USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) may not be ready to deploy until 2024. It once had a 2018 planned deployment date.
There is more testing (shock testing) and there are still technical issues.
The Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) carrier has cost over $13 billion.
CVN-78, CVN-79, CVN-80, and CVN-81 are the first four ships in the Navy’s new Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs).
The US has a carrier readiness problem.
There is a delay in deploying the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) due to emergent electrical problems. There is a two-plus-year maintenance period for USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77). The long-extended availability of USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) that left the carrier unable to relieve USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) in the Middle East and forced Truman into a double pump deployment.
There are only two yards in the U.S. that were capable of repairing the Navy’s domestic nuclear carriers and that the Navy’s Optimized Fleet Response Plan that was supposed to provide the Navy the ability to surge forces in case of emergency has been ineffective.
The US Navy will spend $21-billion, over a 20-year public shipyard optimization plan.
SOURCES- USNI, Congressional Budget Reports
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Who hasnt read where carriers and stealth as obsolete yet we see our adversaries heavily investing in both. Carriers are harder to sink than you think. In other news, US is still moving forward while investing heavily in ghost fleets. This i feel is a smart investment to counter the outrageous cost of each capital ships putting forth.
The trend post Breton Woods accord has the US pulling inward and no longer needing to protect the sea lanes cause our economy is least invested in international trade. America’s critics decrying us as the world’s police will finally get their wish.
Moving forward, US/Chinese trade isnt important. Current tariffs will stay and will be the entry cost. The US will just deal with its sphere of influence. USMCA, Australia, Japan and the UK after Brexit. We’re now a self sustaining country and becoming more isolationist long before Trump came about.
You be you. If the Chinese navy was all that they wouldn’t need those piles of sand in the South China Sea.
China is quite competent and also has a larger Navy with ships almost as good as ours if not better in some cases. Never forget the Chinese Coast guard is made up of frigates…better armed than many nations navies.
So tell me please what you base this information off of. Also what would you replace said carriers with.
They don’t Launch the C they Launch the B which has far less range and can’t refuel them in the air. On top of that it also can’t send up E-3’s. ALSO
The modern US AMPHIB ships are the America class which cost around 3.5 billion per unit Also instead of being able to accommodate 20 F-35 it will have less as the follow on ships after the first 3 will again have a well deck which the America and first 3 of the class do Not have.
To add to this the Cost of the Ford class isn’t in steel its in systems. Some like the Radar systems are really problems from the Zumwalt class which they put all the Development cost over on the ford due to well the Zumwalts are a wreak. Add in the first electromagnetic launchers for aircraft and also elevator shafts for the weapons lifts which also don’t work and you get a INSANE amount of technological risk put into one ship..
This also ignores that 4 America class ships for 3.5bil would give us about a 65% of the capability of the Large carrier because of the constrains of the F-35B and the smaller deck as well as limit the Navy in its operations also Without decreasing the major cost for the US Navy……PEOPLE.
We did this for the
F-35
LCS class vessels
Zumwalt Destroyers
and many many others.
Basically someone said why do we do things the old way! Then ruined the DoD programs by ignoring said wisdom and left the US tax payer with the price.
All of those people probably now work for lockheed martin.
Yes, they have the ability to sink a carrier … from land.
Both of them have the ability to sink a carrier. None will, because of the repercussions. In reality, the biggest threat the carriers face is rogue nations & terrorists. Both of which could buy black market Russian gear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship
You said competent navies.
China & Russia are neither.
The number of “competent” Navies on Earth can be counted on 1 hand and they are all allies or neutral.
Has the US Navy never seriously proposed a CVN scale testing ship , similar to their destroyer sized testing ships? Barring that, a land based analog “ironbird” that is a full up system (basically a ship in a bucket).
Carriers – technological marvels…that should no longer exist.
They are giant floating targets, any competent Navy could easily sink a carrier, killing all 5,000 on board.
If I was El Presidente, I would continue construction on all carriers under construction, and cancel all future planned ones. The Navy is to big & bloated, time to cut the dead weight.
Maybe the navy should build some non-nuclear helicopter carriers that can also launch F-35C for 1/4 the price.
Use the F-35 VTOL and the Marine Carriers to supplement.