Cactus

Maybe you know when I am mean, maybe you don't: It all depends on whether you caught the post I deleted to avoid just this line of talk.

gunnut

The cost of refurbishing the JFK to acceptable standards, the cost of purchase, and the cost of operation for the first 10 years, can probably buy a brand new carrier (CVF) from the Brits.

How much life is left in the JFK? Maybe 20 years if you put a lot of money into maintenance? A brand new CVF can serve for probably 50 years.

Besides, having a big aircraft carrier will tie up a majority of IN's escorts. You will have effectively a single task force to patrol the entire mission space.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

SteeljawScribe

There is no economical means to resurrect JFK as an operational CV - she was a maintenance nightmare not just in the last few years of her life, but even when I was flying off her back in the late 80's. The only thing she is good for now is as a museum or as a reef - preferably as the former...

__________________
- SJS

Dreadnought

The cost of the tow as well. Figuring a carrier tow somewhere in the vacinity of two million if by private tug operators or much less pretty much free if the Navy does it. But thats doubtful that it will be the Navy doing the towing so anyone wanting her would foot the tow bill alone.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

gunnut

I figure if the JFK is to be sold, she would be refurbished here, with the new owner's sailors along side for training purposes. She would then head back under her own power.

Taiwan just did that for the 4 Kidd class destroyers. Their sailors were here for training and the refurbishing process. They then went back to Taiwan under their own power.

SteeljawScribe

*Lots* of differences between refurb of the Kidd-class (aka Ayatollah) DDGs and the JFK, beginning with a powerplant that is more modern and readily replaced/serviced (gas turbines) vice the steam plant on JFK, and work on the catapults alone is enough to make the stoutest of hearts quake and faint away

Look, overhauling a CV, even one in good condition, is an extraordinary job and rife with opportunities for problems (just ask the Russians about their work on the ex-Gorshkov for India...). I've done time in the yard on a nuke COH (not refuel, thank goodness) and even a year after the overhaul (which by most observations was a good one) we were still dealing with maintenance issues that weren't fixed until she went in for her refuel/COH.

A conventional CV is maintenance/manpower intensive and requires extensive shore support facilities as well. We didn't jump from the Langley to Nimitz overnight and it is going to be a long, deliberative process for any other nation to develop, build, deploy and operate a conventional (catapults & arrest. gear) carrier. Every nation that has sought to add this capability to their fleets has encoutered this lesson -- some gave up, some opted for a lesser capability and others have chosen to make/continue the investment because fo the real value and flexible power this big beasts bring to the table. India and China, like Russia, Britain, France, the US and others before them, will become intimately acquainted with this cost/benefit equation as well...

- SJS

gunnut

So would you say it's cheaper for India to buy the CVF and operate helos and STOVL jets than to buy the JFK and refurbishing her?

I agree with you on the hidden cost of maintenance for an aircraft carrier, especially on an old carrier like the JFK. The Thai navy bought a small carrier and doesn't have the money to operate her. She is now the most expensive royal yacht in the world.

SteeljawScribe

So would you say it's cheaper for India to buy the CVF and operate helos and STOVL jets than to buy the JFK and refurbishing her?

Absolutely. Doesn't make sense at this stage to try and make the leap back to a full-up conventional CV and airwing yet. BTW, India has an interesting history re. CVs and fixed wing assetts

Officer of Engineers

Sir,

On a somewhat related topic, I take it you're not one of those expecting to see the VARYAG sailing out with a Chinese fixed wing regt anytime soon.

__________________
Chimo

Jay

Sir,
You have a pretty eloquent website. Thanks for putting it up.

__________________
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

wabpilot

That is an old wives tale at best. Chakri Nareubet is actually very much operational and used for her intended purpost which is sea control. Every Thai Navy flag ship has had royal quarters. Chakri Nareubet is no different. However, the royal family's use is rare. The Thai Navy routinely puts Chakri Nareubet to sea. And her small air group is fully qualified. Given how difficult it is to fly the AV-8C, Thai naval aviation has a lot to be proud of.

gunnut

Really? I have to update my data. I read that either from globalsecurity or a book I bought on warships.

Thank you sir.

SteeljawScribe

You would be correct in that assessment... I'm thinking 2012 at the earliest for any kind of noteworthy operations (e.g., extended CV trials) - CQ would come later than 2012 and*that* will be interesting to watch...

P.S. Thanks Jay, much appreciated.

Adux

I am happy my topic is going on well..lol
We can all dump JFK for the IN use theory. It doesnt make economic sense

Isnt the French CVF using catapult method, while brits use the STOBAR.

SteeljawScribe

They are indeed -- one of the centerpoints for design is the E-2 Hawkeye the French Navy will employ for some time to come. Supposedly there is a capabilty for backfitting catapults to the RN CV, though that's an awful lot of steam pipes to be routed/fitted if they aren't already in place...