• U.S. Navy's new $13B aircraft carrier, already 2 years behind schedule, is not combat ready
    38 replies, posted
[quote]The $13-billion USS Gerald R. Ford is already two years behind schedule, and the U.S. Navy's newest aircraft carrier is facing more delays after the Pentagon's top weapons tester concluded the ship is still not ready for combat despite expectations it would be delivered to the fleet this September. According to a June 28 memo obtained by CNN, Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department's director of operational test and evaluation, said the most expensive warship in history continues to struggle launching and recovering aircraft, moving onboard munitions, conducting air traffic control and with ship self-defense. "These four systems affect major areas of flight operations," Gilmore wrote in his report to Pentagon and Navy weapons buyers Frank Kendall and Sean Stackley. "Unless these issues are resolved ... they will significantly limit CVN-78's ability to conduct combat operations."[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/uss-gerald-r-ford-aircraft-carrier-delay/index.html[/url]
better to fix them now before we launch the next one also Ford so Fix Or Repair Daily
[QUOTE=Sableye;50771954]better to fix them now before we launch the next one also [B]Ford so Fix Or Repair Daily[/B][/QUOTE] That's such a load of shit. I'll have you know I only had to fix my Ranger once or twice a week
My naval history professor best described warships: they're holes in the ocean that you fill with money. Also the Brits are laughing at this warship because our flight deck is completely flat and we don't use ramps to launch our aircraft.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50771954]Fix Or Repair Daily[/QUOTE] Took me too long to realize that was an acronym and not poking fun at fruxodaily's username :v:
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50772542] Also the Brits are laughing at this warship because our flight deck is completely flat and we don't use ramps to launch our aircraft.[/QUOTE] ? I mean it is the cheaper option but catapult launched aircraft are much better since you don't have to sacrifice much capability to get them off the deck. The Russian Su-33 is less maneuverable and more limited in payload than the Su-27 for example. and afaik the Royal Navy dosen't even have anything to launch since they sold all the harriers
[QUOTE=Saxon;50772625]? I mean it is the cheaper option but catapult launched aircraft are much better since you don't have to sacrifice much capability to get them off the deck. The Russian Su-33 is less maneuverable and more limited in payload than the Su-27 for example. and afaik the Royal Navy dosen't even have anything to launch since they sold all the harriers[/QUOTE] Harrier airframes were too old to keep in service anyway. Lockheed needs to build faster, or let us build them here.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50772542]Also the Brits are laughing at this warship because our flight deck is completely flat and we don't use ramps to launch our aircraft.[/QUOTE] They shouldn't be laughing too hard. The British Royal Navy's most advanced warship, the Type 45 Destroyer, at a cost of £1 billion each, [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/destroyers-will-break-down-if-sent-to-middle-east-admits-royal-navy"]utterly break in warm water.[/URL] The ships run on gas turbines with an integrated electrical system that powers the entire vessel and it can't handle operating in temperatures commonly found in places like the Middle East (who would ever want to send any warship there?), and the Navy is having to expensively retrofit backup diesel generators into the ships because, to quote the article, [QUOTE]the ships are vulnerable to “total electric failures”, according to one naval officer in an email. That leaves the ships without propulsion or weapons systems.[/QUOTE] Top of the line warship, just don't use it south of France! No problem!
It's ok, we still got 6 more than any other nation, are you even trying world? :terrists:
[QUOTE=Dr.C;50772215]That's such a load of shit. I'll have you know I only had to fix my Ranger once or twice a week[/QUOTE] If you're talking about the rebadged mazda B-series pre 2010 pick ups there is no surprise
[QUOTE=wystan;50772732]It's ok, we still got 6 more than any other nation, are you even trying world? :terrists:[/QUOTE] Wikipedia says it is 8 more actually, that makes at least 4 or 5 of them a complete waste of money.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;50772850]Wikipedia says it is 8 more actually, that makes at least 4 or 5 of them a complete waste of money.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should look up why we have so many and the reasons for it before you call it a waste.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;50773082]This is why america doesn't have a state-funded healthcare system[/QUOTE] While our military expenditure is higher than most western European states, it is comparable. Our economy is so huge that having this many aircraft carriers isn't actually that strange.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;50773082]This is why america doesn't have a state-funded healthcare system[/QUOTE] Yea because Brazil is such a leading power in this world :quotes:
[QUOTE=Terragen;50773174]Yea because Brazil is such a leading power in this world :quotes:[/QUOTE] Being able to compare a country like the US to a country like Brazil in any aspect is kind of bad for the US then.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50773197]Being able to compare a country like the US to a country like Brazil in any aspect is kind of bad for the US then.[/QUOTE] You can't compare Brazil to anything it's just a pure shit country that's the point...
