as powerful – not to mention much more fuel-efficient.

The Enterprise was difficult to maintain, because her eight reactors were closely coupled together. Like any other nuclear ship, she had to be opened up periodically so that the reactors could be refueled. In a carrier, the power plant is buried deep within the ship, beneath the flight and hangar decks. These decks have to be cut open to give access to the reactors; there is no way to get at the vertical fuel rods from the side. That is why other modifications to a carrier are generally held back to refueling time. Alternatively, it might be said that much of the cost of operating a nuclear ship is spent when she is refueled. Eight closely coupled reactors required a huge refueling hole and an enormous amount of special piping. Moreover, concentrating a ship’s power plant in one place makes her vulnerable to a single underwater hit. Since before World War II, U.S. design practice had been to split power plants so that no single hit amidships could immobilize a ship. The Enterprise violated that requirement because of the need to concentrate those eight reactors (they shared important auxiliary machinery). With their single funnels, conventional carriers did

U.S. Navy photo by Photograher’s Mate Second Class (AW/SAR) H. Dwain Willis

Two F-14 Tomcats from Fighter Squadron 32 (VF 32), “Swordsmen,” fly over USS San Jacinto (CG 56) during an underway replenishment with USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). A nuclear-powered aircraft carrier’s aviation fuel supply can be entirely devoted to serving its aircraft and escorts.

196 H CVN 77

underway nuclear power.indd 196

12/9/08 5:00:40 PM


nuclear power

suffer from some concentration, but they still had dispersed power plants. Since they needed no funnels, reactor plants could, at least in theory, be spread out more widely than their conventional predecessors, giving their ships better survivability. Nimitz embodied that potential. Each of her two quite separate reactors drives a pair of steam turbines. Physically separating the reactors made it possible to disperse other vital parts of the ship, such as magazines. The split power plant is less vulnerable to attack or to other damage. It also is much easier to open up the ship to refuel two widely separated reactors. USS George H.W. Bush has much the same reactor arrangement as Nimitz, but Naval Reactors has been working hard over the intervening 40 years. Since Nimitz, Naval Reactors has sought to lengthen the interval between fuelings, because that cuts the cost of running a nuclear ship. This is a matter of the design of the reactor’s nuclear core (new cores are designed to fit existing reactors, so in effect, all nuclear carriers are upgraded over time). A reactor does not simply run out of fuel; when it is shut down, there is still a good deal of burnable uranium in the fuel rods. Instead, as the fuel is used, by-products such as Xenon form in the rods. Xenon in particular can poison the reactor because it absorbs the neutrons that drive the chain reaction powering it. Changes in core design make it possible to run longer before the rods must be removed and the material inside purged of Xenon. Once enough Xenon has been formed, the reactor has to shut down. The Xenon poisoning problem recalls the very old problem of ships burning coal: Periodically they had to turn down their boilers so that the ashes choking them could be removed. The difference is that Xenon cannot simply be sloughed off and the reactor restarted. It has to be chemically extracted from fuel rods, along with other by-products of nuclear fission (new rods are inserted into the reactor at refueling time). The time scale is, of course, far longer now. The goal is a core that lasts the life of the ship, so that she is never refueled. That is being done for submarines. Current cores last 20 to 25 years, limiting a carrier to one refueling during her career. The next carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, is to have a full-life (50-year) core. Her reactors also are to be about a quarter more powerful than those of George H.W. Bush. Rickover envisaged an all-nuclear task force with unlimited endurance. For a time, in the 1970s, there was a legal requirement that all U.S. combatants of more than 8,000 tons be nuclear powered, unless the president specifically waived that condition. The U.S. Navy built several large nuclear destroyers (later designated cruisers), but found them unsatisfactory. In contrast to a carrier, the nuclear power plant was too great a fraction of their building and operating cost. They proved cramped, and they lacked anti-submarine capability (they were too noisy, because it would have been too expensive to silence their power plants). Moreover, a carrier battle group cannot be completely independent of tankers. Naval aviation is a very demanding profession. Even when a carrier is not fighting, her pilots must keep flying to maintain their proficiency. The carrier must take on aviation fuel periodically. Her gas turbine-powered escorts burn the same fuel, so it is not so very difficult for the carrier to fuel them periodically. The carrier herself benefits hugely from her nuclear power plant. It turns out that carriers need layers of liquids in their sides as torpedo protection; in non-nuclear days, they carried the ship’s fuel oil. Eliminating the need for the carrier’s own fuel left the layers of fuel for her aircraft (which gained more flying days between refueling) and for the escorts. This compromise has proven quite successful.

CVN 77 H 197

underway nuclear power.indd 197

12/10/08 10:20:42 AM


tomorrow’s carriers

TOMORROW’S CARRIERS

T

he aircraft carrier has endured for about 90 years because it is so flexible. The future surely belongs to carriers designed to combine that flexibility – that ability to handle so wide a variety of aircraft – with technology that will make them simpler and less expensive to operate, and that will also help defeat whatever new threats they must face. USS George H.W. Bush is the last of the Nimitz class, because it seems that enough new technology exists or is imminent that it is worth re-thinking carrier design, albeit in a package of roughly the same size. As might be imagined, the main change will probably come from the way in which aircraft are used. In the past, the U.S. Navy conducted mass strikes (“alpha strikes”) against single chosen targets on land. Mass was needed to confuse enemy defenses, and because it also took many bombs to ensure a few hits. The carrier flight deck was designed to support the quick launch of many of the ship’s attack aircraft. There also were single-airplane attacks, and some aircraft did not fly off en masse, but the emphasis was on preparing a flight deck full of aircraft and launching them together.

With the advent of smart bombs, the need to saturate enemy defenses remained. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated a very different sort of carrier operation. It proved possible to destroy enemy national air defenses at the outset. GPSguided bombs could be dropped from outside the range of the remaining enemy defenses. Unlike the smart bombs of the past, they did not require the airplane to keep a laser on the target until the bomb hit. One airplane could hit multiple targets on a single flight. Bombs were so precise that mass no longer seemed very important. Instead, what mattered seemed to be how many different targets a carrier’s aircraft could hit in a day. Instead of being launched in a mass and recovered together, a carrier’s aircraft would be launched one by one. It would matter enormously how quickly an airplane could be turned around upon landing, because that would largely determine how many flights that airplane could make each day. This point was reinforced in Afghanistan, when the key value of carrier aircraft was that they could be maintained continuously over the battle area to provide troops with

Illustration courtesy of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding

By Norman Friedman

198 H CVN 77

tomorrows carriers.indd 198

12/9/08 5:04:15 PM


U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communications 2nd Class Kevin S. O’Brien

tomorrow’s carriers

support. This sort of continuous operation requires that some aircraft be serviced and rearmed while others are launched and recovered. Carriers always had this capability, but it was limited because their flight decks were arranged for an earlier idea of combat. For example, ships had magazines located forward so that weapons (originally, nuclear weapons) could be fed to aircraft on the bow catapults, before they were launched. They could not feed airplanes being serviced or fuelled after having landed farther aft. USS Gerald R. Ford, the next carrier, will have her island farther aft, leaving more open space, including parking and rearming space, forward. The Ford is the latest in a long series of attempts to place the island in the best position for air operations, keeping in mind that the ship is navigated from it, hence that those in it need good visibility. She will have three elevators (two forward of the island, one right aft to port) instead of the current four (one abaft and two forward of the island, and one aft to port). The last previous major flight deck redesign came in the late 1950s, when the island was moved aft, exchanging position with one of the two elevators formerly abaft it. At the same time, the elevator formerly at the fore end of the angled deck was moved aft. These changes were intended to simplify flight deck operation. For example, the elevator at the forward end of the angled deck blocked the two waist catapults. It was a survival of an earlier flight deck arrangement adopted at the start of World War II, when carriers had only bow catapults. In Ford, the elevators will be larger than in current carriers. The number of elevators and their location reflect the fact that the hangar deck is split into bays (so that, among other things, no weapon or fire can sweep the whole hangar deck). Each bay has to have independent access to the flight deck. Moreover, elevators are spread out fore and aft and to each side so that the ship is harder to put out of action. The change in Ford will mean that no hangar deck bay will have access on both sides. Presumably that is acceptable because doors between the bays allow such access unless the carrier has been damaged. Much the same goes for catapults, which are typically paired forward and amidships. Catapult operation is further complicated by the fact that each catapult requires a slot cut into the flight deck – which is the ship’s strength deck, hence cannot be cut crosswise (the waist catapults are angled, hence do reduce deck strength somewhat). Reducing the number of elevators and moving the island to the aft corner of the flight deck frees space for aircraft parking, servicing, and rearming. Rearrangement also entails changing the positions of weapons elevators relative to the parking areas. Given the redesigned flight deck, the Ford is expected to be able to hit about a third more targets than her predecessor (the numbers are sometimes given as numbers of sorties per day, which would mean many more targets). It also is argued that, should the U.S. Navy adopt unmanned aircraft, they may be somewhat cumbersome as they are maneuvered around the flight deck. More flight deck area will make them easier to operate. Carrier designers once considered a wider variety of flight deck arrangements, and perhaps their ideas will return. For example, the U.S. Navy is now building a replacement for the LHA, a large-deck amphibious ship that resembles an aircraft carrier, and which can operate short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) fighter-bombers. One abortive proposal was to place her island on the centerline, with angled decks on either side meeting at the bow. One deck (“tramway”) would have operated helicopters, the other STOVLs. The ship would have been about the size of the old Forrestal. The idea was rejected because of its cost, but the concept of multiple launch (and recovery) decks remains interesting, particularly if the point of the design is rapid cycling of individual aircraft. Note that this configuration

Opposite: An artist’s conception of CVN 78, the first of a new-generation carrier design for the U.S. Navy, under way at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding. Innovations for the next-generation aircraft carrier include an enhanced flight deck with increased sortie rates, improved weapons movement, a redesigned island, a new nuclear power plant, and allowance for future technologies and reduced manning. Above: Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) The Honorable Dr. Donald C. Winter receives a brief on the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) at Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES). EMALS represents the next generation of aircraft catapult systems.

CVN 77 H 199

tomorrows carriers.indd 199

12/15/08 4:22:53 PM


National security depends on effective communication and information convergence. That is why SGI servers, storage and visualization systems are designed for high performance. Our national to tactical solutions reduce complexity and ensure continuity of operations across every aspect of the mission. When time matters (time to detection, time to process, time to analyze, time to decision) SGI excels and you succeed. For real-time information sharing from headquarters to the warfighter, SGI provides advanced technology capabilities needed to observe, orient, communicate—and act—decisively.

sgi.com/go/navy/cvn77

©ÏßßlÉ,­ÉÉ¿†zƒËÃÉ¿gÃg¿Øg^­É,É9–^É˃gÉ,ɏ›z›É9¿gÉ¿gz†ÃËg¿g^ÉË¿9^g“9¿ŽÃɛsÉ,Ɇ–É˃gÉ.­,­É9–^ț¿É›Ëƒg¿ÉP›Ð–Ë¿†gÃÉٛ¿^ن^g­

07SGI063_Govt_Ad2_NAVY_Final_CVN.indd 1 sgi on temp.indd 1

4/24/08 9:09:52 AM 12/10/08 1:52:11 PM


Illustration courtesy Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding

tomorrow’s carriers

was also considered and rejected when the first U.S. nuclear carrier, the Enterprise, was built – but her designers envisaged a very different kind of flight deck cycle. The Enterprise designers also considered a multi-level flight deck (i.e., launching aircraft from hangar deck level), which would have been a throwback to some foreign carrier designs of the 1920s. They probably also remembered that a few U.S. carriers built during World War II had cross-deck hangar deck catapults. In those ships, the idea was to be able to launch aircraft even with a full air group parked at the forward end (the flying-off end) of the flight deck. The hangar deck catapults were used, albeit rarely; they were eliminated to provide space for more light antiaircraft guns, hardly a consideration in the post-1945 jet age. The idea in the 1950s was to increase the rate at which aircraft could be launched. The size of the island (and of accompanying masts) is set largely by the radars the carrier needs to detect enemy aircraft and to control its own. The more separate radars, the larger the island/mast footprint. Since the 1970s, electronically scanned radars, like the one in Aegis ships, have become inexpensive and reliable. They add valuable capability, but they replace earlier radars on a one-for-one basis, and often take up more space. Proposals to install Aegis-type radars on carriers failed because of cost. Now the next step in technology, the active array, is entering service. Because it can generate several separate radar beams at one time, an active array can replace multiple radars. Ultimately it should be possible to build a broadband active array that would replace even more

radars – as well as satellite communication dishes, which are increasingly important (and which are now numerous, because it takes one dish to deal with each satellite). Satellite dishes operate at radar frequencies, and they compete with a ship’s radars for the best positions in and around a crowded island (in carriers, some of them are mounted alongside the flight deck). Ultimately it may be possible to shrink the island further by embedding some satellite communication antennas in the flight deck itself. The island planned for the Ford is less than two-thirds the length of that in the Bush. Many suspect that manned attack aircraft will give way to unmanned ones; the coming F-35 (JSF) is often described as the last manned fighter. This transition, if it comes, will not change the basic carrier mission, which will still be to project air power from the sea. However, it may dramatically change carrier operating practices, and hence the shape of carriers. For example, the ideal unmanned combat air vehicle would be able to refuel in flight, just as manned aircraft currently do. It seems reasonable to argue that pilot fatigue is the main limit on current aircraft endurance; pilots become exhausted before airplanes fail in flight. A refuelable unmanned airplane would fly much longer missions. They would probably involve orbiting (perhaps en masse) within range of potential targets waiting for the order to attack particular ones. The carrier flight deck would operate with a different tempo, with much longer intervals between launching and, usually, servicing aircraft.

CVN 77 H 201

tomorrows carriers.indd 201

12/9/08 5:04:38 PM


ReidyFINALol on temp.indd 8

12/10/08 1:53:03 PM


tomorrow’s carriers

U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate Airman Justin S. Osborne

Aviation Ordnancemen assigned to “The Swordsmen” of Fighter Squadron 32 (VF-32) transfer 2,000-pound Joint Directional Attack Munitions (JDAMs) for uploading to an F-14B Tomcat fighter in March 2006. JDAMs are guidance kits that convert existing unguided bombs into precisionguided “smart” munitions. The tail section contains an inertial navigational system (INS) and a global positioning system (GPS). A JDAM improves the accuracy of unguided bombs in any weather condition. It is launched from any fighter or fighter-attack aircraft in the Navy’s inventory. GPS guided munitions changed carrier operations in that massing for attacks became less imporant than individual sortie generation rates.

If most of the unmanned strike aircraft spent most of their airborne time orbiting, servicing would be intermittent rather than, as now, nearly hourly. Vehicles would return either when they were about to run out of time between failures, or to reload after dropping their weapons. They would be fed one by one into the orbiting mass. Tanker flights to keep the unmanned vehicles in the sky might be more frequent than any others supported by the carrier. It is not clear how fleet air defense would fit into this picture; it might or might not become an unmanned function. On the other hand, handling unmanned vehicles on the flight deck would be a very different proposition, because there would be no pilot aboard to maneuver the airplane in response to the hand signals from the handlers, or for that matter to avoid obvious obstacles. Unmanned vehicles may be provided with their own flight deck sensors, or they may be remotely controlled by the handlers. There may be particular challenges in handling both manned and unmanned aircraft together, but they may be eased if the unmanned aircraft have such long effective endurance that they only occasionally affect the flight deck.

Unmanned aircraft could have profound impacts on the carrier. Pilots have to fly daily to maintain their proficiency, e.g., in difficult skills like carrier landing. Unmanned aircraft would fly only when needed. Such a pattern would dramatically reduce the carrier’s need to take on jet fuel, which currently entails an operating cycle as short as three or five days. The carrier might still fuel her escorts, but she would spend much less time in the vulnerable process of taking on fuel. Merely operating at higher average speeds would give her considerable protection against nonnuclear submarines, which have low average speeds when submerged. Dramatically reducing aircraft operating hours would also reduce the carrier’s maintenance workload and would probably require far fewer spares for the aircraft. All of these changes would be attractive in a navy trying, as the U.S. Navy is, to reduce the number of sailors. Of course, all of this assumes that unmanned aircraft can successfully operate from a carrier, and can refuel in flight. The U.S. Navy has let a contract to Northrop Grumman to demonstrate a prototype unmanned carrier strike aircraft, the X-47B, which should fly in 2009. The company has every confidence that, its solution will work. Reasons for confidence

CVN 77 H 203

tomorrows carriers.indd 203

12/9/08 5:04:49 PM


Copyright © 2008 DuPont. All rights reserved. The DuPont Oval Logo, DuPontTM, Nomex® , Nomex® Limitedwear and Kevlar® are registered trademarks or trademarks of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company or its affiliates.

WHEN THINGS CAN HEAT UP IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE, there’s a company working behind the lines to help keep you safe — DuPont. Our scientists and engineers pioneered the use of DuPont™ Nomex® brand fiber for personal protection in U.S. Navy flight suits. Pilots have recognized its superior thermal performance for over 40 years. And today, we’re collaborating closely with U.S. military personnel to design, engineer, and test their new technologies. So flight crews, maintenance workers, and ground troops are protected against the potential fire hazards they face every day. And many innovative solutions are in the field right now, like the Multi Climate Protection System for superior thermal protection in cold, harsh weather conditions, lightweight Nomex® Limitedwear to help guard against burn injuries, and combat gloves that combine the fire resistance of Nomex® with the strength of DuPont™ Kevlar®. nomex.com

BE NOMEX READY. ®

dupont on temp.indd 1

12/10/08 1:53:36 PM


tomorrow’s carriers

Courtesy of Lockheed Martin

An artist’s conception of the F-35C, taken from a Lockheed Martin poster. The F-35C will bring stealth aircraft to the flight decks of tomorrow’s carriers, but it may also be the U.S. Navy’s last manned fighter.

include the fact that for many years, the U.S. Navy has had an automatic carrier landing system for use in bad weather, and that it is always possible to imagine rigging a hands-on carrier deck control system for an unmanned aircraft. Probably in-flight refueling is the major entirely new item to be demonstrated. Stealth is another issue. Around 2000, a U.S. Navy design team sketched a truly stealthy carrier, observing that stealth would have carried a high cost (which proved excessive) in aircraft capability. However, signature control might be a more reasonable proposition. A carrier generally operates with escorting destroyers. An attacker must distinguish the highvalue target from the others. If the carrier’s signature could be reduced to the point where she might be difficult to distinguish, she might gain considerably. In this context, stealth would include changing radar usage so that the carrier could not be identified by the special radars she has. The U.S. Navy currently equips many of its ships for Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), in which several ships share radar data at a very detailed level. A carrier might be able to rely on the radars of her consorts to give her the information needed to control her aircraft, thus further reducing an enemy’s ability to distinguish her. CEC is currently seen mainly as a means of fleet air defense, for example giving the carrier warning of incoming attackers before they cross her radar horizon. Probably the most dramatic changes in the next-generation carrier will be subtler ones connected with propulsion and ship systems. The U.S. Navy is now moving toward all-electric ships. In the past, ships generated

electric and hydraulic power for different kinds of applications. Carriers also generated steam to drive catapults. None of these power sources could be switched to the other applications. Moreover, the need to connect the ship’s steam turbines directly to propeller shafts determines the layout of the hull and also makes the ship more vulnerable: Shock can bend a shaft that, if it continues to turn, can open up the ship’s hull. If that seems unduly remote, readers may be interested that just such damage sank the British battleship Prince of Wales in 1941. If the turbines drive generators, the wiring from those generators to the motors driving the ship’s propellers can be duplicated so that the ship can keep fighting despite considerable hull damage. The U.S. Navy once used turbo-electric machinery for just that reason, but had to abandon it because of weight. Modern materials make it much easier to adopt this kind of machinery, particularly in a very large ship. The new Zumwalt-class destroyer is conceived as an all-electric ship. The Ford will be less fully electric, most of her power still going into steam turbines driving propeller shafts. That is probably because she will have about three times the power output of the destroyer. However, she will dispense with hydraulics and with steam catapults; all of her auxiliary power will be electric. What that means is indicated by the fact that she will generate three times as much electric power as the Bush and earlier nuclear carriers. It can also be argued that, as fossil fuel becomes less available, aircraft will be redesigned to burn hydrogen. If that should happen, a powerful electric plant might be valued for its ability to split seawater into oxygen and hydrogen, and thus to produce aircraft fuel. In

CVN 77 H 205

tomorrows carriers.indd 205

12/9/08 5:04:59 PM


tenStawor.indd 1

12/16/08 2:01:47 PM


tomorrow’s carriers

Courtesy of Northrop Grumman

An artist’s conception of the X-47B UCAV on a carrier deck. Should upcoming tests aboard a carrier prove successful, unmanned aircraft could have profund effects on the aircraft carrier.

that case, the limited fuel appetite of unmanned aircraft might be seen as a major advantage. This is, of course, a distant prospect, if it happens at all. Right now hydrogen can power aircraft, but it imposes penalties, such as bulk, which would be entirely unacceptable in a warplane. The U.S. Navy is developing an electric catapult, the electromagnetic aircraft launching system (EMALS). One of its attractions is the elimination of the piping and steam reservoirs that currently connect the ship’s power plant to her catapults. Instead of reservoirs the ship would have banks of capacitors, charged up continuously and then discharged when aircraft were launched. EMALS should be considerably lighter than a steam catapult, imposing much less load on the ship’s structure, and adding much less top weight than a conventional catapult. It may be a necessary tradeoff against the new heavier elevators. The great attraction of the electric ship is that all of the ship’s auxiliary power can be switched from one role to another: say, between an electric catapult and an electric laser for self-defense against incoming missiles. Such lasers and other electromagnetic weapons do not currently exist, but it seems reasonable to assume that they will appear during the carrier’s half-century lifetime. Lasers may ultimately be the best way to deal with fast-attacking weapons like the guided ballistic missiles

sometimes attributed to the Chinese. Like a catapult, a laser would use bursts of electric power, which banks of capacitors could store for that purpose. An electric ship can also accept power from multiple sources. For example, when an airplane hooks an arresting gear wire, the wire absorbs its considerable energy. In an electric ship, that energy could be fed back into the ship’s system. Finally, electric power can be precisely controlled by computers. That might apply both to catapult control and to roles like pumping for damage control. Ford is to have a new simplified reactor plant requiring fewer personnel, hence less expensive to operate, with a core lasting the life of the ship. Eliminating refueling would eliminate much of the life-cycle cost of current nuclear ships, because refueling requires that the ship literally be torn up to gain access to the reactor. Right now (and in the Ford) the reactor transfers its heat into power via water; in effect, it drives a boiler. The step toward an all-electric carrier would be to have the ship’s turbines drive generators instead of turning her propellers. However, for years there have been proposals for direct conversion of reactor energy into electricity. They have not yet proven practical. It might be argued, though, that, if they worked, they would be the natural way to drive an all-electric ship.

CVN 77 H 207

tomorrows carriers.indd 207

12/9/08 5:05:14 PM


world aircraft carriers

U

SS George H.W. Bush joins a growing world carrier community, a mixture of carriers operating conventional aircraft (as she does) and those limited to short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft such as the British Harrier and the coming F-35B. Many navies adopted STOVL because it reduced the minimum size and complexity – hence price – of a carrier. That is, conventional aircraft require a minimum-size flight deck, which in turn sets the minimum size of a carrier. Such a carrier can accommodate at least a certain number of aircraft, although the number of aircraft will not have been a design requirement. It is possible to build a much smaller STOVL carrier, and such a ship will accommodate many fewer aircraft. For example, a large U.S. carrier can accommodate about 80 or even a hundred airplanes. Many STOVL carriers accommodate about a quarter (or fewer) as many on about a quarter the size. The U.S. view has been that below a certain number of aircraft a carrier may not really be worthwhile. The lesson the U.S. Navy learned at the beginning of its carrier history

By Norman Friedman

was that numbers of aircraft might well be decisive. Large carriers cost a lot more, but they cost a lot less per airplane or per unit capability. Moreover, STOVL carries considerable penalties for each airplane, for example in terms of payload. The Harrier and Sea Harrier, versions of which the STOVL carriers around the world operate, is much smaller and less capable than U.S. carrier aircraft. Power is limited, as is range. Thus the Royal Navy managed to equip its subsonic Sea Harriers with the same advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) that the U.S. Navy uses, but found that the airplane lost so much range in hot conditions that it was not worth keeping in service. The coming F-35B STOVL version of the Joint Strike Fighter offers much better performance than the subsonic Sea Harrier and its derivatives, but it too pays a considerable price for STOVL operation, in terms both of the weapons it can carry and its range. Also, the Sea Harrier and the Harrier were relatively small airplanes; saying that a small carrier could accommodate, say, 15 of

U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Randall Damm

CARRIERS AROUND THE WORLD

208 H CVN 77

world aircraft carrriers.indd 208

12/9/08 5:30:08 PM


U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Leonardo Carrillo

world aircraft carriers

them was not at all the same thing as saying that it could accommodate 15 airplanes the size of the current U.S. F/A-18C Hornet. The same deck will accommodate far fewer F-35Bs. The overall striking power of a STOVL carrier is disproportionately less than that of a conventional carrier. Thus the U.S. view has been that numbers of aircraft (and weapons) are so important that large carriers like George H.W. Bush are disproportionately more effective (and also more survivable) than the small ones most other navies have chosen to operate. Given this size, the extra cost of providing catapults and arresting gear is relatively small and is well worth paying in order to gain the performance advantages of conventional aircraft. Navies depending on STOVL face a potentially difficult future. Development and production of the engine that powers the Harrier have ended, making it extremely unlikely that any successor aircraft with a similar power plant will appear (for convenience, no distinction is made between Harrier, Sea Harrier, the U.S.-built AV-8B, and the Matador, as it is called in Spanish service). The Russian program, which produced the Cold War Yak-38, also ended; the successor Yak-141 appearing only as a prototype. Again, it seems unlikely that there will be a successor, the Russian navy having opted for conventional aircraft requiring large flight decks. That leaves the U.S. F-35B, the STOVL version of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, as the only future STOVL fighter likely to appear. No country other than the United States (and even in its case, with partners) seems to have the resources to develop an entirely new STOVL combat aircraft. There is, however, some question as to whether the F-35B will

Opposite page: The French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle shown operating in the Atlantic Ocean May 20, 2005. De Gaulle operates conventional carrier aircraft such as the Rafale M, Super Etendard, and E-2C Hawkeye, as well as helicopters. Top: An AV-8B Harrier II from the Spanish aircraft carrier PrĂ­ncipe de Asturias (R 11) prepares to land during exercises in the Balearic Sea on Feb. 23, 2007. The Sea Harrier, AV-8A Harrier, and AV-8B Harrier II represent the first generation of STOVL carrier-borne aircraft. Above: The Lockheed Martin F-35B could provide nations now operating Harrier derivatives with a stealthy, supersonic STOVL aircraft.

CVN 77 H 209

world aircraft carrriers.indd 209

12/10/08 5:11:15 PM


D;MIF7F;HIšC7=7P?D;Iš8HE7:97IJ?D=š?DJ;H79J?L;C;:?7š;DJ;HJ7?DC;DJIOD:?97J?EDš8KI?D;IIC;:?7šH;7B;IJ7J;

>EDEH;: EDM7H: <hecekhB;;:=ebZ#Y[hj_Å[Z^[WZgkWhj[hijeiec[(&&c[Z_WXki_d[ii[i">[Whij9ehfehWj_ed _iYecc_jj[ZjeikijW_dWXb[b_l_d]WdZfh[i[hl_d]l[d[hWXb[]beXWbXhWdZi$  M[Yed]hWjkbWj[ekh\ehjo#ÅhijFh[i_Z[djedj^[e\ÅY_WbYecc_ii_ed_d]e\j^[ KII=[eh][>$M$8ki^"edboj^[i[YedZKd_j[ZIjWj[iW_hYhW\jYWhh_[hjeX[dWc[ZW\j[hWdWlWbWl_Wjeh$ B_a[_j½idWc[iWa["_j_iikh[jei[hl[_jiYekdjhom_j^^edeh$

>[Whij9ehfehWj_edž(&&.

hearst on tempR.indd 1

12/10/08 5:19:18 PM


world aircraft carriers

U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 1st Class (AW) John Lill

The Brazilian navy aircraft carrier BNS Sao Paolo (A12) comes alongside USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) as the Reagan transits around South America. Sao Paolo was formerly the Foch, operated by the French navy. Sao Paolo’s air group consists of A-4 (AF-1) Skyhawks and helicopters.

survive coming budget problems and its own weight problems. Right now its survival depends heavily on the support of the U.S. Marine Corps, which would be its main user. The Royal Navy also plans to use this airplane, but it has a fallback position in that its carriers can be redesigned relatively easily to accommodate catapults. What would happen to the other users, none of them requiring large numbers of aircraft, if the F-35B were to be canceled? A further point is worth making. In the air-to-air role, and often also in the strike role, carriers depend on radar early warning, for example, to detect targets beyond their horizon. That is no great problem for a largedeck carrier with catapults: the United States and France both use the E-2C Hawkeye. A STOVL carrier cannot accommodate such an airplane. After an unhappy experience in the Falklands, the Royal Navy mounted radars on board helicopters, and the Spanish and the Italians have followed suit. Unfortunately a helicopter does not offer anything like airplane endurance or altitude. A British company has proposed a radar version of the new U.S. tilt-wing V-22 Osprey, but it is so large that taking a few on board a small carrier might well crowd out any other aircraft. At this stage, the Osprey conversion would probably be interesting mainly to the U.S. Marine Corps and to the Royal Navy – if the latter persists with the STOVL version of its new carrier. Right now, in addition to the United States, only France and Brazil (with an ex-French carrier) operate full-capacity carriers with steam catapults

and conventional aircraft. France built the nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle and is now considering building a second ship so as to have at least one carrier available at all times. The de Gaulle has many attractive features, for example her integrated combat control system and her missile defense system, but she has one major drawback: She is relatively slow, because she is underpowered for her size. The French never developed a high-powered reactor for surface ships; instead, they have only one design, for submarines. The de Gaulle therefore has two submarine reactors, which together produce less than a third as much power as the George H.W. Bush. Even so, the French much prefer their conventional take-off aircraft to STOVLs. They offer longer range and better carrying capacity. The de Gaulle currently operates 40 aircraft, including 20 Super Etendard strike bombers and 12 of the new Rafale fighters (as the latter receive their full planned equipment, additional Rafales will replace the Super Etendards). There also are Hawkeye radar aircraft and helicopters. By way of comparison, the current standard U.S. air group is 48 Hornet fighterbombers supported by six jamming aircraft and six Hawkeye radar aircraft and by 10 multipurpose helicopters. This comparison is somewhat skewed by the fact that the Rafale is much lighter than the Hornet (depending on the version, it weighs 30,900 to 46,000 pounds compared to more than 60,000 pounds for the current Super Hornet). The coming F-35C Lightning II will be slightly lighter than the Super Hornet, so the comparison will remain valid. Moreover, a U.S. carrier can accommodate a much larger

CVN 77 H 211

world aircraft carrriers.indd 211

12/9/08 5:30:30 PM


qtrVita.indd 1

12/10/08 2:58:23 PM


U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jay C. Pugh

world aircraft carriers

air group; the current numbers reflect budgetary choices and the view that a smaller air group on a large deck can be turned around more rapidly, hence can strike a maximum number of targets. Nothing in the figures below concerning foreign carriers gives a sense of relative crowding of flight decks. The Brazilian Sao Paolo is the former French Foch, the direct predecessor to de Gaulle. She operates aircraft developed in the 1960s for carriers of about this size (18 U.S.-built Skyhawks and 16 helicopters), but is aging. That the Brazilian navy thought it worthwhile to buy and maintain so expensive a ship suggests that it understands carriers as the core of modern naval power – and that it plans to build a larger carrier for itself in the future. The Royal Navy demonstrated that STOVLs would make smaller carriers viable. In 1966, the British government of the day canceled planned carriers with steam catapults, operating conventional aircraft, which would have replaced existing ships. It considered them too expensive. Existing carriers were kept in service but were not to be replaced. The explanation was that the Royal Navy would never operate far from the United Kingdom again; hence land-based aircraft would suffice to support it. The Royal Navy never considered this argument valid, and by the time the existing carriers were leaving service, it had convinced the government of the day to build STOVL or helicopter carriers. They emerged as the three Invincibles, two of which are still active. When war broke out in the Falklands in 1982, the new light carriers proved their value. Despite their small size and limited air groups, they also proved quite effective in crises such as that in Kosovo and during the enforcement of the No-fly Zone in Iraq. Each ship can operate 16 Harriers, four Sea King radar helicopters, and two other large helicopters. The Harriers are the land-attack type shared with the Royal Air Force; the specialized Sea Harrier, with its long-range radar and AMRAAM missiles, having been retired. That dramatically reduces the carrier’s ability to contribute to fleet air defense or, for that matter, to support strikes in the face of enemy aircraft. The British found that a carrier design could improve aircraft performance even without catapults. An airplane emerging from the flight deck at an upward angle could take off with a heavier load. The three British light carriers were the first in the world to incorporate such ski jumps, which became standard in most STOVL ships. The remaining two Invincibles should retire about 2012. This year, the British government ordered two 65,000-ton replacements – about three times the Invincibles’ size – which are to operate the new F-35B fighter. These ships are quite expensive, and cynics in the Royal Navy wonder whether they will suffer the same fate as the 1966 carriers, given British financial problems. The design is intentionally adaptable to steam catapults in the event the Royal Navy decides against STOVL. It may be adopted by the French if they go ahead with their planned second carrier. Current plans show 30 strike fighters, four radar aircraft, and six helicopters per ship. This relatively small claimed capacity may reflect the British practice of stowing all or most aircraft in the hangar when not in use. Using the same hull more the way the U.S. Navy does (the flight deck would then be the primary parking area) would greatly increase potential capacity. In the Invincibles, capacity was originally given as 10 aircraft, including four Harriers. The present figure reflects much greater use of the flight deck for parking. The advent of STOVL aircraft inspired other European countries to build small carriers. Spain bought a U.S. design (for the abortive U.S. Sea Control Ship), which emerged as Príncipe de Asturias. Spain later built a much smaller version for Thailand as the Chakri Naruebet (she operates ex-Spanish, first-generation AV-8A Harriers). The Spanish carrier can

Nimitz-class aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), top, and USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), middle, steam under way behind the Royal Navy’s Invincible-class aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious (R 06) during a multi-ship maneuvering exercise in the Atlantic Ocean June 29, 2007. While the Invincible-class carrier design proved itself in the Falklands, the shoestring nature of the Royal Navy’s victory helped the push for larger carriers.

CVN 77 H 213

world aircraft carrriers.indd 213

12/9/08 5:30:40 PM


We conduct the IT services. You receive the applause. What if you could orchestrate every phase of your IT’s life to keep it in tune with your business objectives? You can. With GTSI—the first company to apply the power of Technology Lifecycle Management to government IT. For 25 years we’ve helped Federal, state, and local governments successfully conduct their IT programs From design and engineering; to financing, integration, and asset management; to enterprise education. A symphony of services expertly arranged to satisfy every stage of the IT lifecycle. And all focused on one mission: Yours. For more information, call 800-999-GTSI. And hear what government IT is talking about today at GTSI.com.

qtrs2.indd 1

12/10/08 3:19:02 PM


world aircraft carriers

Italian Ministry of Defense

Conte di Cavour, Italyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s second carrier, combines aircraft carrier and amphibious capabilities.

accommodate a total of 28 aircraft: 12 AV-8B Harriers and 16 helicopters â&#x20AC;&#x201C; eight large and eight small. The smaller Thai carrier (12,000 versus 17,200 tons fully loaded) is assigned six ex-Spanish Harriers and six small helicopters. Like the French, the Spanish wanted a second carrier. They hit on an innovative solution. They also wanted a major amphibious ship, because it was clear that a major naval mission would be projecting power. Such a ship would land many of its troops by helicopter, so it would have a flight deck. The Spanish solution was to build a carrier/amphibious ship with a ski jump flight deck. This Strategic Projection Ship is named Rey Juan Carlos I, after the Spanish king. No air group has been stated, but an official picture shows seven Harriers and three large helicopters on the flight deck. The hangar can accommodate 12 large helicopters. Two sister ships are being built for the Royal Australian Navy (ordered June 2007), but at this time, they are seen as amphibious transports (Australia has not decided to buy the STOVL version of the F-35). STOVL also brought Italy into the carrier world. Italy built several cruisers with helicopter decks aft, then the full-deck Giusseppe Garibaldi. When she was built, the Italian air force had a monopoly on fixed-wing aircraft, with the Italian navy barred by law from operating them. The law was changed, and the Italian navy bought U.S.-built Harriers and modified

the ship to operate them. She is currently assigned 16 aircraft (Harriers and large helicopters). Then Italy built a second carrier, Conte di Cavour, about twice as large. Completed in 2008, she is broadly equivalent to the Spanish Juan Carlos, combining carrier and major amphibious capabilities, and also offering fleet flagship command facilities. She is to accommodate 24 aircraft, again a mix of Harriers and helicopters. Russia has one aircraft carrier, the Kuznetzov, which operates conventional aircraft from a ski jump deck (30 aircraft: Su-33 Flankers and Su-25 Frogfeet, plus helicopters). The system is called STOBAR (short take-off but arrested recovery). The Kuznetzov is the remnant of a considerable program that once included a nuclear carrier (the Ulyanovsk) with catapults and a second ski jump ship, the Varyag. Four earlier ships, beginning with the Kiev, were designed to operate Soviet STOVL fighters. Of this group, the Kiev and the Minsk ended up as Chinese theme parks, and the Admiral Gorshkov is now being rebuilt for the Indian navy (see below). The Kuznetzov operates periodically with a small air group, but she probably suffered badly when the Russians lost her building yard, at Nikolaev, to Ukrainian independence. Nikolaev had been the sole refit yard for large Russian warships. The Russians built a refit facility at Severomorsk specifically to rebuild the Gorshkov, so presumably it is not available to refit the Kuznetzov. That she operates rarely suggests as much. Russian

CVN 77 H 215

world aircraft carrriers.indd 215

12/15/08 4:23:30 PM


world aircraft carriers

admirals have said that they hope to have six carrier battle groups within two decades, but their critics have pointed out that Russia seems to lack anything resembling the necessary infrastructure either to build or to support such ships. Meanwhile, efforts to provide the Kuznetzov with carrier-suitable aircraft have provided the Russians with designs that can be exported to India (a carrier operator) and to China. India has been operating carriers since the early 1960s, when she received an ex-British light fleet carrier as the INS Vikrant. Because India has two separate fleets (Eastern and Western), the Indians want at least two and preferably three carriers. Another factor in Indian thinking is a strong desire to achieve technological independence; for example, the current Light Combat Aircraft is often touted as a future Indian carrier plane. As the Vikrant aged, the Indians received another ex-British carrier, the much larger Hermes, which was commissioned as the Viraat. Unlike the Vikrant (now retired), the Viraat was delivered with a ski jump and was limited to STOVLs; her aircraft are British-supplied Sea Harriers. As it is now more than 50 years since she was laid down, the Indians have been anxious to find replacements. The Russians offered the semi-carrier Admiral Gorshkov, which they offered to rebuild into the ski jump ship Vikramaditya, capable of operating conventional Russian aircraft (20 MiG-29Ks, plus helicopters). The ship would be handed over for free, the Indians paying only for reconstruction.

This project turned out to be far more complex and costly than had been imagined, the price tripling and the delivery date receding three years in 2008. The explanation was that the shipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wiring had to be replaced (she had been immobilized by a boiler fire in 1994), and the job was proving more difficult than had been expected. Indians had complained about what they considered an extortionate price when the project was announced in 1999, but by 2008, there was apparently no question of withdrawing. One reason was that the Russians also were ready to lease one or more nuclear submarines to India, a concession the Indians consider crucial to their own nuclear submarine program. There is some suspicion that funds intended for the carrier project were diverted to urgent but under-funded Russian national projects, such as completion of the new-generation strategic submarine, the Dmitri Donskoy. In line with her long-standing ambitions, India meanwhile is preparing to build a 38,000-ton carrier, the Air Defense Ship Vikrant, reportedly designed in Italy. The first steel was reportedly ordered in 2007, and the ship is scheduled for completion in 2015. Given the aircraft that India is currently planning to use on board (12 MiG-29Ks, eight Indian Light Combat Aircraft, and helicopters), she will have a ski jump. A second ship, the Viraat, is to be ordered in 2010 for completion in 2017. Then there is China, not currently a carrier operator but certainly a candidate. Some years ago, the Chinese bought the incomplete carrier

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Stephen W. Rowe

INS Viraat steams in formation Sept. 5, 2007, in the Bay of Bengal during exercise Malabar 07-2. The former Hermes, operated by the Royal Navy during the Falklands War, Viraat is more than 50 years old, and is due to be replaced. The aircraft are export versions of the British Sea Harrier FRS1.

216 H CVN 77

world aircraft carrriers.indd 216

12/9/08 5:31:00 PM


world aircraft carriers

Varyag, at that time rusting at her Nikolaev yard on the Black Sea. She was generally described as badly stripped during the days after the Soviet collapse, worth little except for scrap. Supposedly she was intended for use as a casino in Macau. The Turks objected to towing this derelict through their straits, on the theory that she might easily go aground (but it was also claimed that the U.S. government was unhappy with the sale). Perhaps remarkably, a senior Chinese Foreign Ministry official arrived in Turkey to promote the passage through the straits. By the time the hulk turned up in China, the Macau casino organization had disappeared. Varyag was put into a shipyard at Dalian, painted Chinese navystyle gray, and renamed Shi Lang. Whatever further work was done on her was either cosmetic or internal. As of early fall 2008, it was impossible to say whether she is being refitted for service. Some reports indicate that completion is being held up by difficulties in producing arresting gear, which the Russians presumably declined to supply. On the other hand, there are periodic reports that China is receiving the carrier version of the Su-33 operated from the Russian Kuznetzov. The Chinese have certainly talked from time to time about the virtues of carriers. Before the Varyag was bought, there was talk that they had built up a war chest to back their plans to gain full control of the South China Sea and its islands (which six countries in all claim). It was said that the Chinese understood that any naval force they sent so far from home would be naked without support by the kind of organic aircraft that a carrier provides. The Varyag would certainly fit this picture. On the other hand, the Chinese see U.S. carriers as a major barrier to any takeover of Taiwan. For this reason, their media often characterize the carriers as vulnerable to the point of uselessness. It is not clear that the Chinese would feel compelled to be consistent, but senior leaders reading about carrier uselessness might be less enthusiastic about funding the Varyag project. There has been speculation that the ship might ultimately serve only as a test or training ship, but those making this suggestion have never explained the difference between such a ship and a fully operational carrier. The Russians provided the Varyag with a multilayer self-defense system, and these weapons appear to have been stripped when work on the ship stopped. However,

Western carriers generally have very little in the way of self-defense, relying mainly on their escorts. Presumably the Chinese could do much the same. According to a recent report, the Chinese navy envisages building one or two carriers (Project 089) based on the Varyag, to be completed by 2015. They would have two steam catapults and would accommodate 30 to 40 fixed-wing fighter-bombers. Note that the Russians initially planned such catapults for the Kuznetzov class, but did not have them ready in time. According to the same report, they will be followed by a nuclear-powered carrier (Project 085) based on the canceled Russian Ulyanovsk, to be completed in 2020. If she materializes, she will be about the size and character of current U.S. nuclear carriers like George H.W. Bush. Finally there is Japan, whose constitution would appear to bar offensive warships such as carriers. Some years ago, the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force (JMSDF) formally accepted responsibility for shipping protection out to 1,000 miles from Japan. That did not seem to change the character of the force, but it might be pointed out that no provision was made for defense against anti-shipping aircraft â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which China currently operates (Japan does have Aegis ships that might provide a back-stop against anti-ship missiles). Japan has treated submarines as the principal threat to shipping, and on that basis, has a long history of building large destroyers with extra helicopters on board. They might be analogized to the Italian helicopter cruisers, in which case the Japanese equivalent to the Italian Garibaldi is the quartet of 13,500-ton (18,000-ton full load) Hyuga-class, flat-deck destroyers. They are somewhat larger than the Italian ship but somewhat smaller than the British Invincibles. As such, they can probably easily operate Harriers (they are currently credited with four helicopters). Japan is not currently scheduled to receive the F-35B, but presumably, it too could operate from these ships. Although they are classified as destroyers, it would be difficult to convince an observer that they are anything but small carriers â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and the JMSDF has been trying to build small carriers for some years. A cynic might suggest that the main point of building these ships is to test the reactions of neighboring countries, which often say that they fear a resurgent Japanese militarism as much as any threat. Hyuga is to enter service in March 2009.

CVN 77 H 217

world aircraft carrriers.indd 217

12/15/08 4:29:40 PM


where are the carriers?

WHERE ARE THE CARRIERS? By Norman Friedman

arriers like USS George H.W. Bush give the United States invaluable insurance in a very uncertain world. For decades, when crises have broken out, presidents have asked, “Where are the carriers?” because the carriers are often the only way to bring usable power quickly to bear. A long-range bomber or a missile can, it is true, cause destruction anywhere on the other side of the world, but a carrier brings sustained power, and also a threat of power that need not be used. Carriers also offer relief in crises like the terrible Asian tsunami, something no other kind of military unit can bring. Carriers are the core expression of American sea power. The United States is inescapably a maritime nation, because so much of what we need to stay alive comes over the seas. Carriers – and navies – matter because it is far easier to move anything heavy, from a load of cars to an air base, by sea than over land. It used to be said, for example, that it was less expensive to move a car from Japan to New York than from Detroit to New York. Similarly, it was far easier for the United States to move forces mainly by sea to deal with Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001, than it was for the Russians to move their army by land, over a far shorter distance, about two decades earlier. Not only is movement easier, but once in place, a naval force can remain on station at relatively low cost, both in terms of effort and in terms of political impact. Political impact increasingly matters:

credit

C

218 H CVN 77

where are the carriers.indd 218

12/9/08 4:41:47 PM


where are the carriers?

U.S. Navy photo

As seen from the cockpit of the lead aircraft, two F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters assigned to the “Wildcats” of Strike Fighter Squadron 131 (VFA-131) conduct combat missions over Afghanistan in April 2002. The Wildcats were part of Carrier Air Wing 7 (CVW-7) embarked on board USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67), deployed in the region in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Carrier aircraft provided the continuous air support that proved decisive in the first phase of OEF.

There is a vast difference between negotiating American presence at an army or air force base and simply placing a carrier strike group a few hundred miles offshore. The carriers, moreover, provide choices. It costs little to reinforce them or to withdraw them when some agreement is reached. Pulling down the U.S. flag when the Army or Air Force leaves some foreign country carries political weight, which may be unfortunate. Moreover, it is unlikely that even so rich a country as the United States can afford to maintain permanent garrisons around the world, even assuming that they would be welcomed. The carrier provides the influence we often need. It offers an enormous combat potential, but it does not have to exercise that potential the way a bomber flying over a foreign country does. Thus it can threaten our enemies – but it can be withdrawn if they pull back. It can encourage our friends without forcing them to cede us bases or to become responsible for armed action. It is a piece of American territory movable over much of the world, at our behest. These advantages are enormously important in a world in which we have interests in many places, and in which we may often want to act, but in a limited and controllable way. It seems particularly valuable to have such mobile bases available if we find ourselves fighting a global terrorist organization like al Qaeda, which will try to set up new bases as we attack it. The value of such flexibility was not always obvious. In the years immediately after World War II, it was argued that American security rested mainly on nuclear weapons, which would be delivered by heavy, long-range landbased bombers. It seemed that the existence of these ultimate weapons would deter any enemy and thus preclude any crisis short of all-out war. Then war broke out in Korea in June 1950; it was clear that nuclear weapons could not deter anything except all-out war. The North Koreans overran air bases in South Korea. American aircraft based in Japan could not spend much time over targets in Korea; they lacked range. In the crisis, naval aircraft on board a U.S. and a British carrier in the western Pacific provided the main air cover to the beleaguered forces on the ground. Half a century later, on Sept. 11, 2001, Americans discovered themselves under attack – mounted from a remote landlocked country, Afghanistan. It was obvious that the United States would retaliate, but how? The Russians had spent nearly a decade fighting in Afghanistan. One of their commentators

asked how the United States could make more than a token strike, since it had no bases in the neighboring countries. He was wrong: the United States had big gray mobile bases – aircraft carriers. They could move into the Arabian Sea, within striking range of targets in Afghanistan. Throughout the war there, carrier aircraft provided the continuous air striking presence that proved decisive. Long-range aircraft flying from distant ground bases could deliver heavier bomb loads, but they could not provide the sort of continuous coverage that troops on the ground badly needed. This sort of presence made it possible for the Marines to set up a base near the main Taliban center of Kandahar. Their presence in turn convinced many Afghans that they should side against the Taliban. The coalition forces won. The Taliban survived as rebels, but not as the government of Afghanistan that allowed or even supported the September 11 attack. A Nimitz-class carrier like George H.W. Bush is extremely expensive, and her aircraft add to that cost. The combination has proven well worthwhile. With the largest economy of any single country in the world, the United States is inextricably tied to dozens of countries overseas. As the current oil crisis shows, events far from our shores often affect everyone in our country. No matter what its view, every U.S. administration finds that it sometimes needs to be able to intervene, or at least to threaten to do so, abroad. Critics sometimes speak about an American empire, harking back to the British Empire of the past. Carriers symbolize the difference between the two. The British found themselves deploying troops around the world, because they had no other way to act in a crisis. Troops and colonies went together; the British sought to govern strategic places they needed, among other things, as bases to protect their vital global interests. The United States does have troops in many foreign countries, but generally as guests. We do not try to govern other countries. Yet we still have global interests, and they can still be threatened. We need some way of rushing our power to wherever it is needed. Carriers and their aircraft are the most effective way of doing so. Thanks to her nuclear power plant, George H.W. Bush can remain at sea almost anywhere in the world for months at a time. She can embody potential power, a way of convincing enemies or encouraging friends. Or, she can exercise that power, as in Afghanistan, or in the air defense of Saudi Arabia in 1990 after

CVN 77 H 219

where are the carriers.indd 219

12/9/08 4:42:01 PM


Š2006, 2008 Southwest Airlines Co.

103642_SWAADV8129_Milit.indd 1 southwest on temp.indd 1

3/25/08 3:19:11 7:37:22 PM PM 3/26/08


where are the carriers?

DoD photo by PH2 Lipski

A Fighter Squadron 1 (VF-1) F-14A Tomcat aircraft escorts a Soviet Bear-D maritime patrol aircraft during the 1980s. The Maritime Strategy of the era pitted aircraft carrier battle groups against the Soviet navy’s land-based bombers and strategic missile submarines in the event of war. Encounters between Tomcats and Bear “snoopers” were a routine event.

the Iraqis invaded Kuwait (and thus threatened the Saudis). Because the carrier is largely self-contained, she is effective as soon as she arrives. In the Saudi case, Air Force fighters were ferried in before the carriers arrived in the Gulf, but they arrived without ammunition and without spare parts. It was months before they could be considered effective for more than one flight each. As important, the carrier does not need permission for her presence. That is partly a matter of the freedom of the seas, but it also is because the carrier and her consorts can be expected to beat off opposition. Indeed, in a major war, the carrier would be expected to attract and destroy anti-ship forces, which might otherwise overwhelm other naval forces and thus deny us the free use of the sea near an enemy’s shores. This role was particularly important in the U.S. Navy’s approach to a potential war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The Soviets recognized as much in their own reaction

to the U.S. Navy. As it became clear that, were war to break out, the U.S. Navy would surge forward, the Soviets began to emphasize defense over offense. The key was that carriers and other U.S. naval forces could threaten the one naval asset the Soviets valued: the force of strategic submarines operating in the bastion near the Soviet Union. In this sort of war, the Soviets would have concentrated what offensive forces they had against U.S. carrier battle groups. The U.S. Navy view in the 1980s was that it could win such a battle and, in the process, break the Soviet navy. Victory would have solved the potential Soviet threat against vital NATO shipping in the North Atlantic. It would also have freed the U.S. fleet to attack the flanks of any Soviet advance into Western Europe. The carriers were essential because the Soviet naval threat was based largely on land-based bombers carrying missiles. Only carrier-based fighters could destroy these aircraft. Any alternative sea-based defense might have

CVN 77 H 221

where are the carriers.indd 221

12/9/08 4:42:16 PM


CUSTOM ALLOY CORPORATION Energy Products

cusDallas.indd 1

Global Solutions

12/10/08 2:19:21 PM


DoD photo by Cmdr. Leenhouts

where are the carriers?

warded off some of their missiles, but as long as the bombers survived, they could keep coming, and eventually the defense would have been exhausted. The naval thinking of the Cold War shows how carriers are, at the same time, offensive and defensive. They can gain air superiority or protect our access to the sea near an enemy coast by attracting and destroying an enemy’s anti-ship forces. No other naval asset has that sort of capability. One of the ironies of recent history is that our ability to appear without permission often makes it possible for us to protect friends abroad. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, he told the Saudis that they would face revolution if they invited Westerners in to protect them. Indeed, in his attacks on the Saudi royal family, Osama bin Laden regularly counts allowing non-believers into their holy kingdom as their cardinal sin. Clearly both Saddam and the U.S. government doubted that, by itself, the Saudi military could withstand an Iraqi attack. The Saudi royals, moreover, took Saddam’s political threat seriously. By moving carriers into the Gulf, the U.S. government could provide air cover to Saudi Arabia without causing embarrassment. Saddam realized that his threat was pointless. He withdrew it, perhaps because he would have lost more had the Saudis tested it and found it hollow. With Saddam’s

Ten ships of Task Force 155 gather during Operation Desert Storm. Leading the formation at left is the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga (CV 60), flanked by the guided missile cruisers USS San Jacinto (CG 56), top, and USS Thomas S. Gates (CG 51). At center is the nuclear-powered guided-missile cruiser USS Mississippi (CGN 40) flanked by the aircraft carriers USS America (CV 66), top, and USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67). At rear are, from top, the guided-missile destroyer USS Preble (DDG 46), the guided-missile cruisers USS Philippine Sea (CG 58) and USS Normandy (CG 60), and the guided-missile destroyer USS William V. Pratt (DDG 44). Moving carriers within striking distance of Iraqi forces after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 provided air cover for Saudi Arabia when other forces would have created a politically unacceptable situation.

CVN 77 H 223

where are the carriers.indd 223

12/9/08 4:42:29 PM


where are the carriers?

political threat gone, the Saudi government felt free to follow its interest in allowing coalition (including American) forces into the kingdom to help protect it, and ultimately to deal with the threat presented by the Iraqis occupying Kuwait. The carriers prevented Saddam Hussein from pushing the Saudis into a form of suicide. Later, the United States and Britain sought to rein Saddam in by enforcing a No-fly Zone over much of Iraq and also by pressing him to allow continuous United Nations weapons inspections. The aircraft they relied on were based both in Saudi Arabia and on carriers in the Gulf. In 1998, Saddam ejected the weapons inspectors, beginning the period of crisis that would lead up to the invasion of his country in 2003. The immediate U.S. and British response was an air strike, but the Saudis vetoed use of their bases. That left the carriers – the bits of U.S. and British territory in the area. Their aircraft carried out the necessary attacks. In effect, carriers made it possible for the two allies to act as they had to, whether or not other governments agreed. Agreement is often valuable,

but no government wants to give others a veto on its actions. The British found this experience so revealing that their government decided to build two large aircraft carriers to replace the existing small ones. Carriers like the Bush offer this sort of capability because in their 1,000-foot flight decks, they achieve what an airfield ashore has to pay for with 5,000- or 6,000-foot concrete runways and acres of fuel tanks and ammo and spare parts dumps. Moreover, that thousand feet can go anywhere in the world at over 30 knots – more than 33 miles per hour – for months on end. This is so remarkable that we never think about it. What made it possible? Until the advent of jets after World War II, these questions would not have been asked. World War II fighters really could take off in a few hundred feet, particularly if they were assisted by the wind a carrier could generate over her deck. Even slow escort carriers managed to operate front-line fighters. Before the war, some imagined that navies made special sacrifices to operate their aircraft from carriers, but that turned out not to

DoD photo by Cmdr. Leenhouts

An Attack Squadron 72 (VA-72) A-7E Corsair aircraft heads for its target in Iraq with a load of eight Mk. 82 500-pound bombs during Operation Desert Storm. The aircraft was also armed with an AIM-9 Sidewinder missile on its fuselage cheek-position point. VA-72 was based aboard the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) in the Red Sea.

224 H CVN 77

where are the carriers.indd 224

12/9/08 4:42:44 PM


where are the carriers?

be the case. In the Pacific, the U.S. Navy managed to deliver first-line land-based fighters from its smallest, slowest carriers. First-line naval fighters like the Corsair and the Bearcat equaled their land-based counterparts, which meant that they could successfully escort carrier strike aircraft against any opposition. Jets were a different proposition. They accelerated slowly, so they could not simply roll off a flight deck: They had to be catapulted off. They also were difficult to land onto a carrier because they approached at such high speeds. When jets appeared, the U.S. Navy faced a difficult choice. It could either reinvent its carriers, or it could accept that their aircraft could not survive in the face of new land-based aircraft. That would have been to limit carriers to subsidiary mid-ocean roles, such as anti-submarine warfare. It would have ruled out the role that has made U.S. carriers so valuable in a world of crisis rather than all-out war. Reinvention involved three linked problems whose solutions shaped all modern U.S. carriers. First was takeoff: Some way had to be found to accelerate an airplane to flying speed in a few hundred feet. In 1945, carriers already had catapults, which were used increasingly as World War II wore on. However, they offered nothing like enough energy to handle even small jets – and in 1945, the U.S. Navy was increasingly interested in large jets and in heavy carrierbased bombers. Second was landing. In 1945, carrier pilots landed by hooking onto arresting wires stretched across the after part of the flight deck. They had to fly very precisely in order to hit the wires just right. To do that, the pilot watched a landing signal officer (LSO), who in turn watched the approaching airplane. Using large paddles, the LSO signaled the pilot to correct his approach, to cut his engine, even to try again (the waveoff). The cycle of reactions between the LSO’s eyes, paddles, the pilot’s eyes, and reactions on aircraft controls was fast, but not fast enough for a jet. Also, the jet engine could not be cut out like a piston engine, so control was less complete than with earlier aircraft. It was much easier for an airplane to miss the wires. A third issue was the way the flight deck itself worked. By 1945, the U.S. Navy had developed an elaborate ballet of flight deck operation, in which landing aircraft were unhooked (from the arresting gear) and then pushed forward to a parking area protected by a crash barrier. This technique made for fast operation and it supported mass air strikes, but it depended on that protective barrier. Any airplane that missed a wire or that jumped the wires had to be stopped before it crashed into the parked planes forward. In 1945, it seemed that a single strong wire could suffice, because it would wrap itself around the propeller of an airplane hitting it. There were sometimes disastrous failures, when an airplane missed wires and bounced over the barrier, but they were rare enough that the method seemed good enough. The wire would have nothing to snag on a jet; it might well ride up the airplane’s nose and decapitate the pilot. Eventually the U.S. Navy adopted nylon nets, but the whole idea of landing an airplane into a mass of parked aircraft became less and less attractive as aircraft became larger and faster. Moreover, a jet missing the wires with full power still on did not have enough deck space left to take off for another try.

These problems became acute as the U.S. Navy sought to adapt carriers to operate heavy bombers and jet fighters after World War II. Because priority went to the heavy bomber, attention initially went to the catapult problem. The existing type was hydraulic, its power ultimately limited by the strength of the wires used to transmit energy to the catapult shoe. The U.S. Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics saw a solution in a gun-type catapult powered by explosives; its piston would be analogous to the bullet in a gun. It would accelerate an airplane more directly, so the strength of wires wrapped around pulleys was not a factor. Development proved difficult. There also was some question as to where on board a carrier, with so much packed into its hull, the magazine for catapult charges could be placed. Meanwhile, the British also were interested in higherpowered catapults, in their case more for jet fighters than for bombers. They also saw gun-type or slotted-tube catapults as a solution (both navies based their thinking on the catapults the Germans had invented to launch V-1 missiles), but they were interested in steam rather than explosives as a propellant. Probably the key innovation by their designer, C.C. Mitchell, was a means of sealing the catapult track so that relatively little steam was wasted. The British routinely passed information on their innovation to the U.S. Navy, but through 1950, the Bureau of Aeronautics showed little interest. Apparently it was the U.S. naval attaché in London, Capt. Apollo Soucek, who alerted the office of the Chief of Naval Operations to the British development. A naval aviator, he was well aware of the catapult problem. He arranged for a demonstration at Norfolk. The Bureau adopted the steam catapult, although as late as 1959 it was still working on the explosive-driven type it preferred. Steam catapults made modern jet naval aviation possible because they were the only way to launch a heavy airplane from a carrier deck. The success of the steam catapult seems to have opened U.S. eyes to British carrier innovation. The next important one was carried to the United States by exchange test pilot Capt. E.M. Brown. It had a complex history. The British had a different reason for disliking the standard U.S.-type flight deck, which had been adopted during World War II. After the war, they became interested in the potential of jet aircraft without landing gear, which could land on, in effect, an inflated rubber mattress. Eliminating landing gear would save weight, and that, in turn, might translate into higher performance. The trouble was that it took time to lift the airplane off the mattress and move it onto a trolley so that it could be catapulted off again. Aircraft carrier capability depended on how fast the flight deck could cycle aircraft through landings and takeoffs. Cutting numbers dramatically in order to gain a few percent of performance was hardly worthwhile. It occurred to the prospective commanding officer of the new carrier HMS Ark Royal that the landing-on mattress did not have to be lined up with the take-off area. If it were angled out of the way, aircraft could be lifted off and placed to one side without interfering with takeoffs. The next step was to realize that the landing area of any carrier could be angled in this way. A jet missing the wires and bouncing over the barrier would simply continue off the flight deck, without crashing into the parked

CVN 77 H 225

where are the carriers.indd 225

12/9/08 4:42:56 PM


Del Monte is a proud supporter of all the hardworking men and women in the United States Military

Š2008 Del Monte Foods. All RIghts Reserved.

PRODUCTS & SERVICES Vessel Management Systems

Closed Circuit Television Systems

[ADVANCED OILFIELD + MARINE SYSTEMS]

Ballast Control and Monitoring Systems Machinery Plant Monitoring and Control Systems Electronic and Standard Drilling Instrumentation Systems Specialized Offshore Active Heave Compensation Controls

US NAVY LCS Small Form Factor EOT

MPCMS GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER USCG Mackinaw

STANDARD & ELECTRONIC Drilling Instrumentation 100+ Rigs

Ballast Control Tank Gauging 20+ Rigs / Ships

NYC DOT Molinari Class MPCMS HMI

Glenn Edwards-Manson Consoles & Alarm Systems

[ADVANCED OILFIELD + MARINE SYSTEMS]

Channelview, TX 77530 USA

Tel: 713-896-7799 Fax: 713-896-7722 www.electrowaveusa.com

delmElect.indd 1

12/10/08 2:27:26 PM


where are the carriers?

U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate Airman William R. Crosby

An F/A-18 Hornet from Strike Fighter Squadron 105 (VFA-105), the “Gunslingers,” launches from the flight deck of USS Enterprise (CVN 65) during nighttime strikes against Iraq during Operation Desert Strike. When Saddam Hussein ejected weapons inspectors from Iraq in 1998, carriers provided the only means of carrying out a retaliatory air strike.

aircraft forward. Moreover, an angled deck was well adapted to jets, which could not cut their power as they landed. If they missed wires, they could simply keep going, climb, and come around again. The British were initially lukewarm to this invention, but the U.S. Navy became enthusiastic, testing the angled deck first by painting lines on the carrier USS Midway and then by building a flight deck extension onto the carrier USS Antietam. The carrier USS Forrestal, in effect the lineal ancestor of George H.W. Bush, incorporated both British innovations. In her case, the angled deck had another great advantage. It provided much more landing width. When the postwar supercarrier USS United States was designed in 1948, she was given a completely flat flight deck, her superstructure sunk at its sides, mainly in order to accommodate an expected new generation of enormous aircraft with broad wings. Although it was not obvious at the time, this arrangement would have caused considerable problems. Carriers really did need islands projecting well above their flight decks to control flight operations. They really did need radar masts. United States would have handled radars on both sides of her flight deck as parts of the same radar – a difficult procedure – and it was widely believed that such a “blind” carrier would need a separate “pilot fish” ship to guide her. Disposing of the smoke from her massive power plant would also have presented real problems. With an angled deck, the Forrestal could have a perfectly conventional island and the usual relatively simple radar installation.

The British also solved the landing problem. Their brilliant innovation was to use a mirror to give the pilot a direct indication of whether he was on the correct landing path. By 1954, the Bureau of Aeronautics badly wanted some more efficient replacement for the LSO – it even tried a kind of robot LSO – but nothing could give the landing pilot fast enough reactions. The British proposed a mirror surrounded by lights. The pilot could see whether he was above or below the required path. The U.S. Navy enthusiastically adopted the mirror landing sight and then replaced the mirror with a Fresnel lens and lights, which the pilot saw as red or green depending on whether he was landing correctly. The carrier does far more than simply operate airplanes. It controls them. The U.S. Navy led in this process. During World War II, it and the Royal Navy jointly developed the combat information center (CIC), which collected information from both the carrier and other ships in order to control defending fighters. CIC technology triumphed in the June 1944 Battle of the Philippine Sea. Although the attacking Japanese found the U.S. fleet first, carrier CICs directed U.S. fighters into position to destroy almost the entire Japanese carrier air arm. Later, the Japanese introduced kamikazes, which overloaded these centers. For about a decade after World War II, both the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy sought some way of automating the centers to deal with the new threats of fast and numerous attackers.

CVN 77 H 227

where are the carriers.indd 227

12/9/08 4:43:08 PM


where are the carriers?

The U.S. Navy led in adapting digital computers to this task. Computers could form a meaningful picture out of the mass of radar and other data available to the carrier. Digital links connected aircraft and carrier, adding to the carrier’s information and making it possible for the carrier (and an airborne information center as well) to direct fighters toward assigned targets. It turned out that the combat system computers could also help in carrier operation itself, helping to land aircraft automatically at night and in bad weather, and thus turning the carrier into a 24-hour system. A series of special radars precisely measured the speed and position of the incoming airplane. Their data were fed into a combat system computer on board the carrier, whose commands to the incoming airplane were sent via a special data link to the airplane’s autopilot. As might be expected, such automation entails a slower landing pattern than the brilliantly simple visual system, but it has had profound implications for carrier warfare. With the advent of the Global Positioning System (GPS), it became possible to eliminate the special radars; the airplane knows where it is at all times, and it can transmit that information to the carrier. All-weather air control has become a much stealthier process, helping shield the carrier from

discovery. The system in the Bush is JPALS, the Joint Precision Approach Landing System. Here, “joint” means joint service, and it emphasizes the fact that the system does not rely on special carrier radars. In the aftermath of the Cold War, carriers like the Bush are used more to attack targets ashore than to beat off massed enemy air attacks. The defensive computer technology of the past was expanded into modern systems that give the carrier air controller a picture of the situation ashore. Just as the point of automating the CIC was to handle more enemy attackers, the point of current automation is to direct the carrier’s main battery, her aircraft, to deal with more targets ashore. That requires automated mission planning, the means for which the U.S. Navy has been developing for about 20 years. Such automation in turn requires that the carrier have access to a mass of information held ashore, such as satellite photographs of the target area. Getting that information to a carrier requires satellite links, which, in turn, involve special antennas. Other special antennas receive information from carrier-based reconnaissance aircraft. Typically, the results of mission planning are inserted into the airplane at flight time, using a special cartridge. These data go into the airplane’s

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kyle D. Gahlau

Operations Specialist 1st Class Marlon Patterson stands the ship’s weapons coordinator watch in USS Kitty Hawk’s (CV 63) combat direction center on Nov. 14, 2007. Kitty Hawk was participating in ANNUALEX 19G, an exercise that allowed the U.S. Navy and the Japan maritime selfdefense force to enhance military-to-military relationships and improve both naval forces’ capability for coordinated and bilateral operations. The U.S. Navy and Royal Navy led the development of the combat information center, predecessor to today’s combat direction centers on board carriers, to control aircraft and fleet assets and manage the battle.

228 H CVN 77

where are the carriers.indd 228

12/9/08 4:43:20 PM


where are the carriers?

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kyle D. Gahlau

From left, Lt. Andrew Leatherwood, Lt. Matthew Beaghley, and Lt. Marc Foreman perform pre-flight checks on the early warning radars onboard an E-2C Hawkeye from Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 115. Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft were another key development, the “eyes in the sky” stretching the carrier’s vision and reach.

mission computer. The computer carries the detailed route to the target as well as a mass of other information such as radio frequencies and identification codes – which, in earlier times, would have been set manually by a pilot. The U.S. Navy initially placed mission computers on board its fighters so that they could be directed automatically to intercept attacking enemy aircraft. The same fighters are used for attack, and their mission computers have been adapted to control attacks. Thus the data link developed to direct a fighter toward an incoming bomber can be used to revise the attack flight plan on board a fighter-bomber, directing it toward a new target. The combination of smart bombs and automated planning makes it possible for a carrier and her aircraft to strike many targets in a day. For a carrier, every additional antenna carries a special cost, because it must be mounted on or around the flight deck. Flight deck space is at a premium because free space determines, among other things, how quickly an airplane can be serviced and turned around to fly again. Current U.S. military thinking emphasizes the sheer

speed with which enemy targets can be attacked, the idea being that an enemy will be unable to handle fast-paced combat. For a carrier, the measure of pacing is how many targets her attack aircraft can strike each day. When the Nimitz class was conceived and its flight deck laid out, it was assumed that aircraft would overwhelm target defenses by their sheer mass, approaching from as many directions as possible. Planning to ensure that aircraft evaded enemy defenses en route to the target, yet managed to concentrate as required, was a laborious manual process. Quickly turning around airplanes to hit new targets must have seemed pointless. The ship’s internal arrangement, particularly the placement of her magazines (hence her bomb hoists to the flight deck), was set mainly by the need to separate vital components, like the reactors, to make it impossible to stop the ship with a single hit. Much the same applied to flight deck arrangement, with well-separated elevators and with separate bow and amidships sets of catapults. This configuration cannot be changed

CVN 77 H 229

where are the carriers.indd 229

12/10/08 10:23:57 AM


Sea Tel on temp.indd 1

12/2/08 1:21:58 PM


where are the carriers?

USAF photo by Master Sgt. Dave Ahlschwede

A U.S. Navy F/A-18C Hornet aircraft assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-105 prepares to refuel during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The aircraft is armed with AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, GBU-12 Paveway II 500-pound laser-guided bombs, and AGM-154A Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOWs). Precision guided munitions have transformed military aviation, with a single aircraft now able to strike multiple targets during a mission.

without totally redesigning the ship. That will come in the next class of carriers. The difference is that modern aircraft operate dramatically differently. Mass attacks used to be needed not only to overcome defenses but because each airplane had only a limited probability of hitting a point target. Smart bombs changed that; a single airplane could be sure of hitting the target. However, they had to be delivered from a relatively short range, so target defenses still dictated mass attacks. Moreover, one airplane could hit only a single target per flight. The situation changed again with the advent of GPS-guided bombs. Their accuracy does not depend on how close the launching airplane comes to the target. They can, then, often be launched from outside enemy defensive range. A single airplane can attack several targets on each mission. George H.W. Bush shows how much can be done with a flight deck conceived for a very different kind of war. Reducing the number of aircraft without shrinking that vast flight deck makes it possible to turn them around more quickly. The Bush can strike as many as 120 targets a day. No other kind of ship offers this capability. Missile destroyers and cruisers can fire long-range Tomahawks, but only in limited numbers. Moreover, it is nearly impossible to replace their weapons at sea, because it is difficult to maneuver them into those ships’ vertical launchers. By way

of contrast, George H.W. Bush and her predecessors have wide elevators at their sides, onto which weapons can easily be maneuvered from another ship. Once on board, they are stowed in the ship’s magazines, ready for issue to her aircraft. A carrier’s magazines hold about 2,000 tons of weapons, but typically she works with a replenishment ship carrying more thousands of tons, enough to replenish her magazines several times. Thus a carrier can maintain a steady stream of attacks, interrupted only by her need to replenish at sea. Any other sort of ship would have to go back to port to replace her relatively small stock of missiles. Compared to her predecessors, the Bush has a modified hull form with a large bow bulb offering better seakeeping. Her island and radar mast have been redesigned, because at some later date, she will probably be refitted with a coming generation of fixed-array radars – SPY-2 and -3. In contrast to earlier Nimitz-class carriers, she has vertical launchers for her longer-range defensive Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missiles, which are supplemented by Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM) rather than by Phalanx close-in defensive guns. The new missiles can be fired before attackers cross the ship’s horizon, because she shares the detailed radar picture of her consorts via the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system. Vertical launching greatly improves their coverage around the ship. CEC is integrated into the ship’s new combat direction system.

CVN 77 H 231

where are the carriers.indd 231

12/9/08 4:43:35 PM


plankowners

USS George H.W. Bush Plankowners Command Leadership CAPT KEVIN E. O’FLAHERTY CAPT S. ROBERT ROTH CMDCM JON D. PORT

Plankowners 0-1 and Up LT MICHAEL ALBUS LT MICHAEL ALDRICH LTJG MICHAEL ALTEMUS LT HIRAM ANDREU LCDR ROBERT ANSELM LT JAVIER ARAUJO LT TREVOR ARNESON LT MARVIN ATKINS CDR JEFFREY AUSTIN LTJG DAVID BALL CDR KENNETH BATES LT TREVOR BAUMGARTNER LCDR MICHAEL BICKFORD LT KENNETH BLACKNER LT NEIL BONNETTE ENS GERALD BOULLESTER LTJG SHELLEY BRANCH LTJG CHRISTOPHER BRAVA LCDR GEORGE BRICKHOUSE LT LONDON BRIDGET LT MATTHEW BRUZEK LCDR TERRY L. BUCKMAN LT ROBERT BURGETT CDR WILBERT BYNUM CWO5 WASH CARTHON LTJG MARC CASTILLO LT CHRISTOPHER CATON LT DAVID CAVANAGH CWO3 JAMES CHAVEZ CWO3 TONY COCHRAN

CDR JAMES CODY LTJG JOSE COLON CWO3 ROGER COOKE LCDR STANLEY COOLEY LT SCOTT COONAN LTJG QUENTIN COOPER LT ERIK COPLIN LTJG ASHWIN CORATTIYIL LT SAUNDRA COWARD CWO4 WILLIAM CREWS LT ROBERT CROCETTA LT MICHAEL CURETON LCDR WILLIAM DAVIS LT KEVIN DAVIS LTJG HEIDI DAVIS LT TRAVIS DAWSON LT CARRIE DREYER LT STEVE DWYER LT ERIC EDGE LT RICARDO ENRIQUEZ LTJG ROBERT FAIRLIE LTJG JONATHAN FRANCE CWO2 JIMMY FRIEL LCDR GARY FUSELIER CWO4 THOMAS GAINE LCDR ROBERT GELINAS LCDR BRIAN GENTON LTJG GREGORY GENTRY LT CORINNE GERSHON ENS JOSEPH GNIK LTJG JOSHUA GRAUEL LCDR BUNN GRAY CDR ERIK GREVE LT BRIAN GRONDIN LT IVAN GUMBS LT LEIF GUNDERSON LTJG AMY HAAG

LT DAVE HALLIWELL LTJG SEAN HARNER LT JAMES HARRIS LT MARVIN HARRIS CDR LAURA HATCHER LT ROBERT HAULENBEEK CDR JEFFREY HICKOX LCDR LEON HIGGINS LCDR ROBERT HINES CDR CODY HODGES LT JAMES HOPP CWO3 KEVIN JENKINS CDR MICHAEL JENSEN LT VERN JENSEN LCDR JEFFREY JONES LCDR CARTHER JORGENSEN CWO4 DENNIS JOYCE LT ANTHONY JUNGBLUT LCDR COLLIN KIGHTLINGER LT TRAVIS KING LCDR DANNY KING LT ANTHONY KOSS CWO2 MARK LABAIRE CWO2 RICHARD LANGBEIN LT RUSSELL LAWRENCE LT JAMAAL LOFTON LTJG CHARLES LONGEWAY LT GEORGE LUCIER CWO3 JOHN LUKEIVIC ENS TU LUONG LT JEREMY LYON CAPT LEE MANDEL ENS DANIEL MANNIS CDR PATRICK MCLAUGHLIN LCDR MICAJAH MCLENDON LCDR BARBARA MERTZ CAPT DEWOLFE MILLER

232 H CVN 77

plankowners.indd 232

12/10/08 1:18:46 PM


plankowners

CDR JEFFERY MILLER LTJG ROSS MILLER LTJG CURTIS MITCHELL LT JEFFREY MOEN LCDR HALLOCK N. MOHLER JR. ENS DIANNA MORGAN LT CHRISTOPHER MORRIS LCDR CHARLES MORRIS LTJG DANIEL MOYNIHAN LT JAMEY MYERS LT JACK NAFPLIOTIS LT ANDREW NALL LT THELMA NASH LT DAVID NEALL CDR DAVID NELSEN LT MATTHEW NICHOLAS LCDR ROBERT NICOLOSI LTJG JACQUES OLIVIER LT ALLEN OWENS CDR GREGORY PRENTISS CAPT MARK QUAGLIOTTI CDR ROBERT QUINN CDR MICHAEL D. PATTERSON LTJG CHRISTOPHER ROBINETTE LT DAVID RODEBUSH CWO4 DANNI ROGERS LTJG WILLIAM ROMPS LCDR GREGORY ROSE LT CHRISTOPHER ROUILLARD LTJG WILLIAM RUSSELL LT SHANE SABLOTSKY LT MARK SANDERS LT THOMMY SANTIAGO LT CHRISTOPHER SAUNDERS LTJG CHRISTOPHER SCHMIDT LCDR VIRGINIA SCHMIED LCDR CARL SCHOLLE LT DAVID SCHULTZ CWO2 WARREN SHAW LCDR WILLIAM SMITH LT MAURA STANCHAK CDR ROBERT STANDLEY LCDR MATTHEW STEVENS CDR ROBERT SULLIVAN LT XIAO SUN CDR SHANNON TERHUNE LCDR KIMBALL TERRES LT JAMES THOMAS LT KIMBERLY THORNHILL CDR DAVID TIDWELL LT JONATHAN TIGHE LT WILLIAM WALKER CWO2 BRYANT WALKER CDR MICHAEL WALLS CDR MATTHEW WEBBER LT DAVID WHETSTONE ENS TIMOTHY WIES

LT ARTHUR WIGGINS JR. LT MARC WILLIAMS LCDR JOSHUA WILSON LT DANE WILSON CWO2 KENNETH WILSON CDR ALLEN WOOTEN LCDR GLENN WRIGHT LT ANDREW WROBEL LCDR JULIAN WYATT LCDR MARK YATES CWO3 KEITH ZACCAGNI LTJG PAUL ZITO

Plankowners E-7 through E-9 ABCM KELY CHARLES AW/SW ABEC DONOVAN ASHLEY AW/SW ABEC FRANK BARTANOWITZ AW/SW ABEC HUBERT CHAMBERS AW/SW ABEC ANTHONY JACKSON AW/SW ABEC WILLIE NEWSON AW ABEC CLIFTON OSTWALD AW ABEC FREDRICK PATTON AW/SW ABEC ERIK REED AW/SW ABEC WILLIAM SPARKS AW/SW ABEC WILLIAM ZIMMERMAN AW/SW ABECS WAVERLY BROOKS AW/SW ABECS DERRICK CLAXTON AW/SW ABECS ORLANDO MARTINEZ AW/SW ABECS TIMOTHY SUHR AW ABFC TARRY JONES AW ABFC JACOB MUEHLS AW ABFC ANTHONY PATTON AW/SW ABFC HECTOR RESPETO ABFC ROBERT SPARKS AW/SW ABFC WILLIAM TIRADO AW/SW ABFCS JAMES VAUGHAN ABHC ANTHONY ALEXANDER AW/SW ABHC LANCE BUTLER AW/SW ABHC PHILIP HICKMAN ABHC MICHAEL LAWSON AW ABHC LYNDON PEABODY AW/SW ABHC JOHN PELLERITO AW/SW ABHC JAMES PRIEST AW/SW ABHC TERRANCE THORNTON ABHCS BRIAN BLACKMON AW/SW ABHCS RAYMOND BLANTON AW ABHCS MARTIN JIMENEZ AW/SW ACCS WILLIAM JOY AW/SW ACCS YVONNE TOPF AW/SW ADC SCOTT MANKOSKI AW/SW ADC JACQUELYN REECE AW ADCS KEITH MCCAULEY AW ADCS SCOTT PISTELLA AW/SW AEC RANDALL ASBURRY AW/SW AEC PAUL ISAAC AW/SW AFCM KURT SCHASSBERGER AW

AMC VIRGILIO ESTEVES AW AMCS CHARLES WALTER AW/SW AOC GARY ALLISON AW/SW AOC CHRIS CIAVOLA AW/SW AOC JOSEPH DOYLE AW AOC PRENTICE EWING AW/SW AOC MARION FAIREY AW/SW AOC WILLIAM FELITON AW/SW AOC SHERROD FISHER AW/SW AOC COREY GROJEAN AW/SW AOC NELSON HERNANDEZ AW/SW AOC WAVER JOHNSON AW AOC LUCIEN PENN AW/SW AOC JEFFERY SHAW AW/SW AOC TANYA TILMON AW/SW AOC KEITH TOY AW AOC CARLOS WATKINS AW/SW AOC TIMBERLAIN WOODRUFF AW/SW AOCM ORLANDO MAPP AW/SW AOCS JOSE DIAZ AW AOCS DELORES SHEPHERD AW/SW ASC MICHAEL BALLARD AW/SW ASC DWAYNE CARSWELL AW/SW ASCS TERRY DOSS AW/SW ATC JAMES DICE AW/SW ATC NANCY ESTRADA AW ATC RAYMOND FISHER AW/SW ATC STEVEN HARSHMAN AW/SW ATC JEFFREY INGRAHAM AW/SW ATC STEVEN ISBILL AW/SW ATC MARK JOHNSTON ATC TODD LIED AW ATC PHILLIP MILLER AW/SW ATCS HAROLD BOTHWELL AW/SW ATCS RONALD BURGESS AW/SW AVCM MARK ASTIN AW AVCM ERIC OITZMAN AW/SW AZCS ROBERT MONTAGUE AW BMC CHARLES CUEMAN SW BMC WHITTAKER GREEN SW/AW BMCS ALTON SMITH SW/AW CSC DEMETRIUS BURTON AW CSC TRAVIS HALE SW CSC HOSANNAH QUINO SW CSCM LARRY ASKEW SW/SS CSCS PAULETTE WILLIAMS SW/AW CTMC DONALD HARRIS SW CTRC DAVID OLSON SW CTTCS CRAIG BAR SW DCC SHERRIL JONES SW DCCM DANIEL THERIAULT SW EMC KEVIN BRELAND SW EMC ERNEST CRUZ SW EMC DOMINICK FREDERICK SW EMC STEPHEN JOLLY SW EMC JOSHUA JORGENSEN SW EMC MATTHEW METZ

CVN 77 H 233

plankowners.indd 233

12/10/08 1:18:54 PM


plankowners

EMC EMILIO PACLOB SW/AW EMC FRANCIS WALIGUR SW/AW EMCM FRANK VALDEPENA SW/AW EMCS JOHN LYONS AW/SW EMCS CLAVER YANO SW ENC SAMUEL BERNAL SW ENC JASON HAMBURGER ENCS LUTHER FOSTER SW ETC RICHARD ARMSTRONG SW/AW ETC JAMES CZEISZPERGER ETC JAMES DELNICKI SW/AW ETC TIMOTHY GERTON SW/AW ETC GREGORY RENO SW/AW ETC JAMES TAYLOR SW/AW ETC ERIC THOMSON SW/AW ETCM SCOTT BURDICK SW/AW ETCM BURDICK SCOTT SW/AW ETCS RALPH GLENN SW/AW ETCS ERIC REYNOLDS ETCS MICHAEL RIDDELL AW ETC ROY VANTERPOOL SW ETC CHAD WALLACE SW ETCS CHRISTOPHER MILES SW/AW FCC ANTHONY COLLIVER SW/AW FCC ERIC KRAMER FCC CHRISTOPHER SPINDLE SW/AW FCCS BARRY REHNERT SW/AW GMC WESLEY BURTON SW GMCM MICHAEL M. HUNTER SW/AW HMC CHRISTINE CARDOZA SW/AW HMC LASHAWN HAWKINS SW HMC GEORGE MANDAKUNIS SW/AW HMC JOYCELYN THOMPSON FMF HMCS JOSE NEGRON AW/SW/FMF HTC MICHAEL RICHARDSON SW/AW HTC TIMOTHY RIGSBY SW HTC CHRISTOPHER SMITH SW ICC MICHAEL GRUENLOH SW ICC JOHNNIE MILOW SW/AW ICC DWAYNE WASHINGTON SW/AW ISCM RICK BEABER SW/AW ITC CHRISTOPHER HALL SW ITC HEATHER HENDERSON SW ITC VERNELL HORTON SW/AW ITC THOMAS MULLALY SW/AW ITC LANDELL RHODES SW ITCM CARLTON GRIFFIN SW/AW ITCM TERRENCE MITCHELL SW/AW ITCS PATRICE COSBERT SW ITCS ANGELA ELDER SW ITCS PAMELA JOSEPH SW ITCS KIRK RAY SW LNC SHANNON MINIXPRYOR SW/AW MAC ANTHONY FULK SW MAC KIMBERLY KADISH SW MACS KEVIN CURTIS SW MCC AARON STRICKLAND SW/AW

MCCS DENNIS TAYLOR AW/SW MMC GABRIEL ABALOS AW MMC ERIK ADAMS SW/AW MMC GLENN BORDERS SW MMC GERALD BOURRELL SW MMC KEVIN COPELAND MMC DAVID DOUCET SW MMC MARK GLASS SW MMC BENJAMIN GROUDLE SW MMC JEFFREY HISER SW/AW MMC KELLY HOLSCHUH SW MMC CYNTHIA HURATIAK SW MMC DENNIS IVY SW MMC MICHAEL JOHNSON SW MMC LLOYD JONES SW/AW MMC ADAM KLEINHOLZ SW/AW MMC DERRICK LEE SW MMC JAMES MENTO SW MMC THEODORE REUTER SW MMC PATRICK SULLIVAN SW MMC ROBERT WILLIAMS SW MMCM SAMUEL CAVINESS SW MMCM ALFRED FULLER SW MMCM MICHAEL JORDAN SW MMCM ALLAN LOWE SW MMCM CRAIG PERKINS SW/AW MMCS BRIAN BEUTNER SW/AW MMCS KENNETH COWEN SW/AW MMCS SCOTT ENGLISH SW/AW MMCS JOHN OTIS SW MMCS JAMES STOUDER SW MRC ALVIN MCEADY SW NCC RAYMOND CUNNIKIN JR. SW NCCS MARY, FELICITAS BURROUGHS SW/ AW/IUSS OSC BARTT BARNES SW/AW OSC MATTHEW TRIMBLE SW/AW OSCS BRIAN STANKIS SW PCC CHAD MCCANN SW PRC LOUIS DOBBS AW/SW/FPJ PSC PATRICIA AUGHTRY SW/AW PSC DYRELL C. MAGALING SW PSC VINCENT L. MURRAY SW/AW QMCS PERRY EVERIX SW/AW RPC EDDIE WILLIAMS SW/AW/FMF SHC HILTON NEWTON SW/AW SHC LYNFORD RABSATT SW SHCM KENNETH CARTER SW/AW SKC GREGORY BELL SW/AW SKC DARROW CLARK SW/AW SKC STEVEN CORNELL SW/AW SKC SAM EASLEY SW/AW SKC DANTE FERRER SW/AW SKC TIFFANY FINCH SW/AW SKC TODD LENHART SW/AW SKC NORMAN MANSFIELD SW/AW SKC MICHAEL PHILLIPS SW/AW

SKC ASTTON ROCHA SW/AW SKC CARLOS VASQUEZ GARCIA AW/SW SKCM TERRY PERSON AW SKCS KIRK BLY SW SKCS JORGE MACIAS SW/AW SKCS WILTON MILLER SKCS BERYL O’CONNOR SW/AW YNC JULIO BECKER SW/AW YNC JERRY BUTLER SW YNC JOSE CABRET SW YNCS DARRIN BOBBITT SR. AW

Plankowners E-6 and below ABE1 JEAN BAKER AW ABE1 JOEL BENAVIDEZ AW ABE1 BRIAN DARRISAW ABE1 TEDARIO EDMOND AW/SW ABE1 KELVIN ELAM AW ABE1 DANIEL HAYES AW ABE1 RODNEY LARKINS AW ABE1 RONNIE MARSHBURN AW ABE1 JAMIE MCLEAN AW ABE1 JIMMIE PERKINS AW ABE1 MCKENZIE RHYMER AW/SW ABE1 ROBERT ROY ABE1 JORGE SANTIAGO FIGUEROA AW ABE1 KEITH SINSEL ABE1 MICHAEL STEPHENS AW ABE1 JOSEPH TURNER AW/SW ABE1 DEXTER WALTON ABE1 MELANIE WHEATLY AW/SW ABE2 GEORGE CINTRON AW/SW ABE2 TELLY DILLARD AW/SW ABE2 DOMINICK FELICIANO AW/SW ABE2 KENNETH FLONNOY AW/SW ABE2 JAIME GODOY ABE2 VICTOR GOMEZ AW/SW ABE2 DEXTER HARRIS AW ABE2 CONNIE HENRY AW ABE2 SETH HUMPHRIES AW ABE2 BRIAN IRVINE AW ABE2 TERRANCE JONES AW ABE2 DONALD JOSEPH AW ABE2 SAMGAR MENDOZA ABE2 JOHNNELL MYERS ABE2 ROGER NUFER AW ABE2 VICTOR PAULINO AW/SW ABE2 BRYAN PHILLIPPE ABE2 KOREY TERRELL AW ABE2 ALICIA WORTHINGTON AW/SW ABE3 GEORJANIA ANDERSON ABE3 VICTOR AYALA ABE3 MANUEL CEDANO ABE3 JOSHUA ESCUETA ABE3 VONJA FINNEY ABE3 CHRISTOPHER KIRKPATRICK

234 H CVN 77

plankowners.indd 234

12/10/08 1:19:05 PM


plankowners

ABE3 ROBERT TURRONE ABE3 ASHLEY WALLER ABE3 BRADLEY WILLIAMS ABEA DUSTIN MESSNER ABEAA GODFREY ADENIRAN ABEAA CALEB BARKSDALE ABEAA DAVID CAMPBELL ABEAA JOSEPH CHAPMAN ABEAA JESSE COUSINS ABEAA KYLE EVETT ABEAA DUANE HAMMOND ABEAA OMAR HARRIS ABEAA JESSICA HOOK ABEAA SUZANNE LAURENT ABEAA RYAN J. MILLER ABEAA DONELL RESURRECCION ABEAA ANDRICO STINSON ABEAN KATHRYN ADOLAY ABEAN ANTIONETTE ARNOLD ABEAN JULIO BALL ABEAN CURTIS BELL ABEAN MORIS BLANCO ABEAN NATHAN FLOWERS ABEAN ASHLEY GILLARD ABEAN JAMIE JONES ABEAN MEGHAN LEINING ABEAN SHANA PEDRAZA ABEAN HECTOR PICHARDO MARTINEZ ABEAN JUAN ROMAN ABEAN ANDREW SMITH ABEAR PATRICK ADGERSON ABEAR BEATRICE ALVAREZ ABEAR MICHAEL BARNETT ABEAR ROBERT BEASLEY ABEAR MARQUIS BRYANT ABEAR STEVEN BUMBALOUGH ABEAR DEANNE CRAIG ABEAR SHAUN DELP ABEAR SHALAMAR HENDERSON ABEAR CHRISTOPHER HOPE ABEAR JOSHUA HUESTIS ABEAR YORK JORDAN ABEAR BRANDON MARTINSON ABEAR KEVIN MESSER ABEAR RYAN J. MILLER ABEAR MAC MORGAN ABEAR JONATHAN POLANCO ABEAR GERALD PRESLEY ABEAR TENESHA RAZOR ABEAR STETSON ROLLE ABEAR BRIAN RUBLE ABEAR ELLIOTT STEPHENS ABEAR ANDRAE STERLING ABEAR CEALIDH WHALEN ABEAR DONOVAN WILLIAMS ABEAR JUSTIN WILSON ABEAR ARIANA ZAMORA

ABF1 FRANKIE ALVARADO AW/SW ABF1 JASON BUTTS ABF1 DEMEA EDWARDS AW/SW ABF1 DAVID LAFAVE AW ABF1 BRIK WILEY AW ABF2 WARREN BASKING AW/SW ABF2 MARK DAVIDSON AW ABF2 GEORGE DEKLE JR. ABF2 GARY GORDON AW ABF2 WILLIE JONES AW ABF2 SCOTT JONES AW/SW ABF2 CHRISTOPHER LEACH AW ABF2 ERIC MANIGAULT AW ABF2 JENNIFER MORGAN AW/SW ABF2 MELVIN NAVALTA AW/SW ABF3 MARIE BECK ABF3 ROBERTO FRANCO AW ABF3 GREGORY GLENN AW/SW ABF3 WALTER GRIFFIN ABF3 RAY HOLLAND ABF3 CAMPBELL INGRAM ABF3 BRYAN JONES ABF3 ANDREW LAPP ABF3 PAMELA LAUREANO AW ABF3 TODD LOSURE ABF3 YAMIL ORTARAMIREZ ABF3 CURTIS RAY ABF3 LEAH ROBERSON ABF3 MELANI THOMPSON AW/SW ABF3 ANTHONY URTARTE ABFAA XAVIER AMOS ABFAA ANDREW BRAY ABFAA RONALD HILL ABFAA AMBER JANKOWSKI ABFAA ANTHONY KIRCHNER ABFAA ALAN SMITH ABFAN LECURTRICIA ANGLIN ABFAN NICHOLAS HEARN ABFAN RICHARD JONES ABFAN KENNETH MCCOY ABFAN JOHN MCNEILE ABFAN KIMBERLY MINIACI ABFAN TONY PATTERSON ABFAN JONATHAN PRYOR ABFAN ADAM SETHRE ABFAN BENJAMIN SLATER ABFAN RICK SUSON ABFAN AARON VAUGHAN ABFAN ROBERT VILLAFANE ABFAN JADE WOODS ABFAN CHRISTOPHER WU ABFAR TRAVIS BARROWS ABFAR ALSTON CAINES ABFAR TIMOTHY CARROLL ABFAR CHRISTINA EMERSON ABFAR SAMUEL ESCAMILLA ABFAR KAYLA FAVARA

CVN 77 H 235

plankowners.indd 235

12/10/08 1:19:16 PM


plankowners

ABFAR JAMES GARNER ABFAR ADAM HAMEL ABFAR CHRISTOPHER HARRIS ABFAR MONIQUE HARRIS ABFAR BRYAN HERRING ABFAR TONITA HICKS ABFAR SEAN HINTON ABFAR EMILY HOLEWINSKI ABFAR CHRISTOPHER JACKSON ABFAR SHANTEL JETER ABFAR WILLIAM KOVAC ABFAR MARK KRAMER ABFAR KEVIN LE ABFAR ANHAR MANDWEE ABFAR JEREMY MAWHINNEY ABFAR AKEEM MAYNARD ABFAR BRADLEY MONTGOMERY ABFAR ADAM RICHARDSON ABFAR JUSTEN STACEY ABFAR ELMARCENIA STAPLETON ABFAR BRYAN SULLIVAN ABFAR DANIEL WALLACE ABFAR DEVONTI WARREN ABFAR PAUL WHITE ABFAR COURTNEY WILLIAMS ABFAR DESTINY WISE ABFAR SAMANTHA WOODS ABH1 MATTHEW BORNHEIMER AW ABH1 CLAUDIO CORVALAN AW ABH1 SEAN DEVEREAUX AW ABH1 FELICIA DIGGS AW/SW ABH1 JAMON DRIVER AW/SW ABH1 ARIC FRENCH AW ABH1 ENZO GANDOLFO AW ABH1 JEROME GAYNOR AW ABH1 KEITH GERMANO AW ABH1 RAMONE HARRIS AW/SW ABH1 JENNIFER LYLES AW/SW ABH1 KENNETH MACHADO AW ABH1 FREDERICK MARTIN AW/SW ABH1 ANDRE MOOG AW/SW ABH1 ASMAR NEWSOME AW ABH1 GREGORY PIAZZA JR. AW/SW ABH1 SHAWN RILEY AW/SW ABH1 HAROLDO RODRIGUEZ MORALES AW ABH1 FRANKLIN SANTIAGO AW/SW ABH1 VANDIE SMITH AW ABH1 PEDAR STALEY AW/SW ABH1 BRENT STOKES AW/SW ABH1 DAVID THOMPSON AW/SW ABH1 CHRISTOPHER WAITERS AW/SW ABH1 LOUIS WEBER AW ABH1 ANTHONY WILLIAMS AW ABH1 DEXTER YARDE AW/SW ABH2 ADONIS ANICETE AW ABH2 BRADLEY ANTHONY AW/SW ABH2 JAMIE BROWN

ABH2 TRAVIS BUSH AW/SW ABH2 JASON CHAPMAN AW ABH2 KYLE CURRAN AW/SW ABH2 MARLON DALEY AW ABH2 RENATO DELEON AW ABH2 TAVIS DELONG AW ABH2 MICHAEL DIAZ AW/SW ABH2 ANTHONY GOOD AW ABH2 JASON HOLLEY AW ABH2 ANDREW JILCOTT ABH2 JUNIOR JOSEPH ABH2 STEVEN KOVACK JR. AW ABH2 KELLY LAWHORN ABH2 ROBERT MCCOY ABH2 JAMES MOYE AW ABH2 DAVID NELSON AW ABH2 REUBEN NICHOLSON AW ABH2 DERELL OLIVER AW ABH2 KOURTNEY OSBORNE AW ABH2 EDWIN PEREZAVILA AW/SW ABH2 STEVEN PHAKONKHAM AW ABH2 EDWARD SANTIAGO ABH2 JASMATTIE SINGH AW/SW ABH2 DEWAYNE SMALLS ABH2 DAVID SOARES AW ABH2 CHRISTOPHER WASHINGTON AW ABH2 KEARY YOUNG AW/SW ABH2 JOE ZAVALA AW ABH3 SALAAM CRAFT AW ABH3 JORENGED FONT AW/SW ABH3 WESLEY GIVIN AW ABH3 STEVE KIGHT AW ABH3 STEVEN LILLY ABH3 JOLON MARTIN ABH3 RUSTIN MCKINNON ABH3 HECTOR PERALTA AW ABH3 DOUGLAS PHARR ABH3 RODRIC SMITH AW ABH3 WILMARIE TORRES RODRIGUEZ AW/SW ABH3 HAKEEM TURNER AW ABH3 BRETT VORDERSTRASSE ABH3 VICTORIA WERTS ABH3 BENJAMIN WILLIAMS AW ABHAA MICHAEL ALEXANDER ABHAA TANITA BECK ABHAA TROY BROWNING ABHAA RONALD CALVERT ABHAA DAVID CASADOS ABHAA CESAR CUEVAS ABHAA CHRISTOPHER DIODATO ABHAA STEPHEN DREILING ABHAA MICHAEL DUDASH ABHAA DANIEL GONZALES ABHAA EPIFANIO GONZALEZ ABHAA JEFFREY GRAHAM ABHAA KATIE HEILMANN

ABHAA JESSE HICKS ABHAA BRENDAN HILLMAN ABHAA ZEBULON KEMP ABHAA RICHARD MARTINEZ ABHAA JESSICA MCCUTCHEON ABHAA KARLA MOUZAKIS ABHAA ALVINO NOYOLA ABHAA EUGENIO PENALOSA ABHAA CHRISTINA PENNETT ABHAA DESTINY PHILLIPS ABHAA TENZIN SANDOP ABHAA KEITH SMITH ABHAA KAHONEOKAMAILEOAUKEKULELI SPEED ABHAA FREDRICK STONEHAM ABHAA CHRISTOPHER WELLS ABHAN AMBER ANDERSON ABHAN NORMAN AVELENDA ABHAN JEREMY BALZAN ABHAN JACQUELYN BOOKER ABHAN NATHANIEL BURNSIDE ABHAN KATIRIA CEDENO ABHAN PRELESH CHAND ABHAN TAYLOR CHANDLER ABHAN SETH-MICHAEL CHASE ABHAN MARCUS CONNER ABHAN MARIA CORDERO BOJORQUE ABHAN LUIS DIAZMULERO ABHAN MARCO ESTRADA ABHAN ABEL FABIAN ABHAN ROBERT FARLEY ABHAN ANTHONY FITZGIBBONS ABHAN BRANDON FRYAR AW ABHAN ZACHARIAH GAMBLE ABHAN STEVEN GOFF ABHAN PRISCILLA GOMEZ ABHAN KRISTEN HAMMAN ABHAN VALERIE HARRIS ABHAN STEPHEN HENRY ABHAN CHRISTINA HUBBARD ABHAN JAMES JOHNSON ABHAN RYAN JONES ABHAN TIMOTHY JONES ABHAN JAYME KAINE ABHAN JOHN KEEGAN ABHAN JASON KLEIN ABHAN STEPHANIE LANGHORST ABHAN CORDERA LEWIS ABHAN JOHN LEWIS ABHAN JUSTIN MARTINEZ ABHAN KODY MCQUAY ABHAN RYAN P. MILLER ABHAN JESSICA MOE ABHAN TARICK MUHAMMAD ABHAN MATTHEW PANTALEONE ABHAN JENNIFER PENA ABHAN HENRY RANKIN

236 H CVN 77

plankowners.indd 236

12/10/08 1:19:25 PM


plankowners

ABHAN OLGA REYES HERRERA ABHAN HEATH RIGGS ABHAN RAMON RODRIGUEZ AW ABHAN JESSICA SANTOS ABHAN JASON SCHRATZ ABHAN CHRISTOPHER SMIGELSKI ABHAN VICTOR SOTO ABHAN RYAN SPARKS ABHAN ORLANDES STEGALL ABHAN CHRISTOPHER WALTON ABHAN RONALD WARREN ABHAN HANS WIEDENHOFER ABHAN DARRELL WINSTON ABHAN KEVIN YATES ABHAN+A1128 JOHN KEEGAN ABHAR JANAE ADAMS ABHAR MICHAEL ALVES ABHAR DESIREE ANDERSON ABHAR MICHAEL BALLARD ABHAR DAVID BELLEGARDE ABHAR ANGELICA BELTRAN ABHAR BILLY BOAT ABHAR TYREISE BOWENS ABHAR LFETAYO BRUNS ABHAR STEPHAN BUTSCH ABHAR SHAKOY CAMPBELL ABHAR DAVID CASTELLANOS ABHAR ANTONIO CHING ABHAR DILLION CLOUD ABHAR ADRIAN CORNELL ABHAR MEGAN COTTER ABHAR JOHN CRESPO RAMIREZ ABHAR SARA CRUZ ABHAR ERICK DIAZ ABHAR ALEJANDRO DIAZ MARIN ABHAR LARRY DUNKLE ABHAR JAMES EDWARDS ABHAR ALLISON EMBREE ABHAR CHRISTOPHER FARINELLA ABHAR CARLOS FREYRE ABHAR REBECA GARCIA ABHAR BRANDON GONZALES ABHAR SHANICE GREGORY ABHAR THOMAS HERRICK ABHAR ROBERT JONESBEST ABHAR ROEANA KEARNEY ABHAR MICHAEL KING ABHAR JUSTIN KOEHLER ABHAR CHRISTOPHER LANDRUM ABHAR JOSEPH LEROY ABHAR GEORGE LISCIO ABHAR JACK LOBUE ABHAR JOSEPH MAGILL ABHAR JAJUAN MANGUAL ABHAR ERIC MATTONE ABHAR JACKSON MCEVER ABHAR EDWARD MORGAN

ABHAR GILBERTO MUNOZ SILVA ABHAR GREGORY NELSON ABHAR RYAN OLSON ABHAR CESAR ORTIZ ABHAR CHRISTOPHER PEREZ URIBE ABHAR RUSSELL PHELPS ABHAR JILLIAN PRENDERGAST ABHAR MARCOS RENTERIA ABHAR SUSAN RENTERIA ABHAR LATOSHA RITCHEL ABHAR ENRIQUE SANCHEZ ABHAR KEITH SMITH ABHAR ANDREW SMITH ABHAR THERESA SMITH ABHAR ADAM SMITHERAM ABHAR EUGENE SMUSHKOV ABHAR RENZO SOBREVILLA ABHAR ANDREW SOCORRO ABHAR ANDRES SOSA ABHAR COREY TUBB ABHAR SPENCERLEE VARDAKIS ABHAR JOSUE VASSALLO ABHAR JASON VINK ABHAR ANDERW WEBER ABHAR DENILYA WILLIAMS ABHAR KIMBERLY WILLIAMS ABHAR MICHON WILLIAMS ABHAR MONIQUE WILLIAMS ABHAR ADAM WILLIS ABHAR JAMIRE WIMBERLY ABHAR JOSHUA WINTERS ABHAR CORIE YBARRA AC1 KELLIE COOK AW/SW AC1 CHRISTOPHER HEFFERNAN AW AC1 LARRY ROSE AW/SW AC1 DALE WAGNER AC2 BRUCE GOMEZ AW AC2 ROSALYN JOSEPH AC2 ALAN QUEARY II AC2 PETER RUTKOWSKI AC3 NATHANIEL FREEMAN AC3 JOSEPH HEALE AC3 MOHAMMAD LODHI AC3 JOHN MYERS AC3 LUIS PACHECO AC3 KELVIN THOMPSON ACAA KYLE REED ACAN MARK HESSEY AW ACAN JOHNATHAN JONES ACAN MARGARETTE MCVEY AW ACAN MATTHEW TOCCO ACAR CHRISTOPHER CONNORS ACAR NIKOLAS EWALDT ACAR RACHELLE FEURER ACAR ALEXANDER HAMILTON JR. ACAR JUSTIN LAMBERT ACAR CHRISTOPHER ROMERO

CVN 77 H 237

plankowners.indd 237

12/10/08 1:19:36 PM


plankowners

ACAR SEAN SAUSMAN ACAR TEKOA WALKER AD1 ERWIN BANSIL AW AD1 SCHAL BODU AW/SW AD1 JOSE CABRAL AW AD1 JONATHAN FISCHER AD2 MARISEL ANDINOLABOY AD2 KARL BLEY AW AD2 JUAN JIMINEZ AW/SW AD2 JOHN MONROUZEAU LOPEZ AD2 GIOVANNI ORTIZ AW AD2 JOEL PEREZ ABHAR LARONZO COLEMAN AE1 NATHANAEL BURROUGHS AE1 TIFFANIE JOYNER AW AE1 CHARLES KELLEY AW AE1 JAMES MAURER AW AE1 DAVID STILES AW AE2 DUSTON DEAN AE2 SONYIA JOHNSON AE2 MATTHEW MOEN AE3 THOMAS ROYER JR. AEAR ANGELINA LEMMON AG1 NICKLAS GARNER AW/SW AM1 PAUL ARMSTRONG AW AM1 TIMOTHY BABCOCK AW AM1 JOSEPH GUMPHER AW AM1 GLENFORD MORGAN AM1 TRENSON WEISSGERBER AW/SW AM1 JUAN ZAMORA ORTIZ AW AM2 PATRICK DAVIS AW/SW AM2 MICHAEL ESCALENTE AW AM2 TIMOTHY LENTZ AW AO1 BRIAN ATHEY AO1 DONALD BEACH AW AO1 SHAWN CRISWELL AW AO1 WILLIAM DAVENPORT AO1 DARRELL DEES AW AO1 ROBERTO DIAZ AW/SW AO1 DONNIE DOWELL AW AO1 WILLIAM DUPIE AW AO1 ROBERT FERREIRA AW AO1 ARCHIE GITTENS AW/SW AO1 SEAN GOGUEN AO1 TIMMY HAMILTON AW/SW AO1 KEITH HASKER AW AO1 SIMON HERNANDEZ AW AO1 ALPHONSO HICKS AW/SW AO1 JOHNNY JANDA AW/SW AO1 NICOLA JOHNSON AW/SW AO1 WAYNE JONES AW AO1 RONALD LEE AW/SW AO1 KRYSTAL MAHONEY AW AO1 MICHAEL MOHR AW AO1 CHRISTOPHER MORRISON AO1 TODD MYER AW AO1 MYRON PRESCOTT AW/SW

AO1 JASON ROBBINS AW AO1 GEORGE ROBERTS AW/SW AO1 JAMES ROMINGER AO1 RICARDO SALICRUP AW AO1 PAUL SHEBYSTEPHENSON AW AO1 GREGORY SHERMAN AW/SW AO1 DAVID STEELE AW AO1 ROGER TESSON AW AO1 JASON VANPATTEN AO1 JAMES WALTON AW/SW AO1 THOMAS ZIMMERMAN AW AO2 LEVITICUS ARNOLD AW AO2 KIM BENNETT AW AO2 WILLIAM DOYLE AW/SW AO2 TYQUAN FIGUEROA AW AO2 MARK GILL AW AO2 CHRISTOPHER JACO AW AO2 MICHAEL JONES AW AO2 JOEY MCEWEN AO2 RONNIE NICHOLS AW/SW AO2 ANTHONY OMO AW AO2 ENRIQUE RIOS AW AO2 TONY ROBESON AO2 JASON SCOTT AW/SW AO2 LUIS SOLIVERAS VALENTIN AW AO2 ROBERT THOMPSON AW AO2 DANIEL TORRES AW AO2 COURTNEY USHER AW/SW AO2 RYAN WALTERS AW AO2 CECILIO ZORRILLA AO3 MICHAEL CRAIG AO3 DAVANAE DENSON AO3 LUIS DIAZ AO3 PETER GROCUT AO3 CRYSTAL JOHNSON AO3 JACLYN MCDANIEL AO3 RAUL MINJIVAR AO3 MICHAEL MOFFATT AO3 CARRIE NEAL AO3 KENNETH ROGERS AO3 JEREMY ROOKS AO3 BIANCA SIKES AO3 JONATHAN SUTHERLAND AO3 JENNIFER TAVAREZ AO3 MICHAEL WILLIAMS AO3 DALLAS WILSON AOAA DANIEL ANDERSON AOAA RAYNA BEILMAN AOAA MICHAEL BOLINGER AOAA ELIZABETH CANTU AOAA KYLER DIAL AOAA ANTONIO DOMINGUEZ AOAA MIRANDA FUQUA AOAA WILLIAM HAZARD AOAA JESSE HUGHES AOAA JOHN JAQUITH AOAA BRUCE JAZWINSKI

AOAA JAIME JOHNSON AOAA XIEANNE KOEHL AOAA JOSEPH LEE AOAA NANCY LOPEZ AOAA STEPHEN LOWRY AOAA RYAN LUCKMAN AOAA CHRISTOPHER MADSEN AOAA KYLE MCDONOUGH AOAA JUSTIN MCGOWEN AOAA CHRISTOPHER MOLLISE AOAA BOBBY MULLER AOAA STEVE ORTEGA AOAA RYAN ORTISI AOAA DANIEL PHILLIPS AOAA JOSE RAMIREZ AOAA GEORGE RANKIN AOAA AMBER RILEY AOAA TYLER SCHULZ AOAA ROBERT SCRUGGS AOAA STEVEN SIMON AOAA KILLIAN SKAFLESTAD AOAA TRAVIS SMITH AOAA AYRON STRATTON THURROTT AOAA RANDALL WOOD AOAA LARRY ZEIGLER AOAN ANTONIO ABREGO AOAN PHILLIP BARTON AOAN TYREES BINGHAM AOAN CODI BITTNER AOAN ARCADIO BLAIR AOAN JENNIFER BLUNT AOAN TYNEISHA BREAUX AOAN ANDREW BRIORDY AOAN MATTHEW BURRIER AOAN GENELL CARRASQUILLO AOAN COURTNEY CARTER AOAN MICHAEL CASSADY AOAN JORDAN CLARK AOAN CHRISTOPHER CUSUMANO AOAN AMANDA DAME AOAN THOMAS DAY AOAN DOROTHY DEVERA AOAN MERCEDES DRIGGERS AOAN STEPHEN DULANEY AOAN JAMIE EUGENIO AOAN LC GLOVER AOAN FRANKIE GUEVARA SEPULVEDA AOAN ERIC HUGHES AOAN CLARENCE HUNT AOAN MARIA HUTCHINSON AOAN JAVIER INIGUEZ AOAN MICHAEL JACOLA AOAN BRIAN JONES AOAN ALBERT LATUCH AOAN JOSEPH LEMNREARDON AOAN TYLER LESLIE AOAN ROBERT LITTLE

238 H CVN 77

plankowners.indd 238

12/10/08 1:19:47 PM


plankowners

AOAN RUBI MARTE AOAN JONATHAN MCALLISTER AOAN ALEX MCKELVEY AOAN RICHARD MOYER AOAN JUSTIN NEW AOAN AMBER NYDAM AOAN RAMON ORTIZ AOAN GUY POWELL AOAN ADRIAN REDDICK AOAN MICHAEL RIVERA AOAN ANGELA ROBERTS AOAN JUSTIN SCHAEFER AOAN BRIAN SCHAFFER AOAN DANIEL SHERMAN AOAN CORNELIUS SMITH AOAN RICARDO SOCASTRO AOAN ALONZO THOMAS AOAN MICHAEL THORNTON AW/SW AOAN JOHN TRACEY AOAN TITUS TURNER AOAN HAMLET URROZ CARDENAS AOAN JHATYNE WALKER AOAN LAMAR WARE AOAN CORRY WARNER AOAN KENNETH WILKERSON AOAR COLE ANDERSON AOAR JAMIE APARICIO AOAR CHARLES AUMAN AOAR JEREMY BAILEY AOAR MICHAEL BLANTON AOAR DANIEL BOVA AOAR ZACHARY BUCHANAN AOAR JOI BURROWS AOAR MICHAEL CAESAR AOAR JUSTIN CAGLE AOAR SEAN CAMPBELL AOAR RONALD CANADY AOAR RYAN CAPPELLO AOAR PATRICK CARPENTER AOAR BRYAN CHAVEZ AOAR SHAUN CHAVOYA AOAR RODOLFO CHINO AOAR JODIE CRAIG AOAR JENNIFER DAVIS AOAR TIFFANY DIXON AOAR MICHAEL DOWNEY AOAR RICHARD DUBEAU AOAR KURTERIC ELLIOTT AOAR KRISTIN EVANS AOAR ABEL GALVAN AOAR BRAULIO GARCIA AOAR DEMETRYI GUPTON AOAR JEREMIAH HARWOOD AOAR MONIQUE HENRY AOAR RAYMUNDO HERRERA AOAR GEOFFREY HOLLAND AOAR FRANCIS JOSEPH

AOAR TOBIAS KUFAHL AOAR KENNETH LEFFLER AOAR TAWANZA LEONARD AOAR DEREK LEWIS AOAR RAYMOND LOPEZ AOAR GABRIEL LUGO GUZMAN AOAR BRANDON MCCOMMON AOAR ALICE PHRAKONKHAM AOAR BRANDON POWELL AOAR JESSIE RIVERA AOAR LEWIS RUIZ AOAR ANDREW SCHNEIDER AOAR JEREMY SCOPE AOAR WILLIAM SHAW AOAR TIFFANY SUTTER AOAR SAMANTHA TAICH AOAR BREANNE TYRRELL AOAR DANIEL WEST AOAR RONALD WILDER AOAR HOLLY WILKINSON AOAR RANDALL WOOD AOAR RANDALL WOOD AOAR DEREK WRINKLE AS1 JAMES BUSH AW/SW AS1 MARY DUGIE AW AS1 MANFRED GOODEN AS1 DANIEL PARKER AW AS1 CURTIS RUSH AW/SW AS1 HERBERT SANTOS AW AS2 MARTIN BIRCH AS2 MATTHEW BRANDVOLD AS2 ALBERTO CEJA AS2 WASHINGTON CEVALLOS AW AS2 ROBERT DEMERY AW AS2 PHILLIP EDWARDS AS2 RACHEL FORD AS2 ANTHONY JONES AW/SW AS2 JASON MALECKI AS2 JAMES MAYHEW AW/SW AS2 CHRISTOPHER MORGAN AS2 PAUL RANALLO AW AS2 MICHAEL WILLIAMS AW AS2 LORNE WRIGHT AS2 CRAIG YASKOW SW/AW AS2 LEE YONTZ AW AS3 AMBER ESTEP AS3 JAMES JEWETT AW AS3 KYLE MATTOCKS AS3 ANDY SHUM ASAA TYRONE ALEXANDER ASAA TREVOR NEUROTH ASAA JEFFREY PLUMMER ASAN TYLER BELL ASAN VINCENT BENAVIDES ASAN ANTONIO ESCOBEDO ASAN LATOYA GRAHAM ASAN ERIC HOYT

ASAN DALE KOCH ASAN WALTER MIMS ASAN JEREMY MORRIS ASAN LIONELL VERNON ASAN KEVIN WALSH ASAN JOSHUA WILLIAMSON ASAN TYLER WORTHEN ASAN HANSEL ZAPATA AT1 ERVIN BLANKENSHIP AW/SW AT1 LEWIS CHANCY AW/SW AT1 ROBERT DERR AW AT1 RAYMOND GOMEZ AW AT1 PAUL HEALY AW/SW AT1 JAMES KENT AW/SW AT1 SUZANNE LONG AW AT1 ELIEZER MARTIZ FIGUEROA AW AT1 JOHN MICKEY AW/SW AT1 TRACY MOORE AW AT1 WILLIAM MOSS AW/SW AT1 KEVIN MOTT AW/SW AT1 JAMES RINER AT1 DAVID TULLIO AW AT1 RICHARD VELTE AW AT1 CARL WAGNER AW/SW AT1 DANIEL WESSLING AW/SW AT2 KEVIN BOLTON AT2 RANDALL BURROWS AT2 SHELLYANN CAPLETON AT2 TROY CLAXTON AW/SW AT2 JEFFREY CROSS AW AT2 ROBERT DIEDRICH AW AT2 ANDREW FOLSOM AT2 MARCANTHONY GUTIERREZ AW AT2 SHELDON HUNTER AW/SW AT2 BENJAMIN LISKEY AT2 GLENN MAUNEY AT2 MUMBATA NGBANDU AT2 JASON OEHMANN AT2 IL PARK AT2 ANTONIO RIVERA AT2 ANGEL RODRIGUEZ MARTINEZ AW AT2 STEPHEN ROLKA AW AT2 CHAD SETSER AT2 RILEY VINCENT AW AT3 KYLE ARNOLD AT3 BRYAN BENNETT AT3 TYLON BRUMFIELD AT3 BARRY DODGE AT3 LEE GAY AT3 RUSSELL JONES AT3 JOSEPH KONDZER AT3 WILLIAM RAMOS JR. AT3 JEFFERY SHOCKEY SS AT3 LAMONTE STANFIELD AT3 JEFFERY STEWART AT3 FRANZISKA SUBLETTE ATAA SELENA CLEMENTS

CVN 77 H 239

plankowners.indd 239

12/10/08 1:19:55 PM


plankowners

ATAA ASHLEY RAITER ATAA ANDREW SABATER ATAN MICHAEL JORCKE ATAN RYAN LANGBEHN ATAN BRIDGETTE MCFATE ATAN MISTY WOLFE AZ1 CINDY BATTLE AW/SW AZ1 RAMON FRANCISCO AW AZ1 RUSSELL PUGH AW AZ1 MELVIN WROTEN AW AZ2 SHERRON CARDWELL AW AZ2 MOSHEEKA FIELDS AZ2 JANEA GADDY AW/SW AZ2 KEVIN RHEW AZ2 SHAMEKIA RUSH AZ2 DEQUAN THOMPSON AW/SW AZ2 TERESA WHITE AW/SW AZ3 CARLOS DIAZ TORRES AZ3 KEVIN GATELY AZ3 JAMES ROGERS AZ3 YEROVI SANGURIMA AZ3 FREDERICK SCHMIDT AZ3 HECTOR TAPIA AZ3 ALEXANDER WILLIAMS AZ3 WILLIAM ZWICKER AZAN FREDERICK HALL AZAN KARLY KISH AZAN DAVID TIRADO AZAR CHRISTOPHER BAKER AZAR JORDAN WRIGHT BM1 JASON CHISM SW BM1 ROBERT HIBBS SW BM1 JUSTIN NOELKE SW BM1 VERLIN PHILLIPS JR. SW BM1 MOSTAFA MOHAMED RASHED SW BM1 FAWNYA RASMUSSEN SW/AW BM1 MICHAEL RUFFIN SW BM1 DANIEL WAUTERS BM1 JENNY WILLIAMS BM2 TREVOR BALL BM2 TAKESHA BROWN SW BM2 RANDAL CRIBB SW BM2 DERRICK DAVIS SW BM2 PETER GRANOZIO BM2 TARNISHA JENKINS BM2 HECTOR LABOY JR. BM2 JESUS LOPEZ SW/AW BM2 DAVID MOLAISON JR. BM2 VARTAN SARKISSIAN SW BM3 HUBERT SAWYER SW BM3 MARIO SMITH BMSA RAUL FELIPE CHAVEZ BMSN DEREK PAYTON BMSN RISCINDA ROGERS BMSR NELSON DAVIS BMSR CHARLES NORRIS BMSR COREY TURNER

BMSR MICHAEL WOODWARD CS1 DOUGLAS BLANTON SW CS1 CHADWICK BRADFORD SW/AW CS1 MICHAEL BRINKMAN SW CS1 SUSAN GRAHAM SW CS1 MATTHEW HOUSTON SW CS1 PHILLIP PIERRE SW/AW CS1 VALARIE SCOTT SW CS1 JOYELL STAFFORD WRIGHT SW CS1 SHANNON WALLACE SW/AW CS2 JOEL BATTUNG SW CS2 THOMAS BLAHA CS2 DAHLIA BROOKS SW/AW CS2 CHARLES BRYANT CS2 NAKIA HUDSON CS2 ARACELY JORDAN CS2 ERIC LANSTRUM CS2 LONNELL NEELY CS2 WILLIE PEARSON SW CS2 ALICIA PITTS CS2 JAMIE ROBINSON SW CS2 WILSON SANTIAGO SW/AW CS2 JOSE VALENCIA GOMEZ SW/AW CS2 GAINERS WELLS CS2 TIMOTHY WHITMAN CS3 BRIAN COSSAK CS3 SEQUITA TRUSTY SW CSSA JUSTIN ALLEN CSSA MELISSA BURNETT CSSA RAYNARD ELLINGTON CSSA RONALD HOLTBRANTLEY CSSA CHRISTOPHER HUGGINS CSSA RILEY MAHONEY CSSA BLAKE RHODES CSSA RIKKI ROBINSON CSSA RYAN WATERS CSSN MARRION ASHLOCK CSSN TIFFANY JACKSON CSSN TAWNY RECTOR CSSN AJAMU SAUNDERS CSSN MATHEW WEBB CSSN JONATHAN WHITAKER CSSR PETER BERTHELSEN CSSR JOHN BRILL CSSR CLAUDIE CUMMINGS CSSR STEVEN DEMBEK CSSR JUSTIN EDWARDS CSSR JIMMEL EVANS CSSR DONTELL FEATHERSTONE CSSR BRANDI GALBRAITH CSSR JAMES GLENN CSSR CHARLES GRINSTEAD CSSR AARON HAMMOND CSSR GERALD HARRIS CSSR MARC HOTZ CSSR JUSTIN KASICA CSSR MATTHEW KELLER

CSSR MICHAEL KNORR CSSR EUSEBE LAFLEUR CSSR MATTHEW MCQUOWN CSSR TARECA MILLS CSSR SAMUEL NOONKESTER CSSR CHAD REYNOLDS CSSR SEAN SEISAY CSSR RAYMON SOLOMON CSSR FUAVEA TAILELE CSSR MATTHEW TOMPKINS CSSR LEESA ZILEMPE CTM1 JASON HEINEN SW CTM2 SETH VICKERY CTR1 ALLEN CARPENTER CTR2 ARTO JOHNSON CTRSA JEFFREY FLESHER CTT1 ZACHARY MORRIS CTT1 STEVEN WOODEL SW/AW CTT2 JUSTIN WATKINS CTTSN BRANDON RAYBURN CTTSN CATALINA VILLEGAS BROWN DC1 KENNETH ALEXANDER SW DC1 JASON AYERS SW/AW DC1 JOHN BOWERS SW DC1 JEFFREY DELZER SW/AW DC1 GREGORY GREENE SW DC1 JAMES HALL SW/AW DC1 BOOKER HAYNES SW DC1 JASON LOCKENWITZ SW DC1 MATTHEW RZEPNICKI SW DC1 SCOTT SEUFERLING SW DC1 KENNETH WURSTER SW/AW DC2 PAUL ANDERSEN SW DC2 JOHN FERGUSON SW DC2 LANDON MENARD DC2 GABRIEL PARKER SW DC2 JAVIN RILEY SW/SWCC DC2 JOHN VIGILANT SW DC2 TROY WARD SW DC3 OWEN FAULKNOR SW DC3 LASHUANYA MCNEILL SW DCFA KENNETH MAUNTEL DCFA ANDREW SOTO DCFN REBECCA ACOSTA DCFN BRYCE BARNHILL DCFN DONOVAN CARTER DCFN LARON COOKE DCFN MONIQUE GALE DCFN MASON LING DCFN DERYCK MARQUES DCFN ALEXANDER MCKNIGHT DCFN MATTHEW MIRON DCFN JORGE MORALES DCFN JERAMI RATHBUN DCFN EDGAR ROSAIRIZARRY SW/AW DCFR WENDY AYUYU DCFR ASHLEY CHERRINGTON

240 H CVN 77

plankowners.indd 240

12/10/08 1:20:06 PM


plankowners

DCFR MICHAEL FOSTER DCFR COLTER HAWKINS DCFR TRAVIS PITTILLO DCFR ANDREA PONCE DCFR EDDIE SANDOVAL DCFR JESSE STCLAIR DCFR BENJAMIN VANGEN EM1 MATTHEW ABARE EM1 GREGORY ABBOUD EM1 ERIC BRIDEAU SW EM1 JOHN CAMPBELL EM1 CHARLES CLARKE SW EM1 ETHAN CRIDER SW EM1 JOE DECKER EM1 JEREMY DESHAZER EM1 BRIAN DIEHL SW EM1 CHRISTOPHER DUEMIG SW EM1 JEREMY ELLIS SW/AW EM1 JOSE GARABIS EM1 ADAM GREEN SW EM1 JASON GRIFFIN SW EM1 ZACHART GUISE SW EM1 JEFFREY HAAG SW EM1 NICKOLAS HANSEN EM1 JAMES HARRELSON SW EM1 RAYMOND HINDS EM1 DANIEL HOUCK SW EM1 KYLE HULL SW EM1 TONY HUNLEY EM1 RYAN JOBE EM1 SEKIYA JOHNSON EM1 JARRETT LAVASSEUR EM1 JOHN LUTZ SW EM1 REBEKAH MAES EM1 WILLIAM MCKIBBIN SW EM1 JASON MEYER SW EM1 EVAN PIERCE SW EM1 ANDRELLA PUSHA SW/AW EM1 BILLY ROHM SW EM1 JUSTIN SHUMAKER EM1 VINCENT SMALLS AW EM1 MARTINIOUS SMITH SW EM1 DWIGHT STEPHENSON AW/SW EM1 KIRK STEVENS SW EM1 RANDALL SULLIVAN EM1 BOGDAN TATOMIR EM1 FREDERICK TUIEL SW/AW EM1 DANIEL VIGIL SW EM1 CHRISTOPHER WALTERS SW EM2 ANNMARIE ALLISON SW/AW EM2 JAMES BLACK EM2 JONAS BONHOMME EM2 THOMAS BOSARGE EM2 CHAS BRADSHAW EM2 TERRASA BRYANT EM2 JUSTIN BUCK EM2 JENNIFER DAVIS

EM2 LESLIE DUMAN EM2 BRADLEY D’URSO EM2 DAVID ELBANCOL EM2 JERRID FLEMING SW EM2 MERVIN GEORGE SW/AW EM2 HARRY GILMORE SW EM2 PETER HAMILTON EM2 JOHN HODGE EM2 RAYMOND HOMSHER EM2 MICHAEL HUFFMAN SW EM2 TESHEKA JEMMOTT EM2 TIMOTHY JOHNSON EM2 FERNANDO LANDEROS EM2 BARRY LANHAM EM2 TALON LARSON EM2 ROBERTO MARTINEZ EM2 LANCE MASON EM2 CHRISTOPHER MCCLENDON SW/AW EM2 CATHERINE MORALES SW/AW EM2 ROBERT NELSON EM2 BRIAN O’DETT SW EM2 CLIFTON PAGE SW EM2 KEITH PEARSON SW EM2 ANTHONY RIVERS EM2 SENESE SHERMAN EM2 BARRETT TURNER EM2 CHRISTOPHER TYRRELL EM2 WILLIAM VALERIOTI EM2 CHARLES WALKER EM2 MARK WARD EM2 SCOTT WILCO EM2 MARK WILSON AW EM2 CHRISTOPHER WIMBERLY EM2 PARIS YOUELL EM3 JUNETTE ALTIDOR SW EM3 RHAKIYYAH BAGLEY EM3 LAUREN BELFLOWER EM3 JOSHUA BOYER EM3 JACOB BROWN EM3 MAX BUSTAMANTE EM3 DEREK CHANDLER SW EM3 DERRICK CRUZ EM3 CHRISTINE DEGEORGE EM3 MOHAMMAD DIANAT EM3 JASON EAKINS EM3 CARLANDA EDWARDS EM3 ROLAND FOWBLE EM3 ANDREA GOMEZ EM3 GENE GRIFFITH EM3 RICHARD HALL EM3 ZACHARY HARMAN EM3 MARK HARRIS EM3 NICHOLAS HARRISON EM3 CHAD HERNDON EM3 WINFIELD HOLLANDER-TRAN EM3 ANDREW HOMAN EM3 NANCY HUFFMAN

CVN 77 H 241

plankowners.indd 241

12/10/08 1:20:17 PM


plankowners

EM3 CARMEN JACKSON EM3 MITCHELL KING EM3 JOSEPH LAFLAIR EM3 RYAN LAROCO EM3 CHASE LEBIO EM3 BRIAN LEE EM3 BRIAN LOGAN EM3 LINCOLN MAY EM3 MICHAEL MYERS EM3 ZACHARY OATS EM3 RYAN O’KEEFE EM3 QUINTIN PRIDGEN EM3 BROOKS RIELY EM3 BRANDON ROBINSON EM3 BRITTANY ROSS EM3 ANDRES SANCHEZ EM3 BRANDON SCHAGER EM3 LOREN SCOTT EM3 MARCUS SHELTON EM3 JORDAN STOVER EM3 DEREK TAYLOR EM3 TERRANCE THOMAS EM3 RYAN VANGORDEN EM3 ANDREW WARD EM3 TRAVIS WESTFALL EMFA MAKALA HAMILTON EMFA ADAM HER EMFA ANDREW JOHNSON EMFA CAREN LORENZEN EMFN BRYAN BAKER EMFN RANDALL BARRETT EMFN ELVIN DEDIC EMFN SAMANTHA FRANKLIN EMFN AARON GARCIA EMFN JOHN GUTIERREZ MENDEZ EMFN COURTNEY HALL EMFN ALLEN HAUCK EMFN MARSHALL HOUSE EMFN RAYCHELLE JENSEN EMFN FOREST JORDAN EMFN RODRICK MARTIN EMFN TYRONE MCGRAW EMFN CHRISTOPHER NORMAN EMFN IAN SWANSON EMFR JONATHAN CLOUGH EMFR VINCENT PHU EMFR JERRELL STARNES EMFR OLIVIA WOODRING EN1 DAVID ALVAREZ EN1 JAMARIO DAVIS SW EN1 MARISKA REY EN1 ANGELA TURNER EN2 CHRISTOPHER GRISER EN2 FRANCIS PAULSEN EN3 DEVONE JONES EN3 YVONNE MCPHERSON EN3 SCOTT NUNEMAKER

ENFN TERRENCE MOYER ENFR BRIAN KROHN ENFR JERMALE WOODY ET1 JASON ABERCROMBIE SW ET1 ERIC BAGLIO SW ET1 BRIAN BEARDSLEE ET1 TIMOTHY CURRINGTON ET1 ZANE DESAVEUR SW ET1 REX DJERE SW ET1 WYATT EARP SW ET1 ANTHONY FAIRWEATHER SW ET1 ROBERT FEATHERS SW/AW ET1 JEREMY FRISBEY ET1 JOHN GARTUNG SW ET1 NICHOLAS HAMILTON SW ET1 ROBERT HERRING SW ET1 WILLIAM HILTABRAND SW/AW ET1 WADE HIXON SW ET1 CLINTON HOOPER ET1 JEREMY JACKSON SW ET1 ROBERT KAHLE ET1 JAMES LE SW/AW ET1 RYAN LEAHY ET1 MICHEAL MCQUAIG ET1 KEENAN MROZEK ET1 OWEN RAYMER SW ET1 LESLIE ROBINSON ET1 BRIAN SCHUTT SW ET1 ANTON SCHWEIKL ET1 MELANIE SPEAKMAN ET1 DANIEL STONE SW ET1 MARSHALL WERNER ET1 STEVEN WILANT ET2 JOHN ABRAHAMSON ET2 JACQUELINE ARROWOOD ET2 SHANA BEAVER SW ET2 GEORGE BOWER ET2 JEFFREY BRICKER ET2 KYLE CARRIGAN ET2 LATOYA CARROLL ET2 ADAM CHANDLER SW ET2 CORY DZENDOLET ET2 CLAY FELTY ET2 VANESSA GREEN SW/AW ET2 JULIAN HEINZE ET2 ZACHERY HELTZEL ET2 STEVEN HOWARD SW ET2 CHRISTOPHER HUGHES ET2 AMANDA JENKINS ET2 RUSSELL JOHNSON ET2 THOMAS KIRKSEY ET2 BRITTANY LEMONS ET2 BRYAN LOEFFLER ET2 ADAM LOVE ET2 JOYCE MCDANIEL SW ET2 BRADLEY MELTON ET2 ANDREW MOTT

ET2 JASON PENA ET2 MALDONADO RODRIGUEZ SW ET2 ROLYN ROMINES SW ET2 ANDREW SAGE ET2 JUSTIN SEQUAPTEWA ET2 JOSHUA SERENOWILSON SW ET2 BRANDON STEVENS ET2 JENNIFER SWANSON ET2 JOSEPH WACHUTKA ET2 RONALD WALKER ET2 NATAVIA WEAVER SW ET2 MARK WOSTAL ET2 MICHAEL WRIGHT ET2 JOSEPH ZIMMERMAN ET3 NICHOLAS CAREY ET3 PATRICK CHAPMAN ET3 JAMES DONOHOE ET3 BRITTNEY FORTENBERRY ET3 CHRISTOPHER GLOCK ET3 ERIC IANNONE SW ET3 DEAN JAEGER ET3 JOHN LOPEZ ET3 EDMOND MCKAY ET3 PATRICK MICHEL ET3 JAMES MOLOKKEN ET3 SEAN MORRISON ET3 SETH PARSONS ET3 YOLANDA QUINONES ET3 INDIA TOWNS ET3 MATTHEW TURNER ET3 ADAM WARD ETN3 PETER HALSTEN ETN3 KYLE MIDDLETON ETN3 CHRISTOPHER WITTE ETSA KOLBY BRYANT ETSA JESSICA DAILEY ETSA DEREK DAUDELIN ETSN JONATHAN BABER ETSN CORY BOSWELL ETSN KYLE BOUGHNER ETSN KYLE BOUGHNER ETSN TREVOR DENNY ETSN TREVOR DENNY ETSN STEVEN GAUTHIER ETSN JEFFREY HERMS ETSN MELINDA LUMPKIN ETSN KYLE SHERWOOD ETSN TRENT STEPHENS ETSN JASON STEWART ETSN AARON ZIMMER FC1 LANDIS BRITTON AW FC1 JUSTIN CUNNINGHAM SW FC1 SHAWN LOESCHER SW/AW FC1 CHRISTOPHER PONGRACZ SW FC2 DENNIS BOHL FC2 SHAWN CHAPMAN SW/AW FC2 JOHN RODRIGUEZ HARDY SW/AW

242 H CVN 77

plankowners.indd 242

12/10/08 1:20:26 PM


plankowners

FC2 MICHAEL TANGUMA FC3 WILLIAM AGORAS FC3 MATTHEW HOELSCHER FC3 JOSHUA HOLLIDAY FC3 ERIC KIRCHNER FC3 BRELAND NORWOOD FC3 KYLE OATMAN FC3 JASON PUGH FC3 EZEKIEL RAMIREZ FC3 ESTEBAN REYNA FC3 JACOB SANDERS FC3 JONATHAN SOUTHERLAND FC3 JONATHAN WOOD FCSN JOSE SOTOCORA FCSN MATTHEW WALSH GM1 KENNETH COLEY SW GM1 QUIANA DE JESUS SW GM1 VIDA DILLARD SW/AW GM1 WALTER MANGUM AW GM2 SIERRA CLEMONS SW GM3 TERRY TAYLOR GMSA VANESSA OCAMPO GMSA MICHAEL STEWART GMSN BENJAMIN HIGGINS GMSN WILLIAM MCCLANE GMSN RODRIQUEZ MITCHELL GMSN ALEXANDER ZHUKOVEC GMSR JARRID CANTWAY GMSR KEVIN GOMBERG GMSR AUSTIN WARRICK HM1 NEKEIA BORDERS SW HM1 MICHAEL MCILROY HM1 TERENCE MONTON HM1 ANNA NELSON HM1 JASON SLATON HM1 RONIE THOMPSON HM2 MICHAEL ATKINSON HM2 NORRIS CASON SW/FMF HM2 CHERYL DASILVA HM2 MAURICE HARDEN HM2 SYBRENIA JOHNSON HM2 DUSTIN LAXTON FMF HM2 CLEVELAND MCQUEEN AW HM2 MELISSA METZ SW/AW HM2 MARZIUS PLANT HM2 JOSEPH SEARS SW HM2 RYAN THOMAS HM2 SARA WEISSMEYER HM3 EVELINA BARRERA HM3 TYLER COOK HM3 LAURA GASTALITURRI HM3 CALEB HAYNIE HM2 STEPHANIE KALLES SW HM3 DENNIS LEES HM3 BRANDON MEYER HM3 CHELSEA MILLS HM3 JESSIE NESTER

HM3 RASHEDA SADLER HM3 STEVEN TABISZ HM3 DONNA VEREST HMCS JOSE NEGRON HN BENEDA BROOKS HN MARIA MUNOZ HN AMANDA SOEHREN HT1 AARON BEARDEN HT1 VERNON BISH HT1 NICHOLAS BRUNNEY HT1 AARON BUSTIN HT1 WILLIE CASH SW HT1 CORY PLOTNER SW/AW HT1 TYRONE SMOOT SW HT2 BENNIE ARBOGAST SW HT2 DANIEL GIBBS HT3 CHRISTIAN ANSLEY HT3 LEVON CARTER HT3 CHULYNDA CASTILLO-FIGUERAS HT3 LUKE FONTENOT HT3 PATRICK HOWELL HT3 AARON LAPRE HT3 JENNIFER SCHLEUNING HT3 STEPHANIE VESELKA HT3 JOSEPH VORNBROCK HT3 CHRISTOPHER YOUNG HTFA ROBERT LARA HTFN MISTY FORTUNAS HTFN DUSTIN GREEN HTFN JAMES MURRAY HTFN TASHE OYUGI HTFN CONSTANCE SMITH HTFN GERARD WILSON HTFR JOHN SEMON IC1 IRENE BAILEY AW/SW IC1 TACHANNA CHISM AW/SW IC1 MATTHEW DEPAUW SW IC1 JORGE DINARTE SW/AW IC1 MARK KELLERESKIE SW IC1 KEVIN SAVAGE SW IC1 BRIAN THOMS SW IC2 MONTRAY BREWSTER IC2 SHARYNA BRYANT SW IC2 MICHAEL CRANE IC2 BRANDON FOX IC2 ANTHONY HAMILTON SW/AW IC2 BRYANNE IDDINGS SW IC2 ROBERT RICHARD IC3 JOSEPH BAILEY IC3 THOMAS GILSON IC3 SARA HALL IC3 MICHAEL JENKINS IC3 CORY RHOTEN IC3 RORY SHISLER ICFA JOSHUA SMITH ICFA KRISTY SMITH ICFA BRITNEY SUBBS

ICFN ROBERT BECK ICFN RAYMOND DAY ICFN JEREMY HEINZ ICFN ASHLEY HUDSON ICFN LARRY HUGHES ICFN BERNARD JONES ICFN AKIL LATEEF ICFN KRISTY PARSONS ICFR PARKER BRUNSON ICFR KYLE SOLIMEO IS1 CHRISTOPHER KOCH IS2 RICHARD MITCHELL JR. SW/AW IS3 JOSHUA JAMES IS3 MATTHEW NELMS IS3 JOSEPH RAINVILLE ISSN CAROLYN ABBOTT ISSN ANDREW CAMPNEY ISSN MATTHEW CARLSON ISSN HEATHER CLARK ISSN ANDRE FRANK ISSN JOSEPH JOHNSON ISSN WALTER ROBINSON JR. ISSN JENNIFER TANNER IT1 TRENESINA ALLEN SW IT1 THOMAS BELL SW IT1 GREGORY DOBSON SW IT1 MICHAEL ELLIS SW IT1 WILFRED EVERETT IT1 KESHA FRELOT SW IT1 MARY JONES IT1 MIKE KNUTSON SW IT1 JERMALE MATHIS SW/AW IT1 NELSON MOLINA SW IT1 TIKO PORTER IT1 RONDY PRINGLE SW IT1 MICHELLE RUMBAUGH SW IT1 JAMAD SMALLS SW/AW IT1 BELL THOMAS SW IT1 KAMI WILLIAMS SW IT2 ANGELA BAILEY AW IT2 DIANA BARKS IT2 JAWAN BRYANT IT2 DARRELL DAVIS IT2 BRANDON DONALDSON SW IT2 DENISHA HUGHES IT2 ROBERT KANTROWITZ SW IT2 AMBER KITCHENS SW/AW IT2 SHAWN KOETTEL IT2 ANGEL LEUPOLU SW IT2 TRISTANJAY LLANTADA SW IT2 ALETHIA LOVE IT2 STEPHANIE MARVIN IT2 HENRY MATTHEWS JR. IT2 NATHAN PARK IT2 MATTHEW PETTITT IT2 ANGEL QUINONES IT2 ANTHONY SCAFFIDI AW

CVN 77 H 243

plankowners.indd 243

12/10/08 1:20:37 PM


plankowners

IT2 AMANDA SCHNEIDER SW IT2 KAHLIL SMITH SW IT2 CHRISTOPHER STEWART IT2 MARGUERITE THAYER IT2 LAURA TIMMERMAN IT2 EBONY TURNER SW IT3 KOMLAN AGBAGBA SW IT3 SHANTAYE KINLAW IT3 PHILLIP MAYTON ITSA BRITTANY JAMES ITSA LEVI JANTZER ITSN JESSICA BALDRIGE ITSN HEATHER BETOS ITSN AARON BISHOFF ITSN CHARLES BISHOP ITSN CHRISTOPHER BLAKE ITSN MICHAEL CONRAD ITSN TIMOTHY EVANS ITSN JOSHUA HENNING ITSN JOHN MARTELL ITSN RACHEL MASSE ITSN PATRICK MOYNIHAN ITSN ACQUEED ROBINSON ITSN JOSEPH TRUSTY ITSR ANTONIO BANKS ITSR SAGE BERTHELSEN ITSR CHARLES BISHOP ITSR STERLING HIEBERT ITSR JEAN LEE ITSR SEAN ORTIZ ITSR BRADLEY WAYNE LN1 REINA VELAZQUEZ SW/AW LN2 CAMELIS SAMAYOA LN2 RASHA STEWARTPOTTER MA1 VANESSA CHRISTENSEN SW MA1 JOSE GALLS SW MA1 CAROLYN HICKS SW MA1 EARLENE O’BRIEN SW MA1 ARTHUR STODDARD MA1 JESSICA WEBB MA2 JAMES ALLEN MA2 CALVIN CRUMP MA2 RYAN EDMONDS MA2 KENYATTA HAYES MA2 JOSHUA MENG AW MA2 TRAVIS RADFORD MA2 MICHAEL WHEELER EXW MA2 BRIAN WRIGHT MC1 SUSAN CARABALLO AW/SW MC1 DEMETRIUS PATTON AW/SW MC1 NARINA REYNOSO AW/SW MC1 DIANE RUBIN SW/AW MC2 NATHAN BAILEY MC2 JENNIFER JAQUA MC2 LAWRENCE SHANNON MC2 RONALD TACKITT MC2 JASON WINN AW

MC3 MICAH BLECHNER MC3 ERIC GARST MC3 KYLE MALLOY MC3 DOMINIQUE MOORE MCSA TERAH HARNS MCSA LAUREN RANDALL MCSN AIDAN CAMPBELL MCSN TONY FRICKS MCSN NICHOLAS HALL MCSN JOEL KOLODZIEJCZAK MCSN JEFFERY RICHARDSON MM1 DONALD ARMBRUSTER SW/W MM1 PATRICK BAGGERLY SW MM1 TRAVIS BAILEY SW/AW MM1 ERIC BAKER SW/AW MM1 SHERRY BANKS MM1 CLYDE BARLEY SW/AW MM1 BERNARD BAURE MM1 CHRISTOPHER BLOKS SW MM1 MICHAEL BOCCHICCHIA SW/AW MM1 SHAWN BOGGS SW/AW MM1 WILLIAM BOWDEN MM1 ERIK BRAZZELL SW MM1 BUCKNER BROWNING SW MM1 CARRIE BURDETTE SW MM1 SHANITA BURKS MM1 THOMAS CHISM MM1 DONALD CROSBY SW MM1 ERIC DAVIS SW MM1 JASON DEASON SW MM1 KYLE DERHEIMER MM1 DAWN FORTENBERRY SW/AW MM1 JUSTIN FORTNEY SW/AW MM1 KEITH FRYER SW MM1 GREGORY GONZALES MM1 JEREMY GORDON SW MM1 DEVON GOYERT SW MM1 CHRISTOPHER GRAY SW MM1 KATHERINE GREEN SW/AW MM1 ANDREW HALL SW/AW MM1 JUDSON HARRIS MM1 LARRY HARRIS SW MM1 JAMES HAYES SW MM1 LUIS HERNANDEZ SW/AW MM1 LARRY HOLIDAY SW/AW MM1 JAY HOLLEY SW/AW MM1 DAVID HOOP SW MM1 MIGUEL HUTCHINSON SW/AW MM1 LONNIE IVERY SW/AW MM1 JEREMY JENNINGS SW MM1 BRIAN JONES SW MM1 DEON JONES SW MM1 FREDDIE KELLY SW MM1 JAMES KINCAID MM1 STEVEN KINKA SW MM1 DANIEL KRYS SW MM1 ANTHONY LANZI SW

MM1 DARRELL LARUE SW/AW MM1 WILLIAM LASALLE MM1 DONALD LYNN SW MM1 VALARIE MCCALL SW/AW MM1 BRAD METCALF MM1 DANIEL MEYERS SW/AW MM1 OJ MILLER SW/AW MM1 DONALD MILLER MM1 CHAD MULLINS SW MM1 CHRISTOPHER MURRAY SW MM1 ROBERT NATION MM1 JAMES NIXON SW MM1 DANIEL NOBLE SW MM1 JUSTIN NOURSE SW MM1 JOHN ORELLANA SW MM1 SKYLAR PEEKS SW MM1 GEORGE POPOVICH SW MM1 STEPHEN POSEY MM1 PHILLIP PRONIA SW/AW MM1 RICHARD QUINN SW MM1 CHRISTOPHER REESE SW/AW MM1 DAVID REGAL SW MM1 JAMES RENLUND SW MM1 ADAM ROBERTS SW MM1 DANIEL ROGERS SW MM1 DANNY ROSADO SW/AW MM1 KURT SALTZGAVER SW MM1 DEMETRIS SANDERS SW/AW MM1 JASON SCOTT SW/AW MM1 STEVEN SIEGMUNDT SW MM1 SETH SLONIM SW MM1 JOSEPH SOETAERT SW MM1 TERRENCE SPEARS SW/AW MM1 ROBERT STEPHENSON MM1 LAMONT STITH SW/AW MM1 SEAN TRACY SW MM1 IRA VAN IRVIN SW MM1 MARK WATSON SW MM1 GEOFFREY WELLONS SW MM1 TIMOTHY WELTER SW/AW MM1 ANTHONIE WHITE SW MM1 WILLIAM WILEY SW MM1 MARQUES WILKS MM1 JASON WILSON MM1 JACOB WOFFORD SW MM2 JORGE ABREU MM2 CHRISTOPHER ANDAL MM2 JASON ANDREWS MM2 DAVID APARICIO MM2 SHAROD BALLARD SW MM2 MIGUEL BARKER MM2 SIDNEY BEARD MM2 KEVIN BREWER MM2 JUSTIN BRICK MM2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN MM2 JACOB BUSH MM2 STEVEN CHALFIN

244 H CVN 77

plankowners.indd 244

12/10/08 1:20:45 PM


plankowners

MM2 JEFFREY COEN MM2 RODNEY COLE SW MM2 JOSHUA COLEMAN MM2 TRAVIS CROOM MM2 ANTONIO CRUZ MM2 JOSHUA CURTEMAN SW MM2 ROBERT DANENBERGER SW/AW MM2 CHARLES DESPAIN SW MM2 PATRICK DEW SW MM2 DAVID DYER MM2 DAVID EBERHARDT SW MM2 SAMUEL EDLEMAN MM2 AARON EDWARDS MM2 JAMIE EICHENLAUB MM2 ROBERT FALER AW MM2 BENJAMIN GIBSON MM2 JOSEPH GORDON MM2 LEON GRIFFIN MM2 BRIAN HAFFORD SW MM2 JAMES HALL MM2 KEVIN HARRISON SW MM2 TYLER HARTSHORN MM2 WESLEY HATLEY MM2 BRYAN HEADLEE MM2 DENNIS HEBERT

MM2 RANDALL HOFFMAN MM2 SCOTT HOFFMAN MM2 LORA HOLSTON MM2 MICHAEL HUPE MM2 JARETTE JAIME MM2 RAUGHN JOHN MM2 BOBBI JOHNSON MM2 CODY JONES MM2 LAZELLE JONES MM2 CHARLES KINSEY MM2 CARL KOCH MM2 STEPHEN LANG MM2 NICHOLAS LAUER MM2 BRYANT LEE MM2 MARK LEINAAR MM2 WESLEY LENTZ MM2 CASSANDRA LINK MM2 PAUL LUTZ MM2 WILLIAM MANOLIOS MM2 MICHAEL MARTINEZ MM2 JEFFREY MAUNTEL MM2 MATTHEW MCCUISTIAN MM2 KIMBERLY MCGOWAN MM2 TOBEY MOORE SW MM2 MATTHEW MOORE

MM2 CHRISTOPHER MORGAN MM2 DERRY MOSS MM2 JESSE NIOU MM2 BABAJIDE OLOWU MM2 TEODORO OVIEDO MM2 SCOTT PAYNE MM2 BRIAN PETERSON MM2 ROBERT RAMIREZ MM2 THOMAS RILEY MM2 ROBERT ROGERS MM2 MARK ROUZAN MM2 DONALD SAKO MM2 BRUCE SCHULTZ MM2 JEREMIAH SCOTT MM2 REBECCA SILVA MM2 JUAN SILVA VALENTIN MM2 ALEXANDER SLATIN MM2 HEATHER SOIKA MM2 ROBERT SOZA MM2 KRISTOPHER STEVENS MM2 LAHARRY TURNER MM2 CHRISTOPHER VARGO MM2 TIMOTHY WALDEN MM2 NICHOLAS WALL SW MM2 ANDREW WEAVER

Irus Group, Inc. provides technical expertise in implementing Business Intelligence and Corporate Performance Management systems to speed mission execution.

Phone: (703) 444-6030, Fax: (703) 444-6030, www.irusgroup.com 46950 Jennings Farm Drive, Suite 290, Sterling, VA 20164-8679

faircount ad

3/13/08

2:24 PM

Page 1

C. Lloyd Johnson Co., Inc.

WELCOME HOME!

8031 Hampton Blvd • Norfolk, VA 23505

(800) 446-8089

We Salute the Men & Women of the U.S. Military

Norfolk Convention & Visitors Bureau welcomes the new USS George H. W. Bush to our proud Navy city. Contact the NCVB today for a full schedule of events.

1-800-368-3097

WWW.NORFOLKCVB.COM

Jered is proud to support the USS Bush by supplying the aircraft weapons and stores elevators, and the steering and anchor handling systems. Jered LLC is a world leader in design, manufacturing, and systems integration for naval applications. Tel: 912-262-2000 • Email: info@jered.par.com • 103 Shipyard Drive Brunswick, GA 31521-0904

plankowners.indd 245

12/10/08 1:20:55 PM


plankowners

MM2 JASON WELCH MM2 COLT WELLS MM2 DANIEL WERMER MM2 RONNIE WHITMAN MM2 BRITTANY WILLIAMS MM2 DANIEL WINSOR MM2 ALEXANDER WITHROW MM2 BRIAN WOOLF SW MM2 NICHOLAS WORK MM2 ELIZABETH WORKMAN MM2 DONNA WRIGHT MM3 COURTNEY ADAMS MM3 DARIUS ANDERSON MM3 CHARLES BEREND MM3 ALEXIS BERNARD SW/AW MM3 MICHAEL BISHOP MM3 JONATHAN BUNNELL MM3 DANNY CARR MM3 COY CHANEY MM3 AUSTIN CHAPMAN MM3 PAUL CHATTERTON MM3 CLIFFORD CHESTER MM3 EDWARD CLARKE MM3 ASHLEY CLODFELTER MM3 CANDACE COLLINS MM3 NICOLE CONNOLLY MM3 JAMES CRAMPTON SW/AW MM3 JAMES DAVID MM3 KEVIN DEHLER MM3 MICHAEL DODD MM3 DEREK DOSS MM3 CHRISTOPHER FEDERER MM3 JUSTIN FOIL MM3 JASON FULLMER MM3 JUSTIN GORDON MM3 JACOB HARTHAN MM3 JOSH HENKEL MM3 ANTHONY HENSLEY MM3 JACOB HIRSCHHORN MM3 ROSS HIXON MM3 RICHARD HOFFMAN MM3 DAVID HUFF MM3 JAMAL JOHNSON MM3 DAVID JOHNSON MM3 KEVIN KARST MM3 BRYAN KEAST MM3 JAMES KOZEL MM3 MICHAEL LEE MM3 JOHN LEFAVE MM3 SCOTT LINABURG MM3 ANDREW MANTON MM3 STEPHEN MARLER MM3 ERIC MASON MM3 NICHOLAS MCNEELY MM3 IKE MELANCON MM3 ALEXANDER MENDOZA VELAZQUEZ SW/AW

MM3 SHAWN MOORE MM3 ANTHONY NGUYEN MM3 MICHAEL OGBEMUDIA SW MM3 ZAKE PARISH MM3 AARON POPLIN MM3 CHRISTOPHER RIVERA MM3 JOSHUA SCHEIB MM3 JOHN SCHROTH MM3 JOSEPH SCHUMAKER MM3 ANDREW SCHURR MM3 CALEB SCHWEPKER MM3 STEPHEN SCOTTI MM3 CEDRIC SHANKLE MM3 JOSEPH SOKOL MM3 GARY STEVENS MM3 ALEXANDER STJOHN MM3 CHAUNCY STULL MM3 THAO TRAN MM3 CLAUDIA VIERA MM3 GEOFFREY WEBB MM3 ANGELIC WHEELER MM3 BRIAN WILSON MM3 CHARLES WOOD MM3 JEREMY WRESCH MM1 BYRON EDMONDSON SS MM1 TERRANCE WINGO SW MM2 MARTIN ARCE MM2 HAMADI DANIEL MM2 BRANDON IRELAND SS MM2 DOREAN KING SW MM2 JACOB NEWSOME SW MM2 STEPHEN QUAST MMFA BENJAMIN BENNETT MMFA LIONEL HARRIS MMFA DAVID KLINK MMFA SAMUEL LASTINGER MMFA ADAM LOSINSKI MMFA CHIRSTOPHER POYTHRESS MMFA BRADLEY SHERROD MMFA STANLEY STEWART MMFA THAO TRAN MMFN JAMES AUBIN MMFN JOHNATHAN BOWMAN MMFN PHILLIP CARTER MMFN AJAY CHAMBERLAIN MMFN NICHOLAS CLAYTON MMFN SHERA COLLINS MMFN CHAD CORLEY MMFN ANTHONY DAVIS MMFN JEFFREY DELYA MMFN DANIEL ELLIS MMFN ROBERT FRIESON MMFN COTE GROAT MMFN ANDREW HAYES MMFN TIMOTHY HOUK MMFN DEMARIO INGRAM MMFN CLEO JACKSON

MMFN DONNY JOHNSON MMFN TIMOTHY LEONARD MMFN DANIEL MANLEY MMFN CHRISTOPHER MEYER MMFN SEAN NACK MMFN BRYAN PEOPLES MMFN JOHN PRILLER MMFN SARAI RIVERA MMFN LAUREN ROBERSON MMFN MONICA SANTIAGO MMFN RYAN SCOTT MMFN ERIC SHARROW MMFN CHARLES SHORT MMFN MARIE SPRAGUE MMFN JOSHUA SUAREZ MMFN RICHARD TARDUGNO MMFN MICHAEL THOMAS MMFN ASHLEY TUCKER MMFN MARK VASQUEZ MMFN RODERICK WARD MMFN MICHAEL WHATLEY MMFN ADAM YUNGWIRTH MMFR BRENDEN KLENK MMFR JUSTIN LIBURD MMFR JAMES PITKIN MMFR RAYSHANEA WEAVER MMFR CEDRIC WHITE MR1 THOMAS CHANEY SW MR1 MICHEL DECARIE SW MRFA JARED SHAVER MRFN AMANDA WILLIAMS NC1 ARNEIDA MCDONALD AW OS1 DEVRON BEVERLY EXW/SW OS1 ERIK EATON SW OS1 DANIEL FANO SW OS1 DWAYNE GOODEN SW OS1 JONATHAN MCMILLION SW OS1 NATHAN RANSBERGER SW OS1 JEREMY RODRIGUEZ SW OS1 ERIC TATUM SW OS1 DUJUAN WATSON SW OS2 JOEL AGGREYSMITH SW OS2 GERARDO BATOCABE OS2 JOSHUA DORSEY SW OS2 SHAKYLA ELVA SW OS2 LANCE GEARY SW OS2 ROBERT HALL SW/AW OS2 JOHN HOUCK SW OS2 MAC HUGHES SW OS2 BRIDGETTE JACKSON SW/AW OS2 MARVIN JOSHUA SW OS2 RODRICK LINNEAR SW/AW OS2 HERBERT MOORE SW/AW OS2 TIA MYERS SW OS2 JANELLE NELSON SW OS2 TORIAN PARKER SW/AW OS2 TERRY PEMBERTON SW

246 H CVN 77

plankowners.indd 246

12/10/08 1:21:04 PM


plankowners U.S.S. George H. W. Bush OS2 JASMAINE ROBINSON SW OS2 SHANIKA SIMMS SW/AW OS3 MICHAEL CALHOUN SW OS3 KENDRA GARRETT OS3 STEVEN SHEFFIELD OSSA MICHAEL LATOUCHE OSSA THOMAS MILLIGAN OSSA TIMOTHY REED OSSN RYAN CHERNIN OSSN LINDA DAY OSSN JASON MEYE OSSN STEVEN O’CONNOR OSSN JOSE RODRIGUEZ OSSN LAKEISHA ROLLINS OSSN HEATHER WINSTON OSSR DEREK BURGIN OSSR JASON CHO OSSR AARON LUCAS OSSR JON OSADA OSSR HECTOR RIVERA OSSR JEREMY THOMAS OSSR IAN VANAUKEN PC1 DANIEL RODRIGUEZ SW/AW PC1 TODD SLOCUM PC1 LEIGH VAUGHAN SW/AW PC2 DERRICK WHITEHURST PC3 WILLIAM STEVENSON PCSA REINIEL VALDES PCSR MARLAYNA ROSKO PR1 JOSHUA BOLYARD AW/SW PR1 JOSEPH GIESER AW PRAN JAMES MCLAUGHLIN PS1 GEORGE BOLINGER SW PS1 MONICA SHAREE DAVIS SW/AW PS1 CHIQUITA FLEMING SW/AW PS1 BRENDA GIVANS PS1 JUAN GOMEZ SW PS1 COY L. JONES SW PS1 CALVIN REVELLE SW PS1 PAULA RYEL PS1 ANDREA WILSON PS2 FRANK ARNDT SW PS2 TREVIS BURGESS PS2 SARAH ENCISO PS2 ANDRES FORTOLIS SW PS2 HERLINDA GARZA SW/AW PS2 RONITA MOORE SW PS2 ILPA PATEL PS2 PAUL R. SMITH JR. SW PS2 KRYSTAL STILLMAN PS3 PENNYLANE GUEVARRA PS3 SHALORY JONES PSSA JOSEPH MOE PSSA JUSTIN MORELAND PSSA ERIC STOKES PSSA REGINA WHITE PSSN LOUIS BECERRA

PSSN SARA BRANCH PSSN COREY FARROW PSSN NEIL NELSON PSSN BENJAMIN REZNIK QM1 DEENICIA DECOTEAU SW QM1 CHRISTOPHER DORNER QM1 REED GONZALES SW/AW QM1 FRIEDELL THOMAS SW/AW QM3 PAULINO MARTINEZ SW/AW QM3 HEATHER SHAKINGBUSH QMSA NAOMIPUMEHANA LAYCO QMSA DANIEL RHODES QMSN VANESSA ESPINAL QMSN SHANTAE JAMISON QMSN QUINTAVIUS REED QMSR RYAN HALL QMSR KEVIN JONES QMSR SHAVANDIS MCDONALD RP1 JASON BOCCHINO SW/FMF RP2 THOMAS SPRUFERA III RPSN DANIEL ARIAS GARCIA SA SHADI AZHARI SA KOLBY BRYANT SA CHRISTOPHER FALATIC SA CHANEL HUTCHISON SA ANTHONY MCCABE SA ADRIAN MCGRUE SA CORNELL MILLS SA LEIDY PANIAGUA BENITEZ SA RACHELLE PROCTOR SA NABIEL ROGERS SH1 JEWEL AUGUSTUS SW/AW SH1 CYNTHIA BEALE SW/AW SH1 SAMUEL HERNANDEZ MORENO SH1 SAMUEL MORENO SH2 JUAN CORREA SW/AW SH2 LATORYA FORTE SH2 MARIO JAMISON SW SH2 TERRELL MCGEE SH2 JERMEL MEDINA SH2 IMRON QUAMINA SW SH2 ALDRED VIRAY SW/AW SH2 PATRICIA WILLIAMS SW/AW SH3 KENNETH BILLINGSLEA SW SH3 KRISTEN GARCIA SH3 ROSHAUN STEPHENSON SHSA JOSEPH CANALES SHSA FREDDIE HODGE SHSA ARNOLD LANDI SHSA MARCUS RHODES SHSA ANTONIO THOMAS SHSN SHAWNAR BLAKE SHSN NICHOLAS BODKINS SHSN PHILIP FOSTER SHSN ANTONIO FRANCIS SHSN WILLIAM GATSON SHSN HAKEEM HENDERSON

CVN-77

Another Point of Light in the Beacon of Freedom

Altairnano’s large format back-up batteries for U.S. Surface Combatants will save money and the environment. Based on typical DDG51 output, savings per ship per year are estimated at: • $1.6 million in fuel costs • 960 metric tons of carbon emissions

Additional key features include: • • • • • •

Safer than lead-acid and standard Li-Ion High / Low temperature operations Fast charge / discharge rate High power Long life Low lifecycle cost

For more information about Altairnano, visit www.altairnano.com The Department of the Navy and the Navy League did not select or approve this advertiser and do not endorse nor are responsible for the views or statements contained in this advertisement

CVN 77 H 247

plankowners.indd 247

12/10/08 1:21:16 PM


plankowners

SHSN ANGEL HERNANDEZ SHSN ERIC LOPEZ SHSN STEPHANIE REYES SHSN THORNTON SATTERWHITE SHSN TYSHANNA SMITH SHSN EUNIECIA STIENER SHSN ANTONIO THOMAS SHSN MAURICE WILLIAMS SHSN JAMES ZAFRAN SHSR OCTAVYA WARREN SK1 ADALCINDA ANZEVINO SW SK1 ALARIC BEST SK1 TIFFANY BROWN AW/SW SK1 JAMIE CUESTA SK1 NISA DANIEL AW SK1 JESSE EPTING SK1 PAMELA ESGEB SW/AW SK1 MEI FERGUSON SK1 MICHAEL HARDER SK1 DARREN HARRIS SW SK1 GARY HENSON SW SK1 APRIL JONES SK1 JASON KELCH SW SK1 DENZIL KENDALL SW SK1 BRANDY MOORE SW/AW SK1 ANNIE VARGAS SCW/IUSS SK2 CHRIS BUNTING AW/SW SK2 JESSICA CALVIN SK2 BRYAN CHRISTY SK2 MARIA CONWAY SK2 DANIEL CORDERO SK2 ALAN GANOZA SW/AW SK2 DESIREE GARNER AW/SW SK2 ANISSA HAYDEN SW/AW SK2 DAVID JOHNSON SK2 BERTHA KELLY SW SK2 JOSEPH KELLY SK2 TONY LACHAT SW SK2 CARLTON LONCKE AW/IUSS SK2 MARIKO MCELHANEY SW SK2 RODNEY MOATS SK2 ALVIN NORMAN JR. SK2 TONY PAIGE SK2 GARDY PINKNEY SK2 CARLOS QUEZADA SK2 ESMIL RODRIGUEZ SW SK2 GARY STRONG SW SK2 JOSE UNCIANO SK3 NILDA ACOSTA AW SK3 CEASAR BELTON SK3 COREY JETT SK3 ALEXANDRIA LEON SK3 GARRETT LOCK SK3 JENNIFER PUNCH SW/AW SK3 LAVETRIA WILLIAMS SKSA ANTHONY CHAMPION SKSA KENNETH CROLL

SKSA GLEN DOUTHITT SKSA JOHN DUNLAP SKSA STEVEN GONZALES SKSA RALPH PALMER SKSA ZACHARY STREMMEL SKSN ADAM ARDIRE SKSN PATRICK BLAIR SKSN CHARLES BOOK SKSN WILLINGTON BOOKERT SKSN JOSEPH FLORES SKSN ONTERIO HARRIS SKSN JOSHUA KETCHER SKSN ROBERT LANG SKSN RIYAO LIN SKSN DERON MCKINZY SKSN ROY PETERS SKSN CHRISTOPHER YOUNG SKSR WALTER BARBARY SKSR WILLIE BATES SKSR LAMART BOYCE SKSR JAMES DEHART SKSR JON HALL SKSR JAN LU SKSR STUART MACDONALD SKSR CARL ORTUTAY SKSR XAVIER SPENCER SN RAPHAEL ANTHONY SN OC ANYACHONKEYA SN SAMANTHA BAIRD SN RENE BARRIERE III SN GARY BELL SN GINA DARIENZO SN BRIAN DRAGOO SN DARIUS GILLIS SN CAIRD GUMBS SN MICCHICCO HUNTER SN STEPHEN MARKMAN SN LIZA RIOJAS SR JUSTON ALEJANDRO SR CERAH ARMSTRONG SR JOHNATHON BLANKENSHIP SR MIKAL BLANTON SR ROBERT BURE SR ROBERT BURKE JR. SR ASHLEY CALLEN SR JOSE COLLADO SR JOSHUA DAVIS SR SHAWN DEHART SR BRUCE DIXON SR RICARDO GARCIA SR BRYAM GILGARZON SR ANTOIN GRAY SR NICOLE HAMILTON SR ABIGAIL IVIC SR DANIEL JONES SR TAMIKA LEACH SR LARRY LIVERMORE

SR FRANK LOPEZ SR MANDY MAPLE SR ZANTREL MAYS SR MARCUS MCDONALD SR LOGAN MOORE SR JONATHAN STEPHENS YN1 VENA BERRY YN1 APRIL BEZARES SW YN1 RACHEL CASTILLO AW YN1 JESSICA CONKLIN YN1 VIRGINIA GIBBS YN1 KAREN GRAVES YN1 FRANK JOHNSON SW/AW YN1 LASHONDA JOHNSON SW/AW YN1 CYNTHIA LOPES YN1 STACY MCCUNE YN1 JAMES TABER SW YN1 EUGENE TAYLOR SW YN2 TIWANA AMOS AW YN2 JANICE COLIN YN2 MARIA DAVID DE LA CRUZ YN2 TASHONA GORDON YN2 KEASHA SINGLETON YN3 RICARDO LOPEZ ORTIZ YNSA ETHAN PENDLETON YNSA NATHAN STEWART YNSN EVA AGUILAR YNSN PERTH ALACAR YNSN JACQUELINE BORUNDA YNSN TYLER HARRIS YNSN KEVIN TURNER YNSR CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON

In Memoriam ABEAR RICHARD HARPER ABEAR CRISTINE PASCUA SKCS CHARLES ZWIERZYNSKI

248 H CVN 77

plankowners.indd 248

12/10/08 1:21:24 PM


Thomas EdisonR St on temo.indd 1

12/9/08 11:36:21 AM


northropg on temp.indd 1

8/27/08 10:25:01 AM

Freedom at Work: USS George H.W. Bush CVN 77  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you