My trip to the US Navy Reserve Fleet in Bremerton, WA

[Jeff Head]

Over the 2005 Labor Day weekend in the US we drove from Idaho to Bremerton, WA to visit my daughter and son-in-law (active duty US Navy) and our two grandsons. A secondary reason was to take a look at the US Navy reserve fleet there in Bremerton and to see any current US Navy vessels in the yards.

The trip over was very beautiful and pleasant. There is a lot of very beuatiful scenary between Idaho and Washington. Here are some pictures of some of that scenary.

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050905-ComingtoBakerCity.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050905-ColumbiaRiverGorge.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050902-Cascades-3.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050902-PugetSound.jpg

[Jeff Head]

CONTINUED (1):

Once we arrived in Bremerton, we greated and spent time with our daughter and her family, including the birthday celebration of our four year-old grandson.

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050903-BraedonBday2.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050904-BraedonParkWA1.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050904-RIleyBRaedonParkWA.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050904-RileyParkWA.jpg

[Jeff Head]

CONTINUED (2):

We were able to spend a good deal of time down by the water, which is somethiong I always enjoy. Here are some good views across the Sound to Seattle...which is just about close enough for yours truly.

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050904-BraedonRilerBremerton.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050904-MomDadBremerton.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050904-SeattleNeedle.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050904-Seattle.jpg[/url]

[Jeff Head]

CONTINUED (3):

Now, for the principle reason and point of this post. There in Bremerton, to the west of the Naval Shipyards, is the anchorage for the component of the reserve fleet harbored there. The ships are older, but still very modern and capable by the rest of the world standards. Here are some pictures I got of those naval ships...awaiting faithful service if ever required.

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/20050903-USReserveFleetBremerton.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/USSDavidRPauDD971.jpg

A picture of the entire reserve fleet, and a close-up of the USS David R. Paul, DD-971

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/USSGeorgePhilip-SidesFFG12-14.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/USSVincennesCG49.jpg

The guided missile frigates, USS George Phillips and Sides, FFG 12 and FFG 14, and the guided missile AEGIS cruiser USS Vincennes, CG 49

[Jeff Head]

CONTINUED (4):

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/USSRangerCV61.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/USSRangerCV61-2.jpg

The aircraft carrier USS Ranger, CV-61.

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/USSIndependenceCV62.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/USSIndependenceCV62-3.jpg

The aircraft carrier USS Independence, CV-62

[Jeff Head]

CONTINUED (5):

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/USSConstellationCV64.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/USSConstellationCV64-2.jpg

The aircraft carrier USS Constellation, CV-64. Notice the F-14 on deck.

The US Naval reserve fleet there in Bremerton represents several frigates and destroyers, an AEGIS cruiser, three full deck aircraft carriers, and several amphibious and support ships. Those ships alone, if in service, would be more powerful by themselves than the naval capabilities of over 90% of the other nations in the world. The United States maintains a significant number of such anchorages for reserve fleets around the United States. Many of those ships are in mobilizaton category B status, meaning they are mothballed for reactivation in times of crisis. Others are awaiting disposal and categorization, either for sale to foreign allies, foru use in naval exercises, or awaiting scrapping.

On this trip, as an added bonus, we were able to observe two US Navy front line vessels, the USS John Stennis and USS Ohio, in port undergoing maintenance and significant upgrades and refit at the Bremerton Naval shiptards. I got several pictures of them and here are a couple.

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/USSJohnStennisCVN74.jpg

The nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS John Stennis, CVN 74.

http://www.jeffhead.com/USNReserveBremerton/USSOhioSSGN726.jpg

The guided missile submarine, the USS Ohio, SSGN 726, just completing the significant refit from a SSBN, and preparing to put to sea.

Thanks for taking the time to share this family trip with us, and the pride we have in the UNited States military and the loyal men and woman who works so hard to defend our liberty and the fundamental moral values that define our way of life, and all of those who give so much of themselves to maintain and serve that cause.

[swimmerXC]

nice pics, did they let you inside the naval base?
i assuming thats you in the cowboy hat? :D

[Jeff Head]

I was able to get on base, accompanied by my son-in-law.

The entire area is great...but I could spend two weeks scurrying around those ships.

[Su-27 Pilot]

I was able to get on base, accompanied by my son-in-law.

The entire area is great...but I couls spend two weeks scurrying around those ships.

WOW, nice looking family. I think one of the carrier almost hit the shore dont you think ??

[Su-27 Pilot]

nice pics, did they let you inside the naval base?
i assuming thats you in the cowboy hat? :D

LOL I love that hat. YEEEHHAAA

[Jeff Head]

WOW, nice looking family. I think one of the carrier almost hit the shore dont you think ??

Thanks. Our families, where ever we live, are one of those things in life that tie all people every where together.

The USS Independence is berthed just like that, right up against the shore.

Just looking at what the US Navy holds in reserve, in mothballs, is pretty impressive...and that's just in that one anchorage.

[President]

where is Bremerton, big city?Is it one of US Navy reserve port, or all navy reserves are ported there? :confused: you got a nice family and your grandson is lovely:D

[bd popeye]

Bremerton Washington is a medium size city in Puget Sound area located in the most northwestern part of the USA. It is accross Puget Sound fron Seattle WA. There are some active ships there. One being the USS John C. Stennis CVN-74. Not all of the USN reserves are there. They are spread out along the coast of the US.

The carriers held in reserve there, Indpendence,Ranger and Constellation are not in the best of shape. I know that the Constellations catapults were removed before it was placed in reserve. All of those ships have had various major componets removed such as anchors,screws and propellers and most electronics. For the USN to re-activate one of these ships it would cost billions of dollars. They are not for sale.

[Jeff Head]

where is Bremerton, big city?Is it one of US Navy reserve port, or all navy reserves are ported there? :confused: you got a nice family and your grandson is lovely:D

Thank you for the kind words about the family.

Bremerton is not too big a city, less than 100,000 easily I believe, and is across the sound from Settle (which is a lmuch larger city). Bremerton has a Naval Shipyard and some active ships ported there. There is a Naval Air Station nearby and a large sub base at Bangor/Kitsap not far from there. The reserve fleet there is just one of several anchorages along the west coast, others along the guld coast, and still others on the east coast.

[Jeff Head]

As always popeye, thanks for the first hand knowledge.

The Constellation (CV 64) was decomissioned in 2003 and looked in the best shape. The Independence (CV 62) was decommissioned
in 1998. The Ranger (CV61) was decommissioned in 1993 and has been there the longest.

Kitty Hawk CV 63 (one of the last two remaining conventionally powered US carrier in active service) is still out there and going, I guess to be
replaced by CVN 77 George Bush in 2008. Hard to believe that is only a little more than 2 years away. She'll be what? 47 years of active
service at that time. What a tribute to her builders and the naval personnel operating and and maintaining her!

Here she is this year, pulling into Sydney:

http://www.kittyhawk.navy.mil/downloads/sydneyAUjuly2005.jpg

[bd popeye]

Sigh...I've never had so much trouble posting in a forum..I've lost probaly 50+ post here. Then half the time the icons don't work for me?? Like right now the only thing I can do is type a post. I think it's a server problem.

Anyway..Jeff posted...""Kitty Hawk CV 63 (one of the last two remaining conventionally powered US carrier in active service) is still out there and going, I guess to be replaced by CVN 77 George Bush in 2008. Hard to believe that is only a little more than 2 years away. She'll be what? 47 years of active service at that time. What a tribute to her builders and the naval personnel operating and and maintaining her!""....

Yes the Kitty Hawk is stil going strong. One of the thinghs that keep it going is the fine work of the Japanese shipyard workers in Yokosuka.

You know it is very expensive for the USN those conventional powered ships going. Just what ship will replace the Kitty Hawk in Yokosuka is unknown. Some think it will be the JFK. Others think it will be a nuclear CVN. The move of a CVN to Japan would have to be negoiated with the Japanese government. it was erronousely reported two years ago that the US and and Japan had reached an agreement on the move of a CVN to Japan.

Personally I think the US will move the entire CVN battle group to Guam if not allowed to place a CVN in Japan. The USN also presently plans on stationing a second carrier in Guam or Hawaii.

[swimmerXC]

Sigh...I've never had so much trouble posting in a forum..I've lost probaly 50+ post here. Then half the time the icons don't work for me?? Like right now the only thing I can do is type a post. I think it's a server problem.

i know what you mean, sometimes when i click the icons it doesn't appear or when i post something it just freezes there

[Jeff Head]

Personally I think the US will move the entire CVN battle group to Guam if not allowed to place a CVN in Japan. The USN also presently plans on stationing a second carrier in Guam or Hawaii.

I agree. Perhpas the JFK will buy some time for negotiations with the Japanese...Iguess we will wait and see.

But having two forward deployed carrier battle groups in the western Pacific will be a good thing, IMHO, to keep the balance and the peace.

BTW, sorry about your lost posts. I always enjoy you comments and the experience they represent.

[bd popeye]

xcswimmer sez..""know what you mean, sometimes when i click the icons it doesn't appear or when i post something it just freezes there""..

You said it! It's happening to me right now. I'm happy to see I'm not the only one. I too get page freezes.

Jeff mentioned the condition of the Kitty Hawk. You know Jeff a couple of years ago the skipper of the Kitty Hawk was relieved because of engineering problems.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=3400

The Kitty Hawks condition has improved greatly since then.

The JFK on the other hand has had two skipper relieved in the past 4 years. One for a collision at sea. The latter for poor material condition of the ship.
The condition of the JFK is questionoble. Presently tyhe JFK is in out of port doing carrier qualifactions. I question the condition of the ship because why was it not used for any hurricane relief efforts?

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=14927

http://www.news4jax.com/news/1206773/detail.html

[sumdud]

Anyway..Jeff posted...""Kitty Hawk CV 63 (one of the last two remaining conventionally powered US carrier in active service) is still out there and going, I guess to be replaced by CVN 77 George Bush in 2008. Hard to believe that is only a little more than 2 years away. She'll be what? 47 years of active service at that time. What a tribute to her builders and the naval personnel operating and and maintaining her!""....
Kitty Hawk is conventionally powered.... That's a lot of maintenance by itself. Why did the USN choose to park the Kitty Hawk there, instead of a CVN? (The Japanese are still scared of the bomb eh?)

CVN-77 will be called George Bush????!!!!!!!!!!!!! :steaming: You have to be kidding.......

[swimmerXC]

Kitty Hawk is conventionally powered.... That's a lot of maintenance by itself. Why did the USN choose to park the Kitty Hawk there, instead of a CVN? (The Japanese are still scared of the bomb eh?)

CVN-77 will be called George Bush????!!!!!!!!!!!!! :steaming: You have to be kidding.......

well, it's the first Bush.... so it's not as bad as George W. bush...... :D
besides i dont think they can name a carrier after a president if he's still in power... unless he's done something spetacular

[adeptitus]

There's some concerns with more nations or cities imposing bans on nuclear-powered ships. For an example, New Zealand has imposed a ban on nulcear-powered ships within its territorial waters since 1985, and the Australian city of Sydney ban nuclear-powered ships from visiting.

Palau, Fiji, and Vanuatu have declared nuclear-free status, though Fiji has permitted US nuclear-powered submarines within its territorial waters since 1983. Palau has a constitutional-ban on the storage, testing, or transit of nuclear or chemcial weaponery through its land or ocean territory since 1979. This means, it's illegal for any nation's SSBN's to enter Palau's territorial waters.

Although the USN has had an excellent service record with its nuclear-powered ships, today we have to worry about more than just accidents with crazy al-Qaida suicide bombers (see: USS Cole & attempt on USS The Sullivans).

[bd popeye]

Sumdud ..the Japanese do not want nuclear powered ships homeported in Japan. This has been a long standing rule the Japanese have. They do allow nuclear powered ships port visits.

