The US Navy will be down to 10 carriers for a while as the good ship USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) is decommissioned later this month.
Time, tide, and over 40 years of service in all the oceans around the world has taken its toll on this great ship, and on March 23 the aircraft carrier, launched in 1967 and commissioned a year later, will be stricken from the rolls of active navy ships.
This will leave the US with only 10 active carriers until the USS George H. W. Bush is commissioned sometime in late 2008. A 10-carrier fleet may seem scandalous to those familiar with US Navy bird-farm numbers, but with Kennedy having launch and recovery equipment problems over the past few years and not having her flight deck certified to operate fixed-wing aircraft, we really have been operating with that reduce number of carriers for a while now.
Kennedy, one of the last oil-burners in the fleet, is currently on her last at-sea period, finishing up a port visit to her namesake’s hometown, Boston.
After decommissioning, she will likely be towed up to Philadelphia Naval Ship yard, taking the place at the pier where USS America waited so long for her ignoble yet valuable weapons test sinking last year. Such a fate will most likely not be the case for Kennedy, if for nothing else her name will result in her possibly being the first “Super Carrier” museum to adorn a waterfront one day.
I’d say if you are in the Mayport, FL area later this month, go on down and give the ol’ girl a send off befitting her great heritage and wonderful service over all these years. She’s been a good one.
–Pinch Paisley, cross posted with more at the Instapinch
|
Farewell to a FlattopLeave a Reply |
|
Which prompts the obvious question: is there any compelling reason for us to continue to operate eleven carrier battlegroups?
Last I checked, the USSR was gone. And we’re supposed to be fighting a Global War on Terror (or, if you prefer Kilcullen nomenclature, a Global Counterinsurgency). So why not cut the fleet and use the savings to prosecute this Clash of Civilizations?
RE: So why not cut the fleet and use the savings to prosecute this Clash of Civilizations?
That IS sarcasm I hope.
Otherwise, please take a quick look at how we prosecuted the initial air war effort in Afghanistan: AF long range bombers and USN Fighters. Then take a few days and read The “Pentagon’s New Map” by Barnett.
The Senior hit that one on the nose. I can’t think of a more potent form of power projection than a CVBG.
Senior Mac in the house! Well put.
Echoing Sr Mac, we prosecuted a significant part of the first 6 weeks of the war in Afghanistan with 3 (TEDDY ROOSEVELT, ENTERPRISE and KITTY HAWK) aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean — 2 and a half, actually, because KITTY HAWK was used as a SpecOps carrier and only had a bare shadow of its airwing on board — helos and such made up the rest of the aircraft. The other 2 carriers flew an average of over 100 sorties per day on missions lasting up to 6–8 hours. What does that tell you? Flexibility and significant/effective power projection — two of the most important things one would want in a combat capability.
JT,
You are correct. KITTY HAWK is on the threshold of beign retired, however, and I neglected to count her. She’s on borrowed time now, however, and in Dec of 2005 it was announced USS GEORGE WASHINGTON was going to replace her as our forward deployed carrier in Japan assuming any last-minute nuclear concerns do not become show-stoppers in Yokosuka. This would be in 2008, so the HAWK has about a year left.
Pinch
Pinch,
First off, nice website, what did you fly in the Navy? I can hardly believe the Japanese are going to let the US deploy a nuclear powered carrier to Japan. Maybe with all the North Korea stuff and open talk of Japan getting some nukes in the future, the George Washington won’t cause that much of a problem. A few years ago though, that would of been unthinkable.
Hi all … always makes me smile (ruefully) when you american types bemoan only having 11 or 10 super carriers. i’d be quite happy if we in the uk (or even europe) had 4 or 5 … supposedly we’re getting three (two uk / one france) fairly biggish ones (50–60 000 tonnes) in the next 10–15 years, but i digress …
Slightly different question, but what are the views concerning the huge carriers? Yes, they can carry a large, flexible air wing, but with the recent display by chinese submarines in getting close to a carrier, aren’t they just a bit vulnerable? would it be better to have, say 15–20 50–70 000t carriers, which are thus able to cover more geographical areas, deployment rotas, and also cover attrition losses if necessary? is it more that the super carrier is seen as a symbol, the whole power and reach of america if you like? it seems similar in some ways to the national prestige battleship construction programs of the early 20th century, whereas as the first commentator noted, perhaps the money would be better spent on equipment and resources for the conflict in hand?
Regards!
All,
While I referenced Barnett, I should note that I too believe him to be off-target on many things, with several large blind spots. However, I believe his central arguments concerning the world as a system, with the interdependence of the
Correction: Ward’s reference to 6 sorties
If the USN is complaining they need a 600 ship navy, they are never going to get it buying large billion dollar ships. It is true that the US is the only nation that can project power anywhere on the planet. No one comes close. Key word however, is ‘project’.
The only reason to even have an aircraft carrier is deter other nation states. Only two enemy states exist, DPRK, and Iran. Don’t need 12 carriers for that. Having 10 is still too many, but they last 25 years, and are good for jobs. Don’t need carriers to intercept sea pirates.
We can play “what if’s” forever, and we have to hedge against everything. That is not possible. There is a finite amount of money to go around. Tough choices have to be made. Where is the action for the next 20 decades, and who is fighting it? The US Military has no problem finding foreign bases if needed.
Carriers are only good for lower tech nation states. It is useless in the GWOT, and too vulnerable for a large high tech military. Now for the Anti-China crowd: Launch 20 modern or future ASM’s and the carrier is fish food; not to mention mines, and torpedoes. I know everyone’s counter argument to that, carriers operate as part of a CSG. Let’s spend billions of dollars to build defensive ships to defend a five billion dollar target. That’s stupid. Maybe the CVX will offer something new, but it is decades away.
The current and future of warfare is asymmetric; whether it is ground, air, or sea. Post conflict is man intensive. The goal should be smaller, cheaper, more of them and be decentralized. I am against any weapon system that does not adhere to this principle. If the $600B DoD budget (4% GDP) is not enough, then something needs to go, either the “wars” or the useless Cold War weapons.
“I know everyone’s counter argument to that, carriers operate as part of a CSG. Let’s spend billions of dollars to build defensive ships to defend a five billion dollar target. That’s stupid. Maybe the CVX will offer something new, but it is decades away.“
So are you arguing that we won’t protect smaller carriers?!? I don’t get it, any carrier is going to have a group around it, bigger carriers can do more-they can put more birds in the air more often-so bigger carriers make more sense. Really because small carriers don’t make much sense.
PINCH,
On your site you’ve got all those other carriers in mothballs and some suspect Kennedy will be sunk in a test. Why not use Ranger, Forrestal or Constellation for these tests. Certainly Forrestal isn’t that different is it?
Good Post.
Sam,
If I were a betting man and had a farm, I’d bet the whole shebang that an aircraft carrier named JOHN F KENNEDY will *never* end up being sunk in a test. There’s a pretty powerful family with the same name up in the Boston area that will have a great deal of sway on the disposition of that ship, I’d wager.
I heard that CONSTELLATION has already been tapped for an artificial reef sinking. The weapons test sinking of AMERICA was specifically to obtain data points for the new future carrier program (or so I was told), and I don’t think we’ll see any more of those simply because I don’t think we need them.
The JFK will never be sunk as a ‘test’ target for development of future carriers. With the name it will end up in Mass. someplace.
I’m a former crewmember of the USS America (that was sunk for tests) and we tried to get her donated for a muesum. NAVSEA and everyone else claimed the hull was in ‘bad’ shape. JFK and America are just about the same ship so what makes it different? The name.
ON DECOM & SAVING JFK AS MEMORIAL SHIP: I am not sure JFK can be saved. Like FDR (CV-42)in 1977, JFK missed some yard periods, and then I think that once the Navy decided that they were going to decom JFK, there was less maintenance performed on the ship. I had heard that upon decom, JFK was offered, like LEXINGTON (CV/AVT-16) to the Naval Aviation Museum, NAS, Pensacola but again, the museum, from what I have heard, turned the Navy down in accepting either ship for “fear” they would “detract” from the museum since the ship would be pierside and the museum not having any plans to move out of their present facilities and aboard either ship. Then, I heard that the Naval Aviation Museum went to Mayport and cut out an entire compartment — I was told that this was either the captain’s or admiral’s cabin, and obtained other artifacts for their museum. IF this is true, I am not sure what kind of condition JFK would be in to be restored as a museum ship. I am not aware of any record of statements by the people of Boston or any other town in Massachusetts indicating any desire to get JFK from the Navy as a museum just like they made no attempt to save BOSTON (CA-69/CAG-1) when she was decom’d IN Boston. They did get JOSEPH P. KENNEDY (DD-850) and would have thought that they would make a play for JFK — however, if there has been any interest in her by any group in MA, and if anyone can confirm that the Naval Aviation Museum did scavenge her for artifacts if not a whole entire compartment; and, given her pre-decom condition, it is doubtful that any group can save her. I hope somebody in this discussion can confirm whether or not the Nav Av Musuem did or did not cut out an entire compartment and address if they turned her down like they did LEXINGTON. It seems like the Nav Av Museum would want to have themselves aboard a carrier, just like REAL Naval Aviation in REAL LIFE. Maybe the Naval Aviation Museum doesn’t appreciate aircraft carriers and thinks that naval aviation is something else without aircraft carriers that the rest of us are unaware of — or so it would seem. I am not optimistic that any group will save JFK, and I will never be optimistic again after the Navy allowed scrapping of ENTERPRISE (CV-6) in 1958 and allowed ADM Farragut’s flagship HARTFORD to sink at her moorings. Therefore, I can not doubt, in my heart, that somebody at the Naval Aviation Museum convinced somebody in NavAir or OP-05 to arrange with somebody in NavSea to allow them to take whatever they wanted and possibly cut out an entire compartment renderding JFK not fit for a museum if offered by the Navy to another group, if there was one that expressed any interest.
I can see the USS Kitty Hawk & JFK as Museum ships alone, see USS Midway & Hornet.
Nice.
Place USS JFK near Old Ironsides in Boston Harbor.
Nice
& Kitty Hawk in NC???
Ideal income sources
See midway.org.
Best run carrier museum ever.
Beats USS Intrepid.
Now wed have 2 Forrestal class carriers asMuseum pieces.
1 FDR ( USS Midway) 1 Essex– USS Hornet.
Nice.