US aircraft carrier USS "John C. Stennis" (CVN-74) to extend service life by 25 years

The US Navy is permanently deprived of one of its aircraft carriers. According to Naval News, the USS "John C. Stennis" (CVN-74) nuclear-powered aircraft carrier has undergone major overhaul and modernization.

The aircraft carrier has already arrived at the Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) shipyard in Newport News for the next four years. This is the deadline set by the US Navy to carry out the necessary work on the ship, and there is really a lot planned there. According to the data provided by the shipyard, during the repair, the aircraft carrier will be completely cleaned and re-painted the hull, recharged nuclear reactors, and there are two of them on the ship - of the Westinghouse A4W type, propeller shafts and propellers will be repaired, and most ship systems will be updated or replaced.

Thus, the aircraft carrier USS "John C. Stennis" (CVN-74) is extended its service life by another 25 years.

The ship itself is certainly not new, but "well-preserved", is the seventh in a series of 10 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. It was laid down on March 13, 1991, and entered the US Navy on December 9, 1995. The home port is Kitsap Base, Bremerton, Washington.

Displacement 103900 tons. Maximum length - 332,8 meters, maximum width - 76,8 meters, draft 11,3 meters. Speed ​​30 knots. The cruising range is not limited. The crew is 3200 plus 2480 of the air wing. It can carry 90 aircraft and helicopters.

Comments

[xorek]

Well, vooot, otherwise our libers are about Kuzya, ash feathers flew here ..

[Bradley]

Well, vooot, otherwise our libers are about Kuzya, ash feathers flew here .. laughing

Well, you compared the sausage with a finger.

[xorek]

Quote: Bradley

Well, vooot, otherwise our libers are about Kuzya, ash feathers flew here .. laughing

Well, you compared the sausage with a finger.

I compared it well, but why did you get so excited right away? Judging by your location here, you should be aware of. Kuzya is certainly not so hot, but many are afraid of his commissioning and such aircraft carriers as in the article ..
Nobody knows what they will stuff him with .. He may, alone, be able to resist the armada of AUGs with modern Russian weapons ..
One volley and everything will decide .. I think so, why is it being modernized and for a very long time, despite the screams and sabotage there ..

[TermNachTer]

That is, the mattress covers remain with 4 aircraft carriers for 9 years, despite the fact that their service schedule is already extremely loaded. And in 4 years, some fighters for the rights, some minorities can pro-Maidan write it off, on pins and needles)))

[xorek]

Quote: TermNachTER

That is, the mattress covers remain with 4 aircraft carriers for 9 years, despite the fact that their service schedule is already extremely loaded. And in 4 years, some fighters for the rights, some minorities can pro-Maidan write it off, on pins and needles)))

AUGs are no longer relevant .. Nobody in the world is afraid of them, thanks to Russia!
They are kept purely for show off .. Someday they will sink a couple, not knowing who and for what
And then they will definitely be sent to India or China on pins and needles.

[TermNachTer]

Well, while it's too early to discard them, they can still spoil the blood. Although, yes - their role is gradually decreasing.

[xorek]

Quote: TermNachTER

Well, while it's too early to discard them, they can still spoil the blood. Although, yes - their role is gradually decreasing.

Well, then yes .. These colossus still shed blood, but not in Eurasia, but in their own continent There are so many countries, they keep in fear and no protests and other coups. But they can tell the United States their fu.
Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua. These countries so far speak out as direct opponents of US hegemony.
And if others rise? But there is a huge protest potential, if you just throw a match and it will blaze across the continent .. And if you still support it?

[For example]

Quote: xorek

Kuzya is certainly not so hot, but many are afraid of his commissioning, and such aircraft carriers as in the article ..

I agree.

Congress next week kicks off the US dissolution process due to Kuzi's return to the Navy.

The British, precisely because of the planned modernization of Kuzma, left the EU.
There is no point in mentioning the EU at all. There all hope is in the United States.
In general, the EU is holding fists and hoping that the US will not dissolve itself. But this is practically a settled issue.
Alas the EU.

So, the whole world is not something that is afraid, the whole world is just crap already liquid.

Ferret, you don't have patriotism ... it's more insanity.

And tell me, why is Kuzya "not so hot"?
No catapult?
Less displacement?
Or are the planes bad?
What's wrong?
Maybe the air defense is weaker than that of the Yankees? (how is it with the Yankees' air defense?)
Or is it the lack of a nuclear reactor on board?

What is "not so hot"?

[xorek]

Quote: For example

And tell me, why is Kuzya "not so hot"?
No catapult?
Less displacement?
Or are the planes bad?
What's wrong?
Maybe the air defense is weaker than that of the Yankees? (how is it with the Yankees' air defense?)
Or is it the lack of a nuclear reactor on board?

What is "not so hot"?

The accidents there are strange on the stocks and in general .. "Our" liberties are terribly smirking at him ..
This is not so hot! No matter how sabotage was, and so much invested in it.
That will come to the test and again a fire or, even worse, an explosion.

[TermNachTer]

Well, aircraft carriers have always been instruments of aggression. Other options for their use were not originally intended.

[ironic]

Well, yes, they are not at all relevant. But they climb all the seas and oceans. How to drown them in Russia so far, apart from the bezishodnost in the form of an aerobalistic Dagger, is still practically not there, but they are no longer afraid thanks to Russia.

[TermNachTer]

Besides the "daggers", there are Chinese BRs. In addition, the AUG itself is not a super weapon, invulnerable and omnipotent, it has weaknesses. To strike, it has to come close enough to the coast, where it is quite achievable for coastal aviation, and electronic warfare equipment, and much more. Those who really assess the capabilities of AUG are not afraid, and do not watch American movies a la Tom Clancy.

[ironic]

Yeah, another version of bezishodnosti. But China does not attach too much importance to it, it seems they realized that they spent the money recklessly. There is no such thing as an invulnerable weapon. AUG does not approach the coast alone, where many times superior coastal forces await it. And only the abnormal are not afraid of anything.

[TermNachTer]

And Chinese BRs are not designed to work under their own shore, but to "treat" mattress makers somewhere in the middle of the ocean. The effectiveness of the Chinese ballistic missiles roughly corresponds to the effectiveness of the F - 35. Nobody used it against a real enemy.

[IL-18]

Quote: ironic

but they are no longer afraid

I do not really understand your comment. Do we have fewer daggers than their aircraft carriers?

[ironic]

It’s not much more true anymore, but for you it’s good, there’s less money. At least it is clear why on Caliber.

[IL-18]

Frankly, for me, the load on the no longer produced MiG-31 looks more problematic. An interceptor of such a range for a huge country is no less important than a Dagger carrier. And there are no questions to the Dagger himself.

[3danimal]

Do not read hurray-patriotic publications in the morning, take care of your psyche.

[Lord of the Sith]

Not 9, but 4, the rest are at various stages of repair or modernization.

[TermNachTer]

Well, some of them can be quickly returned to service if such a need happens.

[bayard]

Quote: TermNachTER

That is, the mattress covers remain with 4 aircraft carriers for 9 years, despite the fact that their service schedule is already extremely loaded.

They have several UDCs in "light" aircraft carriers change their shoes with the F-35B on board, so they will be on the safe side, albeit without the "Hokaev".

[TermNachTer]

The super efficiency of the F - 35 is still a big question. In addition, it is not at all so easy to load the F - 35 on board, if the ship was not originally designed for them, and went to drown the bad guys))) there are a lot of difficulties with basing, supply, repair and maintenance. easy and simple, only in mattress tales for third world countries)))

[bayard]

Quote: TermNachTER

The super efficiency of the F - 35 is still a big question.

It is in the VTOL version that the F-35 meets all the requirements and is inferior to the F-35A only in range. Therefore, for less priority areas where the presence of an aircraft carrier is necessary, they are quite suitable.

Quote: TermNachTER

In addition, it is not at all so easy to load the F - 35 on board, if the ship was not initially sharpened for them.

Their UDCs are intended for basing "Harriers" and there is no fundamental difficulty in replacing old aircraft with new ones. They are already based there. There remains the issue of radar support at low altitudes, but if an AWACS helicopter appears on board the UDC (and it asks directly there), then I do not see any problems for the normal functioning of the rearmed UDC as a "light" aircraft carrier.
Our opponents have the ability to maneuver their forces and means, there is the possibility of redistributing the functions of various carriers of aircraft. And they have the largest and most advanced fleet. You just need to be aware of it and take it into account in your conclusions. They always had it like that - since WWII.
And since the post-war era, the Soviet Fleet has always had to look for clues to its vulnerabilities. And Admiral Gorshkov succeeded in his time.
It just so happens that the Russian Navy has nothing to oppose to the most powerful fleet in the world, except for an ICBM strike on enemy bases. There are very few carriers of long-range CDs, there are very serious issues with target designation for CDs. Our surface fleet in the far zone can only imagine (with difficulty) unmodernized Soviet-built ships, several new frigates (of which only two are at least something), and a handful of old MAPLs of project 971. There is also SSGN pr. 949 "Antey", but they have old cruise missiles with a high-altitude flight profile, for which Aegis was just sharpened.
And there are very serious problems with target designation.
Everything else is the dreams of couch dreamers.
The submarine "Kazan", accepted into the Fleet, will acquire combat readiness only in a year and a half.
We have nothing to boast about SO LOUD.
All our sea "power" is still in dreams and plans.
We have practically no Naval Aviation. There are no modern PLO, AWACS, MRA aircraft, naval reconnaissance and target designation aircraft. Even just fighters to cover our naval base are not enough yet.
What do you intend to boast about?
If all plans to re-equip the Navy have failed?
By the end of 2020, the Fleet was ALREADY to receive 8 Boreyevs, 7 Ash trees, about 15 frigates, about 25-30 corvettes ... this is not counting the landing ships, submarines and all sorts of little things + auxiliary vessels.
Do you admire Zircon?
Are there any carriers for it?
Not in the plans and on the stocks, but really - in the ranks?
And who will give him target designation.
Spoon road for dinner!
And "lunch" is already on the nose.

... "If tomorrow is war
If tomorrow is on a campaign ... "- they sang in the pre-war USSR ...
But 1941 came and put everything in its place ...
... We still had lunch later in Berlin ... But at what PRICE ...?

The spoon MUST be ready for dinner.
And the fighter is trained to use this spoon to perfection.

[TermNachTer]

Where and when did the F - 35 fight a real enemy, similar in capabilities? There is no need to talk about Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. The fact that the "hariers" were based on the UDC does not mean at all that the F - 35 will easily and simply take its place. "It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines, and walk on them." Regarding the "lunch", mattress makers will not attack Russia before they solve the problem of China. And this is a very big problem))) in addition, mattress covers are rapidly losing their combat shape, in all directions at once. How many desatnikov were injured in Estonia? And there were not at all difficult conditions for landing, there were even much worse. How many losses will there be. So mattress covers should not be overestimated, but also without a hat.

[bayard]

Quote: TermNachTER

Where and when did the F - 35 fight a real enemy, similar in capabilities?

Well, you wrapped it up. Yes, there are only TWO such opponents on the planet - we and the Chinese. Our falcons on the Su-30 and Su-35 ... and on the only Su-57, too, in real conditions, but WITH AN EQUAL OPPONENT ... no, never before.
And the Chinese did not.
But if it happens , then only the survivors will be able to generalize the experience of the combat use of certain types of aircraft in real battles.
Or do you doubt the professionalism and competence of American aviators?
In vain.
The enemy must be KNOWLEDGE and respected.
We knew in due time.
And they didn't throw their hats in vain. Both we and they were worthy opponents.
And aviation, including fighter aircraft, has always been the strong point of the United States.
Yes, like the MFI, the F-35 is not optimal.
But its layout, fuselage shape and selected aerodynamics are OPTIMAL for VTOL aircraft!
Do you understand?
They originally planned to develop a VTOL aircraft based on the materials received from the Yakovlev Design Bureau and the designers themselves. And only then it was decided on the basis of this line-up to develop three modifications: MFI, VTOL aircraft and deck for aircraft carriers.
And for the MFI and the deck ship, the chosen lineup turned out to be completely suboptimal.
Do you understand this?
VTOL aircraft turned out quite. According to the terms of reference.
And we have a conversation with you about this modification - the F-35B.
Which - IT WORKED.
And this VTOL aircraft can quite successfully fight in the air with 4th generation aircraft.
Perform reconnaissance and strikes against surface / ground targets.
Not worse than the MEDIUM 4th generation aircraft.
Having at the same time stealth and VERY advanced avionics.
Therefore, do not throw your hats. Moreover, the Russian Navy today does not have a single aircraft carrier (Kuznetsov does not count - when it will return), not a single UDC, even the project does not have a VTOL aircraft, there is 1 (ONE!) 5th generation aircraft, no modern ships of the ocean zone (two frigates do not count, these are not even destroyers), there are no new MAPLs (even in the project), there is practically no naval aviation ... a weak satellite constellation ... and even diesel-electric submarines we are building according to an ancient, and export project - without BUGAS and modern avionics.
Many of the above could and should have appeared in our country over the past 12 years.
But it didn’t appear.
So take pity on your hat and study the subject better.
We could have a modern and powerful enough Fleet, if they took the matter seriously and responsibly.
But this, alas, is not our case.
Of our two main troubles, we have begun to cope with only one so far - with the roads.

Just look at our astronautics ... at our aviation industry ... at the professionalism and responsibility of our officials ...
Everything is the same everywhere.
And there is nothing to be surprised at.
This is not the USSR.

[TermNachTer]

Do you think officials in matrasand are better? Or do they have no corruption or bureaucracy? I have friends there, one near Los Angeles, the other in Wisconsin. Everything is the same, nothing new. So, do not overestimate either the Washington Reich Chancellery or F - 35))) very dubious things, one thing or another.

[bayard]

Quote: TermNachTER

Do you think officials in matrasand are better?

I don't care about their officials.
We talked about the Fleet, carrier-based aircraft, VTOL aircraft, aircraft carriers.
We do not have all this.
And they have it in bulk. More than the rest of the world put together.
And this means that their officials and the military do care about their defense capability.
Instead of pumping money from the budget to offshore.

Yes, we had a Yak-141. A very promising prototype. but now we cannot repeat this either.
Do you really think that top officials care about defense capabilities?
look at the statistics of military purchases for the last 7 years.
What is visible?
REDUCE PURCHASING!
With a chronically surplus budget !!!
Even last year - in the "coronavirus", the budget was surplus and the whole inch went into someone's money-box.
Do you think this is limited?
NOT !
In addition to the top of the bag (as always), the Ministry of Finance has managed to "save" from the budget already 1 (one) TRILLION rubles.
For this trillion, people did not receive salaries, pension allowances, roads ... ARMAMENTS The Army and Navy did not receive either. But this trillion could have financed the construction of 6 (SIX !!!) Varan-class aircraft carriers with a displacement of 40 - 000 tons at 45 billion dollars each. everyone .
Once again, re-read what I have written and try to REALIZE it.
There is enough money in the budget and in the state for everything.
But it goes EVERYTHING ... only "very necessary people".
Look at the statistics - how many combat fighters were purchased for the Army per year (we can build as many of them as we want) ... when there was a peak and HOW MANY of them were purchased in recent years. With helicopters - the same story.
Tanks ... instead of new ones ... no, not "Armat", but at least the T-90SM ... repairs with the most budgetary modernization of the T-72 ... with cracks in the palm between the reactive armor elements ... Like a mockery.
Couldn't it be otherwise?
Yes they could. Look at how it was done during the modernization of the T-80.
And compare.
This is not stupidity.
Not bungling and theft.
This is a clearly defined position in life.

Quote: TermNachTER

So, do not overestimate either the Washington Reich Chancellery or the F - 35

Count how many of them have ALREADY been put into service.
How many F-15, F-16, F-18 have become in service?
And compare with what we have.
It is important .
To correctly assess your capabilities.
We neither build aircraft, nor train pilots, and there are no airfields - reserve and reserve, in case of combat deployment, redeployment and dispersal - and they are not building.
But they can.
The industry can produce three times more than it is now.
And cadets in flight schools can be recruited many times more - so that there are pilots for airplanes.
And there is someone to build a military infrastructure and there is something for it.
... But these are not Olympic venues.
If in the US officials steal, they are stupid, and their fighters suck .... how is it that they have a fleet and we don't? We have aviation, but we have a stub?
Officials steal, and blacks receive unemployment and drug benefits?
Moreover, Russia has no national debt, while the United States has a monstrous one ...
What's wrong if everything is so good?
So who steals more?

[TermNachTer]

So I'm talking about the same thing. In the United States, now, it is not the generals (admirals) and not the engineers (designers) who decide which system will be adopted, but the fixers from Capitol Hill. And those decided - one criterion - the cost. The more Lockheed rips off the budget, the more the lobbyist will get. Hence the F - 22 and F - 35, their combat effectiveness is a big question, and dozens of lards have already been spent. Hence the littoral ships))) two almost identical ships, built by two different companies, now they are slowly being written off))) about "Zamvolty" it is not even necessary to speak - this is just a masterpiece of stupidity. Aircraft carriers of the "Ford" type, etc. I can give a lot of examples. When the admirals openly spoke and wrote: we do not need "Fords", give "Nimitsy". They were told, not your grunting business, that we will give, then it will be. Regarding the benefits for blacks, the money comes from robbing other countries.

[bayard]

Quote: TermNachTER

How many desatnikov were injured in Estonia?

There is a sea nearby and it could be windy. In addition, landing in an unfamiliar area. We also fight in exercises.
And they break their legs.
Profession costs.
Once, in my distant youth, I was in the hospital in the same ward with a parachuting instructor (DOSAF) ​​- dislocation of the ankle joint. The leg, upon landing, fell into the hole (of a mole or a gopher) and pulled / jerked by the wind.
But it was an INSTRUCTOR.
The funny thing is that I was then undergoing surgery on the knee joint - the injury was originally also received due to ... falling into a hole ... and a jerk.
It happens .
And not many broke down there. Many simply fought, maybe they didn’t unfasten in time and dragged them by the wind, maybe they hung on a tree and had to jump, maybe they landed on stones - it’s also dangerous.
But the fact that they did all this on the territory of our former Soviet republic ... where I underwent military training in my youth ... very, very bad.

[TermNachTer]

Before the drop, they always look at the weather forecast for the landing area. If allowed, then the weather was within tolerance. In addition, the 82nd Airborne Division is not snotty 19 year old boys. They are professional type. If there are so many injured during the landing, then something is wrong with the professionals.

[bayard]

Unlike the previous topic, the Airborne Forces have always been the strong point of OUR Army.
Not everyone is given.

[TermNachTer]

I don’t deny it. The landing was always above the average level, even when recruited by conscripts. But in this case, we are talking about the fact that the prochvesionals have an impermissibly large number of injured, with not the most difficult landing conditions. Mattress management should think about such a deplorable result. Well, if he doesn’t think about it, it’s for the best. The problem will remain and someday, it will come out very strongly "sideways", possibly with lethal outcomes.

[bayard]

I think they will think. But it is also necessary to understand that out of the 500 who landed, only 10 people were injured. Of these, 7 people, after providing medical care, returned to duty. Three people were left hospitalized.
It's not that much . About seven people who were anointed abrasions with iodine could not have been mentioned at all. We would not even think about such a thing.
3 people ... it happens. Legs break during the landing. Dislocations and lacerations also happen.
In addition, the Poles seemed to jump with them.

[TermNachTer]

I want to remind you that they are the type of professionals who should have 20-30 or more jumps, that is, sufficient skills. And they jumped with D - 5.

[TermNachTer]

R.S. Sorry, I wanted to write "not D - 5"))))

[bayard]

Quote: TermNachTER

I want to remind you that they are type of professionals

No more than any contract soldiers.

Quote: TermNachTER

, which must have 20-30 or more jumps,

I don’t think that only senior citizens participated in the exercises. I think there were also their own "rookies" with several jumps in the asset.

Quote: TermNachTER

I want to remind you

Once again I will remind you of my case with a parachuting instructor - dislocation with stretching during a completely ordinary jump.
They have only 3 (three) people seriously injured.
Out of the jumped 500.
That's 0,6%!
That's not a lot .
Abrasions, bruises and scratches don't count.
Recently in the Crimea, during the landing to death, one or two people crashed ... And no one raised hysterics about the incompetence of the Russian paratroopers.
And we shouldn't.

[TermNachTer]

Did the contractors jump, 100 jumps and more?

[ironic]

That would be good if he was modernized so that he saw what they shot at him, if that. And now he would not even know what they drowned him with.

[3danimal]

He may, alone, be able to resist the armada of AUGs with modern Russian weapons.

The dream of a very poor person: to "make" the Ferrari team on the Priora

[TermNachTer]

So it depends on where they will drive))) if on the highway, then without options, and if somewhere in the forest, in the Nizhny Novgorod province, then here already the "Ferrari" has no chance, even ghostly. So in war, they fight not where they want, but wherever it happens. And it can happen where AUG can be very sad.

[ironic]

Yeah, if such a volume of work threatened Kuza, it would turn into the modernization of Nakhimov.

[Alex777]

What else to build another new one decided to better renovate the old one?
In principle, it is logical.

[Anzhey V.]

Somewhat surprisingly, they are not in a hurry to build Fords.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Anjay V.

They are not in a hurry to build "Fords".

First, all the systems at the head will be brought to a stable operational state, then the series will go ... At the Nimitzs, it has been worked out, every five years - the aircraft carrier will be handed over to the fleet ...

[For example]

Quote: Doccor18

every five years - the aircraft carrier will be handed over to the fleet ...

In 1986, you would have been called down for a story about the inevitable collapse of the USSR in 5 years.

An unreasonable urge to feel like God and predict how your neighbor will live in five years.

[Doccor18]

Quote: For example

An unreasonable urge to feel like God and predict how your neighbor will live in five years.

The future is unknown, and we are all further from God than it seems ...
But there are plans that either come true or not ...

As part of the preparation of the US defense budget for 2020, the US Congress submitted a 30-year plan for the development of the US Navy until 2049.
The document was prepared at the headquarters of the chief of naval operations and deputy chief of the naval directorate.

And aircraft carriers such as J. Ford, according to this plan, will go into the fleet even once every 4 years, starting in 2028.

[TermNachTer]

"Ford" at a cost of 70% more expensive, only 30% more efficient. Construction of "Fords", just a cut of the budget and nothing more)))

[Alex777]

And according to Fords, I heard about numerous problems:
- the resource of catapults before failure is about 10 times less than necessary,
- resource of aerofinishers is about 10 times less than necessary,
- out of 12 elevators for raising weapons, 2 worked,
- The F-35C cannot take off from the first two in principle ...
So that the Yankees solve these problems - I have not heard.
There is no point in rushing to build in such a situation.

US Congressmen may ban the use of the newest US aircraft carrier CVN-79 John F. Kennedy because of its fifth-generation fighter, the F-35C. The military aircraft is strictly designed to take off from aircraft carriers, but a fatal problem arose with the CVN-79.
According to The Drive, another Ford-class aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, turned out to be incompatible with the F-35 in their new configuration. The same problem awaits John F. Kennedy, which the US Navy hopes to enter service in 2024.

https://tsargrad.tv/news/novejshij-avianosec-ssha-na-grani-zapreta-iz-za-fatalnoj-problemy-s-f-35-the-drive_202847

[vadim dok]

How old is the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov"?

[Thrifty]

Vadim ok - there is no such aircraft carrier, there is an aircraft-carrying CRUISER! Can you determine the difference yourself? ??

[ironic]

And what was left of the cruiser in it, except for the numerous air defense systems that are outdated today?

[demiurg]

He is younger than most of the US aircraft carriers. And no one in the United States suffers from this fact.
Air wing niochin, no AWACS / RTR vehicle. There is no specialized electronic warfare machine.

[3danimal]

Performance (aircraft lifting per day) is very different.

[voyaka uh]

At Fords, starting from the third, the changes will be mounted at the shipyard,
necessary for servicing the F-35S (special parking spaces).
And more massive jet jet bumpers will be installed.
And in the first two, this will be done already at sea, gradually. From the budget for repairs.

[3danimal]

My Tsargrad spam filter does not pass
Not the most objective source, to put it mildly.

[Alex777]

Type a request within the meaning.
Get a source that suits you.
I do not like Yandex, but its results have been better lately than Google.

[voyaka uh]

"They are not in a hurry to build" Fords "///
----

There are two Fords built. The first - the lead - entered the fleet.
Another one is under construction.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Alex777

... it's better to renovate the old one

De such and old he is, only 26 years old. The term will be extended to 50, just the normal life of a nuclear aircraft carrier.

[Tusv]

Quote: Alex777

What else to build another new one decided to better renovate the old one?

Their Nimitzes were originally designed for 25 + 25. So everything went according to plan.

[ironic]

It makes sense to maintain the skills of the flight team and further training.

[3danimal]

The power plant will not change any repairs. The boilers are outdated and even they, judging by the history of operation, cannot be compared with those installed on the Kitty Hawk.
When using gas turbines, similar to pr 1155 (multiples of a large number), "Kuznetsov" would be much less problematic.
The problem is a short deck, heavy Su-33s (when compared with other operating decks) and extreme loads on not the most perfect landing equipment.
And the lack of coastal infrastructure, which, among other things, forces the ship's resource to burn on raids.

[Anzhey V.]

Minus one, albeit four years. Very good news.

You look, maybe the welders will hurry up again during the repair and do a good deed, like with "Bonn Richard"))

[sabakina]

One can only envy. A country with a trillion dollar national debt has and operates a dozen full-blooded aircraft carriers, and we cannot patch up poor Kuzya ...

[Ros 56]

As I understand it, until he himself drowns from old age.

[Blackmokona]

No, here the standard term for Nimitz is 50 years. They have reactors for 25 years at one refueling, and now they have started refueling. At the same time modernize

[Adimius38]

And yet they are more careful with their fleet, as well as with aviation. We often have a barbaric attitude, and this despite the fact that our fleet in its current state would even be stupid to compare with theirs.

[TerraSandera]

Unfortunately, we have to state the fact. They can, if not all, then a lot. And only one country, which has long been gone, could resist them economically and militarily. China remained, but so far only the economy.

[Avior]

planned event
50 years service life - in the middle of the cycle, according to the operation plan, repair and replacement of fuel in reactors is provided

[fa2998]

Quote: xorek

AUGs are no longer relevant .. Nobody in the world is afraid of them, thanks to Russia!

Russia has not yet stumbled upon them! And thank God! Our "devices" are still being tested, and this weapon has long been mastered, tested in battle.