I imagine the beach sand would stop it really quick but I have no idea how to calculate that. 
I think this is probably one of the most hilarious username/post content matches since we began noting them!
What about the Yangtze? Could the carrier make it to the Three Gorges Dam?
Hm, depth would be problem, but bridges can be bombed out of existence to allow passage
hm mrAru claims they took the USS America[Regan class] and the Nimitz both to Great Lakes near Chicago … anybody able to confirm that?
I wouldnt think that the St Lawrence or the canal would allow passage …
Unless there’s some super-secret technology to allow the ship to leap up Niagara Falls like Franklin’s proverbial whale, I don’t see any way around the Welland locks, which limit ship length to 740 feet.
I can’f find references to the river channel but the port itself is right on the edge for a Nimitz:
Harbor Type: River Natural
Harbor Size: Small
Shelter Afforded: Excellent
Entrance Restriction (Ice): No
Entrance Restriction (Other): Yes
Entrance Restriction (Swell): No
Entrance Restriction (Tide): Yes
Good Holding Ground: Yes
Overhead Limits: Unknown
Channel Depth: 26ft - 30ft/7.1m - 9.1m
Anchorage Depth: 76ft - OVER/23.2m - OVER
Cargo Pier Depth: 76ft - OVER/23.2m - OVER
Oil Terminal Depth: 31ft - 35ft/9.4m - 10m
Tidal Range: 11 feet
Maximum Vessel Size: Up to 500 feet in length
Turning Area: Yes
First Port of Entry: Yes
From here. So it could anchor but it couldn’t use the port channel, which means no turning.
No prob. The Marine Corps has this humongous boat trailer that it let the Navy borrow for the weekend.
Nope, the only two aircraft carriers that ever got near Chicago were the Wolverine and the Sable, a couple of paddle wheel [del]car carriers[/del] passenger vessels converted for training flights.
The Nimitz and the America would have been stopped, as noted in earlier posts, by short locks and shallow rivers hundreds of miles away in the St. Lawrence or the Mississippi.
ETA: Correction, the Seeandbee and the Greater Buffalo, (the ships’ original names), could carry cars, but their primary purpose was trans-lake passenger service.
I can recall touring a destroyer at Clayton NY shortly after the Seaway was completed, on its way up to Great Lakes Naval base. I’m not sure how much larger vessels could negotiate the Seaway (meaning the full thing, including the Welland Canal).
I was on the USS Lexington on a port visit to New Orleans in 88 or 89. The Lex is a lot smaller than a Nimitz-class carrier and even we couldn’t get under one of the bridges in NO. We ended up parking at the riverside mall.
You could let some air out of the tires.
What about up the Thames to London?
i would think that with all the small ships on the Thames and The Thames Flood Barrier that it wouldnt be possible even if the river was deep enough.
Well, the flood barrier has navigable spans of 200 feet, so this part of it shouldn’t be a problem.
Ocean Liners come in often enough, the QM did so recently.
At 60m air draft, and given that you can’t get through Tower Bridge (even when open) with a vessel of over about 48m air draft, it’s not going further upstream than that. And that’s only about 40m from the outer sea buoys.
That’s before I even work out depths. But if I’m reading thisright, at average high water springs you would have a depth over the sill at the Flood Barrier at Woolwich of 11.7m which is 0.2m too little. Maybe if you lighten the vessel something severe.
And I haven’t worked out controlling depths further downstream, which may be even less.
Why would you want to put a Nimitz carrier inland on a river? With tanker support, the carrier’s aircraft could depart from the Gulf of Mexico, buzz Chicago, and land off San Diego.
“We’re a lighthouse. Your call.”
Parties basically. An aircraft carrier is the ultimate party barge. There is tons of stuff on them to raise hell with. There is no way a chick isn’t going to put out after you take her on a drunken ride in an F-16 on full afterburner. I hear the water skiing is pretty good too.