Aircraft Carriers III

Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
this thread fills with pretty pictures and Soviet Navy, while in real world
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The move could save more than $30 billion over 25 years to invest in high-tech weapons -- but Congress is sure to explode in outrage.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Jura said:
this thread fills with pretty pictures and Soviet Navy, while in real world
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The move could save more than $30 billion over 25 years to invest in high-tech weapons -- but Congress is sure to explode in outrage.
Click to expand...

Every few years the USN will come up with irrational ideas supported by highly questionable numbers and stupid reasoning. I wonder who is doing the maths.

The last Nimitz carrier cost $6.2 Billion before the Ford came along and every one produced thereafter cost upwards of $12 Billion. So the USN is willing to spend $12 Billion on a new carrier with a useful life of 50 years but somehow think it cost more to keep one for another 25 years when money has already been spent. RCOH is not included because it is a requirement under either scenario and so is a wash.

If they want to reduce to 10 just slow down building new ones.
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Brumby said:
The defense system you referred to are part of a layered screen. The plan has always been to go for the quiver and not the arrow. It was with the F-14s and the phoenix in the past during the cold war. Today there is the F-35/F-18s with their AIM-120Ds. A CBG can put a CAP out to 500nm with the F-35 and an APG-81 that can further detect another 200nm beyond, Good luck trying to get a Kh-31 that can launch within effective range. The problem with all these standoff weapons and their ever increasing range is that they need targeting solutions. In other words, you can't shoot what you can't see. What is your reconnaissance strike sensors that can survive a contested environment? .
Click to expand...

If you are aiming at something like a carrier it is so large it can be tracked by space assets.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Jura said:
this thread fills with pretty pictures
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with the photos I post Jura. Nothing. They depict carrier operations. No more no less.

As for CVN-75 being retired early. Well a few years ago as we know there was an attempt to retire USS George Washington (CVN-73)..did not happen. In fact CVN-73 is in Newport News undergoing RCOH. As we carrier aficionados know the law in the US requires a carrier force of eleven ships. We will have to see what plays out.
 
Last edited:
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
If you assume space assets are not operational then GPS won't be operational either.
Even if you knock down the space assets a near peer adversary like China has high-altitude UAVs they can use to spot the carriers.
Not to mention that a lot of countries have contingency plans to emergency launch space assets in case there is an event where satellites are knocked down.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
gelgoog said:
If you assume space assets are not operational then GPS won't be operational either.
Click to expand...
Correct hence training includes operating in GPS denied environment.
gelgoog said:
Even if you knock down the space assets a near peer adversary like China has high-altitude UAVs they can use to spot the carriers.
Click to expand...
What make you think that such UAVs will be able to operate in denied/contested airspace?

gelgoog said:
Not to mention that a lot of countries have contingency plans to emergency launch space assets in case there is an event where satellites are knocked down.
Click to expand...

Real time reconnaissance strike is very difficult to operate and sustain once you get down to execution level. What makes you think emergency launch of LEO's will be sufficient to address the gap in real time sensor feed?
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
now that's interesting,
Pentagon Plan to Sideline Carrier Truman Will Net Just $17M in FY 2020
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A Pentagon budget plan to sideline an aircraft carrier, rather than refuel it, and redirect money for other defense priorities would save just $16.9 million in Fiscal Year 2020, USNI News has learned.

That money in the next fiscal year is the first of the estimated $5.5 billion Pentagon officials are intending to zero out over the next several years for the planned refueling and complex overhaul of USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), several sources familiar with the plan confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.

Last year’s budget documents show the Navy had planned on investing $1.5 billion from 2020 and 2023 to begin planning the Truman overhaul. The planned $16.9 million Truman line-item in FY 2020 would have gone to Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipbuilding yard in Virginia for early planning work and advanced procurement, according to the FY 2019 budget submission.

Instead of the mid-life refueling, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has directed the Navy to route the money into newer emerging capabilities like armed unmanned naval systems and would ultimately cut Truman‘s service life in half, several sources familiar with the intent of the move told USNI News on Thursday. Taking Truman out of the fleet would bring the operational carrier force down from its legally mandated total of 11 to 10. The most recent Navy force structure assessment called for an increase in the carrier fleet to 12 flattops.

On Wednesday, The Washington Post included the detail of the Pentagon canceling the overhaul in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, stating that the decision to cut a carrier from the force was Shanahan’s compromise to go along with a recent two-carrier contract, which the opinion piece stated the acting secretary opposed.

“Shanahan opposed buying the carriers in internal debates, but facing opposition, he settled for a compromise: The Navy will shelve plans to rehab one of its midlife carriers,” read the piece. USNI News confirmed the account was largely accurate from multiple sources familiar with the conversations.

Spokesmen with OSD and the Navy told USNI News on Thursday that they could not comment on the FY 2020 budget ahead of the submission to Congress. As of Thursday, USNI News understands the budget will be rolled out in mid-March.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Jane’s Defence Weekly reported that OSD was considering a delay in the Truman RCOH to direct funds to more modern weapon systems and left open the possibility that the RCOH would only be delayed and not abandoned altogether. However, several sources told USNI News on Thursday that the complexities and difficulties in the process of moving the spent fuel out of the carrier and refueling it would likely mean that if Truman missed the RCOH window, the carrier would cease to be operationally relevant. While the cost of the overhaul is $5.5 billion, decommissioning the carrier and removing the nuclear fuel could cost around $2.5 billion,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from 2014 that discussed a similar budget negotiation surrounding the USS George Washington (CVN-73) RCOH.

The move has already drawn the ire of pro-carrier members of Congress.

“Keeping refueling and complex overhauls on schedule and advanced procurement funded properly is critical to meeting combatant commander’s demand for carrier strike groups,” Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services seapower and projections forces subcommittee, told USNI News in a Thursday statement.
“We have made a significant investment in these ships, and I am perplexed why anyone would consider taking the cornerstone of the United States Naval Force and allowing it to atrophy.”

Canceling the RCOH for Truman is the latest attempt for Pentagon leaders to find cost savings in curtailing the mid-life overhaul of Nimitz-class carriers. Costing billions and lasting four years, the refueling of the carrier’s two reactors and the down-to-the-bulkhead overhaul has been targeted for cuts over the last 20 years.

In 2014, the Navy fought to keep $7 billion in then-year dollars in the FYDP to overhaul George Washington, which was at risk due to sequestration limits as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011. That total included the cost of the refueling, the cost of manning and operating the carrier air wing and continuing to buy aircraft for the air wing. Ultimately, Congress found an additional $800 million to keep the Washington RCOH on track in FY 2015, as well as the remaining funding in the long term, and preserved the air wing. It’s unclear if the new Pentagon plan would also cut an air wing.

Given how small a sum OSD intends to zero out in FY 2020, the likelihood of Congress inserting the funds to keep the process moving forward is high, USNI News understands.
Click to expand...
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
You can bet that Virginia senators and house representatives will fight hard to keep CVN-75 on active duty...it's a lot of jobs and revenue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top