Check it out.

http://www.businessinsider.com/uss-...n-of-the-most-expensive-ship-ever-2013-7?op=1

 

For the first time the Navy will have no urinals on this carrier. Gender neutral toilets mean berthing can be swapped between male and female without concern and one unit means fewer spare parts and repair.

NO!

No more sharing.

 

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

 

I hope the new ship won't be accident prone like its namesake.

 

Don't see the point in building such expensive ships because in case of war they are going to be fairly easy targets.

 

Don't see the point in building such expensive ships because in case of war they are going to be fairly easy targets.

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

 

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.

 

And what force exactly is superior to the U.S. military?

 

You don't have to be superior to buy a missile........

 

You don't have to be superior to buy a missile........

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.

 

Don't see the point in building such expensive ships because in case of war they are going to be fairly easy targets.

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.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...R-Ford-delayed-dogged-reliability-issues.html

 

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?

 

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

 

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

That's easy. To keep the money flowing to the defense contractors and maintain perpetual war.

 

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

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.

 

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.

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

 

Re: Unisex johns. Jill's john has been around GA for years (http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/lady-j-adapter-for-little-john-pilot-urinal.html ). Perhaps not as simple as a simple urinal or pilot tube , but supposedly effective for females. They can even be artistic: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-clients-flush-cash-taste-bathroom-humor.html

John

 

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

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

 

Re: Unisex johns. Jill's john has been around GA for years (http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/lady-j-adapter-for-little-john-pilot-urinal.html ). Perhaps not as simple as a simple urinal or pilot tube , but supposedly effective for females. They can even be artistic: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-clients-flush-cash-taste-bathroom-humor.html

John

Those are Air-Force urinals