this post was submitted on
1,753 points (61% like it)
4,620 up votes 2,867 down votes
shortlink:

pics

subscribe2,495,506 readers

8,296 users here now

Submit your Halloween pumpkin pics to /r/horror's carving competition!

A place to share interesting photographs and pictures. Feel free to post your own, but please read the rules first (see below), and note that we are not a catch-all for general images (of screenshots, comics, etc.)

Spoiler code

Please mark spoilers like this:
[text here](/spoiler)

Hover over to read.

Rules

  1. No screenshots, or pictures with added or superimposed text. This includes image macros, comics, info-graphics and most diagrams. Text (e.g. a URL) serving to credit the original author is exempt.

  2. No gore or porn. NSFW content must be tagged.

  3. No personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder. Stalking & harassment will not be tolerated.

  4. No solicitation of votes (including "cake day" posts), posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor, or [FIXED] posts. DAE posts go in /r/DoesAnybodyElse. "Fixed" posts should be added as a comment to the original image.

  5. Submissions must link directly to a specific image file or to an image hosting website with minimal ads. We do not allow blog hosting of images ("blogspam"), but links to albums on image hosting websites are okay. URL shorteners are prohibited.

  • If your submission appears to be filtered but definitely meets the above rules, please send us a message with a link to the comments section of your post (not a direct link to the image). Don't delete it as that just makes the filter hate you!

  • If you come across any rule violations, please report the submission or message the mods and one of us will remove it!

Please also try to come up with original post titles. Submissions that use certain clichés/memes will be automatically tagged with a warning.

Links

If your post doesn't meet the above rules, consider submitting it on one of these other subreddits:

Comics  
/r/comics /r/webcomics
/r/vertical /r/f7u12
/r/ragenovels /r/AdviceAtheists
Image macros Screenshots/text
/r/lolcats /r/screenshots
/r/AdviceAnimals /r/desktops
/r/Demotivational /r/facepalm (Facebook)
/r/reactiongifs /r/DesktopDetective
Wallpaper Animals
/r/wallpaper /r/aww
/r/wallpapers /r/cats
The SFWPorn Network /r/TrollingAnimals
  /r/deadpets
  /r/birdpics
  /r/foxes
Photography Un-moderated pics
/r/photography /r/AnythingGoesPics
/r/photocritique /r/images
/r/HDR
/r/windowshots
/r/PictureChallenge
Misc New reddits
/r/misc /r/britpics
/r/gifs Imaginary Network
/r/dataisbeautiful /r/thennnow
/r/picrequests /r/SpecArt
/r/LookWhoIMet
  /r/timelinecovers
  /r/MemesIRL
  /r/OldSchoolCool
  /r/photoshopbattles

Also check out http://irc.reddit.com

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

1752
1753

Aircraft Carrier sky vista (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by [deleted]

top 200 commentsshow all 341
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]battlegnome 38 points39 points ago

Spent four years on this ship. If you look at the design on the helmet that is the emblem for the "Night Dippers". They are a SAR (Search and Rescue) squadron attached to the ship. I maybe mistaken, but it looks to me that they may be doing a search and rescue for a man overboard drill.

[–]roaddogg2k2 5 points6 points ago

When where you on the Ike? I was there from 04 to 08. Worked in the aviation tunnel up front

[–]Osiris32 7 points8 points ago

And that's one of the amazing things about this ship. It's so big that you could literally live on it for four years, meet someone who served on board at the same time, and have no clue who they are. The ship's compliment is over 2,500, or the same population as the county seat of Lake County in Oregon.

[–]armor3r 0 points1 point ago

I was in the Arresting Gear 06-10, you may know my old roomate, ABE2 Echlin last I checked. He was in the PME Cal lab.

[–]battlegnome 0 points1 point ago

I was on the Ike from 02-06. Combat Systems Div. 01.

[–]roaddogg2k2 0 points1 point ago

Im sure we saw each other. Did you know a guy named Cuidioni?

[–]jesuspeeker 4 points5 points ago

I am going to ask you because you might tell me.

How the shit do you launch a plane when all them are are on ship like that? It just seems like a cluster fuck to me. Which means it's really not, I just don't understand it.

[–]BEBHaven 7 points8 points ago

The aircraft are usually only on deck like that for photos, or if something is going on that needs the hangar bays (which sit below the flight deck) cleared for some reason.

As pictured, though, they could still launch aircraft on the waist catapults, which are in the area of the flight deck that sticks out to the port side of the ship (bottom of this picture).

The guys that control the shuffling of aircraft on deck have their shit together, most days, so what seems like chaos is pretty ordered. I worked below decks (nuclear reactor operator) so I don't know exactly how they do it, myself. It involves a small model of the flight deck and small tokens for each specific aircraft so they can keep track.

[–]Congzilla 3 points4 points ago

nuclear reactor operator

Homer Simpson of the seas.

