Hunter Suggests NATO Take Over JFK Flattop

Aviation Now ^ | 15 May 06 | Michael Bruno

[Pukin Dog]

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.

[Prost1]

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.

[Pukin Dog]

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.

[Charles Martel]

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

One Ford Falcon lowrider, incoming!

[Larry Lucido]

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?

[spikeytx86]

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?

[Tallguy]

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.

[BenLurkin]

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.

[MikefromOhio]

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?

[thackney]

I guess I got my answer.

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

[Spktyr]

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.

[MikefromOhio]

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.....

[Pukin Dog]

India? I hadn't thought of that, but now that you mention it, that would work out really well.

[BenLurkin]

VERY cool!

[Pukin Dog]

Not as pathetic as getting banned for ignoring it.

You decide.

[Spktyr]

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.

[Yo-Yo]

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.

[kabar]

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

[saganite]

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.