Aircraft Carriers
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
joshuatree
Captain
Well, I see the Forrestal stripped to a hulk as a good thing because that eliminates any added costs for removal of existing equipment. Assuming she hasn't deteriorated too badly from the elements, I would have her refurbished as a MSC sealift ship. I would use electric pods for propulsion and automate as much as possible to reduce the need for machinery rooms and large crew requirements. Since the top is a flat deck, cranes can be installed for the needs of a sealift ship on one end and the other can be left open as a helipad. One of the elevator positions can be modified to become a RoRo ramp. The other elevator positions can be sealed up. And since she will still be working for the USN, I don't think there is too huge a risk of letting other countries look at her interior structures in terms of carrier design. I don't recall the MSC getting new ships in recent years and given that the US military is engaged in several long term situations, having a new and much bigger sealift ship would be an asset and also, in my opinion, a fitting end for a carrier, that she would still continue to serve her nation.
I really don't see refitting as a sealift ship incurring a huge price tag. The most expensive parts would be the propulsion system. Next would probably be the sealift equipment like cranes. Communications and navigation shouldn't be a big deal since she is not being refurbished for front line military service.
I'd like to see what say Obi Wan would do with a stripped down Forrestal, Kitty Hawk or Tarawa class if money were no object and the UK house of Commons & RN was willing....Humm?? Or Jeff Head..what would you do if money were no object?
___________________________________________________________
Today my first ship the USS John F Kennedy(CV-67) was decomissioned in Mayport FL. I served on the "JFK" from 24 March 1972 until 1 August 1973.
The JFK has served the USN for 39 1/2 years. She will be towed to Philadelphia for futher inactivaction.
___________________________________________________________
Today my first ship the USS John F Kennedy(CV-67) was decomissioned in Mayport FL. I served on the "JFK" from 24 March 1972 until 1 August 1973.
The JFK has served the USN for 39 1/2 years. She will be towed to Philadelphia for futher inactivaction.
I'm assuming you're all thinking along these lines, just to show a historical precedent here is a (not quite finished) picture of HMAS Sydney, the Korean War veteran refitted in the early sixties as a troop transport and known popularly to her many passengers as the'Vung Tau Ferry', being used extensively during the Vietnam War. If not for the cranes mounted on the flight deck she would have been a fully fledged Commando Carrier (LPH) but for some reason the RAN preferred to rate her as an auxilliary.
I think as a matter of future planning if several of the most 'disaster-prone' states in te US (eg the ones most often hit by hurricanes) joined together to fund the recycling of one or two CVNs as disaster relief ships, perhaps under FEMA control then they would have invaluable assets at their disposal. After fifty year careers in the USN their Reactors would have to be refuelled (or replaced with more modern examples to provide emergency power generation. During the thirties one of the Saratoga's was used in just this capacity during a particularly cold winter to keep a city going (can't remember the details off hand, I'm sure Popeye has a link to an article about it somewhere). The ships large internal volume would provide space for emergency hospital facilities as well as housing emergency workers. The Flight deck (stripped of Catapults and Arrestor wires would serve as a base for rescue helos and the cic would be used to plan/co-ordinate rescue efforts. As the ship(s) wouldn't be slamming through the world's oceans but staying in coastal waters around the US wear and tear would be significantly reduced and they should last quite a while. When not in use the ships would be maintained under contract with minimal personnel although periodic training excercises would be conducted, probably in conjunction with the Navy. Personnel to man the ships would be drawn from civilian ex-navy sources and Naval reservists as required (if the first two Nimitzes are converted then a supply of personnel trained in their operation will be available as the later members of the class will still be around). I've picked Nimitzes as candidates for the future (twenty years hence), but as to the existing CVs such as the Forrestals/Kitty Hawks, I think the former are too far gone in terms of equipment being stripped out. Whatever results you would get by reactivating them could be achieved more cheaply with purpose built ships. I'm thinking more along the lines of utilising a ship that is still functional, eg a CV/CVN on the verge of decommissioning that is still in operational condition, thus reducing the costs of transfer to a new role. I'll have a think about what could be done with a Forrestal over the weekend though...
Last edited:
Can't wait to see an read what Obi Wan would do with an Forrestal class.
If money were no object. I would out fit two Forrestal class as commando carriers. This was done to the USS America in 1996, pictured below, in prepration for an invasion of Haiti. The invasion was cancelled.
Such a vessel could take USN, USMC, US Army & USAF assets into any conflict.. They could also serve as a humanitarian relief ship or ferry as Obi Wan decribe above. The Engineering plant could be reduced to two main machinery spaces. The steam turbines could be replaced by LM 2500+ gas turbines like the soon to be comissioned USS Makin Island. That transition would reduce the crew needed to man the engineering plant.
Of course I can! It was the USS Lexington CV-2
If money were no object. I would out fit two Forrestal class as commando carriers. This was done to the USS America in 1996, pictured below, in prepration for an invasion of Haiti. The invasion was cancelled.
Such a vessel could take USN, USMC, US Army & USAF assets into any conflict.. They could also serve as a humanitarian relief ship or ferry as Obi Wan decribe above. The Engineering plant could be reduced to two main machinery spaces. The steam turbines could be replaced by LM 2500+ gas turbines like the soon to be comissioned USS Makin Island. That transition would reduce the crew needed to man the engineering plant.
Of course I can! It was the USS Lexington CV-2
Attachments
-
cv66pic2.jpg
On such a vessel, I would add one squadron of the US Marine VSTOL JFS, three AEW V-22 Ospreys, and 4-6 V-22 ASW Ospreys.Can't wait to see an read what Obi Wan would do with an Forrestal class.
If money were no object. I would out fit two Forrestal class as commando carriers. This was done to the USS America in 1996, pictured below, in prepration for an invasion of Haiti. The invasion was cancelled.
Such a vessel could take USN, USMC, US Army & USAF assets into any conflict.. They could also serve as a humanitarian relief ship or ferry as Obi Wan decribe above. The Engineering plant could be reduced to two main machinery spaces. The steam turbines could be replaced by LM 2500+ gas turbines like the soon to be comissioned USS Makin Island. That transition would reduce the crew needed to man the engineering plant.
Of course I can! It was the USS Lexington CV-2
In essense, then you would have a made a Jeep carrier out of a large deck you intended to do away with and she would add significant C&C and air and ASW defense, and troop carrying capacity to any PHIBRON she was deployed with...not to mention the humanitarian relief she could provide as needed.
If money and politics were not an issue, then that is what I would do with our reserve, conventional carriers slated for disposal, rotating them through such service 3 or 4 at time. With the nucs, as they come off line, I would retain them for a longer period as true reserve carriers...maybe 10 years each before considering them for this role to replace conventional carriers that finally reach the true end of their service life.
My bet is in each case that they could get another 25 years out of them in such a fashion.
this was the "Minas Gerais" - ex HMS Vengeance, in really good condition, and first sold to a chinese based company for becoming a military theme park near Shanghai (Ningbo, as I remember) - but at least the company didn't payed
and the ship was broken in India so I think the ship - including a usable catapulte - has no more secrets to boost chinese carrier ambitions
(if I have had the money, I'd buy the ship and make a theme park in Hainan ... this holiday-island would have more as enough visitors to make money with that ship, but nobody asked me
)Joshuatree, a NATO carrier wouldn't help Poland or Norway help enforece no-fly zones, since these countries do not have carrier capable aircrafts. And those countries that do, have their own carriers.
However, it could provide a common hull were different nations could provide the assets they have in a situation were those nations can not send their own vessels (Where France is the only nation that could provide cat-capable A/Cs). The idea of that cooperation would be great.
But I doubt it would work. There would be arguments about distribution of funding and manning rather fast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of ever increasing commodity prices, won't it at some point be more economical to recycle the materials from such a big vessel than to sink it?
However, it could provide a common hull were different nations could provide the assets they have in a situation were those nations can not send their own vessels (Where France is the only nation that could provide cat-capable A/Cs). The idea of that cooperation would be great.
But I doubt it would work. There would be arguments about distribution of funding and manning rather fast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of ever increasing commodity prices, won't it at some point be more economical to recycle the materials from such a big vessel than to sink it?
BLUEJACKET
Banned Idiot
NATO didn't want CV-67, even for free.
- I agree with Jeff Head. The USN is known to reduce # years from a hull life- wether it's for getting $ for new CVNs and/or safety & other reasons is beyond me. I bet SLEPs can be done more than once on any CV/N!
joshuatree
Captain
Joshuatree, a NATO carrier wouldn't help Poland or Norway help enforece no-fly zones, since these countries do not have carrier capable aircrafts. And those countries that do, have their own carriers.
However, it could provide a common hull were different nations could provide the assets they have in a situation were those nations can not send their own vessels (Where France is the only nation that could provide cat-capable A/Cs). The idea of that cooperation would be great.
But I doubt it would work. There would be arguments about distribution of funding and manning rather fast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of ever increasing commodity prices, won't it at some point be more economical to recycle the materials from such a big vessel than to sink it?
I'm aware of NATO nations like Poland or Norway not having carrier capable aircrafts. But it's like the chicken and egg argument, if they don't have access to any carriers, why would they have carrier capable aircraft? So assuming if NATO nations can overcome the logistics of who shoulders the cost and how will the carrier be operated, it would actually be a very cheap option for nations that don't have carrier experience to gain carrier experience. And on the other end of the spectrum, it would help alleviate the US shouldering all the heavy work when it comes to carrier missions. Nations like Poland are acquiring F-16s and planning to acquire F-35s. Don't see why they can't simply acquire a squadron of the F-35Cs. Norway is also planning to acquire F-35s.
- Status