Could USN use a dedicated training carrier?

The only problem with diesels and gas turbines powering carriers is that you need a steam plant for the catapults…..hope the new electromagnetic ones come online soon…..

well the CODOG, CODAG and all the other varients of the two are actually more fuel efficient, easier to repair and produce a safer working environment to work in. I remember my time in the RAN when we still had a few Boilers on line (the three DDG’s and a DE) and the engine rooms was so hot that you liutterally could die of heat exhaustion.

As it was the Department of Defence introduced an extra payment for those who had to work in any engine room where the temp was above 70*C, though by the time it was accepted we only had HMAS Brisbane in service.

And NOBODY is building warships with steam turbines (other than CVNs) anymore…..its all diesel and gas turbines……

and you’ll find that is the case that most navies retire old ships, not that they can’t be used, it’s more that they become expencive in repairs!

Seems to me when the navy used Lexington as a training CV she could only handle TA-4s and T-2s………..guys in the RAGs had to qualify on full size CVs and the navy was ok with that for decades……..only retired Lex cause she was old and expensive to operate…….

Wow, what’s this Arthur and I agreeing on something, May I die now to preserve this bliss 😛

Carriers (and their a/c) have grown substantially since ww-2. There was a time when older carriers could serve as a training platform. But given the type of a/c in use today and all the related electronics and landing resources, it is more practical to use a ‘real’ CV for the purpose.
Having a dedicated CVT was practical when the USN was large. Now it is shrinking and cost cutting is a primary concern.
No matter the size of the a/c (even JSF) there are so many elements of carrier operations that can best be taught on a ‘real’ CV.

Why build a dedicated trainer carrier when you can use a second-line real aircraft carrier? Not to mention the fact that wind-over-deck and the size of the deck are actually accurate on a second-line CV. If you’d build a cheapo trainer carrier, you’d have to get another conversion carrier to qualify the former trainees for a true CV/CVN.

Besides, a trainer carrier like the Kennedy is big enough to train other carrier procedures as well. I seriously doubt a dedicated trainer-carrier is cheaper at all.

it would take alot of pressure off the attack carriers and would be more responsive to the training needs of the Navy.

Yes it would, but you think about it first mate, having those carriers means money for the Navy budget, start cutting the fleet and you’ll start reducing their budget. Even if you have one training carrier dedicated, you reduce the budget for the attack carriers.

It seems that the Navy could build a pretty inexpensive vessel for this purpose………it would take alot of pressure off the attack carriers and would be more responsive to the training needs of the Navy. By the way, no cats on the Sable or Wolverine……the only paddle-wheel carriers ever……

The navy had two training ship carriers during WWII and they proved very successful, look up USS Sable and USS Wolverine, I have pics and stories but I’d have to find them.

Both of these ships were converted from paddle steam cargo supply ships and operated on the great lakes. The did not have hangers but did have arresting wires (can’t quite remember if they had cats). Each ship would deploy from their port at 05:00 and flying ops would commence at 06:00 and continue till 21:30.

The fact that these ships operated on the great lakes, out of harms way and out of the way of the main ports which were busy anyway with other more vital ship movements, goes to prove that this area is a viable one and should be looked into once again. Sadly the planes these days are much faster, need more room to move and are far heavier than those used during WWII, ops on the lakes might not be possible.

“The huge debate is between what the Navy thinks it needs and how Congress
represents its constituents.”
“If Congress is going to coerce the Navy to keep the Kennedy, it should
provide the additional money,” said retired Vice Admiral J.D. Williams. The
Navy shouldn’t be forced to take it out of hide.”

So the bill passed? Once again, Congress acts out of idiocy :rolleyes: If you really want to save a meaningful billion or two, cut production of the Super Horror. As it stands now, I wonder where the USN is going to save their money? DD(X)? E/F Horrors? Ohio SSGN conversions?

The Bill passed!!!!!! Kennedy is safe!!! At least till 2006 summer……….