[–]whitebait01 2 points3 points ago

Homer Seampson

[–]BEBHaven 0 points1 point ago

Blinky is my copliot.

[–]jesuspeeker 2 points3 points ago

Thank you. I figured they had some plan, it's too much of an orderly cluster fuck. Thank you.

[–]Whit3y 2 points3 points ago

It involves a small model of the flight deck and small tokens for each specific aircraft so they can keep track.

I saw a guy working the models on discovery channel. It was pretty cool, they where just cut pieces of cardboard in the shapes of all the different planes and helicopters.

You'd figure with our military budget they'd have something a bit more advanced, but hell, if it works, why mess with it.

[–]BEBHaven 1 point2 points ago

I can't speak for the other branches, but nearly all the tech I worked with was ten to thirty years behind 'state of the art', sometimes even more. The logic is that old tech has most of the bugs worked out.

That mindset is changing as Admirals grow old and die, though.

[–]battlegnome 0 points1 point ago

When the ship is conducting flight ops, the whole flight deck is cleared off. They have the aircraft on the flight deck for storage or for show. But mostly for storage.

[–]MrBoog 6 points7 points ago

What is that white cable that appears to be running from the aircraft carrier to the helicopter?

[–]armor3r 2 points3 points ago

It is a rope, the EOD team is doing a fast rope exercise.

[–]Bobz_Hi 1 point2 points ago

thats not a FAST rope, way too long and its also running to the portside away from the ship. for a second I thought it was a SPIE rig, but not the people are too low on the line for that too. battlegnome seems to be correct, its a SAR exercise

[–]armor3r 0 points1 point ago

This is correct, it's not a FAST rope, my mistake.

[–]battlegnome 0 points1 point ago

If you look at the bottom of the cable there is a group of guys that are being lowered to the flight deck OR being lifted from it.

[–]ghosttrainhobo 2 points3 points ago

SOP is to always have either a ship or a helo in plane-guard position during flight ops to rescue pilots in case of an accident on takeoff. Not that this boat was in flight ops when the pic was taken.

[–]battlegnome 0 points1 point ago

That is correct. I've seen it to where they've had up to two helos in the air.

[–]Ejomafuvwe2 128 points129 points ago

69 tee hee

[–]NlNTENDO 21 points22 points ago

Note the amount of karma you have

[–]mechanate 11 points12 points ago

What's funnier (for pilots, anyways) is that runway numbers are simply the first two numbers of their compass orientation, and the other end is the opposite. So if you had a runway running east/west it would be runway 09 and 27.

tl;dr it is technically impossible to have an actual "Runway 69"

[–]Titanium_cock 29 points30 points ago

It would also be impossible to have a fixed designation for a carrier they are always changing bearings and flight ops are always conducted into the wind.

[–]mechanate 16 points17 points ago

Just like 69!

-crickets-

[–]ryandaily 2 points3 points ago

-cicadas-

[–]bw2002 1 point2 points ago

crabs

load more comments (2 replies)

    [–]ibfreeekout 8 points9 points ago

    Yeah, that blew my mind when I found out that's how they do that. Not sure if you know or not, though, but that 69 is the CVN for this ship. If you do, cool as well :)

    [–]Timmyc62 10 points11 points ago

    but that 69 is the CVN for this ship.

    Not sure what that's supposed to mean, but CVN means Nuclear-powered Aircraft Carrier, and the 69 is the ship's number. The full "name" is CVN 69 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    [–]mpyne 5 points6 points ago

    Well, the "name" is just U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower. The hull type and number is CVN-69, but you'd never see this in e.g. the PLAD name for the ship used in message traffic. </melvin>

    [–]Timmyc62 1 point2 points ago

    Aye, I wasn't sure how to refer to the whole shebang, hence why I put name in quotation marks ;)

    [–]ibfreeekout 4 points5 points ago

    Hmm, I was always under the impression that CVN stood for something different. Disregard that then.

    [–]Texian83 24 points25 points ago

    "C" = carrier

    "V"= Indicated Fixed wing aircraft are on board. There is also a helicopter squadron on board too.

    "N"= indicates the Carrier is Nuclear Powered.

    69= The 69th Carrier commissioned by the United States.

    [–]ibfreeekout 7 points8 points ago

    TIL. Thanks bud :) Guess that makes sense for why the ship my father was on was CV 66 and not CVN. The more you know.

    [–]Texian83 6 points7 points ago

    You are correct sir! Funny thing about the first carrier that was nuclear powered was the USS Enterprise CVN 65. They originally built it with 8 nuclear reactors. After they got it out of the ship yards and sailed a while, they realized they over did it and only needed 4.

    [–]Osiris32 16 points17 points ago

    Nooclear Wessle.

    [–]007T 2 points3 points ago

    lold

    [–]Tom_Servo 2 points3 points ago

    You'd think there would have been some engineer somewhere that did the math first.

