The Pentagon's biggest, baddest - and costliest - piece of hardware ever

Phalanx CIWS and anti missile missiles are great and everything....

But consider a very large missile coming in from above at mach 21, compared to the small, light rounds going a max of 4,000 feet per second (thats around mach 4). I dont see it stopping a missile that huge in the few seconds of fire range it even has to try.

Im not an expert by any means, but i would think that one or two of those anti-carrier missiles coming in at the same time, one will get through with enough kinetic and chemical damage to really hurt the carrier.

Biigs
Im not an expert by any means, but i would think that one or two of those anti-carrier missiles coming in at the same time, one will get through with enough kinetic and chemical damage to really hurt the carrier.

The point has been made and I believe you, but the crucial question is, then what?

The Carrier Battle Group is not threatened by suicide bombers or IEDs buried in the roadbed. An attack as you describe could only be done by a nation state with sufficient resources, which excludes most of them. It would be an act of war and would have severe consequences. It would not be unanswered.

And that's why the point is moot.

reply to post by schuyler


The point is that its a deterrent.

"Bring a carrier and we can sink it without nukes or with nukes."

What a staggering waste of money.

reply to post by Vasa Croe


Its not that much bigger than a Nimitz that is currently in use. Nimitz and her sisters are all right around 1,092 feet and between 100,000 and 102,000 tons displacement.

Biigs
reply to post by schuyler

 

The point is that its a deterrent.

"Bring a carrier and we can sink it without nukes or with nukes."

It's the carrier that is the deterrent. And it's already there.

Vasa Croe

The 1,106-foot ship, under construction in Newport News, Va., has seen cost overruns push its expected price tag up some 22 percent to nearly $13 billion, with new technology dictating changes since work began in 2007.

I found this particularly interesting "new technollgy dictating changes since work begain in 2007".

I'd like to know how much of the 'cost overruns' were do to new technology. Any large project will run into this problem of 'new technolgy' which requires new engineering, new acquisition, and new scheduling - what a nightmare.

This has always been true to some extent - but with today's pace of 'technological chage', it's makes these types of 'super - stuff' near impossible to complete. And it's obsolete out the door in any case.

I would prefer, and believe it better, to have more, smaller and simpler platforms. It would save money, time and, perhaps, even lives. Bigger is not better - smarter always wins that particular duel.

I was thinking about this, in another context, this week for some reason. I was thinking about MASH facilities. In WWII, Korea, Vietname these facilities could be built (with efficient logistics) in a day or two and torn down and moved in less. Now the Mobile Hospitals require two week to set up. They are not moveable on the run and most likely (and I don't know the facts on this) just abandoned at need.

Yes they have all the latest 'toys' but are they mission efficient? Or are they just boondoggles for BIG Military Contractors?

The north Vietnamese beat the US with people and smart tactics not technology.

Thanks for the post.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

I hope it hits an iceburg and sinks

Haha, I agree! Too bad it takes a LOT more than that. Assuming it's anything like Nimitz class, it will be pretty much unsinkable. You can blow it in half, break it into pieces, flip it over, whatever...it will probably still be floating.

Aircraft carriers are the greatest example of waste in every form. Aside from monetary waste, any physical waste generated by the ship invariably ends up in the ocean.

You have 5,000 people living on this ship. That generates a LOT of trash. Where does it go? Throw it overboard; let it sink. Maybe burn some of it...let that nasty stuff go into the atmosphere instead.

There is a LOT of machinery on the ship. Machinery requires oil. Oil leaks, gets contaminated, you end up with oil that you can't re-use. Where does it go? No worries, if you're greater than 50 miles from land, you can pump it overboard...into the ocean! (This new class actually uses magnetic bearings, so the oil problem should be gone, which is pretty awesome.)

Also, you have TWO nuclear power plants on one of these ships. Thermal expansion and contraction of the coolant requires radioactive water to be discharged. This discharged water can be stored in tanks, but it has to go somewhere else eventually. Not to worry! If you're greater than 75 miles from land (I think, correct me if this distance is wrong), you can just pump it overboard...into the ocean! (Granted, the radiation is low enough that you could probably drink it and be fine, but still...we don't REALLY understand the long term effects of this repeated discharge do we?)

So basically, they suck out billions of dollars to create this machine that just puts around in circles polluting everything....

Which brings me back to the main point, as so concisely worded by ImaFungi, I hope it hits an iceberg and sinks.

reply to post by AlliumIslelily


No, actually, just about everything on a carrier is recycled.

In 1973, the United States and other maritime nations
signed the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (referred to as MARPOL). The treaty regulates
what type and where waste can be dumped overboard. Specifically,
Annex Five, which entered into force in 1988, prohibits the
discharge of paper, cardboard, metal, and glass near an in "special
areas" and prohibits the dumping of plastic anywhere. The "special
areas" where nothing but food waste can be dumped are the Baltic
Sea, North Sea, and Antarctica. The Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and
Caribbean are expected to be added in the future.

Although military vessels were exempted from MARPOL due to space
and signature (more machinery generates more noise and heat, things
ship commanders, especially those on submarines like to minimize)
considerations, the U.S. Congress passed legislation in 1987 that
required the Navy to comply with Annex Five of the international
Treaty. The legislation mandated that the Navy must take action to
fully comply with Annex Five by 1993. However, the Navy failed to
meet that goal and was given an extension to comply until 1998.

The disposal of plastic waste is, however, a success
story for the Navy. Engineers at the Naval Surface Warfare Center
division in Carderock, Md. have developed technology that "shreds,
heats, and compresses all plastics and spits out a disc in which
the waste's volume is shrunk 30 times. The disc can be stored
easily, and possibly recycled."

www1.american.edu...

Starting with the George Bush (CVN-77) a new sewage system has been developed that uses fresh water, and treats the sewage better than older systems before it is dumped. It's had problems, but all new technology has had problems when first developed.

reply to post by AlliumIslelily


The carriers put off far less waste than your average cruise ship. Anything that can possibly get recycled does get recycled. Nothing toxic is ever thrown overboard. This is a non issue promoted by ignorance.

reply to post by Vasa Croe


Are the others to be named the USS Martin Luther King and the USS John Lennon?

Zaphod58
reply to post by AlliumIslelily

 

No, actually, just about everything on a carrier is recycled.

In 1973, the United States and other maritime nations
signed the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (referred to as MARPOL). The treaty regulates
what type and where waste can be dumped overboard. Specifically,
Annex Five, which entered into force in 1988, prohibits the
discharge of paper, cardboard, metal, and glass near an in "special
areas" and prohibits the dumping of plastic anywhere. The "special
areas" where nothing but food waste can be dumped are the Baltic
Sea, North Sea, and Antarctica. The Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and
Caribbean are expected to be added in the future.

Although military vessels were exempted from MARPOL due to space
and signature (more machinery generates more noise and heat, things
ship commanders, especially those on submarines like to minimize)
considerations, the U.S. Congress passed legislation in 1987 that
required the Navy to comply with Annex Five of the international
Treaty. The legislation mandated that the Navy must take action to
fully comply with Annex Five by 1993. However, the Navy failed to
meet that goal and was given an extension to comply until 1998.

The disposal of plastic waste is, however, a success
story for the Navy. Engineers at the Naval Surface Warfare Center
division in Carderock, Md. have developed technology that "shreds,
heats, and compresses all plastics and spits out a disc in which
the waste's volume is shrunk 30 times. The disc can be stored
easily, and possibly recycled."

www1.american.edu...

Starting with the George Bush (CVN-77) a new sewage system has been developed that uses fresh water, and treats the sewage better than older systems before it is dumped. It's had problems, but all new technology has had problems when first developed.

I lived on a carrier for years. These regulations are largely ignored. Now I'll give that they make great efforts to TRY, but this fancy list of what is SUPPOSED to happen is not as clean and simple as what really goes on. But they're in the middle of the freaking ocean, so who's there to call them out on it? Nobody, of course. Those plastic disc things are pretty cool, but how much plastic do you really think makes it into that machine?

Epoxy paint? Sure, there are regulations to dispose of that. I've never seen them followed, not once.

Just because regulations are in place doesn't mean anything. All that matters is that you APPEAR to be following them to those who enforce.

schuyler
reply to post by AlliumIslelily

 

The carriers put off far less waste than your average cruise ship. Anything that can possibly get recycled does get recycled. Nothing toxic is ever thrown overboard. This is a non issue promoted by ignorance.

1.) Just because there is something worse doesn't make another thing okay.

2.) NOT everything that can be recycled does get recycled.

3.) Plenty of toxic substances are thrown overboard.

It's not ignorance, it's reality.

AlliumIslelily

schuyler
reply to post by AlliumIslelily

 

It's not ignorance, it's reality.

It's also beside the point. The carriers are doing a lot better than the cruise ships. So go after the friggin' cruise ships. While the carriers do their best the cruise ships are pumping their poop overboard in places like Alaska. That's reality. Meanwhile the carriers are making sure you can pump gas into your car and contribute to polluting the planet all by your lone self. I'm happy they are there. If you're not, meh?

reply to post by Vasa Croe


I will repeat my oft exclaimed phrase that has offended many on ATS. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks in he modern world of warfare, relics from ancient wars, namely WWII. There, we saw how vulnerable they were with one well-placed bomb or torpedo. But there at the time, they were the supreme force on the seas, having replace the battleships of WWI. Calling them "sitting ducks" in this era of all manner of missiles is a no-brainer.

