Navy: Newest carrier will be ready in 2015 (8.7 Billion USS Gerald R. Ford)

[The Straight Story]

Navy: Newest carrier will be ready in 2015
By Megan Scully CongressDaily November 20, 2009

Nearly a week after the Navy officially kicked off production of its newest aircraft carrier, service officials charged with overseeing the program said Friday it is on track to be in service by September 2015.

The Navy held the ceremonial keel laying Saturday for the USS Gerald R. Ford at Northrop Grumman's shipyard in Newport News, Va., marking the first time in 40 years a new class of aircraft carriers began production.

...

Construction of the carrier and the ship's systems will cost $8.7 billion. The Navy already has spent $3.6 billion in research and development and $2.7 billion on a detailed design for the ship, the first of the CVN-78 class of carriers.
....

Meanwhile, Navy officials said the new carrier still is on track to generate more than $5 billion in cost savings throughout the ship's 50-year life, when compared to the Nimitz-class carriers that are now in service.

More than $3 billion of those savings comes from the 1,300 fewer personnel needed to man the ship and the associated air wing. "People costs have escalated for the military, just as they have for the private sector," said Rear Adm. Michael McMahon, the Navy's program executive officer for aircraft carriers.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=44090&dcn=todaysnews

[Kitsune]

1. And yet real healthcare reform is a luxury we can't afford.

What a fucking waste. Our government has some seriously messed up priorities.

[nc4bo]

15. +1 nt

[NutmegYankee]

2. True statement on people costs.

It was far cheaper when troops were drafted and had to serve for $1.66 a day.

The military has found that the human capital costs are among the highest costs in the Operations and Maintenance side of the house.

[Arctic Dave]

3. Strange. We can build a fully operational aircraft carrier in six years but

we can't rebuild a couple of office buildings in eight.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. Is there a big demand for office space?

... not that I have any great demand for aircraft carriers, but ...

It just seems that if there was a market for office space, then office space would somehow get built. Why else build office buildings?

[Arctic Dave]

22. I'm talking about the world trade center towers.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

4. named after a man who was never elected president

[Ikonoklast]

7. He was 'rewarded' the presidency.

For his work on the Warren Commission.

IMO.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. I hope they give it a strong hull

so it can run aground, or hit a dock, without suffering damage. Prez Ford was not known for his physical grace, more for his ability to gracefully recover from stumbling or bumping into things. And he played golf like Dick Cheney hunts. Fore!

:hi:

[amandabeech]

24. Ironically, he was a good athlete.

All American center at Michigan.

Skied into his 80s, I think.

Astonishing that he could ski, which takes balance, just like walking.

[icnorth]

8. I hear the USS G.W. Bush

is on the books for 2020 and will be tasked in Kennebunkport.:eyes:

[izquierdista]

12. I hear it will be docked in Mobile

After getting a transfer from the Texas Water National Guard.

[bumblebee1]

27. The USS G W Bush?

Here's the actual name for that ship: USS Clusterf**k.

[Bitwit1234]

9. Odd all the warships and battleships

are mostly named for republicans. And 99% of them never fired a gun in any war. And by the way wonder why they stopped and didn't rename the country Reagonville instead of the United States. They were tearing names off everything and renaming it during bush's reign. And most of all how in Hades did the little wimp butt get a ship named after him I'll never know.

[Posteritatis]

16. Not a single battleship is

Those have always been named after states.

As for the carriers, we've got the Enterprise, obviously not named after anyone. Until recently, there were a few other carriers. The Kittyhawk-class ships were named for, well, Kitty Hawk, the term "Constellation," Kennedy and the country itself. The previous class of ships included the Independence, the Forrestal (named for the last Secretary of the Navy), and two others carrying forward the names of earlier US warships. All the ships in both these lines were decommissioned over the last decade due to age.

As for the Nimitz line, we have, in order of construction:

- A renowned carrier commander;
- A wartime general who was later elected president;
- The first Congressman to serve fifty years in the House;
- A second president to see combat firsthand in his life;
- The president through the Civil War;
- A third president to see combat firsthand, and incidentally the first president of them all;
- A 41-year Democratic senator;
- Another wartime president, who saw combat in the Great War firsthand;
- Reagan (you win some, you lose some); and
- Bush Sr., who, whatever else I'll say, heard the guns fire too.

I don't think I'll fault most of that list on the grounds of never having fired a gun, and none of them were renamed to the best of my knowledge.

I'd generally prefer they stayed clear of the current habit of naming the things for (then) living presidents, though, and revert to something like the WWII naming scheme for carriers, but other than that I don't really think your complaints for the rest of the naming scheme are fair here.

[Thothmes]

50. Nimitz never commanded a carrier, he was not even aviation

qualified. Nimitz was a black shoe early in his career then shifted to submarines. He was the Pacific Fleet Commander during WWII.

[Kaleva]

38. Battleships were named after states and most were involved in combat.

[SteelPenguin]

52. The USS Jimmy Carter is a submarine

The USS Jimmy Carter is a submarine. Since President Carter was a submarine captain, it seems fitting.

Actually as far as ships named after U.S. presidents who served since the beginning of the 20th century, 5 have been named after Democratic presidents, and 5 after Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._military_vessels_named_after_Presidents

[HopeHoops]

10. That's going to be one clumsy ass ship!

[izquierdista]

11. I hope Chevy Chase christens it

And then it capsizes. :rofl: :rofl:

[Uncle Joe]

13. Gerald Ford was eaten by wolves today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2ZKpq5QfDE

[Confusious]

14. I think it's kind of a waste of money

when 100 $100,000 shore-to-ship missiles could probably take it out. Only need 1 or 2 to hit.

I'm not anti-military, just anti-waste. This is just for projection of military power for the rich, and what other country can afford to build such large ships? who are we suppose to be protecting ourselves from?

Isn't our military budget like 50% of what we spend?

[icnorth]

17. You've got to be on the alert

for those Taliban sponsored scuba dudes. They're practicing off the coast of Somalia with pirate boats as we speak. They seem to be having some trouble with ships armed with water cannon though.

[izquierdista]

19. Anti-waste = anti-military

Almost by definition, 90% of what the military does is a waste.

[Confusious]

40. My family has been in the military

Going back to the civil war. I don't believe that one bit.

[amandabeech]

25. Yes, this may be obsolete now, let alone when it is in service.

Sort of like battleships.

THE ship of WWI, but did not play a huge role in WWII.

WWII--carriers ruled.

Next naval war--missile ships, submarines and those aegis things.

[vadawg]

26. nope nothing projects power like having a carrier battlegroup and its airwing sitting within range

its psychologically very daunting as well as bringing a lot of firepower to the ball... i think you will also find the battleships played quite a big role for the landing forces in the island hopping campaign, nothing like a shell the size of a small car wahcking the shit out of dug in positions...

[amandabeech]

29. With the modern missile systems supposedly in the pipeline,

the carriers are going to have to stand pretty darn far off, which will limit their effectiveness.

I'm aware that the battle ships did some pounding, but it is not clear to me that the battleship guns were as effective against the Japanese as we had expected. The Japanese did not surrender to those guns.

[vadawg]

30. nope but they sure as hell helped to soften up the beaches

all this talk of super missiles is just that talk, if you dont believe that the first world navies are looking at the same info that we are and making informed decisions about their platforms then your mad, yes there are weapons capable of taking out a carrier, there always has been, you just take them into account and come up with defenses and ways of neutralising them before they can be deployed...

[Confusious]

41. Yes, but it just wasn't as easy

Dive bombing or torpedoing a carrier is a lot different then pressing a button for a missile. The newest Chinese missiles fly at mach 2 and I don't think there's a system to take those out, not even the phalanx.

[Confusious]

42. I know the navy is worried about the new chinese missle

They don't have anything to stop it.

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/united_states_supersonic_anti_ship_missile_threat

I don't think they have anything on that, but they did mention the Falklands, where a British ship was hit by an Exocet and sunk. How much was the ship vs the missile?

[vadawg]

44. yup the galahad and the sheffield were hit by exocets, it happens especially when you dont control

the airspace, but as i said there are smarter people than you and i working on the problem, and their are tactics being evolved for dealing with each problem. Not sure if you believe that the day of the carrier is over..

[Confusious]

45. When that exocet hit the ship

I started thinking the time of the carrier might be over. When I read about new missiles which could fly at supersonic speeds ( Exocet were sub-sonic ) I knew it was over.

You can buy 87,000 of these missiles or 1 carrier. not including development costs on both cases, which are probably higher for a carrier.

On Edit: forgot about air wings and men on the ships also.

[vadawg]

46. only reason the exocets were there was the royal navy couldnt get control of the airspace

thats why you have the carrier, makes it a lot harder to hit the ships if they control all the water around them and the air. I am going to disagree with you on this as i believe that the carrier group is still the most powerful both firepower wise and psychological force that any country can deploy (outside of nuking everyone). I read somewhere that one carrier group has more firepower than the majority of country's in the world total military forces, now thats projection of power...

[Confusious]

47. Yea I agree it's alot of firepower

they're neat also, impressive.

But before world war 1, countries were bankrupting themselves building battleships. We're doing that with carriers.

I looked up how many we have, 11. At the bottom of the page was the same argument we're having.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group

There's also a big difference between the Exocet and the newer missiles. Like I said, the Exocet was sub-sonic, so planes COULD shoot it out of the sky. The newer missiles are supersonic, so a plane can't get them. The Exocet flew in straight lines, the newer ones bob and weave.

[vadawg]

48. yup i know what you are saying, but what will happen is the bubble will be increased

the carriers will stand off more, and the areas were the new missiles are stored or launched wil be wacked before the carrier group moves in, im sure there are tactics in the works, similar to the sas raids against the argy air assets in the south atlantic..

[amandabeech]

51. I am far from mad. You do your argument no good with insults.

There is an historical tendency to fight the last war, including beefing up on the last war's weapons. Generals and admirals in what is now and what have been first world armies and navies have been known to do so. It is a part of human nature to see the future as resembling the past. Unfortunately, the future takes its own course.

In WWII we were fortunate to have some far-seeing military leaders who kept pushing the air craft carrier despite a lack of enthusiasm from higher ups. Based on the historical record, that we are putting major marbles on the carrier some 80-90 years later concerns me greatly.

[DavidDvorkin]

18. It will cost much less to sink it

Such monster ships are pointless in the face of new missile technology.

[hunter]

20. Meanwhile our food bank is short of turkeys.

Too bad aircraft carriers aren't made of meat. You could go out and shoot one.

[blues90]

21. Yeah , THIS is something we really need .

Take the money out of the reps and wallstreets pockets to pay for this crap and the upper 1 % , they are the ones who profit off crap like this.

[hunter]

23. Put a golf course on top, fill it with luxury suites, a high stakes casino...

... it would be an awesome cruise ship.

Wealthy people could brag on their blogs, "I'm not putting any carbon dioxide into the air today and I'm drinking seawater. How about you?"

It'd be like a place to stash wealthy people, keep them off the streets.

[arcadian]

28. 50 year life?

The USS Constitution is over 200 years old and its made of wood. This is what a 5 billion dollar hole in the ocean looks like.

[Posteritatis]

31. The USS Constitution isn't used for anything. 50 years for an active warship is ancient. (nt)

[arcadian]

32. The USS Constitution is an active warship.

[vadawg]

34. as is hms victory launched in 1765, dosent mean you would want to fight somali pirates in it.

not sure what you are advocating with this, not sure if you believe we should be using pre ww1 vessels or what...

[Posteritatis]

39. It's a commissioned warship, but not an active one

There's a difference; your comparison is completely ridiculous. The Constitution hasn't done anything other than sit there and look nice since before the Civil War.

[Confusious]

43. It's rebuilt every 25 years or so.

The last time was in the 80's or 90's. They tore it down and put in new crossmembers to stop hogging.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[classysassy]

35. And the madness continue

The military budget should be slashed by 75% and reduce the officer corp by 90%,and we'll have peace or law and order on the planet.

[vadawg]

36. you really think so, do you think if the US went totally isolationist that china wouldnt take taiwan

that the middle east wouldnt blow up, that pakistan and india wouldnt fight, that numerous other brush fires wouldnt start up, like it or not the US is the big guy on the block and the worlds police, Like any neighbourhood if you took away the police then the bad characters would start to take over...

[Karmadillo]

37. Now all the state budget cuts we're experiencing seem worth it. I just hope schools don't start

clamoring for all that defense money. If we don't build more aircraft carriers, the terrorists win.

[MSchreader]

49. And on a glorious day in September 2015...

The USS Gerald R. Ford leaves the dock and heads to the open seas....