Navy Considers Re-activation of Kitty Hawk.

[Birds Away]

What it comes down to is cost, if you think defense spending isn't high enough then adding carriers obviously won't bother you as more is better. If you think defense spending is too high then you're ok with fewer carriers (if the govt. could keep contractors on budget and on schedule this wouldn't have even come up.)

Well, yes and no. Both the Navy and the contractors are complicit in this. But, that is after the fact. Even if the GRF was ready to deploy today we would still be short.

 

[Jludo]

I would point out that this is one of the few things the federal government does which it is actually constitutionally authorized to do, so I am not going to get too excited about costs, especially given that this works much like terrorism: Someone else only has to get lucky once where we have to be right and get the job done EVERY time, everywhere, no exceptions.

Right but money and the deficit is a thing. The founders didn't forsee an American empire wrapping around the globe. Because the constitution authorizes defense spending doesn't negate debate over what that spending should be.

 

[IndyDave1776]

(if the govt. could keep contractors on budget and on schedule this wouldn't have even come up.)

It seems to me that Trump has been addressing this as well as possible. One could also argue that had *ahem* the previous administration not been fixated on cutting expenditures that the constitution calls for in order to fund those which are not authorized we would not have this problem.

 

[Jludo]

It seems to me that Trump has been addressing this as well as possible. One could also argue that had *ahem* the previous administration not been fixated on cutting expenditures that the constitution calls for in order to fund those which are not authorized we would not have this problem.

The constitution doesn't set the defense budget, congress authorizes the spending but it's Obamas fault the Ford is behind schedule and over cost?

 

[Birds Away]

The constitution doesn't set the defense budget, congress authorizes the spending but it's Obamas fault the Ford is behind schedule and over cost?

No, you're absolutely right. This isn't Obama's fault. He didn't help the situation but it would be unfair to lay this at his door.

 

[churchmouse]

Home Schooled.

Sorry, nothing personal but good timing for a smartarse remark.

I still love-ya man.

I really meant no SA in my comment. Just that a regular guy feels OK with something that sensitive as to our carrier placement seems a bit, well, "Self"

 

[churchmouse]

Ahh shut the thread down then.

Nice response.

I was asking a serious question as to your Qualy's in this.
No SA was intended.

 

[actaeon277]

Operating with lower units, while maintaining the same operational commitments adds the following costs.
Decreased availability for preventative maintenance.
Increased maintenance costs, due to above statement.
Increased sea duty for personnel.
More trained personnel leave mililtary due to stresses.
Reenlistment bonuses must be increased to maintain trained force.

You want to save money... eliminate some of the "feel good" missions we do.
Tracking whales and schools of fish.

 

[Birds Away]

Here's another tidbit;
Nimitz-class carriers were designed with a 50 year lifespan. These carriers have reactors that must be refueled at 25 years. This is designed to happen at the midpoint of their lifespan for obvious reasons. This is a very expensive process that takes four years. Once complete they have about 25 years left. The Nimitz completed her RCOH in 2001. Once she was complete the Dwight D. Eisenhower went in and so forth and so on.

There are ten Nimitz-class carriers. One in undergoing refueling/comprehensive overhaul at any given time. When one is complete, the next one goes in. So, there are never more than nine available at any one time. We don't know when the Gerald R. Ford will get its issues fixed and be available. When it is ready we will have ten carriers available. The John F. Kennedy is scheduled to commission in 2020. That will take us to eleven. The Enterprise is scheduled to be commissioned in 2025. That's the same year that Nimitz will reach the end of her service life. There is no fudging here as she will be out of fuel. It wouldn't make any sense to spend another $4 billion dollars to refuel a 50 year old ship. She will have to be decommissioned for good.

Every four years another Nimitz-class ship will reach the end of their life. No funding has been approved for any carriers beyond Enterprise. So, we will get 5-7 years at eleven operational carriers before the number drops from there. Even if follow on carriers are approved they will be one every five years while we lose a Nimitz every four years. Do the math.

 

[Jludo]

Nice response.

I was asking a serious question as to your Qualy's in this.
No SA was intended.

I bet you can't find another person that read it that way. Usually serious questions don't end in ...???

 

[halfmileharry]

Dude, ask any boat owner. Boats ain't cheap to keep.

 

[Jludo]

I still love-ya man.

I really meant to SA in my comment. Just that a regular guy feels OK with something that sensitive as to our carrier placement seems a bit, well, "Self"

Is anyone here qualified to speak to that by your standard?

 

[churchmouse]

I bet you can't find another person that read it that way. Usually serious questions don't end in ...???

Well I will bet you are wrong.

I "Always" end my questions with...???

