Vice Admiral Nora Tyson Commander, U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Vice Admiral Nora Tyson Commander, U.S. Third Fleet A native of Memphis, Tennessee, Vice Admiral Nora Tyson graduated from Vanderbilt University and received her commission from Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island. She earned her wings as a naval flight officer in 1983 and reported to Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron (VQ) 4, where she ultimately served three tours at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland, and Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, including one as commanding officer. Tyson also commanded the amphibious assault ship, USS Bataan (LHD 5), leading the Navy’s contributions to disaster relief efforts on the U.S. Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and deploying twice to the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Her other commands include commander, Task Force 73/commander, Logistics Group Western Pacific based in Singapore and, most recently, Commander, Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 2, where she led the USS George H.W. Bush Strike Group on its maiden deployment in support of operations in both the sixth and fifth fleet areas of responsibility. Her other tours at sea include assistant operations officer aboard the training aircraft carrier, USS Lexington (AVT 16) and as navigator aboard USS Enterprise (CVN 65). Her shore tours include service on the Joint Staff as a political-military planner in the Asia- Pacific Division of the Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate (J-5); as executive assistant for the assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; as director of staff for Commander, Naval Forces Europe/Commander, 6th Fleet; as executive assistant for the Chief of Naval Operations; and as vice director, Joint Staff. Tyson's last tour was as deputy commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command. Tyson assumed command of U.S. 3rd Fleet in July 2015. Tyson earned a Masters in Arts in National Security and Strategic Affairs from the U.S Naval War College 1995. .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Edwin A. Shuman III, CAPT USN (Ret.) 6/59-1/60 VA-43, NAS Oceana (A-4)
1968 2007 RV-6A Edwin A. Shuman III, CAPT USN (Ret.) 6/59-1/60 VA-43, NAS Oceana (A-4). “Ned” 1/60-10/60 Test Pilot School, NAS Patuxent River, MD (Various Airplanes). Date of Designation: October 1955 11/60-6/62 Weapons System Test Division, Project pilot, Patuxent River (Various R&D Test Airplanes). Total Flight Hours: 5,100 7/62-6/63 USNPG School, Monterey, CA (T-2A). 7/63-10/63 RVAH-3, NAS Sanford, FL (TF-9J). Carrier/Ship Landings: Fixed wing: 374 11/63-2/66 USS Roosevelt, Catapult Officer, Mayport, FL (C-1A, A-4, T-33, SNB). Approximate Flight Hours: 3/66-8/67 CVW-7, Operations Officer, NAS Oceana/ Jet: 2,600 Prop: 2,500 VF/VA: 2,800 VT: 250 USS Independence (A-6A, F-4J, A-4E). T&E & Misc: 750 General Aviation: 1,300 9/67-3/68 VA-35, Maintenance Officer, Executive Officer, NAS Oceana, VA/ USS Enterprise Combat Tours: (A-6A). Vietnam: VA-35, 1968 USS Enterprise (CVN-65) (A-6A) 3/68-3/73 POW, Hanoi, Vietnam. POW Hanoi 1968-73 8/73-6/74 Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. Total Combat Missions: 18 North Vietnam (A-6A) 7/74-8/75 VF-43, CO, NAS Oceana (A-4, T-38). 9/75-10/75 Aviation Safety School, Monterey, CA. Commands: 11/75-1/78 Naval Safety Center, Norfolk, VA. CO, VF-43, 1974-75 (A-4, T-38) 2/78-6/82 CO, Naval Station Annapolis. MD. CO, Naval Station Annapolis, 1978-82 7/82-7/84 OIC Naval Annex Bermuda (C-131).
[Show full text]
Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units
Finding the Right Balance JOHN F. SCHANK • HARRY J. THIE • CLIFFORD M. GRAF II JOSEPH BEEL • JERRY SOLLINGER Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units Prepared for the United States Navy NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE R Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Navy. The research was conducted in RAND’s National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands, and the defense agencies under Contract DASW01-95-C-0059. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Finding the right balance : simulator and live training for navy units / John Schank ... [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. “MR-1441.” ISBN 0-8330-3104-X 1. Naval tactics—Study and teaching—United States. 2. Naval tactics—Study and teaching—United States—Simulation methods. 3. Anti-submarine warfare— Study and teaching—United States—Evaluation. 4. Fighter pilots—Training of— Evaluation. 5. Effective teaching—United States. I. Schank, John F. (John Frederic), 1946– II. Rand Corporation. V169 .F53 2002 359.4'071'073—dc21 2001057887 RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. © Copyright 2002 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND.
[Show full text]
Welcome to the World – a New Star Is Born
CHAPTER ONE Welcome to the World – A New Star is Born The End of an Era… she was sold for scrap on July 1, 1958. Opposite page: Big E tended by a gaggle of The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise Then, in 1959, the shipyard at Kearney, tugs during her first year (CV-6) was the star of the US Navy in New Jersey, systematically deconstructed of life. World War II. From the outset, Big E Big E. “Starved and stifled by the years USN was renowned for her greatness as a ship long coma of inaction, the great spirit and the greatness of those who operated of Enterprise flickered and sank toward and flew from her. She also embodied extinction. And yet the spirit did not some magic: she was a lucky ship, seem- die.” Many opposed the inauspicious ingly always where she needed to be and scrapping of CV-6, and many more by good fortune always far from where hoped she would be immortalized as a things might have ended badly for her. museum. This was not to be. However, in A case in point was December 7, 1941, a fortuitous twist, a new carrier was being when she was not in port during the built not far from where CV-6 was built a Pearl Harbor attack – where she would third of a century earlier. This carrier was have had to take on the sizable Japanese to be bold, revolutionary, inspirational, armada alone. She operated success- and would bear the name Enterprise also. fully in almost every major Pacific fleet There would be an immortalization of encounter from 1941 to 1945, and was the name in a new body.
[Show full text]
Pueblo—A Retrospective Richard Mobley U.S
Naval War College Review Volume 54 Article 10 Number 2 Spring 2001 Pueblo—A Retrospective Richard Mobley U.S. Navy Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Mobley, Richard (2001) "Pueblo—A Retrospective," Naval War College Review: Vol. 54 : No. 2 , Article 10. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol54/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mobley: Pueblo—A Retrospective PUEBLO A Retrospective Commander Richard Mobley, U.S. Navy orth Korea’s seizure of the U.S. Navy intelligence-collection—officially, N“environmental research”—ship USS Pueblo (AGER 2) on 23 January 1968 set the stage for a painful year of negotiations. Diplomacy ultimately freed the crew; Pyongyang finally released the men in December 1968. However, in the first days of the crisis—the focus of this article—it was the military that was called upon to respond. Naval power would have played an important role in any immediate attempts to force the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea to re- lease the crew and ship. Failing that, the Seventh Fleet would have been on the forefront of any retaliation. Many works published over the last thirty-three years support this view.1 However, hundreds of formerly classified documents released to the public in the late 1990s offer new insight into many aspects of the crisis.
[Show full text]
Draft Navy Training System Plan N88-Ntsp-A-50-8501B/D
DRAFT NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AGM-65F IMAGING INFRARED MAVERICK MISSILE N88-NTSP-A-50-8501B/D MAY 1998 Enclosure (1) N88-NTSP-A-50-8501B/D AGM-65F IMAGING INFRARED MAVERICK MISSILE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.S. Air Force is the Executive Service for development of the AGM-65 Maverick Missile System series. In October 1978, the Air Force began engineering development of the Air Force Imaging Infrared (IIR) Maverick AGM-65D, and in 1980 the Navy started development of the Navy AGM-65F IIR Maverick utilizing a modified IIR tracker from the Air Force AGM-65D Guidance and Control Section (GCS) and the Center-Aft Section (CAS) from the Navy AGM-65E. The AGM-65F IIR Maverick Missile is currently in the Operational Support Phase of the Weapon System Acquisition Process. The AGM-65F IIR Maverick Missile is designed primarily for use against targets requiring instantaneous or delayed blast fuzing for destruction of hardened ground and waterborne targets during day or night operations and in adverse weather conditions, with sufficient standoff range to permit limited exposures to terminal defenses. The IIR Maverick does not replace any weapons in the current inventory. The IIR Maverick does not affect current manning levels or existing Navy Enlisted Classification codes and Marine Corps Military Occupational Specialties. Manpower requirements at the organizational, intermediate, and depot level maintenance activities are based upon total workload requirements for a specific work center, and the skills needed to perform maintenance on the systems supported by that work center. The IIR Maverick operator training is provided at the appropriate Fleet Readiness Squadrons for P-3C pilot and Naval Flight Officer personnel, for F/A-18 pilot and Weapons System Officer personnel, and for AV-8B pilots.
[Show full text]
Nicole Aunapu Mann (Ltcol, U.S
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 March 2021 Nicole Aunapu Mann (LtCol, U.S. Marine Corps) NASA Astronaut Summary: Nicole Aunapu Mann was selected by NASA in June 2013. She is currently training for the crew flight test of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, the first experimental flight test for that spacecraft. Mann and her crewmates are working closely with Boeing to develop their new spacecraft systems, which will provide roundtrip crew transportation services to the International Space Station and, along with SpaceX’s CrewDragon, return the ability to launch humans into space from United States soil. The California native holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering. Mann is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Marine Corps and served as a test pilot in the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet. She deployed twice aboard aircraft carriers in support of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personal Data: She was born in Petaluma, California and married Travis R. Mann. They are proud parents of a son and live in Houston, TX. Education: Graduated from Rancho Cotate High School, Rohnert Park, California, in 1995. Earned a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, in 1999. Earned a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering with a specialty in Fluid Mechanics from Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, in 2001. Experience: Mann was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps in 1999. Following graduate school, she completed The Basic School (TBS) in Quantico, Virginia and reported to Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola, Florida, for flight training in 2001.
[Show full text]
APRIL 2021 Note: Items Underlined Are Changes Made Since the Previous Report
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EISs) and ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (EAs) INVOLVING THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS) APRIL 2021 Note: Items underlined are changes made since the previous report. EISs INVOLVING SRS Title, Document Number, Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Milestones Comments Document Manager, point-of- contact (POC) Disposal of Decommissioned, Notice of Intent On May 31, 2019, the Department of the Navy (DON), with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Defueled USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 05/19, Public as a cooperating agency, announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact 65) DOE/EIS-0524 Comment Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) (EIS-0524) to evaluate the Department of the Navy (DON): Period ended potential environmental impacts of alternatives for disposal of the decommissioned, defueled ex John C. Wa ker, Document 07/19; Notice Enterprise (CVN 65) aircraft carrier, including its reactor plants. The proposed action executes the Manager of Public Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) policy for inactive ships stricken from the Naval Vessel Register SR POCs: Scoping Period and designated for disposal by dismantling to reduce the Navy’s inactive ship inventory and Tracy Williams, EQMD; Re-opening eliminate costs associated with maintaining the ship in a safe stowage condition. The 45-day public Charles Comeau, WDPD 08/20; Public scoping period began May 31, 2019 and ended July 15, 2019. Public scoping meetings were held EM POC: Bill Ostrum, EM- 4.31 Scoping Re- on June 18 in Newport News, VA; June 20 in Brownsville, TX; June 25 in Bremerton, WA; and June opening Closed 27 in Richland, WA.
[Show full text]
Gao-18-523, Aircraft Carrier Dismantlement and Disposal
United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees August 2018 AIRCRAFT CARRIER DISMANTLEMENT AND DISPOSAL Options Warrant Additional Oversight and Raise Regulatory Questions GAO-18-523 August 2018 AIRCRAFT CARRIER DISMANTLEMENT AND DISPOSAL Options Warrant Additional Oversight and Raise Highlights of GAO-18-523, a report to Regulatory Questions congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The Navy is planning to dismantle and The Navy is assessing two options to dismantle and dispose of its first nuclear- dispose of CVN 65 after 51 years of powered aircraft carrier—ex-USS Enterprise (also known as CVN 65). CVN 65 service. In 2013, the estimated cost to dismantlement and disposal will set precedents for processes and oversight that complete the CVN 65 work as may inform future aircraft carrier dismantlement decisions. originally planned increased to well over $1 billion, leading the Navy to Characteristics of the Navy’s Potential CVN 65 Dismantlement and Disposal Options consider different dismantlement and Naval shipyard option Full commercial option disposal options. General approach Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Commercial company(ies) The Senate Report accompanying a dismantles a distinct section of the dismantles entire ship; potential bill for the National Defense ship—the propulsion space companies and work locations yet section—that contains the 8 to be determined Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 defueled reactors and all other included a provision for GAO to review Nuclear-related
[Show full text]
NAVY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Carriers
United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters August 1998 NAVY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Carriers GAO/NSIAD-98-1 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-259298 August 27, 1998 The Honorable Ted Stevens Chairman The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable C.W. Bill Young Chairman The Honorable John P. Murtha Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on National Security Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives The aircraft carrier forms the building block of the Navy’s forward deployed peacetime presence, crisis response, and war-fighting forces. The nuclear-powered carrier is the most expensive weapon system in the Nation’s arsenal and represents a significant portion of the Navy’s shipbuilding and conversion future years defense program. As requested, this report discusses the cost-effectiveness to the Navy of using conventionally and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. As the Defense Department and the Navy assess design concepts for a new class of carriers, they will evaluate a number of factors, including different propulsion types. This report contains information and analysis that you may find useful in the process of allocating future defense resources. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, Navy, Energy, and State and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available to others on request. Please contact me on (202) 512-3504 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report.