CVN-77 will be named USS George H.W. Bush CVN-77. Named after the first Pres Bush. Here's a link.

http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/bush/

As for naming carriers. I don't think carriers should be named after politicans. Even presidents. Carriers should still be named after famous battles,historic sites and famous ships,.. such as Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Bull Run, Trenton, Valley Forge, Gettysburg, Midway, Coral Sea, Yankee Station..I could go on forever..but I won't. Sore subject with me. :(

[BrotherofSnake]

Why would the Japanese oppose nuclear powered carriers? I thought they were safe.

[bd popeye]

BroSnake wants to know..""Why would the Japanese oppose nuclear powered carriers? I thought they were safe.""

Nuke powerd CVN are very safe. but it's simple..the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end WW 2. Thus creating a Japanese aversion to nuclear power in any form. You know the JMSDF has no nuke subs?? I think..i'm not sure.. that the Japanese consitution forbids nuclear power in anyform.

[swimmerXC]

BroSnake wants to know..""Why would the Japanese oppose nuclear powered carriers? I thought they were safe.""

Nuke powerd CVN are very safe. but it's simple..the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end WW 2. Thus creating a Japanese aversion to nuclear power in any form. You know the JMSDF has no nuke subs?? I think..i'm not sure.. that the Japanese consitution forbids nuclear power in anyform.

they use nuclear power, to power their country ;)

As of July 2003, the 52 commercial nuclear reactors in operation had a total electric power generation capacity of 45.74 million kilowatts and supplied about one-third of the country's electricity. An additional four reactors were under construction and eight were in a preliminary stage of planning prior to the start of construction. Private electric power companies own and operate all the nuclear reactors. Efforts to build new nuclear power plants have been greatly complicated by the fact that the public's confidence in the safety of nuclear energy has been greatly shaken by a series of nuclear-power-related accidents in Japan since the mid-1990s.

Source (http://web-japan.org/factsheet/energy/nuclear.html)

[BrotherofSnake]

Anyways, is the CVN-77 going to replace the JFK or Kittyhawk?

[bd popeye]

xcswimmer thank you for enlightning me on nuclear power in Japan. :D You are always on top of the game! :) It makes me think that the Japanese aversion to nuke ships is just going to be a barganning tool in the future. :confused: Let's wait and see.

Anyways, is the CVN-77 going to replace the JFK or Kittyhawk?

Who knows? The JFK is in limbo right now because eairler this year the USN wanted to retire the JFK. But some congressmen from Florida & Virginia put at least a 1 years stop to that. Here's the story.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=85303&ran=109037

As for the USS Kitty Hawk CV-63 it is scheduled to be retired in 2008. Got to wait and see.

[sumdud]

But what did Bush do that was spetacular? Enough to get a shipe named after him so quickly?

I'll take popeye's words, though. Ships should be named after battles, to better allow people to know history. Or cities, since these ships are so big and complex, they truly are floating cities (boomtowns ;) ).

[swimmerXC]

Well Bush did lead the war to Iraq....... They should of done it like how the PLAN does it, no people... maybe PLAN carrier will be name Mao Zedong... but i think it will be Beijing or Shanghai....

[Jeff Head]

But what did Bush do that was spetacular? Enough to get a shipe named after him so quickly?

This is BUSH41. The 41st president, the current Bush's father. My guess is it had to do with his role in the first Iraq war. Huge coalition, huge success as to the aims of that coalition.

For many Americans, it finally shook of the spectre of the Vietnam War and the political failure (it was NOT a military defeat) that caused the loss there.

But that's just my opinion...probably just as much, if not more so, it could be purely political.

[Totoro]

I'm just wondering, how many more helicopters than 4500 and how many more planes than 3000 should have been lost in order for us to be able to say it was a military loss, compared to north vietnamese high tech losses? Also, how much money was spent in that war by US and how much by north vietnamese?

[bd popeye]

I'm just wondering, how many more helicopters than 4500 and how many more planes than 3000 should have been lost in order for us to be able to say it was a military loss, compared to north vietnamese high tech losses? Also, how much money was spent in that war by US and how much by north vietnamese?
Totoro, total numbers do not equal a military loss. Battles do. Territory held. Just how many major battles did the US lose in Vietnam? What major headquaters were surerendured to the North? You tell me. If you think the US military lost just when did the US surrender? You tell me. But you won't be able to. Because it never happened. The policy of the US did lose. Resoundlingy. That's for sure. There are some excellent post by Raven on that subject. Myself and Jeff also.

Of course the US out spent the North Vietnamese during the war.

[Totoro]

But what i'm saying is this: US military was much stronger than north vietnam, from the start. Way more planes/ships/soldiers. No one in the world, especially not US expected the military losses to be what they ended up being. Is it a lesser victory if you lose 500 planes to destroy 300 enemy planes than if you lose planes 1 for 1? If so, when does the number cross the line where you can't talk about victory but of a defeat? From my first entry i have been talking about a pyrric victory. US suffered a political defeat but even its military 'non-loss' was very, very costly and ultimately a pointless waste.

If you send a force to do a job, it can be victorious only if it does that job. If somehow US could have looked into future and known it'd have to retreat, then it'd have been better they didn't send even one soldier to vietnam. But they did. They sent tons, and huge numbers of equipment and those all died/were lost in vain. It was more or less a pure waste, because of the political decision to retreat.

Especially because it is clear it was a political defeat and all we've got left is military aspect, quantifying the gains/losses is important. And when you do that, when you quantify the american losses versus north vietnamese losses, US is defeated. If by holding the area and never techincally losing a battle US had gained something in the long term - then yeah, it'd be worth something. But because of ultimately losing the area due to politics, we're left with just numbers vs numbers. And then, what good is it temporarely holding an area if you suffered bigger losses than the enemy in order to hold the area in the first place? Bragging rights? I'd say north vietnam had more to brag about bringing down so many US aircraft.

So yes, US military didn't lose. but its non-loss (not to say victory) was a VERY pyrric one.

[bd popeye]

Totoro sez..""So yes, US military didn't lose. but its non-loss (not to say victory) was a VERY pyrric one""

100% correct. Thank you!

[Jeff Head]

And when you do that, when you quantify the american losses versus north vietnamese losses, US is defeated.

Sorry, I do not buy that. If that were so, there would have been no reason for the NVA to come to the peace table in 1972. And yet they did.

Why did they, then? Because they were being abjectly defeated militarily at the time and knew they had to. Two years later, after rearming and reprovisioning without constant US attacks, they invaded and won when the US was no longer there.

The price paid in lives and loss of equipment (as related to the ability to keep on fighting a war) were completely lopsided in terms of US vs NVA and VC. The other side (NVA and VC) lost a LOT more.

The US lost the political will and therefore simply left.

[Totoro]

I'm sorry, I do not buy that. If you, after 10 years of pain and suffering, lives lost and billions spent, finally get a chance to win since you finally managed to exhaust your enemy, then you don't just 'lose' political will. If anything, that'd strengthen it and give it another boost of energy for a last push to destroy the enemy. It is my opinion that US saw no end to losses for no clear gain, after 10 years of trying, and decided to bite the bullet and cut its lossses.

North vietnamese were coming to the peace table years before 1972. The only difference in '72 was that US was already lowering the numbers of its forces by then and north vietnam saw it was about to retreat. So it lied and said 'sure, we wont attack'. Yet they did, in two years time like you said. (large scale offensive operations need much more preparation that defending from US attacks)

War policy is made according to your ability to wage war. And there is where the failure was. First the US intelligence, in opening stages, where it underestimated north vietnams strength to wage the war and it underestimated the extent of russian help. But then even us military itself just consistently failed, years after years, to make significant blows to NV, at the whole time suffering far greater losses it predicted, let alone what US govt was told to predict. And no, i don't believe US military could have put more forces to the fight, short of ww2 scale mobilisation which was impossible/impractical for obvious reasons.

[MIGleader]

well, thats how sun-tzu thought the best way to win, not by force, but to destroy you enemies heart.

[bd popeye]

North vietnamese were coming to the peace table years before 1972. The only difference in '72 was that US was already lowering the numbers of its forces by then and north vietnam saw it was about to retreat. So it lied and said 'sure, we wont attack'. Yet they did, in two years time like you said. (large scale offensive operations need much more preparation that defending from US attacks)

The Paris peace talks started in '68 true enough. But about the first year or so was spent trying to decide the shape and size of the table used for the discussions.

The US government was tired of the war. Us populace was also. Anti war protest at home in the US were ongoing. Years before Pres. Nixon decided to implement "Vietnamzation" of the war. That is giving S. Vietnamese forces more of the brunt of the fighting.

In my opinion to force the North into some real peace negoiations the US launched Operation Linebacker II. And nearly bombed N.Vietnam into oblivion. This article does not mention it but the USN had six CVA's off the coast of the North flying around the clock missions over N. Vietnam bombing anything and everything.. In the wake of these attacks the North decided to "negoiate"(save it's ass) with the US and S. Vietnamese. As Totoro posted so well..they lied. They had no intention of honoring the agreement.

Never heard of Operation Linebacker II??? Check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II

Operation Linebacker II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Note: The term "Christmas Day Bombings" is misleading. Operation Linebacker II began on December 18 and ended on December 29, but sorties were only flown on 11 of these days; bombing was halted on Christmas.

The Christmas Day Bombings in late December, 1972, codenamed Operation Linebacker II, were the heaviest bomber strikes of the Vietnam War, ordered by US President Nixon against North Vietnamese Army forces in North Vietnam and Laos.

Some 200 American B-52s armed with 750-pound unguided bombs launched airstrikes against Hanoi and Haiphong with devastating results. The North Vietnamese fired most, if not all, of their SAM missiles and 15 Air Force B-52s were shot down in the operation. Privately, the administration knew that the Christmas Bombings could not continue indefinitely.

The war was a legacy Nixon had inherited from his three immediate predecessors, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. Nixon had previously tried to "end US involvement in Vietnam," but saw the government of South Vietnam as uninterested in peace and taking the US defense forces for granted. The escalated bombing attacks were to serve as a demonstration of the destructiveness of the war, in the hopes of forcing the South Vietnamese government back to peace talks with North Vietnam.

The bombings also were protested around the world, as people began to pressure their respective governments to officially condemn them. The United Kingdom and Italy did so, but other European countries maintained their silence. Some elements in the Western media were alleged to have misreported the extent of damage done in Hanoi and Haiphong; thus, contributing to the anti-war unrest.

Nixon claimed that the bombings were successful in the short term, and the Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973, ending US involvement in Vietnam and completing the so-called "Vietnamization" of the war. Hanoi maintained that the bombings did not influence their peace decision. There are two different opinions about the real effect of the bombings on the government of North Vietnam:

Some believe that the North Vietnamese were afraid of an even larger air campaign against North Vietnam's dikes or even the use of nuclear weapons.
Others believe that China would have tolerated neither nuclear attacks nor American ground forces in North Vietnam without entering the war against the United States. Avoiding conflict with China was an important goal of the American government. Indeed, Nixon's nuclear threats were just posturing. He called it the madman theory, saying "I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war."
The campaign was marked by top-down planning from Strategic Air Command (SAC) headquarters, Omaha, Nebraska. SAC's initial plans had all B-52s approaching Hanoi in three discrete waves per night, using identical approach paths at the same altitude. Once planes had dropped their bombs, they were to execute what SAC called "post-target turns" to the west. These turns had two unfortunate effects for the B-52s:

The B-52s would be turning into a strong headwind, slowing their ground speed by 100 knots (185 km/h) and prolonging their stay in the target area;
The turn would point the emitter antennas for the B-52s' electronic warfare (EW) systems away from the radars they were attempting to jam, as well as showing the largest radar cross-section to the (now unjammed) radars.
Additionally, the aircraft employed had significantly different EW capabilities; the B-52G carried fewer jammers and put out significantly less power than the B-52Ds.

The combination of stereotyped tactics, degraded EW systems, and limited jamming capacity led to the loss of five aircraft on night three (20 December 1972). The commander of the B-52 wing at U-Tapao, Thailand sent a message to SAC headquarters that sharply criticized SAC's tactics and control of the operation. SAC turned planning over to 8th Air Force headquarters on Guam, then ensured that the U-Tapao commander was not mentioned in the official history of the operation.

On December 26, 1972, the new tactics came into play: instead of multiple waves, all bombers would be in and out of the Hanoi area within 20 minutes, and would approach Hanoi from multiple directions. The steep post-target turns were eliminated. The North Vietnamese air defense system, though still capable, was overwhelmed by the number of aircraft to track in a short period of time and a dense blanket of chaff that was laid down by 7th Air Force fighter-bombers.

The peace talks between North and South Vietnam would dissolve. The NVA secured South Vietnam in 1975, unifying Vietnam under communist rule.

[Jeff Head]

The Paris peace talks started in '68 true enough. But about the first year or so was spent trying to decide the shape and size of the table used for the discussions. In my opinion to force the North into some real peace negoiations the US launched Operation Linebacker II. And nearly bombed N.Vietnam into oblivion. In the wake of these attacks the North decided to "negoiate"(save it's ass) with the US and S. Vietnamese. As Totoro posted so well..they lied. They had no intention of honoring the agreement.

Well stated PopEye.

I hope this thread can now get back to what it was intended...a discussion of the US Navy reserve fleet in general, and in Bremerton specifically.

[EternalVigil]

Nice pics Jeff. BTW I bought the hardback version of your book. Its very good and I appreciate the entertainment it gave me while I was in the hospital for the flu. I had my girlfriend bring me some books to read while I was laid up for three days. Had a bad stomach flu and couldnt keep fluids down so I had to stay on the IV till I could eat and drink again. It took my mind off me feeling like crap for the time I was reading it. Thanks again.

[Jeff Head]

Nice pics Jeff. BTW I bought the hardback version of your book. Its very good and I appreciate the entertainment it gave me while I was in the hospital for the flu. It took my mind off me feeling like crap for the time I was reading it. Thanks again.

The thanks is all mine. Thank you for reading it and I am really glad you enjoyed it. Please tell others. Since I am self-published, word of mouth is my good friend!

Hope you are feeling better. Gods speed.

[Gollevainen]

The thanks is all mine. Thank you for reading it and I am really glad you enjoyed it. Please tell others. Since I am self-published, word of mouth is my good friend!

if bit offtopic, but what kind of book(s) have you written?

[WebMaster]

if bit offtopic, but what kind of book(s) have you written?

http://www.dragonsfuryseries.com/ :nana:

[Jeff Head]

if bit offtopic, but what kind of book(s) have you written?

Well, I wasn't going to link to my own books...but I see the webmaster did just above this response (humble thanks), so I will just say this.

The series is a fictional, techno-thriller novel about a future conflict beween the PRC and her allies and the US and her allies. Purely fiction...sort of like a Clancy novel with an attitude...and more action from the start, sort of like he used to do when he got started.

[Gollevainen]

interesting to hear...not to admiting anything....(you didn't hear anything, i DIDN'T say that the was a bit writter's fault in myself...;) )

so this is a full-leght novel...hmm and did you mentioned it was selfpublished? if you mind, it would be interesting to hear more of this book and writtings in general, tough perhaps in another topic?...tough it still doesen't mean i have any abitious towards writting...nor at least you didn't hear it from me...

[Jeff Head]

it still doesen't mean i have any abitious towards writting...nor at least you didn't hear it from me...

Hehehe...it was a lot of fun...but it was also a lot of work. A LOT of work over about a four year period.

There are five full, length novels in the series. When I was completed I put out one very large hardback novel with smaller type print that contains all five.

I used this company LIGHTNINGSOURCE (http://www.lightningsource.com) to make the books and distribute them. They were very reasonable. They get them out to Amazon, Barnes & Noble and quite a few other online places. LightningSource is owned by a very large book wholesaler, Ingram.

I did all of the formatting, including the cover art, and then converted an MSWord document to Adobe (using a full version of Adobe Acrobat and the distiller), which is the format they require. I also released them all as eBooks in both the Adobe Reader and MS Reader formats.

With a company like LIGHTNIONGSOURCE around, virtually anyone can self publish and then have the material out on Amazon. Of course...it is left to you to do your own advertising. Most of mine is word of mouth through various forums, friends, relatives, etc.

[Gollevainen]

did you ever planned to try and offer you book to any big (or should we say traditional) publisher?

and tough still not admitting anything...does this publisher allow just anything being published or do they have some sort of standarts for the general level of the books?

[Jeff Head]

did you ever planned to try and offer you book to any big (or should we say traditional) publisher? ...does this publisher allow just anything being published or do they have some sort of standarts for the general level of the books?
I had an agent for a while and he shopped it around...but it became clear it was more of "who you know" than "what you know" for an unknown like me...and I didn't know anyone.

So, I just did it myself.

LightningSource is very professional. They are not a publisher, just a "Print on Demand" distributor. They expect you to be an operating company (so I set up my own, one-man business) and they have agreements that you sign.

The result is I have been able to sell several thosuand copies on my own.

I believe if it ever did get the exposure...it would sell tens of thousands...but being the author, of course I would think that, hehehe.

[Gollevainen]

proplem is that theres little or no change to get it translated to finnish in your resources...:(

but these agents...i came cross to them whit foreing literature, but in Finnish culture, they just seems not exictence. How did you get one? Do you have to know one from before or...?

[Jeff Head]

How did you get one? Do you have to know one from before or...?

Another, fairly well published author, saw and read my books and then referred me. But that agent was more focused on the non-fiction genre and little came of it.

[Jeff Head]

proplem is that theres little or no change to get it translated to finnish in your resources.

Say, Gollevainen, tell me what you think of THIS SITE (http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/)

I would be interested in your comments.

It has a domain name... www.worldwideaircraftcarriers.com ...but it may not be working everywhere yet.

[Gollevainen]

Very nice indeed, some of the pics were rather unfimiliar to me so it makes it even better...:)

[Jeff Head]

Very nice indeed, some of the pics were rather unfimiliar to me so it makes it even better...:)

Great! Glad you enjoyed it. There's lots of info there. Many classes, lots of pics. I hope it is a good resource for anyone interested in such matters.

