Most Expensive Navy Carrier Ever Built Named After Gerald Ford

Submitted by Santa Clause on

Supercarrier named after the 38th President of the United States and Michigan's own Gerald Ford. It was a slow day on the board so I figured you guys/ladies might find this interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/politics/us-navy-aircraft-carrier-shipbuilding-plan/

1VaBlue1

April 7th, 2016 at 5:56 PM ^

In a shooting war, she'll be a reef before long if she wanders around like carriers are want to do. Having time in sonar on fast attack submarines, I can tell you firsthand that surface ships are incredibly easy targets to track and sink.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

victors2000

April 7th, 2016 at 8:24 PM ^

modern diesel electrics are extremely quiet (ever heard one? See.) and extremely deadly; potential adversaries can make one of those for much less than it cost to make the GRF. Our current anti-sub capabilities are falling behind; it makes me wonder if the aircraft carrier is ready to go the way of the battleship. That, combined with possibly another clunker in the Joint Strike Fighter makes me worry about our future military might.

1VaBlue1

April 8th, 2016 at 9:08 AM ^

Our ASW capabilities are not falling behind - in fact, they continue to lead the world!  I'd take a VA class boat over a diesel-electric, or even an AIP, any day of the week.  And yes, I've done mele ops (1 on 1, you against me, straight up) against diesel boats a few times.  They are quiet - but everything has its weakness.  The sonar suite on a VA boat is, by far, the best in the world.  The only thing in the water that can take a VA class (that is being half vigilant) is a Seawolf class boat - which is also ours.

The beauty of the US Navy operating unrestricted submarine warfare?  If you don't think you're in a fight because nothing is there, you're already dead.

SalvatoreQuattro

April 7th, 2016 at 7:39 PM ^

dilly dallying than anything we do. China with it's massive potential could easily in time have a more powerful military than us.

 

The reason the numbers are so disparate is because our allies don't spend much on defense and our potential enemies are either too small(Russia, Iran, North Korea all have significantly smaller poputlations and economies then we do) or just now starting to amp up defense production.(China).

The Mad Hatter

April 7th, 2016 at 10:25 PM ^

Thermonuclear tipped missles. Which we have 50x more than they do.

We'll never go to war with China, unless their government (or ours) changes in a radical way. Our economies are too intertwined now.

Although I could see China and India going at it eventually with Pakistan lighting the match. Or if they piss Japan off enough to join the nuclear club.

1VaBlue1

April 8th, 2016 at 9:14 AM ^

Nukes are a yellow herring - everyone knows they will never be used...  When a Chinese ship can launch a single missile that will destroy the Burke's and Ticonderoga's protecting a carrier, that carrier is vulnerable.  And they can launch them from 200 miles out of range of any US missile fired back in self-defense.  Our anti-ship missiles (both air and ship launched) are old, technologically inferior, under-ranged, and old.

JFW

April 8th, 2016 at 10:20 AM ^

Sm-3 and sm-6 are neither old or inferior.

LRASM will have a 200 mile range.

And how are they going to target their 200 mile missile against a moving ship when their sensors don't go that far?

For all the talk of xx range of anti ship missiles it's not the range of the missile that counts. It's the max range you can get reliable targeting data.

We have a bunch of issues, but it's not as bad as you paint in that area.

I'd be more worried about subs.

And if any power with a few subs wanted to cripple the Navy quickly, they could tail and target our CLF ships which are relatively lightly escorted




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

1VaBlue1

April 8th, 2016 at 11:39 AM ^

Good points, although the sm-* missiles are anti-air and the LSARM is still being built (its a modification of the sm-*).  I don't think its even in low-rate production yet (but could well be wrong).  The range point is excellent!  They would have to use a forward positioned asset to help with targeting, and that asset would not survive long against the US Navy.

All of this is hypothetical, of course.  I don't believe the Chinese want anything to do with an open ocean battle against the US Navy - it is unwinnable for them.  Whether they have the assets, or not, is mostly irrelevant.  They lack any type of forward operating base and have no way of defending supply lines to an open ocean fleet.  And thier one carrier will hit the bottom before it reaches the continental shelf - US submarine drivers will fist fight to get that box of water!

Submarines are the wild card.  Nobody ever hears about them, and most people have no idea what they're capable of.  Having that experience first hand, I will say the only thing a submarine fears is another submarine.  When asked how long a carrier would survive a fight, Adm Rickover told Congress "48 hours".

JFW

April 11th, 2016 at 11:12 AM ^

I would love to see him deal with the defense contractors today. 

 

LRASM is, IIRC, a follow on from JASSM. Its not perfect, but it does have some potential (if *we* can get good targeting information).  SM-6 does have a secondary anti ship role now with a new seeker, or will shortly. Of course, while its fast its got a fairly small warhead. 

I'd love to see us devote more money to subs and weapons for those subs. I'm not anti-CVN, but right now the subs are, IMHO, our biggest ace in the hole. 

 

A war with China would be disasterous for the world. Its one of those things that IMHO, even if you win, you lose. 

The question to me is how do you deal with them. Part of the things they are doing are just what I would consider normal for a new regional hegemon. I agree with you, I don't see them wanting a blue water fight with us. Or any fight if they can get away with it. 

 

All that said, they are being pretty belligerant to their neighbors; and their atoll build/militarization program has flat out violated the UNCLOS from what I've read, and they are a signitory to that treaty. 

It would be nice if we could find a way where they feel secure and respected, without having them militarize behind the nine dash line or bully Vietnam and the Phillipines. 

 

I'm not the smart enough guy for that. 

 

 

The Mad Hatter

April 8th, 2016 at 10:26 AM ^

We might not use them as a first strike weapon, but what do you think we would do if one of our carriers was sunk by the Chinese (or anyone for that matter)?  Holy hellfire would rain down on that country, even if the military / politicians didn't want to do it, because the public would demand it.

/Should have listened to MacArthur and Patton.  The world would be a better place today.

The Mad Hatter

April 11th, 2016 at 11:24 AM ^

I've studied the economic conditions in pre-WWI Europe pretty extensively, and while there are parallels to our relationship with China, there are more differences than similarities.

China would have to be insane to start a shooting war with us.

Personally, I think (without getting into politics) that having Japan rearm is our best option for containing and/or counterbalancing China.

UM Fan from Sydney

April 7th, 2016 at 5:58 PM ^

Over 4,500 mates on board. It's amazing what human can accomplish. That is like its own city with that many people.

LSAClassOf2000

April 7th, 2016 at 6:09 PM ^

The third Ford-class carrier, the USS Enterprise (CVN 80), is set to begin construction in 2018, Stackley said.

The Star Trek fan in me always likes to see a ship called Enterprise in any fleet, real or fictional.