The Ship Model Forum

With the worries about CVNs being sunk by Chinese DF-31 missiles without warning, how do we think we can respond to such a threat? Reactivating a LOT of aircraft for sure, but what about the ships?

How about we dig into the CV fleet and bring back the few CVs we have in shape? Of course the battleships would be the first things we consider, because they can be easily reactivated, but the CVs....those would take time! The John F Kenedy, a ship that was passed over for maintenance overhauls for over a decade, and the Kitty Hawk, a ship that was an FDNF asset for a considerable amount of time, both have issues, but both can be repaired.

An update to them would be an interesting proposition.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

JFK is in awful shape, Kitty Hawk might be possible. The ships would need a overhaul on a level higher than the old SLEPs. But if it was done, the islands would need to be modified to current standards. SPY-3 or SPY-4 radars low observable mast, VL ESSM, RAM. New sponsons, new railings, lots of stuff replaced. Be interesting.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

That would be a pretty interesting configuration for sure! In order to make all of those mods to work, they would need to do a full SLEP, like you suggested, that didn't just add just another 10-15 years to their service lives but a BB WIP modernization that would have added 25 years to their service aka more of an RCOH the CVNs receive, renamed as a "ReConditioning and OverHaul".

From what the Navy says, the Ford is likely the only one who is going to get the static phased arrays. Instead, the successors will get a single rotating antenna, more like a super SPS-48 to save money. It's always less expensive to have 1 or 2 arrays rather than 3-6. The low-observable mast would be pretty easy, and the ESSM could be better accommodated using the existing Mk29 launchers. RAM and Phalanx Block 1B are easy installations. The real difficulty would be in the guts of the ship. While the common readers know I am a battleship reactivation logistics guy, brining back a CV would require a lot more effort and time.

NAVSEA said the heavy cruisers Albany and Columbus could have been reconditioned to be NTU Tartar-D ships mounting Mk71 and Mk45 guns with 128 Mk41 VLS at the cost of $800 million, but the Navy would rather spend that $1.6 Billion toward reactivating the 4 Iowa-class battleships and rebuilding their supply structure. Those cruisers would have had their super structures cut down to the deck and re-built like the CGNs forward of the midline and Spruance helo hangar aft of the centerline. My understanding is that the most challenging part of that would have been reconditioning the propulsion plant. Years of poor maintenance made those ships worn and tired.

To the point, CVs could be reconditioned in a similar manner. They know what's broken on the mothballed CVs. They would just need to start soon, have a plan, and execute it.

However, I think with the proper modifications to those CVs, it would be worth it.

Hooyah, Seasick!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Just noticed this discussion! Would not ENTERPRISE have been in better condition (had they not stripped her of the bits to reactivate her)....??

To paraphrase a famous Captain of another E "Would it have been more logical to place CVN65 in reserve?" considering the vast amounts spent on recent maintenance period?? Placing Big E in a powered down state with a maintenance crew would be cheaper than refitting two carriers that have been left to rot....

Just my opinion....

Bruce

PS I would have placed more of the LHAs in reserve too...

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10

No kidding, right?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Hi, Im not a member but I have a question regarding this..

Since all ships in reserve require shore power to run dehumidifiers and other equipment, would there be any reason they could not have tied into the Enterprises (or the Nimitz classes that will be deactivated as the Fords come online)

The reactors are already in place, they need to train new crew on how to use them anyway, and it will save on costs to power the dehumidifiers?

That is a great case. If there had been a more concerted effort to decommission and mothball instead of scrap, a decent program could have been implemented where the ship could have been maintained in Class-B mothball status with minimal power and crewmen. However, from a Navy stand point, that would have been a either a suck-ass billet or a wonderful opportunity to have! Suck ass being that you're doing nothing. No deployments, no action, you're just watching gauges. On the other hand, you're doing nothing. You're on shore duty watching gauges. Now you have the opportunity to get college and all kinds of stuff done!

Beginning the reactivation and modernization process of Kitty Hawk and JFK now would be a very good idea. It's a long lead ticket item, and by the time we needed them, they would be ready to go.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

So the Navy is interested in reactivating the battleships???

