If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   The construction of the USS Gerald R. Ford stumbles forward   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 122
    More: Obvious, USS Gerald R. Ford, Ford Motor Co., airstrike, Michael O'Hanlon, Huntington Ingalls Industries  
•       •       •

9781 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Oct 2013 at 8:07 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-01 06:31:50 PM
Where's Chevy Chase nowhere to be found.
 
2013-10-01 06:32:27 PM
Well.  That is truly mangled.
 
2013-10-01 07:50:16 PM
i.dailymail.co.uk

Looks like the wolves have been chewing on it.
 
2013-10-01 08:02:18 PM
Y'all better watch yourselves.
 
2013-10-01 08:04:42 PM

fusillade762: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

Looks like the wolves have been chewing on it.


It's delicious. Can you blame them?
 
2013-10-01 08:08:19 PM
Floating FEMA camp?
 
2013-10-01 08:21:34 PM
Railgun launch system.  Nuff said.
 
2013-10-01 08:30:49 PM

Apik0r0s: Carriers are the coin of the realm, the ultimate in economic power. Fark you, pay me.


But we need a strong Dreadnaught fleet to stand up to the chalks the of the kaiser!
 
2013-10-01 08:33:35 PM
But how many airstrikes a day can it support? Does it mention that anywhere in the article?
 
2013-10-01 08:33:58 PM
We have to keep making them or we will forget how to make them.
 
ows
2013-10-01 08:36:00 PM

FrancoFile: Railgun launch system.  Nuff said.


yeah, but what about the freakin' lasers!!!!
 
2013-10-01 08:36:25 PM
$13 billion.  We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.
 
2013-10-01 08:40:05 PM
Tea Jihadi club house?
 
2013-10-01 08:42:45 PM

kyleaugustus: $13 billion.  We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.


In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.
 
2013-10-01 08:46:36 PM
The best thing about this carrier is there has actually been some forethought put into the design. The use of magnetic systems for the launch and recover systems is so much more efficient and makes it able to host the new and lighter UAVs to land and take off. It also decreases the stress on current aircraft. Additionally, the power that is generated by the reactors far exceed the current requirements of the ship. This means that any future weapon or defense system can easily be added to the ship to extend its operational life. (Ship based laser defense systems to shoot down missiles or shells for an example)

Obviously the biggest downside is that it's a huge target. They are the pride of the Navy and the United States and any successful attack on one would be catastrophic. From the high tech wave skimming cruise missiles to the low tech rubber boats loaded with explosives, a carrier like this presents a huge target and it seems like there is not adequate defense against either. Past war games have proven that a US fleet being swarmed by smaller vessels stands little chance yet there does not seem to be a huge shift in strategy to defend against that sort of attack.

Also the claim in the title about being invisible to radar seems a bit far fetched. It's a huge chunk of metal. I'm sure there are some countermeasures but aside from that carriers always travel with many other large metal objects that probably do not have a ship design to deflect radar.
 
2013-10-01 08:50:34 PM
Oh I get it, the reason it's virtually invisible to radar is because it's so freaking small:

img.photobucket.com

Genius.
 
2013-10-01 08:54:26 PM
@ that price, I'll take two please
 
2013-10-01 08:54:29 PM

Clash City Farker: We have to keep making them or we will forget how to make them.


Unfortunately, this is true to a large extent.  If you don't support the industry that allows the building of these specialized weapons, you lose the capability to make them as the suppliers of materials and expertise needed to construct such complex systems disappears and moves to other projects. The real question is whether these weapons system as we know them have a long term future.

Remember, in 1915, battleships ruled the waves and a mere 25 years later were obsolete and moved to support roles. The carrier era has lasted much longer, but that is also due to the fact that they have never truly been tested in combat operation where they have been at risk.  With cruise missile technology developed as it has and shown to be effective in conflicts like the Falklands war against warships, there is some doubt about the wisdom of these massive ships that place all your eggs in one basket. I am not saying that they are not a powerful tool, but saying this form of warfare is going to last 120 years (1940-2065) is wishful thinking.  The US does need to consider replacing the older ships as many are at the end of their expected service lives, but perhaps bigger isn't necessarily better.
 
2013-10-01 08:58:42 PM

Daedalus27: Clash City Farker: We have to keep making them or we will forget how to make them.

Unfortunately, this is true to a large extent.  If you don't support the industry that allows the building of these specialized weapons, you lose the capability to make them as the suppliers of materials and expertise needed to construct such complex systems disappears and moves to other projects. The real question is whether these weapons system as we know them have a long term future.

