Aircraft Carriers

[bd popeye]

Whilst I accept that stricken ships are just stripped out hulks that would be astronomically expensive to return to service in some form or another, in principle it seems such a waste to just throw them away. Common sense and a little forward planning would see them 'recycled' into some form of useful service after life in the navy, but common sense and politicians rarely appear in the same sentence...

Obi Wan I agree. But the bottom line is the cost. In 2005 the USN estimated it would cost about 2.5 years of re-fit and $2.5+ billion USD to completly re-fit the JFK. The USN then cancelled a paltry $347 million dollar re-fit of the aging ship.

Bottom line is the $$$$$$$$$$$$ it cost to re-fit and maintain these ships. Other US agencies do not have the "know how" ,money or personell to operate them.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

Could it be possible to join up a few old carriers like kata-/trimaran and use them as off-shore airbase?

 

[joshuatree]

Obi Wan I agree. But the bottom line is the cost. In 2005 the USN estimated it would cost about 2.5 years of re-fit and $2.5+ billion USD to completly re-fit the JFK. The USN then cancelled a paltry $347 million dollar re-fit of the aging ship.

Bottom line is the $$$$$$$$$$$$ it cost to re-fit and maintain these ships. Other US agencies do not have the "know how" ,money or personell to operate them.

Was that estimate the cost to refit the JFK as an operational carrier? I'm no expert but I would think refurbing these ships into something more along civilian use would be less than $2.5 bil?

It does seem to be such a waste to sink these ships. I'm sure the equipment was worn out but I seriously doubt the hulls only have a service life of 30+ years?

 

[bd popeye]

Was that estimate the cost to refit the JFK as an operational carrier?

Yes. The re-fit would have made the JFK fully operational.

Civillian use? Where would the partial crew come from just to maintain the ship let alone operate it?..I bet there are persons that could man the ship(ex-crewmen etc) but whater ever organzation ever bought the ship for what ever reason would have to find the crew. That cost money also. Lots of money. Trust me civillians won't work as cheap as American Sailors.

It does seem to be such a waste to sink these ships. I'm sure the equipment was worn out but I seriously doubt the hulls only have a service life of 30+ years?

It is a waste. The USN plans to sink the ex-USS Forrestal(CV-59) later this year.

Judging by the Kitty Hawk the service life is closer to 50 years if a SLEP was completed & properly maintained.

 

[joshuatree]

Yes. The re-fit would have made the JFK fully operational.

Civillian use? Where would the partial crew come from just to maintain the ship let alone operate it?..I bet there are persons that could man the ship(ex-crewmen etc) but whater ever organzation ever bought the ship for what ever reason would have to find the crew. That cost money also. Lots of money. Trust me civillians won't work as cheap as American Sailors.



It is a waste. The USN plans to sink the ex-USS Forrestal(CV-59) later this year.

Judging by the Kitty Hawk the service life is closer to 50 years if a SLEP was completed & properly maintained.

Well I think if an ex-US carrier is permitted to be refurbished for civilian use, the size of the crew would shrink considerably. You wouldn't need a flight deck crew, nor the control tower ops, etc etc. And if you're permitted to have foreign nationals as your crew, even cheaper.

But ultimately, I think letting others take a look at the build of the carrier or the power plants is the major concern for the USN. It would be nice to see them being reused by the USN even as secondary ships such as supply ships but there's definitely no champion within the ranks to drive this idea to reality.

 

[bd popeye]

Well I think if an ex-US carrier is permitted to be refurbished for civilian use, the size of the crew would shrink considerably. You wouldn't need a flight deck crew, nor the control tower ops, etc etc. And if you're permitted to have foreign nationals as your crew, even cheaper.

True tp a point. This is demonstrated by the reduced crews on former USN ships turned over to the Military Sealift Command.

The main problem is the engineering plant. You need personell that are filimar with the interworkings of that plant. I'm guessing that you would need 250-500 engineering types to run that ship.

Did you know that those CV's have 4 main machinery(propulsion) rooms each? Lets say you shut down two of those machinery spaces. you will still need a large number of personell...

 

[joshuatree]

True tp a point. This is demonstrated by the reduced crews on former USN ships turned over to the Military Sealift Command.

The main problem is the engineering plant. You need personell that are filimar with the interworkings of that plant. I'm guessing that you would need 250-500 engineering types to run that ship.

Did you know that those CV's have 4 main machinery(propulsion) rooms each? Lets say you shut down two of those machinery spaces. you will still need a large number of personell...

That is true but I guess our hypothetical is assuming the nuclear propulsion is kept. What if let's say indeed we refurbish a former USN carrier into a supply ship for the MSC? Can we not remove the nuclear propulsion, remove the 4 shafts and associated machinery rooms? Pop in some traditional diesels for electricity generation and use electric pods for propulsion? I may be wrong but that would seem to further simplify the ship. The capacity of a former carrier as a prepositioning ship in the MSC would be awesome. Infact, quite a few MSC ships were former ships converted.

 

[bd popeye]

I thought you were refering to a conventional powered CV. That is what the USN has deactivated. I doubt if they would turn a CVN over to the MSC. The cost of what you propose is off the chart. I just don't see how it is feasiable cost wise..

 

[joshuatree]

I thought you were refering to a conventional powered CV. That is what the USN has deactivated. I doubt if they would turn a CVN over to the MSC. The cost of what you propose is off the chart. I just don't see how it is feasiable cost wise..

I originally did suppose a conventional carrier but when you mentioned the associated costs and size of crew for the power plant, I thought you were referring to nuclear carriers. So let's switch back to conventional carriers.

Let's suppose the Forrestal since that ship has been stripped down to bare bones in anticipation for sinking as an artificial reef. What if we removed the four shafts, sealed the holes up, and simply put in electric pods for propulsion? Would that further reduce the size of crew?

 

[bd popeye]

I originally did suppose a conventional carrier but when you mentioned the associated costs and size of crew for the power plant, I thought you were referring to nuclear carriers. So let's switch back to conventional carriers.

Let's suppose the Forrestal since that ship has been stripped down to bare bones in anticipation for sinking as an artificial reef. What if we removed the four shafts, sealed the holes up, and simply put in electric pods for propulsion? Would that further reduce the size of crew?

Yes! You just have to afford the cost of modification.

That ship has no shafts, screws, anchors, anchor chains & rudders. Plus about every other mechinacal or electronic device that could be salvaged has been removed. Oh yes no catapults or arresting gear. Basically she's a hulk.

Ok let's say you got CV-59. What would you do with it? That is basically the question I asked to open this thread some months ago because the USN is planning to sink it's old CV's.

Let me rephrase the question. If the cost of a re-fit was not an issue. If you were a country or any agency could afford one of the decomissioned USN CV's would you buy one? And what would you do with it? Sealift ship? Humanitarian ship? Musuem, Casino? CVH? Commando ship? Just what use would you put the ship to???

Remember in reality all the components that I mentioned that have been removed.