How fast could the US build a carrier?

**Gun Boat** · 25 Feb 11,, 08:23

With all the debate over China's ability to sink a US carrier I was wondering if anybody knows how fast US could build one.

If war was declared tomorrow how fast could the Gerald R Ford be completed and another built? Are there other facilties in the states that could be used to build a Gerald R Ford in times of need?

It seems that the build time currently sits at around 6 to 7 years.

Thanks in advance.

**zraver** · 25 Feb 11,, 15:15

Originally Posted by Gun Boat

With all the debate over China's ability to sink a US carrier I was wondering if anybody knows how fast US could build one.

If war was declared tomorrow how fast could the Gerald R Ford be completed and another built? Are there other facilties in the states that could be used to build a Gerald R Ford in times of need?

It seems that the build time currently sits at around 6 to 7 years.

Thanks in advance.

In WWII the US could push out an Essex in 1.5 years and have it in service after another 6 months of shakedowns. Modern carriers are much more complex, but things like CAD and automation speed things up. Figure 3 years from start to finish if complete plans exist and its a national emergancy.

**T_igger_cs_30** · 25 Feb 11,, 15:16

Originally Posted by zraver

In WWII the US could push out an Essex in 1.5 years and have it in service after another 6 months of shakedowns. Modern carriers are much more complex, but things like CAD and automation speed things up. Figure 3 years from start to finish if complete plans exist and its a national emergancy.

Given the size of US carriers, that would be amazing Z.

**zraver** · 25 Feb 11,, 15:49

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

Given the size of US carriers, that would be amazing Z.

Not during a national emergancy. The largest ships ever built although much less complex internally only took a year and a half to build (Batiluss class super tankers). With multi-site prefab, CAD assited engineering, and the extnesive history the yard has with the Nimitiz class carrier 3 years would be fast but not immpossible.

**USSWisconsin** · 25 Feb 11,, 16:00

but the Essex didnt have nuclear propulsion, I am concerned that this part might take more than a couple years, my guess is 3-4 years min

**zraver** · 25 Feb 11,, 16:19

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

but the Essex didnt have nuclear propulsion, I am concerned that this part might take more than a couple years, my guess is 3-4 years min

I had to do some digging, but before Union mandated lets build this slow to preserve jobs- nuke reactors don't really slow down construction. The USS Los Angeles SSN-688 was laid down in Jan 72 and was commissioned and inservice by April 74. The USS Enterprise CVN-65 was laid down Feb 58 and launched Sep 60.

It doesn't seem that the reactor is a bottleneck. The slowdown seems to be a balance of preserving jobs, fleet capabilties and skill bases with deliberate slow downs so the navy is in a constant state of semi upgrade instead of boom-bust cycles.

**Dreadnought** · 25 Feb 11,, 19:28

IMO, There is NO country in the world that builds a CVN anywhere even close to being on par with the US. Im pretty sure they could build one in a hurry if need be but they could also recom almost any of the ones they have in storage which would still dwarf any Navy on the planet with just those reserves. The Gerald R Ford is not such a good example considering the newest systems she will bring to the table. These systems take time and I pretty much agree with Z. About three years but if they were that badly needed I would say even less working around the clock. China can say they can sink a US CVN and it could be possible, doubtful but possible its not like the USN is going to give them free shots before taking any themselves. The problem is they stand to loose alot more then just their Navy or other war making industry or services. Consider the amount of US debt China holds and would loose on top of material assets alone. Consider how many NATO countries would deny China many things in protest. IMO, a fools errand to even chance it. Everything else is just flame boy politics and saber rattling.

**USSWisconsin** · 25 Feb 11,, 22:16

Originally Posted by zraver

I had to do some digging, but before Union mandated lets build this slow to preserve jobs- nuke reactors don't really slow down construction. The USS Los Angeles SSN-688 was laid down in Jan 72 and was commissioned and inservice by April 74. The USS Enterprise CVN-65 was laid down Feb 58 and launched Sep 60.

