From the title, first thing I thought was OP was going to build a couple of ARs.

Let's try this again. She's a big ship.

The Navy has had its issues, but over the last couple years has made great strides.

Regarding aircraft, the F18 is pretty much out. The Superhornet and F35 are the replacement.

Carriers certainly have some vulnerability to a near peer competitor's anti-ship missiles, but the CVN is not alone. It comes with a battle group screen of Destroyers and guided missile cruisers with anti-missile defense.

The new destroyer is awesome, and the LCS problems are worked out, as are the San Antonio class LPD issues.

The collisions last year were a much needed spark to radical changes in training and culture, and focus on fleet readiness. The Navy is in good shape today and rapidly improving.

Read Proceedings over the last year. Big changes are in process, mostly for the better.

We have to (and are) develop the technology to neutralize the missiles, both ballistic and cruise. Also, their ASBMs have never been tested against a ship, and no one knows if they work. Same for the various claims of hypersonic missiles.

The subs have some minor conventional land strike capability. But this wouldn't be nearly enough to sustain an air campaign (what do they carry, a dozen Tomahawks?) If we want to project force in any meaningful way, we need the carriers.

Note that the planes don't just have to drop bombs. They can launch long range missiles also (then return to the carrier, reload, fly out, and launch another set.) They planes can also mid-air refuel to extend their range. The Navy is buying an unmanned tanker drone for this purpose (which I find to be a strange way of doing this, btw.)

The rest of the fleet is largely for sea control, strategic strike (boomers), amphibious warfare, and logistics. If we want real power projection, we need carriers.

Now as far as this carrier design, I'd like to see all the new technology get the bugs worked out, before we buy more of them.

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
Please, never name one after Obama. The alternative to carriers is building a much larger number of smaller, nimbler vessels, including submarines and surface ships. Submarines don’t require escorts and can hit distant targets on land. carriers have not been tested in battle against an enemy able to fight back since World War II – more than 70 years ago. The Chinese in particular, have established sea zones bristling with anti-ship weapons meant to make it impossible for enemy flotillas to enter. There is also a serious flaw in the current configuration of U.S. carriers: their complement of strike aircraft. Almost all are short-range jets, the F-18 Hornet, whose range could render the planes useless in some conflicts. In order to be relatively safe, a carrier would have to stand off by 1,300 nautical miles, or 2,300 kilometers – out of range of the Dong Feng missiles. And the F-18s have a range of only 400 nautical miles (equal to 460 statute miles or 740 kilometers) to a target with enough fuel to return. If in fact the carriers have to stand off, the Hornets would have to be refueled in midair an impractical number of times while flying to and from their targets. It thus would be all but impossible for carriers to send air power into the zones the Chinese currently have established.. The ship the Navy needs is the arsenal ship. A concept for a floating missile platform intended to have as many as five hundred vertical launch bays for mid-sized missiles, most likely cruise missiles. In current U.S. naval thinking, such a ship would initially be controlled remotely by an Aegis Cruiser, although plans include control by AWACS aircraft such as the E-2 Hawkeye and E-3 Sentry.

corsair is spot on about the sorry state of naval shipyards. Even factoring private yard capacity we're in lousy shape. Imagine if we still had a 600 ship Navy instead of less than 300.

When Mare Island closed it was forecast that it would take between 2 and 3 decades to reacquire the level of expertise in numbers that were lost.

Penny wise and pound foolish has never been so apt.

quote:

Originally posted by rekstrom:
The Navy has had its issues, but over the last couple years has made great strides.

Regarding aircraft, the F18 is pretty much out. The Superhornet and F35 are the replacement.

Carriers certainly have some vulnerability to a near peer competitor's anti-ship missiles, but the CVN is not alone. It comes with a battle group screen of Destroyers and guided missile cruisers with anti-missile defense.

The new destroyer is awesome, and the LCS problems are worked out, as are the San Antonio class LPD issues.

The collisions last year were a much needed spark to radical changes in training and culture, and focus on fleet readiness. The Navy is in good shape today and rapidly improving.

Read Proceedings over the last year. Big changes are in process, mostly for the better.

Would you say that Obama and his sycophants are much to blame for this? Did some of it start under George Bush 43?

quote:

Originally posted by 2000Z-71:

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
This is off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more...

That the Navy still hasn't replaced the capabilities they lost when the F-14 was retired early.

Early?

I thought they ran those things into the ground. From what I heard they used them longer than they should have.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Yeah, A6s days were and are over. Every F18 and JSF on the flight deck can rain more effects than the A6 ever could.

Hard to compare current tech with something that was retired 20-years ago. The A-6 no doubt had it's limitations and the A-12 was supposed to replace it but, that got bungled and cancelled shortly thereafter and NAVAIR was left empty-handed. While the super-bug is impressive, it still lacks legs, even with more tanks means it can't haul enough iron. The Navy needs a dedicated attack platform that can haul a load over distance. The new JASSM and JSOW's are awesome but, those are premium...I just want to destroy ports, warehouses and rail yards.

quote:

Originally posted by rekstrom:
The Navy has had its issues, but over the last couple years has made great strides.

The new destroyer is awesome, and the LCS problems are worked out...

You're pumping sunshine, could you elaborate on what's so awesome about the Zumwalt? What exactly has been worked out with the LCS?

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Would you say that Obama and his sycophants are much to blame for this? Did some of it start under George Bush 43?

The cold war peace dividend is where a lot of this starts, all the administrations since share the blame however, Navy leadership bears the largest burden since they're the ones charged with implementing their recommendations. DoD and intelligence mis-read and foot-draged their understanding of what a post-Soviet world would look like with a blind-spot towards an ascendant China. Defense contractors consolidated as the BRAC went into effect and Congressional allies moved-on to other areas with the understand that there was no more threats. As shipyards closed, funding for them should've been re-allocated to modernizing/updating the remaining shipyards, that didn't happen and now, our yards are barely capable of maintaining the existing fleet without it's workers setting fires see, USS Miami and USS Oscar Austin. Navy leadership became much more corporate oriented resulting in prolonged acquisition processes, retired FOGO's alarmingly moving into lucrative post-retirement careers, and nearly every project was beset with problems, the least of which were out of control costs, (see A-12, CG(X), F-35, Zumwalt/AGS, V-22, CH-53K, etc..)

Training became a casualty of the corporate mind-set of streamlining and efficiency, thus sailors largely don't know how to do repairs while at-sea, instead relying on contractors and the yard for most maintenance. Meanwhile, Junior Officers are learning to navigate using CD ROM sets instead of actually getting underway and going to sea. AND, there was two wars that were land campaigns, which resulted in the Navy being a supporting player, thus, funding went to replace destroyed, damaged and over-worked equipment for the other three services.

Hopefully protected by this new one that got commissioned last month.
USS Michael Monsoor

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Yeah, A6s days were and are over. Every F18 and JSF on the flight deck can rain more effects than the A6 ever could.

Hard to compare current tech with something that was retired 20-years ago. The A-6 no doubt had it's limitations and the A-12 was supposed to replace it but, that got bungled and cancelled shortly thereafter and NAVAIR was left empty-handed. While the super-bug is impressive, it still lacks legs, even with more tanks means it can't haul enough iron. The Navy needs a dedicated attack platform that can haul a load over distance. The new JASSM and JSOW's are awesome but, those are premium...I just want to destroy ports, warehouses and rail yards.

I hear ya about the distance deal, but everyone is addicted to USAF tankers. Even the USAF.

It's just the way it is these days.

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by 2000Z-71:

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
This is off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more...

That the Navy still hasn't replaced the capabilities they lost when the F-14 was retired early.

Early?

I thought they ran those things into the ground. From what I heard they used them longer than they should have.

They were complicated, old and became maintenance pigs. They were retired early with their high maintenance costs being used as the reason why. That said, the Navy has nothing now that matches their speed, range and fleet defense capabilities.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
This is off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more...

Not giving the DOD an out, but imagine the problems the Russian's and Chinese are having.

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:
Honestly, these things will be sunk in a second if WW3 kicks off. They are useless for fighting first world countries.

At 8 billion dollars a piece, that sort of loss would be unsustainable.

When you hear Trump is looking for $5 billion for a big chunk of wall, it puts those numbers into perspective.
Flat tops made battleships into accessories, gun platforms for landings, and missiles and nukes have changed the usefulness of flat tops. Another case of the Generals fighting the last war, at least against an equal competitor.
These ships are often used to support humanitarian operations, and action against third world opponents. Retiring ships that could have been updated used for much of this perceived need would have been much less wasteful.

The challenge in defeating Chinese missles is catching them while in boost phase which means locating them and having countermeasures with relative proximity to defeat them. Added to the challenge, these missles are cold launched and use solid fuel meaning they are very Mobile and can be launched very quickly. The key will be counteracting the satellites the Chinese use to control these missles midphase and before reentry Under terminal guidance. Enter, the Aegis cruisers and the battle, defeating satellites

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
We have to (and are) develop the technology to neutralize the missiles, both ballistic and cruise. Also, their ASBMs have never been tested against a ship, and no one knows if they work. Same for the various claims of hypersonic missiles.

The subs have some minor conventional land strike capability. But this wouldn't be nearly enough to sustain an air campaign (what do they carry, a dozen Tomahawks?) If we want to project force in any meaningful way, we need the carriers.

Note that the planes don't just have to drop bombs. They can launch long range missiles also (then return to the carrier, reload, fly out, and launch another set.) They planes can also mid-air refuel to extend their range. The Navy is buying an unmanned tanker drone for this purpose (which I find to be a strange way of doing this, btw.)

The rest of the fleet is largely for sea control, strategic strike (boomers), amphibious warfare, and logistics. If we want real power projection, we need carriers.

Now as far as this carrier design, I'd like to see all the new technology get the bugs worked out, before we buy more of them.

