Here’s an
informational post documenting last year’s commissionings and decommissionings
as reported listed in the May 2018 Proceedings magazine.
Commissioned
Gabrielle Giffords, LCS-10, 10-Jun-2017
John Finn, DDG-113,
15-Jul-2017
Gerald R.
Ford, CVN-78, 22-Jul-2017
Rafael
Peralta, DDG-115, 29-Jul-2017
Decommissioned
City of Corpus Christi 3-Aug-2017
LCS lives what a damned tragedy our only hope for them is they never see combat but it's sad to see the decommissioned ships lots of history stories and pride especially with the Enterprise
ReplyDeleteWe are officially down a carrier with the loss of the Enterprise. I doubt that the Ford will be actually usable (for anything beyond helicopters and F-35Bs at least) anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, the Congressional House Armed Services Committee is looking at adding legislation to the next budget mandating increase from 11 carriers to 12. Of course, we only have 9 air wings so it's somewhat of a moot issue!
DeleteHow many air wings by Vietnam standards, five?
DeleteI'm not sure what you're asking. During the '60s we had around 22 carriers.
DeleteIts time for another Ford update/bashing post based on recent news.
Deletehttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-08/carrier-suffers-new-failure-at-sea-as-u-s-navy-seeks-more-funds
It was the second failure in less than a year with a “main thrust bearing” that’s part of the $12.9 billion carrier’s propulsion system. The first occurred in April 2017, during sea trials a month before the vessel’s delivery.
So it broke down during trials, yet they didn't tell anyone and accepted it anyway. EMALS is still in development and may never be ready.
http://www.g2mil.com/EMALS.htm
And the Admirals solution? They want to start construction of the 4th Ford sooner than planned!
There is this wonderful marvel of technology called an amphibious assault ship.
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship
They have also functioned as harrier carriers carrying expanded groups of AV-8b harriers into combat.
http://planetar65.blogspot.ca/2013/10/amphibious-assault-ships-as-backups-for.html?m=1
And the F-35B was designed after all to operate from these ships. Sure let they can in a way take over the carrier role or even supplement them right?
"And the F-35B was designed after all to operate from these ships. Sure let they can in a way take over the carrier role or even supplement them right?"
DeleteWhy don't you attempt an analysis of your statement? What are the characteristics of an F-35B compared to F-18s and F-35Cs that a full carrier would operate? How does the lack of a catapult on amphibs impact aircraft take off weights, fuel loads, range, and weapon loads? Can this provide sufficient operational performance to justify the use of an expensive amphib for a relatively small number of aircraft? And so on ...
There's nothing wrong with posing the question but why don't you take a shot at answering the question?
I've always been intrigued by the idea of adding a ski ramp to the America class (it's already sacrificed much in the way of a 'phib to be aviation centric) so that it could operate F-35B's with more of a load. But there are other issues.
DeleteA) What role would it perform? If it's going to be a light carrier, than to perform ideally it should have some form of AWACS. Can an F-35b do this AWACS role? Ideally you'd also want some sort of small tanker. Could a V22 do it (I hate the V22. But it's there, so...)
B) Is it worth the money to have it be that role, even if you outfitted all of the America's. You could, with a ski jump, and up with a carrier that is just as capable as many nations front line carriers. But for us it's a 70% (maybe?) solution for how much cost? It would need escorts. It would need a fuel train. It wouldn't be relatively logistically light like an old Jeep carrier setup.
I think what we really could have used for the past 20 years is to have spent the money on converting a 'phib hull to carry a light attack aircraft that was cheap. You'd have to spend the money up front for the conversion, and find a light attack aircraft that could do it effectively, but I think in the long run it would have made more sense to send the USS Jeep carrier and it's navalized Tucano's to bomb Hi Lux's than it would have to have sent the H.W. Bush and it's SuperHornets.
JFW
You also forgot the electronic warfare Growler type aircraft without which an air wing is severely limited.
DeleteYou also didn't address the air wing size. An America class can operate around 22 F-35's, I seem to recall. If so, and lacking the other aircraft types, you've got more like a 30% solution at a 70% cost.
"Gabriel Giffords, LCS-10, 10-Jun-2017"
ReplyDeleteGabrielle
Oops! My bad. Corrected.
DeleteWow, the mighty USA only commissioned 3 war vessels which work last year.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, in China: " During 2014 alone, more than 60 naval ships and craft were laid down, launched, or commissioned, with a similar number expected through the end of 2015."
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/chinas-navy-modernization-and-fleet.html
Irrational forceful hypersensitive bullies will dominate the world for the 21st century. This is not good.
Andrew
The UK and France are developing MCM systems which seem to be workable and are orders of magnitude cheaper than LCS:
ReplyDeletehttp://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/towards-unmanned-stand-off-maritime.html
The linked article has little in the way of relevant costs. What makes you say the UK/Fr systems are orders of magnitude cheaper? Do you have directly comparable cost data?
DeleteFor example, the US is also developing an unmanned surface tow vessel for influence sweeping. Is it orders of magnitude more expensive than the UK's version?
Maybe you could collect some data and present it to us? It would be very interesting.
Side note: the UK MCM effort sounds every bit as confused and haphazard as the US, if not more so! I think this is function of the speed of development of the technology. A piece of equipment is designed, pronounced the future of MCM, and dropped the next day in favor of the next new design. And the cycle continues. We're seeing MCM technology develop so fast that no one is able to pursue anything long term. If they did, whatever it was would be hopelessly obsolete by the time it was fielded!
We "commissioned" 2 Chinese ASM targets and the world's heaviest paperweight until we know it can launch and recover jets safely.
ReplyDeleteI would gladly and in a heart beat take back the 3 old SSN and the old Enterprise back. They were old but at least they worked!
BuShips has redesignated the LCS as a WSO, Warship Shaped Object.
ReplyDeleteCVN Ford has been reroled as LHA-N Ford, no need now for cats
& traps.
Got a chuckle out of that. Thanks!
DeleteHaven't found much info but the little I have found says USS Ford is still years away from deploying. Anybody heard anything else? So we still have to wait another 3 to 4 years before Ford really "joins" the fleet?
ReplyDeleteTentative schedule has the first deployment in 2022 - if all goes well - which it won't.
Delete