A342
Topic Author
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:48 am

Hi guys,

the question is purely hypothetical. I currently don't know which Navies could use one, but let's assume one would be interested. Would the USN (or should I rather say: the politicians in charge) be willing to sell? Of course, not to Iran or similar countries!

It seems there is enough supply: The Forrestals and the remaining Kitty Hawks could be sold. I know some of these will become museum ships or will be sunk as artificial reefs, but somehow that's a bit of a waste.


I'd like to hear your opinions on this.

A342
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13268
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:53 am

Not at all, for a variety of reasons.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:21 am

I don't see it ever happening for two main reasons.

Number one: No one else can afford to operate US style carriers. Dude...seriously....who's got 75 planes they can spare for a carrier besides us? More than that who's willing to buy three new frigates with AAW and ASW capabilities, and the submarines that have to accompany it? Not to mention the AOE type vessels to keep it supplied? We haven't even gotten to the shore based schooling and logistics system needed to keep the thing going. There was a rumor that the Saratoga was going to be sold to the Brazilians, but they got the Foch instead and keep it flying half the airplanes it was intended to carry.

Number two: We don't want anyone else operating US style carriers.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:26 am

In a word: no.

First, it's not just a question of buying the ship, a very old ship at that. Even if one were willing to invest in the SLEP required to re-fit the carrier to fighting trim, there's the question of training a crew, sustaining the force, purchasing the air wing, training the air wing, the incredible logistic tail involved in the care and feeding of the ship, it's aircraft, and the crew. It doesn't spring up overnight. It's not just a question of having the financial means, but having the infrastructure to support it after acquisition.

Then there are the political issues of selling the thing. For example, say the Japanese wanted to buy the JFK. Wouldn't the Chinese have a fit? Or the Russians?

Better we make reefs.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:23 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 2):

Number one: No one else can afford to operate US style carriers.

I agree. I think that is the primary reason why.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 2):
Number two: We don't want anyone else operating US style carriers.

I can see some exceptions. One might be the UK of they ever decided to get back in the "big" (CVF aside) carrier game. I could also see the French wanting to buy one from us. I can especially see that happening after the new US carrier class CVX takes to sea.
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:55 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 4):
I can see some exceptions. One might be the UK of they ever decided to get back in the "big" (CVF aside) carrier game. I could also see the French wanting to buy one from us. I can especially see that happening after the new US carrier class CVX takes to sea.

They could, but both of these countries are concerned with their indigenous shipbuilding capability atrophying. Not to start a tiring and annoying debate such as we've got on USAF Tankers Part XLIII and Part XLIV, but they feel that this is a capability they would like to retain and nurture. The French have build the only non-US nuclear carrier. I suspect the Brits would collaborate on a new one, rather than adopt a cast-off.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:15 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 5):
start a tiring and annoying debate such as we've got on USAF Tankers Part XLIII and Part XLIV,

And how!!!!
No worries. You won't see me starting one of those.
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
texl1649
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:36 am

Heh, I just had to chuckle at the thought of the last time the US Navy was involved with a Japanese carrier.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:59 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 4):
I can see some exceptions. One might be the UK of they ever decided to get back in the "big" (CVF aside) carrier game. I could also see the French wanting to buy one from us. I can especially see that happening after the new US carrier class CVX takes to sea.

But the difference between French/British type carriers, both extant and on the drawing board, is that they're the size of our LHD vessels or a little larger at best.

The CV's we have are 40 to 60k tons heavier and can carry two to three times the aircraft.

The only real exceptions we'd make about who we'd sell the things to wouldn't buy them....Japan or Germany can't due to their constitution, and the French and British have their own deals.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:09 am

Quite a number of ex-USN escort carriers ended up in other countries hands after WWII.

But I don't see any other countries being able to make the investment.

In fact seeing how careful they where about where they disposed of the Oriskany and the America I doubt they would consider it today.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:03 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 9):
In fact seeing how careful they where about where they disposed of the Oriskany and the America I doubt they would consider it today.

I can see about being careful of the America, but the Oriskany design, I would think had lost it value.
 
rtfm
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:35 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:46 pm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8):
But the difference between French/British type carriers, both extant and on the drawing board, is that they're the size of our LHD vessels or a little larger at best.

The CV's we have are 40 to 60k tons heavier and can carry two to three times the aircraft.

Not quite... the new UK/FR CVF design is planned at 65k tons versus 90k tons for Nimitz class. Apparently when the UK government started looking at options for a future carrier, one of those options was purchasing one or more second-hand USN carriers. The main issue that counted against it was the cost of conversion at the end of which the RN would still end up with a 20/30 year old basic design.

There's some more history of the RN's CVF project on this thread:
BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed (by N328KF Jul 25 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
 
Ozair
Posts: 1397
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:32 pm

Could you imagine if Australia bought one, it would take our entire F/A-18 fighter force to man that one ship!

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 3):
First, it's not just a question of buying the ship, a very old ship at that. Even if one were willing to invest in the SLEP required to re-fit the carrier to fighting trim, there's the question of training a crew, sustaining the force, purchasing the air wing, training the air wing, the incredible logistic tail involved in the care and feeding of the ship, it's aircraft, and the crew. It doesn't spring up overnight. It's not just a question of having the financial means, but having the infrastructure to support it after acquisition.

Exactly, there are few western navies with the required manning for their own vessels, let alone the acquisition of a supercarrier.

On a side-note...

Quoting RTFM (Reply 11):
Apparently when the UK government started looking at options for a future carrier,

Any idea where HMS Invincible will go? I have heard varying reports that post 2010 she will be sold to the Indians, used as a museum or simply scrapped. Most nations now see the value of a large Amphib type vessel that also supports aviation assets up to a VTOL although how much of this will translate into F-35B sales is another matter. Could the Invincible be altered such as Ark Royal to do this role for a smaller nation wanted the capability cheap?

I guess this is the only carrier capable ship to be up for sale in the next few years and a more realistic size than a USN carrier.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:38 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 12):
Any idea where HMS Invincible will go? I have heard varying reports that post 2010 she will be sold to the Indians, used as a museum or simply scrapped.

There is a campaign afoot for her to be turned into a museum ship. It's something I would happily lend my support to, not least because she's actually quite important historically, being a rare modern example of a genuinely fighting warship, given her history. And the Invincibles are an outstanding instance of design ingenuity in the face of the beancounters objections.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:11 pm

I agree with Banco on HMS Invincible.

When the CVA-01 project was scrapped in 1966, the US did apparently offer a couple of carriers, but this was not taken up for a number of reasons, (this is also often mixed up with the Falklands in 1982).

1) Cancelling CVA-01 (aside from it's expense and very unsatisfactory design), was in part, a change of strategy as well as recognising a reality. That the UK in the 60's could no longer afford both a very substantial commitment to NATO as well as a large 'East Of Suez' presence. This was not a intention of the Wilson government on taking office in 1964, but then the books were opened, as well as the general tide of opinion against Western forces being stationed, even with local governmental consent, was starting to fray.
For example, the rulers of Bahrain nominally supported UK forces, but also funded a (peaceful) campaign to have them removed.
Then there was Aden....

2) These US ships, though any offered would be in good condition, totally differed from the RN fleet in just about every way, not just weapons and sensors. Sticking Type 965, 992 radars and SeaCat SAM's on them would have been a tiny amount of the work involved.
The RN had F-4K's and Buccaneers, the Buccs could operate from them (a small number, 6-8 operated off 30,000 ton HMS Hermes), but F-4K's would be problematic. One reason the USN was not using them, lack of 'Phantomisation'.

3) These vessels would last in 1966, another 15 or at best, 20 years. Not much longer than at that time, than existing RN Carriers would. (Ark Royal did until 1978, Hermes could of well into the 1980's, HMS Eagle's early 60's re-fit, finishing in late 1964, gave the vessel another 20 years of life. But for some reason, a small, extra re-fit, to operate F-4K's was not done, and she went in 1972. The Ark Royal, mechanically inferior, was instead run on to operate F-4K's)

4) Another reason CVA-01 was axed, was that even the RN admitted they would have great difficulty manning just one CVA, even running the existing force meant other ships were denied crews.
This would have been the same for ex USN carriers.

In 1982, there were rumours, that have persisted, that if need be, a USN LPH would be given to the UK if things in the Falklands went bad.
Here the same issues with incompatibility come up, lead times too.
While the LPH HMS Bulwark, retired the previous year, was looked at, it was in very poor condition. However a new carrier was emerging, the brand new HMS Illustrious. Massively accelerated sea and acceptance trials, had it commissioned by July 1982, nearly a year ahead of schedule. It would provide air cover post war, in the South Atlantic, before the Port Stanley runway was extended as a temporary base for RAF Phantoms, from October 1982.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:18 pm

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 7):
Heh, I just had to chuckle at the thought of the last time the US Navy was involved with a Japanese carrier.

Last time maybe; first time wasn't fun, for sure.  Wink

I genuinely hope the UK stays with CVF all the way. At some point, these large programs become huge targets for budget cutters.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:14 pm

I doubt any country will want to go through a very expensive refit of a 40+ year old ship. When the USN decommissions a CV, it is very worn out. The cost to extend the life of a 40 year old CV for another 20-25 years would be approaching the cost of a new build CVF.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1397
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:24 am

Quoting Banco (Reply 13):

Thanks for the info, it would be a shame to see it scrapped. I had heard though that HMS Invincible would be very little value as a museum as it will have been stripped bare by 2010 to ensure Illustrious and Ark Royal are usable.

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):

That's a great history of the UK carrier drama, perhaps you should think about writing a book about it all when (if) the new carriers finally hit the fleet?

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):
In 1982, there were rumours, that have persisted, that if need be, a USN LPH would be given to the UK if things in the Falklands went bad.

Would this have added to the lend lease debt?  Wink

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
I doubt any country will want to go through a very expensive refit of a 40+ year old ship

Are the USN carriers built to a different standard than other US ships? They see heavy use over their lifetimes and yet are expected to remain in service for 50 years (in the case of the CVNs). Compare this to a DDG-51 which are expected to serve for 35. Do the multi billion SLEP refit really extend the life of a CVN that far?
 
da man
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:27 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:57 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 17):
Would this have added to the lend lease debt?

I would imagine so, especially since I remember a few years ago it was a big deal in the news that Great Britain had finally paid off all of their lend lease debt.
War Eagle!
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:11 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):
When the CVA-01 project was scrapped in 1966, the US did apparently offer a couple of carriers,

I thought we offered a couple of the older attack carriers, Bennington and Hornet IIRC. They were in good shape at the time and could have been used with F-4s which the RN was employing on their fleet carriers.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Sat Aug 11, 2007 1:05 am

DL021, interesting, would they have needed modification for F-4's though?
I understood the ones offered retained F-8's.

Even so, the die was cast, the Defence Minister who (reluctantly) axed the carriers, gave the RN every opportunity to make a case for carrier retention, if not the flawed CVA-01, than an extension as far as possible for Eagle and Ark Royal .
They only came up with a prolonged battle with Indonesian Migs, just at the limits of the RAF force in Singapore operating ranges, but in early 1966, the 'confrontation' in Borneo was being won, soon after, the Indonesian regime that started it, collapsed and turned away from the USSR sphere of influence.

What they did not do, was wargame an Argentine invasion of the Falklands!
In fact the RN's attitude was 'the Navy is the Navy, if you do not understand that, you're in the wrong job', something they'd repeat in the run up to the planned cuts announced in 1981, that only the Argentine Junta prevented the worst of.
By contrast in the mid 60's, the RAF had able legally trained officers, full of flip charts and graphs, they even got away with 'moving' Australia several hundred miles north to demonstrate they could, from bases there post UK pullout from Singapore, support any RN task group if one were needed!

Ark Royal, was given an on the surface big refit to operate F-4's, but this did not include upgrading it's cranky machinery, unlike on HMS Eagles one a few years before.
Also, the sensor and C3 fit was not to the same standard as Eagles.
The incoming Tory government of Edward Heath, in 1970, went back on pre election pledges to re-fit Eagle for F-4's (a quite small task), and improve Ark Royal, allowing them both to operate until the end of the 1970's, perhaps a bit longer that that even.

If the RN had played it's cards better in 1965/66, it still would have lost CVA-01, but retaining longer and investing more in carrier aviation, might well have meant bigger versions of the Invincible Class, around the size of HMS Hermes.
As well as a more dedicated Maritime VSTOL, derived from the kind of improved VSTOL that Hawkers at Kingston were designing for the RAF in the late 60's/early 70's, not over- ambitious supersonic VSTOL like the cancelled P.1154, rather types around the same size as Harrier, but with bigger wings, revised internal design, for more range, more payload.
Sort of like a proto-AV-8B with better performance beyond being a (very good) bomb truck.
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:10 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8):
The only real exceptions we'd make about who we'd sell the things to wouldn't buy them....Japan or Germany can't due to their constitution, and the French and British have their own deals.

Do you know something about the German constitution I don't?  Confused There would be no legal problem for Germany buying or building an own super carrier. Of course politics would prevent it.


There are at least a handful of nations who could technically afford operating super carriers, not in high numbers, though.
Size wise the difference between the Forrestals and the Kitty Hawks (which were mentioned by the thread starter and the CVF isn't that big. But as you said the French and the Brits have their own deals. The Chinese could afford operating super carriers, too - but obviously the US would never sell them one. I dunno about the Japanese constitution, but I would guess they would rather build their own carriers.

pelican
 
A342
Topic Author
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:24 am

Quoting Pelican (Reply 21):
Size wise the difference between the Forrestals and the Kitty Hawks (which were mentioned by the thread starter and the CVF isn't that big. But as you said the French and the Brits have their own deals. The Chinese could afford operating super carriers, too - but obviously the US would never sell them one. I dunno about the Japanese constitution, but I would guess they would rather build their own carriers.

What about India? The efforts to convert the Admiral Gorshkov for MiG-29K service seem to be substantial.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:38 am

Quoting Pelican (Reply 21):
Size wise the difference between the Forrestals and the Kitty Hawks (which were mentioned by the thread starter and the CVF isn't that big.

15,000 tons is substantially bigger. The ships are substantially longer and wider as well.

CVF is about as close to a Forrestal as it is to the new class of Amphibious Warfare ships being built in the United States. So if you are going to say the difference is not that much then you would have to say it is not that much in the other direction as well.

You would have to add 23% to the size of a CVF to get it to the size of a Forrestal class ship, they are not all that similar when it comes to size. That being said it is a perfectly just criticism to say that for another 10-15,000 tons you could get a really capable ship rather than a moderatly capable one.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:43 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 22):
What about India? The efforts to convert the Admiral Gorshkov for MiG-29K service seem to be substantial.

The latest according to an article in Flight Global is that it will be delayed until 2011.
Indian Navy Carrier Delayed--Wiring Problems! (by Lumberton May 1 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Edit: another consideration for these old ships is that they have oil fired steam boilers. Not many people around that operate these things anymore, unless you want to scour around for a few old sea dogs!

[Edited 2007-08-10 20:49:51]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:16 am

BigJKU, absolute size, tonnage, is only part of the story though.

CVF, with 50 years on technology, will be more space efficient, in terms of the propulsion size footprint (and it's bunkerage requirements presumably, with new technology engines), other machinery, size of the crew and all they require (they are really going for automation on CVF with it's planned crew size), all manner of what is found on a warship.
Plus being a STOVL carrier, no cats and their requirements.
In fact, sortie rates are the driver, not so much absolute size of air group.

For the French version, with a conventional air-group, space needed for the cats, presumably a somewhat bigger crew, it might be the case of a more like for like comparison.

But CVF is at the limit of size to fit into the naval dockyard infrastructure, even then, work is needed and it's easier done at Rosyth in Scotland, rather than at the main naval base of the RN, Portsmouth.
This was a problem the CVA-01 designers had in the 60's, was the driver that led too much trying to be put in a too small displacement, though some of their odd choices made this worse, like the large fantail to house a bulky Sea Dart area defence SAM system-on a carrier that would carry at least 18 F-4K's.
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:51 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 25):
In fact, sortie rates are the driver, not so much absolute size of air group.

While this is somewhat true it ignores the fact that airplanes on a conventional carrier are substantially more capable in terms of range and payload than a comprable plane operating in a STOVL fashion. If sortie rates alone were a driving factor you would see Nimitz class carriers without the catapults operating VSTOL aircraft.

I have a good deal of doubt that F-35B will be anything approaching F-35C in terms of performance. The gap was fairly wide at inception and everything since then indicates it will only get wider. The bigger deck give you options while the smaller deck does not.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:41 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 17):
Are the USN carriers built to a different standard than other US ships? They see heavy use over their lifetimes and yet are expected to remain in service for 50 years (in the case of the CVNs). Compare this to a DDG-51 which are expected to serve for 35. Do the multi billion SLEP refit really extend the life of a CVN that far?

USN carriers maybe the strongest, most sea worthy and best ships built today, a battleship is only ship I could think of, that can surpass an USN carrier strength . USN carriers are built to a much higher stander than a DDG-51 class ship. Also take in mind that an USN carrier are among the worlds largest ships , they are also widest ships ever built. Also take in mind USN carriers, are some of the fastest ships built, it take a lot of power to move a 80,000 to 100,000 ton ship at 30+ knots. To sum up what I am trying to say, it takes a lot of money and time to build an USN carrier, so they have to build them to last 50 years. You can build a DDG 51 class ship are any small boy in no time.
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:26 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 23):
15,000 tons is substantially bigger. The ships are substantially longer and wider as well.

Point taken. But I doubt a nation that can afford to operate a CVF could not afford to operate a Forrestal or Kitty Hawk class carrier.

Quoting A342 (Reply 22):
What about India?

Sooner or later they will be able to operate their own super carrier(s). I just don't see it happen in the near future. And I wouldn't call the Gorshkov a super carrier (while the CVF seems to be very close).

pelican

[Edited 2007-08-11 00:33:45]
 
da man
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:27 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:02 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 19):
I thought we offered a couple of the older attack carriers, Bennington and Hornet IIRC. They were in good shape at the time and could have been used with F-4s which the RN was employing on their fleet carriers.



Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
DL021, interesting, would they have needed modification for F-4's though?
I understood the ones offered retained F-8's.

GDB is correct I believe. The Essex class carriers (of which Bennington [CV-20] and Hornet [CV-12]) were members of retained the F-8 when the rest of the fleet (Midway and Forrestal + Kitty Hawk + Enterprise) transitioned to the F-4 because the carriers were too small or the F-4 weighed too much to operate off the Essex class. IIRC - I have been to the Lexington (CV-16) many times and have asked many questions.
War Eagle!
 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:39 am

BigJKU, but the RN last operated a conventional carrier in 1978, 36 years on from CVF's planned commissioning.
To get the project approved, the aircraft had to be common with the RAF, who see F-35B as a Harrier replacement.

The RN no doubt, are aware of the range/payload advantages of F-35C, but they have come to like the attributes of VSTOL, higher sortie rate, much easier (and safer) operations with fewer limits (the Argentines planned to use their carrier based A-4's to attack on 2nd May 1982, but not enough wind over deck, so attack cancelled, the Southern part of their pincer attack, the Belgrano gets sunk, the carrier gets the hell out of there).

