Trump wants 'goddamned steam’ catapults on new aircraft carriers

[Skroe]

The Pentagon responded that, in so many words, Trump is an idiot and doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about, and nothing has changed. Furthermore legally speaking the President couldn't "order" a design change anyway.

The most interesting part of this though is a tidbit I didn't realize: that when they were evaluating building the Ford with or without EMALS (the Electromagnetic Launch System), the cost difference was $12.8 billion with EMALS or $8 billion without EMALS (and with the traditional catapult).

They made the right choice for a variety of reasons, but I hand't appreciated a quarter of the cost of the ship was the catapult. It goes a long way to explain how the $6.5 billion USS George H.W. Bush, which was sold as kind of a "transition ship", was followed by a USS Gerald R Ford that was nearly twice the cost.

In any event I'm awaiting the US Navy actually launching and recovering some aircraft from its aircraft carrier soon. The fact it is about to be received by the Navy and hasn't actually done that yet is... curious.

[Chrysia]

I am not a Trump lover for sure, but there is merit to his line of thinking - steam is more reliable and way cheaper. Of course he made it sound really retarded, but well, the fact is that he at least is not a complete idiot about this.

They're only cost efficient if you ignore the fact they can't perform half the operations the modern Navy wants them to.

[Skroe]

Going steam is cost effective. That's Trump's rationale.

It's less expensive to buy up-front. It's more expensive to own long term.

The entire rationale behind the Ford class, rather than just modernizing the Nimitz some more (as has been done with the USS Ronald Reagan, and especially the USS George H.W. Bush), was to substantially cut life-of-the-ship costs and cut down maitence periods to gain deployments. Life of the ship costs, by the way, include personel costs.

The Life Cycle costs of a Nimitz in 2017 dollars is $32 billion ($22 billion on this sheet below) for 50 years of service.
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-68.htm
http://www.in2013dollars.com/1997-do...nt=22000000000

Click that link above and scroll down for anyone interested in specific costs.

The Ford class by contrast, will have $26 billion in life-cycle costs. And not only that, it's annual operating costs will be significant lower.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...hallenged-cost


Basically for a 50 year ship with the Nimitz, the Navy spent $6.5 billion for the last ship in the class, and got a $26.5 billion bill ahead of it. With the Ford, it spent $12.8 billion up front, and has a $13.2 billion bill ahead of it.

And that doesn't cover the significantly increased capabilities and technologies of the Ford class.

Lower annual costs on the biggest items on the Navy budget means more deployments, a larger fleet and more ship procurement. This has been the unifying theme on ALL recent Navy procurement - higher upfront costs in exchange for lower life time costs. The Columbia Class SSBN (Ohio-Replacement sub), the other large Navy program, is doing the same thing. Unlike the Ohio class they replace, they'll have a life-of-the-ship nuclear power core . This means they won't need a mid-life refueling, which means the fleet can be smaller (12 instead of 14 subs). This makes each boat more expensive now, but it means the Navy will need to buy two fewer subs, and not pay for all 12 sub's having a new core put in after 25 years.

[Gaidax]

They're only cost efficient if you ignore the fact they can't perform half the operations the modern Navy wants them to.

The moderns Navy needs to keep their expenses in check if it wants to remain modern in future. You think there won't come this day when this insanity will collapse under it's own weight?

All they do is basically snowball themselves to catastrophe in the future with all the ultra-expensive toys they want to buy now that they do not actually need.

- - - Updated - - -

US does not need even half of this, yet it keeps pumping insane budget into military that goes literally to waste for god knows which purpose, while you are making joke of yourselves with government shutdown talks every year, shoddy archaic healthcare system and decrepit infrastructure.

Trump may be an idiot, but he has a point here, you just don't get to the bottom of this because "lulz he sed digital is Einstein thing lol".

[Skroe]

The moderns Navy needs to keep their expenses in check if it wants to remain modern in future. You think there won't come this day when this insanity will collapse under it's own weight?

This is them keeping their expenses in check. See above. Steam is more expensive over the long term, among other things.

Furthermore steam catapults aren't throttlable like EMALS. A major motivation behind EMALS is to allow the Navy to launch lighter-weight (compared to fighter-sized aircraft) drones. The Navy plans to place drones on it's carriers in future years. Remember, the Nimitz and Ford class have room for 90 aircraft, but currently carry about 60-70. There's room to spare for drones.

want [/B] to buy now that they do not actually need.

They absolutely do need them. THe Chief of Naval operations said two years ago that if he wanted to meet 100% of Combatant Commander's requests, he'd need a Navy of 450 ships.

The US Navy stands at 275 ships.

The plan is to grow it to 355 by the 2030s, but the assertion you make is patently false. The US needs to go to at least 12 carriers, ~75 attack submarines and around ~100 large surface combatants (Destroyers/Cruisers). Even take the first case, thanks to the premature retirement of the John F Kennedy a decade ago (to save a little money) and the delays of the USS Gerald R Ford, and the Abraham Lincoln in mid-life overhaul (and the George Washington just starting it) the US is operating, effectively a 9 carrier fleet for a 12 carrier strategy.

[Gaidax]

They absolutely do need them. THe Chief of Naval operations said two years ago that if he wanted to meet 100% of Combatant Commander's requests, he'd need a Navy of 450 ships.

The US Navy stands at 275 ships.

The plan is to grow it to 355 by the 2030s, but the assertion you make is patently false. The US needs to go to at least 12 carriers, ~75 attack submarines and around ~100 large surface combatants (Destroyers/Cruisers). Even take the first case, thanks to the premature retirement of the John F Kennedy a decade ago (to save a little money) and the delays of the USS Gerald R Ford, and the Abraham Lincoln in mid-life overhaul (and the George Washington just starting it) the US is operating, effectively a 9 carrier fleet for a 12 carrier strategy.

Oh? Then maybe someone needs to rethink those requests?

Don't know, not starting pointless wars would help? US does not need this shit, what it needs is to change its way of thinking and start taking care of what's going on inside it and not outside it, because this can not continue.

Because of this US will decline, it does not matter how many carriers and with what kind of catapults you build really, it's not sustainable and you know it.

[caervek]

US does not need this shit

Not today no because nobody has an even slightly comparable navy or any intention to build one, however in 20-30 years time China may well get there, so the US navy need to start preparing for that now.

[Skroe]

US does not need even half of this, yet it keeps pumping insane budget into military that goes literally to waste for god knows which purpose, while you are making joke of yourselves with government shutdown talks every year, shoddy archaic healthcare system and decrepit infrastructure.

Trump may be an idiot, but he has a point here, you just don't get to the bottom of this because "lulz he sed digital is Einstein thing lol".

Ridiculously. The "Need" for it has been demonstrably attested to by the US Navy. They are charged with executing a mission. They say they need certain resources to do it. And they should get it.

As far as the money goes... you may not be aware... but the US is fantastically rich. Our shutdown, as you mention, has nothing to do with the amount of money. It is about a political disagreement about how to spend money.

Don't forget, about 8 years ago, the US brought to bare trillions of dollars as part of the stimulus, and three rounds of quantitative easing. If the US needed to, it could double it's military budget over night if need be and not break a sweat. It's options would be print money, borrow or tax, to finance all of that but it has tremendous lattitude to do all of that.

You also mention healthcare and infrastructure. First of all, our healthcare system is again... a political disagreement first and foremost. And secondly, infrastructure - it's worse in some places than others (in my region, it's rather excellent), but that's because infrastructure is mostly the responsibility of State and Local governments, not the Federal Government. Americans pay Federal, State and Local taxes. State and Local taxes are largely what finances infrastructure and infrastructure programs are largely State and Local managed. The Federal Government provides some assistance money (and occasionally emergency funding). But the people living in a region should actually PAY for the roads they use.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh? Then maybe someone needs to rethink those requests?

Don't know, not starting pointless wars would help? US does not need this shit, what it needs is to change its way of thinking and start taking care of what's going on inside it and not outside it, because this can not continue.

Because of this US will decline, it does not matter how many carriers and with what kind of catapults you build really, it's not sustainable and you know it.

The point of the large carrier fleet isn't to start pointless wars. The US could start "pointless wars" as you put it, if it had three carriers, never mind 10. Or 12.

The point of a large carrier fleet, and our large military spending, is conventional deterrence.

And everything we've done and are doing absolutely can continue. There is no reason why it cannot. Specifically with regards to the US Navy, the three major combat ship designs - the Ford Class, the Arliegh Burke Class Destroyer, and the Virginia class attack submarine - are all in production and are all mature designs. The "big gap" in US Naval procurement right now, is that we lack a good small surface combatant (a "frigate" in American parlance... which means something different in European terminology... a ~4000-6000 ton surface ship). But all three programs are mature and in active production.

Presently the US procures 1 carrier every 5 years, and 2-3 Destroyers and 2 Virginia attack subs per year. And why does it need this? Specifically with regards to the attack subs, it's retiring ~3 Los Angeles class attack subs (1980s era) per year. So the attack sub fleet will shrink overall in the 2020s unless procurement is kept at 2 subs per year (which it is likely to at this point).

We can and are financing this. So keep dreaming.

[Gaidax]

Not today no because nobody has an even slightly comparable navy or any intention to build one, however in 20-30 years time China may well get there, so the US navy need to start preparing for that now.

Oh? Any you are going to go to war head to head with China? Better then increase NASA budget, so we can have colonies on Mars for humanity to escape the nuclear fallout.

China will overtake US even without racing carriers, they are well underway to do this, don't you worry about that part.

- - - Updated - - -

The point of the large carrier fleet isn't to start pointless wars. The US could start "pointless wars" as you put it, if it had three carriers, never mind 10. Or 12.

The point of a large carrier fleet, and our large military spending, is conventional deterrence.

Conventional deterrence against what? The whole world?

You need a frikkin' conventional deterrence against half the shit you use daily being made in Asia - that's your biggest threat now, not some imaginary global conventional conflict.

[caervek]

Oh? Any you are going to go to war head to head with China?

Hell no, they have an aircraft carrier, we don't.

[Skroe]

Not today no because nobody has an even slightly comparable navy or any intention to build one, however in 20-30 years time China may well get there, so the US navy need to start preparing for that now.

And to add context to this comment, it's because it takes 20-30 years to grow the fleet up to 355 ships.

It's fundamentally a function of money. If the US wanted to drop $100 billion in new ship building in one year, the biggest blockage to building more ships would be the Defense Industry's ability to stand up the production capacity (as in, buy raw materials, hire and train electricians and weilders, build dry-dock space). If Congress ordered the ship building budget to become $100 billion a year tomorrow, the US could do 355 ships in about 5 years (the time it would take to build one carrier and two attack subs).

But because that's a ridiculous number that would never happen, and the US has to pay for many things, and Defense Industry capacity will necessarily grow slower as a result of slower funding than that ridiculous number, if the US Navy spend about $22 billion a year, it reaches 355 ships by the late 2030s or 2040s.

Not included in this by the way, is keeping ships in service longer, which is something that absolutely must be discussed. The USS Nimitz is scheduled to be inactivated either in 2024, 2025 or 2026, purely so the Navy doesn't have to spend $500 million a year on it. If that, along with the Tichondergias and late build Los Angeles Class attack subs (688i) are kept in service five years longer, it would rapidly grow the fleet without buying new ships, at the cost of increased fleet costs.

Here's the (outdated) 2017 30 year ship building plan. This was written with the old 309 ship requirement the Navy abandoned in late 2016. A new plan that will be issued in fall will be based around the 355 ship requirement.

https://news.usni.org/2016/05/09/doc...pbuilding-plan

But this is how things look under the older plan.



- - - Updated - - -

Conventional deterrence against what? The whole world?

In essence... yes. Our nuclear weapons deter against nuclear attack. The US, being principally a sea-fairing trade power (to use historical terms) requires an unmatched navy to secure our access to the global commons for trade. Since the US is isolated on the far side of the planet from most of the human race, this is vitally important. Our conventional military deters against a conventional attack and conventional competition.

Fairness is stupid. Fights should be entirely unfair. The US military by design, makes conventional warfare deeply unfair for our adversaries.

You need a frikkin' conventional deterrence against half the shit you use daily being made in Asia - that's your biggest threat now, not some imaginary global conventional conflict.

China's mercantalist economic policies are a global issue, but resolving that issue is not in competition with brother security requirements. The United States is not some single minded automaton. It can deal with Chinese predatory economic tactics while still building the future Navy. Different people doing different things, and with different solutions.

[dvaz]

Maybe they drop the nuclear reactor for god damned coal as well.

[caervek]

Maybe they drop the nuclear reactor for god damned coal as well.

We did that with our Queen Elizabeth class carriers, gas turbine instead, that's why the French pulled out and decided against replacing their aging carrier.

[Skroe]

For whatever reason, in Trump's absurdly over the top, Nixonian oval office...

https://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse/...114489/?type=3

(360 degree image... jesus christ there's flag every 4 feet)

I kind of envision them wheeling out a 1982 RCA Television when he wants to watch Fox and Friends.

[Trifle]

They did a piss poor job on that panoramic photo, the edges don't match up properly.

[Kathandira]

damn...if Trump supports making us a steampunk society...

I'm conflicted

Here here!

- - - Updated - - -

Wow haven't seen a single intelligent post yet.

Here's the cold hard facts

EMALS failure rate is at 400 Mean Cycles Between Critical Failure. Way below the 4,166 requirement. It has 7% chance of completing 4 day operation, 67% chance of one day sustained operation. The report also said, “Absent a major redesign, EMALS is unlikely to support high-intensity operations expected in combat.”

The Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) has a reliablity of 25 Mean Cycles Between Operational Mission Failure. Way, way below the 16,500 requirement. It has a 0.2% chance of completing one day of operation. “Without a major redesign, AAG is unlikely to support high intensity operations expected in combat.”

The system doesn't work period full stop...

Now, one more time in English!

Acronyms are only effective when talking with colleagues, or those in the know.

[Powerogue]

“It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out."



President of the United States and leader of the military.

[Easo]

Sorry, USA, but your new president is a retard.
Is that even English he is speaking in? Just who speaks like THAT?
And I am not even talking about his military... expertise.
P.S.
Yeah, Skroe probably just got an aneurysm.

[Masark]

Now, one more time in English!

Acronyms are only effective when talking with colleagues, or those in the know.

EMALS - ElectroMAgnetic Launch System. It launches the planes into the air. What they saying is that this thing breaks down about every 400 launches.

Advanced Arresting Gear is the part that stops the planes when they land. What they're saying is that it fails to stop the plane about once every 25 launches, forcing the plane to go around and try again.

[Allybeboba]

Admittedly, I thought they were still propelled with steam.

I don't keep up with the latest Naval technology.