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  
•       •       •

9787 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Oct 2013 at 8:07 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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?
 
2013-10-01 10:04:28 PM
Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.
 
2013-10-01 10:07:35 PM

uber humper: 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


Minor threadjack:  in terms of percentage of GDP, the Exploring Expedition (yes, they called it that), was even more expensive:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Exploring_Expedition

I highly recommend Sea of Glory, Philbrick's book about it.
 
2013-10-01 10:09:19 PM

bojon: I wonder what it will have for a nickname?


the Fix Or Repair Daily?
Found On Redsea Dead?
Fast Only Running Downwind?
 
2013-10-01 10:19:15 PM
Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.


It did make since to build battleships in 1939. The death of the battleship was November 11, 1940 when the British Navy attacked the Italian Navy lying at anchor with Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers.
 
2013-10-01 10:27:29 PM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: 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.


The U.S. fielded something on the order of 150 aircraft carriers in WWII (look it up, we had about 130 merchant ships that we retrofitted with flight decks).  It's kind of a double-edged sword.  Yes, our carriers have never been threatened by one of our adversaries, but if we ever did face a credible threat to our carriers, and god forbid lose one, we would immediately switch to a war footing economically on par with what we did in World War II.  Yes, we really don't want to risk our carriers, but if we're ever in that position, god help our enemy.

IMO I foresee a future with 4-8 of these Ford class supercarriers, retrofitted with laser weapons and railguns, carrying mostly unmanned drones and a couple of dozen pocket carriers that support VTOL aircraft and helicopter operations.  A carrier battle group is still, by itself, going to stand toe-to-toe with any navy on the planet.  Threatened by small vessels and anti-ship missiles?  Keep further away, send out our submarines to launch cruise missiles and torpedoes against coastal targets and harbors, and other ships.
 
2013-10-01 10:27:38 PM

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


Better than Apollo-13 type moon missions.
 
2013-10-01 10:29:21 PM
It's time for our empire to pass away anyhow, so we might as well let senile old men in uniforms bankrupt us building huge floating targets, warplanes that carry meat around in them, and other pieces of grotesquely expensive twentieth century tech.
I'm sure they'll be indispensible in fighting our starving goatherd "enemies" of the future.
 
2013-10-01 10:30:46 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.


The B-2 is more like $2 billion per plane, with the cost of development factored in.  It was supposed to be under $1 billion per plane because the plan was to build 140 of them, but then the Cold War ended.
 
2013-10-01 10:32:14 PM

revrendjim: 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.


It wouldn't even work in Hormuz.
 
2013-10-01 10:33:56 PM

uber humper: 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


Thank the GOP for that one also.
 
2013-10-01 10:36:29 PM
For the cost of that we could build the entire west coast Hyperloop. Wheee!
 
2013-10-01 10:36:43 PM

Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.


Don't read too much into that. Just because the dungeon master game controller allowed it doesn't mean it would work in real life. These things are run to get officers to think, not to test capabilities.

/Hint: it wouldn't work in real life
 
2013-10-01 10:39:24 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: We were there when they laid the keel


Fark is not your personal erotica site.
 
2013-10-01 10:41:28 PM

LordOfThePings: MaudlinMutantMollusk: We were there when they laid the keel

Fark is not your personal erotica site.


It WILL be...

/it will be...
 
2013-10-01 10:44:55 PM

vygramul: Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Don't read too much into that. Just because the dungeon master game controller allowed it doesn't mean it would work in real life. These things are run to get officers to think, not to test capabilities.

/Hint: it wouldn't work in real life.


It did work.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was a war game conducted by the US armed forces. Blue (US) lost in 2 days. Than the war game was reset and rules of engagement were changed so Blue couldn't lose.
 
2013-10-01 10:47:40 PM

Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.

It did make since to build battleships in 1939. The death of the battleship was November 11, 1940 when the British Navy attacked the Italian Navy lying at anchor with Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers.


Ha!  You said "Fairey"
 
2013-10-01 10:48:37 PM

Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.


By the end of WWII, US BBs were essentially immune to air attack. Especially the Iowas. They are probably still immune except maybe to a Sunburn. Maybe.
 
2013-10-01 10:50:13 PM

Allen262: vygramul: Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Don't read too much into that. Just because the dungeon master game controller allowed it doesn't mean it would work in real life. These things are run to get officers to think, not to test capabilities.

/Hint: it wouldn't work in real life.

It did work.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was a war game conducted by the US armed forces. Blue (US) lost in 2 days. Than the war game was reset and rules of engagement were changed so Blue couldn't lose.


Did you actually read what I said?
 
2013-10-01 10:51:59 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.


I do not, for one, think that the problem was that the Navy was down. I think that the problem *may* have been, that there was a aircraft carrier on the stage that was in danger of being *crushed* by a *dwarf*. Alright? That tended to understate the hugeness of the object.
 
2013-10-01 11:06:58 PM

vygramul: Allen262: vygramul: Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Don't read too much into that. Just because the dungeon master game controller allowed it doesn't mean it would work in real life. These things are run to get officers to think, not to test capabilities.

/Hint: it wouldn't work in real life.

It did work.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was a war game conducted by the US armed forces. Blue (US) lost in 2 days. Than the war game was reset and rules of engagement were changed so Blue couldn't lose.

Did you actually read what I said?


Real ships didn't sink and real people didn't die but Van Riper not only beat the US Navy at it's own game than came back and raped it's dead corpse. His way of beating the US Navy works just as well in the real world as it did in Millennium Challenge 2002 as the US Navy didn't learn a farking thing after being smacked around like cheap hooker.
 
2013-10-01 11:09:49 PM

Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.


Isn't the Phalanx gun there to shoot incoming missiles?  Wouldn't the other ships in the fleet take out small boats before they got close?
 
2013-10-01 11:19:16 PM

Allen262: Real ships didn't sink and real people didn't die but Van Riper not only beat the US Navy at it's own game than came back and raped it's dead corpse. His way of beating the US Navy works just as well in the real world as it did in Millennium Challenge 2002 as the US Navy didn't learn a farking thing after being smacked around like cheap hooker.


I spent a decade designing and running these games for the navy. We've adjudicated helos getting shot down by torpedos in order to teach farking lessons about not following procedures.

You're reading too much into MC02.
 
2013-10-01 11:24:48 PM

vygramul: Allen262: Real ships didn't sink and real people didn't die but Van Riper not only beat the US Navy at it's own game than came back and raped it's dead corpse. His way of beating the US Navy works just as well in the real world as it did in Millennium Challenge 2002 as the US Navy didn't learn a farking thing after being smacked around like cheap hooker.

I spent a decade designing and running these games for the navy. We've adjudicated helos getting shot down by torpedos in order to teach farking lessons about not following procedures.

You're reading too much into MC02.


Lol, no shiat.   He acts as if the original outcome wasn't rules based, too.

Anyway, I would be happy if this is the last carrier we build for about 40 years.
 
2013-10-01 11:24:49 PM

Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.

It did make since to build battleships in 1939. The death of the battleship was November 11, 1940 when the British Navy attacked the Italian Navy lying at anchor with Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers.


That's the point. Battleships were useful, they just didn't provide much value for the dollar in a big war, because they were headed for obsolescence and could be destroyed using much cheaper tech.

Carriers are extremely useful in regional conflicts just as battleships were useful where there was air superiority, like the night battles around Guadalcanal in 1942.
 
2013-10-01 11:26:15 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Isn't the Phalanx gun there to shoot incoming missiles?


Yes, but the new generation of stealth missiles will pose a significant threat to our carriers.  We'll probably up the ante with laser/rail-gun based missile defense.  Plus if China spammed the Sea of Japan with a couple hundred missiles then that would be a problem, no way the Phalanx can track, let alone shoot down, all of those missiles.

Wouldn't the other ships in the fleet take out small boats before they got close?

Yes.  A CSG is going to have another five or six escort destroyers/frigates, all with anti-ship capabilities that include missiles and deck guns.  Plus we have one America/Tarawa-class assault ship for every supercarrier, loaded with helicopters and anti-ship/anti-submarine capabilities.  And our supercarriers are never going to be very far from our land-based air assets.  Our strategic bombers (the B-1 and B-52 at least, not sure about the B-2) are also capable of deploying anti-ship missiles, or at least capable of being readily converted.
 
2013-10-01 11:33:48 PM

Animatronik: That's the point. Battleships were useful, they just didn't provide much value for the dollar in a big war, because they were headed for obsolescence and could be destroyed using much cheaper tech.


Their vulnerability wasn't the problem, once they respected air power. Sure, HMS Repulse was sunk by air attack. But look at its air defense:

6 × 3, 2 × 1 - 4-inch (102 mm) guns
2 × 1 - 3-inch (76 mm) anti-aircraft guns.

Now compare that to BB-61:

20 × 5 in (127.0 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns
49 × 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I know which I'd rather go after in a low and slow torpedo bomber.
 
2013-10-01 11:36:50 PM

Hollie Maea: For the cost of that we could build the entire west coast Hyperloop. Wheee!


I work for a civil engineering firm that does a lot of municipal projects:

The day he released the info for the Hyperloop, I ran some of the construction cost numbers. They are WILDLY optimistic. This leads me to believe that the whole plan is utter bullshiat.

Conceptually it's an interesting project, but it's not really grounded in reality.

Since then, I've started working as a sub on some projects for Tesla, and it's the worst managed project I've ever been on.
My prime said he was getting emails every 10 minutes telling him to hurry up. You cannot manage a project by yelling louder.
Also, they're reportedly trying to deploy construction crews before having permits.

I get the feeling that Musk's crowd is a bunch of mechanical engineers living in an idealized world. Dirt and people are messy.
 
2013-10-01 11:43:30 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Isn't the Phalanx gun there to shoot incoming missiles?  Wouldn't the other ships in the fleet take out small boats before they got close?


Shear numbers overloaded the US's ability to handle the attack.
 
2013-10-01 11:44:24 PM

vygramul: Now compare that to BB-61:

20 × 5 in (127.0 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns
49 × 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I know which I'd rather go after in a low and slow torpedo bomber.


Yep
upload.wikimedia.org

On 11 April, a low-flying kamikaze, although fired on, crashed on Missouri's starboard side, just below her main deck level. The starboard wing of the plane was thrown far forward, starting a gasoline fire at 5 in (127 mm) Gun Mount No. 3. The battleship suffered only superficial damage, and the fire was brought quickly under control. The dent in the side of the ship remains to this day.
 
2013-10-01 11:56:26 PM

Mad_Season: bojon: I wonder what it will have for a nickname?

the Fix Or Repair Daily?
Found On Redsea Dead?
Fast Only Running Downwind?


Farked Over, Rebuilt Destroyer
 
2013-10-01 11:59:34 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Isn't the Phalanx gun there to shoot incoming missiles?  Wouldn't the other ships in the fleet take out small boats before they got close?


According to all my friends in the navy, if you hear the Phalanx go off go ahead and kiss your arse good bye because its not going to get all of them and with most modern anti-ship missiles all it'll probably take is one.

/luckily we are now building laser based close in defense
//theoretically better than simply chucking as much hot lead as can between you and your imminent demise
 
2013-10-02 12:06:42 AM

lack of warmth: 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.


Not Harrison - I'd prefer it didn't sink after a month in service. And if they name it after Taylor, they can't service cherries in the mess.
 
2013-10-02 12:14:23 AM

Allen262: Real ships didn't sink and real people didn't die but Van Riper not only beat the US Navy at it's own game than came back and raped it's dead corpse. His way of beating the US Navy works just as well in the real world as it did in Millennium Challenge 2002 as the US Navy didn't learn a farking thing after being smacked around like cheap hooker.


I think may be you might be missing another point here. The USN and the entire US Armed Forces train the best officers in the world.

If Russians still had a fleet worth mentioning and had EVER encouraged creativity without the threat of being tried as a traitor and bourgeoise conspirator they might have given us a real run for our money and possibly still could even with their outdated sub and surface fleet.

The Chinese don't have a very high functioning blue water naval force and everyone else who we might possibly ever fight basically runs heavily armed oversized cutters and patrol craft. Not a real surface ship between them.

I think the fact that the USN got beat by one its own should go to show that the only people who outclass the USN are the USN.

That being said, we still need more, newer carriers. They're the ultimate in global force projection. A mobile floating fortress armed to the teeth with all sorts of things that make a helluva lot of mess when they hit their target is not something sane countries fark with and when one parks itself in your waters, you listen real close to what the guy ordering it around has to say.
 
2013-10-02 12:15:17 AM

Rhino_man: Mad_Season: bojon: I wonder what it will have for a nickname?

the Fix Or Repair Daily?
Found On Redsea Dead?
Fast Only Running Downwind?

Farked Over, Rebuilt Destroyer


Floating Oxidized Rudderless Derelict
 
2013-10-02 12:15:37 AM

vygramul: Animatronik: That's the point. Battleships were useful, they just didn't provide much value for the dollar in a big war, because they were headed for obsolescence and could be destroyed using much cheaper tech.

Their vulnerability wasn't the problem, once they respected air power. Sure, HMS Repulse was sunk by air attack. But look at its air defense:

6 × 3, 2 × 1 - 4-inch (102 mm) guns
2 × 1 - 3-inch (76 mm) anti-aircraft guns.

Now compare that to BB-61:

20 × 5 in (127.0 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns
49 × 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I know which I'd rather go after in a low and slow torpedo bomber.


i14.photobucket.com

I was told there would be no math ...
 
2013-10-02 12:17:26 AM

vygramul: Rhino_man: Mad_Season: bojon: I wonder what it will have for a nickname?

the Fix Or Repair Daily?
Found On Redsea Dead?
Fast Only Running Downwind?

Farked Over, Rebuilt Destroyer

Floating Oxidized Rudderless Derelict


F*ck off, Russian douchebags
 
2013-10-02 12:36:17 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: vygramul: Rhino_man: Mad_Season: bojon: I wonder what it will have for a nickname?

the Fix Or Repair Daily?
Found On Redsea Dead?
Fast Only Running Downwind?

Farked Over, Rebuilt Destroyer

Floating Oxidized Rudderless Derelict

F*ck off, Russian douchebags


Farking Overpriced Reef for Divers... you know, once it goes belly-up.
 
2013-10-02 12:43:34 AM

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.


Is this an aircraft carrier... FOR ANTS?
 
2013-10-02 12:44:32 AM

Pubby: That being said, we still need more, newer carriers. They're the ultimate in global force projection. A mobile floating fortress armed to the teeth with all sorts of things that make a helluva lot of mess when they hit their target is not something sane countries fark with and when one parks itself in your waters, you listen real close to what the guy ordering it around has to say.


This. How is any President going to ask "where are the carriers?" whenever an international incident happens, if there aren't any carriers. When the Air Force wanted to contribute to the first Libyan bombing (under Reagan) they had to fly hours out of their way to avoid the airspace of all the European countries that didn't want to get involved in any way. The Navy planes had a 10 minute flight from the bird farm.

In Libya 2.0 the French flew the highest percentage of air support missions, and almost all of the on call missions. Guess which country out of the 14 participating brought a carrier to the party?

And speaking of the Phalanx CIWS, there is a mod out now that enables it to engage small craft. 4,500 rounds per minute of 20mm is going to tear some new orifices in any attackers. The Navy has also been beefing up the small craft defenses of ships deployed over seas, adding extra .50s, hand operated mini-guns (think 'Painless' the Gatling gun from Predator, but mounted) and 25mm auto-cannon to the ships.
 
2013-10-02 01:09:34 AM

Gleeman: Pubby: That being said, we still need more, newer carriers. They're the ultimate in global force projection. A mobile floating fortress armed to the teeth with all sorts of things that make a helluva lot of mess when they hit their target is not something sane countries fark with and when one parks itself in your waters, you listen real close to what the guy ordering it around has to say.

This. How is any President going to ask "where are the carriers?" whenever an international incident happens, if there aren't any carriers. When the Air Force wanted to contribute to the first Libyan bombing (under Reagan) they had to fly hours out of their way to avoid the airspace of all the European countries that didn't want to get involved in any way. The Navy planes had a 10 minute flight from the bird farm.

In Libya 2.0 the French flew the highest percentage of air support missions, and almost all of the on call missions. Guess which country out of the 14 participating brought a carrier to the party?

And speaking of the Phalanx CIWS, there is a mod out now that enables it to engage small craft. 4,500 rounds per minute of 20mm is going to tear some new orifices in any attackers. The Navy has also been beefing up the small craft defenses of ships deployed over seas, adding extra .50s, hand operated mini-guns (think 'Painless' the Gatling gun from Predator, but mounted) and 25mm auto-cannon to the ships.


This is a very good explanation of why carriers are still relevant... but I think the pace of carrier building is perhaps a bit too quick when compared to things like big-deck amphibs.  Seeing as how an LHA can support a Marine medium or heavy helicopter squadron, reinforced with Harrier (or JSF) SVTOL jets, and also establish a ground presence, it's also an extremely effective force projection tool.  When you consider also that we can get 4 America-class LHAs for the price of one Ford-class CVN, I think we should be focusing there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(LHA-6)
upload.wikimedia.org

/Served with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit on the USS Bataan in 2009, then took the USS Carter Hall to Haiti after the earthquake in 2010.
 
2013-10-02 01:33:10 AM
... and now I've gotten sucked into the Wikipedia vortex.  Saw the video of the USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) being used as a target for the USS Mobile Bay.  Something about seeing one of those flat-tops go under just breaks my farking heart.

They may look like shiat, but let me tell you... after months of operations on-shore, the sight of a flat-top amphib launching LCUs and LCACs will bring a tear to your eye.  I distinctly remember sitting in the cab of a 7-ton, riding an LCAC aboard the Bataan after 3 weeks of training in Greece... looking up as we entered the well deck and saying "Bataan, you big beautiful biatch.  It's good to be home."
 
