Trump Foreign Policy

[zoogs]

I wouldn't say other countries with small carriers are necessarily being "successful" with them. They're just operating in a world where none of them could ever hope to begin to challenge U.S. military supremacy, a key component of which has been the carrier groups.

 

I'm curious about the F-15. It's a 45 year old aircraft a generation behind other planes. The F-22 is absolutely better, and it's what keeps the USAF at the head of the pack in technology. The F-22 was developed through the ATF program that culminated in around '91 -- 26 years ago now.

 

The F-15 isn't fully retired yet I believe, and sure it's an important part of the fleet until it is. But it was important and timely to have its replacement developed nearly three decades ago. If the Hornets survive another decade, they'll make it until the F-35s are ready to take over.

 

The A-10 is sort of its own beast, I guess, and there's no real replacement for it (helicopters, maybe?) ... maybe they should develop one? I guess its role just isn't as critical as it used to be.

[knapplc]

There are very few things in the world more satisfying than the ZRRRBBBBBBTTTTTTT of Freedom from an A-10.

[ZRod]

I wouldn't say other countries with small carriers are necessarily being "successful" with them. They're just operating in a world where none of them could ever hope to begin to challenge U.S. military supremacy, a key component of which has been the carrier groups.I'm curious about the F-15. It's a 45 year old aircraft a generation behind other planes. The F-22 is absolutely better, and it's what keeps the USAF at the head of the pack in technology. The F-22 was developed through the ATF program that culminated in around '91 -- 26 years ago now.The F-15 isn't fully retired yet I believe, and sure it's an important part of the fleet until it is. But it was important and timely to have its replacement developed nearly three decades ago. If the Hornets survive another decade, they'll make it until the F-35s are ready to take over.The A-10 is sort of its own beast, I guess, and there's no real replacement for it (helicopters, maybe?) ... maybe they should develop one? I guess its role just isn't as critical as it used to be.

The A-10s role is still as critical as ever, rapid extremely close air support on one of the most rugged air frames developed.

 

The F-35 is meant to take that roll as well. One of the many reasons it's development is so far behind and so over budget. Trying to make it a do everything airframe was a terrible idea as it turns out.

 

The biggest reason the F-22 is better than the F-15 is new computer/weapon systems. It probably would be just as competitive and a hell of a lot cheaper if the Eagle were upgraded. Not that I don't love the raptor.

 

Also why is it that the government has to eat the cost? In my line of work if the supplier is design responsible and their design sucks, they're eating the cost to fix it. Maybe we make a deal and pay for some of the testing, but we would never bear the full cost of their error.

[knapplc]

Also why is it that the government has to eat the cost? In my line of work if the supplier is design responsible and their design sucks, they're eating the cost to fix it. Maybe we make a deal and pay for some of the testing, but we would never bear the full cost of their error.

I genuinely believe these are jobs programs as much as anything.

[ZRod]

 

Also why is it that the government has to eat the cost? In my line of work if the supplier is design responsible and their design sucks, they're eating the cost to fix it. Maybe we make a deal and pay for some of the testing, but we would never bear the full cost of their error.

I genuinely believe these are jobs programs as much as anything.

I mean, anyone who is honest with themselves pretty much knows this right?

 

I remeber when Chuck Hagel was being interviewed for Defense Secretary. The Senator or Congressman from Virginia made him guarantee that he would not cut back on construction of submarines at a facility in their state. He made it thinly veiled attempt at making it look like a defense issue, but he wanted to keep jobs in his district/state.

 

We can throw gobs of money at defense contracts and have the government pay for people to work; but if we throw money at infrastructure or alternative energy we're suddenly picking winners and losers and that should all be privatized?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I am a huge proponent of aircraft carriers. I have said many times on here that I believe we should be moving more towards them and closing down a major amount of our military installations around the world. However, if we are going to spend $36 BILLION on these ships...is it too much to ask that they actually work?

 

FAILING SYSTEMS

Trump did not mention that the ship’s builder, Huntington Ingalls Industries, launched the Ford more than three years ago, but the Navy has yet to commission it and put it into service because of severe flaws. Many of its new high tech systems failed to work, including such basic ones as the “arresting gear” that catches and stops landing jets.

The Navy says the ship will be commissioned sometime this year. But the criticism has continued.

In a written statement in July, John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, noted the cost overruns and cited a list of crucial malfunctioning systems that remained unfixed. “The Ford-class program is a case study in why our acquisition system must be reformed,” McCain wrote.

 

I find it extremely humorous that the article claims the F35C fighter jet is needed to make these as useful as they should be. When you look at these two projects together, they are a case study of how NOT to procure new military equipment.

 

Keep in mind that this is the first new carrier type since 1975, so there's always going to be problems with the first of anything.

 

Faults in those specific projects aside, we need F35s for our carriers. Can't rely on the F18 fleet forever. Even the E/F models are 90s era stuff.

 

But the article does raise an interesting question. At some point is the strategic value of a carrier fleet no longer existent? I dunno. Maybe when all our planes are small and unmanned.

Bolded is correct.

 

Here is what keeps coming to mind when I think about this. In the article, it talks about how some countries are still building and using older type vessels and being successful with them. They are fast to build and much cheaper.

 

Are we trying to be WAY too far on the cutting edge? We already dwarf the world in military might. Do we really need to push the limits of technology so much that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on stuff that ultimately doesn't work?

 

Why not take the technology we KNOW works, modify it slightly to do what we want in the modern era and punch these things out quickly and cheaply?

 

THEN...if Northrup Grumman...etc....wants to develop something, test it, make sure it works and THEN sell it to the government....great.

Keep in mind that the US carriers and subs have nuclear reactors powering them. Do you really want to go quick and cheap?

 

No company is going to spend billions on researching anything when you're not sure if you can sell it at the end.

 

A lot of it comes down to whether you think throwing more "cheap" stuff at the enemy is better than throwing less "quality" stuff at them.

 

The Nimitz Class Carriers were commissioned in 1975. They were an amazing advancement with their nuclear power capabilities. They only need refueled every 20 years. That still boggles my mind.

 

We don't need new nuclear technology on our ships. By now, we should be able to do that part of the design very quickly and relatively cheap without sacrificing quality and safety.

 

What we are talking about here is all the rest of the technology on the ship. Radars, navigation systems, artillery and defensive systems...etc.

 

Now, if they are coming up with some great new defensive system against submarines and torpedoes....then maybe....but, I don't believe that's the case.

[RedDenver]

The Nimitz Class Carriers were commissioned in 1975. They were an amazing advancement with their nuclear power capabilities. They only need refueled every 20 years. That still boggles my mind.

 

We don't need new nuclear technology on our ships. By now, we should be able to do that part of the design very quickly and relatively cheap without sacrificing quality and safety.

 

What we are talking about here is all the rest of the technology on the ship. Radars, navigation systems, artillery and defensive systems...etc.

 

Now, if they are coming up with some great new defensive system against submarines and torpedoes....then maybe....but, I don't believe that's the case.

While that seems simple, that's not how these things work. Nuclear reactors cannot be built quickly, cheaply, and safely. You pretty much only get to pick one of those, and the US wisely picks safely. And while the reactor design is similar, each Nimitz carrier had changes and upgrades to various systems in the power plant.

 

As for cost, building a Nimitz-class carrier runs about $7 billion in today's dollars. Also, keep in mind that while the build cost is pretty staggering, the ship is designed to last for 50+ years and the operation and maintenance over that period can be a lot. "Each ship in the new class will save nearly $4 billion in total ownership costs during its 50-year service life, compared to the NIMITZ-class."

 

As for new technology, check that link for some of the new stuff in the Ford-class.

[knapplc]

What happens when that ship is sunk in battle? Does that nuclear reactor poison the ocean for millennia to come?

[zoogs]

The A-10s role is still as critical as ever, rapid extremely close air support on one of the most rugged air frames developed

Isn't the A-10 completely retired?

 

The biggest reason the F-22 is better than the F-15 is new computer/weapon systems. It probably would be just as competitive and a hell of a lot cheaper if the Eagle were upgraded. Not that I don't love the raptor.

Oh, I don't know. Being a stealth fighter that could fly circles around the F-15 is probably also part of it. It'd also be a lot cheaper if it were employed in the same numbers as the F-15 was.

 

My understanding of the Ford-class is that it's just a redesigned Nimitz-class hull with internal/electronics/etc upgrades.

[BigRedBuster]

 

The Nimitz Class Carriers were commissioned in 1975. They were an amazing advancement with their nuclear power capabilities. They only need refueled every 20 years. That still boggles my mind.

 

We don't need new nuclear technology on our ships. By now, we should be able to do that part of the design very quickly and relatively cheap without sacrificing quality and safety.

 

What we are talking about here is all the rest of the technology on the ship. Radars, navigation systems, artillery and defensive systems...etc.

 

Now, if they are coming up with some great new defensive system against submarines and torpedoes....then maybe....but, I don't believe that's the case.

While that seems simple, that's not how these things work. Nuclear reactors cannot be built quickly, cheaply, and safely. You pretty much only get to pick one of those, and the US wisely picks safely. And while the reactor design is similar, each Nimitz carrier had changes and upgrades to various systems in the power plant.

 

As for cost, building a Nimitz-class carrier runs about $7 billion in today's dollars. Also, keep in mind that while the build cost is pretty staggering, the ship is designed to last for 50+ years and the operation and maintenance over that period can be a lot. "Each ship in the new class will save nearly $4 billion in total ownership costs during its 50-year service life, compared to the NIMITZ-class."

 

As for new technology, check that link for some of the new stuff in the Ford-class.

 

You're missing the use of the word "relatively" in my post.

Using existing technology and something they have built a number of times should be able to be done quicker and less expensive than redesigning new technology.

[commando]

What happens when that ship is sunk in battle? Does that nuclear reactor poison the ocean for millennia to come?

fwiw...nuclear submarines have been lost and are still sitting on the bottom of the oceans. not sure what effect they are having or are expected to have in the future.

 

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/k19/radiation_main.html

[RedDenver]

What happens when that ship is sunk in battle? Does that nuclear reactor poison the ocean for millennia to come?

Yes. How much damage it does to the environment is difficult to say.

 

Edit: commando's link suggests the danger is minimal

[RedDenver]

 

 

The Nimitz Class Carriers were commissioned in 1975. They were an amazing advancement with their nuclear power capabilities. They only need refueled every 20 years. That still boggles my mind.

 

We don't need new nuclear technology on our ships. By now, we should be able to do that part of the design very quickly and relatively cheap without sacrificing quality and safety.

 

What we are talking about here is all the rest of the technology on the ship. Radars, navigation systems, artillery and defensive systems...etc.

 

Now, if they are coming up with some great new defensive system against submarines and torpedoes....then maybe....but, I don't believe that's the case.

While that seems simple, that's not how these things work. Nuclear reactors cannot be built quickly, cheaply, and safely. You pretty much only get to pick one of those, and the US wisely picks safely. And while the reactor design is similar, each Nimitz carrier had changes and upgrades to various systems in the power plant.

 

As for cost, building a Nimitz-class carrier runs about $7 billion in today's dollars. Also, keep in mind that while the build cost is pretty staggering, the ship is designed to last for 50+ years and the operation and maintenance over that period can be a lot. "Each ship in the new class will save nearly $4 billion in total ownership costs during its 50-year service life, compared to the NIMITZ-class."

 

As for new technology, check that link for some of the new stuff in the Ford-class.

 

You're missing the use of the word "relatively" in my post.

Using existing technology and something they have built a number of times should be able to be done quicker and less expensive than redesigning new technology.

 

If you're thinking that building the same thing leads to economies of scale, remember that only 10 Nimitz-class ships were built. The last was the George H. W. Bush, which cost about $7 billion to build. The Ford cost about $12 billion to build and is projected to save about $4 billion in costs over it's lifetime compared to the Nimitz-class, so the costs are going to end up about the same.

[BigRedBuster]

The ship has been built for 3 years and it's not working. How much is it saving us again?

[RedDenver]

The ship has been built for 3 years and it's not working. How much is it saving us again?

Not saving us anything - in fact it's going to cost about $1 billion more than another Nimitz, if the estimates are correct. But a billion dollars over the lifetime cost of a carrier is a drop in the bucket.

 

And building the ship while still designing some of the systems was and is a terrible idea that led to a lot a overruns. But it will eventually be a more advanced carrier than it's predecessors. And the follow-on ships shouldn't suffer the same issues.

 

We can argue over whether the juice was worth the squeeze in terms of cost vs advancement, but my point is that continuing to build the Nimitz-class wasn't going to save us a ton of money.