    [–]SYSB 0 points1 point ago

    What would you do about that? Just let them sit or remove two of them if possible?

    [–]Texian83 5 points6 points ago

    I'm not suggesting they did anything wrong. I just get a humorous image of a carrier testing out top speed with a rooster tail behind them.

    [–]thebestwishes 0 points1 point ago

    I was on the Enterprise up till June of this year. Even with over doing everything she still broke down on a regular basis. Which is just so FUN when you're trying to sleep.

    [–]calvinistandhobbes 1 point2 points ago

    Still here... :(

    [–]richl796 0 points1 point ago

    I was on the last cruise of CV 66 before they well, 'retired' it by sinking it off the east coast.

    [–]sacman 2 points3 points ago

    This is the 69th fleet carrier commissioned by the United States. There were a bunch of escort carriers as well, plus the LHA/LHD "baby carriers."

    On top of all that, the fleet carrier numbers have a gap from 50-59 - these were canceled prior to completion.

    load more comments (2 replies)

      [–]irondieselvingiant 0 points1 point ago

      Could you explain how they get all those jets in the air and how fast they could do it.

      [–]armor3r 2 points3 points ago

      Those jets would never all take off in a combat situation. At any given time during a deployment you have alert statuses. Pilots, and the aircraft are assigned. So, if say, there was a large possibility for a threat to become substantiated, we had alert 7s, that means everyone involved in the launch of that aircraft is on station. We had 7 minutes to get the first bird in the air.

      To answer your question though, when the airwing leaves the carrier at the end of a deployment, it took 3-5 hours to get them all up to the flight deck and launched. Those were good days, I caught the planes, didn't launch em.

      [–]melthornal 0 points1 point ago

      Say a enemy carrier popped up and was all, 'fuck your mother, we shall hit you with missiles and bombs and such until you are thoroughly disappointed with the structural integrity of your vessel.' how many of those planes would be in the air, and how long would it take?

      [–]dmanww 0 points1 point ago

      First answer is by using the steam catapult. Don't know the answer to the second question.

      [–]scubaguybill 0 points1 point ago

      I know. I saw that number and though "that's impossible - you can't have a runway 69!"

      Then I realized I was being stupid because the orientation of an aircraft carrier isn't fixed like that of an airfield's runway.

      [–]gunstar69 -1 points0 points ago

      I feel like i missed the karma train.

      [–]JernejLx86 1 point2 points ago

      Noone else mentioned it, but a fictional aircraft USS NUMNUTZ CVA-69 is in gta san andreas too. And the airports in the game even got a runway 69 aswell. on ALL airports. the game is filled with 69 references.

      load more comments (5 replies)

        [–]Tobbo 8 points9 points ago

        Looks like Micro Machines

        [–]jftitan 2 points3 points ago

        I used to have such a collection of Military Micromachines. I regret I gave my childhood collection to my unappreciative nephew

        [–]SycoJack 0 points1 point ago

        I too had a massive collection of micromachines. Not just military though, civilian as well. They were awesome. I've lost a huge chunk of my collections because my family was evicted three times growing up and we moved about 10 times as often.

        Now I am about to move again and I am freaking out about what I'm going to do with the remnants of my childhood. Primarily my micromachines and legos. I don't think I'll have space for them, but I don't want to throw them out either. :(

        [–]thenplayon 1 point2 points ago

        This makes me think of the Curiosity pictures on Mars and helps give me a better perspective when I view that now. Knowing how large those aircraft are, and how they look from this height, really gives it some weight. Very cool picture.

        [–]SeditionWarrior 9 points10 points ago

        Honest question... Why do they park all of the F-18s on the deck, as opposed to below?

        [–]KillAllTheThings 6 points7 points ago

        Not even close to all the F-18s. The Ike can handle up to 100 aircraft operationally. Not enough room, for one thing. The ones topside may be scheduled for the next day's flights. Here's one explanation. Pics of the Ike too.

        [–]hawthorneluke 1 point2 points ago

        I thought it was just for the photo shoot, but thanks for the link!

        [–]armor3r 0 points1 point ago

        We usually only did that in transit. "Crossing the pond" or when showing off. Most were in the hangar for maintenance or not flying that day.

        [–]JazzMatt727 0 points1 point ago

        Could be several different reasons: it could be for a photo op, or usually when the ship pulls into a port with the air wing aboard they bring most of the jets up to the flight deck.

        [–]disgustedRedditor 6 points7 points ago

        Can someone estimate how much money is in this picture? I think some rough calculations would be neat to see.

        [–]Theorex 12 points13 points ago

        Well the aircraft carrier by itself is $4.5 billion and then each jet is going to be $35-$50 million depending on the configuration, so I would ballpark it at $7 billion dollars, which means Bill Gates could afford 8 of them fully stocked with a few billion left over.

        [–]happyCuddleTime 6 points7 points ago

        You should take into account fuel, munitions, food and other supplies. Also, the crew has a cost as well. We'd need to consider their training costs and salary.

        [–]007T 2 points3 points ago

        The value of the humans on board is estimated at $5-7 million each depending on who you ask, another $15 billion for the crew of 2500.

        [–]disgustedRedditor 0 points1 point ago

        Thanks!

        [–]egoloquitur 11 points12 points ago

        I'm thinking it's between 1-2 metric shit-tons...though I could be off.

        [–]grumpybadmanners 33 points34 points ago

        Amazing tech there. Unmatched in the world. Just one of those bad boys can subdue an entire macro geographical (continental) regions

        [–]HutchOne23 26 points27 points ago

        4 acres of sovereign U.S. territory that can be parked pretty much anywhere in the world.

        [–]StraydogJackson 32 points33 points ago

        There are 2 types of ships: submarines and targets.

        [–]armor3r 21 points22 points ago

        Submarines: 150 men go down. 75 couples come up.

        [–]krenzo 6 points7 points ago

        How's that 6 on, 6 off working out for you? I'll be in my rack getting augmented.

        [–]Chive 4 points5 points ago

        As long as it's not within 1,700 miles of the Chinese coast.

        [–]Cool_Story_Bra 4 points5 points ago

        According to the poster on my wall, "4 1/2 acres of sovereign U. S. territory where it's needed, when it's needed

        [–]cynicalMIND 19 points20 points ago

        Peace through superior firepower!

        [–]thewillis 4 points5 points ago

        better than war with inferior firepower i suppose

        [–]FuLLMeTaL604 1 point2 points ago

        Just look at WWI. Having one super power in the world seems to be keeping the major powers from killing each other.

        [–]blarg_dino -1 points0 points ago

        Damn straight

        [–]Dishwallah 0 points1 point ago

        The ex-presidents were a great team.

        [–]KnightKrawler -1 points0 points ago

        "WAR IS PEACE"

        "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY"

        "IGNORANCE IS BLISS"

        load more comments (1 reply)

          load more comments (2 replies)

            [–]78fivealive 4 points5 points ago

            "80,000 tons of diplomacy."

            [–]PestilentMexican 0 points1 point ago

            FTFY: 100,000 tons of diplomacy

            [–]Neilmev 7 points8 points ago

            In an actual war, wouldn't one torpedo or missile pretty much sink the whole ship? How do they protect them?

            [–]d_rok 23 points24 points ago

            Carriers don't travel alone. They are the middle part of a carrier battle group. Good luck even getting close without getting fucked up.

            [–]Batmaners 8 points9 points ago

            To add to the chaos, the surveillance equipment on board not only the carrier, but the battle fleet, can detect seaborne and airborne threats over 100nm away and can launch anti-air, anti-ship or anti-submarine assets long before you could make a dent in the carrier.

            I believe an active scramble of 2 fully loaded F-18's can be accomplished, out-of-the-blue, in less than 10 minutes. For Air Defense purposes, in Canada, our fighters are given "a few" minutes to get airborne when given the scramble call, and it's (the short amount of time given) a plenty generous amount of time. (I shall not state actual numbers due to uncertainty of the information's classification)

            With those considerations, I believe a carrier would require a maximum of 10 minutes to get at least 2 aircraft airborne. (According to Top Gun's first scene when they only deploy Cougar/Merlin and Maverick/Goose to react to a threat, one flight lead and a wingman)

            [–]Fudanchi 2 points3 points ago

            Aboard a carrier, you won't see them launch anything out of the blue. Outside of normal flight hours, specific aircraft will be prepped and ready to go at a moments notice. The pilots are already assigned to the aircraft and ready to go if something comes up. They're catagorized by alert levels. Based on your location and intelligence, you'll be at a higher or lower alert level each with different minimum launch times and aircraft configurations. So a situation may come up where they have to "scramble" a jet but it's very much anticipated and planned for. During normal flight ops though, with four catapults running, we can launch four aircraft per minute. It's a pretty impressive thing to see.

            [–]Batmaners 0 points1 point ago

            Thanks for that.

            By "out-of-the-blue" I just meant a regular day, scramble. I was 100% certain there are always "hot birds" always ready to go with pilots waiting for the call (on different "alert levels"/Readiness postures). So from the time they get the call to scramble, to the time they get airborne, on a low threat level, I guessed a max of 10 minutes, at the VERY worse.

            I am very-very aware that in high risk situations, the pilots are in the cockpit, waiting to be launched, or already airborne.

            BTW: Being on an aircraft carrier is my childhood dream, along with riding in a fighter jet. Best I could do was ATC, at least I get to look at the planes. I consider you one hell of a lucky man.

            [–]uhhhclem 4 points5 points ago

            A few hundred cruise missiles will overtax even the best-equipped, best-trained battle group. History's on the side of precision-guided munitions. When we finally learn that lesson for real it's going to send billions of dollars in materiel to the bottom of the ocean.

            [–]Kick_Her_Out 1 point2 points ago

            Name any organization that can launch multiple hundreds of long range cruise missiles fast enough that they cannot be dealt with on an individual or near individual basis?

            Edit: Name any organization that would want to face the aftermath of attacking a United States Navy battle group.

            [–]notmyusualuid 0 points1 point ago

            Please tell me more about this mythical adversary that can simultaneously toss hundreds of cruise missiles at a carrier group.

            [–]uhhhclem 0 points1 point ago

            It would have to be some adversary that thought it worth spending a couple hundred million dollars to cripple the US's political ability to project power anywhere in the world it wants to. China, for instance. Our good friends in Pakistan.

            PGMs are going to get cheaper and cheaper and more available. Eventually the curve of how cheap they are and how much money our adversaries have will cross, if it hasn't already.

            load more comments (2 replies)

              [–]Lumpy_Leopold 2 points3 points ago

              Unless you're the taliban pre-9/11 in a rubber boat. That was a destroyer though.

              [–]ssnseawolf 11 points12 points ago

              And, you know, in port.

              [–]schwobroda 7 points8 points ago

              And you know, not allowed to fire unless fired upon.

              load more comments (1 reply)

                [–]wee_man 1 point2 points ago

                ...said the Japanese in WWII.

                [–]Rupert_ 1 point2 points ago

                Don't be a cunt

                load more comments (9 replies)

                  [–]jftitan 6 points7 points ago

                  Also the Carrier in the picture, is double huled. Most modern Carriers are designed to withstand near catastrohpic damages. It would certainly take more than one torpedo to sink a carrier. As d_rok has pointed out. There is also the issue of the battle fleet that is attached to said carrier. There is also a near 15 mile radius where anything and I mean ANYTHING trying to approach the Carrier would be taken care of long before it becomes a risk.

                  Along with the fact that there would also be a Sub near this carrier. So if a enemy sub attempted to get near, not only the destroyers above, but the trailing Attack Class sub is gonig to give any enemy sub a run.

                  Back in the 60's my father served on three different carriers, until he retired in '83. I learned more about the US Navy to which I to this day think the F-14 is a better fighter than the F-18. No matter what anyone says.

                  [–]mnky9800n 1 point2 points ago

                  I thought it was understood the F14 was better than the F18 and it was the age of the fighters and the fact that Dick Cheney effective killed the program when he was Secretary of Defense.

                  [–]Cobra8472 1 point2 points ago

                  The F-14 was a maintenance nightmare, and was rapidly becoming obsolote (just as the pre Super Hornet F-18s are getting today). It did have it's advantages however (amazing thrust, AIM-54)-- alas considering the F-18 is being replaced by the F-35 very soon, capability will be excellent.

                  [–]jftitan 1 point2 points ago

                  On one reading of the F-14 versus F/A-18, one F14 could handle upto 12 simultanious targets from a longer range. The F14 also had quite a few capabilities that the F18 could not even acheive. Which is why the F15 was almost a counter part to the F14. The F-16 replaced the F-15, and the F-18 replaces the F-14.

                  I must be too much from the '80s (I secretly love the F-22, its small and looks like once its 30yrs old, I could buy one... like I want to buy a F-14 and an Apache.) It will never happen.

                  The F-14 was retired, because for the dollar cost, the Navy was ready to retire the Tomcat. The F-18 has a way better engine.

                  [–]baowahrangers 4 points5 points ago

                  Aircraft carriers never sail alone.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group#Typical_CSG_composition

                  [–]KillAllTheThings 5 points6 points ago

                  It would take a bit more than a single torpedo or missile to sink 101,600 tons of very pissed off US Navy. There is a heavily guarded 400 nm 'no-fly' zone around a carrier task force and a very good sonar picket several miles out from the carrier AND an attack sub or 2 sneaking about below the task force.

                  Soviet military strategy was to swamp the task force's defenses with lots of long range bombers carrying lots of anti-ship missiles. If the attacking force was large enough, the defenses would be overwhelmed in at least one direction and the ships would simply run out of anti-air ammo.

                  [–]007T 4 points5 points ago

                  Carriers don't travel alone, and assuming you slipped past the submarines and ships guarding it you'd have to damage a substantial percentage of the hull before you would manage to sink it. They also have weapons that can intercept incoming projectiles.

                  [–]Toastar_888 0 points1 point ago

                  Picket ships with depth charges, combined with CIWS and other anti missile tech.

                  [–]honeycrab 2 points3 points ago

                  its much easier to design an effective attack than it is to design an effective defense, and overwhelming a carrier strike group's defenses with hundreds of missiles would still be way cheaper than the price of a carrier + all the planes onboard. its unlikely that we'd be using these in the event of an actual war against another superpower. china has some really fast antiship missiles, so fast that they wouldnt even need a warhead, just pure kinetic energy. but they do have warheads! http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon

                  [–]iamadogforreal 1 point2 points ago

                  This. Advanced guided munitions make carriers 1960s technology. There's a reason why no other nation has a large carrier fleet. They're vanity big-spend items designed to intimidate weaker countries and be used for PR. No modern warfare strategy needs them.

                  Reminds me of the English's big battleships they'd send around the world swinging their big dicks. The Argentine generals bought a few Exocents from the french and downed two English ships like it was nothing. The British carriers (Invincible and Hermes) were never put close to the action because of fear of the Exocent equipped ships. So yeah, history is not on the US's side here, but when you have a DoD budget that cannot be questioned, then carrier groups it is.

                  load more comments (3 replies)

                    load more comments (11 replies)

                      load more comments (4 replies)

                        [–]Anarchophobia 10 points11 points ago

                        Oops

                        [–]deinem 0 points1 point ago

                        Probably found this taped to his/her cockpit.

                        [–]IsraelApartheid 6 points7 points ago

                        You're expecting me to land on this???!!

                        [–]diamondhead24 2 points3 points ago

                        I get vertigo just looking at this.

                        [–]amilliontotwo 3 points4 points ago

                        I did two combat deployments with my squadron on that ship. The helo squadron that took this pic is HS-5 Nightdippers.

                        [–]ownagebyte 2 points3 points ago

                        That's a lot of money floatin'.

                        [–]imsabbel 1 point2 points ago

                        Damn.

                        A single nice strafing run of something with a fast autocannon, and >$2Billion would be burning on that deck.

                        [–]theoneandonlytisa 2 points3 points ago

                        I'm affraid of heights, this pic scared me. Amaaaazing view wow.

                        [–]moanerific 5 points6 points ago

                        Man the newer F-18s dwarf the old ones.

                        [–]Fange276 1 point2 points ago

                        Huh, never really noticed the difference in size.

                        [–]TooSexyForMyKayak -1 points0 points ago

                        I'm wondering what that design change entailed and why it was done.

                        [–]armor3r 1 point2 points ago

                        The FA-18 E/F's are actually quite different than the Hornet, ~25% larger, new intakes, and new engines. Surprisingly, during the day when verifying weight settings for aircraft, we used the square intake as an identifier.

                        To give you a little more info, the weight setting for E/F was 44000 and the C/D was 36000.

                        load more comments (1 reply)

                          [–]Monst3rr 0 points1 point ago

                          I think thats just the angle of the photo.

                          [–]andrefrancisco 4 points5 points ago

                          As a reminder, the air power in this photo is probably more than the entire Iranian air force. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8995261/Can-Iran-close-down-the-Strait-of-Hormuz.html

                          [–]tmatteucci 5 points6 points ago

                          all F/18's these days? I see 1 A-6, and no F/14 or S/3

                          times have changes since I was on the Saratoga in '93

                          [–]ghosttrainhobo 2 points3 points ago

                          That A-6 is actually an EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare bird. You can tell by the golden canopy.

                          [–]ibfreeekout 5 points6 points ago

                          Yeah, I remember my father telling me stories/showing me pictures while he was on the USS America during Desert Storm. They mostly ran F-14's, but were beginning to phase them out for the F-18's at the time. Now they are such a great multi-purpose craft that I guess it's just easier to field mostly F-18's (maintenance reasons would be a big thing I could see, since parts would be interchangeable).

                          [–]Timmyc62 5 points6 points ago

                          Sadly, yes - it's all Hornets nowadays. Hornets (in regular, Super, and soon Growler flavours), Prowlers, Hawkeyes, and the Seahawks. That's all! Well, and the occasional Greyhound.

                          [–]blatant-disregard 8 points9 points ago

                          And when the Growlers become fully operational, say bye-bye to the Prowlers as well. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the Navy tried to get Boeing to fit a saucer to the Super Hornet so it could do the Hawkeye's job, too.

                          [–]Shweasel 1 point2 points ago

                          Growlers are going away. We had them on Nimitz recently, loud, powerful. Rattle you through better than anything you can think of. Run real hot though. We took our prowlers back for RIMPAC this year. Ahhh navy... good times..

                          [–]supereri 4 points5 points ago

                          You mean the Prowlers are going away. The Growlers are the new EA-18 Hornet version.

                          Why on earth name the new EA-18 the Growler?

                          [–]blatant-disregard 5 points6 points ago

                          I always thought this would have been a better choice.

                          [–]armor3r 1 point2 points ago

                          I was on the Eisenhower when we did some of the first testing of this aircraft. I worked the arresting gear, so after the pilots landed, they'd come introduce themselves and gave me this exact patch.

                          [–]WarthogOsl 2 points3 points ago

                          Rhymes with Prowler?

                          [–]supereri -1 points0 points ago

                          Yes, let's name our new warplane after a turd.

                          [–]BeerYbbq 0 points1 point ago

                          The Growlers are referred to as Grizzlies and the Super Hornets are called Rhinos when they're on the carrier to avoid confusion between Prowlers and regular Hornets

                          [–]armor3r 1 point2 points ago

                          As someone who caught these aircraft, Its actually Rhino, Hornet, Growler, we only used grizzlies when we had prowlers on board.

                          [–]KillAllTheThings 2 points3 points ago

                          Because it's the G-model and carries the Electronic Combat suite that was on the Prowlers.

                          [–]JazzMatt727 1 point2 points ago

                          It was a pleasure to bring the Prowler back! Sincerely, An Enthusiastic Gray Wolf.

                          [–]snuf42 5 points6 points ago

                          F-14s were retired in 2006. Only Iran operates them now.

                          [–]jftitan 2 points3 points ago

                          Someone could buy one for $14 million, but getting parts would be a bitch.

                          [–]thebestwishes 2 points3 points ago

                          Thats why Iran is having a hard time with theirs. They can't get new parts and they are having to strip some of the jets for parts to keep others going.

                          [–]jftitan 0 points1 point ago

                          To me, its a sad thing to see such a awesome jet, be scraped like that.

                          In a very minute way, I envy Iran for still trying to fly them for so long.

                          [–]snuf42 0 points1 point ago

                          As far as I know the US bans sale of F-14 parts and the retirement included destruction of parts used to repair them. Iran did conduct a smuggling operation to get parts as well as having Russian assistance in manufacturing. At this point though the estimates of flyable F-14s in Iran is pretty darn low. They claimed 25 back in 2002, but I believe current estimates are much lower.

                          [–]Texian83 1 point2 points ago

                          The Eisenhower carries F-18 Hornets, F-18 Super Hornets, EA6-B Prowlers, E-2 Hawkeyes, H-60-F Seahawk, and H-60-H Rescuehawks.

                          [–]Tweedle 0 points1 point ago

                          What are the ones with the disk on top and the folded wings?

                          [–]FLFFPM 5 points6 points ago

                          E-2C Hawkeye. Airborne Command and Control. Basically keeps an eye on the airspace for a coupla' hundred miles around the boat....

                          [–]armor3r 1 point2 points ago

                          Read: Mini AWACS

                          [–]fingers58 1 point2 points ago

                          Yeah, and 3 E-2s. The A-6 is most likely an EA-6. The "E" is for "Electronic Countermeasures". They don't carry any armament.

                          [–]fingers58 1 point2 points ago

                          Yeah, and 3 E-2s. The A-6 is most likely an EA-6. The "E" is for "Electronic Countermeasures". They don't carry any armament. I do miss the S-3s though. I was in VS-24 (which flew the S-3A) so I am partial to them.

                          [–]digitalchris 8 points9 points ago

                          Grumpy helmet didn't get enough sleep.

                          [–]Texian83 7 points8 points ago

                          The "Grumpy helmet" is actually the symbol of they helicopter squadron. They are the "Angry Eyes" of the HS-5 Nightdippers. The squadron logo originally was a picture of a very angry octopus pulling a submarine out of the water and breaking it. After some time the logo was brought down to just the angry eyes. HS-5 Wikipedia

                          [–]calciocool 1 point2 points ago

                          im guessing you are ships company?

                          [–]Texian83 7 points8 points ago

                          Nope, former aviation electrician for said Nightdippers.... I LOVE when this picture shows up on Reddit. It was a good time, but I'm happy to be a civilian again.

                          [–]roaddogg2k2 0 points1 point ago

                          Where you ever deployed with the Ike? I was with her ships company Aviation Electronics '04-'08

                          [–]fingers58 0 points1 point ago

                          Oh, a one-wire eh!! I am a former 'tweet" (AT)....made one cruise on the Nimitz with VS-24.

                          load more comments (1 reply)

                            [–]MightyBulger 3 points4 points ago

                            The loogie has been dropped. I repeat, the loogie has been dropped. Over.

                            [–]werty0u 2 points3 points ago

                            Thank you for the new wallpaper! <3

                            [–]HarryMan808 1 point2 points ago

                            lol I like how it's carrier 69

                            [–]article134 2 points3 points ago

                            aircraft carriers literally blow my mind. Can you imagine the dude that thought of this first
                            "ok hear me out.......listen to this....a boat that jets launch off of in the middle of the ocean."

                            [–]MerlinsBeard 0 points1 point ago

                            When Aircraft Carriers were first theorized jets weren't even remotely around. The first catapult launch from a ship was in 1915.

                            [–]YNot1989 1 point2 points ago

                            When you need to ruin an entire country's day, accept no substitutes.

                            [–]zeroGamer 4 points5 points ago

                            Haha. Only one country? You're thinking way too small!

