Here's what $13 Billion dollars gets u

[Ponzio]

http://www.cnet.com/pictures/meet-the-navys-new-13-billion-aircraft-carrier/

 

[Swerd]

As ex-Navy, I'm qualified to gripe – it's the world's largest floating target.

At least it's appropriately named. Ford actually served on a carrier (USS Monterey) in the Navy during WWII, unlike some other recent carrier namesakes.

 

[Steve81]

As ex-Navy, I'm qualified to gripe – it's the world's largest floating target.

To be fair, that is the price of having a floating runway at your disposal, and they do come in handy from time to time. Even for a relatively basic task like showing the flag, a U.S. carrier group adds a certain amount of gusto that you won't get by saying "We have a sub in the area."

 

[KenM10759]

My youngest brother was 18-1/2 years a submariner. "Two kinds of ships", he'd say, "submarines and targets." That there is the new Holy Grail for every "enemy combatant" to focus upon. It would take a tactical nuclear strike to get it rockin' though.

 

[Irvrobinson]

And let's not forget the five other ships in a carrier battle group, and ~$6M-$7M per day in total operating costs. Good luck getting any of the eleven mandated carriers cancelled though. Too many jobs are dependent on them. Congress will never let it happen. And China keeps toying around with that ancient tub they bought, just to make Congress nervous. How would we feel if that thing was floating a few hundred miles off LA? Probably like upping our fleet to thirteen.

 

[Swerd]

And let's not forget the five other ships in a carrier battle group, and ~$6M-$7M per day in total operating costs. Good luck getting any of the eleven mandated carriers cancelled though. Too many jobs are dependent on them. Congress will never let it happen. And China keeps toying around with that ancient tub they bought, just to make Congress nervous. How would we feel if that thing was floating a few hundred miles off LA? Probably like upping our fleet to thirteen.

Yes, you got the central paradox about aircraft carriers right. In addition to being a floating runway (and target) and a tool for foreign policy, its also become essential to local economies and pork barrel politics. Like banks, are they too big to fail? Or too expensive to risk? We haven't had to really test carriers during war for over 70 years, and wars since then have never repeated those conditions. Is it possible that big carriers have become obsolete like the battleships they replaced.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad we haven't had to test carriers during all-out war since 1945. However, since then we've mainly used them to attack poorly armed third world nations. Is that worth all the expense? I better stop before I begin sounding like Trump !

 

[herbu]

That there is the new Holy Grail for every "enemy combatant" to focus upon.

Or we could have just given that money to General Motors, (again).

 

[Irvrobinson]

Or we could have just given that money to General Motors, (again).

That's not a bad comparison. I've read the US Gov lost about $10B on the GM bailout in total, so about one new Nimitz-class carrier.

 

[herbu]

I've read the US Gov lost about $10B on the GM bailout in total

Right. In addition to the loan, we bought a bunch of GM stock, then sold it at a $10B loss. It is why I cringed every time I saw the ad with the GM CEO saying they paid back every dime. And when GM adopted "Back in Black" as their background music in the ads.

Now they brag about how many "awards" they have won. The govt and industry do everything they can to prop up GM. Remember when the 2011 "Volt" won Motor Trend's Car of the Year? Now in 2016 it won Green Car of the Year. (FYI, they've sold a total of ~80k Volts in the last 6 years. Ford sold about that many pickups last month.) I don't trust their "awards" any more than I trust them.

 

[KenM10759]

One thing to keep in mind is that they weren't the only company we the people propped up.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/ford-motor-co-does-u-turn-on-bailouts/

I think the bigger mistake in all that was the total cost to us taxpayers for the "cash for clunkers" thing that wiped out several years supply of decent low-market used cars.

 

[herbu]

One thing to keep in mind is that they weren't the only company we the people propped up.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/ford-motor-co-does-u-turn-on-bailouts/

Apples and Oranges.
There is a difference between a loan and a gift.
And of course a GM/Chrysler bankruptcy would hurt suppliers, therefore Ford. It would be the same if Walmart went out of business... or Exxon... or Michelin, etc.

 

[KenM10759]

Don't get me wrong. I own a Ford and chose one as my company car too.

 

[Steve81]

Is it possible that big carriers have become obsolete like the battleships they replaced.

I don't know that much has really changed in terms of their vulnerability. Even in WWII, they were vulnerable to land based air power as well as submarines, and you can see the damage done here. OTOH, even a network of satellites along with cruise missiles launched from subs and smaller surface warships don't offer a replacement for the full range of capabilities you get from a mobile air base.

One interesting point: you'll note that US submarines accounted for quite a lot of Japan's carrier losses, including major fleet units like Shokaku and Taiho, as well as the giant Shinano. This is in spite of the fact that US sub skippers were working with torpedoes that were more or less duds for the first half of the war (ran too deep, faulty fuses) and BuOrd was blind to the point of negligence regarding the problem.

However, since then we've mainly used them to attack poorly armed third world nations. Is that worth all the expense?