It doesn't seem that the reactor is a bottleneck. The slowdown seems to be a balance of preserving jobs, fleet capabilties and skill bases with deliberate slow downs so the navy is in a constant state of semi upgrade instead of boom-bust cycles.

I see, I'll accept your figures, 2.5 years is pretty quick, I wonder if they had longer lead times on the powerplants, but the US could probably get it done if anyone could.

**Chunder** · 26 Feb 11,, 01:16

Originally Posted by zraver

I had to do some digging, but before Union mandated lets build this slow to preserve jobs- nuke reactors don't really slow down construction. The USS Los Angeles SSN-688 was laid down in Jan 72 and was commissioned and inservice by April 74. The USS Enterprise CVN-65 was laid down Feb 58 and launched Sep 60.

It doesn't seem that the reactor is a bottleneck. The slowdown seems to be a balance of preserving jobs, fleet capabilties and skill bases with deliberate slow downs so the navy is in a constant state of semi upgrade instead of boom-bust cycles.

Z - the Ford is a first of class type. You push out or rush long lead items then you get San Antonio type problems...

**Stitch** · 26 Feb 11,, 01:58

Originally Posted by Chunder

Z - the Ford is a first of class type. You push out or rush long lead items then you get San Antonio type problems...

Actually, so were the ships Z mentioned; but I agree with you. There are several technologies being built into the Ford-class ships (the EMALS being the big one) making me think it's going to take more than a few years to get all of the new parts to work well together (assuming they ever do).

**zraver** · 26 Feb 11,, 02:09

Originally Posted by Chunder

Z - the Ford is a first of class type. You push out or rush long lead items then you get San Antonio type problems...

Its not a new technology though, its an evolutionary step up. There are new technologies, but the design is solid.

**Bill** · 26 Feb 11,, 02:16

I seriously doubt the trained manpower could be found to vastly decrease build times. I think you'd have to first spend months increasing the work force and support facilities for that force.

**Stitch** · 26 Feb 11,, 02:17

Originally Posted by zraver

Its not a new technology though, its an evolutionary step up. There are new technologies, but the design is solid.

More or less true; the Gerald R. Ford-class is basically a Nimitz-class with newer technologies installed. Probably the biggest change is the newer ship's increasing utilization of elctricity, as opposed to steam or hydraulic machinery; theoretically, this also makes the ship more flexible and upgradable for future technologies that come along.

**Gun Boat** · 26 Feb 11,, 04:54

There would have to be a huge amount of slack that could be taken up I would think. Relaxing some of the OHS rules that have found there way into construction would help out alot. I know in Australia some of those rules are pretty stupid and really inhibit production.

Would there be a lot of private firms that could help prefab sections?

I think having to finish off the Gerald R Ford would greatly assist in the training of an expanded work force.

IMO, There is NO country in the world that builds a CVN anywhere even close to being on par with the US.

Love America, hate America - no one could argue against that.

I seriously doubt the trained manpower could be found to vastly decrease build times. I think you'd have to first spend months increasing the work force and support facilities for that force.

I would have thought there would be a large component of the private sector work force that could easily be utilised in a carrier construction? We hear that alot of manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US, surely those that lost their jobs could be put to use?

If a Gerald R Ford could be built in 3 years would there be a problem providing an airwing for it in that time?

**Dago** · 26 Feb 11,, 05:01

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

I see, I'll accept your figures, 2.5 years is pretty quick, I wonder if they had longer lead times on the powerplants, but the US could probably get it done if anyone could.

The thing is, how can you compartment size it, like modulate different phases, and run serial production. With regards to nuclear power plants, instead of building one, you serial produce it, and build many. I am sure, building a plant, would take time. But maximize it with different production teams, and professionals, and maximize throughput. So you would have different plants come out at different locations around the same amount of time.

As far, you really can't run serial, by laying the keel. That takes a drydock. There is only so many that can handle that, maybe two right? So that would be the bottleneck.