U.S. Navy's new $13B aircraft carrier can't fight

[Oldman1]

The US has many AB Flight I and LA class SSN waiting to be decommissioned, the Ohio class and Ticonderoga class are also getting aged, and their naval fleet's number will start reducing after 2025. The current deployment rate isn't fast enough to fulfill the vacuum.

Flight 1s are being upgraded, not retired and we planned to have dozens more in Flight IIIs in early 2020s. About 40 more or so. The Ohio class are being replaced by the next gen submarine so no problems with that. And the LA class are being replaced by the Virginia class boats, each of them more advanced and more capable. In fact, the first 4 Ohios are SSGNs, but will be replaced by Virginias that will be equipped with 40 cruise missiles thanks to the new payload module.

 

[Penguin]

The US has many AB Flight I and LA class SSN waiting to be decommissioned, the Ohio class and Ticonderoga class are also getting aged, and their naval fleet's number will start reducing after 2025. The current deployment rate isn't fast enough to fulfill the vacuum.

DDG112 (Murphy) was to be the last AB but with limitation of the Zumwalt-class production to just 3, the U.S. Navy requested new DDG-51-class ships. Besides the 62 vessels of this class (comprising 21 of Flight I, 7 of Flight II and 34 of Flight IIA) in service by 2013, up to a further 42 (of Flight III) have been envisaged.

The oldest AB (DDG51) is from 1991. DDG 93 is from 2004. Plus 32 years, that makes 2023 to 2036 the window for retiring the first 42 ships. Up to 42 Flight III ships may be procured by the U.S. Navy with the first ship entering service in 2023. So, Flight III will replace Flight I, and total number AB would remain the same.

In April 2014, the U.S. Navy began the early stages of developing a new destroyer to replace the Arleigh Burke-class called the "Future Surface Combatant". The new class is expected to enter service in the early 2030s and initially serve alongside the 22 Flight III DDGs.

However, there also remain 22 Tico's in the fleet. Dating from 1986 to 1994. Plus 32 years makes retirement 2018 - 2026. Dare I suggest their role will be taken over initially by the first 22 ABIII? The first 42 ABs to be replace by another 20 ABIII and FCS

The second production line for the nuclear sub has been established, and the third production line for the destroyer will become fully operational by 2018.

So, earlier you say 3 yards are building destroyers but now the third production line turns out not yet operational?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Flight 1s are being upgraded, not retired and we planned to have dozens more in Flight IIIs in early 2020s. About 40 more or so. The Ohio class are being replaced by the next gen submarine so no problems with that. And the LA class are being replaced by the Virginia class boats, each of them more advanced and more capable. In fact, the first 4 Ohios are SSGNs, but will be replaced by Virginias that will be equipped with 40 cruise missiles thanks to the new payload module.

The Flight III is weaker than the Type 055, and the deployment after 2020 is simply drop the ball.

DDG112 (Murphy) was to be the last AB but with limitation of the Zumwalt-class production to just 3, the U.S. Navy requested new DDG-51-class ships. Besides the 62 vessels of this class (comprising 21 of Flight I, 7 of Flight II and 34 of Flight IIA) in service by 2013, up to a further 42 (of Flight III) have been envisaged.

The oldest AB (DDG51) is from 1991. DDG 93 is from 2004. Plus 32 years, that makes 2023 to 2036 the window for retiring the first 42 ships. Up to 42 Flight III ships may be procured by the U.S. Navy with the first ship entering service in 2023. So, Flight III will replace Flight I, and total number AB would remain the same.

In April 2014, the U.S. Navy began the early stages of developing a new destroyer to replace the Arleigh Burke-class called the "Future Surface Combatant". The new class is expected to enter service in the early 2030s and initially serve alongside the 22 Flight III DDGs.

However, there also remain 22 Tico's in the fleet. Dating from 1986 to 1994. Plus 32 years makes retirement 2018 - 2026. Dare I suggest their role will be taken over initially by the first 22 ABIII? The first 42 ABs to be replace by another 20 ABIII and FCS

The Flight III will be deployed after 2020, and its deployment won't be fast enough to replace those aging Flight I.

BTW, the first batch of the Flight III won't even have the AESA radars.

So, earlier you say 3 yards are building destroyers but now the third production line turns out not yet operational?

The third production line will become operational by 2018.

 

[AMDR]

The Flight III will be deployed after 2020, and its deployment won't be fast enough to replace those aging Flight I.

The Flight IIIs aren't meant to replace the AB1s. That is the job of the FSC, which will be significantly more capable than any surface combatant in the world when it is put to sea. We cut steel on it in 2028.

The total USN force structure doesn't deviate that much from now over the next 30 years, just a peak of 321 vessels in 2025.

BTW, the first batch of the Flight III won't even have the AESA radars.

No.

The AN/SPY-6(V) (aka AMDR-S) is an AESA; will be on the first ABIII (DDG-124) and will be significantly more capable than the SPY-1. The X-band coverage is provided by an upgraded variant of the SPQ-9B for the first 12 ships. Then it switches to the AMDR-X which is a static panel AESA like the SPY-6.

SPY-6 a more than doubled range over the SPY-1D while being about the same size thanks to Gallium Nitride. That is the main advantage the ABIII will bring and will be important to USBMD and NIFC-CA

Two Excerpts From: http://www.janes360.com/images/asse...DG_51_Flight_III_guided_missile_destroyer.pdf

"In development by Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems under the designation AN/SPY-6(V), the AMDR is the de facto successor to the AN/SPY-1(V) family of S-band radars associated with the Aegis weapon system since its inception. Yet while the DDG 51 Flight III deckhouse and array structure will appear relatively unchanged from the current Flight IIA design, the solid-state, open-architecture technology embodied within the S-band AMDR will be a full two generations removed from that in SPY-1."

"Employing full digital beamforming, the AN/SPY-6(V) will have more than double the range of the SPY-1, support efficient and precise search and tracking using multibeam operation, and provide robust BMD detection and discrimination. Fundamental to this leap in performance is the use of Gallium Nitride (GaN) semi-conductor technology. Technology maturation efforts under way since the early 2000s have given confidence that GaN transmit/receive devices - offering major power, efficiency and performance improvements over the Gallium Arsenide modules hitherto used in multifunction radars - can deliver from the standpoints of both performance and producibility."

 

[punit]

Air Force by 2020, Navy by 2030.

thats too late Sire ! IMO by next year Chinese will establish bases next to USA Coastline !

 

[mike2000 is back]

Aircraft carriers are not really the technology that China has to aim for as all they are just a platform to launch aircraft.

China can well build carriers within a decade that are the size of the Ford-class and be able to launch and recover as many aircraft as well.
.

What are you even talking about bruv?
I know that as a Bangladeshi you are more inclined towards China for obvious reasons, but that doesn't means you should be saying things which we all know are not true .
China can build carriers like the ford class within a DECADE ? Seriously??
Even your Chinese friends don't believe they can do that within a decade. Nowhere close Lol

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against China, but they are nowhere near challenging the U S navy this decade. They are still just trying to even challenge the U.S navy close to their own shores forget about globally. .

The firepower ,naval warfare experience, skills operating globally the U.S navy possess is more than the next top 5 military powers combined dude.
Only a very naive person will think there is a country that can match the U.S navy this decade.

 

[jhungary]

The Flight III is weaker than the Type 055, and the deployment after 2020 is simply drop the ball.

In what way Flight II is weaker than Type 055? Even the PLAN admiral claim they were only equal (Which many would have said the PLAN claim is exaggerated) Just because Type 055 loaded with 128 VLS and AB III loaded with 96 VLS does not make Flight III weaker, Flight III were considerably stronger than Ticonderoga Class Cruiser, and it have 122 VLS.

It never how many VLS you got that's count, it's how the mission package system load out that counts.

The Flight III will be deployed after 2020, and its deployment won't be fast enough to replace those aging Flight I.

BTW, the first batch of the Flight III won't even have the AESA radars.

Flight III were never intended to replace flight I, Flight III was brought in service so Flight I can get their upgrade.

And no, Flight III (even flight IIA) are now with AESA radar.

The third production line will become operational by 2018.

You cannot compare the US ship yard to Chinese, US build ship using a modular technique, how many shipyard is building the ship is not important, how many factory turning out parts that the ship need to assemble it in shipyard does

Do you know on average, US make 3-4 DDG a year, while the same shipyard turning out Zumwalts class (Build in Baths Iron Work), America Class LHA and San Antonio Class LHD(Build in Ingall Shipbuilding),

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

In what way Flight II is weaker than Type 055? Even the PLAN admiral claim they were only equal (Which many would have said the PLAN claim is exaggerated) Just because Type 055 loaded with 128 VLS and AB III loaded with 96 VLS does not make Flight III weaker, Flight III were considerably stronger than Ticonderoga Class Cruiser, and it have 122 VLS.

It never how many VLS you got that's count, it's how the mission package system load out that counts.




Flight III were never intended to replace flight I, Flight III was brought in service so Flight I can get their upgrade.

And no, Flight III (even flight IIA) are now with AESA radar.

Our PLAN was humble to make such comparison.

The Type 055 is indeed superior with the dual band AESA, integrated mast, and more advanced VLS. It clearly outguns any AB model so far.

Tico is just an old ship with the inferior PESA, old MK41, and outdated superstructure.

You cannot compare the US ship yard to Chinese, US build ship using a modular technique, how many shipyard is building the ship is not important, how many factory turning out parts that the ship need to assemble it in shipyard does

Do you know on average, US make 3-4 DDG a year, while the same shipyard turning out Zumwalts class (Build in Baths Iron Work), America Class LHA and San Antonio Class LHD(Build in Ingall Shipbuilding),

The modular technique isn't something new, all Chinese shipyards use this method of construction.

 

[jhungary]

Our PLAN was humble to make such comparison.

The Type 055 is indeed superior with the dual band AESA, integrated mast, and more advanced VLS. It clearly outguns any AB model so far.

Tico is just an old ship with the inferior PESA, old MK41, and outdated superstructure.

Again, how it outgun the AB Class? You are comparing two item that have not been made yet, Type 055 are still a concept being build while Flight IIA has already been build and Flight III is also building at the moment.

Again, any sort of these type of comparison is no more than fan boy chest thumping, even if both Type 055 and AB Flight III has been build, would you think for folks like us will know how their actual capability are? I know for sure the US will not know the true extend on Chinese Ship and the Chinese won't know the actual capability of Flight III either. Hence how can one say it's better than the other?

If you agree the Zumwalts is a better ship than 055 (Very highly likely) then I can tell you that most of the Zumwalts tech are integrated into Flight III, so how would Flight III be any less powerful than 055?

Even the Zumwalts are using a AN/SPY-3 Dual Band ASEA Primary radar, the Flight III are equipped with more powerful AN/SPY-6 ASEA multi-band radar.

The modular technique isn't something new, all Chinese shipyards use this method of construction.

I am not saying Chinese did not use modular technique, I am saying you are wrong to compare shipyard and lines open, today ships does not just build from the ground up in one shipyard, which make your shipyard argument invalid.

 

[HeinzG]

Elizabeth class is the closest to the Ford class there is nothing that can challange these so far


Then don't try to compare them then.


No facts


Statement is irrelevant and is only used to fill the emptiness due to your lack of facts.
Find something better than ranting nonsense. Its you who is trying to create a China vs US thread and bringing race into it.


Launching or Constructing?
You are needlessly comparing China with US
This is just one of many new American technologies the world is/will see like The Zummwalt-class ,LCSs,Expeditionary Transfer Docks,Expeditionary Mobile Bases etc.

The days of the Aircraft carriers are numbered. ACs have never being in actual conflict with equal size foe in recent years to pass judgement on the effectiveness of the ACs in the world of latest electronics gimmicks. Even in 1982 when British fought Argentinians, Brits took absolute precautions to avoid the excoset carrying Super Entendards. Brits were lucky that Argentinians could not get a lock on the British carriers.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Again, how it outgun the AB Class? You are comparing two item that have not been made yet, Type 055 are still a concept being build while Flight IIA has already been build and Flight III is also building at the moment.

Again, any sort of these type of comparison is no more than fan boy chest thumping, even if both Type 055 and AB Flight III has been build, would you think for folks like us will know how their actual capability are? I know for sure the US will not know the true extend on Chinese Ship and the Chinese won't know the actual capability of Flight III either. Hence how can one say it's better than the other?

If you agree the Zumwalts is a better ship than 055 (Very highly likely) then I can tell you that most of the Zumwalts tech are integrated into Flight III, so how would Flight III be any less powerful than 055?

Even the Zumwalts are using a AN/SPY-3 Dual Band ASEA Primary radar, the Flight III are equipped with more powerful AN/SPY-6 ASEA multi-band radar.

The Type 055 is not a concept, it is close to be launched.

In comparison, your ABIII is more of a concept than the Type 055.

The earliest Flight III units such as the DDG-123 and DDG-124 still use the AN/SPY-1.

I am not saying Chinese did not use modular technique, I am saying you are wrong to compare shipyard and lines open, today ships does not just build from the ground up in one shipyard, which make your shipyard argument invalid.

Again, let's say if the US subs and destroyers were built by a single shipyard, then I don't think they could even meet the requirement to replace the decommissioned ships.

The days of the Aircraft carriers are numbered. ACs have never being in actual conflict with equal size foe in recent years to pass judgement on the effectiveness of the ACs in the world of latest electronics gimmicks. Even in 1982 when British fought Argentinians, Brits took absolute precautions to avoid the excoset carrying Super Entendards. Brits were lucky that Argentinians could get a lock on the British carriers.

The ACs are still use useful to solve some minor skirmishes, but pitting them as the main offensive tools against the major powers is simply an outdated strategy.

 

[HeinzG]

The ACs are still use useful to solve some minor skirmishes, but pitting them as the main offensive tools against the major powers is simply an outdated strategy.

Indeed the point. ACs can only intimidate minor players.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Indeed the point. ACs can only intimidate minor players.

AC can still play the role as the assistant in the modern systematic warfare, but they are not suitable to play as the main offensive role anymore. That role should be given to the futuristic space weapons.

 

[HeinzG]

AC can still play the role as the assistant in the modern systematic warfare, but they are not suitable to play as the main offensive role anymore. That role should be given to the futuristic space weapons.

They will go the same way as the Battleships went.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

They will go the same way as the Battleships went.

Yep, the BB had been officially withdrew from the theatre 40-50 years after the WWII, so I assume that the AC could still remain for another half century, but not as critical as before.