US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
No one right now needs 15 CVNs heck even 12 CVN would be difficult to justify. Cycling in new fords for old Nimitz makes sense despite all the hype. The USN maintains the largest flat top fleet in the world via it's mix of CVN,LHD and LHA. And I would argue for more LHA then a massive fleet of CVN

I'd love to see the following:

12 CVNs Nimitz/Ford
08 LHDs Wasp Class
02 LHAs (Amphib assault) America Class
02 LHAs (Aircraft) America Class

That would maintain 24, with two aircraft centric LHAs to serve as Jeep carriers (and actually, at anytime, any of the LHDs could serve in the same role.

Then, to round out the ARGs have:

12 LPDs San Antonio Class
12 LX(R)s (To replace the LSDs)

The current plan will fall three ships short of my desire (eventually) with the exceptions being:

11 CVNs
11 LPDs
11 LX(R)s
 

Ultra

Junior Member
I'd love to see the following:

12 CVNs Nimitz/Ford
08 LHDs Wasp Class
02 LHAs (Amphib assault) America Class
02 LHAs (Aircraft) America Class

That would maintain 24, with two aircraft centric LHAs to serve as Jeep carriers (and actually, at anytime, any of the LHDs could serve in the same role.

Then, to round out the ARGs have:

12 LPDs San Antonio Class
12 LX(R)s (To replace the LSDs)

The current plan will fall three ships short of my desire (eventually) with the exceptions being:

11 CVNs
11 LPDs
11 LX(R)s


I highly doubt US can afford even 12 Ford class CVNs - there was quite a damning report by GAO last year about the cost of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
which is now going at $12.9 billion AND STILL RISING.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Compare that to the older Nimitz-class aircraft carrier which cost $4.5 billion a piece - basically you can build 3 Nimitz and still have spare change!

10 Nimitz-class would cost more than $150 billion (I am guessing probably the final cost per ship would be $15 billion just to be conservative if current US defence budget cost overrun continues.....like the JSF/F-35 programme). That, along with the huge cost overrun of F-35 programme (now $163 billion over budget and costing at a whopping $1.5 trillion total programme cost - the F-35C alone cost $337 million a piece!) would mean the US defence budget simply cannot afford or justify such number.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


That, along with a string of expensive duds that Pentagon has been splurging on for the past decade like the SBX, ABL, KEI, and MKV programmes will most likely force the congress in the future to further limit its spending.

The funny irony out of this is that America thought they won the Cold War against the commies through economics where they basically bankrupt the soviet - but it seems the lesson was forgotten by themselves in this Cold War II. The limit where America can manipulate the market (oil price manipulation of 2014) and the currency (Quantitative Easing since 2008) in the future will become very limited as the power shifts to China (with Silk Road Initiatives, AIIB) which in turn will limit America from doing whatever they want as nations slowly move away from trading in american currency (especially the BRICS and emergent economies) which will further push American economy in downward spiral (as nobody wants to prop up the american economy).
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
I highly doubt US can afford even 12 Ford class CVNs - there was quite a damning report by GAO last year about the cost of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
which is now going at $12.9 billion AND STILL RISING.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Compare that to the older Nimitz-class aircraft carrier which cost $4.5 billion a piece - basically you can build 3 Nimitz and still have spare change!

10 Nimitz-class would cost more than $150 billion (I am guessing probably the final cost per ship would be $15 billion just to be conservative if current US defence budget cost overrun continues.....like the JSF/F-35 programme). That, along with the huge cost overrun of F-35 programme (now $163 billion over budget and costing at a whopping $1.5 trillion total programme cost - the F-35C alone cost $337 million a piece!) would mean the US defence budget simply cannot afford or justify such number.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


That, along with a string of expensive duds that Pentagon has been splurging on for the past decade like the SBX, ABL, KEI, and MKV programmes will most likely force the congress in the future to further limit its spending.

The funny irony out of this is that America thought they won the Cold War against the commies through economics where they basically bankrupt the soviet - but it seems the lesson was forgotten by themselves in this Cold War II. The limit where America can manipulate the market (oil price manipulation of 2014) and the currency (Quantitative Easing since 2008) in the future will become very limited as the power shifts to China (with Silk Road Initiatives, AIIB) which in turn will limit America from doing whatever they want as nations slowly move away from trading in american currency (especially the BRICS and emergent economies) which will further push American economy in downward spiral (as nobody wants to prop up the american economy).

A Cold Peace is more like it than say a Cold War II.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I highly doubt US can afford even 12 Ford class CVNs
The US will maintain an 11 aircraft carrier force for the forseeable future. This will be a mix of Nimitz class and Ford class.

You may doubt this...but you will leave to see it for most of your life.

Will it ultimately revert over to all 11 being Ford? Who knows? That's far enough in the future if it were to happen, that I will no longer be alive...and you will most likely be an old man.

there was quite a damning report by GAO last year about the cost of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
which is now going at $12.9 billion AND STILL RISING.
In the US press, there are ALWAYS damning reports. Most of the press is very liberal and progressive and constantly hounding for less military spending.

The Ford class are an all new design, using new technologies of many critical functions (new nuclear reactors, new electromagnetic catapults, new arrestor system, new radar, new all electric system, etc., etc.

So yes, they cost a lot...particularly the initial building costs of the first 2-3 carriers.

But they also require 1,000 less personnel to operate, over time they will actually be cheaper than the Nimitz class to operate and own. It's called total cost of ownership. Most of those reports will ignore such facts.

The Ford's are going to be built and they will replace the Nimitz class over time.

Ultra said:
That, along with a string of expensive duds that Pentagon has been splurging on for the past decade like the SBX, ABL, KEI, and MKV programmes will most likely force the congress in the future to further limit its spending.
Same story. I saw the same report and debunked it.

The US invesed in numerous missile defense programs and they did cost...but what a=has the result been?

The US has deployed numerous ballistic missile defense systems that are in service now that benefited from all of those programs.

The interceptors in Alaska and California. AEGIS BMD at sea and on land. THAADS.

Partner nations and allies are having AEGIS deployed, Japan is using it on its own ships. Other nations are going to buy THAADS.

As I said...the naysayers and liberal/progressives are many. But the fact is that the US is the best ballistic missile defense systems in the world and they are deployed and working...and there have been literally scores of successful, live fire tests. This did not happen in avaccuum...it happened precisely because of the investment of the types of programs the left likes to deride.
 
Last edited:

Ultra

Junior Member
The US will maintain an 11 aircraft carrier force for the forseeable future. This will be a mix of Nimitz class and Ford class.

You may doubt this...but you will leave to see it for most of your life.

Will it ultimately revert over to all 11 being Ford? Who knows? That's far enough in the future if it were to happen, that I will no longer be alive...and you will most likely be an old man.


I guess we will just have to wait and see won't we? ;)
Like I said, I highly doubt US will have all 11 carriers to be Ford Class - IMHO they may build 2-3 Ford Class, and then decided to extend the life of Nimitz class, and/or at the same time build more cheaper alternatives like the LHDs.


In the US press, there are ALWAYS damning reports. Most of the press is very liberal and progressive and constantly hounding for less military spending.


This report is not by the US press - this is by the GAO -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
! The cost overruns is real, not made up strawmans by the liberals to attack the defence spending.



The Ford class are an all new design, using new technologies of many critical functions (new nuclear reactors, new electromagnetic catapults, new arrestor system, new radar, new all electric system, etc., etc.

So yes, they cost a lot...particularly the initial building costs of the first 2-3 carriers.

But they also require 1,000 less personnel to operate, over time they will actually be cheaper than the Nimitz class to operate and own. It's called total cost of ownership. Most of those reports will ignore such facts.

The Ford's are going to be built and they will replace the Nimitz class over time.

Same story. I saw the same report and debunked it.

The US invesed in numerous missile defense programs and they did cost...but what a=has the result been?

The US has deployed numerous ballistic missile defense systems that are in service now that benefited from all of those programs.

The interceptors in Alaska and California. AEGIS BMD at sea and on land. THAADS.

Partner nations and allies are having AEGIS deployed, Japan is using it on its own ships. Other nations are going to buy THAADS.

As I said...the naysayers and liberal/progressives are many. But the fact is that the US is the best ballistic missile defense systems in the world and they are deployed and working...and there have been literally scores of successful, live fire tests. This did not happen in avaccuum...it happened precisely because of the investment of the types of programs the left likes to deride.

Yes, its ALLLLLL NEW ! But at 3x to 4x times the cost of Nimitz class it is going to replace?! Even total ownership cost is factor in, I don't think it is cost effective enough for USN to buy a lot of them. Let's put it this way, would you buy a shiny new electric car that cost the same as a Ferrari compare to a normal car?

There is already a precedent (and a striking parallel) in the past few years to indicate the current acquisition thinking of the naval planners - The USN has already started to chop a lot of its programs for the past few years - it originally wanted to build 32 (ALL NEW! shiny eletric) Zumwalt-class destroyers to replace the old Burkes (as it was originally envisioned) - but after huge cost overruns and various problem and capability deficiencies (not able to / limited air defence role) eventually the USN axed most of it - now they are just building three!! The Zumwalt-class will have a price tag of $7 billion a piece - which just happend to be 3x to 4x the cost (3.798 times to be precise) of Arleigh Burke-class destroyer ($1.843 billion a piece)!! The parallel is just too striking to ignore.

Like I say, I think they will most likely build 3 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, then axe the rest and extend the life of Nimitz and/or build more LHDs to fill the gap.
 
good news:
Tomahawk Cruise Missile Hits Moving Ship Target
The Navy is moving closer to having a sea-launched, anti-ship cruise missile able to change course in flight and hit moving ship targets from distances up to 1,000 miles, according to two recent Tomahawk Block IV tests at China Lake, California.

“The USS Kidd, one of our guided missile destroyers, launched a Tomahawk missile that changed course mid-flight and struck a moving ship after being queued by an aircraft,” Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said in a recent speech at the U.S. Naval Institute. “Now, this is potentially game-changing capability for not a lot of cost. It’s a 1,000 mile anti-ship cruise missile. It can be used from practically our entire surface and submarine fleet.


The two tests, which involved firing Tomahawk Block IV missiles against land and sea targets, were conducted by the Navy and Raytheon at Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, Calif., in January of this year.

During the first test, a Tomahawk missile fired from the USS Kidd, a guided missile destroyer, and received real-time target information relayed from a surveillance aircraft to a weapons station at China Lake. Updated target information was related to the Tomahawk in flight before the missile then maneuvered and changed course from a pre-planned mission toward a new target, striking a moving ship on the water.

“This demonstration is the first step toward evolving Tomahawk with improved network capability and extends its reach from fixed and mobile to moving targets,” a statement from Raytheon said.

In the second test, the USS Kidd launched another Tomahawk Block IV missile on a “call-for-fire” mission in support of shore-based Marines, Raytheon officials said.

“Using GPS navigational updates, the missile performed a vertical dive to impact on San Nicolas Island, scoring a direct hit on the target designated by the Marines. The test provided valuable data for the Marine Expeditionary Force to evaluate and evolve their call for fire capability,” the statement said.

Work cited these tests and Tomahawk modernization as an example of how the U.S. can retain its technological edge amid a fast-changing global technological landscape.

“What happens if we take another step and just make an advanced seeker on the Tomahawk rather than building a new missile? We believe if we make decisions like that, that we will be able to outturn potential adversaries and maintain our technological superiority,” Work added.

In fact, Raytheon officials explained that they are working on new passive and active seeker technology for the Tomahawk which would even better enable the weapon to discriminate between targets and destroy moving targets.

A passive seeker can receive an electromagnetic signal and follow it, whereas an active seeker has the ability to send out or ping an electronic signal and bounce it off potential targets.

Raytheon is planning additional testing for its new seeker system on the weapon, which would allow it to separate legitimate from false targets while on-the-move, Raytheon officials said.

After additional lab testing, ground testing and flight testing, an integrate suite consisting of an active seeker, passive seeker and high-speed processor is slated to be ready this year.

Overall, Raytheon has delivered more than 3,000 Tomahawk Block IV missiles to the Navy. The missiles are expected to complete a 30-year service life after being re-certified at the 15-year mark. The inventory of Block IV missiles are slated to go through a re-certification process in 2018 and 2019.

Tomahawks have been upgraded numerous times over their years of service. The Block IV Tomahawk, in service since 2004, includes a two-way data link for in-flight re-targeting, terrain navigation, digital scene-matching cameras and a high-grade inertial navigation system, Raytheon officials explained.

The weapon is also capable of performing battle damage assessment missions by relaying images through a data link as well, they said.

The re-certification process for Block IV Tomahawks will provide occasion to implement a series of high-tech upgrades to the missile platform which improve the weapon’s lethality, guidance and ability to find and destroy moving targets, Raytheon officials explained.

With this in mind, Raytheon has been conducting ongoing re-certification studies with the Navy to take up key questions regarding upgrades and new technologies for the platform.

Along these lines, the fiscal year 2015 budget added $150 million for a new Tomahawk missile navigation and communications suite in order to better enable the weapon to operate in anti-access/area-denial environments. The enhanced communications suite is slated to be ready by 2018 or 2019, Raytheon officials said.

Raytheon and the Navy are also developing a new payload for the weapon involving a more-penetrating warhead called the Joint Multiple Effects Warhead System, or JMEWS. Previously sponsored by U.S. Central Command, the JMEWS would give the Tomahawk better bunker buster type effects — meaning it could enable the weapon to better penetrate hardened structures like concrete.

Tomahawk missiles weigh 3,500 pounds with a booster and can travel at subsonic speeds up to 550 miles per hour at ranges greater than 900 nautical miles. They are just over 18-feet long and have an 8-foot, 9-inch wingspan.

The Navy is in the early stages of conducting an analysis of alternatives exploring options for a next-generation land attack weapon. It remains unclear whether they will use next-generation, upgraded Tomahawks to meet this requirement or chose to develop a new system.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I guess we will just have to wait and see won't we? ;)
Like I said, I highly doubt US will have all 11 carriers to be Ford Class - IMHO they may build 2-3 Ford Class, and then decided to extend the life of Nimitz class, and/or at the same time build more cheaper alternatives like the LHDs
Ultra, the US is not buying all of them at once, Ford class will be spaced out over a period of decades as older Nimitz reach there operational life cycle ends on a one to one basis. So by the time the #10 and #11 of the Ford come on like it will probably be between 2060 and 2080. Nimitz class carriers particularly later models will be in service of some time to come but there life span is set. The navy will retain and refit as needed but don't expect that to be a major life cycle expansion or cost savings. Carriers are a expensive proposition all around and nuclear more so. As to the cost overruns all major military projects have suffered from them these days. Lets face it. And Ford is a major break in critical systems from the 60 era Enterprise class and 70-80s era Nimitz class.
The last of the Nimitz the Uss George Bush and Uss Ronald Reagan are still very much new ships and will last through most of the 21st century. There replacements of the Ford class will not be needed until the very edge of the next century so save your gloating till 2099 or 2100.
 
Top