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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-254 next last
To: atomicpossum

Invite Fat Teddy aboard, that should sink it!


101 posted on 05/16/2006 3:51:11 PM PDT by gc4nra ( this tag line protected by Kimber and the First Amendment (I voted for McClintock))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Yes, but that also means that they're not going to have much by way of AWACs coverage available.


102 posted on 05/16/2006 3:52:54 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Stonewall Jackson

Those are all VTOL carriers. None can launch or recover CTOL aircraft. They have no catapults and no arresting gear.

In other words, they can only handle Harriers and helicopters. Basically the same kind of ships the Royal Navy took down to the Falklands in 1982.


103 posted on 05/16/2006 3:53:42 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Are you sure? I thought the USMC was the only service buying the CTOVL version of the F-35.


104 posted on 05/16/2006 3:55:33 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

The Royal Navy would have liked a bit of AWAC coverage during the Falkland War.


105 posted on 05/16/2006 3:56:23 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 102 | View Replies]

To: MarineBrat
Anchor it outside the twelve mile limit and use it as a replacement for Guantanimo. Allow only classified mlitary flights to land.

The goals of privacy, security, beyond-EU/UN-jurisdiction and non-transparancy are all served.

106 posted on 05/16/2006 3:57:11 PM PDT by HardStarboard (Hey, march some more - its helping get the wall built!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard

Nah...too many Hurricanes.....

Unless you anchor that baby up near Alaska...LOL


107 posted on 05/16/2006 3:58:47 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (aka MikeinIraq - Woohoo!! I'm on A List!!! yay!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Hey pukin. Since your comment to spikey related to my post asking about other countries in NATO that had carriers I thought I would point out to you that my post was a request for info which was appreciated. See my post # 80. Get off your high horse, dog.


108 posted on 05/16/2006 3:59:47 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Stonewall Jackson
Italy has the 13,000-ton Garibaldi...

Haven't we got lifeboats bigger than that?

109 posted on 05/16/2006 4:00:26 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: MikefromOhio
I kinda doubt the Navy would want ANY of our CVNs going to anyone once they are done.

Nuke carriers? I agree. No way do they get transfered to another Navy. There is precident for non-nuke carriers: The USS Bonhomme Richard, a WW2 Carrier, was 'leased' to the French Navy during their Indochina adventure in the '50's. In fact, most of the aircraft were American-built (Avengers, Corsairs, and either Hellcats or Bearcats). I think the French had the last operational Chance-Vought Crusaders too (well into the '80's).

OTOH, the French would never go for such an arrangement today. Anything American is, by definition, bad.

110 posted on 05/16/2006 4:01:02 PM PDT by Tallguy (When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

No, actually - they're going to be larger than our Iwo Jima LHAs, but about 3/4 to 7/8 the size of an *early* Nimitz.

I was stationed on the *early* Iwo Jima (LPH-2). Regardless, the JFK gives them plenty of room to stage whatever they need in case they have to go to the Falklands again.

And they're going to be conventionally powered, which seems to me to be a bad idea.

I doubt if the Europeans are going to build any nuclear powered ships ever. Conventional power is fine for the kind of missions they would be undertaking.

111 posted on 05/16/2006 4:01:45 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Interesting discussion over this, but I doubt this will go anywhere as I doubt NATO could afford to maintain the Kennedy, even to get it to sea, much less keep her flight ops capable. The logistics tail for a CV is pretty incredible, and Kennedy is old, and worn out, so keeping her up would be very costly. Still if someone out there is willing to pay us for such a lousy investment, take the money. My concern is NATO would come back and ask us for funds to support her, when the point of shedding her is to afford the fleet we already have.

I still believe the only reason she has survived this long is her namesake. Dems will do anything to keep the name Kennedy on a major combatant ship. And dont be surprised if under a Dem admin you see the USS 'Bent' Clinton commissioned. (Arrgggg)


112 posted on 05/16/2006 4:02:10 PM PDT by Magnum44 (Terrorism is a disease, precise application of superior force is the ONLY cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
That makes a lot of sense, but I doubt we'd do it because of Pakistan, our close "ally" in the war on terror.

Why? India has been getting access to much more important technology lately. The only thing the Pak's got were some old-Block F-16's which probably aren't up to taking on the latest stuff the Indian's have.

113 posted on 05/16/2006 4:03:15 PM PDT by Tallguy (When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Are you sure? I thought the USMC was the only service buying the CTOVL version of the F-35.

Pretty sure. As long as we can work out the technology transfer issues.

At present, Britain is slated to buy 150 F-35B STOVL (Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing) fighters for use by the Royal Navy on its carriers et. al., complementing the RAF's Eurofighters and possibly an upgraded set of Tornado GR4 strike fighters to form its fighter fleet from 2015-2030.

114 posted on 05/16/2006 4:04:07 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 104 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

What are the "Daggers"? Delta Daggers?

That's fascinating reading.


115 posted on 05/16/2006 4:05:21 PM PDT by headstamp (Nothing lasts forever, Unless it does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Gotcha. Thanks. What's the story on the Eurofighter?


116 posted on 05/16/2006 4:05:44 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: MikefromOhio
Sure thing, but aren't we also flying Hornets off of it?

Yes, but we also fly Harriers as well.

What I'm saying is that if the Brits or NATO threw down the money for a deck that size, wouldn't logic also follow that they would try to get another type of plane to go with it?

What would be the point unless they wanted to buy aircraft off of us as well? I doubt that they would want to train their pilots and crews on the new aircraft and launching system. All they need is the seaborne platform. I have no idea what price they would be paying. We could give it to them.

117 posted on 05/16/2006 4:06:46 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: MikefromOhio
How can you "land" on a carrier?

Well maybe it would be possible if it's a USAF Carrier. But wouldn't that disturb the golfers.


118 posted on 05/16/2006 4:07:35 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
"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)."

No, but Britain is. And they could take it at the right time. See, the Brits have an order for a new full size carrier in the 65,000 ton range. They have a requirement for at least two. But they had a hard time deciding whether to go stovl or catapult....catapult gives you a bigger warload and range over stovl aircraft. So the first one is definitely gonna be stovl, but there's talk that they'd like to do the second one in a conventional layout. If they took the JFK, they'd get a cat-equipped carrier to use with conventionl JSF planes, and then evaluate the performance of both types of carrier at a cheaper price than two full fledged brand new carriers.

One caveat, here....the reason why the Navy is so hot to get rid of the JFK is because, and I quote for a GSA report, she's in "bad material condition"...specifically, two of her propellar shafts are in really bad shape. Britain may not WANT her. It's more likely that China or a country like Brazil would offer to buy her. Frankly, she'll end up as either a museum or in the scrap yard, methinks.

By the way...the Brits like to name their ships with adjectives. What would a Kennedy ship be named? HMS Adultrous, maybe?
119 posted on 05/16/2006 4:08:43 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar

I don't know....that's a hell of a capability that they would be letting go....


120 posted on 05/16/2006 4:09:25 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (aka MikeinIraq - Woohoo!! I'm on A List!!! yay!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

LOL

Pwn3d!!


121 posted on 05/16/2006 4:09:45 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (aka MikeinIraq - Woohoo!! I'm on A List!!! yay!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
My question is: What kind of shape is the ship in?

Is it in as bad a shape as the Constellation was?

122 posted on 05/16/2006 4:11:26 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite
My reply wasn't about your post. You were not the only one who didn't know there were other carriers in NATO.
We can discuss my high horse another time.
123 posted on 05/16/2006 4:13:25 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

Wasn't the Kitty Hawk just retired?


124 posted on 05/16/2006 4:13:27 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (aka MikeinIraq - Woohoo!! I'm on A List!!! yay!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
Is it in as bad a shape as the Constellation was?

Worse. Much worse.

125 posted on 05/16/2006 4:14:02 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring; LSUfan
While this is pretty small compared to our modern carriers, don't forget that all of our WW2 escort and light carriers were 11,000-tons or less.

That being said, these jump-jet carriers would be in a whole mess of trouble if they went up against a modern land-based air force.

126 posted on 05/16/2006 4:14:36 PM PDT by Stonewall Jackson ("I see storms on the horizon")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
And dont be surprised if under a Dem admin you see the USS 'Bent' Clinton commissioned. (Arrgggg)

Before this administration ends, they will name some supply vessel or other support ship after Clinton to use up the name.

127 posted on 05/16/2006 4:16:42 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp

HMS Boisterous? HMS Wreckless? HMS Inebriated?

How hard is it to change out propeller shafts?


128 posted on 05/16/2006 4:17:04 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: MikefromOhio

Kitty Hawk (CV63) is still in commission and homeported in Japan.


129 posted on 05/16/2006 4:18:12 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum

No, rename her and THEN sink her!!!:-)


130 posted on 05/16/2006 4:18:40 PM PDT by GW and Twins Pawpaw (Sheepdog for Five [My grandkids are way more important than any lefty's feelings!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Wrong. Italy, Spain and the UK have small VTOL carriers with no arresting gear and no catapults, and none have canted decks either.

When did you say your Daddy flew F-14s?


131 posted on 05/16/2006 4:19:50 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: thackney
I thought the Akron Hanger was still in place

I just checked Google Earth and it's still there as of the last pass of the Sat. I grew up in the area and later did some work at Loral which was on the property. You cannot imagine how huge the Airdock is until you get right up to it.


132 posted on 05/16/2006 4:20:04 PM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Argentina need to work on their bombs (they don't seem to consistently explode).
133 posted on 05/16/2006 4:20:14 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MikefromOhio
What I'm saying is that if the Brits or NATO threw down the money for a deck that size, wouldn't logic also follow that they would try to get another type of plane to go with it?

Not only do you get a deck that size, you get the hanger deck that lives under a deck that size.

And as I said before, the Brits are buying F-35B STOVLs, so it wouldn't be a stretch to also purchase some F-35C carrier variants in the future. Or just weld a ski ramp on the nose of the JFK and maybe another off the angled deck and be done with it.

134 posted on 05/16/2006 4:21:37 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 99 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum

Make sure there's plenty of booze on the mess decks.


135 posted on 05/16/2006 4:25:02 PM PDT by stbdside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
I would love to see a German CVN hanging off the Iranian Coast someday,

The JFK isn't a CVN. Actually didn't JFK say, 'I Am a Jelly Doughnut?'

136 posted on 05/16/2006 4:29:15 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Scientologists have a thing for the sea.


137 posted on 05/16/2006 4:30:26 PM PDT by Peelod (Decentia est fragilis. Curatoribus validis indiget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarineBrat

They want mo money. Geez, they have already broken the backs of the American people.


138 posted on 05/16/2006 4:31:24 PM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

LOL

now THAT would look weird....


139 posted on 05/16/2006 4:32:32 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (aka MikeinIraq - Woohoo!! I'm on A List!!! yay!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

yeah but I think I remember reading something that she's due to be retired soon but the Japanese don't want a Nuclear replacement sent....or something to that effect...

Let me look around a bit...I think there was a thread about it....


140 posted on 05/16/2006 4:33:25 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (aka MikeinIraq - Woohoo!! I'm on A List!!! yay!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: MarineBrat
NATO was originally formed so that members could jointly defend any other member who was attacked by the Communist Empire or her puppet communist nations.

NATO outlived its usefulness when the Communist world collapsed. It has now become an armed international bureaucracy. It is, in effect, the military arm of the European Union.

The only thing that keeps NATO from becoming a dangerous threat is that the EU is a failure.
141 posted on 05/16/2006 4:39:17 PM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
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?

America was in bad shape under Poppy Bush and Cheney. In mid 1993 she had major issues including being ran twice to the MED & IO and in August 93 she departed for a third MED/IO in three years. Upon return to NORVA she had a serious boiler room explosion and was towed cold iron to NNSY. I'll post the details later this evening. I've got to step out for a while. JFK should be an active reserve carrier status used for training. Keep the JFK we may well need it.

142 posted on 05/16/2006 4:39:40 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
You were in the MarDet on the USS Forrestfire/Forrestal? Wow.

I was on a Forrestal Class: CV-62/USS Independence aka USS Neverdock.

I always hated the intruder alert drills you guys did. Everytime we heard that on the 1MC, we ran like hell for our own spaces. LOL I heard the horror stories of how you jarheads would treat us poor sailors if you caught us in the passageway.

Thanks for your service.

Heath

143 posted on 05/16/2006 4:40:41 PM PDT by ibheath (Born again and grateful to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Still over budget and non-stealthy.


144 posted on 05/16/2006 4:41:18 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 116 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch; gaijin; Pukin Dog; LSUfan
GIVE IT TO TAIWAN...or Japan...

Admiral Halsey would spin in his grave.

145 posted on 05/16/2006 4:42:49 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch; gaijin; Pukin Dog; LSUfan
GIVE IT TO TAIWAN...or Japan...

Admiral Halsey would spin in his grave.

146 posted on 05/16/2006 4:43:14 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
My father never flew F-14s. And you cant add your little qualifications after the fact. You said no one else in NATO had carriers and you were wrong. Deal with it.
147 posted on 05/16/2006 4:50:54 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Keep the JFK we may well need it.

You know the Navy doesn't want that ship. It is the only item in the Navy where some actually believe the thing is cursed. Bush1 and Cheney didnt mess up that ship, the DOD did keep her out too long, but her refit was screwed up, and the Captain did not report same out of fear for his own career. He put men and the ship at risk, and should have been relieved long before he finally was. Then the next guy was relieved too.

148 posted on 05/16/2006 4:55:13 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: LS

They're not? Since when? http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm


149 posted on 05/16/2006 4:57:23 PM PDT by Doohickey (Democrats are nothing without a constituency of victims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Doohickey

DeGaulle pulled them out in the 1960s. Don't know when they snuck back in.


150 posted on 05/16/2006 5:04:45 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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