US Navy announces name for CVN 79 - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

By Piano Red
#13729932
Igor Autunov
And will take more hardware down with them when they sink.

Yes larger carriers are more economical, but too valuable to risk placing anywhere near a warzone that resembles 21st century opponents. I say these are giant ducks.


And once again Igor proves his military ignorance for all the world to see.

And now to begin debunking....don't worry, i'll even use a few pics this time.

Rilzik
I have read something like that. From what I know the automation reduces manpower by 100 people out of 5000?


More like by a 1,000.

Most Nimitzes have complements at or above 5,600. Especially the first three from Nimitz herself through to the Vinson.

I haven't read anywhere about about significant reductions in operating cost besides slightly reduced manpower and the power plant.


Then you've only been doing surface reading.

The Ford class has a rearranged flight deck that will save on maintenance hours and operations tempos (that by itself is perhaps one of the largest cost savings measures by itself), but will also feature new EMALs launching gear that will replace the traditional steam catapult. A tricky piece of hardware that easily requires the most supervision and maintenence on the ship outside of the powerplant and air wing.

There's a load of other features, but those are the two biggest I can think of off the top of my head.

I'm not saying they won't or won't be able to but to be honest any savings because of these systems I imagine are being sunk into more expensive parts and cost overruns.


The Ford class aren't exactly comparable to those elephants in the form of the LCS program.

It's on schedule and on budget. The carrier building section of the USN has been doing this quite some time, and their final products have been par the course ever since the USS Langley.

Again...it's the kind of ingrained institutional experience in this sort of thing that other countries just don't have. Just look at the sheer nightmare of a development program the French had when they were building the Charles De Gaulle for example.

I'd like to see lifetime cost projections for the Ford.


Pages 4 and 11 respectively

Lifetime cost projections usually aren't made until after the ship is commissioned and finished sea trials. Allows the Navy to better analyze performance during the first year of operation. Also, bear in mind that the procurement cost increases are actually quite good for a new class like this, especially on a 10% one for the lead ship itself.

By comparison, costs for the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes were huge, and by the time the Enterprise was launched the issue had become so endemic that the Navy had to reform the enitre procurement scheme. It's precisely one of the reasons why the USS Enterprise is a one of a kind.

Also another cost saving that you forgot to mention is they have longer stated lifetimes.


Oh...thought I did.

But yeah that's a huge part of the Fords as well. They'll be getting a ridiculously powerful new Reactor setup that basically gives the ship more juice than it actually needs (the design scheme was made to anticipate the introduction of railguns and solid-state laser weapons into naval warfare), and won't ever need to undergo a Refueling Complex Overhaul at any point while the ship remains in service. Something which will save billions in maintenance and modernization funds that won't be needed.

If they remain relevant anyway.


Of course they will. What...pray tell...will replace them exactly? That's really the question here, and one that none of the Aircraft Carrier's so-called detractors can even come close to answering...mostly because they have no answer.

Igor's delusions aside this supposed "threat" from ASBMs is no real substantive threat at all.

Especially not when Current and Emergent technologies will allow the Carrier Strike Group to remain as versatile and adaptive to neutralizing such things and keeping the carrier itself free to pursue flight ops.

Antiship ballistic missiles are even more amazing and so much cheaper than the systems designed to counter them.


:lol:

Surface-to-air interception missiles are even more amazing and so much better than the systems they're designed to counter.

See what I did there?

CaliforniaCatholic
Do you know the fire power that a carrier group carries, including its nuclear warhead component, or even without it?


Carrier Strike Groups don't carry nukes onboard anymore, at least not since the Cold War ended. Reduces the risk of a Broken Arrow incident, and was meant to be a show of good faith to the Russians and Japanese.

Igor Antunov
*Igor's emoticon laughing in ignorance*


Here's the SM-2 & ESSM defense screen of a US Carrier Strike Group (Ship to Ship weapons are excluded, we're talking purely about interception systems. Aircraft CAP assets also excluded). The non-US carrier groups are added for comparison.

Yeah....you can stop laughing now.

A single heavy ICBM carries more firepower than all the surface combatants in the world combined.


I'll take a fully loaded SSBN over an ICBM any day of the week thank-you-very-much.

As for carriers themselves, they are shitty floating airports. Nothing more. In terms of warships, this is the ultimate warship ever built: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov_class_battlecruiser


The fappage is strong with you today I see.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13730360
Hello Piano Red. Since you appear to be so knowledgeable on this subject, I have a question perhaps you can help answer. Why build a super carrier rather then an amount (say 2-4) regular/small carriers that could hold the same number of planes?
User avatar
By CaliforniaCatholic
#13730685
Do you know the fire power that a carrier group carries, including its nuclear warhead component, or even without it?
Carrier Strike Groups don't carry nukes onboard anymore, at least not since the Cold War ended. Reduces the risk of a Broken Arrow incident, and was meant to be a show of good faith to the Russians and Japanese

Are you 100% percent sure about that? I find it hard to believe that the US would totally give up a capability like that unilatterally.


.
By Piano Red
#13731159
Thunderhawk
Hello Piano Red. Since you appear to be so knowledgeable on this subject, I have a question perhaps you can help answer. Why build a super carrier rather then an amount (say 2-4) regular/small carriers that could hold the same number of planes?


Supercarriers are more versatile, and have longer "sea legs" than conventionally powered carriers. They able to sustain intense flight ops for longer periods of time, and in the grand scheme of things are actually more cost effective.

This debate first came up nearly 50 years ago over the planned USS United States. A debacle that finally was settled (at least within the US defense establishment) with the construction of the USS Forrestal. Since the end of the Cold War design trends towards larger Supercarriers over the post-war stand of 70,000 tons have only gotten stronger. As seen by moves between the navies of the UK, France, Russia, India, and China to finally get into the Supercarrier game.

CaliforniaCatholic
Are you 100% percent sure about that?


Yes.

I find it hard to believe that the US would totally give up a capability like that unilatterally.


Nukes are strategic weapons. Having them placed on carriers in a time of reduced tension with Russia would be more trouble than its worth. The USN's SSBN is meant to fill the primary role as the Navy's platform for delivering nuclear fire on a selected target, not carriers.

Besides, certain US naval bases and facilities around the world do still have nukes stored in secure areas. It's not like it'd be that hard to simply have a nuke transported to a carrier for use if the need ever arose in some unique scenario.
User avatar
By CaliforniaCatholic
#13731493
Not all nukes are strategic.
Little ones are tactical.
By Piano Red
#13731613
CaliforniaCatholic
Not all nukes are strategic.
Little ones are tactical.


I wasn't referring to their military classifications and uses.

But their geo-political perceptions among national actors.
User avatar
By MB.
#13731907
nm
By Xbow
#13741380
Igor Antunov wrote:In terms of warships, this is the ultimate warship ever built

I don't know about that but I've always thought the Kirov class was pretty sweet and the Slava class cruisers ain't bad either. But if Aircraft carriers are so fucked up, why do the Russians keep the Admiral Kuznetsov as their flagship? It broke my heart to see her sister ship the Varyag get sold off to the Chinese in 1998. I guess they're going to put her into operation after all this time.

And apparently the Russian Navy wants more carriers
Wiki wrote:Russia
Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Vladimir Masorin officially stated on June 23, 2007, that the Navy was considering the specifications of a new nuclear aircraft carrier design[22][23] for the class that was first announced about a month earlier. Production of the carriers is expected to start around 2010 at the Zvezdochka plant in Severodvinsk, where a large drydock, capable of launching vessels with more than 100,000 ton displacement, is now being built.[24] In his statement, Admiral Masorin said that the general dimensions of the project have already been determined. The projected carrier is to have nuclear propulsion, to displace about 50,000 tons and to carry an air wing of 30–50 air superiority aircraft and helicopters, which makes her roughly comparable with the French Charles de Gaulle. "The giants that the US Navy builds, those that carry 100–130 aircraft, we won't build anything like that", said Admiral Masorin.[23] The planned specifications reflect the role, traditional in the Russian Navy, of the aircraft carrier as an air support platform for guided missile cruisers and submarines.

The Russian naval establishment had long agreed, since the decommissioning of the Kiev-class carriers, that the only operational carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, was insufficient, and that three or four carriers were necessary to meet the Navy's air support requirements.[citation needed] However, financial and organisational turmoil in the 1990s made even the maintenance of Admiral Kuznetsov a difficult undertaking. The improvement in Russia's economic situation after the year 2000 has allowed a major increase in defence spending. Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky announced on Navy Day 2008 that Russia plans to build five or six carriers of the new design for deployment in the Northern and Pacific fleets, starting around 2012–2013.[25] The new carrier groups are planned to be at full strength around 2050–2060.[26] According to sources from the United Shipbuilding Corporation the new carriers will carry new fifth-generation fighters as well as unmanned aerial vehicles and have a displacement of up to 60,000 metric tons.[27]

While planning for new carriers, and carrying out design projects, the Russian government has not committed to building the carriers. Russia's economic climate is not yet sufficient to allow the construction and support of additional carriers in the short term.[28]
The Russian Navy expects to have a blueprint for the next generation aircraft carrier by the end of 2010.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#13741432
But if Aircraft carriers are so fucked up, why do the Russians keep the Admiral Kuznetsov as their flagship?


Because the Russians, like the Americans, and like the British, French and Chinese, like to bully smaller countries.

The carrier is a symbol for gunboat diplomacy. But in a slinging match between great powers, the carrier is a scenic artificial reef.
By Xbow
#13742931
Admiral Antunov wrote:The carrier is a symbol for gunboat diplomacy. But in a slinging match between great powers, the carrier is a scenic artificial reef.

