This is not accurate, the Nukes carry closer to 15 days of jet fuel. The ships are probably about the same for their fuel oil. But the rest looked correct to me.
Honestly, no, I don’t think I do. Because I spent 14 years in the Navy, had two tours on a CVN working in the reactor department, have detailed knowledge on how water of all things is generated, and could in fact draw out a CVN’s entire propulsion plant with line diagrams of every system in it, from the reactor coolant loops to the distilling units and everything in between (and a few things up stream too, and the electrical system, and on and on).
I also spent 18 months homeported in Bahrain on a minesweeper and transitted the Strait of Hormuz many times.
I’ve also served on a destroyer escorting a CVN, and done many many underway replenishments for both fuel and stores.
I’ve also done VERTREPs and even flown a few times in a COD.
Part of the trouble is, a lot of what I know is classified, but sometimes I am not sure which parts are and which are not. I was an officer who held a security clearance. So I can’t very well go spouting off everything I know.
But most of all… I don’t think any of that makes me an expert or really even qualified to opine on how the Navy can unfuck its logistics, in part because I don’t have up to date information on what is actually happening. The best I can do, then, really is say “uh, no, that is not how that works” or “I’m pretty sure things wouldn’t work out like that” or “what is being described in the news as a unique outrage today sounds like about par for the course 10 years ago, which is to say it really sucks, but I’m not sure how much we can pin on Trump or Iran.”
I really hate it when people who served (often in areas that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand) spout off a bunch of very firm opinions, point to their service, however brief, as if it provides some vast, indisputable well of knowledge, and then insist that what they say must be true.
But I hate even more watching people with even less experience and knowledge on a topic, or no experience or knowledge at all, insist with even greater certainty, that actually these problems that I, after 14 years of experience in a variety of positions and ships, think are beyond me, are somehow not beyond them, but are actually very simple if only we’d sit down and think for all of 5 minites.
It’s kind of like a scene in All Quiet on the Western Front (1979, at least, don’t remember if it’s in the other versions) where Paul is home in leave and his dad and dad’s friends civ-splain him at the pub on how to win the war finally.
ETA: And I didn’t even mention the part where I completed a series of course on joint education, to include at least some education on logistical problems, at the Naval War College because… anyone who actually served and did the same or more would laugh at me pointing to that as if it somehow made me qualified to provide special insight into today’s problems. I do have a sense of shame, you know? I just wish you did too.
As the poster was a submariner, he’s probably unfamiliar with aircraft. Unless he was on Skydiver. 
This is an excellent metaphor for the entire thread.
Perhaps. But also, I’m pretty sure fuel in more typically measured in gallons or perhaps pounds or tons, not days.
That is, whatever amount is there, how many days it will last will depend a great deal on what is actually going on out there, and armchair analysts with no active knowledge of current conditions can, at best, only provide estimates based on a fair number of assumptions, albeit sometimes better informed assumptions than Joe Q Public possesses.
A 3 days estimate was probably a typo or brain fart. It makes no sense at all.
The estimate I gave was for flight operations daily. Obviously ships wouldn’t operate with only 3 days of cruising fuel oil. The rate of consumption goes up if you are making fast runs. 15 days should actually be on the low side for most of the escorts.
I think the 3 days was for aviation fuel, not for the ships. It does sound low to need to resupply jet fuel that often but I’m in no position to actually know
I promise you it is wrong. The USS Ranger, an old conventional carrier built in the 50s carried more jet fuel than that.
BTW: We carried JP-5 and the pipes for it were painted purple for easy identification. One bonus with JP-5 was it didn’t have a low flash point and was unlikely to start fires on its own. I think I just exhausted my now distant knowledge of jet fuel from the 1980s.
If I didn’t make it clear, the Nimitz Class carriers carry more jet fuel than the old conventional carriers. The Ranger was one of the Forrestal Class, the first Super-Carriers.
But I have a degree in physics and a subscription to Newsweek and read a lot of WWII novels 
Who knows how many sorties are necessary for a futile game of whack-a-ayatollah?
But did you dad know Doug MacArthur and did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
While I don’t doubt the government is downplaying the damage, US bases in the area are still operational.
In the podcast I posted above, the expert says the Bahrain supply base has been evacuated of all US personnel save for a few troops to guard the rubble. The other bases are on the wrong side of the strait.
Doesn’t this depend on the intensity of air operations?
A US carrier carries, according to most sources, around three million gallons of jet fuel. The number of days this will last depends how many hours the air wing is flying a day, surely? A carrier in combat is expending it a lot faster than one just conducting routine operations with no war on.
15 days is my estimate for continuous operations. It can obviously be much longer when less flights. It will not drop to 3 days under any normal scenario I can think of.
If it is accurate, the Nimitz class carries 90% more jet fuel than the Ranger did. So the 15 day estimate from me is probably low.
I don’t trust AI, but they’re putting the answer at 12-14 days for continuous operations. Do jets burn more fuel that 40 years ago? That is a variable I didn’t think about.
There are at least a dozen dopers who should have the sentence “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong” tattooed on their foreheads.
Mine did! Ok, not know him, like buddies or anything, but he met him. Hated his guts. Called him “Dugout Doug.”
Navy still uses JP-5. Everyone else has switched to F-24, which is a cheaper version of JP-8 based on commercial Jet-A.
Got me. Hook, line and sinker.
And it looks like I recalled the most important thing about JP-5. Higher flash-point so less dangerous to carry on the carrier.
Since I can claim none of those things, I hereby proclaim my even greater expertise!