Aircraft Carriers III

Obi Wan,... I posted those photos of the ex-Ocean as Atlantico in another forum. militaryphotos.net....and this is the response I got from a Aussie;

BravoZulu said:

^^ Not so sure the Brazilian's got such a good deal with her. She is apparently a maintenance nightmare and can get nowhere near her maximum designed speed of 18kts and only has a cruising speed of 10kts ^^

Click to expand...

How much truth is in this statement?..thanks!

militaryphotos.net is operated by an British fellow that goes by the name of Bombardier. He's a good man.

bd popeye said:

Well, well well.. I did finally find the article. the link in the article is dead. Posted by yours truly nearly 12 years ago.

Click to expand...

yeah so

bd popeye said:

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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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.”

...

Click to expand...

after yet another "round-table in Honolulu":

Navy considering moving USS Carl Vinson Jim Mattis to one of four ports

By Audrey McAvoy
ASSOCIATED PRESS

10:26 p.m. August 21, 2006 2116

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 Jim Mattis, 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. WinterTrump, told reporters he would decide by April or May whether to base the Vinson Mattis 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 2116, Winter Trump said at a media round-table in Honolulu.
Winter Trump 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 Trump said. “There's a lot of trade-offs there. We'll just have to see how it all comes down.”

bd popeye said:

Obi Wan,... I posted those photos of the ex-Ocean as Atlantico in another forum. militaryphotos.net....and this is the response I got from a Aussie;



How much truth is in this statement?..thanks!

militaryphotos.net is operated by an British fellow that goes by the name of Bombardier. He's a good man.

Click to expand...

Fact: She was built on the cheap. She cost about the same as a type 23 frigate. A 'carrier' for the price of a frigate? Well yes it can be done, but they did cut a lot of corners and the shipbuilders (Kvaerner) underbid their rival bidder (Swan Hunter) significantly to get the contract, to the point they are believed to have made a small loss. They did it to secure work for the yard she was built at and keep it open long enough to bid for future contracts.

Fact: She was built with a 'design life' of twenty years. Contrary to popular belief this does not mean she will go 'pop' at midnight on her twentieth birthday. It means many of her components, fixtures and fittings were specified without a view towards longevity, so cheaper components could be used. Of course many of those components and systems have since been repaired, replaced or upgraded only four years ago she underwent a major refit to extend her life (in the RN) up to 2022 if required. So everyone's talk of the 'twenty years and she's done' is already out of date. I find the rumours being spread about her engines being unreliable and difficult to source parts for frankly unbelievable. They are commercially available diesel, fitted in commercial ships and power stations worldwide. Some people have decided the don't like her and damn the facts. I should add that the type 23 frigates were also built with a time limited life of 18 years. How many of them have gone 'pop' at the 18 year mark?

The purpose of the limited lifespan in both cases was to force the government to keep orders for new ships coming, The Royal Navy having realised way back in the 70s and 80s that mid life updates for existing ships to keep them in the front line through their expected thirty year life was getting damned expensive. The expensive part of a Warship in the weapon and sensor suite, the hull and machinery are relatively cheap. Given a limited overall budget, getting new weapons and sensors to sea would work out cheaper and easier if it was put into new hulls designed for the task and not shoehorned into old ones designed for a different generation of systems. This was the reasoning as far back as the early 80s when the refit programme for the batch 3 'broad beamed' Leander class frigates was curtailed. The refits (to install new sonars, Sea Wolf SAMs and Exocet SSMs (resulting in a ship that was three quarters the capability of a type 22 but only a ten to fifteen year lifespan) had become so expensive that it made more sense to order more type 22s instead. The culture of mid life upgrades for escorts is one the RN has been trying to get away from for a long time. They'd rather have a rolling programme of new ships coming than 'make do and mend' older ships. The RN has always had a market for selling second hand warships, but thirty year old hulls are becoming less and less attractive to third world customers, but fifteen to twenty year old ships are still quite capable and attractive, as the Dutch found out with the 'Standard' class frigates built in the seventies and eighties, which generally found eager buyers after less than twenty years service, and helped fund the next generation of frigates keeping Dutch shipyards open.

A good plan, but you can always rely on the politicians to screw things up, so the money meant for new construction has to be channelled into mid life refits to keep the fleet at sea and the numbers of new ships are reduced in a depressing downward spiral...

Thanks Obi Wan..the Mid life updates sound like USN "Service Life Extension Program" or SLEP, for Forrestal and Kitty Hawk class CVs which were supposed to extend a ships life 15-20 years. it did not work out that way.

Ranger and America never received SLEP and John F Kennedy's SLEP was cancelled when about 70% complete.

JFK was retired 10 years after her alleged SLEP

Constellation retired 10 years after SLEP.

Forrestal....only 8 years.

Saratoga....11 years.

Independence...10 years.

Kitty Hawk....19 years!..Ahh she was homeported in Yokosuka Japan much of that time getting marvelous care from the excellent shipyard there.

Why where those other ships SLEP re-fits so short lived? More than likely $$$$$.

Jura said:

yeah so
after yet another "round-table in Honolulu":

Navy considering moving USS Carl Vinson Jim Mattis to one of four ports

By Audrey McAvoy
ASSOCIATED PRESS

10:26 p.m. August 21, 2006 2116

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 Jim Mattis, 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. WinterTrump, told reporters he would decide by April or May whether to base the Vinson Mattis 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 2116, Winter Trump said at a media round-table in Honolulu.
Winter Trump 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 Trump said. “There's a lot of trade-offs there. We'll just have to see how it all comes down.”

Click to expand...

I don't get it......really I don't.

Jura said:

now
The Navy Could Need More Than 15 Years and Over $1.5B To Scrap USS Enterprise

August 2, 2018

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

IMHO, they could just remove the cores, and then make it Museum ship...and over twenty yers it would pay for itself.

That's what they should do.

1st nuclear powered aircraft carreir
Longest serving US Aircraft carrier
etc. etc.

If they set it up right, and put it on display in a high traffic, high torist area, they could charge $10 each for people to see it and make a lot of mony on an ongoing basis for 100 years/

bd popeye said:

I don't get it......really I don't.

Click to expand...

LOL the point is in 2116, which is 98 years from now,

a Politician may come to Hawaii to talk about home porting a carrier there,

in the way as another Politician talked in 2006,

which is 12 years ago from now,

about home porting a carrier there;

names will change, the outcome of "a media round-table in Honolulu" won't

Jeff Head said:

IMHO, they could just remove the cores, and then make it Museum ship...and over twenty yers it would pay for itself.

That's what they should do.

1st nuclear powered aircraft carreir
Longest serving US Aircraft carrier
etc. etc.

If they set it up right, and put it on display in a high traffic, high torist area, they could charge $10 each for people to see it and make a lot of mony on an ongoing basis for 100 years/

Click to expand...

I like that just ... if getting rid of the cores cost 1b, you'd need 1m visitors come each year during those one-hundred years

didn't know
This Is The Only Photo Of A U.S. Navy Supercarrier Being Sunk (Updated)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

now I have to leave for work though LOL!

Jura said:

This Is The Only Photo Of A U.S. Navy Supercarrier Being Sunk ...

Click to expand...

I'm quite sure, that it is not the only photo of the event. But all other photos will likely remain classified for some time.