Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVN-78 Gerald W Ford

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • We need to stir debate according to the article.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/22/politi...ers/index.html

    (CNN)With an aging air fleet and a shrinking Navy working overtime around the globe, US military officials say the world's most powerful fighting force is at an "inflection point" and needs a serious makeover if it wants to maintain that status now and into the future.

    But to balance the immediate need for more planes and ships while also investing in future technology to keep the US ahead of rising rivals like China and Russia, the Pentagon needs to make some "hard decisions" and cut some of its most expensive weapons programs, according to a new report from the Center for a New American Security.

    The first move of a new presidential administration will not be to "cancel any of these programs but we've shown it is possible to make significant changes in short time," said Jerry Hendrix, one of the report's authors and a senior fellow at the Washington-based think tank.

    "We want to stir the debate." he added.

    The proposal was first reported by The Washington Post.

    Most notably, the report calls for canceling the $40 billion Ford-class aircraft carrier program, halting construction of the littoral combat ship, and purchasing fewer F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

    Those funds would be reallocated for the stealthy B-21 bomber, adding 16 additional submarines, and investing in emerging technologies like high-energy lasers, the CNAS report recommends.

    The Department of Defense outlined the groundwork of a spending plan in its $583 billion 2017 budget proposal submitted in February, but CNAS experts Hendrix, Paul Scharre and Elbridge Colby say their plan would help the Pentagon rebalance its investment priorities for the next decade.

    CNAS is an independent and bipartisan organization that provides research and analysis to "shape and elevate" the national security and foreign policy debate.

    Working under a hypothetical budget that implements a 2 percent increase over the DOD's 2017 budget, the report lays out a plan to grow the Navy to 345 ships from 272 over a 10-year period and provide 185 additional aircraft to the Air Force by investing in what Hendrix called, a "high-low mix" of technology. The DOD's 2017 budget request totaled less than a 1 percent increase over 2016 spending levels.

    The report's authors said purchasing a combination of high-tech systems along with cheaper, lower-tech options would allow the Pentagon to increase the size of its force and permit the US to invest in equipment to handle emerging threats.

    "There is a point where quantity does have a quality," Hendrix told CNN, adding that it is easier to maintain a presence around the world with higher numbers of ships and planes.

    For example, rather than buying two F-35s, the CNAS report suggests purchasing one F-35 and two older F-16s or F-18s.

    "It's about applying the right type of force to right combat situation," Hendrix told CNN. "You don't have to be all high end to manage national security issues."

    Despite cutting the Ford-class carrier program after only two of the four planned ships are complete, the three think-tank experts said their plan will ensure that the US still has 10 aircraft carriers by the end of the decade due to their 35-year lifespan, but that the carriers would take on new functions, acting as prepositioned operating bases around the world.

    Investing in the airwing gives aircraft carriers utility going forward, Hendrix said, noting that long-range strike aircraft would allow the carriers to sit out of range of Russian and Chinese anti-ship missiles.

    The money saved by cutting the additional carriers could also allow the Pentagon to counter China and Russia's anti-ship and anti-air defense systems by bolstering the US submarine fleet and developing unmanned systems and undersea technology.

    Asked for comment on the CNAS report, the Pentagon said only, "Our strategy is laid out in the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2017."
    Last edited by tbm3fan; 22 Oct 16,, 18:58.

    Comment


    • Question: would the USN even get the recruits to man such an increase, specially considering the increase in the need of technically proficient sailors?

      Comment


      • There is next to no way that the Ford program would be truncated at only two ships, as we have already spent good money on CVN 80 Enterprise. With large amounts of American Fossil fuels discovered during the past decade a class of conventional powered 70,000 ton carriers that can make 30 knots may make more sense for the bulk of the Nimitz Class replacement ships.
        The US will not be buying anymore F-16's. One can not possibly buy two Super Hornets to the price of a Lightning. That is pie in the sky BS!
        For the money saved of buying conventional carriers we should be able to buy most of the needed SSN's.

        Comment


        • How much of an increase in the number of oilers do you think a return to a conventionally powered would require? Also would it impact the rate of sorties if the carriers had less jp onboard due to having to carry more fuel for the engines?

          Comment


          • Buying oilers costs a lot less than cutting up decommissioned nukes (see Enterprise [even if she may be a bad example; due to being a one off]).
            A modern 70-80,000 electric drive carrier powered by gas turbines and diesels will most likely be more efficient than our old steam powered carriers.
            Plus we still would have some nuke carriers for the high tempo operations.
            The biggest obstacle to the mix of conventional and nuclear carrier option is maintaining the skill set to fabricate and maintain nuclear carriers without escalating the nuke costs even higher per unit.
            Last edited by surfgun; 23 Oct 16,, 00:46.

            Comment


            • The AAG progresses;
              https://news.usni.org/2016/11/02/nav...-shows-promise

              Comment


              • Keep your fingers crossed, but Ford has been scheduled for an April 2017 delivery.
                http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/n...april-finally/

                Comment


                • Just don't go through the Panama Canal. I understand it is murder on Navy hulls.

                  Comment


                  • Haze gray and underway.

                    https://www.navytimes.com/articles/a...o-begin-trials

                    Comment


                    • A video of her under power, but only puttering down the James.
                      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hzYPiiQRrtw

                      Comment


                      • So I missed this if it has already been discussed on this thread so forgive me.

                        The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) sounds pretty slick. Does that mean that aircraft have to have their landing gear modified to use it, only certain aircraft or its agnostic?

                        Thanks
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • The landing gear is hooked up to a shoe sliding in the catapult, same as with a steam catapult. It just has a different, more constant, acceleration curve.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by kato View Post
                            The landing gear is hooked up to a shoe sliding in the catapult, same as with a steam catapult. It just has a different, more constant, acceleration curve.
                            More adjustable, but maybe not more constant.

                            Linear motors suffer cogging forces when transitioning from one magnetic section to another across the gaps between sections. Cogging forces are nonlinear distortions in the linear thrust. There are means of reducing the effects (in the physical geometry and also in the control software), but I suspect what remains may be nontrivial.
                            .
                            .
                            .

                            Comment


                            • The rudders apparently work.

                              https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...0d&oe=59508496

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                                We need to stir debate according to the article.

                                http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/22/politi...ers/index.html
                                Simply by observing China and India's efforts to get into the carrier business it's pretty obvious that they're not easy. Simply by having 10+ of the planet's biggest and best carriers gives the US and enormous advantage in a conflict. The only scenario where I could see the carrier rendered obsolete is if the US was to fight the US. I believe China probably has the strongest airforce that the US may find itself in conflict with. I doubt all those land based aircraft could overcome 3-4 US carries sitting off the coast of China. So just the US naval air arm could potentially deal with any other nations airforce. I'd keep em.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X