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 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-254 last
To: cva66snipe


"ORISKANY Departing"


241 posted on 05/17/2006 12:01:18 PM PDT by thinkthenpost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
It's a shame those those two ships could have seen service into early 2010's if kept up right.

Well the Cold War was over and nobody thought we'd be in continuous wars in the Middle East. The Kitty Hawk should be gone in another couple of years.

I'm real surprised Teddy hasn't called for museum hold though.

He probably will, once the decision to decommission is made. Then watch them appropriate half a billion or so to spiff her up for the tourists.

I'm gonna look around and see if they sank the ORISKANY this morning.

I thought I heard she went down on schedule. Still waiting for the video.

242 posted on 05/17/2006 12:03:14 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: saganite

"Out of curiosity can you name a NATO country besides Britain that operates carriers?"

Spain and Italy. But they are very small "Harrier Carriers."


243 posted on 05/17/2006 1:47:05 PM PDT by Levante
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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

Better yet, put UN Headquarters on it, take it out to mid-Pacific and sink it!!!

244 posted on 05/17/2006 2:40:23 PM PDT by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
They can't use a catapault. Cats are steam powered and the British carriers are gas turbine driven.

Okay, so they couldn't set up a small boiler for cat ops? I'm sure the steam powered carrier boilers are only bleeding off a relatively small amount for cat ops, so it's not like it would have to be a large boiler.

And I had also read that the Navy was working on new technologies that would replace our steam cats.

Still, for a carrier that is supposed to be close in size to a Nimitz class carrier, one would think that it would be designed for a faster operational tempo regarding aircraft launches and recovery, and based upon the artist rendering, it doesn't look like this carrier would suffice.

245 posted on 05/17/2006 6:02:01 PM PDT by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird
Okay, so they couldn't set up a small boiler for cat ops? I'm sure the steam powered carrier boilers are only bleeding off a relatively small amount for cat ops, so it's not like it would have to be a large boiler.

A very inefficient use of your engineering space. If you insist in cats then make it a steam plant. Simple as that.

246 posted on 05/17/2006 6:25:06 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: All
If Congressman Hunter really thinks this is a good idea, how about the Kitty Hawk when she is decommed, I bet she'll still be in better shape than the JFK.
247 posted on 05/19/2006 10:53:58 AM PDT by thinkthenpost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; carrier-aviator
If that post is true it's weird cannibalizing a hot carrier.
248 posted on 05/22/2006 9:52:06 AM 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 157 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan; cva66snipe
On top of that...it's not in the best of shape. Rode hard and put up wet. A victim of beaurocratic oversight that let her down IMHO.

NATO not only would take years to come up to speed on its operation (ie. they have no supercarriers, no experience with these boilers, and they have no carrier based CTOL aircraft), they would be getting something at the end of its service life. There are reasons we want to decommission her and the economic reasons are not to get us to one less carrier...IMHO, it's because she is costing too much to maintain and keep up.

249 posted on 05/22/2006 10:26:40 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Actually, if Taiwan received it they'd only be manning it with 5000 MEN, saving the costs of the dual fitted heads, day care centers, illegitimate-birthing subsidies, etc. that the US Navy is forced to maintain.


250 posted on 05/31/2006 8:37:12 AM PDT by Reagan 76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Reagan 76
Actually, if Taiwan received it they'd only be manning it with 5000 MEN, saving the costs of the dual fitted heads, day care centers, illegitimate-birthing subsidies, etc. that the US Navy is forced to maintain.

OK, you've established that you don't believe that women belong in the armed forces. Good for you. Now what exactly is Taiwan supposed to do with a clapped out, run down, non-operational aircraft carrier?

251 posted on 05/31/2006 8:58:23 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"OK, you've established that you don't believe that women belong in the armed forces."

No, I've established the Taiwanese don't deal with what our Post-Reagan Navy deals with.

252 posted on 06/05/2006 3:13:15 PM PDT by Reagan 76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

http://navysite.de/cvn/cv67.htm
“...the last conventionally-powered aircraft carrier built by the US Navy.”

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cv-67.htm
“In September 1995, the USS John F. Kennedy became the Naval Reserve’s first aircraft carrier. Homeported at Mayport, FL, her primary function during contingency operations is to provide a surge capability, and in peacetime to support Navy force training requirements. As with all other Reserve ships, she remained fully mission ready.”


253 posted on 12/29/2008 6:37:25 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile finally updated Saturday, December 6, 2008 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Note: this topic is from 5/16/2006. The ship has been decommissioned and in March was towed to a naval storage facility in Philly: "She was officially decommissioned on 1 August 2007 [2] leaving the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)Template:WP Ships USS instances as the US Navy's only conventionally-powered carrier remaining in commission." *
254 posted on 12/29/2008 6:42:37 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile finally updated Saturday, December 6, 2008 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-254 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