Gary North has an update on the Norfolk carriers at:

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/7231

Kevin Flaherty is also following this and other Y2k stories at:

http://members.home.net/tcocp/

Merry Christmas, everyone.

=DSA.

-- =DSA. (dsangal@attglobal.net), December 25, 1999

Answers

I read some time back, (don't ask me where) that Canada was planning on having what few major ships they have into port cities, east and west coast, to supply electricity, if needed. Also, they would act as floating shelters.

Could this be the same thing our navy is doing?

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), December 25, 1999.

I don't believe the Navy's apparent Y2K problems are at all off- topic. The carriers in port are all nukes. The carriers at sea are not! Does that tell you something?

Having been associated with the Navy as both a sailor and a civilian for over fifteen years, I don't believe the management thrust in the organization can adequately deal with Y2K. The USMC will do a better job (not without glitches) as that organization has a stronger management ethic.

Semper Fi!

-- Slobby Don (slobbydon@hotmail.com), December 25, 1999.

--personally, I believe that the Navy knows full well that it's latest ships and equipment are FAR from "y2K ready" or compliant or any other such nonsense, and they are hedging their bets. The fact that the older, simpler diesel ships are all out should be a major clue there. A zillion dollar ship dead in the water, unable to steam or navigate or fight or communicate is called a FUBAR event.

Also, there has been some speculation that the king-being the astounding cynical globalist traitor that he is-has set up our military for pearl harbor part deux. If that's the case, those port cities should be glowing pretty soon.

I am of the first opinion myself, but simply can't rule out the second scenario at all. That coke addled lying idiot is capable of ANYTHING. How he can keep trained secretive service personnel is beyond me, my guess is that most of them would gladly slap the cuffs on him if instructed to do so. From what I've read, the king has had a higher turnover of personnel guarding him than the several past presidents combined.

zoggus speculatus

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), December 25, 1999.

I am an old surface nuclear navy salt.

Unless there is a war on, the Navy likes to stay in port for the holidays. It's called morale building.

On all nuclear ships, the reactors are always manned and critical unless the ship is in a shipyard being refueled.

Most shipboard equipment is triple redundent. My own ship could be cut in half and both ends could have still fired missiles.

REMEMBER THE TIME ZONE CHART msg_id=001ye2 The time factor from Tokyo to Norfolk,VA is 14 hours.

If anything happens to our bases in Japan or South Korea, you can bet anything you've got, our fleets will be cutting mooring lines and putting out to sea. A nuc-boat can get out in 2 hours, a gas-turbine destroyer or cruiser in half an hour.

I would not be a bit surprised if Captains exercise command judgement and take their ships to sea, maybe with wives and kids onboard. In a "jump shot" configuration, our fleets could be over 200 miles from port by local midnight

-- FTM2 (old salt@navy.mil), December 25, 1999.

FTM2: I see that you really didn't work in engineering. Reactors are "always manned and always critical" in port??????? Sorry that is not really true. Because if the reactors are critical you have a steaming watch and ergo, no engineering going on shore. There are different states whereby you reduce the needed manning, but you also need greater time to bring the reactor BACK to criticality that would allow you to steam away. And the important number is that it is more than 25 minutes that a missile takes to travel from Russia to Kings Bay.

A report I heard was that they are in port for the date change only and most, some are scheduled to steam out after the first. This might make sense if there are concerns about the safety and stability of foreign ports and there was some concern about how the many electronic systems might react to the the change in date. I do think that there was no need to park the better part of our Navy in port for so long a period of time. A time the Russians are rattling their brand new Topol M sabres.

Course I would expect some confusion from a target riding non-nuke. ;-).

-- Squid (ItsDark@down.here), December 26, 1999.

Have y'all read my two postings on the Nuke-powered Carriers In Port thread?

The second one is a disturbing analysis.

Comments?

-- hiding in plain (sight@edge. of no-where), December 26, 1999.