2013-10-02 01:36:53 AM

Rhino_man: Gleeman: Pubby: That being said, we still need more, newer carriers. They're the ultimate in global force projection. A mobile floating fortress armed to the teeth with all sorts of things that make a helluva lot of mess when they hit their target is not something sane countries fark with and when one parks itself in your waters, you listen real close to what the guy ordering it around has to say.

This. How is any President going to ask "where are the carriers?" whenever an international incident happens, if there aren't any carriers. When the Air Force wanted to contribute to the first Libyan bombing (under Reagan) they had to fly hours out of their way to avoid the airspace of all the European countries that didn't want to get involved in any way. The Navy planes had a 10 minute flight from the bird farm.

In Libya 2.0 the French flew the highest percentage of air support missions, and almost all of the on call missions. Guess which country out of the 14 participating brought a carrier to the party?

And speaking of the Phalanx CIWS, there is a mod out now that enables it to engage small craft. 4,500 rounds per minute of 20mm is going to tear some new orifices in any attackers. The Navy has also been beefing up the small craft defenses of ships deployed over seas, adding extra .50s, hand operated mini-guns (think 'Painless' the Gatling gun from Predator, but mounted) and 25mm auto-cannon to the ships.

This is a very good explanation of why carriers are still relevant... but I think the pace of carrier building is perhaps a bit too quick when compared to things like big-deck amphibs.  Seeing as how an LHA can support a Marine medium or heavy helicopter squadron, reinforced with Harrier (or JSF) SVTOL jets, and also establish a ground presence, it's also an extremely effective force projection tool.  When you consider also that we can get 4 America-class LHAs for the price of one Ford-class CVN, I think we should be focusing there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(LHA-6)


/Served with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit on the USS Bataan in 2009, then took the USS Carter Hall to Haiti after the earthquake in 2010.


Why did they name a ship after Hawkman?
 
2013-10-02 01:52:10 AM
You missed "F-ed over rebuilt Dodge" there.
 
2013-10-02 02:03:11 AM

Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.


true however the US Navy hasn't fought a 'serious' war in 70 years so it does make sense. Like you said power projection and aerial attacks from sea using airpower Something like this is very useful in the types of war we fight like against 3rd rate enemies such as Iraq, Afghanistan or even Vietnam and Korea with limited naval and air power.
 
2013-10-02 02:28:48 AM

SuperNinjaToad: Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.

true however the US Navy hasn't fought a 'serious' war in 70 years so it does make sense. Like you said power projection and aerial attacks from sea using airpower Something like this is very useful in the types of war we fight like against 3rd rate enemies such as Iraq, Afghanistan or even Vietnam and Korea with limited naval and air power.


Honestly, the only nation that could make us fight naval battles at this point would be Russia.  Even the Chinese - though they're rapidly increasing the size of their navy - don't have the kind of technology required to best our point-to-point missile defense systems in sufficient quantity to make us fear for the majority of our fleet.

Let's face it, with the Rolling Airframe Missile achieving a 95% first-shot hit rate on incoming antiship missiles, and each of our carriers and amphibs capable of launching at least 42 of them... it would take a MASSIVE number of anti-ship missiles to sink even ONE of our ships... and only the Russians can keep their birds supplied with enough missiles to do that reliably for more than about two weeks.
 
2013-10-02 02:55:09 AM
So, how many $1m (or cheaper) torpedoes is it going to take to this $13B monstrosity?

Two?
 
2013-10-02 02:55:51 AM

starsrift: So, how many $1m (or cheaper) torpedoes is it going to take to sink this $13B monstrosity?

Two?


FTFM.
/ obviously
 
2013-10-02 03:22:53 AM
Tell me again which war you're preparing for?
 
2013-10-02 03:48:39 AM
www.danacarvey.net
 
2013-10-02 04:10:48 AM
Sigh. It feels like the last few decades are all about style over substance. It annoys me that Gerald Ford gets portrayed as some bumbling fool because he stumbled down a set of stairs on camera. He was one of the most athletic Presidents we've had, and, regardless whether you agreed with his politics, was pretty damned sharp - unlike the more recent mouth-breathers he could listen and compromise with those he did not agree with. He knew and did a ton of stuff, much of it behind closed doors. It amazes me that most people don't know he sat on the Warren Commission. And I was not a big Ford fan, but damn, objective reality > titillating perception - give it a try.

As to viability of the Carriers... lol, just before I got out of the service, I had to debrief a VIP regarding the closing of our facility (base closure overseas), standard dog and pony tour followed by debrief/grilling on specifics: who was taking over our mission, and ... stuff. After walking him through the entire facility then giving him the better part of 2.5 hours answering any and every minute freaking question he could think of, he laughed and asked me to speculate on 'the future'.