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
Please, never name one after Obama. The alternative to carriers is building a much larger number of smaller, nimbler vessels, including submarines and surface ships. Submarines don’t require escorts and can hit distant targets on land. carriers have not been tested in battle against an enemy able to fight back since World War II – more than 70 years ago. The Chinese in particular, have established sea zones bristling with anti-ship weapons meant to make it impossible for enemy flotillas to enter. There is also a serious flaw in the current configuration of U.S. carriers: their complement of strike aircraft. Almost all are short-range jets, the F-18 Hornet, whose range could render the planes useless in some conflicts. In order to be relatively safe, a carrier would have to stand off by 1,300 nautical miles, or 2,300 kilometers – out of range of the Dong Feng missiles. And the F-18s have a range of only 400 nautical miles (equal to 460 statute miles or 740 kilometers) to a target with enough fuel to return. If in fact the carriers have to stand off, the Hornets would have to be refueled in midair an impractical number of times while flying to and from their targets. It thus would be all but impossible for carriers to send air power into the zones the Chinese currently have established.. The ship the Navy needs is the arsenal ship. A concept for a floating missile platform intended to have as many as five hundred vertical launch bays for mid-sized missiles, most likely cruise missiles. In current U.S. naval thinking, such a ship would initially be controlled remotely by an Aegis Cruiser, although plans include control by AWACS aircraft such as the E-2 Hawkeye and E-3 Sentry.

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
This is off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more...

Not giving the DOD an out, but imagine the problems the Russian's and Chinese are having.

Russia is missing it's largest dry-dock They know where it is...it's just inoperable.
China, while they're pre-occupied reverse engineering and trying to fill-in the gaps to all the intelligence they've hoovered-up, there's no doubt there's a handful of admirals grumbling about all the 'party duties & directives' they need to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Orguss:
Has anyone taken a tour of a Ford class since they've gone into service? Or any carrier for that matter? I would love to take a tour at Fleet Week. Last time I was on a carrier, it was the Enterprise back in the early '90s.

Huh. I toured the "Fighting Lady" during WWII--it was docked at Alameda and my dad worked there. (I was about 8 years old . . . .) Might have been after V-J Day.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by copaup:
Ford is a big ship. Im also glad to see tha the third ship will be Enterprise. We should always have an Enterprise.

I agree. The USN should always have an Enterprise on the lists. Big E has too proud of a history.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
We have to (and are) develop the technology to neutralize the missiles, both ballistic and cruise. Also, their ASBMs have never been tested against a ship, and no one knows if they work. Same for the various claims of hypersonic missiles.

The subs have some minor conventional land strike capability. But this wouldn't be nearly enough to sustain an air campaign (what do they carry, a dozen Tomahawks?) If we want to project force in any meaningful way, we need the carriers.

Note that the planes don't just have to drop bombs. They can launch long range missiles also (then return to the carrier, reload, fly out, and launch another set.) They planes can also mid-air refuel to extend their range. The Navy is buying an unmanned tanker drone for this purpose (which I find to be a strange way of doing this, btw.)

The rest of the fleet is largely for sea control, strategic strike (boomers), amphibious warfare, and logistics. If we want real power projection, we need carriers.

Now as far as this carrier design, I'd like to see all the new technology get the bugs worked out, before we buy more of them.

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
Please, never name one after Obama. The alternative to carriers is building a much larger number of smaller, nimbler vessels, including submarines and surface ships. Submarines don’t require escorts and can hit distant targets on land. carriers have not been tested in battle against an enemy able to fight back since World War II – more than 70 years ago. The Chinese in particular, have established sea zones bristling with anti-ship weapons meant to make it impossible for enemy flotillas to enter. There is also a serious flaw in the current configuration of U.S. carriers: their complement of strike aircraft. Almost all are short-range jets, the F-18 Hornet, whose range could render the planes useless in some conflicts. In order to be relatively safe, a carrier would have to stand off by 1,300 nautical miles, or 2,300 kilometers – out of range of the Dong Feng missiles. And the F-18s have a range of only 400 nautical miles (equal to 460 statute miles or 740 kilometers) to a target with enough fuel to return. If in fact the carriers have to stand off, the Hornets would have to be refueled in midair an impractical number of times while flying to and from their targets. It thus would be all but impossible for carriers to send air power into the zones the Chinese currently have established.. The ship the Navy needs is the arsenal ship. A concept for a floating missile platform intended to have as many as five hundred vertical launch bays for mid-sized missiles, most likely cruise missiles. In current U.S. naval thinking, such a ship would initially be controlled remotely by an Aegis Cruiser, although plans include control by AWACS aircraft such as the E-2 Hawkeye and E-3 Sentry.

While I agree with your post I just wanted to point out that our subs carry more than a dozen tomahawks...

Excellent, and we already have more aircraft carrier capacity than the next eight navies combined.

Lets make it the next fifteen navies.

I suspect one fleet carrier has more airpower than whole countries.