Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48

Thread: Return of the Kittyhawk?

  1. #1
    Senior Contributor DonBelt's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 08
    Location
    Taxachusetts, somewhere between Boston and Wista
    Posts
    1,070

    Return of the Kittyhawk?

    What do you think- pie in the sky or a serious possibility?

    http://www.maritime-executive.com/ar...alled-warships

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...t-of-mothballs

    The OHP's might make some sense if you could drop an 8 cell vls with RIM-162 in them. That's 32 shots, a little shy of the 40 rounds they used to carry with the mk 13 launchers but not bad.

  2. #2
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    4,191
    At least the first article could have used an updated picture of what's left at Bremerton. The shot of four carriers is misleading at best.

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    2,071
    Never gonna happen. Unless the World is on fire.

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,055
    if the USN really needs more hulls, start building new models of the Perry, instead of the money pit that is the LCS...

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    2,071
    Since no one is geared up for Perry's, and since the NSC is to wrap up production soon, stretch the NSC's for additional fuel bunkerage and some additional weapons and call it a day (with a dozen or two of frigates).

  6. #6
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,121
    She wasn't called the "Shitty Kitty" because of top material readiness.

    Its the Navy's way to get a new carrier without asking for it.

    They will do a study on cost to recommission, man and operate the Kitty. Then pitch the savings of building a new Ford instead.

    Same with the OHPs
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  7. #7
    Contributor
    Join Date
    24 Oct 11
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    346
    The problem I see is that the financials to reactivate the Kitty Hawk is probably not much different than reactivating the Oriskany back in 1982. In order to make the initial reactivation cost worthwhile, KH would probably need an overhaul with the intention to do another 10 to 15 years of service. Unlike the Oriskany (at that time) Kitty Hawk is already 56 years old with 48 years of hard service. Another 10-15 years takes her to 66-71 years of age. I don't see where there is a good business case for that, even if she can handle all the modern aircraft. (Unlike Oriskany back then)

  8. #8
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,491
    The second article blithely mentions "Some of the other ships that would seem to be likely candidates for revival will probably be passed over—specifically the first five Ticonderoga class cruisers that sit quiet on the Delaware River."

    Yes, it's very likely they would be passed over, especially USS Vincennes and USS Valley Forge, which aren't sitting on the Delaware River because they haven't existed for years.
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

  9. #9
    Patron Michigan_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Feb 07
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    218
    Besides maybe some logistics ships, do we really have anything worth recommissioning? I know the Perry's have been mentioned but is there really any chance of that? Maybe just build more Tico's?
    "If a man does his best, what else is there?"
    -General George Patton Jr.

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    2,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigan_Guy View Post
    Besides maybe some logistics ships, do we really have anything worth recommissioning? I know the Perry's have been mentioned but is there really any chance of that? Maybe just build more Tico's?
    Tico's have been out of production for over twenty years. I guess you mean Burk's?

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor blidgepump's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jul 09
    Posts
    2,708

    This is just a drill .....

    The Kitty Hawk is not returning to service (PERIOD).
    Consider the new systems alone make this rehab a Pipe dream.
    Bring fire back to an old ship with many hard miles is just that "fond memories"!!

  12. #12
    Senior Contributor DonBelt's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 08
    Location
    Taxachusetts, somewhere between Boston and Wista
    Posts
    1,070
    The Tico's won't be coming back, they have been pretty well picked over as there are still a number in the fleet and they are stretching those. I didn't really think the Kittyhawk was realistic but there seemed to be talk about it- at least by Adm Moore. But I think Gun Grape has it right on that one. They can say "but we looked into reactivating her and it wasn't feasible" when looking for funding for the Ford Class. How does the Navy stand on active air wings? Can they even staff 12 carriers?
    Are the OHP's really that unrealistic though? They only left the fleet a few years ago, they use LM-2500 gas turbines, same as the Tico's and Burkes so the skills and parts are still there. They could be usable without too much upgrade.

  13. #13
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    There's a much easier solution if the USN needs to boost carrier numbers quickly in the next few years.

    Rather than trying to bring back an old ship type from the 1960s that has no commonality with what the USN operates today, the USN could send the Nimitz carriers due to be replaced by CVN 79 and 80 to be refitted and refueled rather than retired.

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,055
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    There's a much easier solution if the USN needs to boost carrier numbers quickly in the next few years.

    Rather than trying to bring back an old ship type from the 1960s that has no commonality with what the USN operates today, the USN could send the Nimitz carriers due to be replaced by CVN 79 and 80 to be refitted and refueled rather than retired.
    Was thinking the same thing! How hard would this be? Afaik, those older reactors were made to be refuled? That, replacing the electronincs, maybe some structural work...

  15. #15
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    4,191
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    There's a much easier solution if the USN needs to boost carrier numbers quickly in the next few years.

    Rather than trying to bring back an old ship type from the 1960s that has no commonality with what the USN operates today, the USN could send the Nimitz carriers due to be replaced by CVN 79 and 80 to be refitted and refueled rather than retired.
    Now that is a very practical idea. Wait, did I say practical in conjunction with...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. RAF Kittyhawk fighter frozen in time
    By Tronic in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09 Aug 12,, 12:57
  2. The Return of Legalism
    By Inst in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 18 May 09,, 04:42
  3. KittyHawk bids farewell to Japan
    By Dreadnought in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 30 May 08,, 15:16
  4. Washington (CVN 73) to replace KittyHawk
    By Dreadnought in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06 Dec 05,, 21:25

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •