USS GERALD R. FORD

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by BR-549, Jul 20, 2016.

  1. BR-549

    Thread Starter Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    2,007
    395
  2. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,913
    2,187
    NO!

    [​IMG]

    No more sharing. :(
    [​IMG]
     
  3. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,699
    907
    Frankly, I don't consider "it" a spare part. Maybe our Chief of Naval Operations (Adm. John Richardson) does.

    Meanwhile, will the Supremes be called to decide whether the Constitution says the seat should be left up or down?

    John
     
  4. boatsman

    Senior Member

    Jan 17, 2008
    165
    391
    I hope the new ship won't be accident prone like its namesake.
     
    #12 likes this.
  5. ISB123

    Well-Known Member

    May 21, 2014
    1,239
    527
    Don't see the point in building such expensive ships because in case of war they are going to be fairly easy targets.
     
  6. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,699
    907
    1) You may need to review Paul Samuelson's theories on how deficit spending by the government stimulates the economy.
    2) Carriers are large targets, but you need to get to them before they get to you first. They may be more useful in non-nuclear wars.

    John
     
    JoeJester and #12 like this.
  7. ISB123

    Well-Known Member

    May 21, 2014
    1,239
    527
    There are anti ship missiles that have range in excess of 200+miles. Most of them employ evasive maneuvers and sea skimming,they cost
    2 mil$. which compared to 14 billion is very cheap. So if you fire 10 of these one should reach it's target.
    I believe that time of huge naval fleets is over, they are really only useful if you are fighting inferior force like ISIS.
     
  8. wayneh

    Expert

    Sep 9, 2010
    12,156
    3,064
    And what force exactly is superior to the U.S. military?
     
    #12 likes this.
  9. ISB123

    Well-Known Member

    May 21, 2014
    1,239
    527
    You don't have to be superior to buy a missile........
     
  10. KJ6EAD

    Senior Member

    Apr 30, 2011
    1,425
    363
    You do have to have some degree of sophistication to buy 10 of the right missiles, maintain them in working order, get them to the right location at the right time, aim and fire them in coordination.
     
    #12 likes this.
  11. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,913
    2,187
    A nuclear carrier battle-group with space, sea and air based offensive systems is about the best defended target on the planet while on station. These ships are designed to take hits from large conventional soviet style missiles and torpedoes and still remain operational. Very much on the hard target side of the scale.

    Even an old FFG is hard to sink quickly.
     
  12. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,913
    2,187
  13. dannyf

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 13, 2015
    1,836
    367
    Anti ship missles aren't that difficult to intercept, unless they are supersonic ballistic types.

    Supersonic ballistic anti ship missiles are yet to be tested in a war setting and their guidance systems have unknown capabilities. So it is too early to say that carriers are doomed.

    With that said, it is a valid question to ask what's the intended (strategic) use of such expensive carriers?
     
  14. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,699
    907
    I think it must be to demonstrate the EM catapult that still doesn't work. I find it hard to justify billions of investment in a technology that hasn't been shown to work with the reliability of steam.

    John
     
  15. #12

    Expert

    Nov 30, 2010
    16,355
    6,852
    That's easy. To keep the money flowing to the defense contractors and maintain perpetual war.
     
  16. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,913
    2,187
    The problem with the steam catapult is total control. With lighter modern planes and UAVs you have to throttle the system down to lower region of the operational range that's not very linear and smooth. A cat launch at full power tends to break things.

     
  17. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,699
    907
    Yes, but your link specifically mentions the EM launch system as being problematic. I am more interested in launching manned fighters than unmanned UAV's -- at least for the next few years.

    John
     
  18. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,699
    907
    justtrying and #12 like this.
  19. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,913
    2,187
    I would have been shocked if it worked as planned without hiccups. I'm sure they will eventually work out the bugs because over the expected lifetime of the ship (as a replacement for today's Nimitz class carriers) most people expect UAV's to be a large portion of the strike carrier aircraft.

    http://vtb.engr.sc.edu/vtbwebsite/downloads/publications/emalsmaglev.pdf
     
  20. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,913
    2,187
    JoeJester likes this.
Loading...