US carrier Ford, deployed in war with Iran, to go to port temporarily after fire

They were already pissed. They'd been on deployment since June. War probably extends that deployment easily past the 12 month point. Let's just say, the stereotypes of military wives are true in a not insignificant percentage.

I bet the sailors dropped the match. It was reported that they were way beyond normal sea time, toilets were clogged, shit water flooded.  

On the contrary, I'm sure they're happier now going to port. In fact, maybe it was intentional.

Yeah, it'll probably be best to give them a wide berth

Maybe they dance when our earth is turning.

Not sure how carriers are, but I deployed on amphibs and laundry was a rotating duty that everyone took turns on. I can see where issues could pop up and turn over not done properly.

Ahh yeah berths vs beds, as HousingOk6362 below mentioned, they’re 3 beds high and each berth has 2 stacks of 3 beds. Thanks for the NavyTimes article, it had clearer info!

Navytimes beats Reuters as a source. Maddnes got dunked on!

U Signed on the Motherfucking Contract: USMC

Yvan Eht Nioj

He should rename it USS Trump after he shit himself on camera lol

A Trump never plays their debts.

The space station is relatively low tech. Lots of physical buttons.

It's more efficient in that it can handle more waste at the same time for same diameter pipework. It's a nuclear powered carrier, energy usage of it's plumbing is a rounding error.

All boats use a vacuum system, from small lobster boats up to carriers. There is not gravity at all times on a boat, there's very short but regular freefall/weightless periods when the boat is being rocked by seas. Plus the shit might have to travel up decks from some toilets.

Dude they still got the USS Nimitz on deployment? They'll probably use the USS Nimitz as a training platform for future aircrews & sailors.

The reactors in the old ships have plenty of fuel left in them but the problem in the old reactors is the amount of fission products present. IIRC reactor startups in fuel that old are a pain in the ass plus power transients need to be monitored much more closely. There is also a possibility that a reactor could be poisoned too much that an emergency shutdown or fault would prevent the reactor from being restarted for hours or days

What does the crew of the long-term drydocked ships do meanwhile?

>USS John C Stennis: Being refueled at Norfolk. This is a long term drydock period, typically lasting up to five years. To be accurate, it's not JUST refueling. It's a major modernization of the whole ship, it's a mid-life overhaul.

What about all the noise from the washer/dryer?

Do ships like that carry the military style mass storage folding cots? I imagine lots and lots of cots is usually the militarys response to this kind of thing. [https://www.devildogdepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Marine-Sleeps-on-USGI-OD-Green-Cot.jpg](https://www.devildogdepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Marine-Sleeps-on-USGI-OD-Green-Cot.jpg) These. Just stuffed in the space between bunks, any flat area. Its got to be a nightmare.

I assume they'll move some of the aircrew elsewhere if she's pulling in for repairs, which would at least free up beds. No sense in keeping them on board when the ship is out of commission.

It's the Chief Engineer you really want to butter up for that. As a merchant marine Chief Engineer I have 1001 ways to prolong an alongside maintenance period if I wanted to.

I said this somewhere else already, but I'll say it again. The only thing between that captain and a mutiny is a working radio.

All the COs who don't want to participate in this BS should be taking note of this. We had a small fire in a space next to an piece of critical mission equipment. That's a red line for us so we are going in for emergency repairs and we need the expensive, time limited experts, to come out and assess any damage. While we are in port for repairs we have to, by instruction, catch up on all out of periodicity maintenance. Of which there is a ton. Make the people over you break rules in order to make you go back so you can decline respectfully and tell the American people the administration is trying to put sailors in harms way by breaking rules. Make a huge nightmare for them when this all goes wrong. Follow the letter of the law and make them all bury themselves for breaking the rules when people inevitably get hurt.

I would be too 😂😂

You can blame trump for that. Bush' maintenance and pre deployment exercise got delayed because trump forced her to participate in the Navy's 250th birthday parade.

No not that Greece, the other one.

If they let them have liberty  I mean, with that crew’s luck…. 😬

Not OP, bur I think they are saying that perhaps the fire suppression systems may not have been at 100%.

The USN is trying to maintain a global presence with global commitments with a navy that’s smaller than it has ever been in decades with ships that are decades old and due for retirement or soon to be due for it. Because of this chronic shortage of hulls, the USN is being forced to extend carrier strike group deployments to maintain a presence in key areas, this is especially important as we enter into a more unstable multi-polar world. However, extending deployments has knock-on effects on maintenance and readiness later. The longer you defer maintenance and repairs, the greater the chance something goes wrong—as we’re seeing now—and the longer the ship needs to remain under maintenance when it finally does get into a port. This extends maintenance cycles past what is usually appropriate because the ships are being pushed too hard for too long. So you get into a situation where because you don’t have enough hulls, you push the hulls you do have to go on longer and longer deployments to plug in the gaps. But these longer deployments stress the hulls out even more and necessitate even longer periods of downtime for maintenance and repairs which, again, leads to gaps you need to plug in with even *longer* deployments of whatever remaining hulls you have lying around. You can see it’s a viscous cycle and it’s been happening for years which is why you’re seeing the average length of deployments creeping up. Longer deployments also negatively impact retention. You can’t deploy if you don’t have the necessary sailors to deploy with. If you have a carrier strike group deployed and are readying one up to replace it, you can’t deploy the replacement strike group if that group only has 3/4 of the sailors it needs because of retention and recruitment issues. So, one way to get around this is by extending the deployment of the strike group that is currently deployed to find time to surge emergency reserves or reallocate sailors from other sectors to the replacement strike group so you have the numbers you need. Of course this only exacerbates the problem but due to underinvestment and a lack of funding, the USN has no other option because Congress will not let them scale back their global commitments. The US physically cannot build ships fast enough to replace the ones it needs to retire which leads to ships being held in service for longer than they were intended to be, which puts more pressure on maintenance cycles. There is no fixing the shipbuilding industry either, not without tens of billions of dollars of investment every year for *decades* and that certainly isn’t happening. Things are looking *extremely* dire for the USN in the future. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects the USN to be incapable of maintaining a fleet of 11 carriers in the future even if their ship procurement and building plan goes perfectly. After 2046, the CBO expects the USN to drop down to a steady state of only 9 carriers with the number fluctuating between 10 and 11 from 2037 to 2046. And these are supposed to be *optimistic* forecasts. The *Constellation*-class was supposed to provide the bulk of new surface hulls for the USN in the 2030s and 2040s—the plan was for a class of over 50 ships eventually, and for context there are around 75 *Arleigh Burke*-class destroyers that make up the bulk of the current USN fleet—but, of course, that was cancelled in favour of essentially a completely unarmed coastal patrol boat.