From an engineering standpoint you are correct...I did not get my ESWS badge on a CV platform, but got it on a DDG-993 class, which if I recall had some interesting main propulsion and aux plant systems...
Where our country doesn’t need the older conventional powered CV’s anymore, the other countries could, and those engineering upgrades and other system maintenance requirements could be appropriated since they would probably only be dealing with one flat top in their order of battle anyway...
I also see it as an opportunity, or better yet a “transition” ship to a more modern platform anyway, which is good for those countries that do produce them as a potential export...
Then they’d have crews that are trained up and used to working on a challenging ship like this..
Shoot, they could even get a refit to the newer catapult systems we are putting on our newer CVN’s to take care for those steam plants and plumbing that might be at risk for failure...Right??? If I caught your history on that correctly...
Its all about bringing up allies on our operating these carriers who have not had the opportunity to do so like we have...Sure GB, France and some of the others have history, and some of these other Navies have absorbed older platforms...
Sure, some of these Navies will be buying problems, but its like buying a used car...The utility you get out of it, at a reduced cost overall, might lend itself to looking at the future, while getting comfortable with the overall idea...
Then the new car urge kicks in...
That’s all I was alluding to...
BTW, I miss the Connie!!! And the Big “E”...FYI...
The idiotic idea we could scrap these constructions for such a cheap and insulting price for the scrap value quoted, to me, begs another look at encouraging these to be sold off for use (operation) in foreign navies...For as long as they can keep them up...
Again, just my opinion...
The newest class of carrier will have an elector-magnetic catapult system. That means more generators. I don't see a retro fit as a possibility there. Another issue is hull thickness. 40-50 years of sea water and corrosion.
My old ship by 1992 was showing her age. Her S.L.E.P. was canceled and an early end of life choice was made. In 1994 she had a major boiler-room explosion at Pier 12 upon return from a deployment. She was our second newest conventional. Before that deployment she had two of six generators functional, No Radar {due to lack of electrical power for air conditioning operations} & fuel pumping issues. This was at half life. She was band-aided at NNSY and sent on one last deployment.
As for scrapping? No scrapper can afford to buy a carrier for salvage and make money. There is extreme cost thanks to government regulations in scrapping a carrier out. There's asbestos PCB you name it it's there.
If you’re talking about the EMALS cats that are going into the Ford class, the big question is where do you put the generators and associated systems necessary to use them?
There’s only so much hull space. Look at the Fords, particularly the stern area. They have a modified Nimitz class hull and require really massive sponsons for all the stuff that has to be pushed out of the hull proper to make room.
Before the Fords the furthest the USN ever went with blowing out a carrier hull was Midway during her 1970s modernization. They still had to ditch a catapult (3 down to 2) and ended up with major stability issues. They overcorrected with big hull blisters, which made the stability issues worse, then finally hit a happy medium (there were still roll issues, just not as bad) by sectioning the blisters ...