Thread: Question: CV 67 for India

Originally Posted by 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...

Captain,

I do not mean to drag out the point but I would appreciate your expertise. The Ukrainian engineers who prep the VARYAG were adamant that the thing cannot be made operational again. Also, the Chinese failed to get Ukrainian powerplants for that thing and the only local technology that could supplement this is nuclear. However, we have not seen anything glowing green in the night just yet.

Sir, with those in mind, are you saying that the Chinese actually have a chance of making this thing work?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Captain,

I do not mean to drag out the point but I would appreciate your expertise. The Ukrainian engineers who prep the VARYAG were adamant that the thing cannot be made operational again. Also, the Chinese failed to get Ukrainian powerplants for that thing and the only local technology that could supplement this is nuclear. However, we have not seen anything glowing green in the night just yet.

Sir, with those in mind, are you saying that the Chinese actually have a chance of making this thing work?

mmm, I'll stand by my analysis - there's good enough reasons for the Ukrainian engineers to say what they did for other than operational issues (e.g., the reason cited by the Chinese for the purchase...), and leave it at that and 2012 is probably being generous...

Hey anychance the uk could have a decent carrier and fleet to go with it

All depends on the force projection question and the amount of funding available.

Something along those lines was discussed back on another carrier thread and some people thought that a joint effort by the Brits and the French was unthinkable and yet here we have it. The carriers didnt have to be specificly the same but afford basic structure,powerplant etc. characteristics to afford the higher build number ship wise which gave raise to a significant reduction in cost. However they will both foot the cost for their individual operation capabilities as far as fitting out a finished product is concerned. The other reductions in cost could come from some arrangement terms of basic training,development, refits and some other possibles.

[QUOTE=ND1980LS;400921]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The USN grapevine says that India wont be sold the carrier. JFK (CV67) is as Rick mentioned a maintenance wreck and would drain their defense budget through refits and updates. It is far easier for India to construct or have constructed for them a smaller attack carrier such as the Brits have done for some time although they are planning on new "heavies". As of today JFK is tied up in Norfolk. She was awaiting transportaion to Philadelphia's reserve basin but the trip was cancelled for now. Reasons being are as follows:

1) Boston wants her for a museum on the waterfront since JFK was from the region.

Living in the Boston area I'd love to see the JFK here as a museum. I've actually emailed Sen. Ted Kennedy's office mentioning this. Any ideas when this might occur ??...or does a ship stay in Reserve for a certain period of time ??

Well, IMO she will sit at Norfolk until she is officially released by the Navy and that is if she is to be released. If not she will go into storage in philly to sit for two years in reserve as she apparently has already been prepped in Florida for such a decision but this was done before the museum request. Even while sitting she is still an asset as in theory i.e. major floods or some natural disaster occurs she can be moved and provide shelter/medical and facilities for homeless etc in adverse conditions once provisioned for the job.

It will be interesting to see what happens to her because two years is not a long time for a retired u.s. carrier to stay afloat in storage but times are changing and they must adapt as well as their budgets.

Another interesting carrier point is that now there is only one conventional carrier at sea i believe and when thus retires next year were completely nuclear except for what lays in reserve if im not mistaken.

[QUOTE=Dreadnought;401634]

Originally Posted by ND1980LS

Well, IMO she will sit at Norfolk until she is officially released by the Navy and that is if she is to be released. If not she will go into storage in philly to sit for two years in reserve as she apparently has already been prepped in Florida for such a decision but this was done before the museum request. Even while sitting she is still an asset as in theory i.e. major floods or some natural disaster occurs she can be moved and provide shelter/medical and facilities for homeless etc in adverse conditions once provisioned for the job.

It will be interesting to see what happens to her because two years is not a long time for a retired u.s. carrier to stay afloat in storage but times are changing and they must adapt as well as their budgets.

Another interesting carrier point is that now there is only one conventional carrier at sea i believe and when thus retires next year were completely nuclear except for what lays in reserve if im not mistaken.

The sole remaining conventional CV is Kitty Hawk (forward deployed to Japan) who is making her last significant deployment as we speak. She in turn will be replaced by the George Washington.

I just do not see a future in reviving any of the conventional CV's - their steam plants are old, extremely manpower intensive to operate and hyper-expnsive to maintain/repair. Both KHK and JFK have also been the end for more than a few careers (including CO's) directly as a result of their difficulty to keep in combat-ready condition, absent heroic measures...

We should not need to revive them for any reasons outside of a major catastrophy (Flood/Earthquake/Sunami etc.) or perhaps worst case screnario War. We should be smart enough to keep them in reserve since they can offer many other services besides warfare. If needed the could be revived very quickly as far as power generation goes. Consider it a mobile Red Cross station. We wouldnt require the props to spin but the generators onboard could generate significant power to say a flood ravaged city/cities power grids etc. The hangars could be operating rooms the boilers providing heat/power, Birthing for the homeless and displaced. The mess and spaces affiliated for ready made kitchens. The flight deck for construction/demolision machinery basing and air operations for helo support.They can provide permamnent housing until some level of normality is restored. Plus they can carry all the stores needed in these times. Just tow in place and moore. Not that simple but reasonable as far as timing. It would be times such as this they would be well worth their cost to have in storage and somewhat prepped.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

We should not need to revive them for any reasons outside of a major catastrophy (Flood/Earthquake/Sunami etc.) or perhaps worst case screnario War. We should be smart enough to keep them in reserve since they can offer many other services besides warfare. If needed the could be revived very quickly as far as power generation goes. Consider it a mobile Red Cross station. We wouldnt require the props to spin but the generators onboard could generate significant power to say a flood ravaged city/cities power grids etc. The hangars could be operating rooms the boilers providing heat/power, Birthing for the homeless and displaced. The mess and spaces affiliated for ready made kitchens. The flight deck for construction/demolision machinery basing and air operations for helo support.They can provide permamnent housing until some level of normality is restored. Plus they can carry all the stores needed in these times. Just tow in place and moore. Not that simple but reasonable as far as timing. It would be times such as this they would be well worth their cost to have in storage and somewhat prepped.

Not meaning to come off as overly negative here (but)...

• The conventional plants are old, very old and require specialized knowledge to run - knowledge that is on the outs in today's gas turbine or nuclear power plant navy.

• The losses incumbent in transferring power from ship to shore are significant - that at least, is what I recall from a similar conversation with our reactor officer when I was on IKE. Losses are exacerbated with a conventional plant which requires a constant intake of water to make the steam, to run the turbines, to generate the electricity, etc. Pierside, the water is usually not deep (or clean) enough to support sustained operations of a conventional plant. That is why you see some pretty hefty electrical cables running to ships pierside - they are providing shore-power to the ship so the plant can go cold.

• An aircraft carrier is an industrial facility with all the hazards incumbent thereto. If one is concerned about providing a sea-based shelter for displaced refugees, troop transports or passenger liners would provide better "hotel" services (HVAC, potable water, sanitary) as well as requisite safe areas for bedding. Word of warning - expectations and long-term useage must both be closely managed. Case-in-point: post-Katrina use of cruise ships. And that doesn't even begin to address the whole access issue...

• There is a good reason a carrier complement runs over 3,000 personnel - a hefty percentage are directly involved inthe safe, efficient operaiton of this floating industrial facility. There is no reason to believe that those requirements would be any less on a carrier as envisioned above. Sure, you won't need a bridge crew, for example, but you would need a central operations center to conduct oversight of the running of the vessel - and that would likely come from the bridge crew (or at least require the same #s). Want to use it as a medical facility? Ramp up those numbers even more for medical personnel.

There is a useful purpose and NYC is evidently applying it with the USS Intrepid, returning from an overhaul (yes, you still have to do that if you want to keep these vessels in anything but decrepit condition) wherein part of it will be used as an emergency operations center. That makes sense given the scope of the mission and required personnel to support.

I understand completely what you are saying as I work for a museumed Iowa class ship.
The context this was put into was for a major catastrophy happening. Ships have been used as power plants BB's and Cruisers many times in the past history shows this to be true and not for towns but cities but im not sure of a CV ever doing this but the set up should be primarily the same. As far as the depth goes for intaking boiler feed water most major rivers that traverse shipping trade have plenty of depth for such purposes and water barges can provide potable as well. Steam technology is on the decline and has been for quite some time but very reliable none the less and not as dangerous nor expensive as having one of the nuclear ships standing by. Its not like you would need a full set up for power two maybe three max boiler wise and if its a retired carrier it wouldnt require the water intake that a nuc would. It would make more sense to have the steamer (retired) do this instead of having a nuclear carrier sitting at bay when it should either be in "stand by" status or out with its group.We dont need to be in the business to man it like its going to sea with a full air wing just manage those that would give care and serve food and any country we decided to do that for would supply the non plant related personell such as medics,kitchen etc. Hell,let NATO and Red Cross people run it, the military manage the power plant,water works and landing ops. These are just ideas mind you opinions vary on carriers in reserve. I have a good friend serving on Ike (CV69) and was supposed to go out cruising on her a few weeks back but alas the paperwork wasnt on time. Cheers