To: LSUfan
"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?
To: DesScorp
HMS Boisterous? HMS Wreckless? HMS Inebriated?
How hard is it to change out propeller shafts?
128 posted on
05/16/2006 4:17:04 PM PDT by
LSUfan
To: DesScorp
"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
190 posted on
05/16/2006 9:48:32 PM PDT by
headstamp
(Nothing lasts forever, Unless it does.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson