Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Seyek, Mar 8, 2012.
Cool image of the Forrestals in mb.
They look pretty expensive to patch up.
Is that Kitsap?
Kitty Hawk has been stripped of some parts and equipment but is otherwise in fair condition.
The other three, even the Constellation, would probably need at least two or three years to fully rebuild and refit them.
Then there's the question of if they can even safely support modern aircraft. Most modern carriers even needed decent upgrades to operate the Super Hornets, to say nothing of what the F-35 would take.
Post over at MP.
I wonder how much the Japanese can stretch the term "Destroyer".
It's a shame we have no WW II carriers still in donatable condition. I'd love to offer a few to Japan.
Considering that a Tarawa is still bigger then the previous HMS Ark Royal, the one that operated Phantoms and Buccaneers in the 70's, and that the last Canadian carrier was way smaller then that, it doesn't seem very likely.
I call dibs on the Independence!
Your going to need tons of rust remover and paint.
Around the time Brazil bought the french piece of fluff carrier, the USA offered to sell one of those Forrestal retired carriers and a few cruisers for a couple hundred million USD (values of the time).
So, if they offered it to Brazil, only reason to not offer it to Japan would be politics of that region.
Five character limit
Not sure where hyperion51 is coming from but if I had to hazard a guess, the increased weight of the Super Hornet over the regular Hornet, 11,000 to 14,000 pounds more, as well as the greater thrust may have required upgrades to the carrier's catapult, deflection shield (honestly don't know what those plates that raise behind the jet are called), and possibly the deck itself.
Just like any other old timer. But she'd be the ultimate hot rod though.
Still doesnt make any sense. A-3s and F-14s were much heavier than an F-18E, and F-14Ds had more powerful engines
Maximum take off weight of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is 66,000 lbs
Maximum take off weight of the F-14 Tomcat was 74,350 lbs
Maximum take off weight of the A-3 Skywarrior was 82,000 lbs
Most of the time carriers seem to be as a mobile desalination plant and staging points for US government humanitarian efforts. The new Ford class is built with humanitarian efforts as a secondary design consideration. It may be designed for 'killing people and breaking things', but a ship that's an airstrip and a small city tends to have other potential uses.
As far as the mothball carriers are concerned, would it take less time to retrofit them to be helicopter carriers?
Refitting time isn't the issue. Crew size and just old age are. Kitty Hawk is probably youngest survivor at 52(correct me if I'm wrong please). And these ships served during the cold war at times maintaining high tembo operations in Vietnam or the middle east....that adds alot of wear and tear.
One of these ships needs to be preserved as a museum. Its the closest anyone is going to get to a super carrier from that time period. Enterprise is a write off.
Ahh I stand corrected.
I wouldn't even want to imagine China's reaction if we were to sell Japan a Forrestal class carrier.
And if we had sold one to Brazil, what is to guarantee that Brazil would not turn around in a few years and sell it to China. I believe China purchased two others carries in addition to the Vayrag, including the Melbourne.
Is that practical though? It costs millions just to keep the HMS Victory in good order, keeping a Carrier in similar order, not necessarily shipshape, would costs an absolute mint. You'd be running the museum at a constant loss I would imagine.
Does the US have any WW2 Carriers left?
Yeah, the USS Hornet, USS Yorktown, USS Intrepid, and the USS Lexington. The USS Midway is also a museum ship, though that never served in WW2.
I'm sure it would loose alot of money every year. Not practical at all. Did some looking and it looks like Ranger and Saratoga are both on donation status with efforts to preserve them.
Saratoga is off donation hold now, and slated for scrapping. Ranger may or may not be donated. The USN has set a September 2014 deadline to clear the pier where Ranger is. If the museum group can't remove Ranger by then, she'll be scrapped as well.
JFK, CV-67, is being donated, though. A New England group is getting her.
If I remember correctly, when the US Navy was beginning to scrap all the old Essex Class refits back in the 1970s and 1980s, the Chinese government tried to buy one or two from the scrapping yards to bring back to China for study. Obviously the government said no and blocked the sale, but that was only on the grounds that the USN doesn't allow for ships like those to be scrapped at anything other than a domestic shipyard due to sensitive military equipment that cannot be easily removed.
Wasn't expecting that many.
How many floating Carriers has the USA got in total then? Super Carrier all the way to the dinky Helicopter Carriers
If they needed the carriers, would the USN pull one of the museum ships and refit for active service?
Why? That's akin to the US Army going to the tank museums and start pulling out Shermans again. Theoretically you could do it but the cost and manpower needed to bring them back to operational health would be so great you might as well build a new ship. Also those old ships have very limited capabilities for today's USN. With the exception of Midway none of these carriers ever operated a Hornet, hell, none of the Essex class carriers operated the Phantom for that matter.
Far better to ramp up production at Newport News and start cranking out new Ford Class carriers at an accelerated rate. The USN doesn't need that many new carriers on a yearly basis and me thinks the current rate of production is probably kept as low as is possible for the shipyard to stay in business and not lose its trained workforce.
There are twenty in active service (11 super-carriers, 9 helicopter carriers), with another two (one Ford-class, one America-class) under construction. There are nine in mothballs (7 super-carriers, two helicopter carriers).