The question of value in part depends on how you view the role of the US in the world. If you believe that the US has a responsibility to help maintain peace and stability around the globe, then the capacity to bring air power to the world's problems on short notice is useful beyond just bombing 3rd world countries. If you believe we are better off minding our own business, then 13 billion dollar carriers and numerous bases around the world aren't a very good investment.

 

[Swerd]

I don't know that much has really changed in terms of their vulnerability. Even in WWII, they were vulnerable to land based air power as well as submarines, and you can see the damage done here. OTOH, even a network of satellites along with cruise missiles launched from subs and smaller surface warships don't offer a replacement for the full range of capabilities you get from a mobile air base.

I do agree that they were vulnerable then, and at least as vulnerable now, if not more so. Nuclear weapons and accurate long range delivery systems (from both submarines and airplanes) make them more vulnerable.

What has changed is their cost, and our dependence on them. Unlike WWII, we can't afford to loose them.

The question of value in part depends on how you view the role of the US in the world. If you believe that the US has a responsibility to help maintain peace and stability around the globe, then the capacity to bring air power to the world's problems on short notice is useful beyond just bombing 3rd world countries. If you believe we are better off minding our own business, then 13 billion dollar carriers and numerous bases around the world aren't a very good investment.

I also agree with you here. My only point is that "maintain(ing) peace and stability around the globe" hasn't put them to a test of fire. If I accuse the admirals of being guilty of planning for the next war by repeating what worked in the last war, then my criticism should get the same scrutiny. I don't know what would happen in a future war. But I fear that the very high cost of carrier aviation might make them too valuable to risk loosing.

 

[Steve81]

My only point is that "maintain(ing) peace and stability around the globe" hasn't put them to a test of fire.

One has to consider why that's the case though. A carrier, or even a full task force is just one piece on the chess board. As it is, few nations can pose a credible threat to a task force, and actually succeed in sinking a carrier. Of that list, how many are interested in the all out (potentially nuclear) conflict that would come with sinking a carrier? I don't think even Kim Jong-Un is that crazy.

Of course, for a trial by fire, there was this incident, which gives a good idea of just how difficult it would be to actually sink a super-carrier.

Nine bomb explosions eventually occurred on the flight deck, eight caused by the AN-M65 Composition B bombs cooking off under the heat of the fuel fires, and the ninth occurring as a sympathetic detonation between an AN-M65 and a newer 500 lb M117 H6 bomb that it was lying next to on the deck. The other Composition H6-based bombs performed as designed and either burned on the deck or were jettisoned, but did not detonate under the heat of the fires.

The explosions (several of which were estimated as up to 50% more powerful than a standard 1000 lb bomb, due to the unintentionally-enhanced power of the badly degraded Composition B) tore large holes in the flight deck, causing burning jet fuel to drain into the interior of the ship, including the living quarters directly underneath the flight deck, and the below-decks aircraft hangar.

The fire left 134 men dead and 161 more injured. Many aircraft and a large amount of ordnance were jettisoned to prevent them from catching fire or exploding. Twenty-one aircraft also sustained enough damage from fire, explosions and salt water, to be stricken from naval inventory...

...

Forrestal put in to Cubi Point in the Philippines to be patched before returning to the United States, where she was drydocked for eight months of repairs.

 

[Chu Gai]

Kim's got his eye on you.

 

[Swerd]

One has to consider why that's the case though. A carrier, or even a full task force is just one piece on the chess board. As it is, few nations can pose a credible threat to a task force, and actually succeed in sinking a carrier. Of that list, how many are interested in the all out (potentially nuclear) conflict that would come with sinking a carrier? I don't think even Kim Jong-Un is that crazy.

I don't know that any nation has tried to hit a carrier since 1945. Certainly the Soviet Union was capable of that back during the Cold War. They practiced it often enough to make it foolish to believe they wouldn't have ever succeeded. But we never got to learn how effective they were at it. And today? I don't know.

Your example of the fire in 1967 on the Forrestal doesn't address that question. During the Vietnam War, there were typically several carriers not far off-shore in the Gulf of Tonkin. They operated there with complete impunity. The planes were in danger while over target areas in Vietnam, but the carriers were never challenged.

That incident does show how effective damage control was in the US Navy. The fires never got out of control enough to loose the ship, even though many of the dedicated fire fighters were killed in the initial explosions. As a direct result of that fire, everyone in the Navy, including junior officers, were required to take firefighting training. I had a fun week in boot camp doing that. We all got numerous chances at using 4" high pressure fire hoses while putting out oil-based fires, inside and outside of concrete structures made to simulate shipboard conditions. Anyone who messed up got hosed down. And the guys who ran the school made sure everyone got wet even if you didn't mess up. I was singled out as one of those careful smart-asses who worked so carefully so as not to mess up. They hosed me down for being too slow .

Kim's got his eye on you.

I know we're supposed to take this clown seriously, but I can't help but laugh at that photo.

 

[j_garcia]

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/zumwalt/

 

[jinjuku]

I heard the russkies are working on a sub with a caterpillar drive.

 

[Chu Gai]

From the beginning of the movie, Crimson Tide.