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 ...
yeah but a Harrier on a deck that size does really seem like a waste of time and space......
Unless, of course, this is a precursor to NATO jumping into the JSF with both feet.....
"Five generations."
Wow! I had no Idea the Kennedy was so dated. Why have we not retired her already?
I agree now that India is the most likely recipient, and no doubt they would pay for the ship. We ought also give them a couple of subs that can keep up with her.
It's a VTOL carrier. No arrestor gear. No catapults. They only fly AV-8s and choppers from her.
The new UK carriers were going to be the size of the Nimitz class carriers, much bigger than what they have now.
The Brits are probably not going to build the twi larger aircraft carriers anyway. They are having problems with guns and butter. The JFK would be a good interim solution and be available immediately.
Wow, either one works fine for me!
The only reason I can think of is that the Democrats didn't want to shell out for her replacement, didn't want to spend the money to keep it in top shape/update her, yet couldn't face the flak that they'd get for decommissioning a ship named after one of the great liberal icons.
Nor does it look as if they can safely launch and recover at the same time.
Italy has the 13,000-ton Garibaldi, which can carry 18 aircraft, and is building the 26,000-ton Cavour, which can carry 20+ aircraft and should be in service in 2008.
It would, but maybe it's just me, but I would think they would want to come up with a more capable plane....maybe...
If they pay for it, they can do whatever they want too....
Of course this is all just speculation. I kinda doubt the Navy would want ANY of our CVNs going to anyone once they are done.
How do I get on the squid's "do not post to me" list?
We are flying Harriers off the JFK now. Probably part of a Marine Aircraft Wing.
Sell it to the Kennedy Family. At least they can transform themselves from disreputable Drunken A$$Holes to respectable Drunken sailors.
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. And they're going to be conventionally powered, which seems to me to be a bad idea.
That makes a lot of sense, but I doubt we'd do it because of Pakistan, our close "ally" in the war on terror.
Sure thing, but aren't we also flying Hornets off of it?
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?
Recovery is via vertical landing, not by arrestor gear.
It can launch and recover simultaneously, without the need for an angled flight deck.
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.