They might have come to VSTOL out of subterfuge, out of not having any real choice if they wanted to overturn government policy and retain a jet fixed wing carrier capability-however residual, but they have, through early combat experience, come to like it. Made all the more like-able by the fact that anything probably would never have happened.

F-35B will be a massive step up from the Harrier, LO, supersonic, better range and payload, that is what they want, what is realistic and affordable to ask for, they are not trying to totally emulate a USN CVBG, even if a CVF group will have essentially all the same elements.
It was by no means certain that a conventional CVF would have made it to being approved for production, in any case, F-35C looks to be later in production than F-35B, so having to struggle on with then aging, limited Harriers and aging, small ships, would have gone on longer.

They went for gold plating in the 60's, and ended up with nothing, I doubt that has been forgotten.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:52 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 30):
so having to struggle on with then aging, limited Harriers and aging, small ships, would have gone on longer.

Even that wasn't an option. The Sea Harriers have already gone, the RN taking the hit of a capability gap by foregoing a potential Sea Harrier upgrade in order to get CVF confirmed. The remaining Harriers are hardly ideal for carrier borne operations.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:22 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
I doubt any country will want to go through a very expensive refit of a 40+ year old ship.

They did in the past... The USN sold quite a few carriers in the past, mainly ex-WW2 Essex class fleet carriers which were laid up in the 1950s and '60s and sold to other countries.
Brazil, Argentina, the Netherlands, and others used them.

Many countries still use WW2 vintage destroyers and amphibs purchased from the USN in the 1960s and '70s to this day.
I wish I were flying
 
da man
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:27 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:48 pm

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 32):
The USN sold quite a few carriers in the past, mainly ex-WW2 Essex class fleet carriers which were laid up in the 1950s and '60s and sold to other countries.
Brazil, Argentina, the Netherlands, and others used them.

I think you're mistaken. None of the Essex-class carriers were sold to foreign operators. The countries you listed operated surplus British carriers IIRC. When the Essex class carriers were laid up in the time frame, most were overhauled and recommissioned for another decade as ASW carriers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_class_carrier#Post-war_rebuilds
War Eagle!
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:32 pm

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 32):
The USN sold quite a few carriers in the past, mainly ex-WW2 Essex class fleet carriers which were laid up in the 1950s and '60s and sold to other countries.
Brazil, Argentina, the Netherlands, and others used them.

Those where all british carriers, vessels of the same class also ended up in the navies of Canada and Australia.


Only the escort carriers where sold off by the US.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
desertjets
Posts: 7587
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:48 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 34):
Only the escort carriers where sold off by the US.

Partially correct, the three CVs sold to foreign navies were Independence class CVLs, not the CVEs.

CVL 24 USS Belleau Wood --> France as the Bois Belleau
CVL 27 USS Langley --> France as the Lafayette
CVL 28 USS Cabot --> Spain as the Dedalo
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:58 am

I agree Banco, it was a mistake I think, to buy new Sea Harriers in the 1990's, instead the Sea Vixen radar/AMRAAM missile should have been integrated on new Harriers, the type based on AV-8B built for the RAF.
Since these had far greater ability to absorb more powerful engines (as is happening with GR.7 to GR.7, and avionics, in fact the USMC has done similar with the AV-8B+, but with APG-65 radars, that and AMRAAM have been integrated on to similar 2nd generation Harriers for the Spanish and Italians.
As well as having much better range and payload.

Even so, there is limited Harrier production still ongoing, BAE are delivering new rear fuselages for UK Harriers.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers?

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:23 am

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 35):
Partially correct, the three CVs sold to foreign navies were Independence class CVLs, not the CVEs.

CVL 24 USS Belleau Wood --> France as the Bois Belleau
CVL 27 USS Langley --> France as the Lafayette
CVL 28 USS Cabot --> Spain as the Dedalo

I stand corrected.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wezgulf3 and 11 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos