Hunter Suggests NATO Take Over JFK Flattop

Aviation Now ^ | 15 May 06 | Michael Bruno

[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.

[Polybius]

Interesting ship but I noticed a few things that don't make sense to me. The Brits developed the cat system, so why is that it looks like the trust defelctor and starting point for launch is at or past the middle of the deck? And why a ramp if they could use a cat and it looks like they could only launch one plane at a time. I know they had ramps for the Harrier jump jets, but were they not going to go with someother design, like the carrier variant of the F35 (pictured)?

Here is a diagram comparing the CVF to a Nimitz-class CVN and to the Charles de Gaulle:

Although larger than the Charles de Gaulle, the CVF is only 65,000 tons as compared to 90,000 tons for a Nimitz-class CVN.

It seems that the Brits are designing the CVF Queen Elizabeth Class so that it can be adapted to carry either short take off and vertical landing aircraft (thus the ramp) or conventional carrier aircraft (at which point catapults and arrestor gear can then be installed).

What the conventional aircraft will be is still up in the air: ITAR Fallout: Britain to Pull Out of F-35 JSF Program?

The artist's drawing you posted appears to be the configuration for non-catapult short take off and vertical landing aircraft (so the thrust deflectors are far aft).

The drawing I posted above appears to be the configuration for catapult launched conventional carrier aircraft (so the thrust deflectors are in a forward position....see green lines).

IMHO, the Brits should have learned from the Falkland's fiasco that taking anything less than the best air superiority fighters you can acquire into a modern naval air war is a false economy that will be paid for in sunken ships and lost lives.

At the very least, I hope they will opt for Hawkeye AEW capabilities rather than the less capable Merlin helo-platform AEW.

[cva66snipe]

Related news. As near as I can find out the aircraft carrier USS Oriskany will be sank in the Gulf of Mexico tomorrow morning. For any ORISKANY squids in here AMERICA crew members knows how you feel. ORISKANY had a good service history and took a lot of hard licks in her time too.

[cva66snipe]

Incorrect. The Kennedy hasn't launched any fixed wing aircraft in a long time, two of the cats have already been gutted for parts and the arresting gear has been taken out of service, and Harriers have never operated from the JFK. The only aircraft that are certified to operate from her deck are rotary winged platforms. The only big deck CV to have a Harrier squadron embarked as part of a CVW was the FDR back in the late 70s. Marine Harriers operate from LHAs and LHDs as part of MEU ACEs, not CVWs.

Biting tounge. We at least waited till one was offically decommissioned before taking her parts sheesh.

Politically one thing may be going on here. I wonder if Teddy wants her for Boston Harbor and Hunter got wind of it? If that is the real condition of her she's no good to any nation except for helo ops or a troop carrier. Then they will have to train a crew for 1200 PSI boilers also. Somethings fishy. There's several KH class carriers in the boneyard why rob a hot ship? Just curious?

[Polybius]

What are the "Daggers"? Delta Daggers? That's fascinating reading.

No, they were not American-built F-102 "Delta Daggers".

They were Israeli designed and built derivatives of the French Mirage 5 named "IAI (Israel Aircraft Industries) Daggers".

The IAI Daggers were flown by G6C Escuadrilla II (Grupo de Caza [Hunting Group] 6, Squadron 2) and G6C Escuadrilla III Grupo de Caza [Hunting Group] 6, Squadron 3).

The British carriers could only launch Harriers for CAP patrols and could not launch Haweyes for EAW. The only warning capabilities were the radars on the Harriers that had no "look down" capabilities.

So, the Argentinians flew their Skyhawks and Daggers at wave top level avoiding detection until the last minute and thus managed to score multiple hits on British ships using "dumb" bombs.

Fortunately for the British, the tactic had the disadvantage that the bombs were dropped at such a low altitude that the fuses did not have time to arm and many bombs therefore failed to explode. Even then, the kinetic energy of the impact caused great damage.

Against a U.S. Navy Battle Group, the Skyhawks and Daggers would have been detected as soon as they took off from Argentinian airfields by our Hawkeyes and the F-14 Tomcats would have splashed them 100 miles before they ever reahed the Battle Group.

[Polybius]

Argentina need to work on their bombs (they don't seem to consistently explode).

Actually, there was a very good reason for that. See my Post 184.

******************

The British carriers could only launch Harriers for CAP patrols and could not launch Haweyes for EAW. The only warning capabilities were the radars on the Harriers that had no "look down" capabilities.

So, the Argentinians flew their Skyhawks and Daggers at wave top level avoiding detection until the last minute and thus managed to score multiple hits on British ships using "dumb" bombs.

Fortunately for the British, the tactic had the disadvantage that the bombs were dropped at such a low altitude that the fuses did not have time to arm and many bombs therefore failed to explode. Even then, the kinetic energy of the impact caused great damage.

******************

[satchmodog9]

tears

[LSUfan]

Okay!

[org.whodat]

Brits use jump jet take off.

[headstamp]

Thank you for the link and further info. I really had no idea how badly the British fleet got hammered during the conflict. They truly were lucky that many of the Argie bombs did not fully arm.

I may look into that e-book they have available on the F I war.

[headstamp]

"By the way...the Brits like to name their ships with adjectives. What would a Kennedy ship be named? HMS Adulterous, maybe?"

LOL

Perhaps something a bit more poetic?

HMS Philanderer

[lentulusgracchus]

Against a U.S. Navy Battle Group, the Skyhawks and Daggers would have been detected as soon as they took off from Argentinian airfields by our Hawkeyes and the F-14 Tomcats would have splashed them 100 miles before they ever rea[c]hed the Battle Group.

And now there are what, two active-duty F-14 squadrons still embarked? And soon to be "relieved," allegedly, by F/A-18E/F "Super Hornets"?

That leathery crunching noise you hear is the pucker factor operating in all those carrier admirals and four-stripers whose commands are now "protected" by Phoenix-less, shorter-range F/A-18's.

We need some seriously long-range CAP, and the F/A-18 and even the F-35 JSF ain't it. The latter is all about replacing the AV-8's and protecting MEF's and supporting forces ashore. F-35's are good CAP for the amphibs, not power-projection, air-superiority weapons for the Fleet.

Somebody please tell me we have such a weapon on the boards and on schedule to meet any challenge over the Formosa Strait.

[lentulusgracchus]

Nothing that scandalous.

My nomination, HMS Bibulous.

[Smokin' Joe]

How about Canada? They could use some more navy.

[Smokin' Joe]

There will never be a warship named Clinton.

Never say never, but if it happens, it'll just be pronounced "Krinton"...

[tlb]

Perhaps it's late to post this in the thread but the link goes to a comparison of the world's aircraft carriers, a graphic flight deck view to scale of each class. As old as she is, the JFK would be a major step up to any foreign carrier navy. Probably too high a step.

World Wide Aircraft Carriers

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

[NZerFromHK]

There were good reasons not to immediately disband NATO when the collapse of the Communist bloc happened. Many were skeptical that it was a ruse, or to use Lenin's famous words, an "one step back, two steps forward" strategy in order to lure the West to be off-guard. Of course things changed beyond the KGB's control and the book of play is very much different now, so even though we are effectively in a semi-neo-neo-Cold-War now, the West is in a better position to defend against the neo-Sovietist Putin than what the original KGB conspiracy would have entailed.

Interestingly, in some parts of non-NATO countries, their Left is still sprouting the organization as "American sphere" nonsense. In January's presidential election in Finland, the current Socialist President Tarja Halonen stayed in power by the scaretactics that the opposition "will lead Finland into NATO, involve us as an American ally country, and make us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks!". It must also be noted that Finland is already a EU member.

[tonycavanagh]

re : 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.

You are forgetting the Royal Navy, who have a lot of experience with Carriers.

Its more a case of do we need a big flat top, the expense is not just in the flat top but all the attending ships that go to make up a Carrier Group.

[NZerFromHK]

"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."

The British may beg to differ from you. After all, it was their Royal Navy which first spearheaded the concept of a modern navy and up until 60 years ago they were THE naval force that acted as the yardstick for everyone else to measure against. The knowhow to run a comprehensive blue water navy is still there even though none of the current crop of active naval servicemen has any practical experience on running at that level. But they still have a knack at it. Give them some time to play around with the toy and they will pick them up again as easily as a duck in water.

[A.A. Cunningham]

You've assumed that Hunter meant Harriers when he noted vertical lift aircraft and you would be mistaken.

You and the Congressman should read the following:

Commander says JFK should be retired ASAP

[mware]

After watching this weeks 24. I don't want NATO or anyone else getting control of an American aircraft carrier.