[Gollevainen]

well it would be even greater, if there would be all the past and unbuild concepts also...but it migth require huge work and resources to hunt pics from all of them.

[Jeff Head]

well it would be even greater, if there would be all the past and unbuild concepts also...but it migth require huge work and resources to hunt pics from all of them.

I am afraid I would have to quit work to be able to have the time to do that. I would enjoy it...but I have to make money to feed my family!

Anyway, I do hope to put new carriers up there as they start construction...like the new UK carriers as soon as they start, and the CVN-21, which I view as a new class.

I do have the Gorshkov rebuild and the Varyag up there already, but intend to put the others on the forum as they start construction.

Thanks.

[bd popeye]

Anyway, I do hope to put new carriers up there as they start construction...like the new UK carriers as soon as they start, and the CVN-21, which I view as a new class.


Well Jeff have you seen this Northrop-Grumman page?

http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/cvn21/index.html

Great drawings of CVN-78 and pics of the steel cutting. Glad I live in the US where this type of info is readily available. And not some big secrect.

CVN-21 is the program. CVN-78 will be the hull number. I don't know why.

[Jeff Head]

Well Jeff have you seen this Northrop-Grumman page?

http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/cvn21/index.htmlThanks popeye! Here is the link I have been using for the CVN-21 program on my www.worldwideaircraftcarriers.com site:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/78.htm

But I like yours better and will change to that one!

Yes, it's good to live in a free society where this information is available to all.

[Gauntlet]

say, Jeff.

If I buy your books from Amazon.co.uk, will you get any profit from it?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971577900/qid=1129665269/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_10_8/026-2079852-4986012

Are your book some of the same genre as Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising"?

I just love that book...

[Jeff Head]

say, Jeff.If I buy your books from Amazon.co.uk, will you get any profit from it?Yes.

Are your book some of the same genre as Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising"? I just love that book...Yes, in the sense that it is a world wide world-war story on land, sea and air. But, it is also in somewhat more more detail, that's why it took five volumes to write)

[Gauntlet]

Yes.Goody. Would love to support you. You seem like an real nice and knowledgefull guy. :)

Yes, in the sense that it is a world wide world-war story on land, sea and air. But, it is also in somewhat more more detail, that's why it took five volumes to write)
Goody!
Will buy at in probarly 2 weeks when I get money.
Will buy the 1-5 collecters edition.

[Jeff Head]

Goody. Would love to support you. You seem like an real nice and knowledgefull guy. :)Well...thank you very much for those very kind words!
Goody!
Will buy at in probarly 2 weeks when I get money. Will buy the 1-5 collecters edition.Again, thanks so much. I believe you will enjoy them. The Edition with all five volumes is hard-back and by far the best value.

[Jeff Head]

Great drawings of CVN-78 and pics of the steel cutting. CVN-21 is the program. CVN-78 will be the hull number. I don't know why. I have added a complete section for the CVN-21 to the aircraft carrier site popeye. Since initial steel cutting has been accomplished, it is officially, "under construction" and so I placed it there right at the top.

I know the Kitty Hawk will be decomm'ed in 2008...but hope she remains in reserve for some time to come.

Where do you think they will retire her? Bremerton?

I hope so, then on one of my trips over there I can get good pics of her too!

[bd popeye]

I have added a complete section for the CVN-21 to the aircraft carrier site popeye. Since initial steel cutting has been accomplished, it is officially, "under construction" and so I placed it there right at the top.

I know the Kitty Hawk will be decomm'ed in 2008...but hope she remains in reserve for some time to come.

Where do you think they will retire her? Bremerton?

I hope so, then on one of my trips over there I can get good pics of her too!

Jeff all the CV's that have been retired on the west coast were retired in San Diego at NAS North Island. Why? Because San Diego is the home to most of the west coast Navy. One third of the entire USN is stationed in San Diego. (Edit..I made a boo boo. the Indy was retired in Bremerton WA)

But before we jump our guns about retiring the Kitty Hawk another CV will have to repalce here in Japan. that is if the Japanese will allow a CVN in Japan. If not Japan probaly Hawaii or Guam. Plus as I mentioned before the USN fully intends to foward deploy another CV in the Pacific. We shall see.

Jeff did you know that the USN has delayed de-comissioning the JFK at least until August 2006? The below link says the USN will decomm 10 ships in the next year while at the same time comissioning 7 new ones. 2 of the ships being de-commed will remain in service with the Military Sealift Command.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=94315&ran=232044&zr=1

[Jeff Head]

But before we jump our guns about retiring the Kitty Hawk another CV will have to repalce here in Japan. that is if the Japanese will allow a CVN in Japan. If not Japan probaly Hawaii or Guam. Plus as I mentioned before the USN fully intends to foward deploy another CV in the Pacific. We shall see. Read just today where the US and the Japanese have agreed to a CVN in Japan when the Kitty Hawk is decomm'ed in 2008. I am about to post it as a seperate thread.

[Jeff Head]

RE: US RESERVE FLEETThought you guys might enjoy this thread and all of the pics of the reserve fleet (DDGs, FFGs, CG, CVs, etc.) from 18+ months ago when I traveled over to Bremerton.

[bigstick61]

Too bad most of the reserve fleet is gone now. I went to the one in Philadelphia and saw Knox-class FFs, Spruance-class DDs, a Des Moines-class CA, and other warships. Almost all of them are gone now, either sunk or sent to the breakers. Even the Des Moines just got sent to the breakers. Most of what remains is planned for disposal. Another one I've been to is the MARAD facility in Suisun Bay. There are a couple of Belknaps there, some old frigate preceding the Knox-class, and an Iowa-class BB (the Iowa herself), along with some amphibious vessels, and of course, since it is a MARAD facility, dozens of merchant and auxiliary vessels. To the west at Mare Island there was and still is an Iwo Jima-class LPH. I've also seen the reserve vessels at Pearl.

[Tasman]

Thought you guys might enjoy this thread and all of the pics of the reserve fleet (DDGs, FFGs, CG, CVs, etc.) from 18+ months ago when I traveled over to Bremerton.

