[Piano Red]

Navy Names Next Aircraft Carrier USS John F. Kennedy

Again? This is an irritating turn of events. At this rate even Enterprise will be relegated to an amphibious ship. The famous names of World War 2 that made carriers into the potent weapon they are today are being ignored in place of freaking politics.

[Thunderhawk]

So that would make the ship's nickname, what, Happy Birthday ?

[Igor Antunov]

Names are irrelevant.

By 2040 they intend to have 10 of these to replace the old ones. I really question the direction, US government is sliding into debt, it can't keep playing this game for another 50 years.

[CaliforniaCatholic]

Navy Names Next Aircraft Carrier USS John F. Kennedy

Again? This is an irritating turn of events. At this rate even Enterprise will be relegated to an amphibious ship. The famous names of World War 2 that made carriers into the potent weapon they are today are being ignored in place of freaking politics.

1) I thought there was already a carrier named Kennedy
2) I don't mind too much naming vessels after presidents: We have the Ronald Reagan (also a carrier) and the Abraham Lincoln. I think Kennedy is a jackass myself, but at least he did serve in WWII, so he gets credit for that.

Now, if I ever see the USS Nancy Pelosi, thats when I jump ship!!

.

[Piano Red]

Thunderhawk

So that would make the ship's nickname, what, Happy Birthday ?

It'll probably be named after some derivation of sore-penis after all the brothels the crew will end up in during port calls.

CaliforniaCatholic

1) I thought there was already a carrier named Kennedy

Was decommissioned and placed in the Ready Reserve four years ago. It's sad that the Navy didn't even wait to have another ship with the same name.

Would've been far more fitting to have an LCS or a Destroyer given the title instead.

2) I don't mind too much naming vessels after presidents: We have the Ronald Reagan (also a carrier) and the Abraham Lincoln. I think Kennedy is a jackass myself, but at least he did serve in WWII, so he gets credit for that.

M'eh....Carriers are the most powerful ships in the world. They need more fear-invoking and intimidating names in my opinion.

The old naming system with ships like Hornet, Intrepid, and Wasp was a lot better.

Hell, we'll probably have to wait until CVN 80 before we see the next USS Enterprise.

[Cartertonian]

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.

[Otebo]

By 2040 they intend to have 10 of these

What are they going to do - just print the money? America can't afford to pay for it's military, none of their politicians have the bollocks to say it though.

[Piano Red]

Cartertonian

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.

Its called tradition and honoring history.

[Igor Antunov]

What are they going to do - just print the money? America can't afford to pay for it's military, none of their politicians have the bollocks to say it though.

Well one is $8 billion to build and complement in 5 years, that doesn't include later running costs of course.

So that's $800 billion in investment on carrier acquision in the next 30 years. Not much over the span of 30 years really.

But it's the running costs that hurt. Older carriers won't be retired until after 2050's so it is possible that by 2040 America will have 20+ supercarriers to upkeep and maintain.

If economic fortunes haven't turned around by then....it's going to hurt.

[Rilzik]

Well one is $8 billion to build and complement in 5 years, that doesn't include later running costs of course.

So that's $800 billion in investment on carrier acquision in the next 30 years. Not much over the span of 30 years really.

But it's the running costs that hurt. Older carriers won't be retired until after 2050's so it is possible that by 2040 America will have 20+ supercarriers to upkeep and maintain.

If economic fortunes haven't turned around by then....it's going to hurt.

lol I have a post half written saying much the same thing, at least as far as the first part of your post.

Although I have never heard we won't be retiring the older carriers when new ones are ready to replace them. If the old ones aren't retired then we won't build new ones or more specifically procurement will be slowed. If anything it will be lowered by a carrier or two by then but we have a policy of 11 supercarriers even though right now it's 10 and about as many escort carriers which are much much cheaper then supercarriers. Decommissioning and breaking down carriers is expensive so many sit in port for a while (years) but I wouldn't consider that the same as maintaining active carriers. To say we will be upkeeping and maintaining 20+ supercarriers is wrong or at least misleading. More or less mothballed carriers aren't that big of a deal or cost relatively speaking. It's the cost of dismantling the reactors and worst case scenarios that keep them afloat at all.

I couldn't care less about names, but I don't see a reason to stop a tradition that has no negative side effects. If I could vote on the name I'd go for enterprise.

Does anyone have some figures on the annual or lifetime operating costs of US suppercarriers?


Edit: I found this... it's in 1997 dollars though but I guess it gives a ballpark. Looks like it costs about 5 billion to operate 10 carriers for a year (500 million each). Assuming they each cost about the same (which they don't) and not undergoing active combat operations. 22 billion total over the lifetime of about 50 years minus R&D. Also this is for older Nimitz class (specifically CVN-68 Nimitz-class that was quite a bit cheaper then the new Ford class or even newer Nimitz class ships.

Total Costs
[$millions
constant $FY97]
Investment cost
Ship acquisition cost $ 4,059
Midlife modernization cost $2,382
Total investment cost $ 6,441
Average annual operating and support cost $ 129

Operating and support cost
Direct operating and support cost $ 11,677
Indirect operating and support cost $ 3,205
Total operating and support cost $ 14,882
Average annual operating and support cost $ 298

Inactivation/disposal cost
Inactivation/disposal cost $ 887
Spent nuclear fuel storage cost $ 13
Total inactivation/disposal cost $ 899
Average annual inactivation/disposal cost $ 18

Total life-cycle cost $ 22,222
Average annual life-cycle cost $ 444

Source: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/usw ... imitz.html

[Piano Red]

You guys do realize that one of the purpose-stated design goals of the Ford Class is to reduce manpower constraints and overhead operating costs right?

More automation and network integration will allow the Ford class carriers to operate even more efficiently than the Nimitz class, with less crew, less maintenance, and reduced dry dock time for refits.

They'll be capable of more flight sorties, won't have to worry about Refueling Complex Overhauls (no need for nuclear refueling), and will carry more aircraft to boot.

[Igor Antunov]

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.

[Rilzik]

You guys do realize that one of the purpose-stated design goals of the Ford Class is to reduce manpower constraints and overhead operating costs right?

More automation and network integration will allow the Ford class carriers to operate even more efficiently than the Nimitz class, with less crew, less maintenance, and reduced dry dock time for refits.

They'll be capable of more flight sorties, won't have to worry about Refueling Complex Overhauls (no need for nuclear refueling), and will carry more aircraft to boot.

I have read something like that. From what I know the automation reduces manpower by 100 people out of 5000? or so. (Edit: wiki is telling me a few hundred, still not that significant) Not exactly all that much. I haven't read anywhere about about significant reductions in operating cost besides slightly reduced manpower and the power plant. I will wait to see it with my own eyes before I actually believe the military can cut costs. 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. Not exactly a bad thing, more bang for your buck, we the tax payer or the rest of the navy/defense department aren't going to see more money because of it. If you have any links or sources I'm interested. I'd like to see lifetime cost projections for the Ford. They will be woefully inaccurate but it would be cool to get some kind of idea.

I never said they were bad ships, personally I think they are worth the cost for now.

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

[CaliforniaCatholic]

M'eh....Carriers are the most powerful ships in the world. They need more fear-invoking and intimidating names in my opinion.
The old naming system with ships like Hornet, Intrepid, and Wasp was a lot better.
Hell, we'll probably have to wait until CVN 80 before we see the next USS Enterprise

Hmmm. I never thought of that. That's a good point.

.

[danholo]

USS Fluffy Bunny

This is even more suspicious. There are no bunnies on a battle field.

[CaliforniaCatholic]

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.

A carrier battle group is pretty damned effective at protecting their carrier. The layers of defense are actually pretty amazing in their technology and inter-relationships.

[Igor Antunov]

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

[CaliforniaCatholic]

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

And those missiles cannot penetrate the battle group's defenses.
On the other hand, the power that a carrier group can project around the globe is unmatched by any other nation. In a couple of days, we can deliever an air force and strike power anywhere in the world that could obliterate most countries. Do you know the fire power that a carrier group carries, including its nuclear warhead component, or even without it?

[Igor Antunov]

And those missiles cannot penetrate the battle group's defenses.

On the other hand, the power that a carrier group can project around the globe is unmatched by any other nation. In a couple of days, we can deliever an air force and strike power anywhere in the world that could obliterate most countries. Do you know the fire power that a carrier group carries, including its nuclear warhead component, or even without it?

A single heavy ICBM carries more firepower than all the surface combatants in the world combined. Hey you threw the nuclear aspect into the mix, not me.

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

[CaliforniaCatholic]

Your laughing smiley indicates that you know nothing about American carrier battle group defensive capabilities. We are not England with their shitball little carriers you know.

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

LOL. And who would launch one? Because I gaurantee you, if someone did that we would turn their country into a glass covered parking lot. The only nations with that capability are nations who are smart enough to not dare to try.