Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hunter Suggests NATO Take Over JFK Flattop
Aviation Now ^ | 15 May 06 | Michael Bruno

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 ...


TOPICS: Canada; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Germany; Government; News/Current Events; US: California; US: Florida; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: aircraftcarrier; congress; cv67; duncanhunter; housearmedservices; jfk; nato; navy; sandiego
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-254 next last
While I would like to keep CV67 around because I feel aircraft carriers are the most flexible weapons systems in our entire inventory, this proposal from the chair of the House Armed Services Committee shows how ignorant our lawmakers can be.

The idea that you can just hand a carrier over to a new user is just silly. First of all, no other NATO member land conventional aircraft on carriers right now (France is not a military member of NATO). None of their personnel would know how to work anything on the ship, from the arresting gear to the steam turbines to the electronics suite.

It would take many of our skilled personnel years to get NATO up to speed on operating the ship, taking them away from other missions and even then, what are you going to fly on and off her? Harriers and helicopters? Seems kind of a waste for a big deck.

1 posted on 05/16/2006 2:41:37 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Insanity!


2 posted on 05/16/2006 2:42:46 PM PDT by MarineBrat (Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

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


3 posted on 05/16/2006 2:44:20 PM PDT by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Does Taiwan need a carrier?


4 posted on 05/16/2006 2:44:37 PM PDT by Horatio Gates (Remember the Alamo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarineBrat

Give it to Venezuela so they can use it to take the F-16s over to Iran!


5 posted on 05/16/2006 2:44:47 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

France'll just lose the props.


6 posted on 05/16/2006 2:45:02 PM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum


Best Post of today goes to you!

congrats.


7 posted on 05/16/2006 2:46:07 PM PDT by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis. American gals are worth fighting for!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

I wonder if we chipped in if we could buy it... Wouldn't a Free Republic flat top be a good symbol - and it could double as convention HQ/cruise.


8 posted on 05/16/2006 2:46:34 PM PDT by gondramB (He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Horatio Gates

They sure deserve it!


9 posted on 05/16/2006 2:46:52 PM PDT by Uriah_lost (http://www.wingercomics.com/d/20051205.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
...First of all, no other NATO member land conventional aircraft on carriers right now

The Brits are scheduled to have their Queen Elizabeth-class CVF's in service by 2012.

Now is a good time for them to start getting the experience that will be required.

10 posted on 05/16/2006 2:46:53 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
China is clicking up her heels, howling with laughter at us tiring ourselves out, slugging it out in the middle-east...

-->GIVE IT TO TAIWAN<--

Or Japan...

11 posted on 05/16/2006 2:47:10 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

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


12 posted on 05/16/2006 2:47:11 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Put it in NYC, use the deck for automobile parking, and the UN would have tons of office space.


13 posted on 05/16/2006 2:47:12 PM PDT by Lokibob (Spelling and typos are copyrighted. Please do not use.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Horatio Gates
Does Taiwan need a carrier?

It would help Israel monitor their coastline also.
14 posted on 05/16/2006 2:47:28 PM PDT by Ingtar (Prensa dos para el inglÚs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

We are trying to get rid of it. Since WE ARE NATO, it would be stupid to transfer the old girl to us.


15 posted on 05/16/2006 2:48:19 PM PDT by ExpatGator (Progressivism: A polyp on the colon politic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Build 10 more. And one that flies.


16 posted on 05/16/2006 2:48:23 PM PDT by samadams2000 (Somebody important make The Call.....pitchforks and lanterns.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum

Lol!!!


17 posted on 05/16/2006 2:48:32 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Truely, our government is out of control in all phases from foreign to domestic issues.That anyone except Kerry or Fonda could make such a statement speaks volumes. It looks like time for a COMPLETE realignment top to bottom.
18 posted on 05/16/2006 2:48:55 PM PDT by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Duncan Hunter is one of the good guys and a true friend of the military.

I tend to agree that NATO wouldn't be able to operate that ship. Not efficiently anyhow, but if it is either lease it to NATO or the boneyard, then maybe we need to avoid knee-jerk reactions and see what this is about.

Given my druthers, I would sell her to England, if England wanted her. They have a genuine need for a big deck carrier and I am sure they could put her to fine use.


19 posted on 05/16/2006 2:49:01 PM PDT by Ronin (Ut iusta esse, lex noblis severus necesse est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum
Sink it. Then rename it the Edward J. Kennedy.

DAMMIT!!! That's a screen in need of a clean! LOL!!!

20 posted on 05/16/2006 2:49:46 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

put it on Ebay.


21 posted on 05/16/2006 2:51:20 PM PDT by Rakkasan1 (lead ,follow or get out of the majority.start with our borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS; LSUfan
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

22 posted on 05/16/2006 2:51:37 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

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.


23 posted on 05/16/2006 2:51:50 PM PDT by blau993
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
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.

24 posted on 05/16/2006 2:52:03 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius



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


25 posted on 05/16/2006 2:53:35 PM PDT by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis. American gals are worth fighting for!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

That would work too


26 posted on 05/16/2006 2:54:27 PM PDT by Horatio Gates (Remember the Alamo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

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


27 posted on 05/16/2006 2:54:48 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

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.


28 posted on 05/16/2006 2:56:50 PM PDT by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

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.


29 posted on 05/16/2006 2:57:22 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

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...


30 posted on 05/16/2006 2:58:12 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf; snippy_about_it; alfa6; Iris7; Valin; CholeraJoe; Peanut Gallery

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


31 posted on 05/16/2006 2:58:21 PM PDT by Professional Engineer (Hang up and drive? Do you mean, FReepin and drivin don't mix?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
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)

32 posted on 05/16/2006 2:59:05 PM PDT by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
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.
33 posted on 05/16/2006 2:59:16 PM PDT by gdzla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
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.
34 posted on 05/16/2006 2:59:38 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: LSUfan
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?
36 posted on 05/16/2006 3:01:11 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LS

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.


37 posted on 05/16/2006 3:03:50 PM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
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.
38 posted on 05/16/2006 3:04:11 PM PDT by thinkthenpost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum

Best.
Idea.
Ever.


39 posted on 05/16/2006 3:05:45 PM PDT by Imgr8t
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum
Sink it. Then rename it the Edward J. Kennedy.

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

40 posted on 05/16/2006 3:06:39 PM PDT by bondjamesbond (Rice 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

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.


41 posted on 05/16/2006 3:08:07 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Yeah, why give up a perfectly good time-share condominium/museum?I'll buy two weeks for Memorial Day.


42 posted on 05/16/2006 3:11:28 PM PDT by mission9 (Be a citizen worth living for, in a Nation worth dying for...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thinkthenpost

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?


43 posted on 05/16/2006 3:12:15 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LS

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.


44 posted on 05/16/2006 3:13:55 PM PDT by webheart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Take all the Muzzies out of Gitmo and put them on the JFK and park it in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Then we can use it for rendition and close down Gitmo.
45 posted on 05/16/2006 3:14:30 PM PDT by skimask (People who care what you do don't matter.......People who matter don't care what you do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite

Spain and Italy have carriers I believe.


46 posted on 05/16/2006 3:15:01 PM PDT by spikeytx86 (Pray for Democrats for they have been brainwashed by there fruity little club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gdzla
Put her with the USS Oriskany


47 posted on 05/16/2006 3:15:57 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
You got nothing, and you didn't answer my question. What on earth does your Grandfather have to do with my question? What do YOU know about running a Carrier? And if you think I don't know anything about this subject, you are worse off then I thought.
48 posted on 05/16/2006 3:16:20 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

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?


49 posted on 05/16/2006 3:16:26 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (aka MikeinIraq - Rob Schnieder is a Carrot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 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."



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.





50 posted on 05/16/2006 3:16:29 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-254 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson