Jump to content

Talk:USS Nimitz/Archive 1

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

Inaccurate listing under armaments

The box lists the Nimitz as having 2 21 cell SeaRams. This is false. First of all, SeaRam is still in testing phase. Check Raytheon's homepage for more information. Second, SeaRam has 11 cells, not 21. Third, the Nimitz doesn't have SeaRam, it just has RAM.

I would change it myself but I can't seem to figure out how.

128.151.27.180 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)TySixtus


This statement would be incorrect if you wikipedia RIM-116 you will notice in the pictures it has 21 cells —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.149.130 (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This statement would be incorrect if you wikipedia RIM-116 you will notice in the pictures, Sea-RAM (or affectionately known as RAM-WIZ) has 11 cells, RAM GMLS Mk 49 has 21 cells, and RIM-116 is just a missile which has no (0) cells. RAM-WIZ is a stand-alone autonomous system with potential application to ships with no better solution for integration within a combat system. Nimitz and other CVNs have RAM GMLS Mk 49 already integrated with SSDS Mk 2 as part of greater Capstone AAW combat system. Divorcing RAM from SSDS would reduce both probability of kill (P-sub-K) and probability of raid annilation (P-sub-RA), and would be an expensive downgrade. Integration of the newer RAM-WIZ (radar search and track functions and electo-optical FLIR search and track functions) with SSDS Mk 2 would be another expensive Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) acquisition by the Department of Defense. On CVNs with SSDS Mk 2 and RAM GMLS Mk 49 installed and yet with some CIWS weapons groups still remaining, integration of the CIWS with SSDS Mk 2 is not currently planned (too expensive); similarly, integration of RAM-WIZ is not planned either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk)

I don't think any more information is needed

IF this article needs anything it needs less photos. Three for the size of the article is too many. {{Unsigned|Lueser|22:31, 6 November 2006

There is never too much information. Also, does anyone have the link to the apparently removed third picture? ````Bellahdoll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.145.124 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm....

Ever heard of The Final Countdown? 204.52.215.107 02:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

welcome to Chennai

4th of july in india shows the incresing cooperation between US and india and growing stature of india — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.22.41 (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

US Naval Ensign

The US Navy uses it's national flag as it's ensign. Jacks are only used when a ship is in port or for ceremonial purposes -
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/Seaflags/ensign/Ensign.html#top - Ensign of the United States, Jackstaff, Ensign, Maritime flag#Ensigns, Maritime flag#Jacks.

Many countries don't distinguish between these uses, and employ their standard national flag in all three contexts; such a multiuse flag is termed a national ensign. Others (like the United Kingdom, Italy, Russia, South Africa, New Zealand, and Japan) use a variant of the national flag as the naval ensign. (Such flags are often strictly regulated as usable only on warships; civilian ships, with very few exceptions, would not fly naval ensigns.) Distinct civil ensigns are also common. In rare cases a distinct design is used for the state ensign, such as the blue ensign of the United Kingdom.

The ensign of the United States refers to the flag of the United States when worn as an ensign (a type of maritime flag identifying nationality, usually flown from the stern of a ship or boat).[1] All documented U.S. vessels, and all U.S. vessels in international or foreign waters, are required to display this ensign between 08:00 and sunset. Other U.S. vessels may use this ensign at their option.

The jack is flown on the bow (front) of a ship and the ensign is flown on the stern (rear) of a ship when anchored or moored. Once underway, the ensign is flown from the main mast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.195 (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS

This seems extremelly weak for what is claimed inside but reported into the article. Ceedjee (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PBS Show

PBS will have the Nimitz featured in the show "Carrier" spring 2008 http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.168.132.235 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Displacment

The article states the ship displaces 101,000 to 104,000 tons full load, however the info page on navy.mil list "about 95,000 tons" [1]. Should the article be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.171.51 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that link doesn't work any more, put looking at the Welcome Aboard Pamphlet, it places its full-load displacement as "97,000 tons." A further correction needs to be made, as being a pamphlet about a ship, information given is in LONG tons, not SHORT tons, and hence the metric displacement should be a LARGER number than the imperial measurement. It's understandable for those used to metric-only would readily confuse how the US uses a mix of different systems depending on the circumstance. (after all, The Royal Navy made the same error themselves) However, that doesn't stop it from it needing to be fixed.
Likewise, as far as the different sources, there isn't exactly a set "full load" displacement for ships, especially ones as re-configurable as an aircraft carrier. The full load could change by a few tons even simply by the weight of those on board, let alone the particular makeup of the Carrier Air Wing, etc. However, I THINK the 104,000-ton figure was actually not accurate for the USS Nimitz, and instead refers to perhaps other members of the class. Nottheking (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A6 Crash 26 May 1981

The description of this incident seems to be written to defend the position of some of those involved in the accident. On two occasions the deaths and injuries are attributed to the impact, yet the paragraph also states that the deaths occurred after the initial fire was extinguished dure to the subsequent explosion of some ordinance. Frankly, this paragraph reads as a rant. Nick Thorne talk 23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A6 Crash NPOV

The description of this incident seems to be written to defend the position of some of those involved in the accident. Frankly, this paragraph reads as a rant and does not comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Nick Thorne talk 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


1987 A3 Skywarrior Crash

I couldn't find any original news articles about the incident, but there are some articles documenting memorial services. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-07-14/news/0407140091_1_cold-war-aircraft-carrier-crash

Perhaps someone could contribute a section about the incident? January 25th, 1987. It interests me because it seems that the pilot made 5 attempts at landing. I've seen stories saying that a refueling attempt was unsuccessful, a barrier catch attempt malfunctioned, and a rescue was unsuccessful. Does anyone have accurate sources to add information? Johnnytucf (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A6 Crash Original Research

The description of this incident appears to contain a number of statements that are original reasearch. This has resulted in a paragraph that is self contradictory and way too long for its context. On two occasions the deaths and injuries are attributed to the impact, yet the paragraph also states that the deaths occurred after the initial fire was extinguished due to the subsequent explosion of some ordinance. The whole section needs to be properly referenced and abbreviated. Nick Thorne talk 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the Nimitz as "she"

Sailors call ships "she"- this is true. But this is an encyclopedia. An inanimate object is called an "it". 216.166.234.203 (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there is an official guideline on this here, you are in the wrong. Is every single wikipedia article wrong. If you want to change this, you should bring it up at WT:SHIPS instead of unilaterally changing it because you will be reverted every time, guaranteed. -MBK004 21:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems informal and unprofessional to me. But if you feel 'she' is the proper term for a hunk of steel, that's fine.216.166.234.203 (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I concur, "she" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I just checked the columbia encyclopedia and they refer to ships as "it"--38.115.166.174 (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
We are not a traditional encyclopedia. Plus, our manual of style allows for the usage of feminine pronouns, plus the US Navy itself uses "she" to refer to ships in their official history: DANFS. Any changes of the pronouns in the articles is considered vandalism since it is well-established and allowable per our policies. -MBK004 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wan Chai District Only?

Anything specific saying that Sailors were barred from visiting the Kowloon District during their last visit to Hong kong? That doesn't sound right to me since if tensions during that particular time were that bad than the battle group would have been denied entry in the first place just like when the Hawk was denied (I was on that cruise) and regardless, there is no specific reference saying that they were restricted to the Wan Chai district only so I bringing this point up. If there is no reference to that particular issue than i'm a little compelled to change that part of the article. Ryanyomomma (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sea-RAM (CIWS-RAM) or regular-RAM; 21 cells or 11 cells (missiles)

The characteristics section shows 21 cell Sea-RAMs, but the linked RAM/SeaRAM article describes only 11 cell SeaRAM or 21 cell regular RAM. At one time (since 2001 RCOH) Nimitz had two (2) RAM Mk 49 GMLS, upgraded to RAM Block 1 (about 2005 PIA). Does Nimitz now have two (2) SeaRAMs (22 missiles) or just regular-RAMs (42 missiles); was a new 21-cell SeaRAM configuration created? Does the CIWS RADAR and/or FLIR sensor of the SeaRAM get integrated into the host combat system (with its sensor integration) for CVNs or are the RADAR and optics parts used only in an autonomous mode of operation for RAM; how is RAM usually operated - autonomous or stand-alone? Was some shortage of expensive RIM-116/B missiles perhaps a cause for some upgrade of minus 20 missiles (from 42 to 22, or -48%)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 3:45 pm, 2 August 2010, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Is that picture correct?

Is the picture with the HMS Ark Royal truly the Nimitz? It does not appear to be a "68" on the flight deck to me. It looks more like a "66" which would make it the America. I am by NO means an aircraft carrier expert, and thus didn't want to edit something incorrectly. So I thought I would bring this up to any experts out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.218.162 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the full resolution image it is 68, though the 8 is partly obscured by equipment on the flightdeck, and may even be in the process of being repainted. Compare the lefthand uprights of the 6 and 8, both clearly visible, and the difference in the numbers is clear however. Benea (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah thanks. Its obvious to me now.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.218.162 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Carrier strike group

Some of the Arleigh Burkes in the carrier strike groups are described as "guided-missile destroyer" and some as just "destroyer". Is this a technical difference (which doesn't seem to be described anywhere at Arleigh Burke class destroyer and would seem surprising, given that all are DDG-) or just an inconsistency that ought to be fixed? Dricherby (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USS Nimitz. 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.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USS Nimitz. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Why we need the characteristics on the left instead of the right

The characteristics of USS Nimitz are on the left compared to other ship pages which the characteristics are on the right. Dallas G. Spencer (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I take it you are talking about the "characteristics" section of the infobox, which for some reason you just added unneeded spacing to? Perhaps you can clarify what you're talking about? Infoboxes are always on the right side of the page, for ships and everything else on WP. What are these "other ships" you mentioned? - theWOLFchild 19:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
@Dallas G. Spencer: - any reply? - theWOLFchild 15:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

While being stationed at San Diego, Nimitz was included in several Flight Simulators, positioned near San Francisco, for carrier landings and takeoffs. Microsoft Flight Simulator and Flight Gear come to mind. Maybe this would be worth including in the article. --BjKa (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Gulf of Sidra

The MiG-23s were shot down in Jan '89. The bogeys shot down in 1981 were SU-22s. [1] 8.44.100.11 (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)JoMomma1973

Oldest?

The introduction says Nimitz is the oldest US naval vessel in active duty and has been so since Enterprise was decommissioned. But when I look at Enterprise's lemma, it says Enterprise at the time of decommissioning was the third oldest US naval vessel, after Constitution and Pueblo. Since both Constitution and Pueblo are still on active duty (at least officially (re: Pueblo)), shouldn't Nimitz be named the third oldest US naval vessel in active duty? Or am I being overly zealous about factuality here? 77.174.132.74 (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The statement in the lead (introduction) states "Nimitz is now the oldest American carrier in active service", not "naval vessel". Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

I though the Nimitz was going to be replace by the USS Ford CVN 78. Not by the JFK CVN 79. If not what carrier is the Ford going to replace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorJared29 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on USS Nimitz. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1
  1. ^ Brown, Craig (2007). Debrief: A Complete History of U.S. Aerial Engagements 1981 to the Present. Schiffer Military History. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7643-2785-8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Nimitz/Archive_1&oldid=1072577462"