U.S. Navy Not Fit For War

#876
#876
Grand Vol said:
The battleship is pretty much the A-10 of the Navy. Very limited use, but the one job it has, it does extremely well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Battleships are effective but they are not worth the costs. You can build multiple submarines with the costs of one battleship or numerous planes. This was seen in WW2 and why they were sunset as a military weapon.
 
#877
#877
1682368303130-png.100734
 
#878
#878
volbound1700 said:
Yeah, Battleships are effective but they are not worth the costs. You can build multiple submarines with the costs of one battleship or numerous planes. This was seen in WW2 and why they were sunset as a military weapon.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the anti-ship role, the inclusion of Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles made it a pretty good contender for champ of the sea especially with the armored hulls they had. And lord help the thin skinned vessel that got within range of those 16s.

I have no doubt of they went toe to toe with the Kirov they were put back into service for (well one of the reasons) they would have been evenly matched if not more especially since the BB battlegroups came with a Tico cruiser.

And facing facts, even though the USMC has moved away from forced landings, the ability to hurl a Volkswagen weight shell 20+ miles inland is a capability that still hasn't been replaced. There's a psychological edge to having one of those lurking in the nearby is unmatched.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1, UT_Dutchman, 85SugarVol and 2 others
#879
#879
Grand Vol said:
When it comes to the anti-ship role, the inclusion of Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles made it a pretty good contender for champ of the sea especially with the armored hulls they had. And lord help the thin skinned vessel that got within range of those 16s.

I have no doubt of they went toe to toe with the Kirov they were put back into service for (well one of the reasons) they would have been evenly matched if not more especially since the BB battlegroups came with a Tico cruiser.

And facing facts, even though the USMC has moved away from forced landings, the ability to hurl a Volkswagen weight shell 20+ miles inland is a capability that still hasn't been replaced. There's a psychological edge to having one of those lurking in the nearby is unmatched.
Click to expand...

Yeah they definitely have uses but it is cheaper to build 20 A-10 bombers than a single battleship to bomb those beaches with the same effect. Regarding missiles, you could load them on Destroyers and Frigates and get the same impact.

Navies are even moving away from Cruiser Classes now because of the expense and the fact that a lot of tiny, easy-to-build, missile boats can easily overwhelm bigger classes.

Carriers are still a must and will be big because of their ability to project power with aircraft. Submarines are growing in size as well because they can hide under the waves from missiles. Carriers and Submarines, for the most part, replaced traditional surface ships (especially large ones).
 
#880
#880
Give me 300 B-21 that can target say 120 (guess as B-2 can carry 160) SDBs, 600 F-22, 500 F-35 and 100 SSNs and one can dominate
X-mas wish list
 
#881
#881
volbound1700 said:
Yeah, Battleships are effective but they are not worth the costs. You can build multiple submarines with the costs of one battleship or numerous planes. This was seen in WW2 and why they were sunset as a military weapon.
Click to expand...
You can build multiple submarines for the cost of one battleship? What submarines are we talking about, what battleship? I’m not following here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1 and hog88
#884
#884
85SugarVol said:
New Virginia’s will run you $4B+ per boat.
Those new Columbia boats are the price of an aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...

I knew they were expensive machines, not cheap to build to sub-safe standards even if you took out all of the BS that comes along with building for the .gov.
 
#885
#885
hog88 said:
I knew they were expensive machines, not cheap to build to sub-safe standards even if you took out all of the BS that comes along with building for the .gov.
Click to expand...
The Virginia Block V SSW (Subsea & Seabed Warfare) sub-class, a one off, is estimated at $5.1B

Can probably expect to add 20% to that when the final accounting comes out.

I’m sure it will be real damn fancy, but at the end of the day it’s still an attack sub - a $6B attack sub. Brrrrr
 
#886
#886
85SugarVol said:
The Virginia Block V SSW (Subsea & Seabed Warfare) sub-class, a one off, is estimated at $5.1B

Can probably expect to add 20% to that when the final accounting comes out.

I’m sure it will be real damn fancy, but at the end of the day it’s still an attack sub - a $6B attack sub. Brrrrr
Click to expand...

You could probably build a few smaller "battleships" or mini carriers for that.
 
#887
#887
85SugarVol said:
The Virginia Block V SSW (Subsea & Seabed Warfare) sub-class, a one off, is estimated at $5.1B

Can probably expect to add 20% to that when the final accounting comes out.

I’m sure it will be real damn fancy, but at the end of the day it’s still an attack sub - a $6B attack sub. Brrrrr
Click to expand...

It wasn't long ago that an Aircraft Carrier cost less than $6B to build. Now it costs $6B+ for a submarine?
 
#888
#888
Inflation is killing our procurement budget as well. Just too many trillions wasted and all these recapitalization projects at once. SSBN, Frigates, upping number of SSN, NGAD after cancelling F-22, KC-46 tankers to replace KC-135, TRX trainer to replace T-38, new ICBM, B-21, new rifle programs ad nauseam, GPS replacement, Hummer replacement, AAV, E-7, E-6, MH copters, Blackhawk replacement.

Makes you wonder just what in the hell they have purchased the last 20 years besides MRAPS, F-35, Ford, Burkes and LCS.
 
#889
#889
Orangeburst said:
Inflation is killing our procurement budget as well. Just too many trillions wasted and all these recapitalization projects at once. SSBN, Frigates, upping number of SSN, NGAD after cancelling F-22, KC-46 tankers to replace KC-135, TRX trainer to replace T-38, new ICBM, B-21, new rifle programs ad nauseam, GPS replacement, Hummer replacement, AAV, E-7, E-6, MH copters, Blackhawk replacement.

Makes you wonder just what in the hell they have purchased the last 20 years besides MRAPS, F-35, Ford, Burkes and LCS.
Click to expand...

They're also getting rid of the Osprey.
 
#891
#891
Orangeburst said:
Inflation is killing our procurement budget as well. Just too many trillions wasted and all these recapitalization projects at once. SSBN, Frigates, upping number of SSN, NGAD after cancelling F-22, KC-46 tankers to replace KC-135, TRX trainer to replace T-38, new ICBM, B-21, new rifle programs ad nauseam, GPS replacement, Hummer replacement, AAV, E-7, E-6, MH copters, Blackhawk replacement.

Makes you wonder just what in the hell they have purchased the last 20 years besides MRAPS, F-35, Ford, Burkes and LCS.
Click to expand...

Still a whole bunch of 30-35 year old submarines chugging along out there.
 
#892
#892
Willy P said:
Still a whole bunch of 30-35 year old submarines chugging along out there.
Click to expand...

With a 40 year life. We are trying to grow the SSN fleet and the numbers indicate smaller fleet in coming years. The shipyards are struggling to get out 3/year and the Columbia class.
 
#894
#894
Orangeburst said:
Inflation is killing our procurement budget as well. Just too many trillions wasted and all these recapitalization projects at once. SSBN, Frigates, upping number of SSN, NGAD after cancelling F-22, KC-46 tankers to replace KC-135, TRX trainer to replace T-38, new ICBM, B-21, new rifle programs ad nauseam, GPS replacement, Hummer replacement, AAV, E-7, E-6, MH copters, Blackhawk replacement.

Makes you wonder just what in the hell they have purchased the last 20 years besides MRAPS, F-35, Ford, Burkes and LCS.
Click to expand...

Inflation isn't killing it...

Only having one or two companies capable of production is the problem. When you only have one or two bids on a contract and both are absurdly high, you still have to pay.

Boeing is a prime example of that. Been raping the government for years on overpriced contracts and underperforming in the end. Or required "upgrades" to keep them in service.

30 years ago the government could put out a bid for a new fighter jet and they get a dozen companies submitting designs. Now you're lucky to get two or three all priced at premium rates. Plus way too many Generals and Admirals have their futures set in who gets those contracts and too many Congress Critters want to protect their "states and districts." You can read that as people "donating" to their reelection campaigns if you want.

Greed and the lack of competition is what is driving the price. You want a new tanker and the only domestic design comes from Boeing? You're going to be stuck with that Boeing product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and hog88
#896
#896
Grand Vol said:
Inflation isn't killing it...

Only having one or two companies capable of production is the problem. When you only have one or two bids on a contract and both are absurdly high, you still have to pay.

Boeing is a prime example of that. Been raping the government for years on overpriced contracts and underperforming in the end. Or required "upgrades" to keep them in service.

30 years ago the government could put out a bid for a new fighter jet and they get a dozen companies submitting designs. Now you're lucky to get two or three all priced at premium rates. Plus way too many Generals and Admirals have their futures set in who gets those contracts and too many Congress Critters want to protect their "states and districts." You can read that as people "donating" to their reelection campaigns if you want.

Greed and the lack of competition is what is driving the price. You want a new tanker and the only domestic design comes from Boeing? You're going to be stuck with that Boeing product.
Click to expand...

My point..you cannot grow your force and recapitalize with 5-10% yearly inflation. This would require 10-20% year on year budget growth.
 
#898
#898
hog88 said:
You could probably build a few smaller "battleships" or mini carriers for that.
Click to expand...
You could get 3 very serviceable (for what we would ask of them) battleships for that. Maybe even 4.

We’re definitely in agreement in the need for lighting carriers, and there has to be a way to build one for $5B
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#899
#899
VolStrom said:
It wasn't long ago that an Aircraft Carrier cost less than $6B to build. Now it costs $6B+ for a submarine?
Click to expand...
The price of milk has gone up.

That was in reference to a 1 boat, special mission, subclass of Virginia Block V.

The regular new Virginia’s are $4B
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top