U.S. Navy Asks Huntington Ingalls for Pricing on Two New Aircraft Carriers

gcaptain/Reuters ^ | March 19, 2018 | Mike Stone

[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 Navy’s request seeks to determine the savings achievable with a two-ship buy.

[rbmillerjr]

The defense is better than most think, though we need to keep up the R&D to maintain and improve as Chinese Carrier Busters get better.

The Strategic Triad worked and I think we need multiple modes to defend our interests. Long Rang Strike Aircraft, Drones, Carriers - all are critical.

Unfortunately, we also need to have a “triad” against the or political anti American Dims, as well. They will cut Strategic assets at the drop of a hat. Harder to kill a multi-year developed Carrier.

[tjd1454]

Yes. The latest generation hypersonic missiles will send them to a watery grave. Men will die.

[rbmillerjr]

Nope. It’s just not that easy.

[bmwcyle]

Or one submarine.

[tjd1454]

Dream on. Our beautiful carriers and brave sailors stand no chance. May God help them!

[rbmillerjr]

We are way ahead of the Chinese and Russians when it comes to ASW.

Hypersonic missiles are the best option, but they will have to launch them from a suitable range, a range where we can destroy the platform.

It’s a threat. But, it is still a game we are better at.

[Tallguy]

There’s a lot of hype surrounding “hypersonic missiles”. But keep in mind that US tests have yet to exceed a 3 minutes of sustained flight. Scramjets are finicky beasts.

[BroJoeK]

Sequoyah101: "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."

Important to remember the US has built 78 large aircraft carriers, of which only seven were sunk in battle, all in WWII and none of those built after 1941 -- the Essex & later classes.
US carriers are very robust, which does not mean "unsinkable", but does mean they can defend themselves against many potential threats.
More important, they always travel with carrier battle groups tailored to specific missions including submarines, anti-missile destroyers and whatever else might be needed.

The issues then include: is our intelligence accurate enough and our technology advanced enough to match-up our capabilities with expected threats?

Answer: so far, obviously yes.
In the future? Well, that depends on who is in charge of our national defense, doesn't it?

[rbmillerjr]

For those who think our Carriers are completely vulnerable, you should do some research on our multi node sensors for surveillance and reconnaissance. We can get their platforms before they shoot.

Also, the Chinese and Russian technology is still quite inferior to ours. If the platform survives, how will they even know where our Carriers are? At max range of a hyper-sonic missile launch our carriers can be 20+ miles away, they are very fast. Then, we have the ability to jam and confuse the anti ship hypers, as well as shooting them down with a very complex and Aegis system.

We have instantaneous kill chain capability from drones, AWACS, sensors, satellite...a complex chain that gets instant data back to ships to kill and maneuver.

I’m not saying there isn’t a threat, there is.
But we are way ahead of their game at this point.

[tjd1454]

Let us hope and pray that our defenses are sufficient to protect our brave men and women serving on those magnificent ships.

[Kickass Conservative]

Didn’t a Chinese Sub surface near one our Carrier Battle Groups and nobody knew it was there until it happened?

I seem to remember that episode.

[BroJoeK]

tjd1454: "The latest generation hypersonic missiles will send them to a watery grave."

Only if not anticipated & defended against.

The alternative is, US aircraft carriers don't go where threats are too high.
Finally, an attack on a carrier is a clear act of war inviting massive retaliation, not to be committed for trivial or transient reasons.

[Tallguy]

The Navy is moving rapidly toward laser defenses against hypersonic (they will eventually be fielded by our opponents). Every ship since the USS REAGAN has a hopped up power generation and distribution systems in anticipation of laser defenses. They already fielded such a weapon on a deployed ship — an LPD — deployed in the Persian Gulf.

[Lower Deck]

Didn’t a Chinese Sub surface near one our Carrier Battle Groups and nobody knew it was there until it happened?

I can guarantee you that the sub had no idea the carrier was as close as it was either. Otherwise it would never have surfaced where it did.

[Tallguy]

While it’s true that we have lost no carriers since the commissioning of the Essex-class, the statistic does not get at “operational kills” like the USS Franklin. Struck by 2, 500-lb bombs and numerous secondary explosions she limped back to Pearl & then the Brooklyn Navy Yard for extensive repairs.

Carriers are regularly taken out of service for 3 - 4 years for nuclear refueling and refits. That’s when it is “planned”. Severe battle damage? They’ll decommissioned and scrap, I suspect.

[bmwcyle]

Sure, STS2/SS

[rbmillerjr]

Yes, there was a US,SK,Japan naval exercise going on stressing communications. They weren’t in ASW mode. Still, basic procedures should have caught that.

I wouldn’t worry about it. Old Soviet technology was more advanced than that particular Chinese made diesel sub, though it used a German engine. We had Soviet subs on lockdown. .. With gratitude to Germany for selling China submarine engines...lol. Can’t trust them, even now.

[NormsRevenge]

Can’t we just use Amazon? Maybe WarFair has a couple laying in their warehouse back lot.

Package deal? Probably 35 billion before they find all the flaws and have to spend 10 billion more to fix them.

[sarge83]

USS Franklin was fully repaired but never made it back to the Pacific in time for further action. With the war over she went to the scrap heap eventually after some repatriation missions.

Carriers serve a purpose but they are vulnerable to diesel electric subs I suspect. We are down to Ticonderoga cruisers and Arleigh Burke DD’s and attack subs for screening. The F-18 needs longer legs to project power further out from the carrier itself like the old Turkey Tomcats.

Nimitz was laid down in 1968 is approaching the end of it’s life cycle so replacements will be needed. If we can protect the carriers, great, if we truly cannot we might need to consider smaller flatops at less cost.

[Sequoyah101]

I admit to not being expert or current or privy to classified but I’m pretty familiar with the ring of defense for a carrier battle group having been interested and studied it for years and years. The enemy only has to be right once. Nothing is bullet proof and I don’t expect it to be. I have long assumed that the military boffins are well out in front of threats or they would not consider building more very large single point all eggs in one basket targets.

I also assumed Lockheed and the military knew how to deliver reliable and effective airplanes on time and budget. They don’t.

We also saw the battleship admirals fight to keep those antiquated assets and build even more at the expense of carriers.

Maybe, were it not for politics and greed, I might have more faith that people who are supposed to know how to do the right things would only make minor mistakes.

Have you ever watched the satire, “Pentagon Wars”? Sadly too much of it is accurate. Someone on this thread noted that the A-12 Avenger II, a very promising platform, died in part because the powers that be could not agree on tandem or dual seating for the crew. We figured out a long time ago that the A-6 seating arrangement was very effective. It seems so obvious that the same would be right for the replacement aircraft.