Talk:USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)/Archive 1

December 2005
Is the Kitty Hawk a "high priority to replace" or is an oil-fueled carrier a necessity when operating in Japan? I thought that part of the agreement to keep a military presence in Japan was to not field nuclear powered or armed ships and nuclear missle silos as detailed by the Sato-Nixon Communique. If newer or better info is available, though, please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.42.66 (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the article, the Navy has announced that George Washington will replace her in Japan. See http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=21248. Of course, many locals are not happy about this. If you have more info on the details of the communique you mentioned, be bold and include where appropriate. Jinian 11:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Could someone please clarify the Kittyˈs "longest active status in the Navy"? This seems to conflict with USS Constitution's status.  I'm thinking in terms of adding another adjective here to distinguish between the two.  Similar to how I had to get the USN to add "afloat" to their claim of Old Ironsides being the world's oldest commissioned warship a while back.  I'd do it, but I'm not happy with the qualifiers I'm coming up with (e.g. prop driven, non-sail, metal hulled).  Maybe there's a formal definition of active that I'm missing.  Maybe a footnote for active makes more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Clear (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I get the feeling that someone is just being deliberately wrongheaded, and probably agrumentative, too, in the above. There is a lot of difference between an actual active warship, and an old one that is merely being retained on commissioned status as a memorial to the hundreds of years of service of the ships and the men of the US Navy. Please give proper respect to the ships that are actually capable of fighting real enemies at sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.75.131 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the 'high priority to replace' statement needs to be removed as editorial (?). Japan does not like the idea of a nuclear powered carrier permanently stationed in Japan. The announcement not withstanding, there are still considerable politics and the USS "George Washington" isn't there yet. I think unless we can find some attribution from the U.S. Navy to this effect, it should just be removed. Digitalblister 13:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Japanese government agreed to it. Of course, the fact remains that many Japanese are unhappy about it, but a sufficient number of them agreed with it for it to pass through the Diet. United States military forces cannot enter Japan without permission from the Japanese government.Worldruler20 13:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Naturally, the military, naval, and air forces of the Unites States may not enter the land, waters, or airspace of any country at all in peacetime (with a very few exceptions), without the permission of that country's government, and vice-versa. Sometimes, that permission is given on a standing basis by treaty, such as in the North American Air Defense agreement with Canada. Anyway, it is good to emphasize this fact, and to note that the Japanese Diet has apporved the basing of the USS "George Washington" there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.75.131 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Could someone explain what it means to have the hangar elevator angled at six degrees? IvyGold (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Confusing (Name Swap)
The bit about switching the names around is certainly interesting, but after reading it twice, it still comes off confusing. Perhaps using hull numbers to explain would help. The sentence on commissioning should be moved to after the name swap. Also a citation would be nice. --J Clear 12:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we need to insist on verifiability for this factoid. It doesn't make sense based on the official dates for keel laid down, launched, and commissioned, as Kitty Hawk was earlier on all three. If this were true the first two (which occurred before the fire for both ships) would favor Constellation. --Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

New Section/ New Article?
The following sentence demands some sort of explanation of what happened, either an expansion in the current article, or a totally separate article with a link. {I have no knowledge of the incident, therefore I cannot do it myself.}

"On October 12, 1972 during the Vietnam War, Kitty Hawk was en route to her station in the Gulf of Tonkin when a racial brawl involving more than 100 sailors broke out. Nearly 50 sailors were injured in this widely-publicized incident." --12.147.193.6 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the link http://www.history.navy.mil/library/special/racial_incidents.htm Worldruler20 13:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Crew not told of its involvement in Operation Iraqi Freedom
I was a member of the crew at that time, so I am a reliablle source —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lowaystar (talk • contribs) 06:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Please see reliable sources. Human recounts are not considered reliable sources unless dictated and sourced properly. Ronbo76 06:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ship nickname
Anyway, I deleted the entry about the crew celebrating Thanksgiving in Hong Kong, which is false. I also deleted the entry about the Kitty Hawk emerging from an SRA in 2005 because this entry makes it look like the ship spent two years in drydock. We celebrated Thanksgiving 2003 in Guam, and visited Hong Kong, Pusan, Singapore, Fremantle and Guam again in 2004. I also think something should be added about the crime commited by a single Kitty Hawk sailor in 2002 that caused severe liberty restrictions to be imposed on all E4 and below CFAY and FDNF personnel. The real nickname of the Kitty Hawk is Shitty Kitty or Shitty Hawk. I removed the Battle Cat entry because the only one who used that name was Tom Parker, the ship's captian. He is the one who came up with that name, not the crew. Lowaystar 04:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Showing her age?
I have just visited the Kitty Hawk at Garden Island here in Sydney and she is showing signs of age on the exterior below deck level. She's also a bit messy in places, as if they've given up keeping her spick and span. Interesting messy though, makes for great photos.

