Hunter Suggests NATO Take Over JFK Flattop

Aviation Now ^ | 15 May 06 | Michael Bruno

[LSUfan]

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is suggesting NATO take over the USS John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier, which the U.S. Navy and the Bush administration want to retire early for budget reasons.

[Rakkasan1]

put it on Ebay.

[Polybius]

NATO doesn't need a real carrier, as they all use Harriers for their sea-based activities, and don't have real carrier aircraft.

Which is exactly why the Argentinians managed to sink several British ships using ancient A-4 Skyhawks and "dumb" bombs.

British Ships Sunk and Damaged - Falklands War 1982

[blau993]

Living in Annapolis, I have gotten to know socially some of the foreign officers who do rotational tours at the Naval Academy. I was chatting one night with a young German officer -- a German Navy pilot. I asked what he did as a pilot in the German Navy, since as far as I knew Germany had never had any carriers. He said they had been thinking of buying or building one, so they had started to train a squadron of naval aviators. He was one of the first to get his wings. They were so impressed with him they sent him off to the Academy to learn American naval aviation doctrine. Then, while he was over here, they canceled the program and disbanded the squadron. He spent the rest of his tour as a German instructor at the Academy and hadn't a clue what he was going to do when he got home.

[Pukin Dog]

You are all WRONG, it is actually a great idea. JFK is a damned ship. It is a Carrier which has had a history of very bad luck, bad leadership and poor performance over its history. The Navy does not want or need it, but NATO could make very good use of that vessel, and it would NOT take a lot of time to train them to operate her.

It is not as though NATO countries don't have a few Carriers of their own, or pilots trained to fly from them. The JFK is either going to help NATO, or become an artificial reef somewhere.

Duncan Hunter is completely correct on this.

[in hoc signo vinces]

Interestingly enough the Brit Carriers are to be based here...

[Horatio Gates]

That would work too

[LS]

But Pukin, France is NOT in NATO. Your argument would make sense if we could give this to France.

[Canard]

Is there any reason to think that, if this idea was enacted, the majority of the personel operating the ship would not continue to be US Navy?

Everyone is talking as if 'NATO' is some kind of independent country.

[saganite]

It is not as though NATO countries don't have a few Carriers of their own

Out of curiosity can you name a NATO country besides Britain that operates carriers? France doesn't count.

[LSUfan]

Name the carriers and the countries to which you refer please, sir.

How many NATO ships even have catapults and arresting gear?

How many NATO ships use our radar equipment? Not the Brits.

How many NATO ships use those big steam turbines built in the 1960s?

There is almost nothing on those ships that they would not have to be trained on. And then we can talk about the 4,000 to 6,000 men and women needed to man her and her air wing...

[Professional Engineer]

Another addition to the Foxhole Air Force (Naval Detachment) would be welcome.

[xcamel]

Rent it out !! CV-67 is a real "gashog"

Power Plant: Eight boilers, four shafts, 280,000 total shaft horsepower

Annual Average operating cost: ~$120 million

(rent credited for each cruise missle that hits the UN building)

[gdzla]

Dump it. This thing is not a nuclear powered beauty like the Reagan. The amount of oil it needs and the support vessels it also requires is appalling.

[Pukin Dog]

The Carrier would likely go to Germany or Taiwan. You guys keep forgetting, a Carrier is NOT a defensive weapon. Who ever gets it, will be parking it along side OURS, or using it to project NATO foreign policy on a potential enemy. One of the primary reasons given for the lack of support on some missions has been the lack of suitable ships. I would love to see a German CVN hanging off the Iranian Coast someday, waiting for those nuts to jump ugly. It doesn't always have to be us.

[Pukin Dog]

How about you do your OWN research? Have you ever been on a Carrier? Do you know ANYTHING about what it might take to operate one?

[Yo-Yo]

The Royal Navy is planning on purchasing the F-35B to replace their Sea Harriers. It wouldn't be a stretch for them to also purchase some F-35C carrier variants to go with a carrier.

The British did all the heavy lifting in developing modern carrier operations, including the angled flight deck. I think they can figure out how to run the JFK.

[thinkthenpost]

The Kennedy is in pretty bad shape, a half assed half finished SLEP, CO relieved because of material condition, and who knows what else. NATO and the European countries that would be paying for the refit would balk, and if we're paying for it why not just keep her. I believe she will be decommed just as planned, and the rest of the carrier fleet is going to be very busy for the next decade or so, with shorter turn around between deployments and the little niggling problems will get bigger and bigger as you didn't have time or funds to fix them during you last availability. I hope it doesn't turn out as bleak as I am predicting.

[Imgr8t]

Best.
Idea.
Ever.

[bondjamesbond]

Sink it. Then rename it the Edward J. Kennedy.

First you would have to lock some poor innocent girl in the Sail Locker...