Well Admiral Antunov the same could be said for that thin skinned battle cruiser the Kirov that you love so much (only it would be true). One missile hit on the forward half of the ship that takes out a missile tube and its goodbye Kirov. The Kirov's pathetic armor protection consists of 3" of steel armor around the reactor only and light splinter protection in a few other areas. Wow! How survivable! Wait a minute! Now I'll bet the Kirov's defensive systems are impenetrable! Right?

This is an armored ship Admiral Auntunov and it can be sunk just as all ships can be sunk.
But, bear in mind that this ship was designed to resist and contain damage from shells that penetrate
more than 30 feet of reinforced concrete, weighing 2700 pounds, arriving at nearly
2500 feet per second, roughly 1700mph, or mach 2.6.
Image
☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼
This is an even more heavily armored ship and it WAS sunk. But it took
17 bombs and 19 torpedoes to do the trick. That's equal to from
ten to twenty P-700 Granit missiles. But those 17 bombs were coming down at
a high angle and got around the heavy armored bulkheads that the P-700's
would have to defeat.
Image

Admiral Antunov, the hardest ship to sink in the world today is any made in the USA Nuclear Aircraft carrier. Of course they can be sunk... but just not as easily as the Kirov or any other ship you care to name...say it ain't so!
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#13742939
Well Admiral Antunov the same could be said for that thin skinned battle cruiser the Kirov that you love so much (only it would be true). One missile hit on the forward half of the ship that takes out a missile tube and its goodbye Kirov.


The kirov doesn't carry 90 $50 million aircraft and 4,000 persons down to the ocean floor with it. i.e it doesn't cost $7 billion.

Furthermore the kirov is itself far more heavily armed, defensively and offensively. The carrier relies on surrounding ships for protection. The air wing is largely useless against incoming ballistic missiles and torpedos fired from quiet concentional subs, and cannot be in the air at once. That leaves the AEGIS umbrella and anti-submarine warfare systems. Sadly for the carrier it can all be saturated easily with comparatively cheap missiles.

But, bear in mind that this ship was designed to resist and contain damage from shells that penetrate
more than 30 feet of reinforced concrete, weighing 2700 pounds, arriving at nearly
2500 feet per second, roughly 1700mph, or mach 2.6.


2700 pound Shells at mach 2.5? What about 32,000 pound+1-ton of high explosive missile moving at mach 10? 30 feet of concrete equivalent? Lol, thats like less than 10 metres. You americans and your inflated imperial system figures.

17 bombs and 19 torpedoes to do the trick. That's equal to from
ten to twenty P-700 Granit missiles.


And you're deriving this how exactly? By amount of explosive carried? It's not the same composition, and penetration has improved greatly since ww2 bombs.

Admiral Antunov, the hardest ship to sink in the world today is any made in the USA Nuclear Aircraft carrier. Of course they can be sunk... but just not as easily as the Kirov or any other ship you care to name...say it ain't so!


With modern ballistic missile technology? A carrier with such a weapon is as easy to sink as a wooden row boat with such a weapon. In fact the row boat might be more difficult as it's a far smaller target. You'd probably miss the row boat 10 times before you struck lucky, the carrier would be struk far more often.

But ultimately, a single strike would put any ship out of commision, it doesn't have to be sunk in order to become useless for the next couple of months. Single strike on the runway from such a weapon and the carrier must go off to the construction yard for repairs. That's $7 billion of military hardware rendered irrelevant for a period of time and a nasty repair bill.
By Piano Red
#13745834
Igor
Furthermore the kirov is itself far more heavily armed, defensively and offensively.


False.

The air wing is largely useless against incoming ballistic missiles and torpedos fired from quiet concentional subs


False.

Sadly for the carrier it can all be saturated easily with comparatively cheap missiles.


and False.
By Zerogouki
#13746949
Am I the only person who saw the words "Kirov" and "Battlecruiser", and immediately thought of Red Alert 2 and Starcraft?
User avatar
By Prosthetic Conscience
#13747006
Carteronian wrote:Piano Red wrote:
M'eh....Carriers are the most powerful ships in the world. They need more fear-invoking and intimidating names in my opinion.


What the Hell for? They are not designed to get close enough to the enemy for them to be able to read the name on the side. You could call it USS Fluffy Bunny and it would be just as effective in the power projection game.


At which point I think I am forced to plug Iain M. Banks' Ship names from his Culture sci-fi novels. There are many just crying out to be used by today's US Navy:

No More Mr Nice Guy
Of Course I Still Love You
Gunboat Diplomat
Size Isn't Everything
Shoot Them Later
Attitude Adjuster
Frank Exchange Of Views
I Blame My Mother
I Blame Your Mother
Funny, It Worked Last Time...
God Told Me To Do It
Credibility Problem
You Would If You Really Loved Me
Synchronize Your Dogmas
Poke It With A Stick
Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory
Now Look What You've Made Me Do
EU-BREXIT

You're singling out one policy he voted on that he[…]

In a new study, Spyrou et al. (2019) reconstructed[…]

I always have good sources, I just assume that peo[…]