Navy Considers Re-activation of Kitty Hawk.

[9mmfan]

I'm all for it. Certainly cheaper than a new one costs.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The constitution doesn't set the defense budget, congress authorizes the spending but it's Obamas fault the Ford is behind schedule and over cost?

1. I did not say that the Constitution sets the defense budget. I said that it authorized defense spending as a function of the federal government where it does not authorized, say, Obamacare.

2. When did Nancy Pelosi's House do anything other than fulfill Obama's wish list to the best of its ability?

3. Had Obama, as chief executive, made the effort to put any meaningful pressure on the guilty parties rather than either letting defense run on autopilot or else deliberately let the train wreck happen to undercut the concept of defense and funding defense, I am satisfied that much better results would have been possible. Then again, that moron and his hacks couldn't even lift a finger to save people they deliberately put in harm's way.

 

[Hoosierkav]

How far does a carrier's power project; what's the reach of the aircraft? I had to search to figure out the speed of the carriers (it'd take a week to get from LA to North Korea), and I'm ignorant of the range of the jets carried thereupon.

 

[IndyDave1776]

How far does a carrier's power project; what's the reach of the aircraft? I had to search to figure out the speed of the carriers (it'd take a week to get from LA to North Korea), and I'm ignorant of the range of the jets carried thereupon.

Depending on how they are flown (economical speed or hauling tailfeathers to an emergency) and how they are loaded (i.e., amount of ordnance carried in trade off with external fuel tanks) you are looking at a reasonable combat radius between 300 and 600 nautical miles under most conditions.

 

[Birds Away]

How far does a carrier's power project; what's the reach of the aircraft? I had to search to figure out the speed of the carriers (it'd take a week to get from LA to North Korea), and I'm ignorant of the range of the jets carried thereupon.

With in flight refueling it becomes a matter of pilot endurance. We once launched an F-14 from the eastern Med just off Haifa to take a recon photo of our relief carrier that was still beyond the straights of Gibraltar. That's well over 2k miles one way. The pilot had to be helped out of the cockpit when he returned but we got a dandy picture of their flight deck.

 

[Birds Away]

I'm all for it. Certainly cheaper than a new one costs.

It might seem so. The Kitty Hawk was commissioned 56 years ago. She has been in mothballs for over nine years. It would be no small task to bring her up to operational capability. I can't imagine it would be possible in under a year and the cost would be very high. Then, what do you have? You have a relatively small deck carrier that costs a lot more to operate in day to day dollars. It would require more maintenance dollars due to age and the antiquated engineering equipment onboard. Not to mention the fact that operating a conventionally powered carrier requires additional oiler support. Those old carriers were thirsty girls. I'm not sure it would be cost effective. At most you might buy five years of operations for a huge outlay in cash.

 

[actaeon277]

And, a comment on operational range.
Carrier Groups will usually have a ship that can launch Tomahawk missiles.

 

[Birds Away]

Also, if the Navy would quit building the completely useless Littoral Combat Ships that would be a big step in the right direction.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Good point about the aerial refueling. For my purposes, I was assuming the question to refer to how far they could go with what they had in their pockets, which in my reckoning is all you can count on absolutely when the SHTF without sending a memo first.

 

[Birds Away]

Good point about the aerial refueling. For my purposes, I was assuming the question to refer to how far they could go with what they had in their pockets, which in my reckoning is all you can count on absolutely when the SHTF without sending a memo first.

Carriers have onboard tanker assets. They can't provide as much gas as the chair Force tankers can but they are a lot better than just using drop tanks.

 

[halfmileharry]

It might seem so. The Kitty Hawk was commissioned 56 years ago. She has been in mothballs for over nine years. It would be no small task to bring her up to operational capability. I can't imagine it would be possible in under a year and the cost would be very high. Then, what do you have? You have a relatively small deck carrier that costs a lot more to operate in day to day dollars. It would require more maintenance dollars due to age and the antiquated engineering equipment onboard. Not to mention the fact that operating a conventionally powered carrier requires additional oiler support. Those old carriers were thirsty girls. I'm not sure it would be cost effective. At most you might buy five years of operations for a huge outlay in cash.

The Navy must be pretty desperate for another flat top if they're seriously considering getting this old girl up to speed.
It's hints like these that let me know we're in very unstable times.

 

[Birds Away]

The Navy must be pretty desperate for another flat top if they're seriously considering getting this old girl up to speed.
It's hints like these that let me know we're in very unstable times.

I'm sure they're looking at all alternatives. They could be running this up the flagpole just so that everyone recognizes the seriousness of the problem and gets to funding more carriers.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Carriers have onboard tanker assets. They can't provide as much gas as the chair Force tankers can but they are a lot better than just using drop tanks.

My understanding was that after they retired the Viking they didn't really have a platform with any capacity other than buddy tanks for the Prowlers which don't really amount to much other than replacing takeoff fuel.

 

[halfmileharry]

I hope they're just thinking out loud.
Our military is in desperate need of some TLC.
We've got pilots quitting the military because of unsafe aircraft.
We're ALMOST caught up on armored vehicles instead of civilian versions with home made armor on them.
Hopefully we'll give our troops more range time and more than just a couple of "Barney Boolits"
When Spec Forces and base security has to come around and "steal" magazines of ammo from support personnel to defend Bagram AFB you know we've got issues. This happened on multiple occasions. And for you non believers and sceptics... I got this first hand.
Just a couple of years ago the Commandant of the USMC went public telling his troops to save every round and every drop of fuel possible.
The Defense spending dollar is not being wisely used nor properly allocated.

 

[Birds Away]

My understanding was that after they retired the Viking they didn't really have a platform with any capacity other than buddy tanks for the Prowlers which don't really amount to much other than replacing takeoff fuel.

They have modified some F-18s to fill the tanker role. But, you're right, they don't provide much.

 

[NKBJ]

This will be a grand opportunity for funds to be channeled, redirected and misplaced, for lobbyists to make their retirement funds suffer from advanced gigantism, for cost over runs and continual modifications, upgrades and itinerative design during the course of refit.
By way of example on how the Armed Services Committee really works, look at how the JAST program was milked by demorats (one in particular, she ran for pres last time around) and republithugs until finally it had to be given a new name just to disguise the ongoing criminality. My prediction would be that by the time the Kitty sails away enough treasure will have been dumped into that hole in the water to have given it lunar orbit capability.
That said, don't think for a moment that I'm not for a strong military and superior weapons and training. I just don't like the traitorous crooks in the procurement scams robbing us blind.

 

[Birds Away]

This will be a grand opportunity for funds to be channeled, redirected and misplaced, for lobbyists to make their retirement funds suffer from advanced gigantism, for cost over runs and continual modifications, upgrades and itinerative design during the course of refit.
By way of example on how the Armed Services Committee really works, look at how the JAST program was milked by demorats (one in particular, she ran for pres last time around) and republithugs until finally it had to be given a new name just to disguise the ongoing criminality. My prediction would be that by the time the Kitty sails away enough treasure will have been dumped into that hole in the water to have given it lunar orbit capability.
That said, don't think for a moment that I'm not for a strong military and superior weapons and training. I just don't like the traitorous crooks in the procurement scams robbing us blind.

All true. With what we currently spend none of this should be an issue. When it comes to corruption, our Beltway Bandits make the Mexican government look like a bunch of choir boys.

 

[Thor]

Hum.. We appear to have a downwad graphic going forward from what you are saying.
Is their however something else on the horizon that will replace the carrier?

This next comment is sci-fi and I don't remember what book it was I read it in.
Tom Clancy perhaps. In any case China developed a satellite with a laser and was able to shot from space the laser and blown up a US carrier in Japan. That changed the naval landscape forever as the carrier become the battleship and the sat-laser the new carrier.

It's a lot easier to bring down a satellite than sink a carrier. In fact it would be a lot easier to put the power and cooling requirements for a laser that could sweep the skies clear on a carrier than it would be to launch it into space...and if they did it's not like we wouldn't notice.

 

[Thor]

How far does a carrier's power project; what's the reach of the aircraft? I had to search to figure out the speed of the carriers (it'd take a week to get from LA to North Korea), and I'm ignorant of the range of the jets carried thereupon.

It's not just the carrier, it is never just the carrier. It is the carrier battle group. An anti-aircraft and missile dome that extends into space. Cruise missiles with 1500+NM range. Fast attack subs with cruise missiles too. The carrier defends all those capabilities, denies the enemy the ability to search for the sub(s).

 

[churchmouse]

It's not just the carrier, it is never just the carrier. It is the carrier battle group. An anti-aircraft and missile dome that extends into space. Cruise missiles with 1500+NM range. Fast attack subs with cruise missiles too. The carrier defends all those capabilities, denies the enemy the ability to search for the sub(s).

Someone posted up an Ariel pic of a carrier battle group not long ago. It was most impressive.
A lot of power. I would not want to be in the target area of that group.