Navy could bring Kitty Hawk out of mothballs

[tynopik]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...tired-carrier-uss-kitty-hawk-out-of-mothballs

US Navy Looking At Bringing Retired Carrier USS Kitty Hawk Out Of Mothballs
Bringing back its last operational conventionally powered supercarrier would help the Navy make its 12 carrier fleet goal a reality.

As the US Navy struggles to figure out how it can reach its new goal of a 355 ship fleet—up from 275 ships today—as quickly as possible, it has been looking towards extending the life of the ships it already has in service. Now the service is also examining the possibility of selectively pulling ships out of mothballs, refurbishing them, and sending them back to the fleet. One ship in particular may have a better shot than others at sailing the high seas once again—the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)—America's last operational conventionally fueled supercarrier.

. . .

Even just the possibility of Kitty Hawk returning to the fleet is likely music to the ears of those in Mayport, Florida, who have been begging the US Navy to return a supercarrier to the naval station there. The facility was never upgraded to support nuclear propulsion, so after the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) was retired in 2007, it has been without a resident supercarrier, which hurt the local economy and also has strategic implications as well. The Kitty Hawk would be an ideal candidate to call the base home without the need for major infrastructure investments.

. . .

Aside from the Kitty Hawk, the best candidates for regeneration are the ships that could take on lower-end tasks, and thus not require the huge amount of technological investment as their more advanced cousins require. Primarily this includes the Navy's mothballed logistical ships and especially its Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates.

 

[PottedMeat]

i thought the punchline would be
Navy could bring Kitty Hawk out of mothballs...
SO THEY CAN TEST THEIR NEW WEAPONS ON IT

 

[kage69]

Il Douche just wants more steam.

Maybe he'll offer it to Russia. I'm sure they'd love to have one that doesn't trail smoke and need to be escorted by tugs wherever it goes. We're all about helping the Russians now right?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Probably would make more sense and be cheaper to recommission a couple of the Tarawas and use 'em as escorts for CVNs, and/or as Helicopter/ASW carriers. But those aren't sexy.

 

[BoomerD]

That would change the look of the waterfront here...I drive by the USS Kitty Hawk a couple of times each week. They've shipped 2 mothballed carriers off for destruction since we got here. I'd rather see them refurbished and used than cut into pieces...when it's feasible.

 

[KMFJD]

Any chance they pull a BB out of mothballs for this 355 ship navy like Ronnie Raygun did?

 

[dainthomas]

Any chance they pull a BB out of mothballs for this 355 ship navy like Ronnie Raygun did?

Wouldn't surprise me. They'll just forget about all the sailors that got killed last time.

 

[Thebobo]

Lol they're looking for projects now? Make the military industrial complex rich(er) again.

 

[Banana]

It'll be sent to the Persian Gulf as a sacrificial lamb. "Remember the Maine!"

 

[CrackRabbit]

I took a tour of the Midway last year, the thing that struck me as the most odd about it is that the engine room still smelled like diesel, overpoweringly so.
This is a ship that hasn't moved on its own power in 25 years.
I can't imagine what it would be like for the sailors in a conventionally powered ship when it's running.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Actually, using conventionally powered carriers as drone-only ships might be an interesting idea worth checking out. You can fit a lot more armed drones on them then aircraft and the pilots all stay on the ship. Just mount 20-30 Phalanx batteries around the deck ...

 

[Ventanni]

Any chance they pull a BB out of mothballs for this 355 ship navy like Ronnie Raygun did?

Oh man, I love the battleships. But aside from the obviously technological challenges and cost to refurbish such old warships (they'd need *a lot* of overhaul to get running again), I've often thought of the political ramifications of what it might send world powers to reactivate these capital behemoths. Carriers, despite being more expensive to operate, can carry out such a large variety of missions. They can support an invasion, hunt submarines, rescue stranded ships, act as a deterrent, and even function in a humanitarian crisis. Their capabilities are as versatile as the type of aircraft they carry. A battleship, on the other hand, is hyper specialized to do one thing, and that's to obliterate anything within a 20 mile range of a coast line. Not even a carrier can keep up with the ordinance delivery capabilities of a battleship. The political shock waves a move like this would send to China, given our squabbles in the South China Sea, and North Korea would only indicate future aggression.

 

[Darwin333]

Oh man, I love the battleships. But aside from the obviously technological challenges and cost to refurbish such old warships (they'd need *a lot* of overhaul to get running again), I've often thought of the political ramifications of what it might send world powers to reactivate these capital behemoths. Carriers, despite being more expensive to operate, can carry out such a large variety of missions. They can support an invasion, hunt submarines, rescue stranded ships, act as a deterrent, and even function in a humanitarian crisis. Their capabilities are as versatile as the type of aircraft they carry. A battleship, on the other hand, is hyper specialized to do one thing, and that's to obliterate anything within a 20 mile range of a coast line. Not even a carrier can keep up with the ordinance delivery capabilities of a battleship. The political shock waves a move like this would send to China, given our squabbles in the South China Sea, and North Korea would only indicate future aggression.

Battleships are, in my non-military opinion, completely irrelevant in the modern day. We don't have huge battles on the seas anymore and their relatively short range makes their usefulness at supporting land operations limited. Even in a sea battle, when your opponent can stay completely out of your range and lob missiles at you, it's kind of hard to see how you could win that fight. With that said, they are some badass ships though and I would have loved to see one of them firing those massive guns.

 

[Ruptga]

Battleships are, in my non-military opinion, completely irrelevant in the modern day. We don't have huge battles on the seas anymore and their relatively short range makes their usefulness at supporting land operations limited. Even in a sea battle, when your opponent can stay completely out of your range and lob missiles at you, it's kind of hard to see how you could win that fight. With that said, they are some badass ships though and I would have loved to see one of them firing those massive guns.

Yeah, there's no point to battleships outside of photo ops and other propaganda, hasn't been in fifty years or more. That said, everyone does love some good propaganda...

 

[BarkingGhostar]

They could replace the traditional guns with giant rail guns and launch broken cars at the enemy.

 

[KMFJD]

Hmm how about turning it or one of the BB's into a giant floating battery for a railgun?

 

[edcoolio]

If they are going to recommission a carrier, it should be the USS Enterprise.

It is large and relatively speaking, modern. It is also nuclear powered. It could be refueled and would be good to go for a very long time.

 

[Ruptga]

They could replace the traditional guns with giant rail guns and launch broken cars at the enemy.

Hmm how about turning it or one of the BB's into a giant floating battery for a railgun?

What working railgun would we install? Besides that, the main weakness of old ships is that they were made with much lighter electrical requirements in mind. Retrofitting them with the modern systems that are necessary and keeping them all running is hard (expensive) enough, and you guys want to install something that isn't ready for production and takes electrical requirements to an entirely different level?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

What working railgun would we install? Besides that, the main weakness of old ships is that they were made with much lighter electrical requirements in mind. Retrofitting them with the modern systems that are necessary and keeping them all running is hard (expensive) enough, and you guys want to install something that isn't ready for production and takes electrical requirements to an entirely different level?

They'd have to rewire some of it, but in terms of raw power output...

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/CV2/Tacoma/index.html

 

[Ruptga]

They'd have to rewire some of it, but in terms of raw power output...

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/CV2/Tacoma/index.html

Yeah, some ships are designed with electric motors powered by turbines, they'd have a much better chance of being worthwhile refits. I believe our newest ships are being built that way with the expectation that they will eventually have even more radar and communications equipment in the future, and yeah railguns are a possibility.

 

[foghorn67]

If they are going to recommission a carrier, it should be the USS Enterprise.

It is large and relatively speaking, modern. It is also nuclear powered. It could be refueled and would be good to go for a very long time.

Nope. It's the hardest carrier to recore, even after a modernization conversion. Way easier to fire up the Kitty Hawk. Putting the E back into commission would take about 3-4x the time.

 

[edcoolio]

What working railgun would we install? Besides that, the main weakness of old ships is that they were made with much lighter electrical requirements in mind. Retrofitting them with the modern systems that are necessary and keeping them all running is hard (expensive) enough, and you guys want to install something that isn't ready for production and takes electrical requirements to an entirely different level?

Agreed.

This is why it should be nuclear powered

Nope. It's the hardest carrier to recore, even after a modernization conversion. Way easier to fire up the Kitty Hawk. Putting the E back into commission would take about 3-4x the time.

It is difficult, and would take a few years, but I still believe it is worth it.

You would have the electrical production necessary for modern systems and the size necessary. In fact, it is the only nuclear carrier with more than 2 reactors (total of 8). If these were even moderately upgraded, it could serve as a full on replacement for new construction with top of the line modern electrical systems.

It would really be cool if they were to use the E as a technological testbed. That was kind of its original role anyways. Strip out the steam launching systems, only manned VTOL aircraft, many small electric rail launchers for a large number drone carrier force, and combine it with a huge floating ABM firebase. So many creative possibilities.

I guess what I'm driving at is that the Navy is now getting hit for not planning ahead. They have been decommissioning serviceable ships and it costing them more in the long term. This is more of a semi-permanent solution than firing up a relic that still uses old-school oil fueled steam boilers and turbines.

Maybe the right solution is both. Fire up the Kitty Hawk for 8 years while the E is getting ready, then do a proper mothball of the KH and use the E for another 25.

Good discussion.

 

[tynopik]

Enterprise would require so much work you're essentially building a new carrier. At which point you might as well build a new carrier.

 

[Ruptga]

Enterprise would require so much work you're essentially building a new carrier. At which point you might as well build a new carrier.

Which we already are, the new Enterprise is scheduled to be done in 8 years. Also, the old Enterprise is nuclear powered, but you don't just upgrade reactors like you do RAM, and most of its steam can't even be diverted for electricity. Most nuclear ships are set up so that most of the steam goes straight from the reactor to the propeller turbines, they might have electrical generators capable of handling a third of what the reactors can produce.

The real solution is to plan ahead for needs and design/build ships for those needs, full stop. We're only having this discussion because some blowhard suddenly wants to be able to brag about having a ###-ship navy, as though the number of ships actually matters. It's an extreme example, but if you could drop just two modern destroyers into the Atlantic in 1850 you would own that entire ocean and a sizable chunk of either Europe or the Americas, depending on your focus.

 

[Genx87]

Battleships are, in my non-military opinion, completely irrelevant in the modern day. We don't have huge battles on the seas anymore and their relatively short range makes their usefulness at supporting land operations limited. Even in a sea battle, when your opponent can stay completely out of your range and lob missiles at you, it's kind of hard to see how you could win that fight. With that said, they are some badass ships though and I would have loved to see one of them firing those massive guns.

Battleships didnt have as much value as people believe in WWII neither. The majority of ours were used for shore bombardment. Something that is now done with cruise missiles. Bringing a BB out of retirement is a waste of resources. Like bringing one of these old conventional carriers out of retirement. This has job program written all over it. This article even talks about the economic impact of having a conventional carrier task force in this port.