Reply With QuoteI forsee a brilliant future for them. At least 50 more years of US sea domination with carriers.
So what do you think is the future of the modern Nimitz-class-esque super-carrier? Will it eventually go the way of the battleship? Is it completely necessarily for American power projection, in its current numbers? Do we need more? Are Ticos and smaller carriers the wave of the future? Or are carriers a permanent part to a naval force the foreseeable future?
Who wants DVDs? Good prices! I swear! :)
I forsee a brilliant future for them. At least 50 more years of US sea domination with carriers.
How much do they cost to make? (and run for that matter!)
I suppose from the USAs point of view they are great because you don't have to butter up some other country to get them to let you launch airstrikes from their territory.
The current class runs about $4.5 billion a pop to build. Here's a good link that lays out the operating and lifetime costs:Originally posted by reds4ever
How much do they cost to make? (and run for that matter!)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-68.htm
"The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident
Scrap them all and have more money for social programs, healthcare, research etc..
-- What history has taught us is that people do not learn from history.
-- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Smaller carriers, more drones.
Banana
Latvia is perfectly free to scrap all of its aircraft carriers so that it has more money for social programs, healthcare, and researchOriginally posted by binTravkin
Scrap them all and have more money for social programs, healthcare, research etc..
The current carriers will probably see out their lives but a lot of the strike capability is likely to be taken over by sub-orbital high speed strike aircraft that operate at the edge of the atmosphere. You only need a few bases scattered around the globe then.
So things may well change 20-30 years down the line.
Of course, the USN won't take being supplanted by the USAF lying down so there will be a lot of politics and arguments (and tears and money) to go through first.
Never give an AI an even break.
Very necessary for the next 50 years. After that, they may not be so necessary. But they will still be around. It will take a major war to prove they aren't useful anymore. Just like ww2 did with the battleships.
IIRC the United Kingdon is replacing it's Invincible class of carriers with Nimitz-sized carriers over the next 10-20 years.
5 billion and around 150 million a year to operate.Originally posted by reds4ever
How much do they cost to make? (and run for that matter!)
I suppose from the USAs point of view they are great because you don't have to butter up some other country to get them to let you launch airstrikes from their territory.
In that case, the US should just sell them their old ones.Originally posted by Kalius
IIRC the United Kingdon is replacing it's Invincible class of carriers with Nimitz-sized carriers over the next 10-20 years.
That's not the real world. Your job has little to do with the sort of thing most people do for a living. - Agathon
If social security were private, it would be prosecuted as a Ponzi scheme.
Yep... here we go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_CVF_programme
I agree.Originally posted by VetLegion
I forsee a brilliant future for them. At least 50 more years of US sea domination with carriers.
The only thing that could potentially change things is a new jet engine technology that could change the range of fighters (and multi-role fighter-bombers). But even with that, it would require pilots to log longer flight times and still it might just mean carriers would be used in different roles... that sort of thing.
They are still significantly smaller than a Nimitz class carrier - wiki just said they are closer to the Nimitz class than the former carriers (description of one of the pics there).Originally posted by Kalius
IIRC the United Kingdon is replacing it's Invincible class of carriers with Nimitz-sized carriers over the next 10-20 years.
The article says "65,000 tonnes displacement and a length of 274m (900ft)" for those new carriers while the Nimitz is over 100,000 tonnes and over 330m.....
Banana
Not useful, except for expensively shaking down hapless third world countries.
You're forgetting China.
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
And then the UK sell their old ones to the Canadians. And maybe throw in a free bucket hole repair kit this time.Originally posted by pchang
In that case, the US should just sell them their old ones.
Capitalisation - The difference between helping your uncle Jack off a horse, and helping your uncle jack off a horse
Grammar - The difference between knowing your $hit, and knowing you're $hit.
Spelling - The difference between being literate, and being Dinner.
What use are they against China?Originally posted by Cyclotron
You're forgetting China.
I think the US should continue bankrupting itself countering the Chinese menace while the rest of us spend our money on living it up...:beer:
"History is a lie that has been honed like a weapon by people who have suppressed the truth. Centuries from now, your own history will also be suppressed."
Dunno, but were 10,000 nukes really needed against the USSR?Originally posted by Sandman
What use are they against China?
Visit First Cultural Industries
There are reasons why I believe mankind should live in cities and let nature reclaim all the villages with the exception of a few we keep on display as horrific reminders of rural life.-Starchild
Meat eating and the dominance and force projected over animals that is acompanies it is a gateway or parallel to other prejudiced beliefs such as classism, misogyny, and even racism. -General Ludd
Or in leading Tsunami relief efforts.Originally posted by Sandman
Not useful, except for expensively shaking down hapless third world countries.
And China
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Carrier battle groups are very useful for shaking down advanced first world countries too. In fact those battle groups can completely control sea lanes if you have enough of them positioned in the right locations.Originally posted by Sandman
Not useful, except for expensively shaking down hapless third world countries.
"Our scientific power has out run out spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer
Considering how China must import most of its raw materials via the sea...Originally posted by Sandman
What use are they against China?
"Our scientific power has out run out spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer
No ****ing kidding. We couldn't have pulled off half our stuff off of Sumatra without the Abe Lincoln.Originally posted by Verto
Or in leading Tsunami relief efforts.
And, as Oerdin said, we can use them to shake down first world countries too.
With such viral bias, you're opinion is thus rendered useless. -Shrapnel12, on my "bias" against the SS.
I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith — it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.
Where else would we base airplanes out of for airstrikes on China? Guam? That covers the heavy bombers...but that's about it.Originally posted by Sandman
What use are they against China?
Also, Carriers aren't static targets, so while the airfields in Taiwan are being bombed, the Carriers can just move around...
With such viral bias, you're opinion is thus rendered useless. -Shrapnel12, on my "bias" against the SS.
I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith — it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.
Just build missile ships. Why waste money on vulnerable carriers? If you can get smart enough missiles, a single much smaller, faster, less vulnerable vessel could deliver the same amount of firepower.
Subs are the best way to control the sea lanes. Far less vulnerable than carriers, and not influences by weather.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Hard to run fighter escorts with missile ships. Hard to run resupply missions with missile ships. Missiles can't be used in anti-submarine warfare nor can they be used to escort merchant ship convoys.
"Our scientific power has out run out spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer
ASW can be run cheaper and more effectively by frigates than aircraft from carriers. Carriers don't play a central ASW role.Originally posted by Oerdin
Hard to run fighter escorts with missile ships. Hard to run resupply missions with missile ships. Missiles can't be used in anti-submarine warfare nor can they be used to escort merchant ship convoys.
Why would you need escort fighters with missile ships?
And what the **** would anyone be doing with a nuclear carrier escorting convoys? This isn't WW2 and there are NOT baby flattops.
We are talking the realities of 2005 technology, not 1945 naval combat.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks