With the recent decommissioning of the USN 7th Fleet aircraft carrier, USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), (it was replaced/relieved as the 7th Fleet flagship by the nuclear carrier USS George Washington, (CVN-73) ) word has come out that she may be offered for free to India as part of a deal to possibly sell about 65 SuperHornets to the New Delhi government.

While India is technically a member of the Commonwealth, it is not given as much trust as other more traditional Allied nations within the US-led Coalition, such as Australia.

Perhaps the Kitty Hawk would see better use in RAN hands, since the RAAF also operates Hornets and Canberra once considered the Super Hornet as well; the RAN needs a new carrier to resurrect their Fleet Air Arm to face possible regional threats like Indonesia and China, especially since HMAS Melbourne was retired in the early 1980s, if I can recall correctly.

Any thoughts about this article?



http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/P...14/772agroh.asp

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Enssantor,

India operates Sea Harriers at the moment from the late HMS Hermes but if they buy a conventional carrier (no ski jump) they'll have to get conventional 'planes to fly off it, which will probably be good for someone in the US Defence industry.

There is another thread about this topic over in Hot Topics-General Discussion. It may generate some ducats for someone/some corporation but several of us don't think it's a good or "bright" idea.

It is foolish to get rid of a perfectly good and functioning ship, especially considering how many commitments our wacko-headed State Department obligates our Navy to around the world.

IF we had to let go of the carrier, then sale/lease it to the Aussies or even the U.K.---two countries that usually are allied with us. India has never been an ally of ours, and in fact have been cozy with the moscow bears.

Neither the RN nor the RAN has the bodies to man a ship that size (this was an issue even back in 1982 when the RN was much larger and Reagan is supposed to have offered a US carrier), India does and it's also of a level of technology that they should be familiar with.
There's also the overheads of such a relatively old ship to consider, it can't be the most efficient vessel afloat (probably why the US is considering getting rid with oil prices high). It also needs a lot of aircraft which we certainly don't have (our last catapult capable A/C were disposed of thirty years ago) and can't afford.

quote:

Originally posted by Bladensburg:
Neither the RN nor the RAN has the bodies to man a ship that size

Bladensburg,

Well if the RAN had set aside the money and the manpower for the building and crewing of the two Canberra class amphibious assault ships/LHDs which are still currently being built, they may still have enough personnel to man the Kitty Hawk, provided the LHDs are cancelled or if a number of personnel are transferred laterally from the surface fleet.

It will be an interesting deal for either Australia or India if this carrier deal goes through.

BTW, here is an artist's depiction of the two Canberra class LHDs being built: HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_clas...amphibious_ship

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Enssantor,

HMAS Canberra has (according to that Wiki) a complement of <300 (plus ~1000 embarked troops and possibly air group) whereas USS Kitty Hawk requires ~5,600. Bit of a difference that.

It also only gives you one hull rather than two and the bare minimum for decent carrier ops is two ships.
It also lacks the assault capability of the RAN vessels and it's a steam-turbine ship which is fairly inefficient by modern standards (the last turbine RN ship was HMS Fearless).

Yank here gentlemen. I wouldnt worry about this ship too much. We used to call her the "shitty" kitty. Most nick names are well earned. Besides, I know you could make a better ship anyway.
Also, on a different note... I'm proud of your young Prince doing his duty in Afganistan. It's warming to see honor still prevails.

Doubt that she would actually be offered. The U.S.N. is sort of picky about the "super carriers", choosing to "reef" them in deep water or use them as targets sunk in deep water, than to let them and their construction become widely known to other nations and the U.S.N. is usually listened to, when it comes to the "super carriers".
Older carriers, have in the past, been transferred to other navies, such as the U.S.S. Cabot to Spain decades ago. The U.S.S. America was recently sunk as part of a SINKEX in deep water and only the older Essex class conversions have been sent to the breakers or the older CVLs and CVEs have been sent to the breakers. One Essex conversion was reefed in relatively shallow waters off of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico, that was the former U.S.S. Oriskany...
Will she be offered? That would be a "not likely", at least IMHO...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

It might be offered, but rather like the offer of a supercarrier in 1982 it's easy to offer something that you know will be refused.

Sorry, the Kitty Hawk was not offered to India. Its just an Indian scheme to get the Russian Gorshov cheaper and sooner.

quote:

Originally posted by Enssantor:

quote:

Originally posted by Bladensburg:
Neither the RN nor the RAN has the bodies to man a ship that size

Bladensburg,

Well if the RAN had set aside the money and the manpower for the building and crewing of the two Canberra class amphibious assault ships/LHDs which are still currently being built, they may still have enough personnel to man the Kitty Hawk, provided the LHDs are cancelled or if a number of personnel are transferred laterally from the surface fleet.

It will be an interesting deal for either Australia or India if this carrier deal goes through.

BTW, here is an artist's depiction of the two Canberra class LHDs being built: HMS Canberra and HMS Adelaide.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_clas...amphibious_ship

Why would Australia want a vessel nearing 40 years in age? America is ditching it because spare parts are hard to find. The same situation would exist in Australia.

However, the two Canberra LHDs will solve most of Australia's sea lift problems. Nothing like having a crisis 100 miles away in East Timor, in your own back yard, to understand the importance of sea lift.

Last year Admiral Shaders wished for a third Canberra LHD configured for carrier operations with the F-35B aircraft. The new ALP government swiftly denied a third Canberra. A year later it appears the third sea lift vessel may be cut. After a year when the price of oil doubled, there is no more money left. All the departments are short of gasoline money this year as is.