| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
ironduke50 |
Does the U.S. navy still have a training carrier? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 82 ( 5-Sep-2007 01:23:19) |
I believe Lexington was being used several years ago, is there a ship today in that role?
|
||
Theodore |
|||
|
Posts: 8392 ( 5-Sep-2007 02:56:45) Wheat Boss |
No. Lexington decommissioned in 1991. It was intended that Forrestal should be her replacement and that ship began an overhaul intended to extend her life in
this role, but it was cancelled in 1993 and she was stricken. In 1995 John F. Kennedy was assigned to the Naval Reserve Force and tasked as an operational
training carrier, but this was little more than a fig leaf to cover the lack of an actual dedicated training carrier. She did carrier qualifications when
available, but as she remained in the deployment cycle, she was often unavailable. Nor did her deteriorating material condition help matters; she last operated
fixed-wing aircraft in December 2005.
In practice, since 1991 carrier qualifications have been done aboard whatever carrier is available at any given time, with JFK pulling that duty more than the others. The most recent set of which I'm aware was done aboard Ike and Truman. Others can speak to whether we really need a training carrier, but it's unlikely we'll get one. |
||
wabpilot |
|||
|
Posts: 1935 ( 5-Sep-2007 04:17:11) |
Theodore wrote: Theodore is correct, we probably won't get a training CV unless there is a major change in funding. As a practical matter, Kitty Hawk is the
only potential ship for that mission and frankly she is too manpower intensive.
|
||
jemb |
|||
|
Posts: 657 ( 7-Sep-2007 22:20:39) |
Why is Kitty Hawk the only viable ship for the role? Is it because nuke carriers are more valuable emergency-deployment-wise?
And - naive question which I'm sure you'll know the answer to! - surely the Essex class Antietam and Lex couldn't take 'modern' (post-Vietnam) carrier combat aircraft (F-4, F-14, F/A-18 and A-6), so were more limited than supercarriers rotated to this role? (Thinking again, I've an idea Essexes could take the A-6 family, but not the fast jets) |
||
wabpilot |
|||
|
Posts: 1944 ( 8-Sep-2007 02:05:27) |
jemb wrote: Kitty Hawk is the most viable just because she is about to be replaced and is in much better material condition than JFK. Antietam had hydraulic catapults and could not even launch the TF-9F safely. Lexington's steam cats could have launched a F-4 in a pinch, but not routinely and not with the margin of safety we really wanted. Weight would have been a real issue with the F-14 and I seriously doubt the ability of Lexington to launch an F-14. Recoveries would have very soon cause structural damage to her deck. She had a wood deck with strategically placed steel deck plates. These were always a maintenance problem. The steel would protect the deck immediately below, but would dig into the wood around the edges of the plates. F-14s with their higher recovery speeds and weights would have made the problem turn severe very quickly. Thus, by the 1970s Lexington was limited to primary carrier qualifications. All the advanced carrier qualifications had to take place on the CVs or CVNs anyway. |
||
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2550 ( 9-Sep-2007 04:26:45) |
The A-6A/E, the KA-6D, the EA-6A and the EA-6B never operated off any Essex CV.
By the 1980s, Lex was operating TA-4F/Js & T-2 Buckeyes only. |
||
CJ2KSI |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 1 (10-Sep-2007 00:26:52) |
bager1968 wrote: Not exactly. I was on the Lexington in the late 80's-decom and we did occasionally do landings for both A6's and A7's. They were typically reservist squadrons and therefore landing light but they did land and launch. |
||
wabpilot |
|||
|
Posts: 1945 (10-Sep-2007 03:30:34) |
CJ2KSI wrote: A-7s were part of the 27C air groups in the 60s and 70s. I don't remember their air groups having A-6s though. A-3s also aboard in that time frame. |
||
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 3970 (10-Sep-2007 04:08:58) |
I looked at some old records I have and as far as I can tell no A-6 were operated from any Essex on a deployment. THe A-3 was frequently operated from several
of the class. In the 1970s the remainder of the class could operated: F-8H/J, A-7, A-4, E-1, S-2, A-3 and helecoptors.
|
||
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2552 (10-Sep-2007 05:36:38) |
The key is "operated" vs "landed & took off light".
Operated means operational use... with weapons payloads etc! |
||
CJ2KSI |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 2 (12-Sep-2007 02:18:47) |
bager1968 wrote: By that defination, Lexington didn't operate anything... |
||