Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


US Navy News and updates

This is a discussion on US Navy News and updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Kitty Hawk returning...for how long and at what cost? The BB return was a rather expensive exercise. Mind you, the ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 4.00 average.
Old June 9th, 2017   #2221
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,390
Threads:
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.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2017   #2222
Super Moderator
Major General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,016
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
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.
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.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2017   #2223
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,922
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
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.
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2017   #2224
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 799
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan View Post
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?
vonnoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2017   #2225
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,922
Threads:
Ah, got my decom date wrong in that case

I'm not a fan of the idea, put it that way.
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2017   #2226
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,390
Threads:
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 )
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2017   #2227
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,764
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vonnoobie View Post
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?
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.

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.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2017   #2228
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: terra
Posts: 453
Threads:
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/t...ding-the-fleet
colay1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2017   #2229
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,762
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay1 View Post
Further to my previous post, the Navy is looking at tapping the mothball fleet to bump up fleet numbers. If the numbers work out then the USS Kitty Hawk may possibly return to active service. Older Ticos don't seem to be under consideration though some Perry-class frigates may be.

US Navy Looking At Bringing Retired Carrier USS Kitty Hawk Out Of Mothballs - The Drive
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?
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2017   #2230
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
FormerDirtDart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 206
Threads:
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:
RETENTION ASSETS
Quote:
Hull# & Vessel name - Loc - Decom/Inact
AOE 10 BRIDGE - BR - 30-Sep-2014
CV 63 KITTY HAWK - BR - 12-May-2009
LHA 1 TARAWA - PH - 31-Mar-2009
LHA 4 NASSAU - BO - 31-Mar-2011
LHA 5 PELELIU - PH - 31-Mar-2015
LPD 7 CLEVELAND - PH - 30-Sep-2011
LPD 8 DUBUQUE - BR - 30-Jun-2011
LPD 9 DENVER - PH - 14-Aug-2014
LPD 10 JUNEAU - PH - 31-Oct-2008
LPD 13 NASHVILLE - PA - 30-Sep-2009
FOREIGN MILITARY SALES
Quote:
Hull# & Vessel name - Loc - Decom/Inact – SECNAV Strike
ATF 170 MOHAWK - PA - 25-Aug-2005 - 31-Aug-2015 (it's a tugboat)
FFG 40 HALYBURTON - PA - 08-Sep-2014 - 08-Sep-2014
FFG 42 KLAKRING - PA - 22-Mar-2013 - 22-Mar-2013
FFG 45 DE WERT - PA - 04-Apr-2014 - 04-Apr-2014
FFG 48 VANDEGRIFT - PH - 19-Feb-2015 - 31-Mar-2015
FFG 49 ROBERT G BRADLEY - PA - 28-Mar-2014 - 28-Mar-2014
FFG 52 CARR - PA - 13-Mar-2013 - 13-Mar-2013
FFG 55 ELROD - PA - 30-Jan-2015 - 30-Jan-2015
FFG 56 SIMPSON - PA - 30-Sep-2015 - 30-Sep-2015
FFG 59 KAUFFMAN - PA - 21-Sep-2015 - 21-Sep-2015
FFG 60 RODNEY M DAVIS - BR - 31-Mar-2015 - 31-Mar-2015
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.
FormerDirtDart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2017   #2231
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: terra
Posts: 453
Threads:
I'm not convinced the Navy will go for F-35B on any reactivated vessel whether CV or LHA. To do so may threaten future CVN builds.
colay1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2017   #2232
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,762
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay1 View Post
I'm not convinced the Navy will go for F-35B on any reactivated vessel whether CV or LHA. To do so may threaten future CVN builds.
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.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2017   #2233
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,764
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
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?
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.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2017   #2234
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,762
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
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.

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.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2017   #2235
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
FormerDirtDart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 206
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
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.
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.
CSBA Proposed Fleet Composition.png
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
Quote:
Still, a force of America-class carriers might be more expensive to run on a daily basis just because of manpower costs: Ford has 4,660 crew overall. The three smaller carriers would have a total 3,600 crew members plus their air wing personnel, which would probably be at least another 500 or so each. That's at least another 500 personnel manning the smaller carriers—which, incidentally, could be sent to three different trouble spots around the world.
Plus, with the CSBA plan you need to man 10 additional LSD/LX(R) at around 300-400 personnel each.
FormerDirtDart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:36 AM.