Chevy & GMC Vans

That's right, an Astro on Aircraft carrier.

To help sailors with a shift of its home base from California to Washington, the U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier is hauling more than 400 private vehicles inside its huge main hanger.
Photo: Casey J. Amdahl, U.S. Navy.

And yet another fine example of our Tax Dollars hard at work ???

The carrier is going there anyway, it has the space. The alternative being hiring several trucks at tax payer's expense to relocate these servicemen's vehicles.

My question is, if the carrier is called into rapid deployment, do the cars get sent into the drink?

pretty cool. thanks for the photo. i see a lot of debt on board that sucker.

Astroturf, you are so off base. Would you rather place 400+ sailors on leave to have them drive their POVs to Washington en masse?

This is standard procedure when large vessels change their home ports and requires no additional expenditure of government funds. The aircraft that would normally take up that space are based at the Master Jet Base at NAS Lemoore and do not change ports.

In the unlikely event of a so-called "rapid deployment," the vehicles will be off-loaded at the port, not shoved over the side. But changes of home ports are not done on a whim. Plans are made years in advance and the logistics involved are a nightmare, especially when ships of this size are involved.

peelers wrote:pretty cool. thanks for the photo. i see a lot of debt on board that sucker.

yeah no kiddin' i wonder how many more astro's are on there that we can't id

CaptSquid wrote:Astroturf, you are so off base.

You are right Squid.
I am off Base, and off Post too. But, I can't say that I have ever even been in Port though.
You see I have served in both the Army and the Air Force, but never in the Navy.
In my flawed thinking, I see it as excessive use of Our/My Tax Dollars.
It is this line of thinking that continues to cost us more than we should have to spend.
I am all for supporting our troops, But, I am more about our fiscal and personal responsibility.
This may be a good read for some: http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html
Thank You, Jim

As an Austrian School economist, I must ask you: what is the more efficient alternative you'd prefer?

I think that's pretty cool.
With what our US and Canadian servicemen and their families go through during the course of their duties, I think it's the least the US Navy could do.
I have been on the USS John C. Stennis and the USS George Washington as a visitor. Both ships are an impressive sight, espiecially when you pull up beside one of these behemoths in a small launch, but we were not allowed to take pictures for obvious reasons. You should be careful what you post as well.

Peter

they should have made a deal that they would only bring your car if it was american made, no toyotas or any of that junk. i know someone will chime in and tell me toyotas are american made, but they are still a foreign company. not that i am a war buff or even really stand up for our country but i have always owned gm's (american made vehicles) and to me it seems if you are fighting in the war you should atleast own an american vehicle too.

Kabey's Van wrote:You should be careful what you post as well. Peter

WTF Does this mean?

Jim

astroturf wrote:

Kabey's Van wrote:You should be careful what you post as well. Peter

WTF Does this mean?

Jim

I believe he is referring to the picture of the carrier.

snapple wrote:

astroturf wrote:

Kabey's Van wrote:You should be careful what you post as well. Peter

WTF Does this mean?

Jim

I believe he is referring to the picture of the carrier.

Oh OK...

Sorry, Jim

This thread has taken a dump

astroturf wrote:

Kabey's Van wrote:You should be careful what you post as well. Peter

WTF Does this mean?

Jim

probably just considered you might not have had permission to take photos on board, although considering it was just an interior parking lot, for the most part... more than likely not an issue... although some policies..... make little since... at least to me and some other people.