Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Navy to dismantle the ex-USS Kitty Hawk

  1. #16
    New Member Regular
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    If it came down to it, neutralizing the threat that sunk all the NIMITZs should be the main priority, not rushing the KITTYHAWK into a fight she's destined to lose.

    However, what on this planet can challenge the NIMITZ Class? There's no unfilled requirement the KITTYHAWK can fill? There are no challenges to the USN that would require keeping the KITTYHAWK in reserve. The active duty fleet is more than capable of fullfilling their missions. Unlike the Cold War where the IOWA Class had a mission, to punch through the Soviet Naval Screens to land American and Canadian Divisions in Europe. There's nothing on this planet that the USN cannot punch through with its active fleet.

    So, spending the money keeping the KITTYHAWK ship worthy, let alone battle ready, is a poor priority of funds.
    I'm not too sure it's as simple as that. The Navy rightly takes the threat of a saturation attack by ABMs very seriously. These attacks can be mounted from a variety of platforms and could prove to be very deadly. A single success could take one of our supercarriers out of service for months or years. The Navy has even been considering larger numbers of smaller (less capable) carriers to mitigate the threat. Kind of like the 'Jeep' carriers employed in WWII.

  2. #17
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by thebard View Post
    I'm not too sure it's as simple as that. The Navy rightly takes the threat of a saturation attack by ABMs very seriously. These attacks can be mounted from a variety of platforms and could prove to be very deadly. A single success could take one of our supercarriers out of service for months or years. The Navy has even been considering larger numbers of smaller (less capable) carriers to mitigate the threat. Kind of like the 'Jeep' carriers employed in WWII.
    No one in the USN believes that China has capable ASBMs. However, that threat is already neutralized. You don't ship 500+ Cruise Missiles to Deigo Garcia for nothing.

  3. #18
    New Member Regular
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    No one in the USN believes that China has capable ASBMs. However, that threat is already neutralized. You don't ship 500+ Cruise Missiles to Deigo Garcia for nothing.
    If you say so.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-s...listic_missile

  4. #19
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by thebard View Post
    I love it when everyone keep touting a weapon that has NEVER seen one live test. The weapon was never even tested over water, let alone a ship target.

    The Chinese even had a dead freighter all lined up for the test. Never happened.

    There's only two conclusions. They're unwilling to do the test. They're unable to do the test.

    Either way, confidence ain't high it's capable.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 09 Nov 17, at 22:17.

  5. #20
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,137
    Well what ever happens the Hornet is now standing by for a call from the Navy about going aboard the Kitty Hawk to harvest parts.

  6. #21
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Feb 15
    Posts
    38
    From a museum ship perspective, the problem with Kitty Hawk, or any large ship, is that costs increase with size, but entry fees generally don't. Visitors will only pay so much and they get fatigued after so many grey steel rooms.

  7. #22
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Burnet View Post
    From a museum ship perspective, the problem with Kitty Hawk, or any large ship, is that costs increase with size, but entry fees generally don't. Visitors will only pay so much and they get fatigued after so many grey steel rooms.
    So true which is why you need really good exhibits and you need really good docents who know the ship and have lots of first time experiences. Those who can tell Navy stories as they lead a tour on the Hornet always have a large crowd lingering a long time with them. That is why I will always be a restoration person as I know the ship mechanically front to back but only have one story involving Capt/Rear Admiral Gehres.

  8. #23
    New Member Regular
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    25
    "Navy stories" AKA "sea stories".

  9. #24
    Regular Tom24's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jul 13
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by SlaterDoc View Post
    Oh, I just have to "chime" in here!

    bbvet:
    I have to agree with you in a number of areas! However, are you sure about the origin of the moniker??
    During my short exposure to the "sh.ty kitty" in the early 70's I was told it came from her lousy shape and lack of maintenance! She spent more time in Subic for repairs than at Yankee station! She is not a good candidate for anything except scrap! I don't know of a single former member of her crew that holds any affection for the tub! Especially with the other chapters in her history, like the riots in 72!
    tbm:
    I know that you guys have suffered the consequences of a greedy staff and completely understand! There are a number of others that had the same problem. Just check out what really happened with Olympia as a result of greed and corruption! Yet there are many like Iowa where the dedication and commitment are the driving force behind the successes. I would rave on about USS Slater. But then, we are even more unique in a number of ways. No! In this case, size does not matter!

    Now, it would make more sense to consider JFK as more suitable for re-activation anyway! She is newer, in much better condition and more "worthy". However, since she is so close to becoming the "Midway of the East", her status was/is to be (from what I heard) Inactive Ready Reserve. JFK (like Midway and Mo) would also be at or next to a major Naval installation. Plus, with Newport being the major training command it is, she would be an ideal platform for access by the many school commands here (one of the many planned uses). There is also another use that is "Top Secret" and I'm not suppose to know. So, I don't! Plus, CV79 is already almost 50% complete! You know how today's hierarchy handles dilemmas! "what do you do now with two JFK's"
    There are many sad stories of ships that should have been and could have been saved and served as members of the historical fleet. But, because of the lack of interest, involvment and $$$$ their fates were not pretty! As a couple of examples are the stories of USS Cabot and USS Zuni/USCGC Tamaroa.
    Those that thrive or even just survive are not just memorials and reminders. They are necessary and needed for the education of all the newer generations that are having their minds polluted or washed in today's re-writing or just plain ignoring history! Those that thrive do so because their custodians and crews use common sense and ingenuity in creating and finding additional and creative purposes!

    RIP Rusty, we're still thinking about you!
    Sorry you're impressions of Kitty Hawk and JFK are wrong. The Kitty Hawk was in much better material condition than the JFK was at the end of both of those carriers service. JFK was notorious for broken elevators, especially when you needed them the most, like during flight ops. JFK was plagued with pro blems throughout her service, even more so at the end. Kitty Hawk earned her nickname, but it was also exaggerated to a point. She was more up to date and in better condition than the JFK. My opinion on the matter comes from several enlisted and officers that served on both in the post 2000 years.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12 Apr 09,, 22:36
  2. Kitty Hawk for India ?
    By Adux in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05 Dec 07,, 08:06
  3. Dismantle ISI, says leaked British document
    By lemontree in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29 Sep 06,, 14:34
  4. Russian aircraft buzz USS Kitty Hawk
    By tim52 in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 133
    Last Post: 15 Sep 06,, 15:16
  5. Bush, Blair: Libya to dismantle WMD programs
    By Ironduke in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 23 Dec 03,, 00:16

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
  •