Put a weapon's platform in space, either fixed or triangle, with laser, rail gun or guided bombs or missiles and there is no credible threat from any sea navy. They are all obsolete for major conflicts.

having seen a triangle up close, I no doubt but what our Strategic Defense Initiatives ("Star Wars") is in total control of the air and space and the sole reason that keeps China and Russia docile.

This modern relic under construction is good for the American economy, a stimulus program. New technologies are developed in secret, but old technologies must me maintained during the duration of changeover. Very similar to why we have developed the F-22 and the F-35 fighters mostly for export sales when the capabilities of the triangles make any jet aircraft a joke.

Glassbender777
I would rather them spend the money and time on making Aircraft carrier subs, Now How about that, for a suprise for the enemies it encounters. Surface, launch aircraft, and dive. Returning aircraft would either have to remain in flight, refuel in flight, and wait unitl the sub-aircraft carrier surfaced. Im suprised they havent thought of something like that. Hey pentagon, Look Look Here please

"They" have thought of it...frequently. "They" have also been beaten about the head and shoulders with slide rules by engineers. Joking aside, the list of reasons that a submarine aircraft carrier is a bad idea is long enough to strain the 'characters per post' limit just listing them.

Let's start with making watertight hatches big enough to handle aircraft that retain sufficient strength to allow reasonable depth performance, and are fault-tolerant enough to survive air group operations. We can move from there to "Where do we put the flight deck without making the sub horribly noisy?", take a quick side trip through the land of exercising command and control over an air group from a submerged platform, and finish with a few laps around "How small is my air wing?" park.

FyreByrd

I found this particularly interesting "new technollgy dictating changes since work begain in 2007".

I'd like to know how much of the 'cost overruns' were do to new technology. Any large project will run into this problem of 'new technolgy' which requires new engineering, new acquisition, and new scheduling - what a nightmare.

Given some of the technology that's supposedly incorporated into this class, I'd wager that a lot of the overrun is tied to it. I don't know whether the Ford herself will use an electromagnetic launch system, but if memory serves, future ships of the class are intended to. Any change in the EMALS will translate int a change in the ship (more cost), and delay its completion (more time = more cost). Repeat that sequence for the enhanced automation systems intended to reduce crew size and operating cost, and a whole laundry list of other new items, and I could easily see a 22% overrun on the lead ship of the class.

This has always been true to some extent - but with today's pace of 'technological chage', it's makes these types of 'super - stuff' near impossible to complete. And it's obsolete out the door in any case.

I would prefer, and believe it better, to have more, smaller and simpler platforms. It would save money, time and, perhaps, even lives. Bigger is not better - smarter always wins that particular duel.

Actually, smaller carriers will wind up costing more per sortie, require more total crew, and be less efficient overall than larger hulls. It's a subject that's been discussed, analyzed, and field-tested by every carrier-using navy since the late 1920s. The USN built the USS Ranger, the Japanese built Ryujo, and neither one was considered a rousing success. The simple truth is that hull steel is cheap (relatively speaking), so a single carrier that handles 80 aircraft might have a hull that costs three times what a smaller, 40 plane carrying hull would cost...but the two smaller carriers would require two sets of engines, two sets of sensors and communications gear, and two sets of escorts. Since there are certain people you need aboard a ship regardless of size (engine room watches come to mind), your two smaller ships, while having individually smaller crews, will require more personnel in total. They'll also have less room for fuel and stores, and be more susceptible to sea conditions....and that's just a short list.

There *is* an upper limit on carrier size, but it's more linked to the maximum practical air group (exact numbers are classified, but informed guesswork says that the cap is somewhere between 70 and 90 planes). Within that limit though, the "Bigger is better" maxim applies in spades. As a quick check of that assertion....do you really think the Navy would intentionally restrict the number of carrier group commands to 10-12 if there wasn't very good operational reason to do so? After all, more carriers would mean more flag officers, and we've got to keep the O-club occupancy high, don't we?

reply to post by Patriotsrevenge


You hit he nail on the head with the sm2 and 3, the new version of the sm3 has anti satellite capability, and can knock down an incoming warhead before it releases it's sub munitions.
And to the poster that thinks any thing will make it past the 4000 rounds per minute of the phalanx system, you are deluded.
The new platform is also being built to take new tech when it's available, such as free electron lasers and rail guns.

reply to post by punkinworks10


Phalanx is on the way out. The problem with it was debris got through. Now SeaRAM is out there. Capable of Mach 2.5 intercepts at all altitudes.

seasoul
What a weak friggin' name for a fighting ship.

How about re-christening her, the USS Widow Maker.

edit on 27-9-2013 by seasoul because: (no reason given)

Love it..

Ill second that vote.