It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USN looking at extending the life of the Nimitz class beyond 50 years

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   
The USN is investigating the feasability of extending the live of the existing Nimitz class carrier beyond 50 years. As the Ford continues to have teething problems (and they finally agreed to do shock trials) the Navy is worried about maintaining a 12 carrier fleet. The USS Nimitz is due to retire in 2023 and will once again put the navy below the 12 carrier goal.

Cost will be the obvious and key issue. I'm curious as to what would be a concern to go beyond 50 years?

They could as they do with the mid life overhual, refuel the reactors, add new propellers and shafts. I assume the hull is sound even this far into its service life. etc. I get that it takes 4 years to do this, but you could plug that capability gap much much quicker. We will almost always be a carrier down in most scenarios.

www.thedrive.com...

If you want to nerd out on the nitty gritty of a refuel and complex overhual this snoozer should keep you occupied for months.....

www.rand.org...
edit on 4/25/18 by FredT because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Just a thought, if this was done concurrently with the continued construction of the Ford Class Carriers- the bugs In the USS Ford will be done long before the scheduled decommissioning of the Nimitz- could the plan be for more than 12 Carriers?

After all, everyone and their third cousin has carriers these days and more arriving faster than we build ours.

These people could be thinking in futures rather than current needs. Just a thought.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 11:20 PM
link   
We need a game changer. We need a flying fortress type stealth aircraft that can launch and recover small fighters and bombers. We could call the first one "Gallactica". They wouldnt see it coming. Who does that. Boom you are done now.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

RCOH is expensive, and it doesn't make sense to do it on a hull you're going to retire less than 10 years after it's done. If they can keep the current rods going a few years longer, that would be one thing, but if it requires a full RCOH, it doesn't make sense IMO.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Why not just retire all of them seeing as how they are all obsolete?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX
Why not just retire all of them seeing as how they are all obsolete?



Carriers are political animals these days, look at the Brits and their two, beats me how they are going to man both of them, and the fleet train that goes with carriers, plus subs and coastal vessels.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

I always love how people go on about how carriers and stealth are both obsolete, and yet every major power is building them or wants them.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Just a word to the wise...

Nothing involving engineering actually takes four years. It takes four years if you under fund the project, refusing to have people working round the clock in their thousands on every project to be completed, but if it were correctly funded, there is no task that could not be completed much faster.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

No, it takes four years when you strip a Nimitz class carrier down to bare hull, including removing the entire island, and in some cases, re-positioning it to a new location on the deck. RCOH isn't simply just "we're refueling the reactor", it's tearing the carrier apart, and in at least one case, completely rewiring the hull. This isn't something that you can just throw more money and people at and get it done in six months.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

RCOH of an aircraft carrier is rather more involved than most think.

It's, in its essence, tearing it completely apart, right down to the bare metal and the welds--in some cases, those too will get redone.

When done, if done correctly, the ship will be for all intents and purposes, brand new.

Not sure doing this is penny wise.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX
Why not just retire all of them seeing as how they are all obsolete?


Because those toys are not to be played with just to settle squabbles. They will only be used if humanity itself is in danger, basically. Because once they are brought out, it's very hard to put them away.

How will that change things globally, if everyone in China, for example, realized they are never going to beat the US? How will that change their motives and those of their leaders? I imagine they will want to develop similar weapons. Seeing them used will give a clue. But, everything else will seem pointless. And if there is a problem, people will beg the US, come vaporize so And so because they are bad and we are good. When you have that kind of power, inaction can be just as irresponsible as taking action. Imagine the world hates you because you won't use your superpowers to eliminate crime. But maybe we don't all agree on what is a crime? What if a religious maniac gets their hands on a superweapon?

No, political motivations must never direct the use of these weapons. There is just too much you haven't thought of. It's not as simple as just making our carriers and fighters obselete. What happens after that is the key concern.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Seems like money is always the issue. They oughta use those carrier groups to take out humanities number one enemies, and improve our economy, and that of the world, in one fell swoop. Federal Reserve, BIS, IMF, every big money bank and vaporize Wall St while they're at it. Then we could afford another carrier I bet. We could bring back Lincoln's Greenback, or JFKs Silver Certificates ideas back to life.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Sorry i meant to say thanks for the links 👍
edit on 4/26/2018 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

What we really need is a game changer called "Peace."



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TrueBrit

RCOH of an aircraft carrier is rather more involved than most think.

It's, in its essence, tearing it completely apart, right down to the bare metal and the welds--in some cases, those too will get redone.

When done, if done correctly, the ship will be for all intents and purposes, brand new.

Not sure doing this is penny wise.


How much is a ROCH vs a New Ford in terms of cost?

How much better are the Fords vs Nimitz capability wise?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

RCOH is about $2B, compared to $11-12B for a new carrier. But the Ford is about as far ahead of the Nimitz as the F-22 is the F-15. Or it will be once they get the bugs worked out.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pavil

RCOH is about $2B, compared to $11-12B for a new carrier. But the Ford is about as far ahead of the Nimitz as the F-22 is the F-15. Or it will be once they get the bugs worked out.


Ill have to look into the Ford Capabilities. I've heard eventually it could have the Zumwalt's Guns..... that would be a nasty combo. It certainly has a lot more power in the reactors, you don't build that in without a reason to use said power.

Still I bet 5 Nimitz Class vs One Ford Class isn't much of a battle.
edit on 26-4-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hmm... Price wise, I was wrong.

What's the word on any improvement capability-wise after the rebuild? I would imagine if they're going to go to all this trouble, they'll slap as many of the new Ford capabilities onto the Nimitz as they can.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

They can't do a lot of improvements, such as EMALS or the new radar, but they can do a lot of the networking and communications upgrades. It's a matter of the older wiring and power systems on the Nimitz not being able to handle a lot of what the Ford has on board.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: donktheclown

Takes two to have peace.

There's an old, old saying first put down by Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus: Si vis pacem, para bellum.







 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join