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