Aircraft Carriers III

Jura said:

you can also check what I found at DefenseNews, posted:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1547/page-477#post-372754
Navy: Half the Carrier Fleet Tied Up In Maintenance, Other 5 Strained To Meet Demands

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

"USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which will commission next year but not be operationally available until 2021 due to first-in-class test and evaluation."
This statement is hard to stomach at face value that 5 years is required between commissioning and deployment. In contrast, the USS Nimitz was commissioned in 5/75 and its first deployment was 7/76, just 14 months. GAO had previously reported that substantial fit out work are planned post commissioning because the USS Ford overspent against construction budget and had to defer work to get around budget cap and accountability issues.

Brumby said:

"USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which will commission next year but not be operationally available until 2021 due to first-in-class test and evaluation."
This statement is hard to stomach at face value that 5 years is required between commissioning and deployment. In contrast, the USS Nimitz was commissioned in 5/75 and its first deployment was 7/76, just 14 months. GAO had previously reported that substantial fit out work are planned post commissioning because the USS Ford overspent against construction budget and had to defer work to get around budget cap and accountability issues.

Click to expand...

Everything just costs more these days to build anything, from buildings, bridges, to carriers.

US CVN do long deployments 8/10 months but few in fact about 20/25 in 50 years because ofc USN have 10 minimum do turn over, the Charles De Gaulle do minimum 1/year and this year two less long about 4 month in general, available about 5 years on 7.5.

Not Daddy here :=) but young at this time remenber and yet many magazines, books for know during 1980's USN has 12/15 CV/CVN, always deployed 1/2 in Med, same 5th Fleet area and 1 in Japan i precise only 2/3/7th Fleet get permanently a carrier others rattached temporarily.

Jura said:

you can also check what I found at DefenseNews, posted:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1547/page-477#post-372754
Navy: Half the Carrier Fleet Tied Up In Maintenance, Other 5 Strained To Meet Demands

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

This is no surprise.

They have been borrowing from Peter to pay Paul for some time.

Going to ten operational carriers, with the types of commitments that the US has, have led to this.

They have tried to increase the tempo and deployment time of the remaining carriers to compensate, but...was warned, and as common sense tells you,...you can only do that for so long.

Now it is time to pay the piper.

The solution is either:

A) To accept less commitments, or
B) Get back to eleven operational carriers at least, preferably 12..

Brumby said:

This statement is hard to stomach at face value that 5 years is required between commissioning and deployment. In contrast, the USS Nimitz was commissioned in 5/75 and its first deployment was 7/76, just 14 months. GAO had previously reported that substantial fit out work are planned post commissioning because the USS Ford overspent against construction budget and had to defer work to get around budget cap and accountability issues.

Click to expand...

It is not necessary.

It is the result of decisions being made that led to this...and it was done with a will.

If the US wanted to, they could accomplish it in no more than 18 months.

Time will tell whether the types of decisions, that would allow for this, will be forthcoming.

The over-deployment of the US carrier fleet in the last few years probably meant that the US Government has behind the scenes looked to it's allies to help take the strain. Specifically I have long thought this would explain why the relatively anti carrier UK Conservative Government has in the last couple of years done a U turn from talking about only commissioning one of the QECs and mothballing or selling the other, to now stating both will be commissioned and enter service. Basically if Cameron and Osbourne want to score 'Brownie' points with the US they have to 'get with the program' and shoulder a fair share of the burden. In this context I fully expect the QECs to deploy with a sqn or two each of USMC F-35Bs in addition to FAA/RAF ones. Watch this space and remember I've been saying this for years... ;-)

Jeff Head said:

It is not necessary.

It is the result of decisions being made that led to this...and it was done with a will.

If the US wanted to, they could accomplish it in no more than 18 months.

Time will tell whether the types of decisions, that would allow for this, will be forthcoming.

Click to expand...

I know it is not necessary as the first in class USS Nimitz clearly demonstrated. I understand that the decision to conduct full ship shock trial will add half a year but 5 years between commissioning and deployment - that means something else is going on. Given that the existing 10 carriers are already stretched, I find it surprising such a projected state is not being questioned.

Brumby said:

... that means something else is going on. Given that the existing 10 carriers are already stretched, I find it surprising such a projected state is not being questioned.

Click to expand...

There are those who are questioning it, and objecting.

But, if the administration and those appointed by it, absolutely make the decisions to prolong it, it is hard to go up against that chain of command.

Elections have consequences...both ways.

Jeff Head said:

But, if the administration and those appointed by it, absolutely make the decisions to prolong it, it is hard to go up against that chain of command.

Click to expand...

Frankly I don't get this part of your reasoning. When you mentioned administration I assume you are talking about the Obama administration. The USN is the one that is stretched with carrier commitments and likewise has the keys to address it by accelerating USS Ford deployment as opposed to stretching the timeline. So in effect is the one shooting itself in the foot. The branch that is providing oversight is Congress via funding and in my view has more leverage over this issue than the executive branch. Am I missing something within US politics?

Here are some more high res shots of JS Kaga, DDH-184, which the Japanese launched recently. It is their fourth DDH like this (2 x Hyuga, and now 2 x Izumo):