"Always"

That you "Feel" OK with a carrier deployment means NADA on the world stage. That your comment was budget driven is an answer to...???
But still, that does not answer the question. I believe those who actually served many years in the Navy have answered the budget/deployment angle.

If you took it wrong that is on you not me. I stated in 2 posts it was not intended to be a wise crack.

 

[churchmouse]

Is anyone here qualified to speak to that by your standard?

Yes. Yes there is.
I am not one of them.

In these terribly troubled times cutting back on defense is not an option but that is just my opinion. Nothing more.
I would say making the pentagon be clear as to where all this money is going might be a step in the right direction.

As Act said there is a whole lot we can do to get our budget back in line. A whole lot.
Cutting our ability to project power is not one I am comfortable with. There are some seriously scary people in the world that will have nuclear capability's and be able to send them places. I truly believe they will do just that.
Is it our job to police the world, Good question. If not us then who....NATO. Someone has to keep the kids in line. If we do not then it will be on our door step.

This is just a personal opinion put together by watching the events unfold.
Right or wrong only time will tell.

If you were offended by ...??? I do not know what to tell you.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[jedi]

Here's another tidbit;
Nimitz-class carriers were designed with a 50 year lifespan. These carriers have reactors that must be refueled at 25 years. This is designed to happen at the midpoint of their lifespan for obvious reasons. This is a very expensive process that takes four years. Once complete they have about 25 years left. The Nimitz completed her RCOH in 2001. Once she was complete the Dwight D. Eisenhower went in and so forth and so on.

There are ten Nimitz-class carriers. One in undergoing refueling/comprehensive overhaul at any given time. When one is complete, the next one goes in. So, there are never more than nine available at any one time. We don't know when the Gerald R. Ford will get its issues fixed and be available. When it is ready we will have ten carriers available. The John F. Kennedy is scheduled to commission in 2020. That will take us to eleven. The Enterprise is scheduled to be commissioned in 2025. That's the same year that Nimitz will reach the end of her service life. There is no fudging here as she will be out of fuel. It wouldn't make any sense to spend another $4 billion dollars to refuel a 50 year old ship. She will have to be decommissioned for good.

Every four years another Nimitz-class ship will reach the end of their life. No funding has been approved for any carriers beyond Enterprise. So, we will get 5-7 years at eleven operational carriers before the number drops from there. Even if follow on carriers are approved they will be one every five years while we lose a Nimitz every four years. Do the math.

Hum.. We appear to have a downwad graphic going forward from what you are saying.
Is their however something else on the horizon that will replace the carrier?

This next comment is sci-fi and I don't remember what book it was I read it in.
Tom Clancy perhaps. In any case China developed a satellite with a laser and was able to shot from space the laser and blown up a US carrier in Japan. That changed the naval landscape forever as the carrier become the battleship and the sat-laser the new carrier.

 

[churchmouse]

Did you make enough...???

 

[actaeon277]

Hum.. We appear to have a downwad graphic going forward from what you are saying.
Is their however something else on the horizon that will replace the carrier?

This next comment is sci-fi and I don't remember what book it was I read it in.
Tom Clancy perhaps. In any case China developed a satellite with a laser and was able to shot from space the laser and blown up a US carrier in Japan. That changed the naval landscape forever as the carrier become the battleship and the sat-laser the new carrier.

That's a pretty big jump in technology. We need to look at the future. But we still have to fight today.

As for the "waste of money" on weapons and platforms.
So are the guns we carry....
Till you need it. Then it's the best investment you ever made.

 

[Birds Away]

That's a pretty big jump in technology. We need to look at the future. But we still have to fight today.

As for the "waste of money" on weapons and platforms.
So are the guns we carry....
Till you need it. Then it's the best investment you ever made.

+1

 

[BugI02]

Hum.. We appear to have a downwad graphic going forward from what you are saying.
Is their however something else on the horizon that will replace the carrier?

This next comment is sci-fi and I don't remember what book it was I read it in.
Tom Clancy perhaps. In any case China developed a satellite with a laser and was able to shot from space the laser and blown up a US carrier in Japan. That changed the naval landscape forever as the carrier become the battleship and the sat-laser the new carrier.

You're right about the sci-fi part of this. The full atmospheric column is scattering and attenuating the beam all the way down from orbit. In a cursory web search, I couldn't find hard numbers (might not exist, yet), but I suspect if you want terawatt beam on target you likely would be talking petawatt output power.

Highest power I'm aware of is Laser for Fast Ignition Experiments (LFEX) with a peak power of 2,000 trillion watts – two petawatts – for an incredibly short duration, approximately a trillionth of a second or one picosecond.

And it's huge, it fills several buildings. Not being put on orbit anytime soon