• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Navy Eyes Double Carrier Purchase in 2019 in Pursuit of 355-Ship Fleet

At 5,000 sailors per ship, with low unemployment & a strong economy, where does the Navy plan to get 10,000 trained sailors for these new carriers? I got that number from a neighbor who served on a carrier in the 70s.
 
JacksinPA said:
At 5,000 sailors per ship, with low unemployment & a strong economy, where does the Navy plan to get 10,000 trained sailors for these new carriers? I got that number from a neighbor who served on a carrier in the 70s.
Click to expand...

Eh, it's sort of correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier

This manning seems to include the airwings though, which aren't permanently attached to the ships, so not really considered part of ship's assigned crew unless they are basically out to sea with us.

The biggest issue truly is certain critical rates (several of which are crucial to the operation of an aircraft carrier) that are hard to man even in bad economic times, due to the stringent qualifications and training these jobs require (usually highly intellectual in nature). Some require things like "at least a B in an Algebra class". Sailors usually need a high ASVAB score (80+ for several jobs), which means that only the top 20% of those who apply for the Navy would even be eligible to start the schools. Other things will disqualify Sailors from these schools too, such as age, many mental health issues (which would not be an issue for other ratings), history of any suicide attempts or thoughts, or even integrity issues. Bonuses are a clue that a rating is undermanned. And there are several that get 5, even 6 digit reenlistment bonuses.
 
JacksinPA said:
At 5,000 sailors per ship, with low unemployment & a strong economy, where does the Navy plan to get 10,000 trained sailors for these new carriers? I got that number from a neighbor who served on a carrier in the 70s.
Click to expand...

With tax cut economics, where is the right wing going get the money?
 
danielpalos said:
With tax cut economics, where is the right wing going get the money?
Click to expand...

How about selling rounded up illegals as slaves? Or for medical experimentation? You gotta be creative!
 
America can't even get the 1st Gerry Ford Class carrier to work and you want to build another 2 jesus wept they are saying it could be 5 years before the Gerry Ford enters active service, America did the exact same thing with the Littoral class ships and the Zummwalt's kept building before solving the problems ... both class of ships are still riddled with problems
 
Godric1970 said:
America can't even get the 1st Gerry Ford Class carrier to work and you want to build another 2 jesus wept they are saying it could be 5 years before the Gerry Ford enters active service, America did the exact same thing with the Littoral class ships and the Zummwalt's kept building before solving the problems ... both class of ships are still riddled with problems
Click to expand...

The Ford is on active service. She is commissioned. She will go on her first deployment in 2020. She has to go through testing before going anywhere, just like any other ships do.
 
roguenuke said:
We only need one more in service to have 12, which was already in the works, her keel was laid in 2015. The Enterprise needed to be decommissioned though. She was over 55 years old and two carriers built after her were already decommissioned.

When the economy is good though, it means problems for manning critical positions onboard nuclear powered ships, regardless of funding. We already offer some Sailors over $100K to reenlist. And many turn it down, because they can get more in the civilian sector due to their training.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CVN-79)

The school is hard and few who enlist even qualify to try to go through it. A third of those who do start NNPTC do not graduate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_School

(The wiki article is a little outdated though. There are 11 CVNs currently in operation in the US Navy, even after decommissioning the Enterprise.)
Click to expand...

They don't need to decommission the Big E, they need to refit her for a role as a disaster response platform. A nuclear aircraft carrier is almost the perfect tool for such a role. They have power, almost unlimited clean water, manpower, aircraft, medical facilities (reducing hanger space and making it medical facilities would be part of the refit), food and fuel storage (increasing both would be part of the refit) and can go to a whole lot of places where disasters hit on a regular basis.
 
roguenuke said:
Eh, it's sort of correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier

This manning seems to include the airwings though, which aren't permanently attached to the ships, so not really considered part of ship's assigned crew unless they are basically out to sea with us.

The biggest issue truly is certain critical rates (several of which are crucial to the operation of an aircraft carrier) that are hard to man even in bad economic times, due to the stringent qualifications and training these jobs require (usually highly intellectual in nature). Some require things like "at least a B in an Algebra class". Sailors usually need a high ASVAB score (80+ for several jobs), which means that only the top 20% of those who apply for the Navy would even be eligible to start the schools. Other things will disqualify Sailors from these schools too, such as age, many mental health issues (which would not be an issue for other ratings), history of any suicide attempts or thoughts, or even integrity issues. Bonuses are a clue that a rating is undermanned. And there are several that get 5, even 6 digit reenlistment bonuses.
Click to expand...

Ford has significantly less personnel.
 
Seems like a waste of military money when there are more important things to build, like a wall.
 
faithful_servant said:
They don't need to decommission the Big E, they need to refit her for a role as a disaster response platform. A nuclear aircraft carrier is almost the perfect tool for such a role. They have power, almost unlimited clean water, manpower, aircraft, medical facilities (reducing hanger space and making it medical facilities would be part of the refit), food and fuel storage (increasing both would be part of the refit) and can go to a whole lot of places where disasters hit on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

She has already been decommissioned. It is not that easy to do those things. Plus, the Enterprise has traditionally been the premiere ship of our Navy. We have already put into action plans to commission a different Enterprise. There is far more to it than that, but she really could not do what you think she can given her age, not efficiently.
 
American said:
Ford has significantly less personnel.
Click to expand...

In some areas. But the amount required for the Ford is pretty close to that required for Nimitz class carriers. Especially the most critical fields, those jobs that require the most training. You still need just as many personnel in those areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier

The difference between these is mainly in those fields that are regularly overmanned in the first place. And those crew cannot simply be used to fill in for critical positions, not if we want to still maintain our safe operation (particularly of nuclear reactors).
 
roguenuke said:
The Ford is on active service. She is commissioned. She will go on her first deployment in 2020. She has to go through testing before going anywhere, just like any other ships do.
Click to expand...

it is active in name only and as i said 5 years from active service due to ongoing problems
The carrier went to sea for the first time in April of 2017 and is currently expected to go on active duty in 2022.
Click to expand...
.... how many years behind schedule is that now ??

https://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2018/04/05/navy-tries-to-damage-13-billion-carrier/
 
Godric1970 said:
it is active in name only and as i said 5 years from active service due to ongoing problems .... how many years behind schedule is that now ??

https://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2018/04/05/navy-tries-to-damage-13-billion-carrier/
Click to expand...

If she is commissioned, she is on active duty and can be taken out to sea in a short amount of time if absolutely needed. She is able to get underway, they simply have to test her out (which takes awhile) to make sure she is safe for continued operation. In reality, no website like the one you posted is truly going to know when she is going out to sea. It says 2022, while other sites say 2020. Heck, they are unaware that if a ship is commissioned, she is considered an active duty ship. Those stationed aboard her are getting sea pay, even if they never go out to sea while stationed aboard her.

A little extra info on her.

Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78)

And she has been doing underways already, just not going out for extended underways or deployments (as we normally refer to them as).

https://ussgeraldrford.wordpress.com/
 
Last edited:
JacksinPA said:
https://sputniknews.com/military/201803211062777181-us-navy-two-carrier-fleet/

Following a push by Congress urging the procurement of two aircraft carriers in fiscal year 2019, the United States Navy has asked shipbuilders to send in bids “to further define the cost savings achievable with a two-ship buy,” a March 20 news release reads.

Some lawmakers say the goal to field a 355-ship fleet may depend on it. More than 100 lawmakers sent a letter to the Pentagon in late 2017 "to express interest in a dual procurement of Gerald R Ford-class aircraft carriers" in the coming fiscal year. The legislators said the government could save up to $2.5 billion by buying two carriers in the same year as a result of lower logistical costs.
====================================
I guess the Cold War never ended. Nuclear aircraft carriers: cheaper by the pair.
Click to expand...

It started up again but in any case I don't have a problem with us having a couple more carriers.
It's what the idiots in Washington do WITH them that I worry about, and I also worry about our increasingly incompetent class of ship captains, who have been having quite a few accidents in the last couple of years.

But the carriers themselves? We have some fairly old ships out there which will most likely get mothballed and decommissioned pretty soon, so these carriers will probably replace them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom