jstevenson
Sailor Stevenson
yeah, our aircraft carriers can move way faster than that.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sneak peek at US Navy's new $13B aircraft carrier
- Thread starter ponpo
- Start date
yeah, our aircraft carriers can move way faster than that.
Forerunner
Member
Now I can join the others.
The Enterprise could go over 70 knots, they are admittedly slower now, but US carriers are the fastest warships on the planet.
Valkyr Junkie
Member
Yeah, at least double.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Over 70 is probably exaggeration, lol. But that carrier had a lot more nuclear reactors than later CVNs, so it definitely had the horsepower.
it probably is, that's just the number I heard from people who served there, the actual top speeds are classified though, so I no one here actually knows the top speed.
The Enterprise also had 8 submarine reactors and was designed to be so terrible that the Navy wouldn't want any more of them.(Rickover thought only subs should be nuclear powered), but the Navy loved it and so the Nimitz class was designed to actually be decent carrier plants.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
CNN
Gets commissioned tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-OSlb97kOU
https://theaviationist.com/?p=42985
UK, US and China got new carriers in 2017. None for Russia :'(
Russia is not getting an aircraft carrier anytime soon, two main reasons hinder them, one is a lack of willingness to make one, another is the lack of capacity to actually build a 100,000 ton carrier. Russia does not have any aircraft carrier, the sole vessel it has that carries fixed wing crafts is an Aircraft Carrying Cruiser. There was no room for an aircraft carrier in the Soviet military doctrine, and that continues today. Also while Russia could afford to build an Arcraft carrier or 2 it simply cannot. No drydock is big enough for such a ship in Russia, neither do they have the cranes and machineries required for such a massive ship. That's why Russia is packing a lot of power into small vessels, some small Russian vessels pack more punch than some European Frigates. They plan of building a whole lot of these corvettes and they are also ramping up the production of their sole frigate.
I know the boys and girls up in Newport News who worked on it really pushed hard to get a good product out, over 10 years of work. HII works on some pretty cool things and it's pretty neat to see what's coming down the pipe. 
CVN 78 is a beast and having another out in a few years really shows how efficient American shipbuilding can really be. Commissioning ceremony is planned to start at 10am tomorrow eastern time.
CVN 78 is a beast and having another out in a few years really shows how efficient American shipbuilding can really be. Commissioning ceremony is planned to start at 10am tomorrow eastern time.
As has been mentioned here Aircraft Carriers are probably pretty low on the totem pole as far as wasting money on military assets.
Just in terms of humanitarian aid, they can carry thousands of crew, have state of the art medical facilities and can carry an ungodly number of supplies to areas in need. Not to mention they can produce hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh water every day.
The US sends carriers to many natural disaster areas to provide support. Off the top of my head I know they sent at least 1 to Haiti after the earthquake that provided supplies and personnel to help the area.
They are certainly warships, but they have a ton of other uses that makes them amazing for humanitarian stuff.
Yeah but...look at it. She's worth it.
For people saying how expensive it is consider this. Its 13 billion over an 8 year period and that includes first in line costs due to issues that pop up in development etc. JFK and Enterprise will probably be closer to 10 billion each.
Just a quick number rundown.
Over those 8 years the entire defense budget was around $5,200,000,000,000. 5.2 Trillion Dollars. 13 billion went to a Carrier in that time period. That's like 0.24% of the Defense Budget in that time period.
Just a quick number rundown.
Over those 8 years the entire defense budget was around $5,200,000,000,000. 5.2 Trillion Dollars. 13 billion went to a Carrier in that time period. That's like 0.24% of the Defense Budget in that time period.
The bigger point that the article makes is that naval aircraft these days lack the kind of range necessary to conduct stand off attacks when opposed by modern peer-state anti-shipping weapons. So you can't hit targets anymore without putting the carrier itself, and it's battle group, at risk.
Life on a frigate serving as a radar picket back in the Cold War mustn't have been hell. If the ballon ever went up you'd be the first to die.
There's a SF series I enjoyed where a 21st Century carrier battle group, led by (depressingly enough) the American supercarrier USS Hillary R. Clinton, gets dropped in the middle of Admiral Spruance's Task Force 16 on the eve of the Battle of Midway.
Unfortunately one of the ships in the future task force is a Japanese cruiser, and when the downtimers start shooting the AIs aboard the future warships start blowing the attacking ships away while their crews are knocked out. Needless to say that that changes things.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Watching the video the footage of the test sled being launched is hilarious lol.
Imperfected
Member
Oh! You mean the Marines.
Yeah, no, they just don't give them any money. It's fine(tm).
ArkkAngel007
Member
The 24th MEU (so at the time, USS Iwo Jima) responded to Haiti. I'm fairly certain another MEU relieved them, but can't remember.
Yeah the range issue is a problem and its one where the Navy screwed up. When the decision was being made on a future ship type in the early 90s it came down to 2 classes. A Modern Assault Battleship or a Modern Destroyer Program. Budget Hawks felt it would be better to invest the money into the Destroyer program because they could spread the cost on 30+ ships instead of the 4-6 Assault Battleships.
Problem is the Destroyer Program morphed into the Zumwalt class which is ending with only 3-4 being made. The Assault Battleship would have been immensely more useful with extreme range and firepower.
Jack Scofield
Member
The POV shot of the sled being launched off the ship was pretty cool.
Always so great to see American weapons of war at their most modern and expensive!
It wouldn't be modern America if they didn't have the best possible gear for bombing the shit out of poor people.
And now they don't even employ as many Americans! Result!
There was a lot of surprise when England decided to stay with conventional power for its 2 new Carriers. Queen Elizabeth has to refuel every 10,000 miles. Ford doesn't need reactor refueling for 25 years
Imperfected
Member
You mean they buckled under the weight of so much FREEDOM.
LowerLevel
Member
Lmao was thinking the same thing!
Not just that, but the design specs of the US reactor plants are classified information that they are careful about not getting out.
In the long run it is cheaper than a conventional carrier, fuel lasts decades, no exhaust so it's harder to find, can stay out to sea for far longer as well.
Design Board has been compromised heavily by politics. Things like the Littoral Combat Ship should never have left the paper stage but Congress and the need to spend money for the sake of spending it is a huge issue.
Need to return to a design board that is designing what is needed free of politics.
ErasureAcer
Banned
But does it have a mini-fridge? Spicey wants to know or he'll quit the reserves too.
When I was on my ship we had a mini fridge in our shop, it's where we kept all those Monsters and Red Bulls to keep us going.
Prinz Eugn
Member
Eh, there are a few advantages to a modern air wing that article kind of glosses over. One, you might have fewer aircraft but many more of them are multi-role, so you effectively have way more aircraft for a given mission. Two, the aircraft are more reliable, so you get more sorties out of each one, boosted by the fact you can have better support since you are maintaining fewer types at once. Three, the basic technology is now vastly superior in terms of aircraft weapons (smart weapons) and sensors so the amount of aircraft to destroy a target is significantly reduced.
And like the article mentioned, if you really need range you can buddy tank, and then there's always that gosh-dang Air Force to help out. However, it could be better, which is why they're looked at drone solutions.
Well, or it goes over budget too, but being so expensive in the first place, gets cancelled earlier and the Navy gets no new ships.
Yep, win win win.
At this point the Navy would be better served going forward introducing a new line of Assault Battleship that can with escorts provide all the firepower needed for a Battlegroup that does not rely solely on airpower as its main force projection.
It was what was proposed in the 90s but it faced serious opposition because Naval Doctrine has become so Carrier focused and of course at the time the idea was centered around the already 40-50 year old Iowa Class Battleships we already had. Not everything requires an Aircraft carrier present and a Battlegroup based around a Battleship would be just as power projecting.
I Would take something like the Montana Class Battleship removed its 2 aft Guns and have that area completely replaced with Missile launch Systems. Its two forward Guns would be modernized for Rail Guns. Have a Healthy amount of firepower in traditional firepower and a significant Missile capability. Throw in its traditional Destroyer and Cruiser escort and it can do everything the Carrier can basically provide.
It was what was proposed in the 90s but it faced serious opposition because Naval Doctrine has become so Carrier focused and of course at the time the idea was centered around the already 40-50 year old Iowa Class Battleships we already had. Not everything requires an Aircraft carrier present and a Battlegroup based around a Battleship would be just as power projecting.
I Would take something like the Montana Class Battleship removed its 2 aft Guns and have that area completely replaced with Missile launch Systems. Its two forward Guns would be modernized for Rail Guns. Have a Healthy amount of firepower in traditional firepower and a significant Missile capability. Throw in its traditional Destroyer and Cruiser escort and it can do everything the Carrier can basically provide.
Not sure Disney want their IP associated with and actual warship.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Nah, Enterprise should just always be the flagship. The name has plenty of history in the US Navy.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I dunno, if China already has 2 carriers, shouldn't we have 20? We need to at least have 10 carriers for every 1 they have!
I have bad news for you there, if you can't defend your nation and it's people none of that means shit. The military is entitled to it's budget. The issue has never been investing in the military, the issue has always been just how wasteful a lot of military spending is.
I have bad news for you there, if you can't defend your nation and it's people none of that means shit. The military is entitled to it's budget. The issue has never been investing in the military, the issue has always been just how wasteful a lot of military spending is.
Megalosaro
Banned
Not gonna lie, I'm slightly aroused by this carrier.
I'm not a big military guy and I am pretty against war. But there is something cool about military technology.
I'm not a big military guy and I am pretty against war. But there is something cool about military technology.
Snowybreak
Member
Damn that thing is cool, but just look at her EMALS!
(sorry, had to get it out of my system)
(sorry, had to get it out of my system)
Since people keep complaining about the cost...
Economic and military power are very much related. It is in the US's interests to keep massive power projection capability. The existence of massive military might alone is a reason to be friendly with the US, and that in turn profits both nations economically.
The US undoubtedly overspends on military but ultimately maintaining a global military presence is not waste.
Plus, as someone noted, the carrier will server half a century or so. Over time, it is pretty cheap military investment.
Economic and military power are very much related. It is in the US's interests to keep massive power projection capability. The existence of massive military might alone is a reason to be friendly with the US, and that in turn profits both nations economically.
The US undoubtedly overspends on military but ultimately maintaining a global military presence is not waste.
Plus, as someone noted, the carrier will server half a century or so. Over time, it is pretty cheap military investment.
FeenixRising
Banned
It says Trump was going to arrive tomorrow, but I swore I saw Marine One, her decoy, and the attack escort chopper fly over Norfolk Thursday morning.
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
Not as many as it could have.
Lol, I know right? It's not like the ship is actually made out of the 13 billion dollars.
Sure, the government can just stop funding everything so we can feed everyone.