She's carrying a large number of helicopters and fighter jets above deck, predominantly US but also with other insignia. She's prow in, just behind her forward escort, a smaller more modern ship whose prow and bridge are made of high rising curves of blank steel, no windows, no features. A very interesting direction for battleships.

Ironically the Kitty Hawk is berthed right next to the historic massive old Garden Island mobile crane, a classic meccano piece, now quite blackened with age, which is also about to be decomissioned.

I do hope they can preserve her, (and the crane) but judging by the rust marks on the hull and the general worn out condition, it may not be worth while.

AStext 04:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There will always be rust marks on the hull of any ship, if you find one without them, then she must have just been painted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphamuchi (talk • contribs) 12:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a saying about the difficulty of maintaining a modern warship: "They gave the captain a steel ship to run in salt water? They must be crazy!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.75.131 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Engine Room Fire
The major engine room fire in the mid-1970s is conspicuously absent. This caused her to be laid up at Subic Bay, Philippines, for a protracted period. 19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

India Deal
Just a fun rumor or part of hardball negotiations? http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/feb/28kitty.htm says no deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.100.251 (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Retirement vs. Decommissioning
Whoever reported that the ship was decommissioned really blew it. The ship was not decommissioned on 31 January 2009. I attended the ceremony; there was no decommissioning, only honoring the legacy of the ship and her crew. After the ceremony, the ensign flew at the aft end of the flight deck as before. We never heard any official information from any Navy source, but what we heard was that the George H. W. Bush had not yet passed her sea trials, and that the Kitty Hawk would not be decommissioned until the sea trials were passed. Evidence in print can be found in the Seattle Times article of the 1st of February 2009 entitled 2,000 say goodbye to USS Kitty Hawk, available online. Rclocher3 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The only official source for dates of ship events is the NVR. There you will see that KH is still in commission with a note at the end about the ceremony. Too many editors here are quick to follow news reports and report the date as gospel. The only gospel is the NVR. --Brad (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Acceptance Shakedown Cruise, 1961
There seems to be a conspicious absence of comments about the condition of Kitty Hawk when she areived in Norfolk from New York Shipbuilders, Camden NJ. The schedule to sail from Norfolk to the Gitmo Op Area had to be delayed due to sever problems in the boiler room, for one. Aircraft Fuel to the flight deck was slow in being available. I know these things because I was on the shakedown. Flew aircrew in the second A3D Skywarrior launched from her deck.( Pilot-LT. D. R. McGraw, BN-LTjg. D. R. Eaton, Crewnav-AT1 R. B. Kelly ) The skipper of VAH-13 was in the first. It was a fun cruise....especially for the yard workers that were there to correct many of the problems facing Kitty Hawk when released from the manufactures ship yards. And Kitty Hawk didn't depart Norfolk for the curise around the horn..... she sailed from the Gitmo Op Area. We left a 3 plane detachment aboard and took the other 9 directly from the Op Area to Whidbey Island, Wa. with a fuel stop and RON in San Antonio ( Kelly AFB ). My airplane had to make another stop at Hill AFB due to minor maintenance problems. We arrived a few hours after the other aircraft, at dusk, and the landing in Whidbey was accentuated with a brake fire in the port main mount. Brake problems necessitated use of the full leignth of the runway stopping in about spitting distance of the end of the runway......beyond where we stopped was about approx. 50 ft of runway, a small beach and then the water of the Puget Sound....... Our comment to the pilot was " Nice quiet arrival, Boss " ( Pilot, Lt. Donald R. McGraw. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.190.71 (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fatality confirmation
I can confirm as Dixon was wearing one of my green jerseys when he died as he had borrowed it since I was working in the galley at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.90.114.248 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah thats a shame when you say that was a fatality free world cruise, I worked nights on that cruise so I remember when we had to muster that night when Daniel Dixon died, there were many rumors that the navy covered that up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.245.124 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll also confirm this.

I was the Cat electrician jul_83-oct_87 He was taking elongs on cat 1 when an S-2 was launched and hit him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.110.30 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Combat Air Patrol hostile launch
Sometime in late 1966 or early 1967 (sorry, it's hell to get old), at night, while on Yankee station, Kitty Hawk launched Condition One CAP to intercept and shoot down two presumed hostile aircraft approaching the carrier group. The flight of the target aircraft originated near Hanoi or Haiphong and, before engagement, had overflown the U.S. picket ship, a cruiser I believe, about 50 miles to the Kitty Hawk's north. Anyone else have information or a recollection about this incident? Lahaun (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Fatality-Free Deployment Indeed
I was a crew member from 85-89 in V2 division cat 1&2. We did have a fatality. His name was Daniel Dixon. He was 18 years old. And was killed during flight ops at night, on cat 1. So lets get the record straight. For his family!


 * 1) REDIRECT http://www.history.navy.mil/shiphist/k/cv-63/1986.pdf

Thank you for setting the record straight. Danny was my uncle. I was only 4 when he passed, but I still remember the day we found out. You don't forget days like that, even at 4. He was such a great uncle. I only wish I had more time with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilMrsTori (talk • contribs) 05:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for commenting and setting the record straight, above is a post from my sister. I was only able to meet my Uncle Danny as a new born baby before he left for the Navy, I was born May 1986. I wish I would have been able to know him as his memory has been always present in my life growing up. If anyone has any pictures or stories of his last days please email me at Megan.Roebuck@hotmail.com my family would love to hear them. Thanks, Megan Danielle Roebuck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.163.146.76 (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Drydock Conversion of the ASW System in Bremerton (76 - 77)
Not mentioned in the article during the overhaul in Bremerton, Mar 76 to Apr 77, was the changeover of the Anti-Submarine Classification and Analysis Center (ASCAC) installed during the '73 overhaul. It was completly removed, the space gutted, then the new ASW Tactical Support Center (TSC) was installed using the latest in computer technology. It's interesting to note that barely ten years later a desktop computer probably had more capability, memory, etc. than what was originally installed in the TSC. Today a hand-held smart phone would definitely dwarf the capabilities of what occupied a large area, alone, just for the processors. Any comments & comparisons are invited from the DSs & DPs that were part of the crew that stood up, maintained & operated the system at the time. This space was occupied by the OW Division, to which I was assigned during the overhaul up until my separation from active duty just before the Kitty embarked for a WestPAC cruise in October 1977.Dirty Dan the Man (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Sailing Date for WestPAC in 1977
The wrong date is cited for the departure of the Kitty Hawk for WestPAC in 1977; the error is in the month. I separated from active duty off the Kitty on October 20, 1977 - she departed 5 days later on the 25th. If you need a source document, would my DD214 do the job? :) Dirty Dan the Man (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Command Operations Reports or DANFS Ship History would probably be better sources. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Reserve or scrapped?
On another page, the Kitty Hawk is listed as being held in reserve still. Which is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy#List --64.134.152.224 (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Fire on board CVA-63
Please note that the engine room fire took place on December 6, 1965...not on 11 December 1973 as indicated. Source: USS Kitty Hawk 1965 Cruise Book and I was aboard when it took place. 2602:306:CF2D:5A30:F438:F7E8:CE6B:8C40 (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Sale to India"
I've removed this text:
 * In the second half of the 2000s, when the fate of the Vikramaditya was not yet clear, the Americans tried to offer India the decommissioned Kitty Hawk, but they refused to purchase the nearly 50-year-old 80,000-ton ship with the prohibitive cost of keeping them in Delhi.

The cited article itself offers no evidence or quotes to back up its assertion that the United States had offered to sell Kitty Hawk to India. Moreover, a U.S. Navy admiral denied the reports. `PRRfan (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Since it was reported then denied, why not include the denial/in the article instead of removing it? - BilCat (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because even the article gives not one whit of evidence that the US ever actually contemplated selling the carrier to India. PRRfan (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I find the tidbit, as reported in the "denial" article in zeenews.india, quite interesting. I would support a one-sentence mention of RAdm Myers' statement, if we have consensus that zeenews is a reliable source for it. DonFB (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Why no mention of Operation Talisman - Saber 2005?
Was the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) not the lead aircraft carrier of the June 2005 joint US/Australia exercise, Operation Talisman-Saber? Even if she were not the lead carrier, shouldn't her participation in the initial exercise of the bi-annual mission at least be noted? 24.32.58.206 (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - w o lf  05:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)