What-If reactivation of USS John F Kennedy and USS Kitty Hawk

[navydavesof]

My personal preference would be centreline Macks...

Me, too!

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 would cluster the Harpoons together like on the Iowas instead of trying to jam some aft. Instead, I would utilize the aft helo hangar for 2 HH-60 helos.

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 did up several shipbucket drawings with 2 Mk71 8"/60, 3 61-cell Mk41, 16 Harpoon, and an Mk74 NTU FCS. However, the unsolicited update to Windows 8 crashed my hard drive and lost everything

So, my question to you is, when I make a model of this ship, should I make it as an early 1990 version or 10 years later in the 2000s?

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

I look forward to it, mate!

[MAJOR-B]

Good day,
I appear to be lost in this thread. You start of taking about returning to duty a non nuclear CV. Then it focus on I guess would be ships that would serve on support duty for the CV. I really think that a midsized CV could be very useful. However, you have all the current experts stating that a CV must be nuclear for range. However, they seem to forget that air craft need fuel just like ships. An no matter how you design a CV you limited storage area for JP-5. So do you need a carrier the size of kitty hawk or JFK. What about using the LHA America hull with a plug and angle deck verse an axial deck What you think?

[Busto963]

Good day,
I appear to be lost in this thread. You start of taking about returning to duty a non nuclear CV. Then it focus on I guess would be ships that would serve on support duty for the CV. I really think that a midsized CV could be very useful. However, you have all the current experts stating that a CV must be nuclear for range. However, they seem to forget that air craft need fuel just like ships. An no matter how you design a CV you limited storage area for JP-5. So do you need a carrier the size of kitty hawk or JFK. What about using the LHA America hull with a plug and angle deck verse an axial deck What you think?

Carriers are all about the air wing, everything follows from that.

The CVAs were proven ships able to operate AEW aircraft (E-2s), strategic heavy attack aircraft (A-3s and A-5s), EW aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, and ASW aircraft like S-3s; it is altogether unclear that LHA America, designed around hauling vehicles and USMC cargo, will approach anything like the efficiency or effectiveness of a Forrestal or Kitty hawk.

Moreover, it seems that LHA America will cost 50-75% of what a modern (non-nuclear) CVA will cost.

I am not impressed by 2-3 squadrons of F-35s with no AEW, no EW, and other critical aircraft.

Also never mentioned in this debates is the lack of escorts to support these smaller carriers. The escort requirement is not dependent upon the size of CV - in fact, the WWII USN found it necessary to operate 3-4 CVs in a task force to provide proper screening. This concern also argues for a larger carrier.

My concern is value for the money: I do no believe that a reworked LHA is the right answer, at $13 billion, the CVN is pricing itself out of business, and to my eyes, a $6-7 billion 21st century JFK looks to be the sweet spot.

GAB

[MAJOR-B]

Yes your point about cost is valid. However, since both ships have been scrapped in the real world. What replacement do you suggest. As far I know no CV is mothballed at present time. My best suggestion would be the midway. It would need to have a major overhaul to include updating the engineering plants, support systems and electronics. She can handle AEW, ASW and Air support mission. As you stated the air wing states the function of the carrier. So how big is your air wing 40-70 planes vs the 90+ on a CVN.

[wvtomcat65]

Actually both Kitty Hawk & JFK have not been scrapped. They are both still in reserve, KH in Bremerton & JFK in Philadelphia. And CV-62 is also in reserve in Bremerton as well. Both KH & JFK are up for becoming donated to used as museum ships. The last I read KH will stay in reserve until the new USS Ford CVN-78 is commissioned in late 2016. If funds have not been raised by the groups trying to turn her into a museum by then, KH will be towed to TX to be scrapped. CV-62 is also scheduled to be scrapped late in 2016. Not sure of the status for JFK for a deadline on to have funds raised to be a museum...

As for the $13 billion to build a carrier. With the new Ford Class. The USS Ford CVN-78 will cost around that. And CVN-78 being the first of the class, construction cost are high. But, with lessons learned from her construction, CVN-79 & CVN-80 will have lower construction costs due to more efficient techniques and etc... Not sure how much savings will come from those lessons, but 79 & 80 are to cost less...

Thomas

[carr]

..

[Busto963]

Yes your point about cost is valid. However, since both ships have been scrapped in the real world. What replacement do you suggest. As far I know no CV is mothballed at present time. My best suggestion would be the midway. It would need to have a major overhaul to include updating the engineering plants, support systems and electronics. She can handle AEW, ASW and Air support mission. As you stated the air wing states the function of the carrier. So how big is your air wing 40-70 planes vs the 90+ on a CVN.

I advocate a slightly larger CVA sized, conventionally fueled carrier.

According to Norman Freidman, CVA-67 was designed around an air wing:
14x F-4 (or TFX/F-14)
24x A-4
12x A-6
9x A-3/A-5
6x E-2
3x RF-8

Note that those 9 A-3/A-5 represent 18-20 "normal aircraft" deck spots; the total wing could be about 80 aircraft.