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThomasEJohnson

What the Navy really needs to do is revisit the CVA concept and start building a 21st century version of the JFK/KH class with CODLAG (the diesels based upon large commercial diesels). As Dr Friedman noted, carriers were the last class of ship that the Navy thought of putting reactors in...

Seriously, think about this from logistics standpoint and you realize that even CVNs are limited by the AO/AOE The planes and escorts run on oil based fuels - the CVA can burn its substantial aviation fuel tankage if it really needs to haul butt.

We *should* be able to do this for $7 billion (Carr is probably rolling on the ground laughing, but we *should* be able to do this).

These are not replacements for CVNs. The idea is that we should always be building a CVN or CVA (every 4 years).

Operationally, the CVAs would be forward deployed and the CVNs would be the surge force.

Its funny that when I was a pup, the CVNs were outnumbered by the conventional carriers (and the JFK operated more aircraft than the CVN-78... to include the EKA-3B)!

GAB

Which operational EMALS is almost a conditio sine qua non for (of course, you could install a donkey for the catpults, but what price would that be to pay in terms of weight, space, and personell?).
How close is it to being 24/7 by now?

_________________
ROMANES EVNT DOMVS!

I am pretty convinced the Navy would pull electronics (SPS-49/49/SPQ-9B) from recently decommissioned ships off the shelf to re-equip these ships. At the MOST they would use the rotating versions of the radars Ford class is receiving. Then the COMs suite would be upgraded to the most recent system. VLS ESSM? Not likely. They would likely use the Mk29 launchers and convert them to fire the ESSM and then install Phalanx Block 1B and RAM.

I super doubt they would remove all of the catapult system and replace it with the EM version, waaaay too much work.

Honest, it's turning the ships back on, re-arming them, and SLEPing them for another 15 years of service. Easy but long day.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Sorry for being mistakable: My reply was strictly aimed at Bust963's previous post


Michi

_________________
ROMANES EVNT DOMVS!

..

I completely missed your point.

GAB

Party pooper!

Another point for consideration about Navy air wings is that the pre-WWII planned pilot attrition rate was 25% per month of combat according to Dr. Friedman in his book on U.S. carriers.

Also, the VF squadron strength was 14-16 aircraft back in the Vietnam era, not 8 ship F-35 squadrons.

And the mythical Common Support Aircraft, and even rarer F-14 replacement?

How is that for a wet mattress!

Just bring back the whale (EKA-3B) and all will be well!

This caught my eye for "what if's" and "might have beens". Is it possible to get more information and sources? During what time period was this considered?

Thanks in Advance.

M. A. Rozon

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!

Nope, no more info. I learned this talking with NAVSEA engineers in 2006. However, it's a good start!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Thanks. I wonder which CGN superstructure was referred to? CGN-36 (California) and CGN-38 (Virginia) are the candidates that come to mind given the inferred time period as I see it (Mid to Late 1980's).

M. A. Rozon

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!

Rozon,

Good question! I didn't ask. Perhaps it would be safe to assume Virginia, since they were deactivated at NNSY, where that NAVSEA base is. Of course, then it's a question where the stacks would have gone and what they would have looked like.

Center lined stacks like their former configurations or off set like the Sprucans? Stacks and masts or MACKs? Where would you put the Harpoons?

What do you think, Rozon?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

My personal preference would be centreline Macks with the Harpoons mounted as on the CG-47's i.e. eight (8) missiles on the stern with a cluster of four pointed on each beam. This would maximize the positions available for SLQ-32, Outboard, Phalanx (up to four, I think), and other stuff. Given the size of the ship, I think a total of sixteen (16) Harpoons is entirely reasonable (need to find a spot for the other eight). I think the Tomahawks would be in some of the Mk 41 VLS cells (eight forward, eight aft as the minimum fit.).

I think this needs some drawing work to see what would work out best, perhaps what would look best (there is something to be said for the saying "if it looks right, it is right!").

I think I'll try to rough something out, post it and see what you think.

Regards.

M. A. Rozon

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!