Hunter Suggests NATO Take Over JFK Flattop

Aviation Now ^ | 15 May 06 | Michael Bruno

[gc4nra]

Invite Fat Teddy aboard, that should sink it!

[Spktyr]

Yes, but that also means that they're not going to have much by way of AWACs coverage available.

[LSUfan]

Those are all VTOL carriers. None can launch or recover CTOL aircraft. They have no catapults and no arresting gear.

In other words, they can only handle Harriers and helicopters. Basically the same kind of ships the Royal Navy took down to the Falklands in 1982.

[LSUfan]

Are you sure? I thought the USMC was the only service buying the CTOVL version of the F-35.

[Yo-Yo]

The Royal Navy would have liked a bit of AWAC coverage during the Falkland War.

[HardStarboard]

Anchor it outside the twelve mile limit and use it as a replacement for Guantanimo. Allow only classified mlitary flights to land.

The goals of privacy, security, beyond-EU/UN-jurisdiction and non-transparancy are all served.

[MikefromOhio]

Nah...too many Hurricanes.....

Unless you anchor that baby up near Alaska...LOL

[saganite]

Hey pukin. Since your comment to spikey related to my post asking about other countries in NATO that had carriers I thought I would point out to you that my post was a request for info which was appreciated. See my post # 80. Get off your high horse, dog.

[DuncanWaring]

Italy has the 13,000-ton Garibaldi...

Haven't we got lifeboats bigger than that?

[Tallguy]

I kinda doubt the Navy would want ANY of our CVNs going to anyone once they are done.

Nuke carriers? I agree. No way do they get transfered to another Navy. There is precident for non-nuke carriers: The USS Bonhomme Richard, a WW2 Carrier, was 'leased' to the French Navy during their Indochina adventure in the '50's. In fact, most of the aircraft were American-built (Avengers, Corsairs, and either Hellcats or Bearcats). I think the French had the last operational Chance-Vought Crusaders too (well into the '80's).

OTOH, the French would never go for such an arrangement today. Anything American is, by definition, bad.

[kabar]

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.

I was stationed on the *early* Iwo Jima (LPH-2). Regardless, the JFK gives them plenty of room to stage whatever they need in case they have to go to the Falklands again.

And they're going to be conventionally powered, which seems to me to be a bad idea.

I doubt if the Europeans are going to build any nuclear powered ships ever. Conventional power is fine for the kind of missions they would be undertaking.

[Magnum44]

Interesting discussion over this, but I doubt this will go anywhere as I doubt NATO could afford to maintain the Kennedy, even to get it to sea, much less keep her flight ops capable. The logistics tail for a CV is pretty incredible, and Kennedy is old, and worn out, so keeping her up would be very costly. Still if someone out there is willing to pay us for such a lousy investment, take the money. My concern is NATO would come back and ask us for funds to support her, when the point of shedding her is to afford the fleet we already have.

I still believe the only reason she has survived this long is her namesake. Dems will do anything to keep the name Kennedy on a major combatant ship. And dont be surprised if under a Dem admin you see the USS 'Bent' Clinton commissioned. (Arrgggg)

[Tallguy]

That makes a lot of sense, but I doubt we'd do it because of Pakistan, our close "ally" in the war on terror.

Why? India has been getting access to much more important technology lately. The only thing the Pak's got were some old-Block F-16's which probably aren't up to taking on the latest stuff the Indian's have.

[Yo-Yo]

Are you sure? I thought the USMC was the only service buying the CTOVL version of the F-35.

Pretty sure. As long as we can work out the technology transfer issues.

At present, Britain is slated to buy 150 F-35B STOVL (Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing) fighters for use by the Royal Navy on its carriers et. al., complementing the RAF's Eurofighters and possibly an upgraded set of Tornado GR4 strike fighters to form its fighter fleet from 2015-2030.

[headstamp]

What are the "Daggers"? Delta Daggers?

That's fascinating reading.

[LSUfan]

Gotcha. Thanks. What's the story on the Eurofighter?

[kabar]

Sure thing, but aren't we also flying Hornets off of it?

Yes, but we also fly Harriers as well.

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?

What would be the point unless they wanted to buy aircraft off of us as well? I doubt that they would want to train their pilots and crews on the new aircraft and launching system. All they need is the seaborne platform. I have no idea what price they would be paying. We could give it to them.

[ASA Vet]

How can you "land" on a carrier?

Well maybe it would be possible if it's a USAF Carrier. But wouldn't that disturb the golfers.

[DesScorp]

"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)."

No, but Britain is. And they could take it at the right time. See, the Brits have an order for a new full size carrier in the 65,000 ton range. They have a requirement for at least two. But they had a hard time deciding whether to go stovl or catapult....catapult gives you a bigger warload and range over stovl aircraft. So the first one is definitely gonna be stovl, but there's talk that they'd like to do the second one in a conventional layout. If they took the JFK, they'd get a cat-equipped carrier to use with conventionl JSF planes, and then evaluate the performance of both types of carrier at a cheaper price than two full fledged brand new carriers.

One caveat, here....the reason why the Navy is so hot to get rid of the JFK is because, and I quote for a GSA report, she's in "bad material condition"...specifically, two of her propellar shafts are in really bad shape. Britain may not WANT her. It's more likely that China or a country like Brazil would offer to buy her. Frankly, she'll end up as either a museum or in the scrap yard, methinks.

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

[MikefromOhio]

I don't know....that's a hell of a capability that they would be letting go....