The Ship Model Forum

To the best of my knowledge, Forrestal lost the battle to become a museum and, is supose to find herself sitting in Davey Jones' locker sometime soon.
Ranger on the other hand, is still in the running as Portland,Oregon is supose to become her new home...

_________________
If ya lose yer sense of humor...
You've lost everything...

On the Bench:
1/720 Italeri CVN-68 ca 1976/77
1/800 ARii 1/800 CV-59 backdating to 1961 (CVA-59)
1/700Trumpy USS Hornet CV-8 "Doolittle Raiders"

So, guys, it sounds like the Saratoga and Ranger are in the best conditions. So, if you were involved, what would you guys do in order to modernize the ships?

What would you do, if you are aware, to reactivate the ships?

What I have in mid is a complete very detailed reactivation and very detailed reactivation and modernization. They would still be conventional carriers, and they would be CVAs for the remainder of their SLEP they received in the 1980s.

What do you guys think about converting them CV-60 and 61 to nuclear power with a comprehensive CVN SLEP conversion?

I think it's pretty clear that the hull themselves still have decades left in them. It's just a question of turning them back on and getting proper maintenance up to par.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I don't think adding nukes would be very cost effective. Remember these ships were built in the late 50's-early 60's, yes they have some life left in them but the costs of installing the nukes, removal of the oil fueled machinery/tanks would offset any useful life they have left way too much to warrant the expenditure.

As far as modernizing them, take a look a the Kitty Hawk before she was decommed. She had all/most of the current electronics and weapons aboard. The big problem with re-activating them would be fuel costs. That's why we switched to nukes in the first place. The engines would have to modernized as well to something more fuel efficient if that's even possible. Gas turbines instead of steam? Anyone in the know know the details about those two systems?

Sorry if I'm raining on the parade, just my 2 cents

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Well, if the propulsion sysetm would be replaced, then installing nuclear reactors would be the way to go. Gas turbine engines are not efficient the heavier the ship gets. There are some incredible turbines out there. I came across some of the GE products when I was working on if a gas turbine conversion with the Iowas was feasible, and all the turbines do is suck gas a lot faster than the boilers.
I am pretty confident the ships could be reactivated, fully refurbished, and modernized far, far, far cheaper, a small fraction than building a CVN. If we were going to put an additional $600 million into a nuclear propulsion system, well then yikes.
IF the ships could be made ready to function for one reactor cycle, I think it would really be worth it.

Now, I am sure you guys realize, but the Navy has shrunk to unacceptable levels. We are operating on bare-bones minimum force level. We are even having to forwardly deploy ships for 18 months at a time and "sea-swap" crews. This is, by the way, the best way to destroy a ship.
Here's a daring idea and a daring statement:
If we were going to sack up to the levels we need, then at the least, we would get the Saratoga and Ranger SLEPed and back up, and Kitty Hawk and Kennedy ready for CVN conversion. Otherwise, keep them CVs and add to the force structure...and at least two Iowa-class battleships.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The real problem is not deck space, but aircraft! The carrier airwing is about 25 planes short of what they were in the 90's. The navy leadership will tell you that it is because we have smart weapons but that does not account for having to provide Close Air Support to multiple ground engagements. The navy is projecting a 250 aircraft shortfall by the mid teens if we do not step up Super Hornet Production or move the JSF up. So even if you were to bring back more carriers, there are no airplanes to put on them. In every War College they speak of having overwhelming superiority to defeat an enemy but we do not practice what we preach in the military. It is all done at the "right cost", which is detirmined by bureaucrats, not frontline war fighters!!

We build new ships to replace ships with service life left because we have to keep the shipyards operating at some minimum capacity to make sure that we keep the skills required to build warships. If you stop, it is almonst impossible to collect the skilled workers again to start building again and training from scratch takes years.

As far as bringing back a CV, why would you bring back a Forrestal Class at all? The Kittyhawk is in the best condition of all of them having just been decommisioned. I would venture to guess that Conny would be 2nd. Their flight deck layouts were better to operate on and there electronics were updated so that the infrastructure is already there to re-plumb the wiring since all of that stuff gets removed. Updating them to nukes would be cost prohibitive and I would guess an engineering nightmare. I remember when there was talk of turning the BB's into nukes in the 80's and the technical feasibility was way beyond the benefit.

An intersting debate will start in a few years when they decom Enterprise. I know it is just a name, but Gerald Ford in for Enterprise? It is not the stuff of awe inspiring novels!

Just a few thoughts,

Mark

from what i readed INDY sucks, Forrestal gonna die Sara and Ranger could make it as a museums. The Hawk & Connie are in good shape. JFK who knows?

For sure. You have to have aircraft to put on the decks, for sure. We only have 10 air wings if not fewer and 11 hulls. So, we can have more ships than airwings. They keep doing what they are doing...rotating from ship to ship. We do, however, need a whole lot more aircraft, especially ground support role. If they quit buying such shockingly expensive aircraft, we could have far more ballanced airwings.
I would have the Kitty Hawk and JFK go to be CVN converted with Saratoga and Ranger put back into the fleet in the mean time as conventional carriers. Saratoga and Ranger were both SLEPed, I think Ranger too, and were in the fleet for only a few years after their massive service life extension. The rest of the life in the propulsion system would be a wonderful starting point to keep the ships active while the Hawk and JFK were being converted.
Then, the option to convert Saratoga and Ranger would be on the table. We need at least 13 carriers CVNs or not. If we just have to have nuclear powered carriers, this is a fast way of getting them and in comparison to building new CVNs a very cheap way of doing it.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Ranger never SLEPt. In all the yrs she sailed the high seas she never underwent SLEP. She is also the only one of her sisters that kept her foreward sponsons.
Yes, it would be grreat to have a Forrestal Class CV back out on the front lines & maybe they'd bring the Phantoms & Tomcats back to fill her decks

_________________
If ya lose yer sense of humor...
You've lost everything...

On the Bench:
1/720 Italeri CVN-68 ca 1976/77
1/800 ARii 1/800 CV-59 backdating to 1961 (CVA-59)
1/700Trumpy USS Hornet CV-8 "Doolittle Raiders"

Phantoms, yikes! They're good aircraft, but man, I don't want to take F-4s to the enemy...unless they're super uber cool F-4s, like F-4Us or something. I would designate some serious F/A-18Es with a an attack wing of A-10D Thunderbolts (the version proposed to the Navy in Vietnam) with modern avionics.
Can you imagine the ordnace delivery capability with A-10s on carriers? Holy crap.
Tomcats would be cool, though. Those were neat-o aircraft.
So, I would chose Saratoga nd Ranger for a possible SLEP and nuclear conversion. Just as long as we add several air wings to the fleet, the rapid CVN explansion would be incredible for both our power projection AND our deployment cycles.
They are killing us right now. The carrier crews and DDG crew swaps are driving crews and ships into the ground >:-(

Keep the comments coming guys!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Let's see Kidd has the Forrestal,Hippy has the Ranger, Jason has Indy, one for me Sara. p.s Nektarios has America

Uh-huh...

_________________
If ya lose yer sense of humor...
You've lost everything...

On the Bench:
1/720 Italeri CVN-68 ca 1976/77
1/800 ARii 1/800 CV-59 backdating to 1961 (CVA-59)
1/700Trumpy USS Hornet CV-8 "Doolittle Raiders"

Hey, guys, is the Enterprise hull not good enough? The elevators could be moved around pretty easily to make way for the different elevator's placement.

Everything else like structure, flight deck, etc can be fabricated with Evergreen sheet and various thicknesses.

What about that?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

BigE is in a class by herself. Forrestal class are the first Supercarriers. BigE is the first Nuke class,and the only one. I building by scratch in 1/350 1962.

Yes, I am aware Enterprise and the Forrestals are different.
How you boil the water that winds up turning the propellers does not influence the hull shape. So the fact that the Enterprise was teh first nuclear power ship is not really important. It's the hull shape that makes the difference, and the hulls are not different enough to make someone crap their pants.

Being in a class of her own is instead the difference and what those differences are...like where the elevators are in respect to the island structure, the shape of the structure, etc. All of those are customable.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Here are some pictures I took of Saratoga and Forrestal about 18 months ago.. you decide....

_________________
AME1(AW) Scott D. Oram, USN
Quality Assurance (040) Leading Petty Officer
Fleet Logistics Support Squadron THREE ZERO (VRC-30)
NAS North Island, San Diego, California

Wow, those are incredible pictures. Forrestal looks like she was ridden hard and put up wet.

Get teh Sara back! I am reading John Lehman's book about his time as SECNAV. It's a really interesting perspective. It's a really, really interesting perspective. He talks about getting into reactivation of Oriskany, the Iowas, Des Moines, and building of the 600 ship fleet.

He also talks about how big the fleet should be today and how to maintain it. It's really interesting.

Reactivation of a few carriers (Kitty Hawk, Constellation, Sara, Ranger) after the battleships would be a great step.

Despite being in the "best" condition, I wonder what the material condition of the Sara really is like.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Very interesting thought, reactivating those carriers. I understand, I guess, why we build the "supercarriers", but I'm still not convinced that we HAVE to have something that big. I'm not sure of the cost difference between building new and refits, but I would think that you could refit for much less than you could build new.

I think I can answer my own question, but with the Navy headed toward a more Hornet based air wing, would the size of the new carriers make that much of a difference? Let me see if I can explain my question. In the 70s, early 80s, the thought was that we needed bigger carriers, because the Navy was moving around F-14s, which were quite large for a carrier borne aircraft. But, those times have come and gone, and while the Hornet is much more powerful, and versatile, than prior aircraft, it's also smaller in comparison with some of it's prior counterparts. Let's face it, with the benefit of smaller, more powerful engines, etc, the plane can carry much more ordinace, and has replaced the F-14, A-6, and A-7....That's quite a liniage to uphold, considering everything those three aircraft represented. So, if we can pack the same number of planes on a smaller platform, why don't we? Ok, we're not talking about something THAT much smaller, but the Forrestals, Kitty Hawks, and even Enterprise is smaller than the latest Nimitz class carriers.

Ok, so I'm rambling, but I do think that the Navy should have, at least, considered doing more refits, before running out and getting something as big as a Nimitz. I've been up close to all three classes, and all three are quite large, and very capable in their own right.

I would LOVE to see these brought back, but you reach a point when they can't be, not without a HUGE expendature to get them seaworthy again. I just wonder if we haven't reached that point already, sad as it is to say.

Thanks, man. I think that if we were to build up to a 313 or 350-400 ship fleet, reactivating the Kitty Hawk and Constellation while the Saratoga and Ranger were sent to Newport News Shipbuilding for nuclear refit and upgrade would be an incredibly good idea. The hulls are good! Rebuild the rest! Less than new carriers in less time!

Your point about Hornets being smaller than Tomcats, well I believe the F/A-18E/F is just as big as a Tomcat, so that's not a factor anymore. The carriers still have to deal with huge aircraft. If the Navy was smart, they'd buy a bunch of A-10s for carrier use. Huge cost-saving measure and capability enhanser.


UNFORTUNATLY, because they were not mothballed, and were instead struck, they have not been preserved like they should have been. I am willing to bet it'd tack on a whole nother $500 to reactivation costs.

But yes, the Navy needs to be bigger. It needs more nuke carriers. Conversion is do able. Why not?!

Oh, and the Iowa killed the Forrestal 4 times during wargames in 1986. Forrestal never found Iowa until she saw fireballs rolling up over the horizon

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Does anybody have a decent shot that shows some of the detail of this sponson on CV-60 (post-SLEP)?



Especially the forward portion of it, forward of where the boat is stored? (I'm wondering what those round yellow things are, for one thing.)

Unfortunately, because it's under the overhang and usually in shadow, and on the side that usually faces away from the pier when in port, it seems like the one spot that's just difficult to find anything decent for...

Hey Dblack, I'm looking for the same thing about 1972. Mr.Steve Larsen do you have photos of the aftportside of Sara?