do they have move theaters on navy ships?
460460
Served on board the U.S.S. Kittyhawk and the Carl Vinson, both aircraft carriers and no theaters.
170693
On the page below is the website of that ship where you can find a virtual tour and Deck plans.  \n____________________________________________________________\nWHY CAN't you rate me I helped. Mean.
14295
I will take a shot for you. I work in the maritime industry.  Picture this- You own a ship, and another company owns a ship. You both want to run them on a scheduled route on a weekly basis, but your ship cant get back to each port within a week.\n\nYou decide you will both run the same service. Now you can each have the same number of slots on a ship each week. You want to maximize this use- even if it involves relocating empty containers (if there is a demand on the other end). You can imagine this being more complicated if you each of 2 ships, and there are 3 companies involved, a total of 6 ships.\n\nYour volumes will fluctuate you must manage your space accordingly and not overbook the vessel for your allotment and depending upon the contract, you could have less space on each vessel, etc. \n\nThat's it in a nutshell.
302101
Yes, of course there is such a location. It is a US military flight test facility in the middle of the Nevada desert. I seriously doubt it has the so called alien space ships in storage as rumored for the past 60 years. However, it does have very high technology aircraft, engines, and space related electronic and aviation equipment within its confines. Unlike most US military facilities, it is not open to the public and what occurs there is in most cases information that is classified in accordance with the National Security Act of 1950. It is this aura of secrecy that keeps the science fiction writers and rumors flying concerning what is there and what happens there. The base was built in its location to make access and observation of operations more difficult, since the majority of the equipment and operations are classified to protect the national security of the USA. Hopefully, this answers your question.
130204
From what I see on TV it looks pretty cool. When im in the Navy maybe I will get to go somewhere where the water is warm and its an island type setting.
369059
Matter a fact I am pretty sure the U.S.Navy has an installation there anyway. Mass could fight back! There are several submarines at port there.
1107185
This link should help:\n\nhttp://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/questions/records.html
331804
http://navynews.wordpress.com/
216953
http://local.yahoo.com/results?fr=dd-local-more&stx=theaters&csz=Atlanta%2C+GA
884341
Seems like you have gotten a correct answer in here.\n\nThe branches of the military are:\n\nThe Army, Navy and Air Force.  Anything else, as in the Army National Guard (falls under the Army), the Marine Corps (falls under the Navy) and Coast Guard (falls under Homeland Security) aren't actual branches.\n\nThe one thing that does sadden me about nearly ever response here is that most people seem to think the Navy only does things on the water.  That's just plain not true.  Yes, the Navy has a ton of destroyers, submarines, aircraft carriers, etc... but take a look at things, the US Navy has more aircraft than the Air Force does.\n\nYou can't say that the Navy's job is just to move the Marines from place to place and fight battles on the sea.  That's not what we do.  In fact, the Marines now have their own ships and move themselves around.\n\nThe US Navy, the main portion, is divided up into Battle Groups.  These Battle Groups consist of an aircraft carrier, several destroyers/frigates, a sub and other support ships.  These battle groups can go anywhere in the world on a moments notice.  Within a day or so, we can have a massive supply of US military force anywhere we need it.  It would take the Army and Air Force weeks to do what we do.
214382
Get to K Street.  I know a good lobbyist.\nBut it would be kinda cool to take a well armed Baltimore Clipper armed with 9 pounders, a 12 pounder carronade on a pivot and go on a little cruise.  " clear for action !"
560056
Visit the site (copy & paste it.) http://directory.google.com/Top/Business/Transportation_and_Logistics/Maritime/Ship_Owners_and_Management/
750252
I have a copy of a Navy report (very technical though) that argues we should activate them.  The reasons vary but mainly the argument is that a carrier and the battle group usually consisting of 9 to 11 ships cost a great deal of money to build and operate.  I believe the actual figures are that a battleships guns could strike 90 something percent of targets and more accurately.  That with modernization the crew could be reduced and the room given over to a floating barrack for a Marine detachment.\n\nIn fact, the opinion from the paper follows and duplicates some of what I have given, there is one thing that is contained in another paper and that is the Navy has no gun platforms.  That there have been causalities from that problem but no steps have been taken to correct the situation.  What that basically means is the Navy lacks the fire power to support ground operation.\n\nIf you want a copy of either copy provide me an e-mail address and which paper or if both papers that you want.\n\nSTATEMENT: "In 1941-42 there was serious opposition to the Carrier replacing the battleship today there is the same opposition for recommissioning the battleship.  Let me interject a short argument for them reentering the fleet.  Money, in this day of budget conscience items the ships could be redeployed for considerable less than adding a new ship and/ or another air wing.  Safety these ships were designed to take abuse incidents like that which happened to the Cole would hardly faze them.  With today’s technology the crew could be shrunk considerably and Marines added for a comfortable floating base.  They don’t need a fleet of ships and can even travel alone.  One important fact the Carrier Navy and supporting politicians don’t want known is the battleships big guns can reach 87% of all the targets that have been targeted by the air power in the last 40 years.  They seem to want the Carrier for the extra positions it provides John Holland the inventor of the first seller of a submarine to the US Navy stated that the “Navy did not seem to like the submarine as there was no place for them to strut”.  There are many more arguments for the ships being reactivated than the, not, a further recommendation is made for GAO to follow-up with their own investigation".\n\nGod Bless You and The Southern People.
1100936
I'll say Bremerton Naval Station which is adjacent to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.\n\nOr the shipyard itself.
661980
This might help:\nhttp://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:Jl-2x85QqekJ:www.news.navy.mil/local/view_photos.asp%3Fid%3D7+%22uss+enterprise%22+currently&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
211867
you can look up on the internet and search for the database of NAVY UIC's that has the command hierarchy and you willi find it
173553
I have access to them and alot more.  But I don't think it is in my best intrest to break my contract by giving it out over the internet.  Try joining the USCG if you want to fly a c130