                            [–]wyratt 0 points1 point ago

                            So much money it jets

                            [–]brendaneph 0 points1 point ago

                            I have a buddy who's on that ship right now. He is in the Prowler squadron. Looks like he is pretty busy in the hangar bay.

                            [–]thespot84 0 points1 point ago

                            MIMSY!

                            [–]maxhan 1 point2 points ago

                            I always wondered what exactly prevents a carrier being strike by a cruise missile?

                            [–]AKBigDaddy 4 points5 points ago

                            From my understanding they never travel alone, always part of a carrier group. I'm sure several of the other ships have anti-missile defenses

                            [–]caducus 6 points7 points ago

                            We don't fight countries who have cruise missiles.

                            [–]clickcookplay 2 points3 points ago

                            For one thing, the Phalanx CIWS. Basically a fully autonomous 4000 round a minute Gatling gun whose sole purpose is as a last line of defense in shooting down missiles. Video of one being test fired aboard the Abraham Lincoln.

                            [–]armor3r 0 points1 point ago

                            These are no longer on the ike.

                            [–]skipwner 0 points1 point ago

                            Thats a sick gopro shot. someone send that to them

                            [–]Derkek 1 point2 points ago

                            That water is very blue

                            [–]peacebuster 1 point2 points ago

                            My balls just shriveled up.

                            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

                            I always though about how fucking cool it would be if you could buy an old decommissioned carrier and build a huge mansion on top. Maybe plant like a big farm and huge gardens too so you could self sustainable. Then you could just float around the world hosting fucking sweet parties in every port.

                            [–]zeroGamer 1 point2 points ago

                            I see a couple, "If you park like this..." posts in the making.

                            [–]Chichi778 0 points1 point ago

                            The only thing I can think of when looking at this is how shitty that tow job would be.

                            [–]Edg-R 0 points1 point ago

                            I cringe at the thought of one of those big expensive planes just sliding off the runway into the ocean because someone forgot to apply the brakes or parked it on a banana peel.

                            Has this ever happened?

                            [–]armor3r 1 point2 points ago

                            I'm sure it has, but there are chain down requirements for situations, the handlers on the flight deck have a required number of chains depending on conditions, and chocks are always required.

                            [–]Congzilla 0 points1 point ago

                            Can you even imagine being the guy that was responsible for that. "I just accidentally a 55 million dollar jet into the Pacific Ocean, my bad bro."

                            [–]Axelion 1 point2 points ago

                            I can't even parallel park...

                            [–]dookyface 1 point2 points ago

                            Some of the big planes had sex and gave birth to baby planes.

                            [–]thescrapplekid 1 point2 points ago

                            Hmm... Looky here... I just realized I have a problem with heights...

                            [–]chris-martin 1 point2 points ago

                            Sounds expensive.

                            [–]theaggressivenapkin 0 points1 point ago

                            be prepared for sweet photos

                            edit: sweet shots from the US pacific fleet.

                            [–]wumbojoe 1 point2 points ago

                            I enjoy his helmet.

                            [–]Blackfire_Zealot -1 points0 points ago

                            That looks like a fairly inefficient way to store airplanes?

                            Edit: stupid double post :/

                            [–]eFFicientkiLLeRR 1 point2 points ago

                            haha 69.

                            [–]wojtaspj 0 points1 point ago

                            Hell yeah "IKE" loved that big boy

                            [–]follyfoot 0 points1 point ago

                            Forgive me for asking what I suspect is a very simple question; what is there to stop a large wave hitting the aircraft carrier and knocking over a fighter jet into the sea?

                            [–]Congzilla 0 points1 point ago

                            The flight deck is just over 5 stories above the water so it would have to be a fucking massive wave.

                            [–]uncoolhero 0 points1 point ago

                            what kind of aircraft are the ones with the pizza on top?

                            [–]NeilAnthony 1 point2 points ago

                            Actually is Dolan?

                            [–]wee_man 0 points1 point ago

                            Interesting to think about how much research and planning went into that very oddly specific flight deck shape. Every angle must have cost about $20M.

                            [–]robertritz 1 point2 points ago

                            Thanks for the new desktop wallpaper!

                            [–]SalMinella 0 points1 point ago

                            USS Flagg. Fit perfectly in my bedroom.

                            [–]poteaser 0 points1 point ago

                            Is that a couple of AWACS with folding wings? I didn't know they could launch from a carrier.

                            [–]BigSwordfishtrombone 0 points1 point ago

                            Any info on that weird plane with the round thing on top? I've never seen anything like that before and I wanna know more.<__<

                            [–]armor3r 0 points1 point ago

                            E-2C Hawkeye, Command and Control

                            [–]tajmaballs 0 points1 point ago

                            I thought he was peeing on the aircraft carrier from above. Would've been a cooler picture.

                            load more comments (54 replies)

                              Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

                              REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

                              π Rendered by PID 1677 on app-05 running 857539f.