Skip to comments.U.S. Navy Asks Huntington Ingalls for Pricing on Two New Aircraft Carriers
Posted on 03/20/2018 1:11:17 AM PDT by rockinqsranch
The U.S. Navy asked shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries on Monday for detailed pricing on the cost of two aircraft carriers, showing the Trump administration is taking a serious look at doubling its order for the most expensive ship in the U.S. fleet.
The Navys request seeks to determine the savings achievable with a two-ship buy.
(Excerpt) Read more at gcaptain.com ...
Surely we can do better than a pair of over-priced carriers. Why not instead build a space-based force that could rain down on anyone and likely be out of reach of most countries? Treaties aside, how about something more modern than a carrier.
Because space-based weapons are banned by treaty and any saving would be eaten up by having to defend against other nations space-based system.
Because you can’t just nuke a little tin-pot dictator’s army.
I am sure their are suborbitible solutions. Either way, carriers are overpriced floating targets.
A space treaty banning space based weapons is not going to stop the Russian, Chinese, nor the US (or most able nationstates) from building space based weapon platforms nor secretly deploying them either.
Deploying secretly would mean still building carriers, otherwise, the space bases would not be secret.
Treaties can be cancelled.
And how would you propose to win a NavAir battle in the Tainwan Strait or South China see, when this becomes necessary?
Long range land based assets.
It is not the last war but carriers did not fare well against land based assets. Air defense and damage control had better be a heck of a lot better than in the past. Even armored flight decks were no match for well placed iron bombs or torpedoes. Offensive weapons have come a long way since then.
I hope carriers are a lot more defensible than I think they are against an enemy resolved to take one out.
We have suborbital assets; theyre called ICBMs
The Navy will be hard-pressed to realize enough savings from construction efficiencies and a 2-ship-buy to offset the price increase in steel alone. We're seeing a 30% jump in carbon steel prices. Aluminum is going nuts too. Price quotes are only good for 2-days. Mostly the distributors are saying that they'll name their price when they accept the order.
Take price of one, multiply by two. Add 50% slush.
If it were up to Lie-berterean Free Traders that dry dock would be converted to condominiums.
Bullets are expensive, we should make soldiers go back to using swords.
Carriers are self sustaining platforms that take the role of small installations - w/o them, there would be many spots we could not effectively reach/attack/defend.
A mix of guns and swords ala the Romans themed episode of Star Trek.
I agree with your rationale, however a treaty can be easily skirted. I was a party to something that was forbidden by treaty or convention during the Vietnam War. We just did it anyway.
Promises, laws and treaties are made to be broken. If they weren’t, there would be no need for them. Just my opinion.
Force projection, besides weapon delivery systems, includes making commerce safe and open, humanitarian aid, and a whole host of other things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.