DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11454 posts, RR: 72
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3625 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 2): Retiring the JFK would bring the Active Carriers down to what, 12?
The current force level is 12 carriers. When they retire the JFK there will be a replacement sailing into harbor to carry on.
Quoting RC135U (Reply 3):
Weren't they considering putting one at Guam?
It's capable of berthing but not as a real homeport. We have facilities at Singapore as well that allow us to maintain our carriers, but the Japanese have made it clear they are going to continue our presence with a carrier in their country even if it's nuclear powered.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3510 times:
Last I looked into the matter, we had 12 active aircraft carriers. Retiring the JFK without replacing her would bring us down by one.
Since I believe that the JFK will be replaced by one of the uprated Nimitz-class already mentioned, I think that the active fleet will eventually remain at 12; the possibility remains that if there is a delay in replacement for scheduling reasons, we'll be down to 11 for the interim. I haven't researched this issue recently and I can't remember if there is such a gap, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were.
I'm actually more curious as to how many carriers we would have in the "mothball fleet" after the JFK is retired. I'd like to think that we have a number of carriers that could be reactivated in relatively short order if necessary.
At any rate, it's interesting to consider that, as I recall, even our amphibious assault ships (helicopter carriers, such as the Tarawa) were considered "aircraft carriers" at one point by the Soviets, back in the day. Of course, they're not considered such by our Navy.
By the way, an interesting resource on our latest class of assault ships, the Wasp, may be found at:
Sidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 521 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3477 times:
Don't see Mayport getting upgraded to support nukes any time soon. Too much money and not all that much real estate.
If anything with a deck gets moored at the charlie piers there it will be an LHA or LHD (or two).
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident