Posted on Jun 9, 2017
us-navy-looking-at-bringing-retired-carrier-uss-kitty-hawk-out-of-mothballs
2.31K
9
9
5
5
0
We have more important issues facing the US military than climate change, global warming and taxing people to death so they drive less LOL. Let's bring back our last conventional aircraft carrier and forget about the carbon taxes or the CO2. We need to have an extra aircraft carrier that we know is reliable and not to be subject to frequent breakdowns or modifications to be seaworthy.
us-navy-looking-at-bringing-retired-carrier-uss-kitty-hawk-out-of-mothballs
Posted from thedrive.com
South China Sea
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
My guess is that it'll take more than a billion to get that ship back to being a warfighting platform. Don't think it'll happen.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
That's nothing compared to the F-35 and we know it will work after a billion dollars
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
we spent more money on a piece of junk hundred sixty five billion dollars and 7 years behind schedule junk Strike Fighter. What is another billion dollars look how much money they've waste on a littoral combat ships
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SPC Chris Benson - yes just pay off the murderous Islamic Republic of Iran about seven hundred million dollars for a few hostages no questions asked and send them an unmarked bills from different nominations and shipped them by playing like we did a few months ago before President Trump took office
(0)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
One billion as opposed to 20 billion or more for a new carrier? I think it is a very functional bargain Greg. As to that weak minded imbecile Obama wasn't there an English prime minister before Churchill who thought paying off the Nazis was a functional solution? Which leads me to only two possible conclusions. Both of which may be true. Socialists are idiots, and the end game of the preview administration was indeed the destruction of America.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't know about the reliability of ancient aircraft carriers however, I do know that the extant electronics and equipment are far less susceptible to destruction by an EMP in the case of near proximity to a weapon designed to create such a pulse in the atmosphere. I think it's not a bad idea.
Station keeping with such a ship...especially in the vicinity of a nuclear armed hostile..such as NK would also be relatively inexpensive. Station keeping does not require enormous quantities of burner oil. Makes a hell of a lot of sense. Modern missiles and armaments are certainly not a problem to mount and operate from such a conventional warship. There may be more and more need for station keeping vessels capable of aircraft launch capabilities. Great thought..
Maybe I will look at the video link you posted with the update Steve. This I wrote off the cuff.
Station keeping with such a ship...especially in the vicinity of a nuclear armed hostile..such as NK would also be relatively inexpensive. Station keeping does not require enormous quantities of burner oil. Makes a hell of a lot of sense. Modern missiles and armaments are certainly not a problem to mount and operate from such a conventional warship. There may be more and more need for station keeping vessels capable of aircraft launch capabilities. Great thought..
Maybe I will look at the video link you posted with the update Steve. This I wrote off the cuff.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
PO3 John Wagner
Fantastic thought there sir. Once again a really great idea. An aircraft carrier could carry enormous quantities of drones. Thanks for mentioning.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google