[Show full text]
Salvage Diary from 1 March – 1942 Through 15 November, 1943
Salvage Diary from 1 March – 1942 through 15 November, 1943 INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT WAR DIARY COLLECTION It is with deep gratitude to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in San Bruno, California for their kind permission in acquiring and referencing this document. Credit for the reproduction of all or part of its contents should reference NARA and the USS ARIZONA Memorial, National Park Service. Please contact Sharon Woods at the phone # / address below for acknowledgement guidelines. I would like to express my thanks to the Arizona Memorial Museum Association for making this project possible, and to the staff of the USS Arizona Memorial for their assistance and guidance. Invaluable assistance was provided by Stan Melman, who contributed most of the ship classifications, and Zack Anderson, who provided technical guidance and Adobe scans. Most of the Pacific Fleet Salvage that was conducted upon ships impacted by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor occurred within the above dates. The entire document will be soon be available through June, 1945 for viewing. This salvage diary can be searched by any full or partial keyword. The Diaries use an abbreviated series of acronyms, most of which are listed below. Their deciphering is work in progress. If you can provide assistance help “fill in the gaps,” please contact: AMMA Archival specialist Sharon Woods (808) 422-7048, or by mail: USS Arizona Memorial #1 Arizona Memorial Place Honolulu, HI 96818 Missing Dates: 1 Dec, 1941-28 Feb, 1942 (entire 3 months) 11 March, 1942 15 Jun
[Show full text]
Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) : Lessons for the Future / John F
Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the (CVN 68) Lessons for the Future John F. Schank, Mark V. Arena, Denis Rushworth, John Birkler, James Chiesa R National Defense Research Institute The research described in this report was conducted for the U.S. Navy within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of RAND’s National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands, and the defense agencies under Contract DASW01-01-C-0004. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Planning and executing the refueling and complex overhaul of the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) : lessons for the future / John F. Schank ... [et al.]. p. cm. “MR-1632.” Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8330-3288-7 1. Nimitz (Ship : CVN-68) 2. Nuclear aircraft carriers—United States— Maintenance and repair. 3. Marine nuclear reactor plants—United States— Maintenance and repair. I. Schank, John F. (John Frederic), 1946– VA65.N625 P53 2002 359.9'4835—dc21 2002035781 Cover photo: USS Nimitz (CVN68), courtesy of Northrop Grumman Newport News, Mike Dillard, photographer. RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. Cover design by Maritta Tapanainen © Copyright 2002 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND.
[Show full text]
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Updated October 29, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS22478 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Summary Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships. Section 1749 of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (S. 1790/P.L. 116-92 of December 20, 2019) prohibits the Secretary of Defense, in naming a new ship (or other asset) or renaming an existing ship (or other asset), from giving the asset a name that refers to, or includes a term referring to, the Confederate States of America, including any name referring to a person who served or held leadership within the Confederacy, or a Confederate battlefield victory. The provision also states that “nothing in this section may be construed as requiring a Secretary concerned to initiate a review of previously named assets.” Section 1749 of the House-reported FY2021 NDAA (H.R. 6395) would prohibit the public display of the Confederate battle flag on Department of Defense (DOD) property, including naval vessels.
[Show full text]