Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:24:25 UTC, "Flashnews"
wrote:

However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to
keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick
wall in sustainability and flat out speed

I don't know where you got that. The reason for dumping the JFK was
primarily that her arresting gear had degraded into uselessness and
would cost a huge wad to replace. Secondarily, ships with high
pressure oil-fired boilers and steam turbines are virtually extinct.
The boiler tech (BT) rating is defunct with propulsion machinery
either going gas turbine, nuclear, or (in the future) electric. It's
not just the number of boilers that counts, it's the fact that there
ARE boilers that counts.

This proposal is just about as sensible as the local yokel who wanted
to anchor the JFK off the coast instead of building a new outlying
landing field (OLF).

Let cleaning fire-sides die a praiseworthy death---
Jerry
--

Jerry the JFK hull would last decades, what you are saying that costs "a
huge wad" turns out to be quite affordable once you consider the $7-10
billion for a new CVN and the $3-4 billion for the LHA(R). I am just so
facinated at how smart you are on these things. Would it be possible that
oil-fired boilers would be just what an assault ship would want, especially
one that is anchored for weeks off of someone's coastline - maybe even
Virginia so carquals could occur.
And steam turbines are not extinct by a long shot and the arresting gear
issue is one thast is refurbished on every carrier SLEP but in the case I
suggested much of the normal deck work will go away as will much of the
available interior. Now if you going to tell me that this new Navy we are
seeing with just about every major new design type falling into enormous
cost overruns, engineering difficulties, and flat out bad construction from
bad design - well shucks cusion let's just keep pouring money on this fire
cuz that's the way we do it here. GMAFB


"Jerry" wrote in message
news:EsFkI7LVLls8-pn2-Xx4Uz71obNbi@localhost...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:24:25 UTC, "Flashnews"
wrote:

However the argument against the JFK was that it had to be modernized to
keep up with the nuclear CVN's and of course that would reach a brick
wall in sustainability and flat out speed

I don't know where you got that. The reason for dumping the JFK was
primarily that her arresting gear had degraded into uselessness and
would cost a huge wad to replace. Secondarily, ships with high
pressure oil-fired boilers and steam turbines are virtually extinct.
The boiler tech (BT) rating is defunct with propulsion machinery
either going gas turbine, nuclear, or (in the future) electric. It's
not just the number of boilers that counts, it's the fact that there
ARE boilers that counts.

This proposal is just about as sensible as the local yokel who wanted
to anchor the JFK off the coast instead of building a new outlying
landing field (OLF).

Let cleaning fire-sides die a praiseworthy death---
Jerry
--