JFK

April 3, 2005
Carrier’s Fate Launches Political Battle
By Jack Kelly
The U.S. Navy, forced to trim its budget, would like to retire the aging
aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy rather than eliminate more modern weapons
it considers more vital to national defense.
But the Navy’s proposal has steamed into just the sort of turbulent
political waters that so often scuttle Pentagon plans to make cutbacks based
strictly on security considerations.
In this case, the politics works like this:
*Florida politicians want to keep the Kennedy on active service because it
is the only carrier based in Mayport, Fla., where it creates thousands of
jobs.
*Florida politicians would acquiesce in mothballing the Kennedy, but only if
it were replaced by one of the carriers now resident in greater Norfolk,
Va. — the only other place on the Atlantic coast where carriers are based.
*Virginia politicians don’t want to let go of any carriers based in their
state, and at least one of them is trying to cut a deal with Florida to push
for a law that says the Navy must keep 12 carriers in service, so that
neither state would have to lose one.
The Navy would prefer not to retire the Kennedy, which had been scheduled to
remain inservice until 2018. But the Office of Management and Budget has
ordered cuts made, and Navy Secretary Gordon England and his admirals
decided taking the Kennedy out of service was the least painful way of
making the reduction.
Retiring the Kennedy would reduce the number of aircraft carriers to 11, the
first time in more than half a century there would be fewer than 12. “Every
single assessment by the Defense Department until last December showed the
need for 12 carriers,” said an aide to Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee.
But a diminished naval threat and a vast increase in the capabilities of
carrier-based aviation indicate this is no longer true, said retired Marine
Col. Robert Work, who analyzes naval issues for the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. “Every carrier you have forward is
like having six 1990 carriers,” Work said.
In 1990, the maximum number of targets that could be engaged in a day by an
aircraft carrier air wing was 162, he said. Thanks to precision-guided
weapons and an increase in the speed with which fighter-bombers can be
refueled and rearmed, a carrier air wing can now strike 1,000 targets in a
24-hour period.
Work said he thought the number of aircraft carriers could be reduced to 10
without endangering the Navy’s ability to perform its missions.
Peter Brookes, a commander in the Navy reserve who analyzes national
security issues for the Heritage Foundation, disagrees.
“I think going down below 12 is problematic,” Brookes said. “The first thing
the president asks when there is a crisis is: ‘Where are the carriers?’ “
But Brookes said he didn’t know where else the Navy could get the $1.2
billion it expects to save over the next six fiscal years by retiring the
Kennedy.
Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and George Allen, R-Va., have introduced
legislation to require the Navy to maintain at least 12 carrier battle
groups. The powerful Warner hasn’t joined them, but he has said a decision
on reducing the carrier force should be postponed until after a major
defense strategy review scheduled for this year has been completed.
“When we are at war, this is not a time to reduce carriers,” Nelson said.
“Now is not the time to do anything that will weaken our strategic military
capability of responding quickly and decisively to project our power,” Allen
said.
But the bill sponsored by Nelson and Allen — both of whom are up for
re-election next year — has more to do with protecting local economies than
with national security.
The Kennedy is the only aircraft carrier based at Mayport. The Kennedy’s
2,900 sailors and their families pump an estimated $250 million into the
local economy each year.
The loss of the Kennedy could trigger even greater economic misfortune for
Mayport. In May, the Pentagon will make its recommendations for base
closings to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. If the Kennedy and
a significant portion of its battle group are retired, it could be hard to
justify keeping the base open.
The Navy says it has no plans to deactivate other ships in the Kennedy
battle group. If the Kennedy is retired, Florida politicians — including
the president’s brother, Gov. Jeb Bush — want one of the five carriers
based in Norfolk transferred there to replace it.
Adm. Vernon Clark, the chief of naval operations, is sympathetic. He doesn’t
want all of his Atlantic carriers clustered in one port, lest there be
another Pearl Harbor.
But there is a problem. The Kennedy is one of only two conventionally
powered aircraft carriers left in the Navy. Mayport is not equipped to
handle a nuclear carrier. It could cost north of $140 million to upgrade
facilities.
The Kitty Hawk, which also is conventionally powered, also figures in the
Kennedy saga. The Kitty Hawk is based in Yokosuka, Japan. The Navy plans to
replace the Kitty Hawk in 2008 with the USS George H.W. Bush, a new nuclear
carrier scheduled to go into service then.
But the Japanese public is strongly opposed to having a nuclear warship
based in Japan.
Some in the Pentagon think that if forced into a choice between a nuclear
carrier or no carrier, a Japanese government increasingly concerned by
growing Chinese military might will opt for the nuclear carrier. But others
think the Japanese may insist the Kitty Hawk be replaced by the Kennedy.
That would resolve the 12 carrier issue, but not Mayport’s problem, or
Virginia’s. Each of the carriers based in Norfolk pumps about $250 million
into the local economy, which Virginia’s politicians are loath to lose. Even
if a Virginia carrier isn’t moved to Florida to replace the Kennedy,
Virginia still loses if the Kennedy is retired.
The Kennedy was put on the chopping block because it is the most expensive
of the carriers to maintain, and because it is scheduled for a major
overhaul to begin later this year. If that overhaul were done, it would be
done at the shipyard in the Norfolk area, and the skyrocketing cost of
shipbuilding is the chief source of the Navy’s financial woes.
“Shipbuilding cost increases have grown beyond our ability to control,”
Clark told Congress. The projected cost of the George H.W. Bush is $5
billion. The carrier built before that, the Ronald Reagan, cost $4.6
billion.
The Bush is the last of the Nimitz class carriers. The next carrier to be
built, the CVN-21, is estimated to cost $10.5 billion. (The Navy notes that
it will be more capable than the Nimitz class carriers, and that inflation
is built into the cost estimate.)
The costs of submarines and frigates are going up even faster.
“We’re caught on the horrible horns of a contradiction,” said Harlan Ullman,
a retired Navy captain who is now an analyst for the Center for Naval
Analyses. “Big decks are very valuable, but we have a horrendous budget
problem.”
The solution, Ullman said, is to decommission the Kennedy and another
carrier, as well as other ships in their battle groups, but to keep them
maintained with skeleton crews so they could be recalled to duty if there
were an emergency.
But politicians will resist this solution, he predicted. “Congress is going
to be on the side of maintaining ships [in active service] and the
shipbuilding base, but we don’t have the money to do that,” Ullman said.
“The huge debate is between what the Navy thinks it needs and how Congress
represents its constituents.”
“If Congress is going to coerce the Navy to keep the Kennedy, it should
provide the additional money,” said retired Vice Admiral J.D. Williams. The
Navy shouldn’t be forced to take it out of hide.”

