You're arguing against something that wasn't proposed.
He suggested building STOVL carriers based on the LHA-6 design, not converting amphibs to carriers, & there was no mention of it being a response to war losses of carriers, as I recall.
Ford Class Carriers
- Thread starter barnyard2
- Start date
He suggested building STOVL carriers based on the LHA-6 design, not converting amphibs to carriers, & there was no mention of it being a response to war losses of carriers, as I recall.
The US is in the same situation with LHD sized small carriers as we are with the larger super carriers. Only one shipyard is capable of building either. Production is limited to sustain the shipyard. If that Mississippi shipyard built small carriers it would be at the expense of building new replacement amphibious assault ships during peacetime. Again, I repeat the amphibious assault ships are more important...
Simply put, there are only so many trained and experienced shipyard workers. They don't grow on trees without a significant investment the nation has no intentions of funding unless there is a major world war...
Keep in mind one of the reasons why a few ships being built along the Gulf coast were finished late and over budget was due to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Up to a third of the shipyard workers were left homeless. Gulf coast shipyards are still recruiting to replace those who fled the area a few years ago, much less rebuilding or replacing their housing... The highly skilled workforce can't be replaced overnight. The logistics is easier said than done...
Simply put, there are only so many trained and experienced shipyard workers. They don't grow on trees without a significant investment the nation has no intentions of funding unless there is a major world war...
Keep in mind one of the reasons why a few ships being built along the Gulf coast were finished late and over budget was due to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Up to a third of the shipyard workers were left homeless. Gulf coast shipyards are still recruiting to replace those who fled the area a few years ago, much less rebuilding or replacing their housing... The highly skilled workforce can't be replaced overnight. The logistics is easier said than done...
Ah. I wasn't aware that there was only one yard. But that isn't actually an insuperable obstacle. Assuming there are smaller yards capable of it (I don't know - are there?), ships could be built in blocks in smaller yards, & the blocks floated to Mississippi for assembly. That would enable an increased throughput.
Electric Boat in Connecticut builds submarines. Newport News builds super carriers, but are able to build submarines as well, with only modules today. Bath Iron Works and Ingalls builds cruisers, destroyers and frigates. Ingalls also builds the large amphibious assault ships. Avondale builds smaller amphibious ships. National builds replenishment ships...
During the 1980s Todd SY in Seattle and LA build FFG-7s along with BIW. Todd no longer builds ships for the US Navy or Coast Guard. Neither Todd SY could match the price of BIW due to west coast payrolls....
Austal and Marinette Marine are bidding for the LCS. Marinette Marine has build larger coast guard cutters in the past. Bollinger builds smaller coast guard cutters/patrol boats...
The only shipyard capable of building 50k ton carriers is Newport News or Ingalls. Bath Iron Works isn't capable of building larger ships, nieither are Austral or Marinette Marine. While National can build ships up to 35-30k, it isn't capable of building a 50k ton light carrier. While several shipyards could build smaller ships, that is not the case with larger ships.
As I noted before, Newport News and Ingalls are sustained with enough orders to fund workers to build what they are building at today's rate. An increase of orders means they will have to either recruit more trained workers over a period of years, or reduce building other ships... Trained shipyard workers don't grow on trees...
Frankly, the US government is finding it hard to sustain the shipyards as is today, there is no desire to fund and sustain more...
During the 1980s Todd SY in Seattle and LA build FFG-7s along with BIW. Todd no longer builds ships for the US Navy or Coast Guard. Neither Todd SY could match the price of BIW due to west coast payrolls....
Austal and Marinette Marine are bidding for the LCS. Marinette Marine has build larger coast guard cutters in the past. Bollinger builds smaller coast guard cutters/patrol boats...
The only shipyard capable of building 50k ton carriers is Newport News or Ingalls. Bath Iron Works isn't capable of building larger ships, nieither are Austral or Marinette Marine. While National can build ships up to 35-30k, it isn't capable of building a 50k ton light carrier. While several shipyards could build smaller ships, that is not the case with larger ships.
As I noted before, Newport News and Ingalls are sustained with enough orders to fund workers to build what they are building at today's rate. An increase of orders means they will have to either recruit more trained workers over a period of years, or reduce building other ships... Trained shipyard workers don't grow on trees...
Frankly, the US government is finding it hard to sustain the shipyards as is today, there is no desire to fund and sustain more...
i agree with Sea Toby assessment however if we were facing a threat and china was this threat and we had lost a few carriers i would argue that the us congress would be less worried about cost rather than power thus i would say the nation would build additional ship yards to build both amphibious carriers and Super carriers further more if it were china and we wanted to actually invade there country i would suggest we would need to build a Super Amphibious Carrier i am not sure what that would en tall but i am certain we could do it
some side notes:
-swerve i have read that with minor upgrades our destroyer Shipyards could build a Amphibious assault Carrier like the America
-having said that if we had lost a carrier or more and an amphibious assault ship or more we would definitely need escorts assuming we lost the carriers and there escorts which would mean america would to make the Huge investment into many new temporary ship yards
-i cannot remember who said this but i do not believe the us navy would supplement our super carriers with so called light carriers
- furthermore an america class with a ski jump really doesn't make scene the navy assuming that this is the second Ford or another Nimitz could easy use all the specs from the previous model NO UPGRADES and then all of the build up items nuclear reactor and such go to 24 hour shifts i believe america could push a carrier out every two years max the cost of such a program and or ship would most likely be something like 20 billion but if it had to happen it could.
- to the argument that ship yard workers do not grow on trees which is most deferentially true however assuming such a national loss as at least to carrier battle groups lost and all lives lost the US people would demand retrovision thus i would argue war time economy and a navy which would pay what it needed to to attract ship yard workers and again the amount of sailors in an battle group vary but medium sized one which would patrol the pacific could have with the carrier 9,000 men or more and 9/11 lost just 2000
- hypothetical we could build 2 carriers at once and we do now a carriers usually have some overlap from fitting out to actually building to commissioning
-and i think if such a disature happend the US navy would use some of its drydocks to build ships KiwiRob
-however there is no need for any new shipyards in any current circumstance unless a major portion of the navy were taken out such as two to three carrier battle groups curent construction is all that is needed
-having said all this the chances of this happening multiple carrier loses is slim i believe if it were china being the threat we would use Attack subs to take out there defenses then send a task force with carriers.
some side notes:
-swerve i have read that with minor upgrades our destroyer Shipyards could build a Amphibious assault Carrier like the America
-having said that if we had lost a carrier or more and an amphibious assault ship or more we would definitely need escorts assuming we lost the carriers and there escorts which would mean america would to make the Huge investment into many new temporary ship yards
-i cannot remember who said this but i do not believe the us navy would supplement our super carriers with so called light carriers
- furthermore an america class with a ski jump really doesn't make scene the navy assuming that this is the second Ford or another Nimitz could easy use all the specs from the previous model NO UPGRADES and then all of the build up items nuclear reactor and such go to 24 hour shifts i believe america could push a carrier out every two years max the cost of such a program and or ship would most likely be something like 20 billion but if it had to happen it could.
- to the argument that ship yard workers do not grow on trees which is most deferentially true however assuming such a national loss as at least to carrier battle groups lost and all lives lost the US people would demand retrovision thus i would argue war time economy and a navy which would pay what it needed to to attract ship yard workers and again the amount of sailors in an battle group vary but medium sized one which would patrol the pacific could have with the carrier 9,000 men or more and 9/11 lost just 2000
- hypothetical we could build 2 carriers at once and we do now a carriers usually have some overlap from fitting out to actually building to commissioning
-and i think if such a disature happend the US navy would use some of its drydocks to build ships KiwiRob
-however there is no need for any new shipyards in any current circumstance unless a major portion of the navy were taken out such as two to three carrier battle groups curent construction is all that is needed
-having said all this the chances of this happening multiple carrier loses is slim i believe if it were china being the threat we would use Attack subs to take out there defenses then send a task force with carriers.
Last edited:
It's not a question of attracting workers, it's a question of training them. There simply isn't all that many MilGrade certified welders in the country, and most of them are already employed in the arms industry. And remember, if an all out conventional war were to happen, carrier construction wouldn't be the only area that would step up production. Destroyers, cruisers, submarine, aircraft armoured vehicles, artillery, all the paraphernalia of war would be needed in greater numbers, and they'd all suck qualified worker to them.
Its easy for the large uninformed masses to say why didn't the Louisiana national guard and other relief agencies act more swiftly in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Many of the masses have never seen New Orleans. The city is surrounded by a hundred miles of swamp, the city itself in a bowl under sea level. All the freeways that slice through the city are elevated. During Katrina many of the elevated freeways were flooded... Its hard for others elsewhere to understand flooded elevated freeways...
On the other hand the army and/or national guard won't deploy without its supply line in tack. Anywhere... Simply put, many are concerned about the teeth end of a military action, not the butt end of logistics and supply... Without logistics there is no front line...
Shipyards have different logistics problems. But logistics plays a key role with shipyards and shipbuilding as well...
On the other hand the army and/or national guard won't deploy without its supply line in tack. Anywhere... Simply put, many are concerned about the teeth end of a military action, not the butt end of logistics and supply... Without logistics there is no front line...
Shipyards have different logistics problems. But logistics plays a key role with shipyards and shipbuilding as well...
fretburner
Banned Member
This is probably off topic: How vulnerable are super carriers to subs? A carrier group only has 1 (or maybe 2?) attack subs with it right?
t68
Well-Known Member
All shipping is vulnerable to subs, that why a carrier battle group has a large screening escort group
Carriers have been sunk in exercise with diesel/electric subs, you get a smart sub commander who on top of his game will be able to pull it off, but in saying that a lot has to go the subs way and how good the screening ships are and how tired the crew are on both sides. if they have been on alert for long periods of time might lead to exhaustion and miss thing that they would normally see when fresh.
i reallies ship building and welders and such are in high demand but lets just say that china takes 3 carriers out and there entire battle group
now i get in this world between 3 and 6 cruisers are gone (need to be replaced) 6 to 9 Destroyers 3 to 6 frigates 3 to 6 subs plus replenishment ships and the 3 carriers we have lost 30 ships plus the re replenishment vessels in combat ready ships we lost a tenth of the navy OK?
now please tell me something the military in WWII raised wages of welders and such to make the line of work more appealing right in this World i get that we need tanks helos planes support ships all the thing required for war
I get that but we have lost 1/10 of our navy in an attack are we really going to keep our building cycles at the same levels?
are we going to not open NAVY owned shipyards are we not going to do everything as a nation to replace what is lost and build up to combat this enemy?
now i get in this world between 3 and 6 cruisers are gone (need to be replaced) 6 to 9 Destroyers 3 to 6 frigates 3 to 6 subs plus replenishment ships and the 3 carriers we have lost 30 ships plus the re replenishment vessels in combat ready ships we lost a tenth of the navy OK?
now please tell me something the military in WWII raised wages of welders and such to make the line of work more appealing right in this World i get that we need tanks helos planes support ships all the thing required for war
I get that but we have lost 1/10 of our navy in an attack are we really going to keep our building cycles at the same levels?
are we going to not open NAVY owned shipyards are we not going to do everything as a nation to replace what is lost and build up to combat this enemy?
No, you don't get it. The majority of MilGrade certified workers (Welders, electricians, machinists etc.) are already employed in vital industries. You'll have to train new ones, and that takes years.
Even retraining certificate welders will take a year at least, and those are few and far in between.
In the end, I believe a war would be over before new constructions even starts to roll off the slipways.
No, during a major conventional world war there will be an attempt to build ships faster, spend ungodly amounts to train shipbuilders, etc. Its important to win the war at whatever costs. Debts will be paid off later.
The problem with navy owned shipyards is there is at the moment not enough workers to build ships, not to mention that the naval shipyards have not been modernized.
WWII was sixty years ago. I doubt whether a conventional world war would not escalate into a nuclear war... So these questions appear naive...
In a nuclear war, our military industrial complex will be targeted. The US is no longer protected by oceans from enemy attack. We are living in a missile age...
Its been noted before keeping our highly skilled trained shipyard workers and their shipyards sustained is one of the main reasons why we buy/build ships every year, just enough to keep them busy... Neither the administration or the Congress have any intentions of spending more during peacetime...
But this idea we could start building and completing ships within a year isn't real... It will take that long, if not more, to recruit and train the workers, and modernized the naval shipyards at great expense. There hasn't been any modernization of the naval shipyards, many have been closed for decades.
Simply put, I doubt whether the US could be the arsenal of democracy alike WWII ever again...
Last edited:
so you are saying it can not be done any faster the us military has lost 1/10 of its sea power but the us navy has NO way to accelerate construction and hire more welders to do the job i am sorry i do not believe that
I can accept that Navy owned ship yards are not the answer. however in this theory i think some patriotism may get the navy the workers they need. additionally i don't think we will be worried about navy yards not modernized we would just do what has to be done.
completely agree about nuclear threat however i thought this was a Conventional war.
again i know why our ship building program is like it is we want to keep ship yards in the US and their workers to stay working I understand that we currently with our entire navy do not have reason for a ship building program like the one i suggested but i am not suggesting that we need to i am however saying if we had lost 1/10 of our navy we would.
so i disagree i think we could in a conventional war if it is nuclear well the world is over but if it is just conventional then we should be able to build an arsenal of democracy
I am sure in a conventional world war the US would attempt to increase production. No one knows how a war will go, whether a lot of ships are sunk, or not, and how long a war will last. If the war lasted a month or two, there is a very good chance only a few ships would be sunk. On the other hand if a war lasted ten years, there is a very good chance half the fleet would be sunk.
So why are you so concerned with ten percent? Over a thirty year period for most ships, fifty years for carriers, ten percent of our carrier fleet is about one carrier, and ten percent of our cruiser/destroyer fleet is about ten cruiser/destroyers. The Congress could add another year or two of building ships easily at tne end of a shipbuidling program or tacked onto existing shipbuilding plans one at a time in annual budgets. Those lost ships would be replaced within ten years.
But to do so the shipyards would have to increase their workforce for a period of time. Ten percent is not as much of an impact as losing half of the fleet. During the last world war we overbuilt for a war which lasted four years. Many of the ships ordered were cancelled after the war. Why?
Could it be because the American taxpayers didn't want to be taxed as high anymore and wished tor the private sector to provide jobs for returning servicemen?
Whether the US fleet is 300 ships or 200 ships, we would still have the largest navy in the world...
On the other hand if we lost more than half of the fleet, we may never replace all of the losses....
So why are you so concerned with ten percent? Over a thirty year period for most ships, fifty years for carriers, ten percent of our carrier fleet is about one carrier, and ten percent of our cruiser/destroyer fleet is about ten cruiser/destroyers. The Congress could add another year or two of building ships easily at tne end of a shipbuidling program or tacked onto existing shipbuilding plans one at a time in annual budgets. Those lost ships would be replaced within ten years.
But to do so the shipyards would have to increase their workforce for a period of time. Ten percent is not as much of an impact as losing half of the fleet. During the last world war we overbuilt for a war which lasted four years. Many of the ships ordered were cancelled after the war. Why?
Could it be because the American taxpayers didn't want to be taxed as high anymore and wished tor the private sector to provide jobs for returning servicemen?
Whether the US fleet is 300 ships or 200 ships, we would still have the largest navy in the world...
On the other hand if we lost more than half of the fleet, we may never replace all of the losses....
the ten percent was the 3 carriers and the 27 escorts mentioned previously having read through this I agree that we WAY over built in the WW2 and i would agree that the tax payers do not want a repeat
Juramentado
New Member
Given SecDef Gates' recent comments at the Navy League Con, we may see a slowdown in carrier builds coming sooner rather than later. Whether you agree or not, this is the first Cabinet member in a long time to actually take a swipe at the holy-of-holies. The question becomes, how will DoN respond? Two winners are apparent right now, one is the sub community, and come hell-or-high water, SecDef's going to ram LCS through. Everything else is potentially on the chopping block.
fretburner
Banned Member
I guess it's a good thing for the US to have the Swedes and Germans as their allies eh? I've seen on Nat Geo on how silent this Swedish sub is, with it's hydrogen fuel cell engines, and that the US Navy even "borrowed" the sub for trainings. It would be scary if technologies like these would be acquired by nations hostile to the US, or any other country for that matter. Sounds like these subs are almost like deterrents to Carriers.
yeah when i read about that yesterday and today i just felt sick
i get the fact that no one else has carriers like ours but in my mind that is no reason to slow or halt construction as our sec of defense suggest
he also suggested the SSBX is way over budget so subs not completely safe scary and definitely took a swipe at the marines procurement of the EFV
F-15 Eagle
New Member
I thought building 1 carrier every 5 years was more economically sustainable according to Gates, now its too expensive? Gates is too much of a wish washy politician that makes me nervous as hell. He changes his mind way too much like when he cut the F-22 for more F-35s now he cuts the F-35 buy through 2015, I don't like him one bit.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
Yeah I'm scared for the Navy as well. Do they need 11 carriers? Yes.
Do they need more DDG-51 destroyers/cruisers? Yes.
Do they need more Virginia class attack subs and 12 SSBN(X)? Yes.
Do they need 60 LCS? No, those need to be canceled IMO.