Marinha dos EUA

[P44]

U.S. May Cut 52 Ships From Plan

30-Year Draft Proposal Would Buy Less Costly Naval Vessels

With the U.S. Navy's new shipbuilding budget still a well-kept secret, information on the service's next 30-year ship construction plan has been hard to come by, and in the hush-hush world of prebudget Washington virtually no knowledgeable official will talk on the record.

But Defense News has obtained details of at least one late-year version of the plan
( http://www.militarytimes.com/static/pro ... ngplan.pdf )
based on an annual shipbuilding budget of $18.9 billion in 2009 dollars. While the totals for some types of ships have risen, overall the 244-ship draft plan buys 52 fewer ships then the plan submitted to Congress a year ago.

While final shipbuilding figures have not been decided and every budget line remains under review, the scheme could provide insight into some behind-the-scenes Pentagon thinking on the Navy's future force structure.

Among the draft plan's highlights is a drastically different profile for surface combatants - the cruisers and destroyers at the center of some of the most controversial changes over the past year. The plan shows less than half the number of new CGX cruisers while adding a new surface ship called the Future Surface Combatant (FSC).

Absent, as expected, are more DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers beyond the three already purchased, and the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke class has reappeared in Navy budget plans, although at only three ships. Fewer surface combatants and amphibious ships also would be purchased.

Navy officials would not confirm details of the draft plan, although several sources said this version or one close to it was on the table before the end of 2008. Defense News could not confirm whether the plan survived in this form to be presented to the new Obama administration, although it seems likely that something close to these numbers formed the basis of the 30-year shipbuilding plan now being debated.

"Until our final plan is delivered to Congress, we can't say with fidelity what the accurate numbers are," Lt. Clay Doss, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, said Feb. 13.

The late-year plan represents some of the give-and-take between the Navy and officials working for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and although officials would not confirm for the record which budget lines were being debated, two sources said there were significant differences in the number of high-speed ships to be built under a joint Army-Navy program.

Adding to the intrigue, other sources have spoken of an alternative Navy force structure plan prepared by OSD in the late fall, elements of which could appear in this draft plan.

"They cut the total numbers of the plan," said one Capitol Hill source who reviewed the draft. "But the numbers mask a deeper cut - they buy smaller, cheaper ships, not the high-end combatants like aircraft carriers and cruisers."

Another source who reviewed the draft agreed.

"It's pretty clear people are looking for money and ways to get numbers," the source said. "They need to change the complexion of the force structure because they have to say they restored the Navy, and they just can't get there with the prices of ships today."

It is not clear what the target fleet level is for this draft plan. The Navy's current plan is for 313 ships, a number which Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations (CNO), calls a "floor," or the lowest end of what the service needs. Inventory in the draft plan peaks at 336 in 2021, but then falls steadily to 275 by 2039, or less than today's 283-ship Navy.

"It almost looks like the 266-ship plan of a few years ago," said the Capitol Hill source, referring to a time around 2003 when then-CNO Adm. Vern Clark defined the fleet as between a high of 325 ships and a low of 266. Although that lowest number isn't directly reflected in the draft plan, it comes close when the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) line is removed.

The JHSV is a small, relatively cheap vessel built to commercial specifications and being purchased by the Navy for both Army and Navy use. The current plan is for 10 ships - five for each service - and sources report the sea service would like to beef up its total to 15 ships.

Non-Navy sources have been speculating for months that the numbers for the JHSV and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) would be jacked up and form the greater growth element of an expanded fleet plan of as many as 342 ships.

But the draft plan shows no more LCS vessels, although the numbers of ships to be bought in each year through 2019 has changed. The JHSV total grows from the 15 ships reportedly submitted by the Navy to 29 ships in the draft. It is not clear where the 14 additional ships came from, and one source speculated it was from OSD, not the Navy.


Big Cruiser Changes

The changes in the draft plan for the CGX cruiser are perhaps the most jarring. The 2008 plan bought 19 ships, beginning with the first in 2011 and one or two per year from 2013 through 2023. The draft plan shows eight ships, the first coming in 2017 and the rest spaced three years apart through 2038. That would provide a force far short of the requirement of 19 cruisers to replace current ships. A note appended to the draft plan mentions that the cruiser force would dip to 15 ships in 2025 and not recover to current levels until 2070.

The answer to the missing 11 cruisers might be in the Future Surface Combatant line, which totals 18 ships to be bought from 2012 through 2025. The Navy has not yet defined what the FSC is, although Pentagon acquisition chief John Young said on Feb. 5 the ship could be a version of the existing DDG 51-class destroyer, a derivative of the DDG 1000 class, or something else.

Some have speculated that the 18 ships could split at some point into two classes, one being a ship with the DDG 51s Aegis combat system, and another being a so-called "CGX Light" ship derived from the DDG 51 class, but with a more powerful, integrated powerplant and a new Air Missile Defense Radar also being developed for the CGX.

That same line of thought looks at the eight CGXs, perhaps, as representing the nuclear-powered cruiser championed by the House Seapower subcommittee chairman, Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., and other advocates. The Navy has not released any price figures for such a ship, but some have estimated it could run as high as $5 billion or $6 billion a copy. At that rate, the ship would be harder to budget for in successive years, and a smaller build rate could result.

Even less clear in the new plan is the impact of costs for the SSBNX ballistic missile submarine replacement program, scheduled to procure its first boat in 2019. In previous 30-year plans, the Navy has not added in costs for the ship, claiming the concept was not mature enough, but the service has been under strong pressure from OSD to do so. The reduced building rate for the cruisers could be a result of that added cost. It might also account for the slower building rate for aircraft carriers, which in the draft plan drops from one ship every four or five years to one every 10 years.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=CVS

[soultrain]

U.S. Navy Classifies Ship Inspection Reports
By PHILIP EWING
Published: 27 Feb 16:00 EST (21:00 GMT) PRINT | EMAIL
The U.S. Navy has classified regular reports about the material condition of its fleet, an about-face from when the reports were accessible as public documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The reports, filed by the Board of Inspection and Survey, or InSurv, contain the findings of meticulous, days-long inspections that cover every detail of the workings of surface ships, aircraft carriers and submarines.

In December, InSurv president Rear Adm. Raymond Klein decided the reports were to be classified, said Linda Alvers, the FOIA coordinator for Fleet Forces Command. She said she did not know why. Also unclear was whether the classification order applied only to InSurvs performed after December, or whether it included reports from before then.

Neither Klein nor a representative for InSurv could be reached to comment for this story.

InSurvs are circulated widely among commanders and technical authorities within the Navy, but seldom seen by civilians unless they've been specifically requested under freedom of information laws. Even then, Navy officials can redact the names of people; information about classified equipment; or trade secrets of shipbuilders or other venders.

Over the past year, InSurvs obtained by Navy Times have revealed severe problems aboard the cruiser Chosin, the destroyer Stout and the amphibious transport dock New Orleans.

The reports have also revealed when the Navy has taken delivery of well-built ships, including the amphibious transport dock Green Bay and the first littoral combat ship, the Freedom.

[cabeça de martelo]

Contract of the Day: Freedom Class

From the DoD contract announcements for Monday, March 2nd.

Lockheed Martin Corp. – Maritime Systems & Sensors, Baltimore, Md. is being awarded a modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-2311) for LCS program continuation efforts necessary to preserve production capability at its industry team shipyard facility. As this award represents efforts integrally related to Phase I of a competitive two-phased acquisition approach to procure FY09/FY10 LCS, with Phase II including potential award of up to three additional LCS Flight 0+ Class ships, the award amount is considered source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.104) and will not be made public at this time. LCS Class ships are networked, agile, and high-speed surface combatants with versatile warfighting capabilities optimized for littoral missions. LCS is optimized for flexibility in the littorals as a system of systems that are both manned and unmanned, and mission reconfigurable. LCS focuses on three primary mission areas: Littoral Surface Warfare operations emphasizing prosecution of small boats, Littoral Anti-Submarine Warfare and Littoral Mine Countermeasures. LCS also possesses inherent capabilities to execute other missions such as: Joint Littoral Mobility; Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance; Joint Special Operations Force support; Maritime Interdiction Operations; Homeland Defense; and Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection. Work will be performed in Marinette, Wis. (56 percent); Moorestown, N.J. (13 percent); Clearwater, Fla. (11 percent); Brunswick, Ga. (10 percent); Washington, D.C. (8 percent) and Baltimore, Md. (2 percent), and is expected to be completed by April 2009. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. is the contracting activity (N00024-03-C-2311).
First it should be noted that previous news reports had suggested that Marinette Marine, which had already laid off 170 workers last year, was going to lay off an additional 100 this year.

The details of this contract are somewhat confusing, but essentially the Navy is trying to contract out the 2 ships from FY09 and what is expected to be 3 ships in FY10 as part of a competitive fixed price contract to both contractors for 5 total ships instead of different contracts for the ships purchased in each fiscal year. One bid will be for two ships, while the other would be for 3 ships. These are not supposed to be cost-plus contracts, but with the details hidden we don't really know do we. Essentially the Navy is getting money out to the yard as a placeholder and to allow the yard to go ahead and begin construction on the FY09 ship it is sure to win. The final contract price will depend on whether the yard wins the 3 ship deal or 2 ship deal once the FY10 budget passes. I'm thinking there is good reason right now to suspect Lockheed Martin wins the three ship deal.

It is accurate to call this creative contracting.

There is a question I think the Navy should hire Tim Colton to find the answer to. How much of the cost increase of both LCS platforms was due to these ships being built at a 2nd tier shipyard? I want to know how much more the US Navy is paying for the LCS to be built in these second tier yards as opposed to the top tier yards that usually handle military contracts. I understand that there is a conventional wisdom that second tier yards should decrease costs because they should be more efficient, but should is completely unproven and I think the details matter. I also think the results of an investigation by someone as capable as Tim Colton will find there were problems no one counted on, and perhaps the second tier yards were not up to the task. That isn't to say they can't be brought up to the task of building these ships, but it might explain the high costs of the first in class ships, and may give some insight into what the hell is going on at Austal.

The Navy appears to be seriously struggling with enough money to keep the primarily Navy shipyards working, so I think it would be a big mistake to build the LCS at 2nd tier yards if it is in fact costing more money to do so when they could be built at primary Navy shipyards that need the work. I'm not thinking of the Lockheed Martin version per se with these comments, rather the General Dynamics ship, but that doesn't mean Marinette shouldn't be looked into also.

This announcement only makes it all the more obvious that we are hearing absolutely nothing from Austal regarding the General Dynamics design, and history shows that in the LCS program, when we see prolonged periods of silence, that has historically meant cost increases. Anyone care to guess how much the cost of Independence has grown over the last many months since the last cost increase? If the cost of Independence grows too much, I think the Navy is going to find themselves under pressure from Congress to pick a single hull, and that is going to mean serious problems for Austal USA if costs have indeed risen like I suspect they have.

I think before Congress and the Navy opt for a single hull for the LCS, it should be determined if the cost problems is the ship or if the problem is these 2nd tier yards. If General Dynamics can build the ship at another Navy yard for cheaper, then lets go with that before consolidating to a single hull. After all, we know they can handle the extra work in both Mississippi and Maine, and a few small ships a year is better than no small ships a year.

[P44]

LIMALHAS

Debris in generators delays delivery of Bush



An undisclosed amount of “foreign material” discovered in the emergency diesel generators aboard the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush has delayed its delivery to the Navy, several officials said.

Shipbuilder Northrop Grumman was expected to deliver the ship shortly after the carrier finished its acceptance trials April 10.

“We will take delivery after the discrepancies have been corrected,” said Alan Baribeau, spokesman at Naval Sea Systems Command. “The ‘when’ depends on Northrop Grumman.”

Baribeau described the problem as “foreign material found in the lube oil system” of diesel generators, which are used as a source of emergency electrical power. Under normal operations, Nimitz-class carriers are powered by their two nuclear reactors.

Members of the Navy Board of Inspection and Survey were aboard Bush for its acceptance trials off the Virginia and North Carolina coasts April 7-10.

Margaret Mitchell-Jones, a Northrop Grumman spokeswoman, said the “unexpected debris” in a “particle” form was discovered by InSurv during the open and inspect phase of their evaluation, after the ship had returned to port.

“We are unsure of exactly how it happened,” she said, “but we’ll ensure it’s remedied.”

Bush was commissioned Jan. 10. The ship “successfully” completed acceptance trials on April 10, according to a Navy announcement. It’s scheduled to deploy in the fall of 2010.

Baribeau said the corrections to the generators must be made by Northrop Grumman.

Bush is the last of 10 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. It’s delivery cost is $6.26 billion, Mitchell-Jones said. Fixing the generator problem might not require replacement but will take “a few weeks” she said. “The Navy decides when they accept a ship.”

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/04/navy_bush_042209/

[P44]

Pentagon Contract Announcement


(Source: US Department of Defense; issued May 1, 2009)


The first General Dynamics/Austal trimaran-hulled Littoral Combat Ship (LCS 2) seen inside its hangar prior to its launch. (Austal photo)

General Dynamics – Bath Iron Works (BIW), Bath, Maine, is being awarded contract N00024-09-C-2302 for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) FY09 Flight 0+ ship construction, class design services, configuration management services, additional crew and shore support, special studies and post delivery support.

As this award represents Phase I of a competitive two-phased acquisition approach to procure FY09/FY10 LCS, with Phase II including potential award of up to three additional LCS Flight 0+ Class ships, the award amount is considered source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.104) and will not be made public at this time.

Work will be performed in Mobile, Ala., (50 percent); Bath, Maine, (17 percent); Pittsfield, Mass., (14 percent); Ottowa, Ontario, (2 percent); California, Md., (1 percent); Baltimore, Md., (1 percent); Leesburg, Va., (1 percent); Burlington, Vt., (1 percent); and various locations of less than 1 percent each totaling 13 percent, and work is expected to be completed by June 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. is the contracting activity (N00024-09-C-2302). (ends)



General Dynamics Awarded Contract for Additional Trimaran Littoral Combat Ship


(Source: General Dynamics Bath Iron Works; issued May 1, 2009)



BATH, Maine --- The U.S. Navy today awarded a contract to a Bath Iron Works-led team for the construction of Coronado (LCS 4), the second Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to feature an innovative, high-speed trimaran hull.

The 419-foot surface combatant ship, equipped with open architecture-based combat systems and computing environment developed by General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, will be manufactured by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala. It is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in May 2012. Bath Iron Works is a subsidiary of General Dynamics.

The Littoral Combat Ship is a key element of the Navy's plan to address asymmetric threats of the 21st century. Intended to operate in coastal areas, the ship will be fast, highly maneuverable and geared to supporting mine detection/elimination, anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare, particularly against small surface craft. The Navy's first trimaran LCS, Independence (LCS 2), is in the final stages of construction and testing in preparation for its upcoming sea trials.

This contract will support more than 500 jobs in Austal's Mobile shipyard, as well as more than 100 employees of General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath and Mobile, and General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Pittsfield, Mass., Mobile and other locations.

"Recent maritime events have clearly validated the need for the U.S. Navy to have the capabilities offered by LCS. We're proud to be playing an important role in fulfilling that need," said Jeff Geiger, president of Bath Iron Works. "Our team is ready to apply the lessons we've learned during the construction of Independence (LCS 2) to help make Coronado the most-affordable, most-effective LCS it can be."

The ship's open architecture computing environment -- another key factor in meeting the U.S. Navy's requirements for a flexible, reconfigurable mission ship -- enables industry's most capable, affordable, non-proprietary solutions to be incorporated into the its core mission system. This computing environment, developed by the General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems team, provides a highly flexible information technology backbone that allows "plug and play" integration of both the core systems and the LCS mission modules. It meets Navy open architecture requirements, strictly adheres to published industry standards and facilitates the integration of commercially available products. It also allows for future growth and seamlessly integrates combat-system components to create a core mission system solution that dramatically lowers acquisition and lifecycle costs.

General Dynamics Bath Iron Works is the prime contractor for the General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ship Team. Partners include Austal USA (Mobile, Ala.); BAE Systems (Rockville, Md.); General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems (Fairfax, Va.); L3 Communications Marine Systems (Leesburg, Va.); Maritime Applied Physics Corporation (Baltimore, Md.); and Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems (Baltimore, Md.).


Bath Iron Works of Bath, Maine, is a leading designer and builder of complex surface combatants for the U.S. Navy and employs approximately 5,600 people. General Dynamics, headquartered in Falls Church, Va., employs approximately 92,900 people worldwide. The company is a market leader in business aviation; land and expeditionary combat systems, armaments and munitions; shipbuilding and marine systems; and information systems and technologies. (ends)



US Navy Orders Second Austal Littoral Combat Ship


(Source: Austal; issued May 4, 2009)



The US Navy has announced a fixed price incentive contract for the construction of a second Austal-designed and built Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

Awarded to Prime contractor Bath Iron Works, a General Dynamics company, the second Austal-built LCS will be similar to the 127 metre “Independence” (LCS 2), which is currently at an advanced stage of construction at Austal’s US shipyard in Mobile, Alabama.

The award represents the second half of the two-vessel US$1.02 billion budget appropriation for the LCS program for US Fiscal Year 2009, ending September 2009.
Approximately 50 per cent of the total award amount is for work to be performed at Austal USA.

The announcement follows Austal’s recent selection as Prime contractor for the US Navy’s Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) program, potentially valued at more than US$1.6 billion.

