Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CV Vs CVN  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 3208 times:

Hello

With the USS Kitty Hawk CV-63 and USS John F. Kennedy CV-67 being retired soon, It got me to talking with people on my and they think having a all CVN fleet is a good thing. I think they should have kept building CV after CVN-70. I know "The Kitty" and "Big John" are in bad shape but it is very sad to see there type go way of the battleship. With an all CVN fleet there will never be a aircraft carrier at New York fleet week aging. So do you think an all CVN fleet will turn out to be a good ideal.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 14 hours ago) and read 3195 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why won't there be any more aircraft carriers at Fleet Week?

The all CVN fleet will enhance the capabilities and endurance of the fleet.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

CVNs have the capability to carry a significantly greater amount of JP-8. The speed of these vessels and endurance is simply incredible. We are not losing anything by going to an all CVN carrier force.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineSP90 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

I think what 747400SP is saying is that they will never park a nuclear reactor in NY harbor. The largest Navy ship sailing into NYC this year is the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD-3).

I remember the USS Kitty Hawk came to NYC and parked in front of The Statue of Liberty in during OpSail 2000. That was the last time I saw a super carrier in NY harbor.

Also, isn't there an agreement with Japan that only non-nukes be allowed to anchor in Yokosuka? What will happen when the Navy goes all CVN? Will the Japanese government make an exception or will the ship have to find a new home port?

Regards,
DWC


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3051 times:

Quoting SP90 (Reply 3):
Also, isn't there an agreement with Japan that only non-nukes be allowed to anchor in Yokosuka? What will happen when the Navy goes all CVN? Will the Japanese government make an exception or will the ship have to find a new home port?

About a year ago, the U.S. and Japanese governments came to an agreement on this. It's no longer an issue.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3048 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 4):
About a year ago, the U.S. and Japanese governments came to an agreement on this. It's no longer an issue.

If I'm not mistaken the USS John Stennis is slated to take the Kitty Hawk's place in Japan.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3045 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 2):
CVNs have the capability to carry a significantly greater amount of JP-8.

This is something most people forget, the huge amount of extra space you get when you dont need fuel tanks for the carrier itself.

Quoting SP90 (Reply 3):
Will the Japanese government make an exception or will the ship have to find a new home port?

When they no longer had an option, the resistance withered. The Kitty Hawk allowed us to give Japan time to slowly adjust to the idea that the CVN would someday be the only option.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineVisakow From United States of America, joined May 2006, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3038 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 5):
If I'm not mistaken the USS John Stennis is slated to take the Kitty Hawk's place in Japan.

I have an article bookmarked but it's on my work computer. The U.S. Ambassador to Japan stated in the middle of April that the carrier George Washington, CVN-73, is slated as the replacement for the "S***** Kitty"

[QUOTE] 1. Ambassador Schieffer stated as follows:
As the U.S. Government stated in October 2005 when it announced its decision to replace USS Kitty Hawk with a Nimitz Class aircraft carrier, the U.S. Government is committed to the defense of Japan and the maintenance of peace and stability in the region. Replacing the USS Kitty Hawk with the USS George Washington significantly improves the U.S. Government's ability to contribute to the defense of Japan, and to protect security interests of the U.S. and its allies in the region. A Nimitz-Class aircraft carrier provides a credible, independent forward presence and deterrence in peacetime, and a potent, sustainable force in a range of operational and war fighting situations. The U.S. Government appreciates the Government of Japan's support of the decision to forward deploy the USS George Washington to the Western Pacific, which will arrive in Yokosuka in 2008, in order to provide this improved defense capability. [QUOTE]

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/record0604.html


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2891 times:

Another related question would be - what will happen to nuclear powered carriers when they retire? Current carriers generally find themselves berthed somewhere permanently as museums, but will the US government allow this with the nuclear powered carriers, even after nuclear decommissioning? Can they even be decommissioned in a way that leaves the vessel serviceable in the longterm?

User currently onlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2871 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 8):
what will happen to nuclear powered carriers when they retire? Current carriers generally find themselves berthed somewhere permanently as museums, but will the US government allow this with the nuclear powered carriers, even after nuclear decommissioning?

To date, only one nuclear powered warship has become a museum, the SSN USS Nautalus, and she has had her reactor removed and replaced with a mock-up. All of the other SSBN, SSNs, and CGNs have been scrapped by a specially trained scrapping crew at Bremerton, WA.

The USS Enterprize, CVN65, will be the first CVN to decommission (around 2020?). There has not been a decision made on her, yet.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I know "The Kitty" and "Big John" are in bad shape but it is very sad to see there type go way of the battleship.

There is some talk of the JFK, when she decommissions, of going to Battleship Cove, in Fall River, MA. She will add to the current mesuem fleet there, the Battleship Massachusetts (BB59 South Dakota class), the SS Lionfish (Gato class) and the DD J.P. Kennedy (Gearing class).

No all CVs get to become museum ships. The Oriskany and America are now holding the ocean bottom down, and the Constallation has not found a home, yet.


User currently offlineAFHokie From United States of America, joined May 2004, 224 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2846 times:

So why can't a nuclear powered carrier make a port call in NYC?

User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2830 times:

Quoting AFHokie (Reply 10):
So why can't a nuclear powered carrier make a port call in NYC?

Politics, most likely.



Cleared to Contact
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13044 posts, RR: 78
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2822 times:

Not only ex carriers, what about retired SSN's and SSBN's.
The UK has a fleet of the retired prototype HMS Dreadnaught, the Valiant, Churchill and Resolution class, with Swiftsure class being added.

AFIK, none has been scrapped, in the sense of how a nornal ship is, but I could be wrong on that.

The USN must of loads of retired nuclear subs, the much worse enviromental and security problems of the rusting Russian fleet is well known.


User currently onlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2818 times:

Quoting AFHokie (Reply 10):
So why can't a nuclear powered carrier make a port call in NYC?

Bacause they are all ready to attack SFO.

Quoting GDB (Reply 12):
The USN must of loads of retired nuclear subs, the much worse enviromental and security problems of the rusting Russian fleet is well known.

See my post#9 for the USN nuke boats. The Russian nuclear fleet is a problem that could hurt all of us unless something is done soon.

Quoting GDB (Reply 12):
The UK has a fleet of the retired prototype HMS Dreadnaught, the Valiant, Churchill and Resolution class, with Swiftsure class being added.

The RN is looking at different options, including a SinkEx or sending them to Bremerton for scrapping. With the data the USN has on USS Scorpian and USS Thresher wrecks in very deep wather, that could also be an option for nuclear warship disposal.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2813 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
The RN is looking at different options, including a SinkEx or sending them to Bremerton for scrapping. With the data the USN has on USS Scorpian and USS Thresher wrecks in very deep wather, that could also be an option for nuclear warship disposal.

You mean after they are properly processed, right? Unless the reactor cores and all primary coolent were removed, this idea won't fly. Environmentalists would have a field day. The steel used on the hulls (HY-80?) is far too valuable to be discarded and I would think it would be recycled.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently onlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2804 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 14):
You mean after they are properly processed, right? Unless the reactor cores and all primary coolent were removed, this idea won't fly. Environmentalists would have a field day. The steel used on the hulls (HY-80?) is far too valuable to be discarded and I would think it would be recycled.

You are correct, after they are properly processed, and the steel type HY-80 is valuable, and will be recycled.

But, the environmentalists really don't have a clue as to what they are talking about.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13044 posts, RR: 78
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2732 times:

You've got that right about clueless people, here in the UK, we have a 'ghost fleet' of old USN MSC and Liberty Ships, rusting, full of nasty stuff.
The UK firm, Able, won a contract to break them up and dispose of them in the safest most enviromentally way possible.

A huge fuss that they were coming here, even more when they arrived, for the past few years the company has been bound up in legal red tape, the ships awaiting work.
But what was the alternative, sending them to some third world breakers with little or no consideration of the enviroment and safety of the workforce-often very poor.

Something the various NIMBY's, Greens etc, seem to have no answer for, usually it's 'great science' like 'why should we get the Yank's rubbish to clear up?'
Able won as they demonstrated excellence in clean and safe shipbreaking, to the very highest standards.
But still they cannot get started-all this in an area of higher than average unemployment, but with generations of shipbuilding/breaking experience.

We should clear the way, with leglislation if needed (as part of a move underway to streamlining the UK's slow planning process), so maybe the UK and US could do a deal.
The US has experience in decomming nuclear warships, so send our old subs there, the UK, represented by Able and others, could break up old US warships that have enviromental issues, that caused the US DoD to look abroad for the contract that Able got, in the first place.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2642 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
All of the other SSBN, SSNs, and CGNs have been scrapped by a specially trained scrapping crew at Bremerton, WA. The USS Enterprize, CVN65, will be the first CVN to decommission (around 2020?). There has not been a decision made on her, yet.

Used to live up there, and flew over the yards all the time (pre-9/11)...amazing to see them pulling them apart like beer cans. The reactors are floated on barges down the Puget Sound, out the Straits, down the Pacific, to the Columbia River (seperated WA and OR), then down to hanford where they're all buried. Lots of reactors over there. Those subs and CGNS sat around the shipyard for years, just rusting away...pretty sobering to see.

As for the Big E, noone wants to think about it just yet...too good of a ship I spose  Wink I've heard talk that she'll be kept in some sort of reserve fleet for a time being, with her reactor monitored and such....it'd be impractical to scrap her (after the Coral Sea scrapping mess, noone wants to take on Flattops anymore), and it wouldn't be kosher to scuttle a nuke boat anyways.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
There is some talk of the JFK, when she decommissions, of going to Battleship Cove, in Fall River, MA.

I think it'll be awhile before she's decomm'd, it's just alot of talk right now..people in Jacksonville were getting worried though. Our black-shoe CNO seems to think losing another carrier would be a good idea, I disagree. That ship won't spend any time rusting away though, the Kennedys will make sure it's put up under lights.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 8):
Current carriers generally find themselves berthed somewhere permanently as museums, but will the US government allow this with the nuclear powered carriers, even after nuclear decommissioning? Can they even be decommissioned in a way that leaves the vessel serviceable in the longterm?

The US Navy mothball fleet is the the equivalent of the 3rd largest navy in the world. The sheer number of ships, way in the hundreds, is unmanageable. There are not enough naval museums in the world to even make a dent.

Most carriers have not been turned into museums, there have been way too many, the count is now in the 70's for large carriers and small carriers are far more numerous and must be scrapped and sunk.

After the Enterprise which will surely be preserved as a museum, I seriously doubt that many of the Nimitz class will be. Where would we put them?

They will initially be put them in ready reserve, and as more go into reserve, the best will be kept and the rest will be scrapped or sunk. To get a hint of what will happen, look at the remaining US BB fleet in museum status, not that many.

Also, we have scrapped MANY nuclear vessels, in fact the US has paid to scrap 37 Soviet nuclear subs to date. Puget Sound is where all decommissioned US nuclear vessels go, and there is only so much room.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13044 posts, RR: 78
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2576 times:

I would hope the historic USS Enterprise will be a museum ship when it de-comms, I would then go to see it.
So much more interesting than the fictional USS Enterprise!


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2558 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 19):
So much more interesting than the fictional USS Enterprise!

I have always found that an F-14 taking off from the REAL Enterprise is much cooler than just about anything any science fiction writer ever came up with. I have also wondered how sci-fi dreams up so many things less interesting that reality when they can dream up anything.

That being said, I still like Star Trek.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13044 posts, RR: 78
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Too right, The Final Countdown film is a load of old bollocks, but whose listening, to me it's a snapshot, in glorious celluloid, of a late 1970's USN airgroup.

User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2518 times:

Actually IIRC that was an early 80's snapshot of CVW-8 on the USS Nimitz, my dad was flying A-7E's for VA-86 on the Nimitz at the time the movie was filmed...then again, it could have been the late 70's.

DeltaGuy


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic CV Vs CVN
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Presidential Helicopters, Shipping Vs Ferrying posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:01:14 by Boeing Nut
Was CV-64 Suppost To Be CV-63. posted Thu Oct 19 2006 01:31:19 by 747400sp
CVN-77, USS Bush, To Be Christened 10/7/06 posted Thu Oct 5 2006 07:07:21 by BladeLWS
Boeing Mulls 767 Vs 777 Tanker Offering posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:13:21 by DAYflyer
Fail-Safe Vs Dr.Strangelove posted Fri Sep 22 2006 19:30:52 by B741
Soyuz Vs Shuttle? posted Wed Sep 20 2006 20:30:45 by Mt99
B-1B Vs KC-135A Which Was Louder posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:34:09 by 747400sp
Which CVN Do You Think Will Replace JFK @ Mayport? posted Thu Aug 24 2006 22:22:34 by 747400sp
F-16 Vs F/A-18 posted Thu Aug 10 2006 03:25:49 by Da man
Israeli Airforce VS Syria (and Their Airforce) posted Tue Jul 18 2006 00:39:27 by AislepathLight

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format