HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » U.S. Navy's New $13B Airc...

Mon Jul 25, 2016, 05:33 PM

 

U.S. Navy's New $13B Aircraft Carrier Can't Fight

(CNN)The $13-billion USS Gerald R. Ford is already two years behind schedule, and the U.S. Navy's newest aircraft carrier is facing more delays after the Pentagon's top weapons tester concluded the ship is still not ready for combat despite expectations it would be delivered to the fleet this September.

According to a June 28 memo obtained by CNN, Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department's director of operational test and evaluation, said the most expensive warship in history continues to struggle launching and recovering aircraft, moving onboard munitions, conducting air traffic control and with ship self-defense.

"These four systems affect major areas of flight operations," Gilmore wrote in his report to Pentagon and Navy weapons buyers Frank Kendall and Sean Stackley. "Unless these issues are resolved ... they will significantly limit CVN-78's ability to conduct combat operations."

Fixing these problems would likely require redesigning the carrier's aircraft launch and recovery systems, according to Gilmore, a process that could result in another delay for a ship that was expected to join the fleet in September 2014.

MORE....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/uss-gerald-r-ford-aircraft-carrier-delay/index.html

14 replies, 3182 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Jul 25, 2016, 05:35 PM

1. For starters, I'd change the name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 25, 2016, 05:39 PM

3. Well, based upon the carrier's inability to do much of anything, the name is just about correct.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4lbs (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 25, 2016, 05:46 PM

4. Exactly! Seems to me though that we'd like it to do SOMETHING. My vote?

CVN-78: USS John Glenn

(currently all he has named after him is an "Expeditionary Transfer Dock". I think he deserves better...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4lbs (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 25, 2016, 05:57 PM

5. Yeah, I'm surprised the ship hasn't collapsed in a heap

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 25, 2016, 08:42 PM

7. Why do they name carriers after presidents?

 

This seems like such a terrible idea, it'll be the butt of many jokes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ansible (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 26, 2016, 10:54 AM

13. That started with the USS John Kennedy..

 

Last edited Wed Jul 27, 2016, 08:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Now, the US Navy had a problem after WWII, the Russians had no navy and given the geography that Russia controlled, the use of a conventional Navy was marginal. Russia is mostly surrounded by Ice (the Arctic Ocean to its north), or Mountains (India, Persia and even Turkey are separated from Russian by mountains. China and Germany bordered Russian Controlled territory in 1945, but huge areas separated the nearest Ocean to those borders. Thus any war with Russia in 1945, the Navy would have been a marginal help at best. This was known by May 22, 1945 when the USS Coral Sea, not yet Commissioned, had its name changed to the USS Franklin D, Roosevelt. The USS Franklin D, Roosevelt had been one of three "Super Carriers" of the Midway Class, but would NOT enter service till September 1945. The Navy feared that like the last two Iowa class Battleship (and the Montana Class Battleship) it would be cancelled. By May 1945 the Japanese Fleet was either sunk or had no fuel so the Essex Class of Carriers were more then enough to control the seas after 1945. The British and French Fleets were nothing more then junior partners of the US Navy by 1945, and the Russians had no fleet, thus there were no real NAVAL THREATS by May 1945.

Given that situation, the US Navy FEARED the Super-carriers of the Midway Class would be cancelled as unneeded. Changing the name of the Coral Sea to the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt was one way of saving the Carriers (And the Navy and Air Force were already in their fight over who should NOT be cut in post WWII spending, it was clear by 1945 it was Aircraft Carriers vs the Super bombers of the B-29 and B-36 type and the Navy was doing all it could to win that fight. Thus when FDR died, the Navy had a Carrier named after him so Congress would keep up the funding for all three Midway Class Carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway-class_aircraft_carrier

During the Korean war the Carriers proved they could still be a factor in post WWII Combat by providing Air Cover in Korea, this renewed interests in Carriers lead to the Forestall Class (named after the First Secretary of Defense), and Kitty Hawk (Named after the first flight by the Wright Brothers). All but the lead ship of both classes were named after WWII era Carriers (WWII Era carriers were mostly named, there were exceptions to this rule, such as the USS Antiem, after Battles of the American Revolution for the First US Carriers had been two hauls laid down post WWI and intended as Battle Cruisers that as such named after the Battle of Lexington and Saratoga).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)

The first Nuclear Carrier, the USS Enterprise was named after a Pre WWII Carrier of the same name, which in turn was named after the Warship used by American Forces in 1775 to 1777 to control Lake Champlain and prevented any invasion from Canada till 1778 which ended in disaster for the British at Saratoga. Thus the first two custom built US Carriers from the haul up, the USS Yorktown and USS Enterprise continued the tradition of naming carriers after Battles of the American Revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(1775)

The USS John F. Kennedy was laid down on October 22, 1964. It was to be the second nuclear carrier of the US, but before the haul was completed it was built with conventional propulsion instead (and thus became the last conventional powered full size Aircraft Carrier).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CV-67)

Johnson and Nixon did not get any Carriers named after them, but when Eisenhower died in 1969, Nixon arranged for the second Nimitz class Carrier to be named after Eisenhower. The Nimitz itself was named after a famous WWII Admiral. The third Nimitz class Carrier was named after Carl Vinson a long term congressman from Georgia who had been a major supporter of expanding the Navy from WWI till his retirement from Congress in 1965.

The next three Carriers were named after three President, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. These were non controversial names and thus easy for Congress to agree to. This was doing a time period when there was a move to cut out the super carriers, so famous presidents were seen as a way to reduce opposition, who would vote against Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington today?

The next Carrier was named after John Stennis, right after he died after serving 41 years in the US Senate (again more a call for support by his fellow Senators then anything else).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Stennis

The GOP by the early 1990s wanted to name everything after Ronald Reagan and thus wanted the next Carrier to be named after Reagan. This was objected to for Reagan was still alive and every President who had died since WWII had had a ship named after then EXCEPT Nixon and Truman. No one wanted to push for a USS Richard M. Nixon but to clear the way for Reagan, the next carrier was named after Truman. This was followed by the USS George H.W. Bush (a Nuclear Sub was named after Carter for he had been a Nuclear Sub Officer in the 1950s and 1960s).

Yes, the move started as a move by the Navy to save its Carriers as WWII ended with the USS FDR and then renewed after JFK was assassinated (There was a push to go to smaller carriers at that time period on the grounds you could built two Essex Class Carriers for the Cost of the First Nuclear Carrier AND at times two Carriers are better then one large Carrier for the two Carriers can be at two different points at the same time, thus again the Super Carrier were under attack as to expensive).

After the USS JFK, there was no real push for naming Carriers after Presidents till Reagan was President and his push for a larger navy (Thus the push for the the USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Abraham Lincoln and USS George Washington). Who would vote against something honoring those three Presidents? From that point naming Carriers after more recent President was a short jump once Carriers had been named after long term Congressmen such as Stennis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier

Just a comment the move to naming Carriers had more to do with getting Congress to vote to Fund the Super Carriers then anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 25, 2016, 10:50 PM

9. If it can't do anything, re-name it the USS Congress.

or the USS Republican Party....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #9)

Tue Jul 26, 2016, 10:57 AM

14. Which one, the last one

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Congress

USS Congress (1776), was a galley built on Lake Champlain, which served as flagship in the Battle of Valcour Island
USS Congress (1777), was a 28-gun frigate built under authority of an act of the Second Continental Congress dated 13 December 1775
USS Congress (1799), was a 38-gun sailing frigate launched in 1799 and in service periodically until she was broken up in 1834
USS Congress (1841), was a 52-gun frigate launched in 1841 and destroyed by the ironclad CSS Virginia in 1862
USS Congress (1868), was a screw sloop in commission from 1870 to 1876
USS Congress (ID-3698), was a patrol vessel in commission from 1918 to 1919

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Jul 25, 2016, 05:35 PM

2. it's primary mission is accomplished - a corporate attack on the US treasury nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 25, 2016, 09:28 PM

8. + infinity.

 





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mika (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 25, 2016, 11:14 PM

10. Along with recurring costs for updates and repairs to the initial installations which don't work now

and which require extensive redesign, instigating phases 2 through 7 of cost over-runs through fiscal year 2025. These costs are noted in appendixes J through R in your serial cost over-run and price inflation guide: XFM-CVN-78 (series IV).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Jul 25, 2016, 05:59 PM

6. Today's lesson in Idiocracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Jul 26, 2016, 07:31 AM

11. Think of all the free education that PoS could have paid for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 26, 2016, 08:36 AM

12. BUT WE CAN'T AFFORD FREE EDUCATION!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread