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

Ok..so I was reading this article on the new USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. VERY impressive at a VERY large cost. 220 air attack per day and housing 4000 sailors.

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. Expected to be christened on Nov. 9, the ship will be able to launch 220 air attacks per day, will hold more than 4,000 sailors, has a nuclear reactor to provide energy, and even comes with stealth features to reduce the ship’s radar profile.

That got me thinking though. Doesn't this make this ship a VERY large target for any other force in the world? I mean imagine the boost to an attacking country if they targeted and sank this ship and imagine the detriment to the morale of the US forces if this happened.

I would think announcing this ship to the world would be a good way to go ahead and have other countries plotting to sink it.

They go on to say:

The Navy also plans to buy another three such carriers, at a cost of $43 billion. One is slated to be called the USS John F. Kennedy, while others have not yet been named.

So they are building 3 more of them as well. That is a HUGE ship....I can't even imagine the firepower that these 4 ships would have and how much havoc they could wreak in battle.

Source

reply to post by Vasa Croe

They only built it to pardon the USS Nixon:

reply to post by Vasa Croe


That ship will not sail alone. It will always have back up.

greencmp
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

They only built it to pardon the USS Nixon:

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

LOL.....nice one!

I really don't mind this, personally. If we can shut down bases overseas as we build out our Carrier Fleet (a lot to be seen on whether this even happens beyond the Ford right now) then it's a great thing.

All major powers in history have been Naval ones. It's no exception today...and what could be better than the ultimate dual use few acres of U.S. soil floating around the 7 Seas? When it's not training to fight or defend, it's off-shore or in port somewhere assisting with disasters.

Not a bad bargain, when the alternative we've been using for a few decades is looked at in all the perm. basing. That's what we can't afford anymore, IMO.

reply to post by Wide-Eyes


I am sure it will have plenty of escorts with it but still...1106 feet is almost a quarter mile long...that makes a massive target in my opinion.

Carriers travel in battle groups. That group is a bunch of ships, subs, and aircraft that form a ring of destruction. If used foolishly a carrier could be a target but, the US has been the master of this type of warfare for a very long time.

reply to post by Vasa Croe


Its barely larger than the Nimitz class that have been sailing around the world since the 1970s.

Economic implosion of the USA is a bigger threat to the fleet than missiles.

What a weak friggin' name for a fighting ship.

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

reply to post by Vasa Croe


It's gonna have some warfare capabilities but these carriers aren't loaded down with guns. They load them with planes, not guns. It'll have some defensive weapons, but like the other poster said, this thing will never sail alone. Carriers sail with a whole fleet of warships.

COME AT ME BRO

More info on this ship build....what a massive undertaking.

Ford Class

reply to post by Vasa Croe


When I seen your article that movie 2012 just pooped into my head ! A lot is going on in that region ..hummm

Than NASA has launched an unmanned spacecraft to the moon to study the thin lunar atmosphere-from Virginia Sept 6th 2013

Trinity

With it having some stealth features means smaller window for target acquisition by an enemy. That will add to its survivability and more time to intercept anything coming at it.

I don't mind ships usually stay in service longer without the need for replacement.

trinityalways
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

When I seen your article that movie 2012 just pooped into my head !

Hmmmm....that does not sound pleasant at all. I hate it when things poop in my head....

Just kidding, but had to....

reply to post by Vasa Croe


I hope it hits an iceburg and sinks

reply to post by ImaFungi


Well that isn't very nice. Not sure how a ship this size would fare hitting a large iceberg or if it would ever even potentially be near one but I wouldn't THINK it could be sent to the bottom that easily.

Vasa Croe
That got me thinking though. Doesn't this make this ship a VERY large target for any other force in the world?

Yup, thats why china is developing a mach 21, anti carrier ballistic missile.

link to souce

reply to post by Vasa Croe


Its just such a waste of money, these projects are just blackholes for the taxpayers. How many military ships and jets have been made in the past 20 years, and what percentage of them have been paramount in defending our country?

My Father, a hippie and teacher, used to wear a shirt that read;

"It'll be a great day when our schools get the money they need
and the AirForce has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

He wore it to drive my Grandfather, a Strategic Air Wing Commander,
crazy.

I fit somewhere in the middle. I love my country and its ability to defend
its ideals. But this is 60 billion with a "b"!
For 4 aircraft carriers?

Remember the dreaded budget short fall in WI?
Affecting hundreds of thousands of people?
Teachers Firefighters Nurses losing benefits, jobs,and political shenanigans everywhere?
That was over a measly 95 million (with an "m") dollars .

The shortfall of an entire state was less than 1/13th of a single Aircraft carrier.
Our contractors are ripping us off.
Our contractors are unpatriotically robbing us blind.

I think I'm going to call the Pentagon and tell them I'll build them an aircraft carrier
for 10 billion dollars..how hard could it be?

Biigs

Vasa Croe
That got me thinking though. Doesn't this make this ship a VERY large target for any other force in the world?

Yup, thats why china is developing a mach 21, anti carrier ballistic missile.

link to souce

Well that doesn't look good. I just looked it up on wiki as well and read this...

China has reportedly developed and tested the world's first anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) called DF-21D, with a maximum range of around 2,700 kilometres (1,700 mi),[10] in 2005, according to the US Department of Defense. It is estimated to have reached initial operating capability in 2007 or 2008. The guidance system is thought to be still in an evolutionary process as more UAV and satellites are added.[11] The DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile itself is assumed to have entered active service by 2009.[12][13]
The US Department of Defense has stated that China has developed and reached initial operating capability [14] of a conventionally armed[15] high hypersonic[16] land-based anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21. This would be the world's first ASBM and the world's first weapons system capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.[17][18] [19] These would combine maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) with some kind of terminal guidance system. Such a missile may have been tested in 2005-6, and the launch of the Jianbing-5/YaoGan-1 and Jianbing-6/YaoGan-2 satellites would give the Chinese targeting information from SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) and visual imaging respectively. The upgrades would greatly enhance China's ability to conduct sea-denial operations to prevent US carriers from intervening in the Taiwan Strait.[20]

United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it" if it worked as theorized.[21]

Wiki

Of which the last line is the one that really makes an impact (nu pun intended).