[2ndDivisionVet]

Two page article.

[Vision Thing]

Two nuclear reactors? Love it! Double down on the political incorrectness.

[DesertRhino]

Is it the catapult that doesn’t work, the fact that all it carries is Hornets and F-35 moonpigs, or the amazing separate quarters for the female crew?

[nathanbedford]

It has been my view for some time that the heroic age of the aircraft carrier as the 20th century's Dreadnought of the seas is drawing to a close.

Super carriers, even those marvelous new but hugely expensive Ford class carriers, are less and less useful against a world-class power such as China as they are increasingly forced farther offshore as missile technology advances. It is becoming increasingly questionable whether our planes have adequate range against a superpower like China, even if refueled, because they are necessarily launched from so far offshore. Recent sudden and unwelcome appearances of submarines within striking distance have, according to reports, suggested a greater vulnerability that had been believed.

Of course, defensive antimissile systems have been advanced as well but the threat is not always precisely known. It is the unknown which must give a president pause before he sends this emblem of American power in harms way. The diplomatic, strategic, and psychological impact of losing a super carrier cannot be dismissed. If a president cannot be perfectly certain that his carrier will survive incursions into the South China Sea, dare he venture?

If the super carrier is not a safe tool to use against China, what value is it?

A carrier retains its wonderful ability to project power against third world countries who cannot mount a serious missile or submarine threat. But do we need a super carrier to perform what is essentially an 19th century British gunboat mission? Can we afford it 11 times?

Will we be waging war, or better deterring war, with new weapons in space and in cyberspace, with drones and lasers and satellites? Where will the super carrier with its enormous expense and vulnerabilities fit in?

[Celtic Conservative]

The electric catapaults are based on a desgn the Disney company invented to launch roller coasters without a starter hill.

CC

[Fhios]

Bechtel

Bechtel used to be packed with Ex-politicians and some of the more important aides and councils of the Democratic party. Probably has deep CIA connections.

It's one of those companies you never hear about, but once you start hearing and reading things you know the money and influence runs deep.

[zeestephen]

I read an interesting article last week about our newest Destroyer.

Naval design seems to be focusing on building ships that can generate as much electricity as possible, and with good reason.

Laser bursts will cost less than a dollar each compared to $10,000 to $1 million for various missiles, which require storage and have explosive risk.

Railguns do not use explosive shells, which means more projectiles can be stored on board with no risk of explosion.

[Former War Criminal]

Gerald Ford was not a Naval Aviator.

[BTCM]

Airdales and nukes only bubbleheads captured USN design and leadership positions long ago eliminating diesel boats and fire power opposition opting for a more defensive posture just as the Democratic Party has been misdirected into Socialism.

[Chode]

ping

[wxgesr]

We are prisoners of our own devices, lulled by cool high tech that is out of date 10X by the time the fleet takes delivery.

Make numerous cheap low tech smaller WWII Jeep carriers, launch drones, limited flt ops, VLS, torps, maybe rail or laser offensive and defensive capabilities with updated EW suites.

Project power but always have a backup plan to fight.

Cut red tape in the acquisition process, build and deploy low-medium tech ships with lethality and survivability.