Thanks Jeff. I think that it is really disappointing that the USN seems to have moved away from its policy of maintaining a substantial reserve fleet. I think the Spruance class destroyers in particular would have been worth keeping for any future emergency.

The USN placed hundreds of destroyers in reserve after WW1 (the flush deckers) and WW2 (Fletchers, Sumners, etc). Of course the big difference (apart from the fact that the Spruances are similar in size to many WW2 cruisers) is that the Spruance class were worked hard for a long time and many may have been worn out. Many of the WW1 flush deckers, on the other hand, went almost straight into reserve after completion.

In the case of the carriers it would probably be uneconomical to try to get any more out of them. The big carriers have all given magnificent service and no one can say that they didn't give value for money. They deserve their retirement. It is sad though to see fine ships in the last days of their lives as they wait for disposal.

Cheers

[Jeff Head]

Too bad most of the reserve fleet is gone now. I went to the one in Philadelphia and saw Knox-class FFs, Spruance-class DDs, a Des Moines-class CA, and other warships. Almost all of them are gone now, either sunk or sent to the breakers. Even the Des Moines just got sent to the breakers. Most of what remains is planned for disposal. Another one I've been to is the MARAD facility in Suisun Bay. There are a couple of Belknaps there, some old frigate preceding the Knox-class, and an Iowa-class BB (the Iowa herself), along with some amphibious vessels, and of course, since it is a MARAD facility, dozens of merchant and auxiliary vessels. To the west at Mare Island there was and still is an Iwo Jima-class LPH. I've also seen the reserve vessels at Pearl.Well, of the 31 Spruance destroyers, only seven are left. The David R. Ray, DD-971, is one of these. Three of the others are slated to be sold, and the other four are waiting disposal. I hope they keep at least four in reserve.

Twenty have been sunk, four have been scrapped. Most of these vessels had anywhere from ten to sixteen years of service life left.

Those two FFG, FFG-12, and FFG-14 were slatred to be sold to Portugal last year, but they backed out and I believe they are still there in Bremerton too. The Vincennes is also still there. She was decommissioned with in 2005 with 14 years service life left.

Although you wouldn't think we would, we have already sunk one of the five AEGIS cruisers (the ones with the double arm launchers) that were decommissioned. The CG 50, Valley, Forge. She was decommissioned in 2004, with 15 years service life left, and then sunk off Hawaii in November 2006.

Here's a good site that keeps track of all US vessels, their decommissioning and all of the SINKEX that are going on:

US NAVY UNOFFICIAL SITE (http://navysite.de/ships.htm)

[bigstick61]

All those ships in that picture are still there, according to the NVR website. The Ray and the two FFGs are planned for disposal, but they have not decided how they will do this, which means they may still be around for awhile. The bulk of the OHPs were scrapped, sunk, or sold, though. It's really a shame, because the near-elimination of the reserve fleet combined with the decline of the US shipbuilding industry will mean we will be sorely lacking if we ever find ourselves in a major war, and we would have done it to ourselves.

[bd popeye]

I agree 99.9% with the last few post. Jeff you made a bb boo. The David R Ray was DD-971 not 917...

Any way as I have mentioned before my son served on the now sunk CG-50. I visited that ship many times while he was on board in San Diego. It is hard to think that a ship in such absolute pristine condition now rest at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. What a waste of taxpayer money. Shameful. :mad:

Simply stated the USN is not being alloted enough money in their yearly budget to properly preserve ships in a reserve status.

[Jeff Head]

I agree 99.9% with the last few post. Jeff you made a bb boo. The David R Ray was DD-971 not 917...Yes, I knew that...and have it correctly numbered in the thread itself when I was there. But today, I just made a simple transposition typo when writing this latest, but have now, thanks to your keen eye, fixed it and corrected the prolemo...thankx!


Any way as I have mentioned before my son served on the now sunk CG-50. I visited that ship many times while he was on board in San Diego. It is hard to think that a ship in such absolute pristine condition now rest at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. What a waste of taxpayer money. Shameful. :mad:

Simply stated the USN is not being alloted enough money in their yearly budget to properly preserve ships in a reserve status.Agreed 100%. The USN needs to be allotted adequate funds to move the older reserve fleet units out while making way for the newer decommissioned vessels, like the Valley Forge. It is unbelievable that we would sink such a vessel...which still has so many years service life, and still would be considered by any other navy to be better than their top of the line vessels. Just like the Spruances.

Instead, the US Government seems to be intent on simply disposing of them all, old and new alike, and leaving essentially very few vessels in reserve. Very, very short sighted IMHO.

[bigstick61]

It was part of the newer defense policy, though. Part of the streamining, which held that the Navy doesn't need to be very big or have reserves, as in their mind it will principally used just to support operations against terrorism. Not good thinking, but that seems to have become the norm in regards to naval policy, unfortunately.

[bd popeye]

The US Navy of which I served for 20 years should have in reserve ,as a minimum, the following surface combatants. I wish the US Congress would fork over the cash to do so.

4 CV's

2 LHA's(Tarawa Class)

18 Spruance class

5 Ticos (thats' how many the USN has retired)

4 AOE's

With that 4 CSG's (Carrier Strike Groups) & 2 ESG (Expeditionary Strike Groups) could be formed.

I omitted subs simply because I have limited knowledge about keeping a nuke ship in mothballs.

[szbd]

I think USN still has some nuclear cruisers in reserve? If so, I don't understand why USN keeps them but sunk a tico.

[bigstick61]

The Long Beach, sans her superstructure, is still afloat. The South Carolina is still in mothballs, although she's planned for disposal. There are a couple of Belknaps left which are planned for disposal as well. There is also a Knox FF and 4 Forrest Sherman DDs in mothballs, as well as two BBs. This includes ships stricken but still maintained by the US Navy. also, I believe there are still a cuple of Gearings mothballed and planned for disposal.

As for subs, there is a sub reserve fleet, but it is shrinking and has been shrinking for some time. There are over a dozen SSNs (LA-class and 1 Sturgeon-class, and 1 Nautilus-class) in reserve, along with two SSBNs. There are still a couple of conventional attack subs in mothballs as well.

Nuke ships are placed in Category Z Reserve.

