Related to Battleship reactivation.....

[rickusn]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o.../jul/index.htm

New Aircraft Carrier Comes With Obsolete Parts
The Navy is almost three years away from introducing the USS George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier to the fleet, but many of the parts and subsystems used aboard the ship already are out of production, said Rear Adm. Dennis Dwyer, program executive officer for aircraft carriers. The ship, known as the CVN-77, is the last of the Nimitz-class.

“I can’t make a Nimitz any more … Most of the equipment on a Nimitz is obsolete,” Dwyer told reporters. “That’s one of the tyrannies of building combat ships. They don’t have a large market for some of the things we use. A lot of the infrastructure of the Nimitz class is not made anymore.”

CVN-77, once delivered in 2008, is expected to be in service for at least five decades. “We’re going to be fighting [the obsolescence problem] the whole 50 years,” said Dwyer. To prevent this from happening to the next class of carriers, the CVN-21, the Navy will incorporate as much commercial technology as possible.



.

[Bill]

Which is proof that obsolete parts can be made for an acceptable price.

[rickusn]

"acceptable price"

Thats a relative term for the government. LOL

But in all seriousness they wont be making more obsolete parts or subsystems because:

1) They have limited existing stocks scattered throughout the naval supply system.

2) Cannabilization will be the order of the day.

3) Broken parts will be fixed where possible instead of disposed of (not cheap).

4) Alternatively expensive alterations will be made to replace and eliminate obsolete parts or entire subsystems with off-the-shelf solutions. You will see this gain momentum starting with the Vinson RCOH beginning late this year.

Reasonable or "acceptable" maybe but all very costly in time, treasure, training, DC issues and human resources.

Been there. Done that.

With 10 of the class there may be some efficiencys .

But take a look at the money poured into Enterprise and Kennedy(belatedly and also very closely tied to the USN decision to decommission her. However Congress is coming up with funds for the short term anyway) to see the issue in its proper perspective.

The BB's have these issues as regards every sq. inch of them not just "some" or even as little as "a lot".

Im not saying it cant be done.

Just being realistic in that it will take far more money, time and other resources than anyone contemplates.

Not unusual for most if not all government or military programs.

But as regards the battleships I have one last comment for USNFSA and other battleship reactivation proponents just "Gitter done". LOL

For me the more money spent on ANY USN program the better. LOL

If it hurts USAF or USA or even certain USMC programs I detest so much the better. LOL

Proof of course is in the "pudding" not thin air. LOL

[Bill]

According to Stuart over at David Newtons, the Nimitz is not a class, but rather several 1 ship classes.

If you look at just how different each of them really is from the one before it, he's probably right.

And personally, i see this article as proof that a ship with obsolete systems can be supported.

With modern CNC/CAD technology 1 off custom pieces are cheaper and more practical than they've ever been before(whether we're talking ships, cars, planes, whatever)- though still not cheap.

[rickusn]

Indeed there are many differences. Seeing as the Nimitz was commissioned in 1975 and the last?? in 2008. They have though went to many pains to try and minimize this but its always a game of catch-up.

Shipbuilding aint like manufacturing land vehicles or aircraft nor is keeping them in operation. Its a matter of scale.

You have differences not only between individual units built at a specific shipyard but between different shipyards in general.

The Burkes have many differences. Even though modular techniques are used.

Its one of the reasons crew-swapping is a difficult undertaking. Again the USN is going to great pains to minimize the individual differences.

The Spruance class too had many differences.

In fact the submarines I was on were different from unit to unit.


But they have to be enough alike to be supportable by the USN's Supply and Logistics systems and existing ships of a class are.

The battleships are not now so supported.

A vast difference between CAT B and being operational.

In shipbuilding CAD technology has been less than a panacea.

I saw a post or article by a guy in the biz he says now that design is done by people with no practical shipbuilding experience the designs come out of the office and they turn them over and sketch out how it has to be on the back.

The only exception is in the nuclear power infrastructure as I understand it. And that was long ago institutionalized by Rickover.

It was quite fascinating and informative. Unless of course you already know it all.

If I can find that discussion Ill post it.

Ill already posted the problems with custom pieces in addition to the sheer logistics of it. Which of course drives up costs even further. Again I refer you back to the Enterprise and JFK.

Ill have to disagree with Stuart though that EACH Nimitz could be considered a separate class. The devil is in the details not the basics.

Stuart knows it all though. So I quess thats that. LOL

And like I said with enough funding anything is possible. But not necessarilly easy. LOL

No need to convince me just those that control the purse strings.

They did it with the Enterprise and are doing it with JFK so the battleships shouldnt be a problem.

But then neither is scaling to the summit of Mt. Everest for any mountain climber. LOL

[Bill]

Nothing worth doing is ever easy, right?

Hehehe.

[HMS-Dreadnought]

According to Stuart over at David Newtons, the Nimitz is not a class, but rather several 1 ship classes.

If you look at just how different each of them really is from the one before it, he's probably right.

And personally, i see this article as proof that a ship with obsolete systems can be supported.

With modern CNC/CAD technology 1 off custom pieces are cheaper and more practical than they've ever been before(whether we're talking ships, cars, planes, whatever)- though still not cheap.

Well they are baced on a 1960's design. Each ship has been almost custom built,
taylored to the time at witch it was constructed.

I'm sure British carriers would have taken that step up in size at the time, if not for political changes,..

Our carriers got drasticly smaller,... infact, for politcal reasions, the 'Invincible' Class weren't even classed as Carriers at the time of conception.

They were actualy "Thru Deck Crusers",..
However, people use to call them "See Thru Crusers", because it was obvios what they really were.


These new Carriers of 60,000 tons, will infact be about as large as the ships we were planing to build after the old more capable 'Ark Royal' was scraped,..

But they were canceled... and the smaller HMS-hermes, and the present 'invinsible' class is what we have now.

It's allmost as if we are starting agian where we left off,..
The British Govenment finaly realizing how valuble a capable navy/Carrier is to our Ilands prosperity.

A fact that had been known for hundreds of years,
yet had no longer been aprecated in the seconed half of the 20'th century.

[Hawg166]

Jackie Fischer once said "Fear God and Dreadnought". I bet that the Sea Lords wish they had a small fleet of them today as a hedge around England. Unfortunately I think that England lost that precious artisan base that builds ships that they had for so many generations.