The Soviet Union had recently collapsed, and he thought the Navy's 'future' for the next century was bright: our ability to sustain Carrier fleets as a forward presence, yada yada; he asked what I thought:I told him he really didn't want to know my opinion; he insisted and I told him. Lol, Freaking ruined his day. :>p

1. Within 100 years (75 now maybe, haven't kept up with the numbers), the muslim population of Russia will be in the majority. It's not particularly unlikely that they will align - at least economically - with all the " 'stans" (ie Uzbekistan, Tadjikstan, etc); controlling a significant portion of the world's more valuable natural resources and the time and technology to build the infrastructure necessary to extract them. A large number... are not our friends and we are not making an effort to change this. The whole Khrushchev 'We will bury you!' could very well happen - not, as usually translated as they'd hand us our ass, but as he intended - that the US would rot from within while they're still going strong - obviously not as a communist entity, but a more younger, motivated populace with more resources at hand. The US needed to aggressively change our mindset/spending or in the long term we were going to get left in the dust.

2. China. We'd started making poor economic decisions (borrowing gobs of money) and I told him they'd freaking own us if we didn't wake up. I said (and still believe) their money/influence will affect economic and military policy, and (short version) not in a good way.

3. The US had consistently avoided maintaining/upgrading its infrastructure - I thought it likely that it was going to bite us in the ass - hard to ask for funding when (I believe I tactfully said) shiat is falling down around your ears.

4. The more complex a system, the easier it is to take it down. I could write gobs on just this alone - iirc I gave him a half dozen scenarios off the top of my head that our fleet was incapable of handling at the time.

/Other things I said were more off the mark - a shifting older US population would make it difficult to man a large fleet, projections on sustainability and economic instability around the world would start more fires than the US could put out, requiring a change in mission - NOW (at the time), before it's needed/too late to adapt. I can't remember the rest, I just remember he was really bummed. And I crushed him when I explained why I thought his 'baby' (SDI) was the final death knell to surface fleets; especially now when the US can't even pretend launch dominance.
 
2013-10-02 05:13:38 AM
My pops used to chopper Gerald Ford around in Marine One back in the day and he tells me Ford was a nice guy who would come up and say howdy to the pilots and such. It was before his time so he never witnessed it first hand, but apparently LBJ used to take a dump on the Executive Helicopter with the door open.

/CSB
 
2013-10-02 05:25:38 AM

biscuitsngravy: My pops used to chopper Gerald Ford around in Marine One back in the day and he tells me Ford was a nice guy who would come up and say howdy to the pilots and such. It was before his time so he never witnessed it first hand, but apparently LBJ used to take a dump on the Executive Helicopter with the door open.

/CSB


LBJ didn't just do that on the helicopter, he did it EVERYWHERE.  It was a negotiating tactic.  He would invite the opposition over, then drop a deuce with the door open while talking to them.  Farker wasn't known for his manners, he was known for having the most imperious Presidency in modern times, and it's because he knew how to keep his opposition so uncomfortable with the idea of actually OPPOSING him that all of Congress was rushing to do whatever the fark he wanted them to do.
 
2013-10-02 06:41:36 AM
"virtually invisible to enemy radar"...

...because Daily Fail readers will believe anything
 
2013-10-02 06:46:58 AM

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


Ford was a WW2 Navy veteran and hero. FDR was a cousin-marrying, rich kid, career politician.

I can't really find fault with the ship naming here.
 
2013-10-02 07:13:27 AM

starsrift: So, how many $1m (or cheaper) torpedoes is it going to take to this $13B monstrosity?

Two?


Self sealing compartment technology is another area that has improved over the years.  It can be very difficult to sink a large USN ship these days.

Beyond that though, you know how hard it is to get a torpedo within striking distance of a carrier?  Its not like they're out there by themselves.. they've got an entire fleet dedicated to assisting the carrier.
 
2013-10-02 07:42:05 AM

Alonjar: starsrift: So, how many $1m (or cheaper) torpedoes is it going to take to this $13B monstrosity?

Two?

Self sealing compartment technology is another area that has improved over the years.  It can be very difficult to sink a large USN ship these days.


I've heard that before.
 
2013-10-02 08:38:02 AM
$13 billion to build.  And how many thousands of dollars in torpedoes and missiles to sink it?
 
2013-10-02 08:44:07 AM

Mad_Season: bojon: I wonder what it will have for a nickname?

the Fix Or Repair Daily?
Found On Redsea Dead?
Fast Only Running Downwind?


F*cker Only Runs Downstream
 
2013-10-02 08:53:59 AM

Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.


Welcome to AEGIS.

This is why carriers travel in task forces; they are the quarterbacks, with a defensive line.
 