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50772542]My naval history professor best described warships: they're holes in the ocean that you fill with money. Also the Brits are laughing at this warship because our flight deck is completely flat and we don't use ramps to launch our aircraft.[/QUOTE] that's about the same as a starving african child laughing that americans can eat 3 square meals a day HMS Prince of Wales was supposed to be CATOBAR but they decided against it because it was "too expensive" [img]http://puu.sh/qegF1/32215c7653.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50772720]They shouldn't be laughing too hard. The British Royal Navy's most advanced warship, the Type 45 Destroyer, at a cost of £1 billion each, [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/destroyers-will-break-down-if-sent-to-middle-east-admits-royal-navy"]utterly break in warm water.[/URL] The ships run on gas turbines with an integrated electrical system that powers the entire vessel and it can't handle operating in temperatures commonly found in places like the Middle East (who would ever want to send any warship there?), and the Navy is having to expensively retrofit backup diesel generators into the ships because, to quote the article, Top of the line warship, just don't use it south of France! No problem![/QUOTE] This isn't even to mention the fact that right now, the UK's newest carriers are completely useless because they decided it would be a great idea to base them off being able to use the F35, and the F35 isn't ready just yet.
[QUOTE=Terragen;50773224]You can't compare Brazil to anything it's just a pure shit country that's the point...[/QUOTE] Yes, but he didn't compare Brazil to the US anyway.
This is the one that uses an electromagnetic rail sling to launch the aircraft isn't it?
[quote]The next carrier in the Ford class, the [B]USS John F. Kennedy[/B] (CVN 79), is scheduled to launch in 2020. That ship was 18% percent complete as of March. The third Ford-class carrier, the [B]USS Enterprise[/B] (CVN 80), is set to begin construction in 2018.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Dr.C;50772215]That's such a load of shit. I'll have you know I only had to fix my Ranger once or twice a week[/QUOTE] My 2001 Focus is hitting the something-wrong-every-month-or-so age.
Why are we naming an aircraft carrier after Gerald Ford anyway?
[QUOTE=matt000024;50774246]Why are we naming an aircraft carrier after Gerald Ford anyway?[/QUOTE] All the good names were taken
[QUOTE=matt000024;50774246]Why are we naming an aircraft carrier after Gerald Ford anyway?[/QUOTE] Not only that, but a whole class of carrier. The last one, Nimitz, made a whole lot of sense. Not sure about this one.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;50773082]This is why america doesn't have a state-funded healthcare system[/QUOTE] 2.3% of our GPD, we could easily spend 600 billion a year and have universal healthcare, that's a ridiculous statement and you know it. Also the u.s. is the biggest part of NATO, how about we stop being a part of it and let Turkey take that role since they have the second largest military, I'm sure they'd love that /s.
[QUOTE=Apache249;50774269]Not only that, but a whole class of carrier. The last one, Nimitz, made a whole lot of sense. Not sure about this one.[/QUOTE] Gerald Ford served in the United States Navy during WW2.
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;50772719]Lockheed needs to build faster, or let us build them here.[/QUOTE] Lockheed basically made the Department of Defense their money printing bitch.
This is a ship that probably contains 10 to 50 million parts. Try not to shocked it doesn't work straight out of the drydock and still needs some work. There's really nothing to see here. [editline]26th July 2016[/editline] Also, CATOBAR is better than ramp. Ramp is actually an embarrassment for the British.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50774497]Gerald Ford served in the United States Navy during WW2.[/QUOTE] We also have a Destroyer the [URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_S._McCain_(DDG-56)"]USS John S McCain[/URL] named after hos father and grand father, though you could say him too as all three have the same fucking name.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.