NATO sharing a Carrier question

[ltdanjuly10]

There are rumors going round that congress may direct the US Navy to drop an aircraft carrier.

There are about 17 E-3 Sentry's operated Jointly by NATO (although registered to Luxembourg) and If I recall correctly they are doing something similar with C-17 strategic air lifters.

Basically my question is what barriers are there towards NATO acquiring and jointly operating a former US carrier? The USN has offered a carrier to the Royal Navy in the past but nothing came of it (to expensive to operate). True the UK and France are acquiring some aircraft carriers of there own in the future but If the US donates a Carrier and NATO jointly foots the bill to operate it than they gain a large amount of capability for a decent price.

Once the Ford comes online that should leave 1 Nimitz surplus under a 10 carrier scheme, One that I am sure has useful life left in it.

 

[kato]

Basically my question is what barriers are there towards NATO acquiring and jointly operating a former US carrier?

The facts that NATO has:
a) no money
b) no military
c) no ship register
?

NATO owns exactly two ships. One of them flies the German flag, the other the Italian flag. Neither have military crews.

If the US donates a Carrier and NATO jointly foots the bill to operate it than they gain a large amount of capability for a decent price.

Including aircraft aboard and flight training for pilots, a Nimitz would cost around 500 million Dollar annually - unless a war breaks out of course, then that will rise rapidly. That's not a decent price for a capacity that's neither needed nor wanted.

Besides a "joint" carrier would basically just sit in port and rot. You will never get together the agreement of all NATO partners for a deployment unless we'd be facing another Cold War. And even then i'd give it rather low chances.

 

[Feanor]

Well aren't Britain and France closely cooperating on carrier ops, with Britain providing the escorts, while France provides the carrier? I recall reading about it but I don't remember the specifics. Granted this is mainly for training purposes...

 

[t68]

Well aren't Britain and France closely cooperating on carrier ops, with Britain providing the escorts, while France provides the carrier? I recall reading about it but I don't remember the specifics. Granted this is mainly for training purposes...

Yeah but the CDG would still be owned and under French control with RN/RAF using her for training ex till the 2 QE arrive.

A Nimitz class carrier under NATO ownership she is still owned by the US, unless a European country stumps up the $$$, the whole idea is that the US mothballs 1 carrier early to save money on the budget. I can just imagine the political interference from such a project, Italy, Spain France or the UK will not want to stump up any $$$ as the already have light carriers or building as part of their Navy.

 

[lucinator]

while a NATO carrier might not be that likely a EU carrier could in theory be possible, since the EU is the largest economy in the world and France does want another carrier.

 

[Belesari]

while a NATO carrier might not be that likely a EU carrier could in theory be possible, since the EU is the largest economy in the world and France does want another carrier.

Not happening right now even if the EU had some actucal unity on defense. Not happening right now anyway with all of europe cutting their militaries to peacekeeping levels basicly.

 

[surpreme]

while a NATO carrier might not be that likely a EU carrier could in theory be possible, since the EU is the largest economy in the world and France does want another carrier.

No, very highly unlikely to happen. It just to much for NATO now. Alot NATO countries are cutting there defense budgets. Not right now to much.!!

 

[AegisFC]

There are rumors going round that congress may direct the US Navy to drop an aircraft carrier.
.

Don't believe rumors.
Current US law states that the USN operate 11 carriers. Several years ago the USN wanted to decomm the Enterprise early because she is by far the most expensive ship in the fleet to operate (eight 1950's era reactors are not cheap to run) and to leave a gap until Ford comes on line. Congress denied permission several times.
Right now the idea being floated around is if cuts get bad enough is to just run the George Washington until her fuel is expended and just not do a refueling overhaul. However the USN has not asked for Congressional approval of this and it is doubtful they will give it.

 

[StobieWan]

There are rumors going round that congress may direct the US Navy to drop an aircraft carrier.

There are about 17 E-3 Sentry's operated Jointly by NATO (although registered to Luxembourg) and If I recall correctly they are doing something similar with C-17 strategic air lifters.

Basically my question is what barriers are there towards NATO acquiring and jointly operating a former US carrier? The USN has offered a carrier to the Royal Navy in the past but nothing came of it (to expensive to operate). True the UK and France are acquiring some aircraft carriers of there own in the future but If the US donates a Carrier and NATO jointly foots the bill to operate it than they gain a large amount of capability for a decent price.