The General Dynamics LCS Team platform utilises Austal’s proven, high-speed trimaran hull-form to provide enhanced seakeeping, low resistance, superior aviation facilities, and large payload volume capacity. The next-generation warships will carry out a range of operations including mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare and the prosecution of surface attack craft in the near-shore (littoral) environment.

Austal Managing Director Bob Browning commented; “This contract award demonstrates a strong vote of confidence for the Austal-designed high speed aluminium trimaran seaframe, which has already proven itself in the commercial market.”

“With the US Navy’s ongoing commitment to a 55-vessel LCS program, as part of its 313 ship fleet, we are confident that our superior design and purpose-built US construction facilities put us in a good position to meet this important requirement.”

Mr Browning said momentum generated by the latest LCS order and the recent JHSV award will accelerate the growth of the company’s US operations, which now plans to increase its workforce to more than 1300 when the LCS gets into full production next year.

Construction of Austal’s second LCS will commence immediately at its shipyard in Mobile, where work is also well underway on the first phase of a new state-of-the-art Modular Manufacturing Facility (MMF).

The facility will allow quicker and more cost-effective construction of the ship components, or modules, which will then be transported to the existing Assembly Bays along the waterfront for erection and launch. Once completed, the 70,000m2 MMF (over 17 acres under roof), will allow the delivery of multiple JHSV or LCS platforms per year.

Sea trials of Austal’s first LCS, the 127 metre “Independence” (LCS 2), are scheduled for mid-2009, with delivery expected later in the year. The vessel was officially christened in front of more than 1,000 dignitaries during a ceremony held at Austal in October 2008.

The US Navy has previously announced that this newly-awarded LCS will be named “Coronado” (LCS 4).

Last month Austal announced the award of two contracts for the design and construction of large commercial vehicle-passenger ferries, to be built at Austal’s Western Australian facilities.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... igate.html#

[P44]

The US Navy will defer decisions on future amphibious ships and the CG-X cruiser to focus on the Littoral Combat Ship, of which it wants to order up to 55. (US Navy photo)


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... udget.html#

[P44]

Northrop Grumman deliveres USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77) to the U.S. Navy



06:21 GMT, May 12, 2009 NEWPORT NEWS, US | Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) delivered the nation's newest and most advanced nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77), today. It is the 10th and final Nimitz-class aircraft carrier and was constructed by the company's Shipbuilding sector in Newport News, Va.

A photo accompanying this release is available at http://media.globenewswire.com/noc/

"We are proud to be part of history by delivering the final Nimitz-class carrier to the Navy today," said Ken Mahler, vice president of Navy programs at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding in Newport News. "It represents the culmination of years of hard work, craftsmanship and dedication by thousands of shipbuilders, whose work will remain with the fleet for the next 50 years."

USS George H.W. Bush is the nation's 10th and final Nimitz-class aircraft carrier constructed by shipbuilders at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding's shipyard in Newport News, Va. At 1,092 feet in length, USS George H. W. Bush is nearly as long as the Empire State Building is tall. It weighs 97,000 tons, can carry more than 80 combat aircraft and its top speed exceeds 30 knots. Powered with two nuclear reactors, it will operate for more than 20 years without refueling.

New design features for the USS George H. W. Bush include new propellers, a new underwater hull-coating system, an updated aviation-fuel distribution system, and modernized aircraft launch and recovery equipment. Environmental upgrades have also been designed into the ship, including a new marine sewage system. It is the second carrier to have a modernized island and a new bulbous bow design that provides more buoyancy to the forward end of the ship and improves hull efficiency. The ship's keel was laid Sept. 6, 2003, it was christened Oct. 7, 2006 and was commissioned Jan. 10, 2009.

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/7352/

[Glauber Prestes]

Pessoas criticam o nome desse NAe... mas é muito apropriado para uma maquina de guerra...

[Sniper]

Ele homenageia o Bush pai ou o filho?

[felipexion]

O pai, mas é tudo farinha do mesmo saco.

[soultrain]

Nada a ver na minha opinião, o Bush pai foi um presidente digno dos EUA, quer se concorde ou não com as suas decisões, já o filho foi o pior presidente da história, colocando os EUA em algumas coisas, ao nível de países africanos, foi a pior coisa que podia ter acontecido aos EUA e ao mundo, um miúdo completamente irresponsável e dominado por todos, um fraco, um calhorda.

A estória da entrega desse porta aviões é outro capitulo dessa coisa, primeiro dar um nome de uma pessoa ainda viva; depois, foram gastos milhões e milhões de dólares dos contribuintes para a festa da entrega, que foi feita meses antes de estar pronto, por pressão do departamento de estado. Ou seja a Marinha foi obrigada a aceitar e por na activa um meio antes de estar concluído; enquanto decorria a festa, continuavam os trabalhos, enfim um começo nada auspicioso para a belonave.


[[]]'s

[P44]

e nomes como "America", "J F Kennedy" , etc deixaram de estar em navios , trocados por este "USS Pai do Aborto"

mais valia terem-no logo chamado "USS Republican Party"

[P44]

Navy Decommissions USS Kitty Hawk
Story Number: NNS090512-08
Release Date: 5/12/2009 5:37:00 PM


From Kitty Hawk Public Affairs
BREMERTON, Wash. (NNS) -- The aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) was decommissioned May 12 at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility in Bremerton, Wash., after more than 48 years of service.

Members of the final crew lowered the ship's commissioning pennant from the main mast and the U.S. Flag and First Navy Jack from their staffs after Kitty Hawk Commanding Officer Capt. Todd Zecchin closed out the ship's deck log.

"It's hard to capture the feeling in words," said Zecchin. "This is the second aircraft carrier that I've decommissioned, and it doesn't hit you immediately until you've lowered the commissioning pennant for the last time."

Kitty Hawk's officers of the deck have used the log to track shipboard activities, both in port and at sea, since commissioning April 29, 1961.

Zecchin then transferred the ship to the control of shipyard commander Capt. Mark Whitney during a small ceremony aboard the ship.

"She has served her country for almost 50 years – 48 years and 13 days, across the globe," said Zecchin. "There have been a lot of Sailors that have crossed her decks, a lot of airmen that have flown off and on her decks."

Kitty Hawk arrived in Bremerton Sept. 2, 2008 to prepare for its eventual decommissioning. The ship spent the previous 10 years operating from Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan.

While operating from Japan as the Navy's only forward deployed aircraft carrier, Kitty Hawk took part in dozens of exercises and operations, including being the first aircraft carrier to take part in Operation Enduring Freedom in the Arabian Sea, and her aircraft took part in the opening strikes of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

She was replaced by USS George Washington (CVN 73), which is only the fourth U.S. aircraft carrier to be forward deployed from Yokosuka.

Kitty Hawk's voyage to Bremerton started when the ship left Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan, May 28, 2008. Since then, the ship made her final port visit to Guam, then on to Hawaii, where it took part in the 21st biennial Rim of the Pacific exercise with nine other nations.

On her way to Bremerton, Kitty Hawk made a final stop at Naval Air Station North Island, Calif., where she was homeported for more than 25 years. Dozens of former crewmembers, including 38 plankowners – members of the 1961 commissioning crew – rode the ship from San Diego to Bremerton on its final at-sea voyage.

The decommissioning brings back a lot of memories for the 100,000 or so Sailors who served aboard Kitty Hawk as part of ship's company or air wing.

"In January of 1965 at the young age of 17, I came on board the USS Kitty Hawk right out of boot camp," said Kitty Hawk Veterans Association President Jim Melka. "Being from a small town in Iowa, I had never seen anything so massive. The Kitty Hawk was home for me for the next 32 months. I learned a lot in those 32 months.

"The Hawk is a great ship and has been very well taken care of by our young men and women in today's Navy," he said. "I'm very proud to have served on the USS Kitty Hawk."

Plankowner Jerry Warren made Kitty Hawk's first and final at-sea voyages.

"I really felt proud to … say I served on the USS Kitty Hawk, the oldest active ship in the Navy," said Warren, the veteran's association vice president. "She will always have a place in my heart. She has been, and still is, a great ship with a lot of history behind her."

Kitty Hawk had been the Navy's oldest active warship since 1998 and turns over the title to the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65). Kitty Hawk was also the Navy's last remaining diesel-fueled aircraft carrier.

Throughout its lifetime, Kitty Hawk has had 407,507 arrested carrier landings and 448,235 catapult launches.

Now decommissioned, the ship will remain in Bremerton for the foreseeable future as part of the Navy Inactive Ships Program.

For more news from the fleet, visit www.navy.mil.

[Wolfgang]

FABIO mode on:

comandante marino o kitty hawk vem para a nossa grande MB? não deixe de responder voçe sabe que eu torço pela nossa grande MB obrigado

FABIO mode off:

Marino mode on:

Se eu ainda respondesse, eu diria novamente: nada de sucata na MB. Aguardem os planos da MB em junho.

Marino mode off.

[Marino]