US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, but when the new Ford class is 3~4 times more expensive than the Nimitz class it replace - I am pretty sure USN planners will start decreasing number of carriers for the operational requirement in the next few decades - the USN may eventually reduce the carrier fleet down to 5 or less. It is very similar to the F-22 - which was originally meant to replace the F-15, but due to the exorbitant cost compare to the original F-15 - the Pentagon decided to only purchase 183 compare to the original 750!

My point is that - there is a trend in the US war planner's operational thinking that they need quality not quantity, and are willing to spend a lot more on acquiring expensive but top assets in far smaller number than before.

Here's an interesting article about how US should built larger submarines to replace the carriers which doesn't make sense because they're both different in a lot of ways. Anyway, I let you gentlemen decide what you think.

Ultra said:

...
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).

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

...
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.
...
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.

Click to expand...

These are valid points that do go hand in hand:
- The end products of US military expenditures are absolutely effective and leads the world in a class of its own but they are costly.
- The US has been able to afford these expenditures first because of its economic base which was supercharged with international collaboration, second because of its co-ordinated foreign and defense policies which provides additional funding, R&D, and usage of its military unilaterally and through alliances overall successfully.

While the US had seriously lost credibility internationally with ongoing economic policies since the financial crisis, and may have also done so with its military interventions in Iraq and Libya, it maintains plenty of capacity to preserve and even further its significant military superiority over the rest of the world.

In terms of the Cold War, the USSR really lost it due to poor economic performance, lackluster international collaboration, and spending beyond its means without sufficient success in foreign military affairs. The US does face these same risks in the long term and so far economic developments have taken a wrong turn but military and political developments will continue in its favor, and most importantly the US has ample influence to change the course of developments through its own actions.

PanAsian said:

I think a Hot Peace best characterizes these times, pun intended.

Click to expand...

**Off Topic**

As I said back in another thread. At least when we had the real Cold War 1950’s through early 1990’s, you knew who your friend were and who your enemies were.

Today’s Cold War II/Hot Peace/lukewarm Cold War/etc. it is very had to distinguish the players, your friends and your enemies. One thing that saddens me to no end is the fact that America has turned its back, or become aloof, to some if its closest allies. Believe it or not, there are many nations (talking 3rd world) that secretly look up to the USA and look to her for leadership and moral compass. Sadly the one remaining superpower is currently in short supply of those items. In this very dangerous world situation, this is not the time for Neville Chamberlain type of pointless negotiations and laughable diplomacy.

In general we are far from living in a world without ideological strife. Geopolitical competition and economic rivalry today are as dominant and (I would say more) dangerous as ever before. The USA continues in position as the leading economic and military power. Hopefully, she will lead the world nations in the battle (economic and military) against militants, extremists and nation controlling drug cartels.

Please I mean no offence to wonderful nation of America. This is just an observation.

**On Topic**


Back to bottling my Grenache

You need to adjust your numbers a bit, the current dollar cost of the USS Nimitz would be close to 9 billion USD. So the Ford class with a number of new technologies that are made to reduce overall operating costs by 4 billion USD over a 50 year life, generate 25% more sorties, and reduce the number of US lives on the line is a bargain.

Ultra said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are of course free to think whatever you want.

Time will tell.

But having worked in the industry and also been in program lead positions on various large military projects, I believe the US will maintain a fleet of 11 carriers for the foreseeable future. Slice and dice that however you wish.

As to the GAO...of course they are reporting on it. But in US politics, the GAO has also, for the last several decades, been a tool of politics that cuts both ways.

The Harry Truman cost almost $5 billion in its day's dollar. The George Bush cost almost $6.5 billion, the last of the Nimitz class.

Both were mature designs that did not have to be burdened with R&D costs. So the multiple is not 3x to 4x or even close. And when you factor in the additional huge costs because of the 1st in class, it becomes even less so.

The Ford is cutting edge and there is a huge R&D cost. They are going to be expensive. Those initial costs always color the 1st (and in some cases depending on the level of advancement the 2nd and 3rd) in class.

But the Ford as a HUGE cost savings associated with it over its life. That being it requiring `1,000 fewer crew. That will recue its overall cost of ownership significantly and make them something the US wants.

You are not likely to see...in my remaining life time anyway...the US Navy shedding nuclear carriers for LHAs. A couple of air centric LHAs will be built...but to compliment the carriers, and allow the US Marines much more flexibility...,but not tot replace them,

CVNs are not going away anytime soon. They have a lifespan of 50-75 years! USS Ford is not even commissioned and I bet the last Captain of USS Ford is not even born yet!
The last Ford class ship whichever that may be will still be around past yr 2100 certainly longer than any of us will be on this rock .

kwaigonegin said:

CVNs are not going away anytime soon. They have a lifespan of 50-75 years! USS Ford is not even commissioned and I bet the last Captain of USS Ford is not even born yet!
The last Ford class ship whichever that may be will still be around past yr 2100 certainly longer than any of us will be on this rock .

Click to expand...

Hopefully by then we are building the next U.S.S Enterprise

Some good news for Pakistan and US deals

State department has approved sale of AH-1Z of 15 units and 1000 hellfire missiles

Wow the AZ-1Z is a deadly and most advanced helicopter and Pakistan is going to get it

ASHINGTON, Apr 6, 2015 – The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan for AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopters and AGM-114R Hellfire II Missiles and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $952 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale.
The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale of 15 AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopters, 32 T-700 GE 401C Engines (30 installed and 2 spares), 1000 AGM-114 R Hellfire II Missiles in containers, 36 H-1 Technical Refresh Mission computers, 17 AN/AAQ-30 Target Sight Systems, 30 629F-23 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency Communication Systems, 19 H-764 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems, 32 Helmet Mounted Display/Optimized Top Owl, 17 APX-117A Identification Friend or Foe, 17 AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems, 17 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure Dispenser Sets, 18 AN/APR-39C(V)2 Radar Warning Receivers, 15 Joint Mission Planning Systems, and 17 M197 20mm Gun Systems. Also included are system integration and testing, software development and integration, aircraft ferry, support equipment, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated cost is $952 million.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a country vital to U.S. foreign policy and national security goals in South Asia.

This proposed sale of helicopters and weapon systems will provide Pakistan with military capabilities in support of its counterterrorism and counter-insurgency operations in South Asia.

This proposed sale will provide Pakistan with a precision strike, enhanced survivability aircraft that it can operate at high-altitudes. By acquiring this capability, Pakistan will enhance its ability to conduct operations in North Waziristan Agency (NWA), the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and other remote and mountainous areas in all-weather, day-and-night environments. Pakistan will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractors will be Bell Helicopter, Textron in Fort Worth, Texas; General Electric in Lynn, Massachusetts; The Boeing Company in Huntsville, Alabama; and Lockheed Martin in Bethesda, Maryland. There are no known offset agreements proposed in conjunction with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips by U.S. Government and contractor representatives to participate in program and technical reviews, as well as training and maintenance support in country for a period of 66 months. It will also require three contractor representatives to reside in country for a period of three years to support this program.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, [email protected].