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 may pull the plug after 4 Ford Class Carriers

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 07:54 PM
link   
The US Navy may pull the plug on the Ford class carriers after 4. They may be eyeing smaller carriers like the Queen Elizabeth class. The USS Ford has had a troubled development and has ballooned in cost to almost 15 billion (US) and still has issues with the EMALS, weapons elevators and cannot use the F-35C at this time. A team is lloking at what the force will look like in 2030 and will have a report in 6 months. A nuclear powered QEII with full CATOBAR would be a good idea IMHO but again ...............

The bottom line is that the US Navy's procurement process is a #$%^ Show and has been for some time. The USMC has not helped either

Docks and port facilities: no upkeep and are crumbling
LCS: Unmitigated disaster
Zumwalt: only 3, and they keep bolting on non stealthy elements
Ford: See above
Not going to upgrade Flight 1 Burkes
Columbia Class: 15 billion and counting for what is basically an uprated larger Virginia class
F-35B: Sigh
The ongoing Gator navy: I love the USMC but stop building ships that at best were for a mission that ended with the Korean war
The Osprey: USMC had to have it.
The King Stallion: 130 million dollar for now .......chopper that the USMC has to have
No replacement in sight for the Tico's

The only thing that seems to be working is the Virginia class SSN's and the Flight III Burkes.

www.thedrive.com...

breakingdefense.com...


edit on 3/7/20 by FredT because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

The Osprey is much maligned, but has turned into a decent system. It's never going to be great, but is far better than people give it credit for.

They might get away with 4, and the newer Nimitz hulls, but I don't see Congress letting them.
edit on 3/7/2020 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 11:11 PM
link   
It sounds like They are so enthused with technology upgrades that they cannot make a decent all around air craft carrier anymore. Let the people who use them everyday have some input into building them. Too much change too fast is not good. This age of technology is making everything expensive and unreliable.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

EMALS and AAG have settled down and have undergone at sea testing and worked well. The weapons elevators are getting there. In the long term these will be amazing hulls and the technology in them will go a long way in other areas.



posted on Mar, 8 2020 @ 12:32 AM
link   
When I was in the Navy, a long time buddy of mine who I had known since A School training eventually ended up with the Gerald Ford as his command. You could actually see the damned thing from his apartment window before he got tired of the view and was approved to find his own lodging.

Every day was a new complaint. The radar systems were cutting edge, but wouldn't ever work properly. The power systems were unreliable. Couldn't get stable energy to maintain the proper Hz and such. The thing was just one big cash cow for new experimental tech is what I figured.

I don't think they ever actually expected it to go out to sea lol. It wouldn't surprise me if they were just testing things on there to put onto other ships.

I mean it's a good thing that our military is maintaining research and development to keep a technological edge, but man it's like they'll just throw money at whatever, and then put out crap like the LCS type ships.

I never liked the Zumwalt design either.

Word on the street though is they're about to commission a new sub that blows a bunch of records out of the water and is pretty awesome.
edit on 832020 by AutomateThis1 because: Grammar



posted on Mar, 8 2020 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Good.

*second line*



posted on Mar, 10 2020 @ 10:55 PM
link   
The problem is designing a ship and having it built.

The navy designs the hull first.

Then pick a contractor, and they start building the hull and start planing what they are going to put in the hull.

That is when they start having problems and have to change the plans.

Changing plans cost big money and is most of the time paid cost plus



posted on Mar, 11 2020 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Why haven’t the Wasp and America class warships been equipped with ski jumps to operate the F-35B ? The US haven’t been shy to take up other British naval innovations in the past, like angled flight decks, why not the ski jump ?
It could make those ships much more useful.

How do you guys feel about the twin island arrangement of the QE class ? One for ship and the other for air operations, with redundancy built in for one to control the other if the ship is damaged in an attack ?

And nuclear versus conventional power ? There’s advantages to both.

I think the QE class are good ships, they’d be way better though with cats and traps. In UK terms I can’t help but think we’d have been better having three smaller STOVL ships of perhaps 40,000 tonnes rather than these two clipped wing giants ... but we are where we are.



posted on Mar, 11 2020 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: rickymouse

EMALS and AAG have settled down and have undergone at sea testing and worked well. The weapons elevators are getting there. In the long term these will be amazing hulls and the technology in them will go a long way in other areas.


EMALS was a power management problem that could have easily been avoided. They built one land based catapult, when they should have built two of them. The shipboard catapults are two, two catapult systems. The problem was when both catapults were fired within so much time, it drew too much power and the power regulation system shut them down. By building two of them this problem could have been discovered before it was installed on the ship.



posted on Mar, 11 2020 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheShippingForecast




Why haven’t the Wasp and America class warships been equipped with ski jumps to operate the F-35B 


Because the Wasp and America exist to support a MEU amphibious landing, which is done with rotary-wing component. Ski jumps kill deck space for that. As the "Gator navy" "blitz carrier" talk grows, there might be a change in priorities , but until then, that's where you're at.
Honestly, I'd rather see more America's at the expense of the super carriers. The main advantage of the super carrier is sustained operations. That's not feasible against near-peers anylonger because they abandoned long-range strike by allowing Intruder retirements without a replacement. Today they are relegated to amazing Sea Control ships, but that is impossible to justify the cost. An America class can do roughly 75% of that job at 30% of the cost.
The EABO concepts running around might be more sustainable than either, and could be supported by either a blitz carrier or supercarrier, but will need LHA's and LHD's.
I keep wanting to make a thread about EABO, but haven't managed to find the time and motivation.



posted on Mar, 11 2020 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

That's how it usually goes. They build the minimum to test and not see how it really works.



new topics




 
9

log in

join