Navy Considers Re-activation of Kitty Hawk.

[Birds Away]

US Navy Looking At Bringing Retired Carrier USS Kitty Hawk Out Of Mothballs - The Drive

Interesting.

 

[churchmouse]

US Navy Looking At Bringing Retired Carrier USS Kitty Hawk Out Of Mothballs - The Drive

Interesting.

Very much so.

 

[jamil]

US Navy Looking At Bringing Retired Carrier USS Kitty Hawk Out Of Mothballs - The Drive

Interesting.

I used to work with a guy who was on the Kitty Hawk back in the day. Kind of a braggart. I used to hum the theme song for The World of Commander McBragg when he'd start with one of his tall tails. It's cool that they might bring it back out but I can't help but feel sorry for the poor sobs who work with that guy now.

 

[Jludo]

I'd think we could live less than 12 carriers until the Ford Class carriers come on line.

 

[Birds Away]

I'd think we could live less than 12 carriers until the Ford Class carriers come on line.

We haven't had 12 operational carriers for quite awhile. There are 10 Nimitz-class carriers. Of those, one is in RCOH which last about 4 years. There is no current timeline for when the Ford will be operational. That leaves nine. You can't have a carrier in the Med, one in the Persian Gulf and two watching the PRK with so few.

 

[halfmileharry]

I'd think we could live less than 12 carriers until the Ford Class carriers come on line.

You're right. We should never have enough to get the job done correctly.
The past powers that be make sure we never have enough.

 

[Jludo]

You're right. We should never have enough to get the job done correctly.
The past powers that be make sure we never have enough.

Exactly which job will we fail to get done with 10 carriers?

 

[Birds Away]

Exactly which job will we fail to get done with 10 carriers?

Ah, I now see your confusion. Obviously you're not familiar with operational tempo. Having 10 carriers doesn't mean you have ten carriers available for deployment at any time.

 

[halfmileharry]

Exactly which job will we fail to get done with 10 carriers?

Nothing better than getting caught on the crapper with your pants down.

 

[Jludo]

We haven't had 12 operational carriers for quite awhile. There are 10 Nimitz-class carriers. Of those, one is in RCOH which last about 4 years. There is no current timeline for when the Ford will be operational. That leaves nine. You can't have a carrier in the Med, one in the Persian Gulf and two watching the PRK with so few.

I don't think only having just one watching NK is that detrimental.

 

[Birds Away]

I don't think only having just one watching NK is that detrimental.

Okay, with nine operational carriers that means you can have one more deployed around the world. Where would you like it to be?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ah, I now see your confusion. Obviously you're not familiar with operational tempo. Having 10 carriers doesn't mean you have ten carriers available for deployment at any time.

Exactly. The uninitiated don't understand that if you have 10, at best only one will be under repair or in its home harbor for some reason, and if you don't have at least one in every potential trouble spot, then by the time you can respond, the event will be over and done with before we are represented in the fight.

For those uninitiated: If we don't have one in the western Pacific (rather than the two we really need given the area under consideration), China can potentially invade and overrun any of our local allies including Taiwan, parts of the Philippines upon which they case a greedy eye, or any of the lesser islands which tend to be subject to multiple overlapping claims of various reasonableness regardless of having been possessed for a great many years by their present occupants (for example, several different countries including both the Philippines and China claim Guam). Of course there is always the possibility of Little Kim deciding that it is time for reunification of Korea on his terms. Japan has the ability to be a pain in the ass for an invader, but not much more than that. How do any of these scenarios going down look if it takes us a week or two after the attack is launched to get there?

Now, multiply this out by everywhere in the world we have a strategic interest worth protecting. Now, cover that with fewer carriers. Now deal with the possibility that you may end up with more than one withdrawn for repair at the same time.

 

[Jludo]

Nothing better than getting caught on the crapper with your pants down.

Name a scenario in which it's plausible only having 10 carriers hurts us? Short of ww3, which won't be fought with carriers.

 

[churchmouse]

I don't think only having just one watching NK is that detrimental.

And you are highly schooled/trained in naval deployment...???

 

[Birds Away]

The standard equation is that you must own 3.5 ships in order to keep one forward deployed at all times. You do not get to round up, you round down. With nine operational carriers you get to have two deployed. The Ronald Reagan is homeported in Yokosuka and is therefore considered to be deployed. So, you get one more. Here are some options for you;

There is a requirement for one carrier to be in the Med supporting coalition forces and "friendly" combatants in and around Syria. Carrier in eastern Med.
There is a requirement for one carrier to provide close air support to coalition forces operating in Iraq. Carrier in western Persian Gulf.
There is a requirement for one carrier to provide close air support to coalition forces operating in Afghanistan. Carrier in northern Indian Ocean.
There is a requirement for one or two carriers to be operating in the vicinity of the Korean peninsula. Carrier(s) in western Pacific.
There may soon be a requirement for a carrier to provide close air support in the Philippines. Another carrier in the western Pacific.

We are headed towards a carrier crisis and there is no solution in sight.

 

[Jludo]

Ah, I now see your confusion. Obviously you're not familiar with operational tempo. Having 10 carriers doesn't mean you have ten carriers available for deployment at any time.

Obviously? How does that question at all imply I'm not familiar?

 

[Jludo]

And you are highly schooled/trained in naval deployment...???

Ahh shut the thread down then.

 

[Jludo]

What it comes down to is cost, if you think defense spending isn't high enough then adding carriers obviously won't bother you as more is better. If you think defense spending is too high then you're ok with fewer carriers (if the govt. could keep contractors on budget and on schedule this wouldn't have even come up.)

 

[halfmileharry]

And you are highly schooled/trained in naval deployment...???

Home Schooled.

Sorry, nothing personal but good timing for a smartarse remark.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What it comes down to is cost, if you think defense spending isn't high enough then adding carriers obviously won't bother you as more is better. If you think defense spending is too high then you're ok with fewer carriers (if the govt. could keep contractors on budget and on schedule this wouldn't have even come up.)

I would point out that this is one of the few things the federal government does which it is actually constitutionally authorized to do, so I am not going to get too excited about costs, especially given that this works much like terrorism: Someone else only has to get lucky once where we have to be right and get the job done EVERY time, everywhere, no exceptions.