John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Kitty Hawk returning...for how long and at what cost? The BB return was a rather expensive exercise. Mind you, the collapse of oil prices minimizes the operational costs compared to the $100+/barrel days.
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,222
The Iowa's were brought back at about the cost of a new OHP, and their refits were fairly limited as a result. They were also brought back because they were the quickest and easiest ways to get more than a handful of then new Tomahawk missiles to sea. Once enough VLS equipped Tico's and refitted Spruances were around they were once again tossed back into mothballs.
Bringing Kitty back would seem to be a pretty big effort, but as an additional carrier would be a huge asset.
Lightly upgraded FFG's would be handy fill ins for LCS ships.Not sure if I would recommend a FFG up.
If the US is desperate, maybe they could have a few of the RAN's old FFG's, they have already been upgraded.
No-one's flown a Super Hornet off the Kitty Hawk so there'd be a spot of deck trials and maybe some changes or adaptations beyond just bringing her back out.
So..she's been decommissioned, picked over for parts for nearly twenty years, her boilers are all steam and no-one serving is familiar with them, she'd need a total refit and her manning requirements compared to a modern GT powered conventional carrier will be stratospheric.
Sounds like a great idea.
Actually they have flown Super Hornets off of Kitty Hawk. Not sure on other squadron's but VFA-102 after transitioning from Tomcats to Super hornets (Around 2002-2003) was based aboard CV-63 from 2004 - 2007.
Also hasn't been quite 20 years since 2009.. just saying
In regards to manning your right. Even if the spares where available to bring her back into service (though I don't know if they had the foresight to pick part all the other vessels) the crew requirements alone would make that difficult. On the other hand would a similar sized crew be required if they bought her back as a helicopter carrier?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I guess one would have to know about what has already been utilized from Kitty Hawk's sister ships. As for the oil fired steam boilers, finding knowledgeable crew is likely going to be tough. IIRC, when the BBs were reactivated some veterans were recruited to get things started. It has only been a little under 10 years since decommissioning so maybe some people could be found ( bored old retired guys looking for some excitement )
)
You might be able to cut it back if it was just operating F-35B's and/or Helicopters. But the crewing would still be significant. You might be able to save a couple of hundred out of a crew of thousands.Actually they have flown Super Hornets off of Kitty Hawk. Not sure on other squadron's but VFA-102 after transitioning from Tomcats to Super hornets (Around 2002-2003) was based aboard CV-63 from 2004 - 2007.
Also hasn't been quite 20 years since 2009.. just saying
In regards to manning your right. Even if the spares where available to bring her back into service (though I don't know if they had the foresight to pick part all the other vessels) the crew requirements alone would make that difficult. On the other hand would a similar sized crew be required if they bought her back as a helicopter carrier?
But will there be assets to operate from them and pilots to fly them and crew to maintain them.
If the US was desperate about a carrier, they could probably acquire a Queen Elizabeth carrier a head of building something of that type of design.
Grounded: Nearly two-thirds of US Navy’s strike fighters can’t fly
Steam boilers are still around in the older LHD's. It wouldn't be impossible to find crew but it would likely be at the expense of Amphibious assets in the short term. But being a carrier, it may be the only way to get another one in service in any reasonable period.
For the FFG's. Why bother. You could just build new ships, even new FFG's most likely faster than updating the older rusty ones. But the Navy could build something like the NSC but slightly longer. The NSC can handle a 12 cell launcher. Even if these were short term builds, I am sure a lot of countries would look up picking up low mileage NSC type frigates.
Beyond LCS: Navy Looks To Foreign Frigates, National Security Cutter « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
I think all of these ideas are completely nuts. It smells of trying to artificially meet numbers with no mind of actual capability. What you would do is trying to get maximum capability with what you have now and plan for the future.
The 350-ship fleet Trump promised looks like a dream, The budget is prioritizing readiness and fixing areas that have been neglected in years past which is sensible. Where will the money come from to pay for all those new ships and operate the expanded fleet?
https://www.navytimes.com/articles/...rd-spencer-faces-task-of-rebuilding-the-fleet
https://www.navytimes.com/articles/...rd-spencer-faces-task-of-rebuilding-the-fleet
t68
Well-Known Member
You would have to think it might be better to bang out a couple of UK CVF the USMC are going to more STOVL jets than spots at sea, how long would it take to bring Kitty Hawk back for how long?
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
For arguments sake I dug up the Navy's inactive fleet listings as of the close of fiscal 2016 (27 Sept, 2016):
NAVSEA INACTIVE FLEET INVENTORY
From the inventory listing, what I would term possible recoverable assets:
There are a number of other lists, but those are basically SCRAP, SINKEX, DONATION, and being used by others for training/testing. Three Tico's and a number of Perry's held for scrap, so you can figure those have been picked pretty clean. As well a few Perry's held for SINKEXs
Of the FMS ships, Turkey has been wanting 3 Perry's and the tug. Senate failed to pass transfer of the tug, Halyburton & Thach (disposed of via SINKEX 2016) in 2015
Now, if someone is thinking of bringing back Kitty Hawk as a Sea Control Ship, wouldn't Peleliu make more sense? She's a decade younger and been sitting idle for less time.
NAVSEA INACTIVE FLEET INVENTORY
From the inventory listing, what I would term possible recoverable assets:
RETENTION ASSETS
FOREIGN MILITARY SALES
There are a number of other lists, but those are basically SCRAP, SINKEX, DONATION, and being used by others for training/testing. Three Tico's and a number of Perry's held for scrap, so you can figure those have been picked pretty clean. As well a few Perry's held for SINKEXs
Of the FMS ships, Turkey has been wanting 3 Perry's and the tug. Senate failed to pass transfer of the tug, Halyburton & Thach (disposed of via SINKEX 2016) in 2015
Now, if someone is thinking of bringing back Kitty Hawk as a Sea Control Ship, wouldn't Peleliu make more sense? She's a decade younger and been sitting idle for less time.
t68
Well-Known Member
Could be a role reversal between USN and USMC, navy s going to be hard pressed to fill all the avalible slots in the future but the USMC will have an exsess of aircraft and not enough spots.
John McCain's Plan Calls for More Mini-Aircraft Carriers. Here's What He's Talking About.
John McCain was pushing forward with more of the America class. You could have three America's for one Ford carrier, and still be ahead by over 500 in crew.
A fleet of ~4-6 light carriers would mean the US would be able to offer a lot more carrier power, over a much larger portion of the world. Also when surging carriers it would allow a lot more flexibility. They could operate with the traditional super carriers, helping to provide 24 hr operations in a region, or an additional vector for air. Or free up a regular carrier.
But McCain and Trump don't seem to be getting along.
t68
Well-Known Member
Only real problem I see with that plan is the gator fleet can't keep up with the fleet carriers, they could use a modified UK CVF as escort (D4) carriers primarily for ASW work or their eyes of the Fleet with more unmanned assets leaving the Nimitz/Fords as floating large air bases at sea.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
It's not really Senator McCain's plan. Sen. McCain has voiced support (Big Wars, Small Ships: CSBA’s Alternative Navy Praised By Sen. McCain) for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments(CSBA) plan
Restoring American Seapower: A New Fleet Architecture for the United States Navy
The plan doesn't call for replacing any number of CVNs with CVLs. But, replacing all LHA/Ds with CVLs. And growing the gator (Small Deck Amphibious Ships) fleet (LPD, LSD/LX(R)) to support transporting the Marines & rolling stock that won't be carried by the new CVLs.
So, the typical makeup of the Amphibious Ready Group would go from:
1x LHA, 1x LPD, 1x LSD; to 1x LHA, 1x LPD, 2x LSD/LX(R).
LHA/Ds would serve as interim CVLs until purpose built ships (with catapult & arresting gear) are acquired.
The Popular Mechanics article make assumptions that aren't in Sen. McCain's proposal. The 3 CVL-to-1 CVN is never mentioned. That's just PM doing BS math.
Plus, 3 CVLs require around an additional 500 personnel. You read it wrong.
3600 + (500 x 3) = 5100
Plus, with the CSBA plan you need to man 10 additional LSD/LX(R) at around 300-400 personnel each.
The CSBA CVLs are equipped with catapults. SuperHornets and Hawkeyes will be accommodated but which F-35 will they carry? The Marines will have
F-35C squadrons already allocated to the CVN fleet. Will the Navy pay for additional F-35Cs for the CVLs?
Where will the bulk of the Marines TacAir comprised of F-35Bs launch from? Or will it be a mix of SHs and F-35Bs? If so, then it;s an expensive proposition just to launch limited capability 4Gen SHs as F-35Bs are STOVL. There's also the matter of operating CAT/TRAP simultaneously with STOVL aircraft which may not be practical.
F-35C squadrons already allocated to the CVN fleet. Will the Navy pay for additional F-35Cs for the CVLs?
Where will the bulk of the Marines TacAir comprised of F-35Bs launch from? Or will it be a mix of SHs and F-35Bs? If so, then it;s an expensive proposition just to launch limited capability 4Gen SHs as F-35Bs are STOVL. There's also the matter of operating CAT/TRAP simultaneously with STOVL aircraft which may not be practical.
Another common-sense idea that is being well received. Forward-deploy more forces, leverage Distributed Lethality concept, modernize existing ships, NIFC-CA... The iNavy concept aims to shortcut/fast track force enhancements that are affordable and achievable.
How to fast-track to an improved Navy
How to fast-track to an improved Navy
There are some downsides to be considered with such a plan. The first would be the political and sovereignty issues in creating extra overseas bases to accommodate it and second, it involves considerable extra personnel expenses. I assume crews in forward deployed ships would have their families moved to the forward bases.
I'm sure these could be resolved.
The extension of distributed lethality is something all western navies need to consider especially those who have been tardy in introducing CEC capability, although I'm not sure how that could fit with the Royal Fleet Auxilliary concept.
It's hard to take a publication seriously when it shows a picture of two French FREMMs, correctly identified - & says they were built by Fincantieri. Then says that Fincantieri builds FREMMs for the French & Italian navies.
Further down, it says that plug & play Stanflex modules are a concept that's proved problematic on LCS - as if the LCS 'modules' bore any resemblance to Stanflex. Rather missed the point there.
They also seem to say that non-US frigates have area air defence systems but the USN is looking for something with air defence between the LCS fit & Aegis. Doh! So ships with Aster 15, or Sea Ceptor, or ESSM, don't fit that description?
And so on . . .
I agree with your summation and doubts about this approach. Essentially what they are looking for could be 'theoretically' covered by a number of euro designs (and even the Australian future frigate .... noting my previous tounge in cheek comment in this regard) but there is going to be a degree of rework on weapons and systems. So basically there will be development cost.
As noted by others I cannot see Congress agreeing to this unless they can prove US content in the design.
They are in a bit of a pickle on this one as the time (and cost) to design and construct a 'new' vessel is going to be a factor IMHO. This may be why regenerating old ships (FFG's) may be considered.
I am watching with interest