Jump to content

Talk:USS George H.W. Bush/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Does anyone have a definitive cite for this piece of information?

Here is a source for the info: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-77.htm
The fourteenth paragraph states, "On December 9, 2002 Secretary of the Navy Gordon England officially named the Navy's 10th Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, CVN 77, in honor of World War II naval aviator and former President of the United States George Herbert Walker Bush during a ceremony at the Pentagon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.129.196 (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2004 (UTC)
Here is the official announcement from US Navy Navy to name newest carrier in honor of former President--SElefant 07:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No need to repeat a whole section of a referenced article seeing how small the source is. Revprez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.98.133 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I can't source it, but it was also announced at the christening of the USS Ronald Reagan. But, Wikipedia doesn't seem to like primary sources (since you're going off of a lot of faith at that point), so take that as you will. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Izuko (talk • contribs) 21:38, December 11, 2005


Name of Article/Ship

Until she's actually commissioned, the official name is PCU George H. W. Bush (CVN-77). Should it be changed for accuracy, or left for ease of understanding?--Mtnerd 07:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't refer to de-commissioned ships as "The former USS Iowa (BB-61)", which is the technically correct name. --rogerd 11:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Think of it as premptive naming. It is true that the ship is still technically a Pre-Commissioning Unit, but one day it will become a United States Ship. Thats why the article is named USS and not PCU. TomStar81 20:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, neither is right. Right now, the future GHWB is just a hull sitting in drydock at NGNN. I passed by there yesterday, and I didn't see an island on her (though it was darkish and I didn't didn't have time to look closely). If they haven't done the island landing, then they certainly haven't christened her yet. Once they do that, she'll go from just being a hull to being the "George H. W. Bush," not the "PCU-77" or "PCU George H. W. Bush." The PCU is the crew and the command, not the ship, since the ship is not yet Navy property. This is, of course, assuming they continue with how they did it for the 75 and 76. Can't say for what was done before those two, since they're the only ones I've precommed. Izuko 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The builder has a site about this ship [1] and they refer to it as "The Aircraft Carrier George H. W. Bush (CVN-77)". --rogerd 02:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Updated photo

...is available at [2]. If no one else gets to it, I'll do this later this week. Jinian 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Differences = Features

It's not clear from the text of the Features section that this relates to the sentence asserting the differences - hence my tagging with a specify tag. I thought that might be the case, but wasn't sure. I'll make revise the wording to make this more clear. Ronnotel 15:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Succession

This article (and others) discuss the ship's future role which will replace the Kitty Hawk. However many articles, including Kitty Hawk’s, state that George Washington (CVN-73) will replace the Kitty Hawk. This is confusing.

Kitty Hawk is presently stationed in Japan. George Washington is to take over Kitty Hawk's role in Japan, while GHWB will replace Kitty Hawk after Kitty Hawk is decomissioned. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Now I see. Thank You GavinSimmons 21:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

New Photograph

I added Image:DCS06-627-25.jpg from the Newport News website and used it as the ship picture, while moving the original photo to the body of the article text.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a great photograph, but I'm concerned that it may not be public domain. If the photo was taken by Northrup-Grumman, and not U.S. Navy personnel, it wouldn't automatically be public domain. Do you have further information about the photo? TomTheHand (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Notice

The contents of this site are protected by copyright.

Except as specifically permitted herein, no portion of the information on this web site may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, without prior written permission from Northrop Grumman Corporation. Users are not permitted to modify, distribute, publish, transmit or create derivative works of any material found on this site for any public or commercial purposes.

Limited License Northrop Grumman authorizes individuals to copy materials published on this web site solely for individual, personal, non-commercial use. No other use of the information is authorized.

Except as specified above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel or otherwise any license or right under any patent, trademark or copyright of Northrop Grumman or any third party.

News Media Professionals Northrop Grumman owns and retains the copyrights in the images in its media photo gallery, except where expressly noted. This site provides resource materials about Northrop Grumman for news media professionals. You must register to access photos in the gallery. To help you cover Northrop Grumman, we have assembled a variety of media materials including high resolution images and a list of Northrop Grumman media contacts.

Provided that the recipient is news media, Northrop Grumman grants a nonexclusive, limited right to download an image and reproduce it without alteration for news reporting or editorial purposes only. Except for the foregoing limited license, no other rights or permissions of any kind are given to the recipient.

Intellectual Property Management Our intellectual property licensing program promotes the commercial use of our technologies. If you are interested in licensing a particular technology from Northrop Grumman, please contact us. For a look at some of our technology available for licensing, including patents, software, and trademarks, please click on Intellectual Property Licensing.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.122.205 (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. I believe that the use of the photogragh meets fair use, and I unloaded a low-rez version.Marcd30319 (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed name was USS Lexington.

If someone wants to work this in Library of Congress apparently this carrier was proposed to have been named USS Lexington. --Brad (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor change to opening paragraph

I changed " ... Is to be the last Nimitz-Class," to " ...Is the last Nimitz-Class," as with its commissioning, it is no longer in the future tense. Kaenei (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft Carried

Something tells me that the list of Aircraft Carried (10 B-52 20 Raptors 30 sea kings 1 Typhoon) is not accurate. Does anyone know where to find the correct information?Aef6259 (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That was vandalism, since reverted. Maralia (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Annual cost

It should be noted that it will cost about a billion dollars a year to operate this one carrier. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/virginia-florida-spar-over-carrier-money-2009-03-15.html It might also be worth noting in this article where each of the many US aircraft carriers are based. This carrier is currently based in Virginia. rumjal 12:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

WOMEN ONBOARD

Was having a discussion with one of my old high school buddies and I was telling him the amount of women that was on my ship, the USS Sierra. I told him there was probably 30% women onboard and there were women on many ships now including carriers. I was wondering what the amount of women there were on carriers. Especially the newest one, USS George Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.89.185 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics - sensors/weapons counts, CVN upgrades

I believe that quantity (3) Mk-91 NSSMS ... with (3) Mk-95 Radars may be incorrect, CVN-77 should have been designed and built with the newer, single and integrated missile system (1) NSSMS Mk-57, consisting of (along with the two Mk-29 guided missile launching systems (GMLS) already listed) a quantity of four Mk-9 tracking illuminator systems (TIS) [instead of (3) Mk-91 guided missile fire control systems (GMFCS), as on earlier CVN's, some with six Mk-78 guided missile directors (most fitting only on older style mast & radar tower configuration), two of each director slaved to one of three guided missile launchers]. CVN-77 missile systems are similar to the prior CVN-76. Also, the quantity (3) Phalanx CIWS guns may also be incorrect (maybe should be just two, in the back of the boat); one of three CIWS's (along with one of three Mk-57/Mk-91/Mk-95 NSSMS system-subsystem-sets) may have been designed-away when more physical space was needed to allow for two RAMS missile launchers to then newer (2001) CVN's defensive systems designs. [1]144.183.224.2 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

does it have any CIWS 20mm, or not

Does CVN-77 have the phalanx Close-In Weapon System Mk 15? The characteristics block lists three (3) but I have not seen any in the photographs; (I look for two (2) on the back end and one forward right next to NSSMS Mk 57/GMLS Mk 29/GML Mk 132). Predecessor ship Reagan CVN-76 was designed and built with Capstone AAW w/SSDS Mk 2 Mod 1 and without any CIWS, about 2003. Also, I believe that predecessor ship Nimitz CVN-68 had its CIWS removed and not replaced during RCOH (2001), in anticipation of Capstone AAW w/SSDS Mk 2 Mod 0. And predecessor ship Ike CVN-69 (RCOH next after CVN-68) article lists no (0) CIWS. 144.183.224.2 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Christen/Launch Date Seems to Be in Error

Presently, the article gives the Christen and launch date as 9 October 2006. The information provided in the article's reference seems to confirm that date.

However, I've seen two other sources I believe to be more authoritative/dependable indicating the correct date should be 7 October 2006, not the 9th. I'd like to cite these Web pages:

1. This Washington Post article, dated Saturday, October 7th, references the same date in the body of their article, and seems to confirm my suspicion.

2. Additionally, another Navy Web page also indicates a Christening date of October 7th.

I would have posted the change myself, but didn't want to risk an error with the HTML. For Wikipedia's consideration ...

TonyRony (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

First Deployment and OPSEC

I don't think there is anything in the First Deployment section that has OPSEC concerns considering they are all past events, but just be cautious posting information about the ship's deployment status. Thank you. Zm69051 (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello ZM69051. Wikipedia generally uses secondary sources for the information in its articles, so anything that is posted here will have already been released by the mainstream media anyway. Best wishes Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Very true Antarctic-adventurer. Just more of a cautionary comment than anything. Thank you for your response. Zm69051 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Any controversy that she was laid down a week after BushJr became president?!

Seems pretty messed up to order an aircraft carrier named after your still-living pops a week after being sworn into office... Aadieu (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your "facts" are a bit messed up. The ship was not named until December 9, 2002. Also, at that time, there were 4 living former presidents: Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, and Clinton. Carter has a sub named for him, the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23). I can't find the exact date, but it was certianly named before Clinton left office in Jan 2001. The USS Ronald Reagan was named in March 2001 under the GW Bush Administration. That left only 2 living presidents to chose from, and I'm darn sure that no matter who the former Republican president had been, they wouldn't have named it after Clinton! But I'm sure he's next. - BilCat (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
There was always the option of not naming it after a president. But of course the Republicans in Congress just loved naming carriers after Republican presidents. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Every conceivable modern Democratic president had a ship named after them too. Clinton's too recent, Carter has the Best Submarine Ever, LBJ's too controversial thanks to Vietnam, the Kennedy just got decommissioned, the Truman's still active, Roosevelt had a destroyer replace his carrier. And of course, we have two supercarriers named after Democratic Congressmen. Every opportunity to name a ship after a Democratic president was acted upon. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, they could have just not named the ship after ANY president, of either party. Or they could've named it after an early president who's popular by Democrats and Republicans alike, such as Thomas Jefferson (who hasn't had a ship named after him since 1985). Naming ships after living people at all is a break with the usual tradition, and it's becoming entirely too common. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This is purely speculation, and unless you can provide evidence that there was a reasonable level of dispute/controversy about the naming, then this discussion is not going to help to improve the article - that, after all, is the only reason for this discussion page. Fourth ventricle (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As a foot note, the Department of Defence announced on 27 May 2011 that CVN-79 will be named John F. Kennedy.Jhunph (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The ship's seal.

Additionally to the part where it talks about the overhead profiles, " Above the carrier are overhead profiles of a TBM Avenger torpedo bomber (representing Bush’s days as a Navy pilot), an F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter", the RED overhead profile is actually an F-35C, The Navy aircraft carrier variant of the Lightning 2. Maybe they were thinking about the near future of Naval aviation, like looking to the future, when they decided to use it; but that's exactly what it is. Here's an image of the top view of each F-35 variant. The Navy doesn't have any other aircraft that looks like that from the top view. Dchagwood (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

CVN-77

Who cares about ancillary bits of history and trivia regarding CVN-77? Let's talk about performance. I know the Hyundai National container ship is capable of 32 knots in open sea for extended periods. It has the same basic dimensions as CVN-77 with about 1/3 the power and more drag. Therefore, it is probable that CVN-77 is EASILY capable of 50 knots or greater. The S.S. United States did 50 m.p.h. long ago as revealed by the N.Y. Times in a FOIA request, so 50 knots or more for CVN-77 is entirely realistic. Very impressive equipment for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.194.157 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/george-h-w-bush/george-h-w-bush3.html
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/george-h-w-bush/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Referring to ship as "she" or "her"

Referring to a ship as she or her is unnecessary personification. Wikipedia's goal is to present the truth, and the truth of the matter is that ships have no reproductive organs. English, unlike some other languages, does not tend to assign gender to most words. For example objects such as television, table, apple, car, shovel, lamp, and so on have no gender assigned.

Neutralizing a word's gender also denotes equality between the sexes. For example: Police Officer instead of policeman, Fire Fighter instead of fireman. Referring to an object as a "she" is objectifying to women. After all would it make sense to refer to the ship as "he"? I recommend that the ship be referred to as "it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartianColony (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A ship is always reffered to as she or her, it is even used by the United States Navy. It has always been and always will be how it is done. Your argument is not one worth action.

Thank you for your concern.
STJMLCC (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Pronouns guideline, either the neutral or female gender can be used in a WP ship article (only one gender choice per article), depending on the choice of the original editor of each article. - BilCat (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USS George H.W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USS George H.W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ship's seal information (aircraft outlines)

Corrected quote "Above the carrier are the overhead profiles of a TBM Avenger torpedo bomber (representing Bush’s days as a Navy pilot), an F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter, and an F-35C Lightning II, superimposed one upon the other in order of the individual aircraft's outline size." The cited source DOES NOT say that and it cannot possibly be correct because the TBM has the widest wingspan at 50 feet, the F/A-18 has the narrowest wingspan at 40 feet and the F-35C has a wingspan of 43 feet. PhantomWSO (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

General Characteristics Question-marks

I believe that a Daily Press article states (correctly) that CVN-77 possesses only two (2) CIWS, aft only (back end of the ship), instead of the "3 or 4?" as described in the article. I believe that this is about two (2) greater than on her predecessor ship, CVN-76. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on USS George H.W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 update

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2017/july/27/170727-portsmouth-hosts-us-carrier-strike-group

Ajaxrocks (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Referring To The USS Ship As a Female Object Is Incorrect

It seems to be not only incorrect, but quite insulting to females as much as it is to males. It sounds more like something a "redneck" will be calling his car rather than out of a formal encyclopedia article.We aren't 13th century pirates - We have progressed from such things, and it is time to move on. There is no need for me to explain with my own words why it is incorrect, simply take a look at this: http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/12/ships.html

I'm new. I have noticed there is a thread regarding the issue, but I am not sure how I'm supposed to join the conversation, so I am creating a new one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustForNow1 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As noted above, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Military_history#Pronouns says that we can use either the "she/her" or the "it/its" format. If you're gonna petition for that to be changed, it would have to be at the milmos page itself, and it would require widespread support from the community to implement the changes. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, two very famous redneck characters in The Dukes of Hazzard usually referred to their car, the General Lee, as a "he". I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they were criticized for not using the correct "she" at some time during the show's run, probably by Northerners. :) - BilCat (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I have always known our ship and allies ships as a She, or her. and enemy combat ship as its. all this Pc is going to bloody far. relax and take a chill pill. same go for cars. Like the 1969 Shelby Mustang GT 500 is known as Eleanor. -Major Jared29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorJared29 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Periods

Any reason why there are spaces after the periods in the name of the president but none for the ship? I know these are two different articles written by two different groups of editors but it does look inconsistent as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.225.52 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The ship is titled with "H.W." because that's how the name is spelled by the US Navy, and is the usual way that periods in names in the US are written. The biography article uses "H. W." because a small group of users who prefer that style were able to garner support and forced all biography articles to use that style, regardless.of whether that style is used in the person's home country or not. Fortunately, they have not been able to force articles on subjects named after people to use their preferred style yet, but I'm sure they will keep trying until they succeed. - BilCat (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The tail wagging the dog... - wolf 02:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/rim-7.htm paragraph-2 for the old and paragraph-3 for the new
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_George_H.W._Bush/Archive_1&oldid=1137279015"