![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Actually the idea, similar to bringing back a battleship and using more
LHA's then LHA(R)'s is a cost saving approach that tied to killing the LCS (done for all the good reasons) moving to the DD(X) even more good reasons and carefully looking again at the CVN-21 would save some 15 to 20 billion dollars almost instantly The original argument for the JFK was a political one to save Mayport and the Florida jobs but the Navy was very serious about killing it knowing full well that it would produce results they did not want - the new nuclear Navy was the plan and the CVA would not fit and they were right about this. So the nuclear carrier force developed into a high speed open ocean race club where Hornet maintainability could be exploited to the full and two carriers with additional crew could do the work of the traditional three - not bad and should be continued - but what about the littorals and COIN However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick wall in sustainability and flat out speed - the trumped deck was said to cost $600 million and four years ago that was an enormous cost that made the Navy happy they could put the conventional aberration to bed. Well as it would, CVN21 costs went from 3 to 5 to 7 and now heading for $10 billion and suddenly the $600 million for the JFK looks real cheap. The enter the LHA(R) and the Marines looking at it as their trump card out of Naval aviation with an all STOVL force their own ships and a new small carrier with a tactical fighter complement - ooops - did I say "small carrier" - holy **** says the Navy this is not what we want so they went pushing to get the Marines into the F/A-18E/F business so a common Marine and Navy aviation would service all 10 big carriers - Marine said no, dug in their heals and it all went to rest on the JSF program. Had the F-35B been on schedule and working (you can bet the Navy test and evaluation people really are doing a good job with this one) and the LHA(R) not turned into greed-city things might have gone nice for the Marines and the Navy would enter the new world with a death fight over large nuclear or small conventional carriers - which in short is a loose lose situation because sooner if not real soon the submarines will replace carriers as the most dominate capital ship as the carriers did the battleships in 1941. So you ask - how can the Marines save themselves from themselves - because you see the group of Marine generals who fathers the JSF and the LHA(R) idea are determined to end Marine tactical aviation then acquiesce to the Navy's insistence of merging the aviation branches and right now Marine F-18 squadrons fly at reduced G and about one a year will retire with no replacement and the Harriers are a toss up for anyone. On the training side more and more Marines lose currency or even familiarization with the carrier. So we could modernize the JFK and make it a conventional assault aviation ship, take on new F/A-18E/F and G's, and modernize Marine aviations with the generals digging in their heals - its possible and may be done in the next administration. The savings are enormous and we need the cash now and we need to look to the advanced threats down the road a bit and we need to deal with COIN which we have put off for 5 years with this intramural sparring - if the JFK is not sunk like the Oriskany, then there is always a chance and the Kitty hawk could follow, one per fleet. This also doubles MV-22 production and you can see the vulnerability still exists low to the ground but the Iraq and Afghan wars have all but ended the helicopter as a combat attack platform - we need a new platform a cross between the A-10 and the Apache - a Blitz Fighter as some call it - and guess what - the simple fact that nothing could directly escort the MV-22 right now is paramount to the fact that the planning was selectively biased against doing what is needed for COIN. In short - the whole shipbuilding world is a mess but it may be more from the fact that we do not know where our Naval forces are going while they seem to be on Pluto looking for a mission - the war is right in front of them ready to make toast of the thin-skinned and under protected ships "Mark Andrew Spence" wrote in message ... "Flashnews" wrote in message et... You have to look at this in a slightly different way . . . - A refurbished JFK could be cut down in boilers and screws, gutted of at least two cats, a full hospital added (remember the new hospital ship was killed) to where a less than 2000 people crew would run the vessel and much of the engineering and supply could be contractor. Marines, SOF, FBI, CIA, DEA, Allied SOF, etc. could all be provided C4ISR planning areas with build-up/tear-down living areas in bays and rooms created by gutting. The O-3 level would become for instance a farm of briefing and planning rooms being fed by the IOIC turned COAC This is the first time I have heard this proposal re the JFK. Is it your own idea, or are other groups advocating it as well? M.S. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bush Orders Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Eisenhower and Additional Navy Ships To Iran's Western Coast | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 15th 06 06:39 AM |
Navy Performs Maximum Range Test of Boeing SLAM-ER | KDR | Naval Aviation | 7 | June 13th 05 07:56 AM |
Boeing contract with Navy could help with Air Force tanker deal | Henry J Cobb | Military Aviation | 0 | June 20th 04 10:32 PM |
"Boeing sale to China skirts ban on technology transfer" | Mike | Military Aviation | 1 | February 6th 04 04:57 AM |
U.S. Navy ordered 210 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet attack jets | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 3 | December 31st 03 08:59 PM |