The Reserve Categories are:

Category A: Ships which are in commission, in reserve (such as ships in the Naval Reserve force, which today includes 9 OHPs and some mine warfare vessels).

Category B: Ships which are decommissioned, but maintained in the highest level of readiness, and can be reactivated in 90-120 days, and have flooding and fire alarms installed, cathodic protection for the hull, and are sealed up and dehumidified, and maintained by naval personnel.

Category C: These ships are similar to category B ships, but they are not regularly maintained and sometimes have fewer protections against the elements. They also have lower readiness standards. All service craft which are maintained, and priority ships for sale to other countries are maintained in this category as well.

Category D: This includes ships stricken and disposed of to private entities which are still considered eligible for reactivation, and have to meet certain maintenance and readiness standards, as well as ships planned for similar fates or disposal to other government agencies in category X. It is partly a subcategory of category X.

Category L: Ships preserved well and retained for logistics purposes, such as being used as a source for spare parts for ships still in the fleet.

Category X: Ships which have been stricken, but are still in USN custody, including some category D ships. These ships are planned for disposal or sometimes have not had plans made for them. They are not maintained, and preservation systems come as is. They are fitted with alarms and a place to dock.

Category Z: All nuclear powered vessels, and associated ships such as sub tenders, whether to be disposed of or retained, are kept in this category, and preserved to category B or C standards, depending on their planned disposition, and also include nuclear vessels which are being recycled.

[Tasman]

The US Navy of which I served for 20 years should have in reserve ,as a minimum, the following surface combatants. I wish the US Congress would fork over the cash to do so.

4 CV's

2 LHA's(Tarawa Class)

18 Spruance class

5 Ticos (thats' how many the USN has retired)

4 AOE's

With that 4 CSG's (Carrier Strike Groups) & 2 ESG (Expeditionary Strike Groups) could be formed.

I omitted subs simply because I have limited knowledge about keeping a nuke ship in mothballs.

I have a wonderful vision in my head of what might have been if the 2 Tarawas, 2 of the Ticos and 4 of the Spruances (the 4 Kidd DDG variants were actually offered before being transferred to the ROCN) had been transferred to and were now spearheading the RAN! Unfortunately it will remain a dream.

BTW, the RAN seems to be following the same philosophy as the USN and is disposing of ships as soon as they are retired from active service. The OHP class FFG Canberra has already gone and Adelaide will soon join her as a dive wreck.


Cheers

[Tasman]

The Long Beach, sans her superstructure, is still afloat. The South Carolina is still in mothballs, although she's planned for disposal. There are a couple of Belknaps left which are planned for disposal as well. There is also a Knox FF and 4 Forrest Sherman DDs in mothballs, as well as two BBs. This includes ships stricken but still maintained by the US Navy. also, I believe there are still a cuple of Gearings mothballed and planned for disposal.

As for subs, there is a sub reserve fleet, but it is shrinking and has been shrinking for some time. There are over a dozen SSNs (LA-class and 1 Sturgeon-class, and 1 Nautilus-class) in reserve, along with two SSBNs. There are still a couple of conventional attack subs in mothballs as well.

Nuke ships are placed in Category Z Reserve.

The Reserve Categories are:

Category A: Ships which are in commission, in reserve (such as ships in the Naval Reserve force, which today includes 9 OHPs and some mine warfare vessels).

Category B: Ships which are decommissioned, but maintained in the highest level of readiness, and can be reactivated in 90-120 days, and have flooding and fire alarms installed, cathodic protection for the hull, and are sealed up and dehumidified, and maintained by naval personnel.

Category C: These ships are similar to category B ships, but they are not regularly maintained and sometimes have fewer protections against the elements. They also have lower readiness standards. All service craft which are maintained, and priority ships for sale to other countries are maintained in this category as well.

Category D: This includes ships stricken and disposed of to private entities which are still considered eligible for reactivation, and have to meet certain maintenance and readiness standards, as well as ships planned for similar fates or disposal to other government agencies in category X. It is partly a subcategory of category X.

Category L: Ships preserved well and retained for logistics purposes, such as being used as a source for spare parts for ships still in the fleet.

Category X: Ships which have been stricken, but are still in USN custody, including some category D ships. These ships are planned for disposal or sometimes have not had plans made for them. They are not maintained, and preservation systems come as is. They are fitted with alarms and a place to dock.

Category Z: All nuclear powered vessels, and associated ships such as sub tenders, whether to be disposed of or retained, are kept in this category, and preserved to category B or C standards, depending on their planned disposition, and also include nuclear vessels which are being recycled.

Thanks for posting this bigstick61. It is very interesting information, especially for a naval enthusiast from the island down under Downunder.

Could you (or Popeye or Jeff, et al) explain how the Naval Reserve Force is organised. I notice that you describe the ships as being in commission, in reserve. Does this mean that they have reserve crews assigned that periodically take them to sea?

Cheers

[bigstick61]

It means that they are no longer front-line or primary units, but remain in commission just in case they are needed. This was done with some of the older vessels after WWII. Sometimes they stay in port mostly, while other times they put to see with regular navy crews. Current practice i to have them in the NRF. Such ships have a core crew consisting of regular navy personnel, and the rest of the crew are reservists which train aboard the vessels, and if fully activated, the reserve crews aboard at the time would be the ones which would be activated and made a part of the ships crew for the duration of its service. Their deployments tend to be more limited.

[Tasman]

It means that they are no longer front-line or primary units, but remain in commission just in case they are needed. This was done with some of the older vessels after WWII. Sometimes they stay in port mostly, while other times they put to see with regular navy crews. Current practice i to have them in the NRF. Such ships have a core crew consisting of regular navy personnel, and the rest of the crew are reservists which train aboard the vessels, and if fully activated, the reserve crews aboard at the time would be the ones which would be activated and made a part of the ships crew for the duration of its service. Their deployments tend to be more limited.

Thanks for the explanation. It seems to be a sensible approach with ships that are surplus to normal peacetime requirements but which may be needed to support surge operations short of full scale war, when the whole of the reserve fleet (what's left of it) would most likely be activated.

Cheers