Retirement Of Uss John F. Kennedy (cv-67)?

[Slater]

There's a big political battle brewing over the proposed retirement of the US Navy's last conventionally powered carrier. The Navy says that it will save about $300 million a year by retiring the ship. Florida's Senators (where the JFK is homeported) are understandably upset, and one has introduced legislation in Congress that would require the carrier force to be maintained at 12 ships. Another carrier could always be transferred from Norfolk to Mayport to replace the JFK, but the Virginia politicians are sure to fight that (among which is John Warner, a very powerful figure on the Hill).

 

Should the JFK be retired, or is there a case for retaining it? Or does this signal Mayport's inclusion on the 2005 BRAC list?

[Burncycle360]

There's a big political battle brewing over the proposed retirement of the US Navy's last conventionally powered carrier. The Navy says that it will save about $300 million a year by retiring the ship. Florida's Senators (where the JFK is homeported) are understandably upset, and one has introduced legislation in Congress that would require the carrier force to be maintained at 12 ships. Another carrier could always be transferred from Norfolk to Mayport to replace the JFK, but the Virginia politicians are sure to fight that (among which is John Warner, a very powerful figure on the Hill).

 

Should the JFK be retired, or is there a case for retaining it? Or does this signal Mayport's inclusion on the 2005 BRAC list?

142268[/snapback]

 

Conventionally powered?

 

Sell it off

 

I'm not sure who else could afford to run it... but eh.

If they're not going to use it as a fleet carrier anymore, instead of retiring it, I'd like to see a carrier converted for C-130 operations. Requires the removal of the deck park, so it's not practical for service carriers, but if they were gonna get rid of it anyway.....

 

I imagine it could be used as a staging platform for all kinds of operations, from special operations (all kinds of C-130 varients), mobile offshore base/resupply, maybe a mobile depot even (hercs bring in engines to be repaired, etc). I wonder if a folding wing C-130 could be developed I guess the reality is the cost/benefit ratio of doing something like this just isn't rewarding enough to warrent a second glance, but it's fun to think about.

Edited February 6, 2005 by Burncycle360

[Scott Cunningham]

Not viable for C-130 use. While it might be able to land or take off (it has been done), it couldn't carry any useable cargo load or fuel. Now as a huge helicopter carrier, well now we are talking.

 

If it is old and worn out, dispose of it. The thing is near 40 years old. The US is tight on cash right now and running a budget deficit. The guys in Florida have had an economic benefit from this ship for years. It is utterly irresponsible to spend $300 million to maintain the lifestyle of some Florida shopowners and merchants.

[Rod]

Isn't the USN JFK the only carrier allowed to stop at Japanese ports due to Japan's reluctance to be associated with anything form of nuclear weapon (including its propulsion system)?

[sabotshooter 88]

Flordia.....That was a "Blue" state wasn't it.

 

Deep six the JFK.

[Manic Moran]

Sounds familiar. I think JFK was the carrier that visited Ireland for exactly the same reason.

 

NTM

[Jeff]

Geez, we could use at least one carrier in strategic reserve rather than a few zillion more razer blades. Especially since I'm not sure how possible it is to retain a nuke carrier in reserve whenever that time comes.

[5150]

I might be out to lunch, but I thought JFK was part of the Reserve, technically speaking. She'd been assigned to Naval Reserve Force at one time.

 

Aren't Independence and Ranger in reserve? Or have they gone onto donation status?

[Rod]

Perhaps we could sell it to India together with a package of F/A-18s....of course Pakistan and China will be a little upset....

[Mobius]

Perhaps we could sell it to India together with a package of F/A-18s....of course Pakistan and China will be a little upset....

142576[/snapback]

Sell it to Iraq.

[Doug Kibbey]

Isn't the USN JFK the only carrier allowed to stop at Japanese ports due to Japan's reluctance to be associated with anything form of nuclear weapon (including its propulsion system)?

142322[/snapback]

 

The logic here is correct, this also explains why Kitty Hawk and Constellation were kept in service for so long. I believe Connie has been decommisioned but thought Kitty Hawk was still in service, though I haven't noticed it here in a while in San Diego, where CV's 63 & 64 were based.

 

Yes, the fossil fuel aspect was a factor in porting in Japan.

 

And I last saw Ranger mothballed in Bremerton in '84!

Edited February 7, 2005 by Doug Kibbey

[WRW]

Sounds familiar. I think JFK was the carrier that visited Ireland for exactly the same reason.

 

NTM

142365[/snapback]

 

 

yep

 

I called the US Embassy at the time - asked if they could let me know what squadrons were on board. A constipated press officer declared that such info was secret.

 

I then listed the units I though were on board along with their nick nmaes and asked him to confirm if these were the current units - seemingly also a secret

 

 

-

 

keep up the good work

 

WRW

[Ol Paint]

Not viable for C-130 use. While it might be able to land or take off (it has been done), it couldn't carry any useable cargo load or fuel. Now as a huge helicopter carrier, well now we are talking.

 

If it is old and worn out, dispose of it. The thing is near 40 years old. The US is tight on cash right now and running a budget deficit. The guys in Florida have had an economic benefit from this ship for years. It is utterly irresponsible to spend $300 million to maintain the lifestyle of some Florida shopowners and merchants.

142297[/snapback]

Actually, the KC-130F could operate from a carrier with a 25,000lb payload and enough fuel to carry that load 2,500nm. A J-model is claimed to have better performance, in general, than the older Hercs, so you can go from there.

From:  http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292308-269294.php

According to documents provided by Lockheed, the flight tests included 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 full-stop landings and 21 unassisted takeoffs at aircraft weights ranging from 85,000 pounds to 121,000 pounds. The landings were made easier because the C-130 could reverse its propellers on final approach. Flying virtually empty, the Hercules came to a stop in only 267 feet. At the higher weight, the C-130 took off in 745 feet and landed in 460.

 

These sustained carrier-deck operations by the Herk were as successful as anyone could have hoped. Based on the tests, according to the Lockheed documents, the Navy concluded the C-130 could carry 25,000 pounds of cargo and personnel to a carrier at a distance of 2,500 miles.

I don't think C-130 ops should be the only reason to keep a carrier around, but it could be within a spectrum. Of course, I don't think the USN should cut the carrier force any further. If you want to mothball the conventional carrier, build a nuke replacement.

 

Douglas

[John Nelson]

Geez, we could use at least one carrier in strategic reserve rather than a few zillion more razer blades. Especially since I'm not sure how possible it is to retain a nuke carrier in reserve whenever that time comes.

142459[/snapback]

 

Such as when a few Chinese or Iranian torps take out the Nimitz and we're suddenly down a few carriers? Might be a good reserve capacity to have, but as a civilian I have no idea how expensive or feasible that would be, and how long it would take to make it mission-capable again.

[Scott Cunningham]

I have an idea. Lets write off part of out UN debt by selling it to the UN. That way Kofi Annan has something for all the grand schemes he has. Other nations can contribute crew and airwing. We will sell them parts and maintenance and technical advice (and charge them out the ass for it). Hell, we've got the USS America, Kitty Hawk, and Ranger laid up as well. They can buy those too. Would clear all our dockspace in one shot, and get out of the UN debt.

 

A win-win situation.

[WRW]

Was there not talk about having a floafing SOF base parked of some coast - why not anchor the JFK?

 

WRW

[Steven P Allen]

And I last saw Ranger mothballed in Bremerton in '84!

142632[/snapback]

 

'94 perhaps, but not '84.

[Garth]

She was. After Lexington went to become a museum, Coral Sea was scrapped and Forrestal stricken there was still a need for a dedicated training deck. The idea was to move the carrier force to an 10+1+1 ratio (10 active decks, 1 training/reserve deck, 1 CVN in RCOH). JFK was the training deck with a reserve-heavy crew and all of her combat-related equipment in place ... with the intent being that she'd still have the ability to deploy should there be a crunch/need to.

 

It turned out that the USN was in a perpetual crunch with it's CVSG deployments, so she never really left the deployment schedule/rotation. The idea of a dedicated/mostly-dedicate training deck was dropped and NavAir now relys on whatever CV/CVN happens to be handy when it comes to CarQal'ing nuggets.

 

--Garth

 

 

 

I might be out to lunch, but I thought JFK was part of the Reserve, technically speaking. She'd been assigned to Naval Reserve Force at one time.

142479[/snapback]

[Garth]

Not exactly ... Connie and Hawk were kept in place to maintain the 11+1 carrier force until more CVNs were built as part of a regular turnover. Connie was replaced by Reagan, Kitty Hawk will be replaced in 2008 by GHW Bush.

 

It's true that Japan will only accept conventionals ... which is why Kitty Hawk is the forward-deployed deck (although she would have still been in the force, regardless). JFK was due to replace her in 2008 and continue in service until 2018 or so (replaced by CVNX-02/CVN79). After that ... well the USN has apparently been doing some research into putting the forward-deployed deck at Apra in Guam (they may do that anyways, or even up it to two decks).

 

Yes, Kennedy is in pretty rough shape. The past few years ALL the US-based conventionals have been (there are persistant, but unconfirmed, rumors that Connie went off to OIF without one shaft being operational) because the nukes get the funding. But the Japanese yard workers at Yokosuka have been known to be miracle workers ... they pretty much re-SLEPped both Indy and Kitty Hawk when they showed up, and on her final pre-decom sea trials Midway took everything the Navy could throw at her (they were actively trying to overstress her systems beyond the breaking point) outperformed the capabilities of all the nukes except Enterprise.

 

One distinct possibility, given Kitty Hawk's alleged excellent material condition, would be to retire JFK now to achieve near-term cost savings, but then plan on extending Kitty Hawk out through 2018 (she'd be 60 by then I'd point out). We'd drop to 10+1 for 2-3 years, but then be back up to 11+1 in 2008 ... and the rotation schedule might be able to handle that.

 

--Garth

 

The logic here is correct, this also explains why Kitty Hawk and Constellation were kept in service for so long. I believe Connie has been decommisioned but thought Kitty Hawk was still in service, though I haven't noticed it here in a while in San Diego, where CV's 63 & 64 were based.

 

Yes, the fossil fuel aspect was a factor in porting in Japan.

 

And I last saw Ranger mothballed in Bremerton in '84!

142632[/snapback]

[Doug Kibbey]

They must have sped up the reduction of the fleet a bit. When I had occasion to tour the Connie in '95 (when they used to still do that sort of thing over on N. Island), she and the 'Hawk were in for some modernization refits...and the line was that these were expected to keep them in service until the 20-teens sometime...obviously, it ain't turning out that way.

[Garth]

I remember there being some talk in the 1990s about moving the fleet to a 12+1 (12 active, 1 RCOH) ratio. There was also talk of retiring JFK early and keeping Connie & Hawk in the fleet, since they had been SLEP'd.

 

I'm pretty sure that America went out much earlier than expected (before Independence) because her hull was deteriorating so badly that the cost of fixing it was astronomical (to cut construction costs lower-grade steel was used in her than in the other to KH-class).

 

--Garth

 

They must have sped up the reduction of the fleet a bit. When I had occasion to tour the Connie in '95 (when they used to still do that sort of thing over on N. Island), she and the 'Hawk were in for some modernization refits...and the line was that these were expected to keep them in service until the 20-teens sometime...obviously, it ain't turning out that way.

143972[/snapback]

[BP]

Question: how much longer is Enterprise gonna last? All of her original escorts and peers have long since been retired.

[Garth]

She's due out in 2013. Will be replaced by CVNX-1/CVN78.

 

In terms of "peers" ... Kitty Hawk is older and JFK is only 6-7 years younger.

 

--Garth

 

Question: how much longer is Enterprise gonna last?  All of her original escorts and peers have long since been retired.

144003[/snapback]

[Josh]

I don't think the Big E is scheduled to retire until like 2020, but perhaps if the USN drops to an 11 ship force as is being considered that might change. Her sister ships were retired I think more because their sensors and weapons fits were not cost effective to upgrade and the nuke plants weren't worth the cost of maintaining with inferior armorment compared to more modern conventional warships. I don't think the hull, engines, or reactors were at the end of their service life; certainly the Californias and Virginias had plenty of life left in them if there was a perceived requirement to keep running them. I think the nuke surface combatants ended up being very expensive to maintain compared to other surface combatants. For CVs it offers enough advantages in strategic deployability (and certainly for SSNs) but it apparently isn't cost effective for cruisers--plus the issue of all the nations that won't host ships with nuclear weapons or power plants.

 

EDIT: I stand corrected, 2013.

Edited February 10, 2005 by jua

[Garth]

People might also want to read this as well:

 

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32731.pdf

 

Other alternatives being proposed to Congress (the report is from CRS, I'd point out) are the retirement of Kitty Hawk, Enterprise and Vinson (Vinson because she's the next CVN up in the RCOH schedule).

 

--Garth