Posted on 03/10/2016 2:45:54 PM PST by zeestephen
A $13 billion U.S. aircraft carrier is about to hit the open seas. It’s the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the most expensive and most advanced warship ever built. The ship was christened in November 2013 and is scheduled to be commissioned this month.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
“The decision to cancel the so-called Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike is reflected in the Defense Department’s 2017 budget proposal, released on Feb. 9. The proposal shows a combined $818 million in funding for the UCLASS killer drone program in 2015 and 2016 and, abruptly, no money at all in 2017.”
I think carriers are obsolete.
Carriers are not defensible. Pilots are also not sustainable nowadays.
Much more effective to pack weapons loads and sensors on aircraft than it is to carry a pilot.
Ah a member of the many small ships crowd ? Neat idea failed in function though.
If you build 3 small CV’s (Like the America Class) you will either have to put them in a single squadron to give you some punch or 3 penny packets that have less offensive value and far less defensive value.
A CVBG is a highly flexible set of platforms that work as a combined force.
Get a good naval simulator (Harpoon) and see what a CVBG does against surface combatants or sub forces. I would like to see something like the S-3 Viking back in the fleet mabye a variant of the V-22
True. its not 1941 No one sneaks up on a CVBG. (Satellite,Submarine,and E2’s make sure of that)
A CVBG is by its self one of the top 10 Air forces in the world.
A CVBG has multiple DDG’s and FFG’s around it with Standard Missiles including ABM capability.
A CVBG has both air defense and strike platforms that most of the world wishes it had.
The “big target” slogan is simple easy and wrong.
Enterprise is on list of future names.
Ford was a Naval Officer and saw combat during the Second World War. Served on CVL-26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Monterey_(CVL-26)
Perhaps the Navy and our nation would be better served by spending our tax dollars on unmanned subs and drones. Quite a bit of the cost of ships and planes is supporting and protecting the people in them.
Of course, if the bad guys take out our GPS, we’ll be back to outrigger war canoes for the Navy.
Note the drone in that CGI sketch...
“Looks small for a carrier that holds...”
Were you pinching it between your fingers? It’s actually plenty big and offers a variety of platforms for local management off the coast of troublespots that could not easily be brought forth quickly and with such numbers.
This is a pretty good article:
The Case For Carriers
All in all, Polmar’s argument that amphibious assault ships should replace supercarriers in the United States Navy is contentious. His contentions that amphibs are a better option for various peacetime missions and that one Ford carrier can get you four America LHAs do not hold water. In the same article, Polmar also posed the question: “Ask a [theater] combatant commander where he’d rather have one big carrier or four [LHA/LHDs]…?” His own implied answer is the latter. While it may seem overkill to send a supercarrier to handle adversaries like a bunch of ragtag irregulars, the reality on the ground is that the senior commander is likely to opt for the carrier over three or four amphibians, because of the flat-top’s overall superior capabilities.
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/12/the-case-for-carriers-rebutting-norman-polmar/
F-35s come before anything - UCLASS, new subs, lasers, rail - everything. Why because they are super expensive, short ranged, slow, sort of stealthy, almost unable to defend themselves - but they have the latest gadgets and flashing bells and whistles; even if the pilots neck snaps on bail out, or the all important helmet does not work right (its only 40 year old tech, so it takes time) among many many other problems that may not get solved.
Just put 2 Squadrons of Carrier Capable A10s on as well as the other aircraft and our potential enemies/current enemies will soil their pants.
Not sure I see the drone.
Is it the small vehicle on the most distant catapult?
Actually in the modern era I think these huge floating assets are approaching obsolescence. $1 million worth of missiles can have a devastating impact. It’s not only the $13 billion it’s all the aircraft and ordinance too.
A surprise missile attack when not on war footing would be devastating. But our enemy only gets to do that once. We have more than one CVBG.
pardon?
range to the horizon at sea from 30 feet is 6.7 miles. A laser travels at 186,000 miles per second. at mach 5 (hyper sonic) = 5626.64 feet per second. 6.7 miles =31680 feet so
5.63 seconds to engage this assumes that missile is mach 5 at 0 feet above water. A laser system will get multiple shots at it.
But wait it gets better..
if the system is 100 feet off the water Horizon is now 12.3 miles more than doubling the engagement range and time.
And better yet! If an aircraft has a tactical laser system and is 5000 feet (darn low I know) engagement range is now 86.6 miles that is or about 26 seconds.
Of course all this is predicated on Zircon system working and not being effected by say Electronic War Far systems. And really being mach 5 and at 0 feet altitude.
Your source says the carrier is quick, with a top speed of 30 kts. Even allowing for understating true speed, compared to the Enterprise, which I think was rated at 50 kts but probably maxed at at 60+, the Gerald R Ford is, just like its namesake, a little slow. I keed, I keed!
You are so right! I would feel soooooooooooooooo much safer if we took away the Navies ability to project air superiority over huge areas of the ocean. < /sarc >
Air Craft Carries will become obsolete when the concept of air superiority of huge swaths of ocean becomes obsolete. Which means never.
5 kilotons within a half mile or so would ruin her whole day!
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.