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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-254 next last
To: atomicpossum
"Sink it. Then rename it the Edward J. Kennedy."

Wonderful idea!

Carolyn

201 posted on 05/17/2006 5:35:47 AM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
The Navy does not want or need it, but NATO could make very good use of that vessel...

As a what? Dockside barracks? She's 40 years old and worn out. She never had a SLEP upgrade. Manning her with airwing would take about 5000 men and women. In order to staff the air wing the UK would have to triple the size of their Fleet Air Arm. The NATO countries have no need for a carrier this size and would be nuts to fall for this.

If we don't want or need her then decommission her and park her next to the America.

202 posted on 05/17/2006 5:36:46 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ExpatGator
"it would be stupid to transfer the old girl to us."

Our so-called representatives seem to major in stupid lately.

Carolyn

203 posted on 05/17/2006 5:36:48 AM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird
And why a ramp if they could use a cat and it looks like they could only launch one plane at a time.

They can't use a catapault. Cats are steam powered and the British carriers are gas turbine driven.

204 posted on 05/17/2006 5:40:57 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Prost1
NATO takes over the cost. The Ship would still have to managed and maintained by U.S. sailors.

Why would NATO want to do that?

Never been on one, but since we are the only nation that can build them, then there must be something secret in the recipe.

There is, cost. As a couple of billion dollars a pop we're the only country willing to foot the bill.

205 posted on 05/17/2006 5:42:39 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Doohickey
"I think SU-30's need a ramp."

That has nothing to do with the aircraft itself, but the ship it's lauching from. SU-27s and 30s take off from normal runways all the time without the "aid" of a ski ramp. It has to do with the size and length of the carrier. Neither Russia (Soviet Union) nor India has a full length carrier like we do.

206 posted on 05/17/2006 5:45:32 AM PDT by Trinity5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Horatio Gates
Does Taiwan need a carrier?

I'm sure they'd love it but can you imagine our current admin upsetting the Chinese? Heck, BUSH is afraid of what the illegal day workers in Chula Vista might think of him, not to mention the Wal-Mart lobbyists!
207 posted on 05/17/2006 5:46:19 AM PDT by Barney59 ("Time wounds all heels.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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

They learned their lesson, two. They've got helicopters converted to AWACS platforms now. Not as capable or as advanced as E-2C but adequate to their purposes. The French wound up buying E-2s for the de Gaulle.

208 posted on 05/17/2006 5:46:29 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

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

I'm glad you base your foreign defense positions on insight gleaned from a one hour weekly network drama. Never thought I would see that on FR.

209 posted on 05/17/2006 5:50:20 AM PDT by Trinity5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
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.

The French leased the Belleau Wood, a light carrier built on a light cruiser hull, and about half the size of the more capable Bonhomme Richard. The Bonhomme Richard wound up serving in the U.S. navy until the 1971.

210 posted on 05/17/2006 5:50:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
I'm sure we can find some ally who might like it. Australia maybe Taiwan, for example.

Why would they want it?

211 posted on 05/17/2006 5:54:49 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Despite Uncertain Future, U.S.S. Kennedy Goes To Sea

By Grayson Kamm
First Coast News

MAYPORT, FL -- Her future may be in question, but her destination is not. The U.S.S. John F. Kennedy got underway Tuesday morning for a week at sea, despite recent calls in Congress to retire the ship.

The future of the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy has been shaky to say the least. Right now, lawmakers in Washington are discussing what's next for the 37-year-old aircraft carrier, the third-oldest in America's twelve-carrier fleet.

A plan being pushed by Sen. John Warner (R-VA) calls for down-sizing the Navy's fleet, which would shut down Big John for good.

Despite all of that, the Kennedy went back out to sea Tuesday.

She headed out of Naval Station Mayport at around 10 a.m., steaming toward a spot off the coast where she'll spend the next week or so.

A spokesman says her crew will be running "proficiency operations," which means basic seamanship training, firefighting drills, and other exercises designed to keep sailors sharp.

On board the J.F.K. are about 2,300 sailors, but no jet pilots. A few months ago, the Navy ruled that only helicopters can use the Kennedy's old flight deck. That's because of long-overdue maintenance that the Navy has not done on the ship.

Even with those known issues, the ship's spokesman, Lt. Walter Matthews, says the Kennedy is still safe to operate, and her crew will learn a lot from this cruise.

As for the future of the ship, Sen. Warner's bill to shrink the fleet and decommission the Kennedy is currently stalled in the Senate.

We may know more about the effort to shut the ship down by the time her crew comes home from this cruise.

First Coast News

212 posted on 05/17/2006 5:57:35 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Trinity5

Ah come on lighten up. Sorry you did not catch my humor.


213 posted on 05/17/2006 6:00:44 AM PDT by mware (Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Trinity5

I don't disagree with you, but the other thing to think of what mods would be necessary to make the Su-27 and -30 durable enough to endure the rigors of cat launches? Are those mods feasible? Even a "full-size" carrier doesn't compare to a runway.


214 posted on 05/17/2006 6:02:15 AM PDT by Doohickey (Democrats are nothing without a constituency of victims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Trinity5
Neither Russia (Soviet Union) nor India has a full length carrier like we do.

Incorrect. Although smaller in displacement both the Kuznetsov and the Gorshkov, sold to India and to be recommissioned as the R Vikramaditya, are nearly as long as a Nimitz class boat.

215 posted on 05/17/2006 6:12:00 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: blau993

I'm surprised their Navy doesn't operate any maritime patrol aircraft over the Baltic and North Sea.


216 posted on 05/17/2006 6:15:44 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
Thanks. I have read the article. I don't see any prohibition on the use of vertical lift aircraft. If you notice the article links the decertification of the arresting gear to the prohibition of landing fixed wing planes. You don't need arresting gear to land Harriers.

"Last week the ship's arresting cable gear was decertified, meaning it can no longer land fixed-wing planes, only helicopters. Two of its four catapults also have been shut down. "

217 posted on 05/17/2006 6:36:08 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

perhaps this is a budget shuffle issue. It frees up a carrier for real work and keeps this carrier out of retirement.


218 posted on 05/17/2006 6:46:25 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doohickey

I'm not sure what goes into a catapult launch modifcation. The SU-27K is the carrier version of the SU-27. It has been modified with arresting hook, reinforced landing gear, etc. Not sure what else would need to be done.


219 posted on 05/17/2006 6:59:59 AM PDT by Trinity5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: mware

I did!


220 posted on 05/17/2006 7:00:20 AM PDT by Trinity5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-254 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