Aircraft Carriers III

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
did you ignore
"In 2002, the Department of Defense opted to attempt to achieve a revolutionary approach in introducing new technologies on the lead ship. The Navy sought to research, develop, and produce 14 critical technologies aimed at facilitating CVN 78’s capability and efficiency gains."
June 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
p. 11 (16 of 56 in PDF)
The technologys were new. Yes but how it is supposed to be employed? Everyone of these ships has new technologies added to it. 14 new ones seems impressive but it still is a carrier it's not something that so fundamentally changes the world we live in. transformational, revolutionary quantum leaps are you wishing to spew Buzz words and try to claim that the concept is so fundamentally flawed that we should scrap the whole thing and go back.
Like the Seawolf or the Zimwalt class. When it seems like trouble scrap it! Start with what works... except that doesn't work.
My point is and remains that even had they not changed the class name. Most if not all of those changes would have happened.
That cost point I was trying to indicate is just part of a trend. 7+Billion for construction of the ship is only part of the investment made in a carrier or any new technologies.
The 14 new technologies you point to are part of what makes that carrier yes but do you really think that Nimitz class ships didn't have there own huge cost issues when the Nimitz entered the fleet? Actually the Nimitz was an attempt at fixing the problems of Enterprise. She was supposed to start a run of her class of carrier but she was plagued by more issues than Ford has now or ever had and most were in the reactor.
They scrapped plans to build more of her and built more Kitty Hawk class and the JFK until they decided to try it again after an extensive redesign that was the Nimitz.
Well what do you want Admiral Jura? Nimitz 5.1? Send the billions spent back to the yard, retool to build Nimitz again and then guess what? The same tech gets in those ships the same price tags.
Actually the Ford class is quite different from a Nimitz class. A Ford class has only three aircraft elevators. The island is further aft than on a Nimitz. Bomb assembly is right under the flight deck on the 03 level. On a Nimitz bomb assembly is in the first forward and aft magazines on the 4th deck. These were the former special weapons magazines.
I get that, those changes are to the deck and lay out meant to speed up operations.
 
The technologys were new. Yes but how it is supposed to be employed? Everyone of these ships has new technologies added to it. 14 new ones seems impressive but it still is a carrier it's not something that so fundamentally changes the world we live in. transformational, revolutionary quantum leaps are you wishing to spew Buzz words and try to claim that the concept is so fundamentally flawed that we should scrap the whole thing and go back.
Like the Seawolf or the Zimwalt class. When it seems like trouble scrap it! Start with what works... except that doesn't work.
My point is and remains that even had they not changed the class name. Most if not all of those changes would have happened.
That cost point I was trying to indicate is just part of a trend. 7+Billion for construction of the ship is only part of the investment made in a carrier or any new technologies.
The 14 new technologies you point to are part of what makes that carrier yes but do you really think that Nimitz class ships didn't have there own huge cost issues when the Nimitz entered the fleet? Actually the Nimitz was an attempt at fixing the problems of Enterprise. She was supposed to start a run of her class of carrier but she was plagued by more issues than Ford has now or ever had and most were in the reactor.
They scrapped plans to build more of her and built more Kitty Hawk class and the JFK until they decided to try it again after an extensive redesign that was the Nimitz.
Well what do you want Admiral Jura? Nimitz 5.1? Send the billions spent back to the yard, retool to build Nimitz again and then guess what? The same tech gets in those ships the same price tags.

...
my second (after Yesterday at 6:49 PM), and last, attempt at asking you to tell me what was your point:

me, quoting you right below anyway still didn't get your point:

"The last of the Nimitz carriers the USS George Bush cost 6.5 Billion in 2009. 7 billion even a little more than that is not a massive jump"
#4680 TerraN_EmpirE, 49 minutes ago

me again then

"have you taken the time to actually go over and compile single cost spend on those Nimitz class carriers and then adjust by inflation?
I bet it would ring up far more than 14 million a ship in that."
#4684 TerraN_EmpirE, 22 minutes ago

me concluding "not a massive jump" first, "more than 14 million" (LOL obviously a typo) now??

NOW, I can't fathom the change between your "not a massive jump" from 6.5b, and your 14b figure about a half of an hour later
(without understanding what you meant yesterday in this part of our conversation I can't proceed to more complex topics like the concurrency, but I'd like to proceed, so please clarify)
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
14 billion was your claim of "Twice as much"
That can be applied to any carrier as the investment in labor, tooling, resources, fueling, air wing refueling, equipment and more.
 
14 billion was your claim of "Twice as much"
That can be applied to any carrier as the investment in labor, tooling, resources, fueling, air wing refueling, equipment and more.
let me see ...


#4682 Jura, Yesterday at 5:14 PM
...
all what's currently available to the USN are the Fords costing approximately twice than that EDIT each,
...


question,
so me saying a Ford-class carrier is about twice as expensive as a Nimitz-class carrier is what you disputed in what you posted right after:
Yesterday at 5:31 PM
have you taken the time to actually go over and compile single cost spend on those Nimitz class carriers and then adjust by inflation?
I bet it would ring up far more than 14 million a ship in that.

I pointed to the last of the class because that is the most modern of the class and closest to the Fords.
No matter what ever has been said Jura the end result in this would have been. The same. Because whether named Ford class or Ford Subclass of Nimitz the same changes and technologies would have been involved. Ford is an evolutionary step not a "Game Changer" the next line of upgrades to the classic design.
?

if so, I addressed that immediately:
Yesterday at 5:52 PM
I didn't, because

there's no such thing as a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier currently replacing the Nimitzes, and in fact

the Fords, transformational, revolutionary quantum leaps of Rumself Era are replacing the Nimitzes;

why on Earth would I talk about how much the stuff would've cost if it'd been built while it won't ever be huh
to rephrase now: it's irrelevant what a newly built Nimitz-class carrier would cost now, because she doesn't exist
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
it's irrelevant what a newly built Nimitz-class carrier would cost now, because she doesn't exist
Let me rephrase. If the cost of the George Bush the last of the Nimitz class evolved was 6.2 Billion using existing tech and you factor in that was around 2009. The. A newer design with new tech being the first of the class is going to by logic cost more Yes?
And the current cost is? 13 billion so a little over double in total acquisition costs. But seeing as one was built using off the shelf stuff we don't factor in that do we?
 
Let me rephrase. If the cost of the George Bush the last of the Nimitz class evolved was 6.2 Billion using existing tech and you factor in that was around 2009. The. A newer design with new tech being the first of the class is going to by logic cost more Yes?
And the current cost is? 13 billion so a little over double in total acquisition costs. But seeing as one was built using off the shelf stuff we don't factor in that do we?
I guess in a court, your counterparty would now shout 'Suggestive!'
LOL!
will be back
 
Let me rephrase. If the cost of the George Bush the last of the Nimitz class evolved was 6.2 Billion using existing tech and you factor in that was around 2009. The. A newer design with new tech being the first of the class is going to by logic cost more Yes?
And the current cost is? 13 billion so a little over double in total acquisition costs. But seeing as one was built using off the shelf stuff we don't factor in that do we?
to finish here: your 'sleight of hand' appears to defend the biggest-ever BLUNDER IN MILITARY PROCUREMENT = US 'CONCURRENCY' SINCE AROUND 2000 in so called transformational projects

Mar 12, 2016
..., it's clear to me the US Military should've instead gradually develop, gradually test, gradually manufacture, gradually field new options, not like scrambling many of them together and wait more than a decade for some Wunderwaffe, which only "ultimately" works ...

so what you called "Nimitz 5.1" in your condescending post
#4691 TerraN_EmpirE, Today at 6:01 AM
would mean inserting some of the new technologies (I won't be more specific here, because you might nitpick)

in stages (not all at once)

into the first several (I won't be more specific here, because you might nitpick)

ships of the Ford class in the future,

once those new technologies are ready (not PR-ready, but working);

and to keep numbers and industrial base until then? a provisional Nimitz-class could be built (I won't be more specific here, because you might nitpick);

have the last word if you want
 
now noticed in Twitter
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!





FS Charles De Gaulle deployment schedule and route. Airgroup: Rafale - 20 E-2 Hawkeye - 2 Cayman - 1 Dauphin - 2 Escort: Forbin (D620) Provence (D652) Marne (A630) Rubis (S) Will be joined by Languedoc (D653) while in Med and Latouche Treville (D646) while in Indian Ocean.

D05m5GPW0AA7ymd.jpg
 
Top