Posted on 05/16/2006 2:41:32 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at aviationnow.com ...
I have been on board the following carriers:
USS Franklin D. Roosevelt CV42
USS Forrestal CV59
USS Saratoga CV60
USS Nimitz CVN68
My grandfather was a career naval aviator who retired as a Commander in 1961. He also was awarded a Navy Cross.
My father was a career naval aviator who retired as a Captain in 1980.
I, however, chose the Marine Corps and served in the 1980s.
I don't need to do any research on any of the questions I asked of you because I already know the answers. I was checking to see if you did.
I guess I got my answer.
Yeah, why give up a perfectly good time-share condominium/museum?I'll buy two weeks for Memorial Day.
The real problem here goes back to the Clinton admin (what a surprise). Cutbacks resulted in the demise of the SLEP program. USS America (CV66) never did get a SLEP and both she and the JFK could have had more service life if maintained properly.
But it became a chicken or the egg deal. Clinton didn't want to fund enough aircraft and personnel to fit out the air wings, so why SLEP the ships?
Actually, France is a member of NATO, and has been since the beginning. They just think that they are too good to allow foreign bases on their soil, so DeGaulle kicked out all of the other countries' bases back in the 1950's.
Spain and Italy have carriers I believe.
Name a country that is MILITARILY involved in NATO that has a carrier currently in service?
Especially one that can land aircraft that AREN'T Harriers?
"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."
I sometimes tell people I did reconnaissance as a NATO soldier, it gets more reaction than simply saying I was in the army.
Even veterans sometimes look puzzled.
Sure, the Euros could operate the JFK, but at what cost? We're basically talking about frigate navies here. The Brits are not about to take on a costly veteran ship that will rob money from their tight ship construction budgets.
I must be pretty bad off then, because you sure come across as a pompous, ignorant @$$.
Good one
Basically equivalent to our LHA's.
Nato is not the same thing as the UN.
The Brits developed the cat system, so why is that it looks like the trust defelctor and starting point for launch is at or past the middle of the deck? And why a ramp if they could use a cat and it looks like they could only launch one plane at a time.
I know they had ramps for the Harrier jump jets, but were they not going to go with someother design, like the carrier variant of the F35 (pictured)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.