Posted on 03/26/2019 6:52:49 AM PDT by RitchieAprile
Edited on 03/26/2019 9:06:51 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Two years ago, President Trump made a dramatic entrance at Newport News Shipbuilding and promised to expand the aircraft carrier fleet. It was his biggest applause line. That promise appeared to bear fruit in January, when the shipyard signed a two-carrier contract with the Navy. It was the first bulk-buy of the nuclear-powered behemoths since the Reagan administration. Now, the Pentagon
(Excerpt) Read more at pilotonline.com ...
How about a yes or no first. It was simple question.
5 acres of US “soil” floating 25 miles off an enemies coast with enough armament to make just about any city uninhabitable for a century.
AKA Power Projection.
And, they never operator alone - there’s usually 2 subs, several frigate/destroyer/cruiser ships, tenders/oilers, etc.
Who is shooting them and where are these missiles coming from?
I concur!
And these days, there are leaner and meaner ways to do that.
I'm not for one minute suggesting, as you said I did c_v, that we decommission them all. I can see all kinds of scenarios where a carrier or carriers would be necessary. But, to my mind, we don't need as many in service as we used to. I'm agnostic as to how many we should keep in the fleet.
Yes, Enterprise and Kennedy.
going to get popcorn....bttt
In light of today's Congress, it's safe to say they are the enemy, at the very least, giving aid to our enemies.
But no weapon system lasts forever and if the costs outweigh the benefits, it might be time for these to fade away.
So, the rumors of demise should be taken seriously enough to plan alternative technologies, and not so seriously as to disregard a potent advantage.
One other thing about carriers. They are also floating water desalination, hospitals, logistics marvels to be used in medical emergencies - for example, Typhoon’s and/or massive flooding in the Pacific islands.
This is called a walk back.
In a major shooting war against Russia or China yeah they are vulnerable, they always have been. However, in the type of wars the US has fought since WWII they have been invaluable from air support to a huge base of operations. HST needs to be refueled and continued to be used as before. The price to refuel is worth it in comparison to the strain it places on the remaining fleet.
All that being said the USN needs to find a way to extend the range of their aircraft. The F-18 and the F-35 simply do not have the range the old F-14 and Intruders had. Further the USN needs to invest in improved missile defense technology for the carriers and escorts. I understand they have installed on most of the existing carriers a torpedo defense system that has been excellent in test.
If they decide after the purchase of Enterprise they need to change the direction of naval aviation then do so, do you need a smaller carrier and less planes, do you need a smaller nuclear carrier or fuel oil fired? Can the American class operating F35’s handle the needs the Nimitz and Ford class does?
Bite me.
How’s that for an answer?
L
Most civilians don’t realize that the Navy is unique in that most warships above frigate/littoral size are designed to be damaged and repaired over and over. An CVN can be significantly damaged and repaired and returned to service. Ships are NOT throw away. This is the extreme example but the BB California was sunk at Pearl Harbor and was returned to service
Now please stop talking about things you know dick about.
The Phoenix lights incident?
I hope you’re not talking about the one off to the northwest behind the mountain range that were obviously illumination flares?
Yup, the flares that never moved and stayed put during the whole thing.
Don’t forget the Marines MEU/MEF that sometimes tags along on the ‘Phibs that can be attached to a CVBG.
CVN Ford’s electromagnetic launch system cannot sortie (launch planes) as fast as steam catapults, nor does its electromagnetic elevator work properly - cannot get planes or ammo up to deck fast.
DGS 1000 Zimwalt and class has the gun problem...
The Navy wants to retire Truman early to save money to block buy to more Ford class CVNs,
Trouble is they are mandated to have 13 CVNs eliminating the Truman will cut the number to 11 until the other two are finished and on station a decade from now.
a torpedo defense system that has been excellent in test.
But later failed miserably and was torn out.
More on the early Truman retirement:
The Puzzling Case Of The Navy's Attempt To Retire Supercarrier USS Harry S. Truman Early
Legislators are already opposing the proposal, which contradicts every known requirement and policy, and we don't truly know if it's even real at all.
By Joseph Trevithick March 1, 2019 More on the early retirement of the Truman:
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.