• 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!

Navy preps its new USS Ford carrier for massive ocean warfare

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,114
Reaction score
33,455
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Navy preps its new USS Ford carrier for massive ocean warfare | Fox News

Navy weapons developers say the service’s emerging Ford-class carriers are engineered for the purpose of enabling a much higher volume of high-speed, overwhelming air attacks in rapid succession, as compared to today’s Nimitz-class carriers … all due to new technologies and the design configuration of the platforms.
The Ford carriers, now on the cusp of entering operational service, are built with larger deck space to enable a higher sortie rate for attack missions. In addition, there are other technologies built into the Ford-class that create the opportunity to quickly rearm and refuel fighters, rapidly sending them back into the air for further attack missions, Capt. Ron Rutan, CVN 78 (USS Ford) Program Manager, said in January at the 32nd annual Surface Navy Association symposium, Arlington, Va.
“On Nimitz-class carriers, if you have a bunch of aircraft on the deck edge, you have to bring fuel lines to those aircraft and the other aircraft cannot transit. It creates a lot of logistical problems,” Rutan explained.
Click to expand...

I find the OPTEMPO improvements interesting.
 
How are they against submarines?
 
Is this the boat that has the piece of **** catapult that can't launch the aircraft it was designed to launch?
 
Oozlefinch said:
That is not the purpose of a carrier.

They have Cruisers, Destroyers, and Frigates along for that purpose. As well as their own attack submarines.
Click to expand...

I knew that but still wouldn't want to be on a floating platform with modern day subs cruising around. Can't subs launch missiles from a distance to hit the carriers?
 
EnigmaO01 said:
I knew that but still wouldn't want to be on a floating platform with modern day subs cruising around. Can't subs launch missiles from a distance to hit the carriers?
Click to expand...

Any ship is vulnerable to a submarine, not just carriers.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
I knew that but still wouldn't want to be on a floating platform with modern day subs cruising around. Can't subs launch missiles from a distance to hit the carriers?
Click to expand...

Yes. And there is a fleet of ships around to protect the carrier. As well as their own RAM, Sea Sparrow missiles, as well as point defense systems.

As well as a large ASW presence, including P3, and multiple ASW helicopters in addition to other systems.
 
How will these very expensive carriers fare against ballistic carrier killer missiles, hypersonic low altitude missiles, smart sea mines, drone torpedoes and very high speed torpedoes, not to mention tactical nuclear weapons? Too many eggs in one basket perhaps?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
How will these very expensive carriers fare against ballistic carrier killer missiles, hypersonic low altitude missiles, smart sea mines, drone torpedoes and very high speed torpedoes, not to mention tactical nuclear weapons? Too many eggs in one basket perhaps?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

What's the alternative?
 
American said:
You mean let China and Russia do it?
Click to expand...

Neither the Russians nor the Chinese are likely to expand much beyond their current carrier ambitions. They have no need to.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
I knew that but still wouldn't want to be on a floating platform with modern day subs cruising around. Can't subs launch missiles from a distance to hit the carriers?
Click to expand...

Yes, but then they have to contend with AEGIS cruisers and destroyers as well as various point defense systems on all the ships in the fleet.
 
Evilroddy said:
How will these very expensive carriers fare against ballistic carrier killer missiles, hypersonic low altitude missiles, smart sea mines, drone torpedoes and very high speed torpedoes, not to mention tactical nuclear weapons? Too many eggs in one basket perhaps?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Ballistic carrier killer missiles: never even tested, let alone shown they can hit a moving target in the open ocean
Hypersonic low level missiles: never tested against moving targets in the open ocean
Smart sea mines: that’s why minesweepers exist
Drone torpedoes: only exist on paper
High speed torpedos (I assume you mean hypercavitating torpedos): more dangerous to the sub launching than anything else (see the Kursk incident)

As for tactical nuclear weapons, we’ll that opens up the nuclear genie and then the US has B-2 bombers using our own tactical nukes with impunity on the enemy.
 
American said:
You mean let China and Russia do it?
Click to expand...

American

Russia has no power projection carriers, just an old delapidated carrier/cruiser. China is deploying one medium carrier and building another in response to the US Navy's many carriers of all sizes and assault ships. China and Russia do not want to waste precious resources but in the case of China they feel they have no choice due to your American power-projection carrier capacity in their immediate neighborhood. Abandon the power-projection carrier group concept and all three countries can divert wasted resources away from military builds and into more constructive expenditures. The development of Eurasian transcontinental transportation infrastructure and pipelines is making these carrier groups obsolete quickly.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Questerr said:
Ballistic carrier killer missiles: never even tested, let alone shown they can hit a moving target in the open ocean
Hypersonic low level missiles: never tested against moving targets in the open ocean
Smart sea mines: that’s why minesweepers exist
Drone torpedoes: only exist on paper
High speed torpedos (I assume you mean hypercavitating torpedos): more dangerous to the sub launching than anything else (see the Kursk incident)

As for tactical nuclear weapons, we’ll that opens up the nuclear genie and then the US has B-2 bombers using our own tactical nukes with impunity on the enemy.
Click to expand...

I think Roddy does have a point... but probably not the one he thinks he does. We're fast reaching a point in aircraft design and construction where the limits of what can be built will exceed the physiological capabilities of a human pilot to deal with them. It could very well be that the 6th Generation of Fighter Aircraft might have to be unmanned... in which case we may well have to re-think the whole concept of aircraft carriers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom