The USN was going to kill a carrier early and got told to stop it by Congress.
Here's the thing that wasn't reported by what passes for news.
It's no longer the hideous price of the ship driving the bean counters at the Pentagon. It is the ridiculous price of the aircraft that make the ships unaffordable. Can you imagine the cost of filling one of those things with F-35s? I can't
the entire plan of building the super carriers was to have large multi-mission capable weapon systems based on the ships there by increasing the flexibility of response that the USN has. It also gave the USN the excuse it needed to build super carriers commanded by damn near admirals and pushing the leading edge of technology as fast and far as possible.ReplyDelete
while it is possible to upgrade the USS Truman with some of the technology of the USS Ford during the SLEP it is due, is it really going to cost less than a new Ford type carrier? and even if so, the USN is still building out another Ford type carrier to replace USS Truman. it's not just the cost of the ship itself, it's the cost of the Air Group and equipment, the support systems, the associated task group to go to sea with it, the list is endless.
don't you just love government procurement?
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
I wrote a long response now gone. The upshot was that I was both a uniformed and civilian player in military procurement for about 15 years. Like our government system it is probably the best one out there. When I look at that picture I see what it was once capable of. Today it couldn't build one of those ships in under 15 years.Delete
F-35s with directed exhaust thrust engines and a wood decked Essex class aircraft carrier. not a good plan-just kidding.ReplyDelete
supercarrier asphalt coated flight decks suffered plenty from Harriers exhaust. heavier F-35 equals more damage from greater thrust requirements.
I believe the F-35 to be a fragile airframe. Take it to sea? seriously? this was a design fraught with weight growth concerns because of VTOL prospects. there was even serious talk in the aerospace engineering community about having the pilots given an enema before flight to reduce the weight. VTOL or not, the airframe still had to meet normal coming aboard landing loadings(it does have a hook) and if the engineers are that weight conscious for the airframe, how could they possibly meet the structural strength goals the USN set for airframe? materials sciences have obviously moved past my knowledge level now. Unobtainium fastened with superdoesit is so old school.
F-35C (the Navy, not Marine version) is supposed to be launched and landed just like any other carrier jet. No VTOL needed.Delete
Ramp strikes are sad. I see them in the future. The cost of the bird way way exceeds the cost of the pilot. Which just sucks. Were are buying carriers today that don't actually have functional launch assemblies and so a certain number of those trillioin dollar worthless air frames are going to be catapaulted off the deck and straight into the sea.Delete
I very very strongly hate the men that made this happen.
Hard to believe that we made almost 150 CVs CVLs, and CVEs in just 4 years, isn't it? And filled their decks with planes, as well.ReplyDelete
The navy considered the ramp strikes and failures to launch, "incidental" Thousands of aircraft, dozens of carriers. We've pretty much bitten into the knife at this point. We paid for the planes by shedding people and building crappy little worthless ships.Delete
At this point I have to say I'm a little sanguine about Europe, Asia and the Middle East. They can float or not float. I don't care.