Remember, in 1915, battleships ruled the waves and a mere 25 years later were obsolete and moved to support roles. The carrier era has lasted much longer, but that is also due to the fact that they have never truly been tested in combat operation where they have been at risk.  With cruise missile technology developed as it has and shown to be effective in conflicts like the Falklands war against warships, there is some doubt about the wisdom of these massive ships that place all your eggs in one basket. I am not saying that they are not a powerful tool, but saying this form of warfare is going to last 120 years (1940-2065) is wishful thinking.  The US does need to consider replacing the older ships as many are at the end of their expected service lives, but perhaps bigger isn't necessarily better.


um....WW2 would like a word... pretty sure more than a few carriers were at risk... especially considering several are on the bottom of the freaking ocean.
 
2013-10-01 08:59:10 PM
Pardon our (lack of) progress.
 
2013-10-01 09:00:18 PM

Pubby: kyleaugustus: $13 billion.  We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.


Adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, each Saturn V launch cost about $1.16 billion.  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Cost

Of course, if you're running the whole program to pull off a single launch, the scaling costs run up, like how the F-22 and F-35 individually become more expensive as the total number purchased decreases.  If it's an on-going program at more than a halting pace, their individual price is driven down.
 
2013-10-01 09:00:52 PM

Pubby: kyleaugustus: $13 billion.  We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.


It was $24 billion. The largest investment by any nation in peace time. 400,000 workers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#NASA_expansion
 
2013-10-01 09:00:54 PM
*2013 dollars
 
2013-10-01 09:01:19 PM
I could barely see it now.
 
2013-10-01 09:04:04 PM

ActionJoe: The best thing about this carrier is there has actually been some forethought put into the design. The use of magnetic systems for the launch and recover systems is so much more efficient and makes it able to host the new and lighter UAVs to land and take off. It also decreases the stress on current aircraft. Additionally, the power that is generated by the reactors far exceed the current requirements of the ship. This means that any future weapon or defense system can easily be added to the ship to extend its operational life. (Ship based laser defense systems to shoot down missiles or shells for an example)

Obviously the biggest downside is that it's a huge target. They are the pride of the Navy and the United States and any successful attack on one would be catastrophic. From the high tech wave skimming cruise missiles to the low tech rubber boats loaded with explosives, a carrier like this presents a huge target and it seems like there is not adequate defense against either. Past war games have proven that a US fleet being swarmed by smaller vessels stands little chance yet there does not seem to be a huge shift in strategy to defend against that sort of attack.

Also the claim in the title about being invisible to radar seems a bit far fetched. It's a huge chunk of metal. I'm sure there are some countermeasures but aside from that carriers always travel with many other large metal objects that probably do not have a ship design to deflect radar.


Stay far enough from the coast and those small boats can't reach you. Granted it's a challenge in Hormuz, but not most places.
 
2013-10-01 09:04:06 PM
i.imgur.com

Not impressed.
 
2013-10-01 09:04:31 PM
It's funny that the USS Lincoln wasn't refueled because the Navy was broke

http://news.usni.org/2013/02/08/navy-lincoln-refueling-delayed-will- hu rt-carrier-readiness
 
2013-10-01 09:09:17 PM

rhiannon: Oh I get it, the reason it's virtually invisible to radar is because it's so freaking small:

[img.photobucket.com image 634x335]

Genius.


If they're going to build a boat for kids who fly really, really good and do other things good too ...it'll have to be at least 3 times that big!!
 
2013-10-01 09:10:05 PM

Daedalus27: Clash City Farker: We have to keep making them or we will forget how to make them.

Unfortunately, this is true to a large extent.  If you don't support the industry that allows the building of these specialized weapons, you lose the capability to make them as the suppliers of materials and expertise needed to construct such complex systems disappears and moves to other projects. The real question is whether these weapons system as we know them have a long term future.

Remember, in 1915, battleships ruled the waves and a mere 25 years later were obsolete and moved to support roles. The carrier era has lasted much longer, but that is also due to the fact that they have never truly been tested in combat operation where they have been at risk.  With cruise missile technology developed as it has and shown to be effective in conflicts like the Falklands war against warships, there is some doubt about the wisdom of these massive ships that place all your eggs in one basket. I am not saying that they are not a powerful tool, but saying this form of warfare is going to last 120 years (1940-2065) is wishful thinking.  The US does need to consider replacing the older ships as many are at the end of their expected service lives, but perhaps bigger isn't necessarily better.


Um, you should stop now, back out of the thread, and contemplate your failure.
 
2013-10-01 09:13:57 PM
I gotta know, was it named Leslie King first?
 
2013-10-01 09:14:12 PM

Daedalus27: Remember, in 1915, battleships ruled the waves and a mere 25 years later were obsolete and moved to support roles. The carrier era has lasted much longer, but that is also due to the fact that they have never truly been tested in combat operation where they have been at risk.  With cruise missile technology developed as it has and shown to be effective in conflicts like the Falklands war against warships, there is some doubt about the wisdom of these massive ships that place all your eggs in one basket. I am not saying that they are not a powerful tool, but saying this form of warfare is going to last 120 years (1940-2065) is wishful thinking.  The US does need to consider replacing the older ships as many are at the end of their expected service lives, but perhaps bigger isn't necessarily better.


The purpose of our carrier fleets is offensive in nature and is primarily for bombing the shiat out of countries who disagree with US economic policy.  If shiat really hit the fan, the nuclear attack subs and ICBMs will be doing the work.  (and we'll all be irradiated).
 
2013-10-01 09:16:41 PM

ActionJoe: The best thing about this carrier is there has actually been some forethought put into the design. The use of magnetic systems for the launch and recover systems is so much more efficient and makes it able to host the new and lighter UAVs to land and take off. It also decreases the stress on current aircraft. Additionally, the power that is generated by the reactors far exceed the current requirements of the ship. This means that any future weapon or defense system can easily be added to the ship to extend its operational life. (Ship based laser defense systems to shoot down missiles or shells for an example)

Obviously the biggest downside is that it's a huge target. They are the pride of the Navy and the United States and any successful attack on one would be catastrophic. From the high tech wave skimming cruise missiles to the low tech rubber boats loaded with explosives, a carrier like this presents a huge target and it seems like there is not adequate defense against either. Past war games have proven that a US fleet being swarmed by smaller vessels stands little chance yet there does not seem to be a huge shift in strategy to defend against that sort of attack.

Also the claim in the title about being invisible to radar seems a bit far fetched. It's a huge chunk of metal. I'm sure there are some countermeasures but aside from that carriers always travel with many other large metal objects that probably do not have a ship design to deflect radar.


A swarm of small vessels would have to be extremely lucky to do any real damage. A full US carrier group has a ton of firepower in small weapons.
 
2013-10-01 09:17:03 PM

Pubby: kyleaugustus: $13 billion.  We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.


That's awfully optimistic of you. I'm pretty sure $13 billion wouldn't even buy the craft for the mission. Hell, we're paying $35 billion per jet fighter; and have yet to have one functional jet delivered.

/ at a mere $13 billion; a new carrier is a steal
 
2013-10-01 09:21:34 PM

what_now: Y'all better watch yourselves.


Came in here to find you.
/I can see you'll be able to handle this
 
2013-10-01 09:29:43 PM
It'll be the most expensive until we launch a $20 billion spy satellite.
 
2013-10-01 09:30:29 PM

ActionJoe: The best thing about this carrier is there has actually been some forethought put into the design. The use of magnetic systems for the launch and recover systems is so much more efficient and makes it able to host the new and lighter UAVs to land and take off. It also decreases the stress on current aircraft. Additionally, the power that is generated by the reactors far exceed the current requirements of the ship. This means that any future weapon or defense system can easily be added to the ship to extend its operational life. (Ship based laser defense systems to shoot down missiles or shells for an example)

Obviously the biggest downside is that it's a huge target. They are the pride of the Navy and the United States and any successful attack on one would be catastrophic. From the high tech wave skimming cruise missiles to the low tech rubber boats loaded with explosives, a carrier like this presents a huge target and it seems like there is not adequate defense against either. Past war games have proven that a US fleet being swarmed by smaller vessels stands little chance yet there does not seem to be a huge shift in strategy to defend against that sort of attack.

Also the claim in the title about being invisible to radar seems a bit far fetched. It's a huge chunk of metal. I'm sure there are some countermeasures but aside from that carriers always travel with many other large metal objects that probably do not have a ship design to deflect radar.


I recall that some president recently changed "A nuke is a gas is a germ" to "A nuke is a gas is a germ is an attack on one of our carriers".

Or in other words, attacking one of our carriers is an excuse to annihilate you and yours in a ball of nuclear flame.
 
2013-10-01 09:35:01 PM
Does it run on nachos and beer?
 
2013-10-01 09:36:14 PM
Can they make the "Mission Accomplished" Banner look like a big bandage?
 
2013-10-01 09:38:51 PM
The Navy names a small destroyer after FDR, and a giant carrier after stumblebum; tell me again how the US military is apolitical?
 
2013-10-01 09:43:23 PM

iheartscotch: Pubby: kyleaugustus: $13 billion.  We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.

That's awfully optimistic of you. I'm pretty sure $13 billion wouldn't even buy the craft for the mission. Hell, we're paying $35 billion per jet fighter; and have yet to have one functional jet delivered.

/ at a mere $13 billion; a new carrier is a steal


You might have nudged a few decimal places.  No single aircraft that I'm aware of costs $35 billion dollars.  The B-2 is the most expensive craft per unit that I can think of and those were $737 million each but those are no longer in production.  The F-35, depending on model, is between $153 million and $200 million.  The F-22 is $150 million each.

I agree that the price would be high per unit/mission in a piecemeal approach.  However, as with most things, the more it's done the cheaper it gets as economies of scale come into play.
 
2013-10-01 09:43:23 PM
I wonder what it will have for a nickname?
 
2013-10-01 09:46:40 PM

rhiannon: Oh I get it, the reason it's virtually invisible to radar is because it's so freaking small:

[img.photobucket.com image 634x335]

Genius.


How are the sailors going to bomb our enemies if they can't even fit in the boat?!?
 
2013-10-01 09:48:28 PM
We were there when they laid the keel
i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-10-01 09:49:00 PM

BolshyGreatYarblocks: The Navy names a small destroyer after FDR, and a giant carrier after stumblebum; tell me again how the US military is apolitical?


Just be glad it's not named the USS Saint Ronald.
 
2013-10-01 09:50:32 PM
That doesn't look right.  Where is the Wave Motion gun?
 
2013-10-01 09:51:38 PM

BolshyGreatYarblocks: The Navy names a small destroyer after FDR, and a giant carrier after stumblebum; tell me again how the US military is apolitical?


Maybe the other two will be named after William Henry Harrison and James Garfield.  You know, to represent long service.
 
2013-10-01 09:53:58 PM

grokca: Does it run on nachos and beer?


I don't know about nachos, but you  can harness the power of the beer atom

www.movieposter.com
 
2013-10-01 09:54:38 PM

kyleaugustus: iheartscotch: Pubby: kyleaugustus: $13 billion.  We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.

That's awfully optimistic of you. I'm pretty sure $13 billion wouldn't even buy the craft for the mission. Hell, we're paying $35 billion per jet fighter; and have yet to have one functional jet delivered.

/ at a mere $13 billion; a new carrier is a steal

You might have nudged a few decimal places.  No single aircraft that I'm aware of costs $35 billion dollars.  The B-2 is the most expensive craft per unit that I can think of and those were $737 million each but those are no longer in production.  The F-35, depending on model, is between $153 million and $200 million.  The F-22 is $150 million each.

I agree that the price would be high per unit/mission in a piecemeal approach.  However, as with most things, the more it's done the cheaper it gets as economies of scale come into play.


I was exaggerating. But, it's almost true.
 
2013-10-01 09:57:51 PM

MrBallou: BolshyGreatYarblocks: The Navy names a small destroyer after FDR, and a giant carrier after stumblebum; tell me again how the US military is apolitical?

Just be glad it's not named the USS Saint Ronald.


The USS Ronald Reagan is a Nimitz class carrier. It will be in service for quite some time to come.

Generally, the Navy is currently naming carriers after people who have done something particularly beneficial for the Navy. Reagan presided over a significant buildup. John Stennis was a big booster of the Navy in Congress. George HW Bush was in the Navy, as was Gerald Ford.

Now, that isn't necessarily carved into stone. Carter served in submarines, hence the last Seawolf being named after him. They will also name them after significant leaders of the us (Washington, Lincoln). But ultimately, if they think it will get a new carrier funded, they'll name it after your teddy bear if it would get them what they need to build it. So not completely apolitical... they aren't specifically political, but they aren't stupid. They'd rather have something with a name they may not enjoy than not have it at all.
 
2013-10-01 10:03:41 PM

fusillade762: rhiannon: Oh I get it, the reason it's virtually invisible to radar is because it's so freaking small:

[img.photobucket.com image 634x335]

Genius.

How are the sailors going to bomb our enemies if they can't even fit in the boat?!?


It's alluded to right in the article:  "...ship stuffed with cutting-edge and top secret technology". Did you never see the 1966 documentary Fantastic Voyage?
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report