Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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
