quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
If it was 33 years old, built in 1991, I'm surprised they hadn't altered the design to at least have double bottoms. I worked on tankers built in 1981-1983 (La Jolla class) that had double bottoms.

The last bunch of ships in this class were built with double-hulls to conform to the new laws passed after the Exxon Valdez catastrophe.
There's a new class of oilers that are being built with double-hulls however, they have construction problems from the original yard and they can't pass the Navy's inspection. So they're tied-up at another ship yard getting whatever screw-ups fixed. smh

How does a carrier strike group go to sea with no redundant logistical support?

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
How does a carrier strike group go to sea with no redundant logistical support?

Because this Navy not only mismanaged its maintenance practices and schedules, it subscribed to or, drank the whole pitcher of 'efficiency Kool-Aid' rather than drinking the 'effectiveness Kool-Aid'. See my above post about the new class of oilers that can't pass inspection.

https://x.com/mercoglianos/sta...ployed-carrier-group

Preparedness and redundancy are outdated, come on man, it's build back better. Our Commander in Chief when he wakes up from his nap will tap somebody to be the refueling czar.

I'm not too concerned; I thought it was a USS oiler. I don't know that USNS ships are a carrier's primary fuel source. I imagine they bring the fuel to Diego Garcia and they're important in that respect. But the actual fuel station is the USS oiler ship that's attached to that carrier group. It's the USS oilers that load up fuel from Diego Garcia then do underway replenishments with the carrier group out at sea.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
Another ship captain fired for lack of confidence.

Don't you mean 'competence'?

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
How does a carrier strike group go to sea with no redundant logistical support?

EXACTLY!!!!!

The largest fleet of mega-sized aircraft carriers the world has ever seen, all reliant on one clapped out wreck of a ship run by the maritime equivalent of Stevie Wonder. Jeez.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I'm not too concerned; I thought it was a USS oiler. I don't know that USNS ships are a carrier's primary fuel source. I imagine they bring the fuel to Diego Garcia and they're important in that respect. But the actual fuel station is the USS oiler ship that's attached to that carrier group. It's the USS oilers that load up fuel from Diego Garcia then do underway replenishments with the carrier group out at sea.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like the problem with the loss of this ship is that they lost the capability of replenishing underway, and they are going to have to retrofit a commercial tanker to perform that same function. So it wasn't just filling the tanks at Diego Garcia...it was taking fuel to the fleet at sea.

Must be a nice feeling being Russia or China and knowing that all you have to do to render a US Navy task force combat ineffective is disable one freaking oiler .

So if your the Chinese navy, no need to waste weapons on the carrier, just take out an oiler. then for the next three days take out the rest of the fleet.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I'm not too concerned; I thought it was a USS oiler. I don't know that USNS ships are a carrier's primary fuel source. I imagine they bring the fuel to Diego Garcia and they're important in that respect. But the actual fuel station is the USS oiler ship that's attached to that carrier group. It's the USS oilers that load up fuel from Diego Garcia then do underway replenishments with the carrier group out at sea.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like the problem with the loss of this ship is that they lost the capability of replenishing underway, and they are going to have to retrofit a commercial tanker to perform that same function. So it wasn't just filling the tanks at Diego Garcia...it was taking fuel to the fleet at sea.

Must be a nice feeling being Russia or China and knowing that all you have to do to render a US Navy task force combat ineffective is disable one freaking oiler .

When I was in, it was the actual navy oilers that did the underway replenishments and not civilian run ships.

It's somewhat sad that we jump to incompetence as the cause first thing. It could have been intentional

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
How does a carrier strike group go to sea with no redundant logistical support?

Worse than that. We don’t have a redundant carrier.

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Morgan:
So if your the Chinese navy, no need to waste weapons on the carrier, just take out an oiler. then for the next three days take out the rest of the fleet.

The USN figured this out in 1942. Look up the impact of the loss of USN oilers in 1942 and how we targeted the IJN as they departed for the naval actions off the Philippines in 1944.

Then apparently forgot.

Anybody know how long a super carrier can sustain flight operations without needing to take on more fuel for the aircraft? How about the other non-nuclear vessels in the carrier group? How long can they go without gassing up?

Like sig2340 said above, this is how we took away the IJN's ability to fight in WWII. I've never served in the Navy, but I've read enough books to know the importance of logistics. You would think that we'd have continued to apply those basic lessons from 80 years ago...it absolutely boggles my mind that we would ever be in a position again where the loss of a single tanker could have this kind of impact.

I guess if nothing else this will be a good real-world test of that commercial vessel conversion kit. Hopefully nothing major kicks off while they're figuring it out.

I just saw a report on Newsmax that GPS 'spoofing' has become a problem for airlines and ships at sea.
I wonder if that was involved and it was intentional.
I would hope that military GPS is completely separate from the commercial version - and harder to penetrate.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
Anybody know how long a super carrier can sustain flight operations without needing to take on more fuel for the aircraft? How about the other non-nuclear vessels in the carrier group? How long can they go without gassing up?

3-4 weeks for the JP type fuel. The fuel also provides ballast while at the same time, mitigating potential for saltwater contamination (seawater replaces the fuel as it’s used to prevent sloshing tanks and unwanted momentum while underway).

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Morgan:
So if your the Chinese navy, no need to waste weapons on the carrier, just take out an oiler. then for the next three days take out the rest of the fleet.

That is SOP for any military, hit the supply lines to include, food, ammo, and fuel.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
If it was 33 years old, built in 1991, I'm surprised they hadn't altered the design to at least have double bottoms. I worked on tankers built in 1981-1983 (La Jolla class) that had double bottoms.

The last bunch of ships in this class were built with double-hulls to conform to the new laws passed after the Exxon Valdez catastrophe.
There's a new class of oilers that are being built with double-hulls however, they have construction problems from the original yard and they can't pass the Navy's inspection. So they're tied-up at another ship yard getting whatever screw-ups fixed. smh

Yes, but double bottoms were in effect before double hulls; big difference. I'm still surprised this ship, built in 1991 didn't have a double bottom.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

Remember, it's a civilian crew manning these vessels.

The Village People?


.

Civilians or not, that was bad seamanship. I too have boated a lot in my years. Hell, a fish finder would have kept them from running aground.Then again, whoever is the captain of the ship should be given the boot and keep to 14 foot Alumicraft boats.