Got this last week from my brother-in-law in the USMC, as we were discussing the JFK, and what will happen when the JFK and Sh**y Kitty are retired, with regard to a CV based in Japan.

Trying to moth ball the JFK? A Republican plot methinks…;)

Agree no hanger really needed. It wouldn’t need 30knts either……..or a huge electronic suite…….I think 25 to 28knts would be fine……..

Well could they? I’m thinking that the CdG would be a very good size of carrier for a dedicated CVT………..no need for expensive deffences……..could be diesel powered(would need a steam-generating plant for cats) ……..any thoughts?

If the US navy wanted a carrier just for training they should make it as cheap as possible.

Maybe a 30 knot capable trimaran hull, no hanger, flight deck only, 2 catapults (1 bow, 1 waist) and arrestor gear.

I thought Kitty Hawk was the oldest carrier in the fleet? She’s still homeported at Yokosuka and returned from her most recent cruise on the 28th of March.

Date Deployed: April 29, 1961 (USS Kitty Hawk)
Date Deployed: September 7, 1968 (USS John F Kennedy)

Right now the Navy is trying desperatly to mothball Kennedy. They have canncelled her refit and plan on taking her out of service this summer. Sen Warner has introduced a bill in the Senate to force the navy to keep 12 CVs in service but John Mcain and some other republicans are opposing it….we’ll know in the next few days if they can save her, but it looks grim……If she goes, Norfolk will lose a carrier when they send a CVN to be homeported in Mayport.

They already have a dedicated training carrier, one which is also used in movies as well, it’s the USS John F. Kennedy CV-67.

She was used in the movie Star Trek IV, the Voyage Home. They called her the Enterprise, but this was just for sentimentle reason, at the time the Big E was on patrol in the gulf and wasn’t due back for five months.

CV-67’s deployment takes her down to the Carribean once a monthfor a week, she is due for a refit soon and when she does go in it’s been rhoumored that the Big E will take up the slack as she is now the oldest ship in the carrier fleet.