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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-254 next last
To: Tallguy
It would not be the Brits. Like I said, I think it would be Taiwan or Germany. Taiwan would LOVE to have that ship, though they would not be parking it off China's coast anytime soon.

Training would be handled by mostly consultants with a only a few active duty personnel. Many of our own sailors are trained by the very same consultants that would help out in this case.

The bottom line; it is workable and a GOOD idea.

61 posted on 05/16/2006 3:23:52 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
I think we need to read between the lines....

NATO takes over the cost. The Ship would still have to managed and maintained by U.S. sailors.

Besides, how much of the operations is classified?

Little things like pulleys and hydraulics and pumps...

Never been on one, but since we are the only nation that can build them, then there must be something secret in the recipe.
62 posted on 05/16/2006 3:25:49 PM PDT by Prost1 (We can build a wall, we can evict - "Si, se puede!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
I must be pretty bad off then, because you sure come across as a pompous, ignorant @$$.

Don't you know ANY naval aviators? That's a complement! LOL.

But if I'm ignorant, then you.........man oh man.

63 posted on 05/16/2006 3:26:04 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
Jorge could use it to ship even more illegal aliens into the country!!!

One Ford Falcon lowrider, incoming!


64 posted on 05/16/2006 3:27:25 PM PDT by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
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.

No owner's manual in the glove compartment?

65 posted on 05/16/2006 3:28:09 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExtremeAmerican
1. NATO is not the UN.
2. The JFK is a redundant ship and a generation or two behind our most advanced carriers.
3. How is trying to get rid of a soon to be rust bucket evil?
66 posted on 05/16/2006 3:28:41 PM PDT by spikeytx86 (Pray for Democrats for they have been brainwashed by there fruity little club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

I tell you who might take her ----- India.

They have the doctrine, are training the pilots, and are building the infrastructure to support indigenously built ships. It would allow them to junk the VIRAT, which even they admit is way overdue.


67 posted on 05/16/2006 3:28:42 PM PDT by Tallguy (When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Maybe we could sell it to the Euros for what it cost to build.

I'm not too keen on just giving it away to people who really don't like us that much.
68 posted on 05/16/2006 3:29:12 PM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Aren't you on my "don't post to me" list?

That's pretty pathetic that you have a "don't post to me" list. Can't handle an arguement PD?
69 posted on 05/16/2006 3:29:29 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (aka MikeinIraq - Rob Schnieder is a Carrot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

I guess I got my answer.

hint:
http://www.flybyaviation.com/vf143flyoff.htm


70 posted on 05/16/2006 3:29:32 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: webheart

Um, actually, not exactly. France left NATO in 1966.

11 Mar 59: France withdraws Med fleet from NATO command.
Jun 59: De Gaulle bans NATO nuclear weapons and carriers from France; US transfers 200 aircraft out of France.
13 Feb 60: France tests indigenous nuclear weapon, to the disapproval of other NATO members.
1962: France removes Channel and Atlantic naval forces from NATO command.
1966: All French armed forces removed from NATO command, all non-French NATO troops evicted. NATO HQ forced to look for new home, since it was barred from operating in their Paris quarters.
16 Oct 1967: NATO HQ reopens in Brussels.

France "rejoined" NATO's military command in 1993, but apparently they only did so to leech technology. They have not committed much of any force to any NATO operation, despite repeated requests.


71 posted on 05/16/2006 3:30:09 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Aren't you on my "don't post to me" list?

Make you a deal, I'll keep posting to you and you turn around and post your 7,000,000th opus.....
72 posted on 05/16/2006 3:30:32 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (aka MikeinIraq - Rob Schnieder is a Carrot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
India? I hadn't thought of that, but now that you mention it, that would work out really well.
73 posted on 05/16/2006 3:31:06 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: leakinInTheBlueSea
VERY cool!
74 posted on 05/16/2006 3:31:48 PM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MikefromOhio
Not as pathetic as getting banned for ignoring it.

You decide.
75 posted on 05/16/2006 3:32:12 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: spikeytx86

Five generations. See CVN-X/CVN-21.

Those new French cruise ships have a far more advanced propulsion system than the JFK does. And we really don't need to keep non-nuclear fleet carriers around.


76 posted on 05/16/2006 3:33:50 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Comment #77 Removed by Moderator

To: AFreeBird
Sea Harriers cannot make a vertical takeoff when fully loaded and fueled. They're too heavy. So instead the Harrier makes a forward rolling short takeoff instead. Then the Brits got the idea to place a ski jump at the end of the flight deck to further aid the short takeoff performance. There are no catapults onboard the British carriers.

The Sea Harriers, or "Shars" as they were sometimes called, were slated for operations off the three "command cruisers" (as the "through-deck cruisers" had been renamed) HMS INVINCIBLE, ILLUSTRIOUS, and ARK ROYAL, the last of which was in planning at the time, with a normal complement of six Sea Harriers along with helicopters. Carrier operation of the Sea Harrier was greatly enhanced by an elegantly simple idea, devised by Royal Navy Lieutenant Commander Douglas Taylor: the ski-jump takeoff ramp.

Taylor calculated that simply modifying the deck so that it curved up at the end would throw the fighter up into the air, allowing it to carry more warload with a shorter takeoff run, as well as give a Royal Navy pilot more time to eject if it became apparent his aircraft was going to splash. Taylor proposed the idea in early 1970s, but it wasn't until 1976 that Hawker received funding to perform land-based tests of the ski jump takeoff. The tests clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of the idea.

Resistance to the ski jump concept was so stubborn in some quarters that advocates of the idea collectively referred to the critics as the "Flat Deck Preservation Society". The advocates prevailed, and the ski jump was adopted for carrier operations. Ski jump takeoffs are apparently very spectacular to watch, though pilots describe them as "cake".

The HMS INVINCIBLE and ILLUSTRIOUS were both originally fitted with a 7-degree ski jump, while the ARK ROYAL featured a 12-degree ski jump when it was commissioned in 1985. Both the INVINCIBLE and ILLUSTRIOUS were later refitted with a 13-degree ramp. The Spanish light carrier DEDALO was not fitted with a ski jump, but the modern Spanish PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS and Thai CHAKRI NARUEBET both have 12-degree ski jumps.


78 posted on 05/16/2006 3:34:03 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 60 | View Replies]

To: MikefromOhio

No problem. You can land Harriers on the JFK. You just don't use the catapult systems.


79 posted on 05/16/2006 3:34:20 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: spikeytx86

Well I'll be darned. So they do. I wasn't aware that Spain had joined NATO as a full member either. I only discovered that when I did a google search on Spain and it's carrier.


80 posted on 05/16/2006 3:37:55 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-254 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