• U.S. Navy's new $13B aircraft carrier, already 2 years behind schedule, is not combat ready
    38 replies, posted
This is what happens when you make stuff when you're not in a world war or on the brink of it.
[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] The class of ship is generally named after the first name of the ship first made in that class. The USS Nimitz was the lead ship of the Nimitz class. [editline]26th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wystan;50772885]Maybe you should look up why we have so many and the reasons for it before you call it a waste.[/QUOTE] Perhaps it would be better for you to just provide reasons why we need 8+ aircraft carriers
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50775977] Perhaps it would be better for you to just provide reasons why we need 8+ aircraft carriers[/QUOTE] Because we have six naval fleets, each with multiple carrier groups, that patrol the globe and keep our interests and allies secure. They give us the ability to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom]deliver hurt[/url] anywhere on the globe within hours. They also act as a deterrent and [url=http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/03/stennis-strike-group-deployed-to-south-china-sea/81270736/]show of force,[/url] protecting our [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis#U.S._military_response]allies[/url] from countries like China. And they also provide quick access to clean water, food, medicine, and shelter in a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tomodachi#Navy]disaster scenario.[/url] As for the number of ships, the more you have, the faster you can respond, the less-fucked you are if you lose one, the less vulnerable you are when the ships need servicing. Also that it takes years to build these things so by the time you're done, you probably got an older one retiring. And obviously, the more you have, the more planes and bombs you can throw at the enemy. They're a worthy investment given the alternative is keeping manned bases on foreign lands. They extend our reach, which is a good thing when you live behind it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50775977]The class of ship is generally named after the first name of the ship first made in that class. The USS Nimitz was the lead ship of the Nimitz class. [editline]26th July 2016[/editline] Perhaps it would be better for you to just provide reasons why we need 8+ aircraft carriers[/QUOTE] Because Surging. Because only 3 or so are actually deployable or deployed right now out of the 10 we have. So lets assume a scenario where shit goes down and we need everything we have, your getting 3 carriers gobally, thats it. To put this into laymans terms all 10 carriers across the globe are in various stages of repair or refurbishment because... Well nuclear super carriers are hard to maintain believe it or not and we work them longer and harder than what they are designed for. So we have 3 or so deployed or immediately deployable, around 5 that are in repair availability that are deployable within 30 days or less (ie SRF, or other repair availability) we call this 'surging', and the remaining are 100% non deployable (ie refueling or deep SRA). Cycling them out in this fasion allows us to have carriers out with more ready to go in times of crisis. [editline]266[/editline] This better explains it: [url]http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9316/index1.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50775977]The class of ship is generally named after the first name of the ship first made in that class. The USS Nimitz was the lead ship of the Nimitz class. [editline]26th July 2016[/editline] Perhaps it would be better for you to just provide reasons why we need 8+ aircraft carriers[/QUOTE] Because we help to secure the majority of freedom of navigation to the entire world with our massive fucking navy. [editline]26th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ta16;50776076]Because only 3 or so are actually deployable or deployed right now out of the 10 we have. So lets assume a scenario where shit goes down and we need everything we have, your getting 3 carriers gobally, thats it. To put this into laymans terms all 10 carriers across the globe are in various stages of repair or refurbishment because... Well nuclear super carriers are hard to maintain believe it or not at we work them longer and harder than what they are designed for. So we habe 3 or so deployed or immediately deployable, around 5 that are in repair availability that are deployable within 30 days or less (ie SRF, or other repair availability) we call this 'surging', and the remaining are 100% non deployable (ie refieling or deep SRA). Cycling them out in this fasion allows us to have carriers out with more ready to go in times of crisis.[/QUOTE] This too. Same reason we got submarines out the ass.
[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] um ramps are only useful for VSTOL and VTOL aircraft, the catapult actually is better because we can launch bigger things than the ramp can [editline]26th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50775977] [editline]26th July 2016[/editline] Perhaps it would be better for you to just provide reasons why we need 8+ aircraft carriers[/QUOTE] The Ford is the replacement for the Nimitz, some of which are over 30 years old, and also the Enterprise which was 40 years old [editline]26th July 2016[/editline] [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] good thing they have their own [I]nuclear reactor[/I] which doesn't loose power ever. the reason why the brits ships are failing is because the heat exchangers for the turbines with their fancy capture system (for making it harder to track the ship) can't operate in that hot water. An aircraft carrier though will never be stealthy and doesn't need that sort of system and can also afford more space to cooling the intake water before using it on the generator/turbines. the ford was built to generate electricity instead of steam which means that there is a lot of redundancy now whereas the nimitz could loose power due to the generators being secondary systems
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50775977]The class of ship is generally named after the first name of the ship first made in that class. The USS Nimitz was the lead ship of the Nimitz class.[/QUOTE] I know that. I just thought it made more sense for a class of carrier to be named after a Fleet Admiral. I guess it's "good enough' that Ford was a president and served in the Navy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.