Once the Ford comes online that should leave 1 Nimitz surplus under a 10 carrier scheme, One that I am sure has useful life left in it.

There's just no way this would be feasible - a Nimitz class would be a huge money sink - they're expensive to buy and to own and you'd never get the people to man it or the political will to use it.

 

[lucinator]

No, very highly unlikely to happen. It just to much for NATO now. Alot NATO countries are cutting there defense budgets. Not right now to much.!!

never said it was likely in the near future I just said is was possible in theory; in reality your right it will in all likelihood not happen for at least 15+ years, and that's only if the EU moves to a more cohesive military.

 

[ltdanjuly10]

So it's possible in theory (probably requiring a drastic change in the geopolitical sphere like the US going full isolationist) But given the current and forceable economic and political climate it's very unlikely to the point of impossibility.

Well thank you all for answering, my curiosity is quenched.

 

[tatra]

There are rumors going round that congress may direct the US Navy to drop an aircraft carrier.

There are about 17 E-3 Sentry's operated Jointly by NATO (although registered to Luxembourg) and If I recall correctly they are doing something similar with C-17 strategic air lifters.

Basically my question is what barriers are there towards NATO acquiring and jointly operating a former US carrier? The USN has offered a carrier to the Royal Navy in the past but nothing came of it (to expensive to operate). True the UK and France are acquiring some aircraft carriers of there own in the future but If the US donates a Carrier and NATO jointly foots the bill to operate it than they gain a large amount of capability for a decent price.

Once the Ford comes online that should leave 1 Nimitz surplus under a 10 carrier scheme, One that I am sure has useful life left in it.

Nuclear power.
A carrier 'for NATO - US' = for UK&FR i.e. just 2 nations not the entire membership.

 

[alexkvaskov]

Nuclear power.
A carrier 'for NATO - US' = for UK&FR i.e. just 2 nations not the entire membership.

With the QE2 class coming online by 2020, it's doubtful the UK will want to share carriers or spend any more money.

 

[ProM]

The UK could afford to design build and operate about 3 QEC class for the price of operating a single Nimitz, even if the latter was a free gift. If the RN cannot afford to run one, I seriously doubt that doubt that the rest of NATO could, even if politically it could cobble together a compromise CONOPS; crew and support solution. And that is without even thinking about aircraft and aircrew.

 

[lucinator]

With the QE2 class coming online by 2020, it's doubtful the UK will want to share carriers or spend any more money.

actually they are only going to operate the second one, the first one their building, then well nothing really, so technically they probably wouldn't mind selling it when the second one comes online.

 

[ProM]

actually they are only going to operate the second one, the first one their building, then well nothing really, so technically they probably wouldn't mind selling it when the second one comes online.

Most people think the money will be found to turn the first one to CATOBAR as well. The exact timing will be decided in the next 6 months or so I think

 

[lucinator]

Most people think the money will be found to turn the first one to CATOBAR as well. The exact timing will be decided in the next 6 months or so I think

cool. And welcome to the forum

 

[StobieWan]

actually they are only going to operate the second one, the first one their building, then well nothing really, so technically they probably wouldn't mind selling it when the second one comes online.

Officially I believe first off the block will be floated out as an LPH, and second will be launched with cat and trap - but there's a significant pressure to fit both with cat and trap. We'd need a replacement for HMS Ocean in any event (although running a QE as an LPH would be an expensive fix for that requirement)


No decision has been made however.

I don't believe selling either one is possible or desirable however - any country in the market for a carrier that size will want to home build (India and Brazil for instance - France has already concluded that a QE would cost too much to convert for their purposes)

Ian

 

[ProM]

Thanks for the welcome Lucinator

Before Fox had to resign as defence minister, he several times made statements referring to both carriers being converted, with his aides subsequently 'clarifying' his remarks. So there is a feeling that they want to convert both. Some feel that they will wait to get the money out of the 2015 SDSR. My gut feel is that they will get it sooner

 

[Sea Toby]

Once the Ford comes online that should leave 1 Nimitz surplus under a 10 carrier scheme, One that I am sure has useful life left in it.

But it will not have any useful life left. The two A4W reactor vessels would have to be replaced. No one is going to pay for two new reactors (that can last 40 years) unless they can expect another 40 years of service from the ship.

No ship nor its systems last 80 years, not even a Nimitz class.