Posted on 07/10/2024 7:28:14 AM PDT by hardspunned
The United States Navy remains heavily invested in aircraft carriers, with the new Gerald R. Ford-class intended to replace the aging Nimitz-class. However, these new carriers are costly, over-budget, and fraught with technological issues, raising concerns about their effectiveness in modern warfare.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
“We have 11 carriers. 4 are currently deployed.”
I wonder if this is all about maintenance or is there problems crewing these ships.
> I don’t think good military aircraft are capable of being built in the US anymore.
Maybe, but who builds better aircraft?
Exactly, submersible drone carriers would seem to be a smart innovation. How many of these could be built for the cost of one super carrier group? They could have:
☻ anti-ship drones, like flying torpedos
☻ anti-aircraft drones with stealth capabilities ("smart flak")
☻ anti-personnel drones which scatter hundreds of submunitions
Also, we need several hundred destroyers in order to be capable of interdicting Chinese shipping in the event of war. Stop those oil tankers and pretty soon their military runs out of fuel.
You are fighting the last war—understandable—every general and admiral does it.
True, I have only been trained in damage control on FF and DD platform but it seems to me the slightest damage in an engineering space on a CVN would cause a immediate reactor scram.
If that were the least bit true, the Japanese Navy would have been doing it.
Your posts demonstrate a lack of understanding of Carrier history, WWII Naval History, and the roles that the modern carriers serve to project power around there world.
Of course, you probably think the Russian Navy is vastly superior. LOL
I have zero experience in any naval ship. That said if they were as easy to put off line as your last post suggested, I think that would have happened by now, don’t ya think?
The last war was an insurgency.
The next war will definitely include drones (and lots of them!), but will most likely include a near peer, as well as land and sea combat. Cyber, space, and missile combat will also be in play.
As with any war, boots on the ground are necessary to hold key terrain, even if it has been bombed to snot. Holding terrain requires not just troops, but also air support. Getting to the enemy requires sea and air power.
As we’ve seen from the Russian/Ukraine war, the Russians are fans of mid-20th century combat. The Chinese lack significant combat experience. How to fight and beat them is somewhat uncertain, specifically, where the key battles will take place and the tactics the Chinese will use.
Let’s hope the next war never takes place, and lets also hope it doesn’t involve nuclear weapons.
Just put a 100% tariff on everything from China or containing Chinese components and put that money into defense programs.
There has never been shooting a naval war involving nuclear warships. The reactors on SSN’s, SSBN’s and CVN’s scram for the slightest reason for safety. What? Do they turn of all the safeties in a war?
Imho there is a lot of new technology that is very classified—and we know nothing about it.
As you noted that probably includes space based weapons (that imho can hit ground/sea targets) for major powers.
The carriers would be easy to target (slow moving) and easy to hit targets for that kind of technology.
That is only a dozen or so targets even if all were out in the open ocean.
The old space treaty has been decorating circular files for decades.
I see carriers as analogous to the French Maginot Line—a throwback to the last war(s) doomed to failure in a major conflict.
Fixed it.
Oh I think they are talking Biden 24/7 right now. It’s enjoyable.
Conventional carriers need huge fuel bunkers. Nuclear carriers don’t. Plus modern aircraft use jet fuel which is far less flammable than avgas. You can throw cigarette butts into a bucket of jp4 and it won’t ignite. This is just for starters. Fire destroyed many ships in WW2. Modern carriers have much lower fire risk. And top notch damage control tech.
Hell.. the sub itself could be a remote controlled “drone”..
That’s the future. Self assembling, with possible human control that drifts and is powered by nuke or a variation of chemical process from salt water in order to power batteries.
Lay on the bottom and surface on command with occasional testing.
Training PQS goes much faster on a conventional carrier. A conventional carrier sailor will have a six-seven month deployment behind them and work ups before a Nuke snipe ever reports to the carrier. Carriers are a lot tougher then people think. My old ship Cv 66 took live fire for 30 days before finally being scuttled internally and sank. At least a third of our carrier fleet for readiness and training purposes from mass causality need to be conventional.
The main issues with FORD is they tried to jump several general generations in technology without putting it to use first. The Navy is also bad for ordering ship-alts during construction. FORD should have taken three prior builds before becoming what theey made in just one ship.
I would imagine if they are taking hits to the engineering section, there are bigger issues.
I am not arguing that the Air Craft Carrier is likely the WII battleship of the next large conflict. I DO think that the need still exists and the infrastructure can be used to deliver a massive drone Air Force to foreign shores.
I was just questioning the suggested fragility.
I am a big fan of CV’s. CVN’s, not so much.
Except for the fact we used to have more carriers this has always been about the norm. The ships nuke or conventional come out of a year long overhaul, spend about 6-9 months in and out doing work ups, training, inspections for readiness, may include a up to 2 month mini deployment, then head out for a 6-7 month deployment. Upon return they go to either Bremerton or Norfolk Naval shipyard for a 3-4 month maintenance period. They then come out and do the above mentioned cycle two more times and then they require a year long overhaul again or roughly once every 5-6 years. In 3 years and 9 months I made two Six - Seven month deployments, months of workups and inspections at sea, a trip south to RIO, a Carribean sea deployement and one three month yard periods and a year long stint in the yards for overhaul.
What makes the yards take so long is to replace any equipment below the hanger bay anything from galley kettles to electrical switchboards you have to cut the ship open several decks, install, and weld her back up. Just one six month deployment requires things like new ice machines etc. The stuff wears out fast.
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.