2013-10-02 09:03:04 AM

Tired_of_the_BS: Sigh. It feels like the last few decades are all about style over substance. It annoys me that Gerald Ford gets portrayed as some bumbling fool because he stumbled down a set of stairs on camera. He was one of the most athletic Presidents we've had, and, regardless whether you agreed with his politics, was pretty damned sharp - unlike the more recent mouth-breathers he could listen and compromise with those he did not agree with. He knew and did a ton of stuff, much of it behind closed doors. It amazes me that most people don't know he sat on the Warren Commission. And I was not a big Ford fan, but damn, objective reality > titillating perception - give it a try.


I agree. Ford was probably the right man at the right time for the right reasons. He's not the best president you could ask for, but I think that given the situation into which he was thrust, he handled things pretty well.

Tired_of_the_BS: 1. Within 100 years (75 now maybe, haven't kept up with the numbers), the muslim population of Russia will be in the majority. It's not particularly unlikely that they will align - at least economically - with all the " 'stans" (ie Uzbekistan, Tadjikstan, etc); controlling a significant portion of the world's more valuable natural resources and the time and technology to build the infrastructure necessary to extract them. A large number... are not our friends and we are not making an effort to change this. The whole Khrushchev 'We will bury you!' could very well happen - not, as usually translated as they'd hand us our ass, but as he intended - that the US would rot from within while they're still going strong - obviously not as a communist entity, but a more younger, motivated populace with more resources at hand. The US needed to aggressively change our mindset/spending or in the long term we were going to get left in the dust.


They've got a long way to bounce back, having fallen almost to their WWII population. And in 75-100 years, a lot can change, including the energy situation, and power projection may simply be too expensive for anyone.

2. China. We'd started making poor economic decisions (borrowing gobs of money) and I told him they'd freaking own us if we didn't wake up. I said (and still believe) their money/influence will affect economic and military policy, and (short version) not in a good way.

The question about China is whether they can achieve any real power projection to advance from a regional hegemon to a world power before the oil runs out. They're beginning to consider it. But, to be honest, if they play their cards right, they don't have to. China's rather satisfied with the status quo. Most US adventurism is in service to keeping a stable flow of oil to EVERYONE, so why spend all that money on power projection just to do what the US is doing for you? There are few sticking-points anymore, and one (North Korea) is just becoming more of a nuisance than it's worth.

Tired_of_the_BS: 3. The US had consistently avoided maintaining/upgrading its infrastructure - I thought it likely that it was going to bite us in the ass - hard to ask for funding when (I believe I tactfully said) shiat is falling down around your ears.


Yeah, but to be honest, the infrastructure is not all that expensive. One less supercarrier and we could be living on streets paved with gold. (OK, exaggerration. You're right and we're doing the bare minimum, if that. There's really no excuse for it, but the public is too busy worrying about the gender-arrangement of marriages between people they will never meet, much less know.)

Tired_of_the_BS: 4. The more complex a system, the easier it is to take it down. I could write gobs on just this alone - iirc I gave him a half dozen scenarios off the top of my head that our fleet was incapable of handling at the time.


Navies tend not to be very good against threats they've not dealt with in a while. So on the one hand, if the Soviet Union suddenly appeared a la Final Countdown, we'd be in some serious difficulty despite the considerable technological advantages. On the other hand, the other navies are even worse. But unlike land warfare, in naval warfare defense has been a more challenging problem than attack, so our navy has capabilities that need to be improved. Luckily, hypotheticals tend to develop scenarios that assume zero preparation time and zero reaction to increasing hostilities. Those tend to get people to start changing their ways, and the flat-footed situations rarely develop.

/Other things I said were more off the mark - a shifting older US population would make it difficult to man a large fleet, projections on sustainability and economic instability around the world would start more fires than the US could put out, requiring a change in mission - NOW (at the time), before it's needed/too late to adapt. I can't remember the rest, I just remember he was really bummed. And I crushed him when I explained why I thought his 'baby' (SDI) was the final death knell to surface fleets; especially now when the US can't even pretend launch dominance.

It's nigh impossible to predict more than 15 years out, and at 15 years you're pushing it. Technology changes too fast, not to mention the geopolitical situation. In 1988, 2003 was all but inconceivable. Russia barely a world player, the start of a decade-long land-war in the Middle-East with fewer than 5,000 dead, 6th graders going to class with smartphones able to sext real-time videos of themselves to friends in Australia, and the New England Patriots winning a Superbowl? Absurd.

Push predictions out to 25 years, and you may as well be Jules Verne ever since the industrial revolution. 1950 looked nothing like 1925 which looked almost nothing like 1900 which looked substantially different from 1875 which saw significant changes from 1850. The pace hasn't really slowed but accelerated. Throw in the wild-card of climate change, and 25 years from now might see the world in for a bumpy ride in ways no one thought possible.

So the fact that you were even close in some your predictions is laudable.

Some predictions are really not going out on a limb. 25 years from now, there will be conflict in the Middle East. (OMG, really? Will sand be involved?) We will suffer a recession. (Like every decade.) The US will be in decline. (It's ALWAYS in decline.) But only Ron Paul can be considered brilliant for making THOSE predictions.
 
2013-10-02 09:05:15 AM

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


Tell me who ever claimed it was?
 
2013-10-02 09:07:17 AM

runwiz: $13 billion to build.  And how many thousands of dollars in torpedoes and missiles to sink it?


Several thousand of thousands of dollars. Assuming it was unaware of your presence.
 
2013-10-02 09:28:08 AM
Mad_Season:I get the feeling that Musk's crowd is a bunch of mechanical engineers living in an idealized world. Dirt and people are messy.

But over at SpaceX their approach seems to be paying off bigtime. Any idea what the difference is?
 
2013-10-02 10:05:11 AM

Lord Howard Hurtz: Mad_Season: bojon: I wonder what it will have for a nickname?

the Fix Or Repair Daily?
Found On Redsea Dead?
Fast Only Running Downwind?

F*cker Only Runs Downstream


This one.  I like it.
 
2013-10-02 10:21:57 AM

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

Tell me who ever claimed it was?


Certainly should name more ships after Democrats since they start all the wars:

WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
 
2013-10-02 10:46:11 AM
I agree that carriers like this are needed in the long term but what about these scenarios?

lh6.ggpht.com
graphics8.nytimes.com

/not very effective against evil transforming robots from outer space
//or world-ending tsunamis...
 
2013-10-02 11:02:07 AM

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


Gerald Ford served in the Navy during a war. So you shut it.
 
2013-10-02 11:29:51 AM

peterthx: I agree that carriers like this are needed in the long term but what about these scenarios?

[lh6.ggpht.com image 480x200]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x340]

/not very effective against evil transforming robots from outer space
//or world-ending tsunamis...


You forgot locusts.
 
2013-10-02 11:30:43 AM

Beowoolfie: Mad_Season:I get the feeling that Musk's crowd is a bunch of mechanical engineers living in an idealized world. Dirt and people are messy.

But over at SpaceX their approach seems to be paying off bigtime. Any idea what the difference is?


I suspect it's because that's where their expertise lies. I'm sure they're great rocket engineers. Once you start creeping out of your scope of knowledge, it's very easy to make basic mistakes.

I did some more research on the Hyperloop, and the critics are saying are that they missed a realistic cost estimate by a factor of 10 to 20.

In terms of their project management style, I don't really know. They may be used to faster development cycles . They're also focused on ONE project, and not dealing with subcontractors that are running 5 or 10 at the same time.

// Thanks for asking the question: It's an interesting thought experiment.
 
2013-10-02 12:00:56 PM

Allen262: vygramul: Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Don't read too much into that. Just because the dungeon master game controller allowed it doesn't mean it would work in real life. These things are run to get officers to think, not to test capabilities.

/Hint: it wouldn't work in real life.

It did work.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was a war game conducted by the US armed forces. Blue (US) lost in 2 days. Than the war game was reset and rules of engagement were changed so Blue couldn't lose.


OpFor used speed boats and zodiacs when the rules explicitely stated that Blue forces could not fire upon them because they were non-military. Additionally, zodiacs can not carry, much less fire multiple Silkworms as General Ripper had them do. Add in other shenanigans like teleporting bike messengers, and it was a giant temper tantrum thrown by a man tired of being passed over for promotion. As for Blue being refloated, the entire point of the exercise was testing communications between multinational forces. Should they really have let one man cheating rob our and other nation's sailors of valuable training and experience?
 
2013-10-02 02:31:31 PM

Foundling: peterthx: I agree that carriers like this are needed in the long term but what about these scenarios?

[lh6.ggpht.com image 480x200]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x340]

/not very effective against evil transforming robots from outer space
//or world-ending tsunamis...

You forgot locusts.


mimg.ugo.com

I also forgot to ask if the USS Ford will have a time travel drive to enable the USA to win battles it previously had lost...
 
2013-10-02 08:34:27 PM

peterthx: I also forgot to ask if the USS Ford will have a time travel drive to enable the USA to win battles it previously had lost.


Take it back to 1774?   General Washington having close ground support would be an amazing development.
 
Displayed 122 of 122 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report