Posted on 07/30/2017 6:59:49 AM PDT by LSUfan
Everything about the aircraft carrier is analyzed these days. How vulnerable they are. How vulnerable they aren’t. How easy it is to sink one with a French attack submarine. How big they should be. How small they should be. Should we even have them at all? Yet most of these arguments have lost sight of the fact that the only reason a carrier exists is to take its air wing into battle.
The air wing—the actual aircraft on the aircraft carrier, naturally—is the true measurement of a carrier’s worth. Without the air wing we wouldn’t need these ships at all. The size of the carrier has not drastically changed since the USS Nimitz entered the fleet in 1975. They remain close to 100,000 tons and about 1,100 feet in length. What has changed, however, is the size of the air wing and how far those aircraft can fly and fight before having to return to the ship.
As the air wings have gotten smaller and the aircraft have a shorter combat radius (the distance the aircraft can fly from the carrier, attack the enemy and still have fuel to return) the real “carrier” debate should mostly focus on the air wing. A smaller and less effective air wing can no longer justify the enormous expense of the carrier, the strike group of escort ships and the aircraft themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com ...
Just for fun, here’s a brand new YouTube remix of Hornets zooming around their carrier to cool music.
Take a 3 minute YouTube vacation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldjQNV9gz64&t=9s
USS Ford makes history: Launches, lands fighter jet with magnetic technology
What $13 billion buys
Remember, the Jeep Carriers of Old or WON’T.
These current UPSTART’S DON’T or WON’T!
...When the Ford finally does head off on deployment, it will most likely carry with the smallest air wing since the USS Coral Sea deployed with less than 60 aircraft 30 years ago.
The age of the super carrier is coming to an end, just as the age of the battleship did before.
A very well-informed article that I enjoyed reading, even as I lament the changing times.
I've laid my head to sleep on the following carriers at one point or another:
USS George Washington
USS John F. Kennedy
USS Theodore Roosevelt
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
A military asset too expensive to risk losing.
Our newest carrier, the USS Ford doesn’t have urinals.
Our sailors run and keep going while consuming massive amounts of coffee.
Coffee for most of us is a very effective diuretic.
Think about that reality and not having urinals.
Search Results:
US Navy Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier doesn’t have urinals:
www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-gerald-r-ford-aircraft-carrier-doesnt-have-urinals-...
6 days ago - The Navy’s newest, most sophisticated aircraft carrier doesn’t have urinals. ... Amid all its upgrades and advances, the US Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, is lacking one feature: urinals. Every bathroom on the Ford is, for the first time, gender-neutral ...
USS Gerald R Ford lacks urinals—newest US aircraft carrier sports ...
https://qz.com/1036854/the-us-navys-newest-aircraft-carrier-has-no-urinals/
6 days ago - The $12.9 billion USS Gerald R. Ford, which can carry about 5000, ... According to the Navy Times, the Ford has no urinals—only seated toilets with stalls. ... Recent tweets by US president Donald Trump indicating he doesn’t ...
Why the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier has no urinals - Navy Times
https://www.navytimes.com/.../why-the-navys-newest-aircraft-carrier-has-no-urinals
Jul 21, 2017 - Ford Unisex Head Aboard the USS Gerald R Ford
6 days ago - The U.S. Navy has officially commissioned its newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald ... Carrier Is the Most Advanced In the World, But It Doesn’t Have Any Urinals. Every bathroom on the USS Gerald R. Ford is gender-neutral.
Did you know that aircraft carriers are so big they actually have gangs on them? Galley thugs?
True cost of a carrier includes all elements of the carrier battle group all aircraft, fixed and rotary wing, destroy escorts, subs, etc, etc.
Reducing combat air radius puts the whole parade at risk. What were they thinking?
That’s an easy fix with 3 DT EO,s and the ships welder rating,... just... I Better be quiet.
....on the subject of “range” which seemed to be the central thesis of this article, I recently read an article that some FA-18’s, or maybe they were 16’s, refueled 18 times, many were mid air, flying to the Phillipines on their initial delivery flight to the Philippine Air Force.
To those Freepers who know more than I do, doesn’t this all weather mid air refuel capability poke holes in this guys argument about “range”???
Because urinals are sexist.
So are tampons....
Yes there are vulnerability issues, but the 100,000 tons of diplomacy is noteworthy.
Bathrooms??? They used to be called “heads”. There was a reason for that. Maybe “head” is a sexist trigger now?
Okay, suppose I buy your quite reasonable premise, what replaces the carrier for projection of power and diplomacy?
And the final nail was the “cost-saving” decision to retire the S-3 early. The Viking brings a lot to the fight; ASW, ESM support and tanking for the short-legged F/A-18s. Instead, we send them to the boneyard with an average of 10,000 left on the airframes and wonder why our strike fighters don’t have the “reach” they once did.
But don’t worry: the drone tanker will fix everything (nod, nod, wink, wink).
As you say...
Which may explain why the navy is focusing on using their MQ-25 drones as refulers.
Less capable carriers is a good thing for careerists. It means more carriers and in turn more screen vessels and lots more Admiral slots to fill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.