U.s.s. Ford Aircraft Carrier

From what I have read, it is a boomdoggle. Taxpayers are being taken again. Two years over due, at a cost of $13 billion. 20% over original price. They say it will not be ready til 2017.

 

Taxpayers are always being taken =

 

What do we expect from something named after Gerald Ford? I don't really see why we need another aircraft carrier either. We already have 19 of the things.




39 The number of aircraft carriers in service worldwide
The United States and the nations of the Indo-Asia-Pacific region account for the vast majority of carriers in use. Outside of these craft, 10 other aircraft carriers are in operation.
France has four. Italy has two.
Brazil, Russia, Spain and the United Kingdom each has one.
* Includes super carriers, fleet carriers, light aircraft carriers, escort carriers, helicopter carriers and helicopter destroyers. Total of In service, Under Construction, and Planned totals are not cumulative given the decommissioning of older ships.

http://apdf-magazine.com/projecting-power/

 

Thailand really does not need a carrier. They can not afford it. If it was up to me, I would cancel the U.S.S. Ford class.

 

$13 billion dollars goes to the manufacturing, iron workers, welders, electricians, weapons manufactures, computer technicians, delivery of parts services(railroads) and so on..

Where do you think the $13billion goes? ..

 

I know where it goes. For that kind of money it should be working.

 

You can't just slap money down and expect whatever your building to be up and running just because the money is spent. Lol.

 

Personally I'd like to see it go into the aging electrical grid, bridges, bypasses and such. Just my opinion though. I don't understand why we need another carrier when we already have as many as everyone else combined.

 

If it does not work it should not be built. It is 2 years overdue. Monopoly at work. No competition.

 

I think it is stupid we spend all this money on war machines. Why? Is America going to lock down the world? We cry about other countries having weapons, look at our arsenals. The world should be nervous. America is a war machine with a steady stream of fighters volunteering for service. How convenient. TV and propaganda much.

 

The Ford class carriers are intended to replace older aircraft carriers as they age out. These ships are designed to have lower operating costs than the ones they replace.

 

USS Nimitz: $4.5 billion.
USS Ford: $12.8 billion

With 70+ years of inflation, I believe it's relatively easy to see that, regardless of the money saved to operate the vessel, that the justification of "spend now save later" is quite flawed. Especially considering another 11 vessels are planned and if we even round them down to only $10 billion a pop, that's $110 billion dollars ready to be spent. There's no financial savings going on here, just might, power and strength games.

 

We have an aircraft carrier?


No we dont

A ship that carries a couple helicopters isnt an aircraft carrier, well technically it is, but you know pfffft

 

I think maybe the submarine chart might be interesting too. Like, who has how many submarines. Someone go look that up and post it.

 

Do you have any clue what it would cost to build the Nimitz today?

Everything about the Ford class has been downsized and simplified, reflecting the end of the Cold War. The crew is smaller. This is one of those rare examples where the Pentagon is acting as if it cares about money.

When the Nimitz (and each of its clones) reaches the end of its intended useful life, we don't need to replace it with something that has identical capabilities.

 

Carriers are fine when you're attacking a nation that doesn't have the means to sink a carrier or other large ship. Otherwise they are an obsolete white elephant, a massive floating target. When the Soviets were in Afghanistan, they ruled the skies and blasted the crap out of anything that looked like a rebel. This was because the Afghans lacked the technology to combat aircraft. The US supplied them with portable missiles and suddenly the Soviets had their own "Vietnam" to deal with.

The same kind of paradigm in battle befell the British during their conflict with Argentina over the Falkland islands. The moment Argentina declared war on the UK, the French defense technicians bailed after disabling most of the combat aircraft, an odd requirement of their treaty with the UK. However, they missed a trainer that had been fitted with a hard point. The Argentine military was able to get a plane off the ground with a state of the art Exocet cruise missile.

I read the account of it when I went there in 1999. The pilot struggled to take off because the missile was so heavy and hung under a wing, throwing the balance off. He flew out to the Atlantic and acquired a radar contact where he expected a UK ship to be. He transferred the radar data to the missile and launched it. The plane immediately flipped over from the sudden loss of weight and the pilot almost ended up in the ocean, but managed to correct. The missile hit the target. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUZu8bvxJs4

That was 1982 technology, a single cruise missile sinking a ship. Consider how technology has advanced. Among the things we don't need are gigantic ships, huge standing armies, massive nuclear arsenals, military "dependents" and we do not need the draft. This is the age of robotic warfare already. But the basic military infrastructure is still based on a 1940s model. A model that is people-hungry. This is no longer necessary. One operator can control several drones, missiles or guns (soon to be beam and rail delivery). And don't forget the guns in the sky. All those "secret military" shuttle missions in the 80s and 90s.

But surrendering to technology would mean reducing military personnel to probably 1/8th to 1/20th of what it is now. A huge dent in the Military Industrial Complex. In the 21st century ALL industries are going through a technology shakedown. Work as we know it is changing. Combat is as well. but dismantling the excess blubber won't happen overnight. After all, look how long the US Postal Service has been totally obsolete. If not for taxes it would not likely exist as it does. It would be a web site or operate like UPS/DHL.

I freakin LOVE the 21st century.

 

Yep. That's why added the part about inflations.

 

And that's how we have used them, since the end of World War II. More recently, carriers have become bases for drones.

Most countries (including Russia) keep their aircraft closer to home, allowing them to use ordinary runways on land. Just look at a world map and see how many of the world's worst trouble spots are within a thousand miles of Russian territory. Aircraft carriers are not very helpful to them in those situations.

Next, we need to take a look at our aircraft inventory. Supersonic fighters are drastic overkill for fighting something like ISIS. We could use a few jets that are less capable and less expensive to operate, like the A-7 and S-3. We have large fleets of them stored in the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico.

Some terrorist cells are so primitive in their technology that we could drop hand grenades on them from a Cessna 172.

 

I have recently read the Continental Congress was opposed to establishing the navy, Because they feared it would want to spend more money. The government was indebt after the revolution.