This is a discussion on US Navy News and updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by KiwiRob
What about the new Coast Guard ships?
I just noticed on the ship list for Bath ...
I just noticed on the ship list for Bath Iron Works that there is a Burke Class Destroyer called the John S McCain, so if the old boy is elected will he be the first serving President with a ship in active service named after him?
The ship is named after his father and grand father, not for him.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves." Forum rules, read them!
Marinette Marine built the buoy tenders, both seagoing and coastal lately, along with the latest Mackinaw icebreaker. The new Mackinaw is an enlarged Juniper class buoy tender built with an icebreaker hull, she has slightly larger dimensions. A number of shipyards could build the new FRC patrol boats.
Depending on who wins the LCS contract for the navy, I would suspect the loser with Northrup Grumman-Ingalls in Mississippi will contend for the OPC program. I expect Bath to compete in the DDGX or CCGX programs.
I just noticed on the ship list for Bath Iron Works that there is a Burke Class Destroyer called the John S McCain, so if the old boy is elected will he be the first serving President with a ship in active service named after him?
The destroyer was named after his grandfather and father. Although she has the same name, he is after all John S. McCain III. As far as being borned in Panama, his father was stationed there at that time. Otherwise he would have been borned in America. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of military dependents borned abroad as American citizenships before. More than military families also use this loophole for American citizenship. America won't deny American citizenship to foreign borned military dependents whether from admirals, corporals, or privates.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of military dependents borned abroad as American citizenships before. More than military families also use this loophole for American citizenship. America won't deny American citizenship to foreign borned military dependents whether from admirals, corporals, or privates.
Exactly, My oldest son was born in the US Naval Hospital in Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines. He's a US citizen through and through..No big deal really..
Yes, the majority of Americans agree. However, there are those today for partisan reasons who don't agree currently, but if the shoe was on another horse they would think differently.
The destroyer was named after his grandfather and father. Although she has the same name, he is after all John S. McCain III. As far as being borned in Panama, his father was stationed there at that time. Otherwise he would have been borned in America. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of military dependents borned abroad as American citizenships before. More than military families also use this loophole for American citizenship. America won't deny American citizenship to foreign borned military dependents whether from admirals, corporals, or privates.
The interesting thing about this is that in a case-by-case basis some folks can retain dual citizenships.
I know of a case of a US military member who is a naturalized US Citizen from Portugal (as is the spouse). Their child was born in Brazil and received passports from the USA, Brazil and Portugal.
The recent fire on the USS George Washington was caused by unauthorized smoking and improperly stowed flammable material. The CO and XO were both fired as well, so far no one else is in line for punishment.
Investigation blames blaze on unauthorized smoking, poor storage of flammables
By Gidget Fuentes - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jul 30, 2008 21:51:19 EDT
SAN DIEGO — The skipper and executive officer of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier George Washington were relieved Wednesday, Navy officials said, two months after a major at-sea fire raced through 80 spaces on the ship. Investigators determined that the blaze was started when unauthorized smoking ignited improperly stowed flammables nearby, the Navy said
The Navy’s Pacific Fleet commander, Adm. Robert F. Willard, in his final endorsement of an investigation into the fire, directed that Capt. David C. Dykhoff and his executive officer be relieved of command.
Dykhoff was fired “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command and his failure to meet mission requirements and readiness standards,” Navy officials said in a statement released Wednesday afternoon.
That same day, Naval Air Forces commander Vice Adm. Thomas Kilcline relieved Dykhoff and also fired the ship’s executive officer, Capt. David M. Dober, “for substandard performance,” according to the statement.
Capt. J.R. Haley, who recently commanded the carrier Theodore Roosevelt, has replaced Dykhoff, and Capt. Karl O. Thomas, the executive officer of the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, has been reassigned as GW’s executive officer.
Willard’s recommendations came as he finalized the PacFleet investigation. Navy officials did not provide details on additional actions or punishment of other crew members recommended in the investigation report.
The investigation found that the likely cause of the fire, which caused $70 million in damage, “was unauthorized smoking that ignited flammable liquids and other combustible material improperly stored in an adjacent space,” officials said in the statement. “The fire and the subsequent magnitude of the fire were the result of a series of human acts that could have been prevented. Specifically, the storage of 90 gallons of refrigerant compressor oil in an unauthorized space contributed to the intensity of the fire.”
Navy officials did not release a copy of the report or Willard’s endorsement. However, Capt. Scott Gureck, a Pacific Fleet spokesman, said a redacted copy of the investigation probably would be released in a few weeks, once all disciplinary and administrative actions have been completed.
Rear Adm. Richard Wren, who commands Task Force 70 aboard the Kitty Hawk, “has been directed to consider administrative and disciplinary actions he deems appropriate for those individuals involved in the fire,” Gureck said.
The fire broke out near the auxiliary boiler room shortly before 8 a.m. on May 22 as the carrier began an underway replenishment with another ship near the Galapagos Islands. It quickly spread to nearby exhaust and ventilation trunks and supply spaces, burning in 80 spaces for 12 hours before firefighting teams doused the blaze. In all, 37 sailors were treated for minor injuries, including one sailor who suffered first- and second-degree burns.
George Washington had left its previous homeport of Norfolk, Va., in the spring for its new home in Yokosuka, Japan, where it would replace the conventionally powered Kitty Hawk and join the Forward Deployed Naval Forces, becoming the first nuclear-powered carrier to be based in the region.
The fire has forced the delays in the turnover of both ships and crews in San Diego, now scheduled to begin Aug. 7 when the Kitty Hawk arrives in San Diego, Navy officials said.
George Washington is slated to leave San Diego on Aug. 21 for Japan, where the ship is expected to arrive in late September, they added.
While it is the standard move to replace the CO and sometimes the XO when things like this happens I wonder if it was the right choice in this case. A CVN isn't like a destroyer where the CO or XO can easily visit every space on the ship, he has to rely on his officers and chiefs to ensure that HAZMAT and other flammable material is stowed properly. The DIVO's and especially chiefs in charge of the spaces where the fire started and spread the fastest are the ones that need to be slammed, same with any one found to have directly led to this accident.
The other thing that bothers me is that 80 spaces and over 70 million dollars in damage was caused by a cigarette, what if this would of been battle damage, a magazine or other major fire? This may be a sign that damage control is falling to the way side.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves." Forum rules, read them!
The debate over what Congress will let the navy build is still going on, the next week or so should be interesting.
This article is saying that congress really isn't interested in restarting the Burke line. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0708/073008cdpm2.htm
An additional LPD-17, a sub and a couple T-AKE's isn't bad, and the USN doesn't need more DDG's, honestly it needs low end craft and LCS isn't exactly low end.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves." Forum rules, read them!
The recent fire on the USS George Washington was caused by unauthorized smoking and improperly stowed flammable material. The CO and XO were both fired as well, so far no one else is in line for punishment.
While it is the standard move to replace the CO and sometimes the XO when things like this happens I wonder if it was the right choice in this case. A CVN isn't like a destroyer where the CO or XO can easily visit every space on the ship, he has to rely on his officers and chiefs to ensure that HAZMAT and other flammable material is stowed properly. The DIVO's and especially chiefs in charge of the spaces where the fire started and spread the fastest are the ones that need to be slammed, same with any one found to have directly led to this accident.
The other thing that bothers me is that 80 spaces and over 70 million dollars in damage was caused by a cigarette, what if this would of been battle damage, a magazine or other major fire? This may be a sign that damage control is falling to the way side.
A real pity. I met the CO and XO when the GW was in Rio de Janeiro this past April. Some very professional folks from the CO on down that showed tremendous pride in their ship and work. Unfortunately the blame had to be placed somewhere.
Good idea to locate all USN news in one thread.
Regarding the stopping of DDG-1000 to only 2 ships - I've always been in support of cointinuing the Burke class with a Flight-III series of 20+ with more VLS for cruise missiles instead of building huge arsenal battleships. Yes the technology developed with the 2 ships will be useful, but the USN would never have afforded a sizeable class of DDG-1000s.
IMHO the USN needs lots of Burke and of LCS to support the carriers and the Marines.
However at the moment the USN is really going through rough seas... the Virginia SSNs capped at 4 if I'm not mistaken, the LCS suffering delays and cuts, the DDG-1000 stopping at 2...
