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.
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.
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?
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'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.