DC Tom Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 A WHOLE lot of cutting! Getting there is a whole 'nother story! Only the American lock (Poe) at the Soo (1200'x110') might accomdate it... BUT, then again that is past Lake Erie and Ashcroft's desired location. The Poe accomadates the super-lakers... Then draft and beam would be an issue. The Welland would be a tough squeeze at (766'x80', Lock #8 is 1148'x80')... Like a "blivet": "Ten pounds of sh*t in a 5 pound bag!" With its (USS JFK) beam being about 130' and length at just over 1,000 feet... I take it can't navigate the Panama Canal (1000'x110')either? That horizontal clearance (beam) has got to be pretty solid, so I guess any modification is out of the question??... The radical beam is at a whopping 249' 200343[/snapback] Supercarriers don't fit through the Panama canal, true. They do through the Suez, though...I think for a carrier to go from the East to West Coast, they basically send them the long way around the world from the Med to the Indian Ocean, hence to the Pacific (thus dodging the low southern latitudes and their atrocious weather and conditions). Can anyone confirm this? The Iowa-class battleships in WWII, by the way, were designed specifically with the Panama Canal in mind. As I recall, the beam (108') was something like a foot less than the width of the canal on either side of the ship. Then, when the mounted the 40mm and 20mm AA mounts, the gun barrels overhung by just enough that they took down every single light pole on both sides of the one of the canals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warden Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Supercarriers don't fit through the Panama canal, true. They do through the Suez, though...I think for a carrier to go from the East to West Coast, they basically send them the long way around the world from the Med to the Indian Ocean, hence to the Pacific (thus dodging the low southern latitudes and their atrocious weather and conditions). Can anyone confirm this? When the Ronald Reagan transited to the West Coast this year - she went around S. America with port visits in Brazil, Uraguay and Chile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Supercarriers don't fit through the Panama canal, true. They do through the Suez, though...I think for a carrier to go from the East to West Coast, they basically send them the long way around the world from the Med to the Indian Ocean, hence to the Pacific (thus dodging the low southern latitudes and their atrocious weather and conditions). Can anyone confirm this? When the Ronald Reagan transited to the West Coast this year - she went around S. America with port visits in Brazil, Uraguay and Chile 200826[/snapback] Thanks...I always wondered if the Navy would risk a supercarrier around the Horn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Flanders Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Good... it's about time. That CVN has been a pain in the a$$ to the Navy for a few years now... the Kitty Hawk looked much better for its age than the JFK! It is going to save the Navy a lot of money and heartache by doing this. No other nation will take her, I imagine... we just don't give away a nuke like that. It's not like it's the Yorktown or something, remember! 195167[/snapback] Since when was JFK a CVN? "...the Kitty Hawk looked much better for its age than the JFK" That's a reason to scrap the JFK? It doesn't "look" good? I spent four years on the JFK, '76-'80...I know it was 25 years ago but it was a damn fine ship and we were the most decorated carrier in the Navy during the time period. Years pass and Big Jack may have had some problems, but they just finished a deployment where thousands of sorties over Iraq were conducted...and did a fine job. If it's time for JFK to go, so be it. But I hope Rummy and the boys take a good long look at what the Kennedy can bring to the table, both now and in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Since when was JFK a CVN? "...the Kitty Hawk looked much better for its age than the JFK" That's a reason to scrap the JFK? It doesn't "look" good? I spent four years on the JFK, '76-'80...I know it was 25 years ago but it was a damn fine ship and we were the most decorated carrier in the Navy during the time period. Years pass and Big Jack may have had some problems, but they just finished a deployment where thousands of sorties over Iraq were conducted...and did a fine job. If it's time for JFK to go, so be it. But I hope Rummy and the boys take a good long look at what the Kennedy can bring to the table, both now and in the near future. 202930[/snapback] A little self-concious? Personally, I think the embarassment started when the ship was not taken care of- preventative maintenance was not done up to standard, corners were cut, and that 'damn fine ship' caused plenty of damn fine problems for my Navy, the 21st century version. Every ship has its day, but when things go wrong, and its time comes to go, it goes. My whole POINT was that the Kitty Hawk hasn't had NEARLY the problems the JFK has, hence the looking good comment... you know, looking good as i.e. 'the situation doesn't look good', because a situation can't 'look like' anything LITERALLY. What happened to the JFK was a systematic negligence of maintenance, and people were relieved of command for it... another Navy lesson that we can learn a lot from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Since when was JFK a CVN? 202930[/snapback] OK, so I was wrong... After being on deployment on the Roosevelt and the Truman, you get used to CVN. A MAJOR DOH on my part! I almost got deployed on the Enterprise... 3 deployments, 3 different carriers, Now THAT would have been interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I think some of you (or most of you) do not understand the amount of maintenance it takes to maintain these carriers. This is what I do for a living. A carrier spends a LARGE amount of time in port. I would venture to say a carrier spends MORE than half of its lifetime sitting at a naval base or a shipyard. These carriers are usually ready to be dispensed anywhere in the world at short notice. The USS Roosevelt just completed a 12 month overhaul period. In general a carrier spends 6-12 months in a shipyard every 3 years. This is not uncommon. Also, at least once during its lifetime, it spends 3 years in port for a refueling (nuclear only). As stated in this thread, the Kennedy completed a 9 month overhaul a few years ago. It is due for another one here shortly, as is the Truman, and the George Washington, both of which have spent at least 6 months in a shipyard in the last 3 years. These shipyard periods require alot of people, and hence alot of money. From my perspective, the elimination of conventional carriers might be a good move. First off, they are older than the newer carriers, so they will require more maintenance and therefore cost of upkeep. Secondly, the majority of our carriers are nuclear (with the exception of the Kitty Hawk and Kennedy...i think thats all that are left). This causes the navy to employ 2 seperate groups of workers. Did you ever notice how southwest airlines, the most sucessful airline in the sky today, only one kind of aircraft? They have to train one kind of worker, have parts for one kind of plane, and need to employ only one kind of pilot. Its a cost saving measure. The navy should do the same. This said, do we need the Kennedy? It is a tactical situation. And a call you and I are not qualified to make. I understand the ship is in bad shape, and scrapping it may provide a signifigant cost-benefit. But its effect on national security is what is at stake. And I do not know the answer to that question. And the enterprise....dont even go there. Thing shoulda been canned 10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts