Sort of like shooting off an IR flare except it's a radio transmitter. I guess using a rocket to stay in the air is cheaper than a big RC quadcopter.
Aircraft Carriers III
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Sort of like shooting off an IR flare except it's a radio transmitter. I guess using a rocket to stay in the air is cheaper than a big RC quadcopter.
Brumby
Major
A Nulka launch in wartime will be a last ditch attempt to stop leakers when the multi layered defences are pierced. I wonder how disruptive this counter measure will be on any surrounding AEGIS while it is still performing track and scan.
Brumby
Major
I think there are two fundamental points we have to agree to disagree. Firstly is accountability towards the success or otherwise of program management and execution. A complex program such as the Ford class is put together after vigorous design and technical reviews together with appropriate costing based on certain assumptions. The build assumptions used were simply way too unrealistic against builder estimates, past history and just plain common sense and that is knowing there were a number of immature technologies when building started. That is simply misfeasance. The Oct 2015 GAO states :
Secondly, significant cost overrun potentially put at risk the whole Ford program and subsequent builds. It forces the hand of stakeholders and we have seen from history the truncation of key programs like the B2; F-22; Seawolf; and Zumwalt because of this reason. There are no sacred cows.
Sorry, knowing how these things work and having been a part of them, it is rarely...very, very rarely that the issues dip into any characterization like lacking common sense or misfeasance.
And I certainly do not believe for an instant that either of those things apply in the case of the Ford development.
Of course there are significant design analysis and program reviews all along on the path to construction and ultimate placement in service.
But when bringing forward these technologies, despite the best efforts of everyone involved, you can run into delays, issues, etc. As I say, this does not necessarily mean anyone mismanaged anything. With cutting edge systems, you are not going to be able to be completely accurate in forecasting all the time.
When such things happen, the commitment of the program, and particularly the commitment of the institutions, including the political ones and ultimately the people can certainly be tested.
There is nothing wrong with that either...as long as an accurate depiction of what has happened and what the true stakes are is presented, and then a decision is made accordingly.
Generally, the overall numbers actually needed will still create a significant cost benefit over the life of the program...or, in this case, with ten projected vessels, the savings in crew reduction, less overhauls, etc, will lead to the same.
The biggest problem is that over the last 30+ years, all too often that has not been the case, and almost always for political reasons.
And when those political fires get burning, the relevant data like that mentioned above is left unsaid, or purposely misstated...particularly when the press is willingly used as a tool in the political with hunt, instead of being used to get all of the facts on the table.
.
Jura The idiot
General
why don't we start right from
August 2007
Navy Faces Challenges Constructing the Aircraft Carrier Gerald R. Ford within Budget
p. 3 (7 of 57 in that PDF):
"Costs for CVN 78 will likely exceed the budget for several reasons. First, the Navy’s cost estimate that underpins the budget is optimistic. For example, the Navy estimates that CVN 78 will be built with fewer labor hours than were needed for the previous two carriers. Second, the Navy’s target cost for ship construction may not be achievable. The Navy established a cost target for the shipbuilder based on the budget. The shipbuilder’s initial cost estimate for construction was 22 percent higher than the Navy’s cost target. The Navy and the shipbuilder are working to reduce costs by incentivizing capital improvements, removing noncritical capabilities to save costs, and introducing other production efficiencies. However, experience on other shipbuilding programs suggests that actual construction costs will increase above the cost target as a result of labor inefficiencies and late material deliveries. Third, the Navy may not have the management tools necessary to identify and react to early signs of cost growth because current contractor cost performance reports do not have meaningful performance measurements, the Navy’s on-site Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair (SUPSHIP) does not have an independent cost surveillance capability." etc. etc. and you can check it against what the Program Manager in 2015 has to say:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/aircraft-carriers-iii.t7304/page-62#post-379820
to me, GAO, in 2007, saw it coming!
EDIT
boldface by me
Last edited:
I add my table " déjà vu " 
but thinking interesting
And a thing normaly the futur CAW in 2020 more big about 10 aircrafts : new UAV, EA-18G, E-2, for max aircrafts ofc Ford same as Nimitz.
Also very important especialy A2/AD... an increased range, F-35C better as F-18A+/C less as planned but remains good, Navy also want really regain the range lost in 2000's ( A-6/F-14 retired ) with 6th Generation fighters
Essential
but thinking interesting And a thing normaly the futur CAW in 2020 more big about 10 aircrafts : new UAV, EA-18G, E-2, for max aircrafts ofc Ford same as Nimitz.
Also very important especialy A2/AD... an increased range, F-35C better as F-18A+/C less as planned but remains good, Navy also want really regain the range lost in 2000's ( A-6/F-14 retired ) with 6th Generation fighters
Essential
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
The first GAO report on CVN-78 was issued in August 2007 and as Jura pointed out in that report and I quote from it "For example, the Navy estimates that CVN 78 will be built with fewer labor hours than were needed for the previous two carriers." Given all the immature technologies that were planned for CVN-78 and to assume lower labor hours in the cost estimate in my view defy basic common sense at best and is misfeasance at worst.
Moving forward, we know that the bulk of the cost growth came exactly from build and integration difficulties as a result of the new technologies.
Amen!! Amen!! and AMEN! In fact we can say for a fact that penny pinchers and politicians, hoping to make a name for themselves, have deliberately and continue to deliberately mislead and lie to the American Public. The result of that is that this great republic continues to squander and "sell down the River" these astoundingly effective, and singularly advanced weapons that are game changers and keep this nation safe.
This is able to happen because the American John Q Publik, remains ignorant and ill informed? and mislead by those treasonous "bastards", who promise John Q the moon, if he will only stik his or more likely her hand out and let the body "politik" fill it, from "Santa's" magic bag of tricks. Romney's 47% who suck the Republic dry, while contributing little or nothing to this great nation.
I was hunting for any video of V-22's operating with HMS Ocean. I finally found one showing HMS Ocean arriving at Gilbraltar with a V-22 parked on it. It seems the V-22/Marines presence is being kept low key. If this is OPSEC related then it would indicate possible arrangements to allow certain operations which might attract political opposition. V-22 visits to foreign carriers are usually quick and they leave right after. Perhaps a practice/ironing-out test for future collaboration already agreed upon for the big new UK carriers?
see 2:33 mark
see 2:33 mark
