SinoDefence Forum

bd popeye · 08-22-2006

I decided to open a new thread about aircraft carriers of all types. Why? because I have noticed lots of general discussion about CV's in the Chinese CV thread. In this thread we can discuss carriers in general.

Feel free to discuss matters about aircraft carriers. Do not limit the discussion to USN CV's. All types are to be considered!! Past ,present and future! CV,CVN, CVF, LPH,LHA, LHD, event the JMSDF DDH. I will be glad to answer any questions you have about CV operations the best to my ablity.

For those of you that don't know I have 20 years experience in the USN. I served onboard five CV's, Kennedy, Midway, Hancock, America and Nimitz. I have kept informed about present day CV operations. Plus flight deck operations have not changed much in the last 35+ years.

A couple of quick rules;
1)..No "I can sink your carrier discussion!" We have traveled that road tooo many times!
2) Please post your remarks about a possible PLAN CV in that discussion.
3) Feel free to post pics! But don't link them directly fron navy.mil or other military web sites..download them to your computer and upload them as thumbnails(see additional options) or use;

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/

The last year or so something has been bothering me about the USN carriers..large deck amphips included..The USN keeps sinking the retired ones as reefs. First it was the America next was the Oriskany(It was of little use) about a month ago the USN sank the ex-USS Belleau Wood(LHA-3)..Next year it plans to sink the USS Siapan(LHA-2) soon after it is decomissioned next year. The USN has 5 other retired CV's waiting to be disposed. What a waste. I know why the US won't sell them...But they could be put to use in other area's..a comando ship or training carrier..What a waste...

IDonT · 08-22-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

The last year or so something has been bothering me about the USN carriers..large deck amphips included..The USN keeps sinking the retired ones as reefs. First it was the America next was the Oriskany(It was of little use) about a month ago the USN sank the ex-USS Belleau Wood(LHA-3)..Next year it plans to sink the USS Siapan(LHA-2) soon after it is decomissioned next year. The USN has 5 other retired CV's waiting to be disposed. What a waste. I know why the US won't sell them...But they could be put to use in other area's..a comando ship or training carrier..What a waste...

For obvious reasons Popeye.

1.) USN already has commando ships in the gator navy
2.) A dedicated training carrier would be redundant in light of the current Carrier rotations (Deployed, Training and Qualifications, and Dry dock)
3.) Mounting Costs of keeping them on port.
4.) Gives experience of actually sinking something during naval exercises.
5.) In terms of Oriskanny, good for the fishes.

bd popeye · 08-22-2006

I DonT sez:

Quote:

For obvious reasons Popeye.

1.) USN already has commando ships in the gator navy
2.) A dedicated training carrier would be redundant in light of the current Carrier rotations (Deployed, Training and Qualifications, and Dry dock)
3.) Mounting Costs of keeping them on port.
4.) Gives experience of actually sinking something during naval exercises.
5.) In terms of Oriskanny, good for the fishes

I agree on three of the five points....As far as comando ships I guess that an LHA/LHD could esily be put in service as a commando ship. But a deticated ship would be better. One fitted to handle "Speical Forces", US Army and USAF helos. Also it could be fitted out for humanitarian efforts. i.e. speical berthing for civillian refugees and more hospital spaces.

As for a training CV. Up until '91 the USN always had a training CV until the ex-USS Lexington(AVT-16) was retired and turned into a musuem. The USN has done a good job rotaing CV's into the training cycle. If there were as training CV(AVT) there would be no need to move the training squadrons from coast to coastso they can get their new pilots training on board a real live CV. Some how today the USN mananges to do this but a training carrier would elevaite this problem.

bd popeye · 08-22-2006

Currently the USS Carl Vinson(CVN-70) is undergoing a major re-fit and refueling in Newport News VA. The USN wants to return the ship to the west coast in 2009..But It will more than like be homeported in Hawaii or Guam.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...iccarrier.html

Navy considering moving USS Carl Vinson to one of four ports

By Audrey McAvoy
ASSOCIATED PRESS

10:26 p.m. August 21, 2006

HONOLULU – Four Navy bases in California, Hawaii, Guam, and Washington state are in the running to become the new homeport of the USS Carl Vinson, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that is currently undergoing a three-year-long refueling overhaul, the head of the Navy said Monday.
Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter told reporters he would decide by April or May whether to base the Vinson at San Diego, Pearl Harbor, Guam or Bremerton, Wash.

The ship would be ready to move to its new home once its nuclear fuel is replenished in 2009, Winter said at a media round-table in Honolulu.
Winter said he would consider each base's strategic location, the cost of infrastructure upgrades required to accommodate a carrier, and proximity to an airfield when making his decision. Training opportunities for the carrier's 5,000 sailors would also be a key factor, he said.

“We have to weigh all of these issues very carefully and consider what makes the best sense for the United States,” Winter said. “There's a lot of trade-offs there. We'll just have to see how it all comes down.”

The Navy currently has five aircraft carriers in the Pacific: two in Bremerton, two in San Diego and one at a U.S. Navy base in Yokosuka, Japan.

Navy leaders have said they were considering moving an aircraft carrier to either Hawaii or Guam to help them more rapidly respond to potential threats in the Asia-Pacific region.

But the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review report, issued in February, didn't mention the possibility as some observers had expected. It only referred to a plan to keep six carriers in the Pacific.

Guam, a U.S. territory a few hours by plane from East Asia, would require more substantial infrastructure upgrades than any of the other three candidates.

Moreover, Winter said the military's plans to move 8,000 Marines to Guam from the southern Japanese island of Okinawa added to the complications of moving an aircraft carrier to Guam.

On the other hand, Guam is closer to areas military leaders would most likely want to have the USS Carl Vinson patrol.

Hawaii, meanwhile, is closer to Asia than the West Coast and has a more highly developed network of roads, schools and other infrastructure than Guam.

But Hawaii suffers from high housing costs and limited land area. Military personnel also frequently complain about the poor quality of island schools.

Guam's business community has actively campaigned to host an aircraft carrier.

Democratic Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, a ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Committee, has lobbied for his home state of Hawaii to be selected.

Separately, Winter confirmed the Navy would base the USS Hawaii, its newest nuclear-powered submarine, at Pearl Harbor. The ship, which was christened in June, will likely be ready to move to its namesake state in 2009, Winter said.

DennisDaMenace · 08-22-2006

I just find it strange that close to a third of the people on these boards are saying that carriers are outdated. Then every Major player on the board- USSR, India, China, Cough Cough-France, Britian, Thiland, (Japan and Korea with threw deck cruisers) are trying to put something out to sea with a flat deck to launch aircraft. Something tells me the people in power must not be reading these boards and dont know what a waste of money they are spending.
Once the F35 goes into operation for the USN- its abiity almost doubles flying off the LHA/LHD. The Harrier had some big limitations compared to the F35. Im not saying anything bad about the Harrier. Just that the F35 is a very big step forward.

bd popeye · 08-22-2006

Dennis you are so right..once the US decides how many F-35B STVOL it will export the CV frenzy will really wratchet up. The USN/USMC have plans afoot to place many as 20+ F-35's on board LHA/LHD's..Nice...

DennisDaMenace · 08-22-2006

bd popye:
I dont want to start a flame war here, so feel free to delete this post. OK- here goes.
Once the F35 comes into service the door to Tiwan is now shut. Yes, the USA may be only able to get 2 or 3 carriers to the battle front in a timely manner. However, another carrier does not need to get there. They just launch there AC to replinish the ones that are lost on the
other carriers. So its like 3 carriers that woulnt die. They dont get depleted, other carriers just fly their AC in when they are within range or they jump from land base to land base till they link with the carrier. There is some mathamatical limit to the number of fighters a carrier can hold, but if you have 80 in the air at all times- that means you can have over 80 on the carrier. So -I am just pulling this number out of my rear. So in any given situation- I think you will need to double the number of USN- AC that you are fighting in world. So- it is imparitive that you sink the platform (early)!

Just like to mention that there are several carriers in mothball. They will be ready- will there be crews to man them??

FuManChu · 08-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by DennisDaMenace

I just find it strange that close to a third of the people on these boards are saying that carriers are outdated.

Well I'm sure that some people have that attitude in part so that they can justify the fact that China doesn't have carriers. Also by saying carriers are more a liability than an asset, they can discount/argue the USN threat is less than it really is in case of a conflict with the US, say over Taiwan.

Popeye, what improvements do you think the new CVNs will have over the Nimitz class?

Totoro · 08-23-2006

I'm also interested in mothballed carriers. How many are there, and of which class? What is average time needed to put such a carrier into service with appropriate crew? What sort of crew would that be, how qualified would it be compared to active crews? Could it happen that you too, bd popeye, are called onto to serve on one if need arises?

Also, what is up with JFK carrier? Last I heard is that it needed to go into dry dock for some heavy maintenance - but that then it was cancelled, due to unexpectedly high cost of that maintanance. Since money in the budget just isn't there, carrier is sitting in the water out of service until 2007 budget is decided, though most analysts say it will probably be decided against modernization and boat will just be mothballed. Are there any further news on this?

bd popeye · 08-23-2006

Quote:

There is some mathamatical limit to the number of fighters a carrier can hold, but if you have 80 in the air at all times- that means you can have over 80 on the carrier. So -I am just pulling this number out of my rear.

A Nimitz class can carry 85 aircraft safely.
Your theroy is intresting but I think that you would see LHA/LHD's deployed in a combat status and used for close air suppourt.

Quote:

Popeye, what improvements do you think the new CVNs will have over the Nimitz class?

From what I understand they will have reduced crew size.. more automation. maybe elecrtomagnetic catapults. More flight deck space by having a smaller island. More efficent reactors with a much greater capacity to produce power and water...Click this builders link for more information.

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

Quote:

I'm also interested in mothballed carriers. How many are there, and of which class? What is average time needed to put such a carrier into service with appropriate crew? What sort of crew would that be, how qualified would it be compared to active crews? Could it happen that you too, bd popeye, are called onto to serve on one if need arises?

There are 5 mothballed carriers. They have been stricken from the "Navy List" That means they really no longer servicable. They will not be ever put back in service. They are used only for parts. All 4 Forrestal class carriers are in "mothballs". The Constellation is also in mothballs...It was a Kitty Hawk class ship. I, Popeye, am way to fat and old to ever go to sea. I did my time. 20 years active and 10 Fleet reserve...

Quote:

Also, what is up with JFK carrier? Last I heard is that it needed to go into dry dock for some heavy maintenance - but that then it was cancelled, due to unexpectedly high cost of that maintanance. Since money in the budget just isn't there, carrier is sitting in the water out of service until 2007 budget is decided, though most analysts say it will probably be decided against modernization and boat will just be mothballed. Are there any further news on this?

The USN some months ago "De-certified" the JFK for flight operations. Any re-fit work that was scheduled was cancelled. The JFK presently sits in her homeport in Florida doing nothing manned by a reduced crew. The only reason she remains in comission is that in 2005 the US congress passed a law requiring the USN to keep 12 CV's in service. the USN is lobbing hard to have the JFK decomissioned...The latest news on the JFK is no news...

The JFK was my first ship back in da' day in 1972....Look for the JFK to be decomissioned within a year. If I can find some links I will post it....

isthvan · 08-23-2006

Well fortunately USN isn’t sinking all of helicopter carriers. Two of Austin classes LPDs have been offered to Mexican navy. While old these ships are still quite useful in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.

Recently we are witnessing increasing interest for this type of ships. Even smaller navy’s like Ireland or Singapore are acquiring helicopter carriers ( ok Ireland is acquiring support ship whit limited helicopter capabilities) thanks to intensified usage of such ships in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.

bd popeye · 08-23-2006

isthvan, I think many nations do see the value of larger ships that can carry helos for humanitarian or even "Comando" or "Speical Forces" missions. I think the value of this type of ship was shown in the Tsunami relief efforts of the US & other nations in 2004-05. Too bad the PRC did not make a showing

Back to the Kennedy..I found this article...By the way the Kennedy has been sitting at it's homeport in Florida since May this year.

Pitiful showing for the worlds largest navy....Shameful.

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f...25-1735723.php

Warner changes mind, backs decommissioning JFK

By Mark D. Faram
Times staff writer

The Navy is one step closer to decommissioning the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy, and the green light to mothball the ship could come within weeks.

The news comes as Sen. John Warner, R-Va., tacked an amendment onto the current warfare supplemental spending bill that would allow the service to operate only 11 aircraft carriers instead of the 12 currently required by law.

“The purpose of this amendment is to revise the previous legislation such that the Secretary of the Navy can retire this ship,” Warner said April 26 on the Senate floor.

The amendment passed by a voice vote, according to the Congressional Record.

This change of heart comes a year after Warner used a similar amendment to stall the retirement of the 38-year old Kennedy by making it law that the Navy keep 12 carriers operating until six months after the Quadrennial Defense Review was released.

Still, a quick trip to mothballs is far from a done deal. The amendment requires approval of the House of Representatives and the President before becoming law.

Warner based his reversal, he said, on advice from the Navy.

“Subsequent to the legislation by the Congress and the law enacted, the Navy has determined that the USS John F. Kennedy ... in the judgment of the Chief of Naval Operations, is not qualified to perform her primary mission of aviation operations,” he said.

In short, he said, the Kennedy is not safe to operate.

“There are very real concerns regarding the ability to maintain the Kennedy in an operationally safe condition for our sailors at sea,” Warner said.

Repairing it is no longer a viable option, he said, as the price tag to restore the ship to a deployable status would cost “an inordinate amount of money.”

Also, it’s not just the cost of refurbishment that’s out of hand, he said. Simply maintaining the ship in its current state will cost the Navy $20 million a month in operations and manpower costs — money the Navy badly needs for operations and modernization programs.

The toll on the crew was also noted. Warner said JFK’s limbo status “levies an untold burden on the lives of the sailors and families assigned to the Kennedy,” he said.

Those families, he said, need to be able to get on with their lives.

As for the ship, Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Mike Mullen told Navy Times in February he’d like to see Kennedy gone as soon as possible. His preference would be she leave her Mayport, Fla., home port before the start of hurricane season in June.

Warner said the fact the JFK can no longer serve in the fleet is “painful” to him and others, mainly because of the ship’s namesake, the late President John F. Kennedy.

But even those who were closest to Kennedy seem resigned to the fate of the ship.

“It is bittersweet to know that she will be retired,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in a statement.

“But the people of Massachusetts and the Kennedy family are very proud of her service and know she holds a special place in the hearts of the Navy and the Nation.”

DPRKUnderground · 08-23-2006

I'm sure Russia has a SVTOL aircraft in the making. They want to cash in on the navies in Asia. Sell some planes to India, Thailand, etc. Most of their economy relies on the defense sector.

bd popeye · 08-23-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by DPRKUnderground

I'm sure Russia has a SVTOL aircraft in the making. They want to cash in on the navies in Asia. Sell some planes to India, Thailand, etc. Most of their economy relies on the defense sector.

Any idea what it maybe?

Remember that no nation beside the UK and US have ever sucessfully produced an SVTOL aircraft. I'm not saying no other nation could build one..it's just that no one has...We are all still waiting..

IDonT · 08-23-2006

The Russians fielded the Yak 38 and the cancelled Yak 141 as STOVL aircraft in the late 80's. Currently though, no other VSTOL aircraft other than the F-35 B and the V-22 Opsrey are indevelopment.

The RUssians did find export on their MIg 29K to india to outfit the Gorshkov.

SinoDefence Forum

Aircraft Carriers

Aircraft Carriers

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

vBulletin Tweet Poster