Riddle Me This Batman

[unhappycamper]

Here's a good one: Last month defensenews.com had an article on the shipyard building the new $40 billion dollar USS Gerald R. Ford: "More than 20,000 employees of Newport News Shipbuilding are building a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier". Source: Va. Shipyard Humming, But Uncertainty Looms, 2011.9.7

Yesterday: the United States Navy is "considering decommissioning a nuclear aircraft carrier halfway through its planned lifespan, two Pentagon sources said." Source: U.S. Navy May Cut Carrier's Life in Half To Save Money, 2011.10.6

So my question is this: why would we decommission a working $4.5 billion dollar aircraft carrier that's halfway through its lifecycle?

Why the fuck are we getting saddled with an even more expensive carrier?

[spanone]

1. because the military is filthy rich and answers to no one.

[Scuba]

2. Because the MIC is filthy rich and answers to no one....

... most members of the military are dirt poor and all answer to the chain of command, which ends with the Commander in Chief.

[Javaman]

9. no the chain of command ends at Northrop Grumman. nt

[Scuba]

11. I understand your point. Mine is differentiating between those who send us into war...

...and those who must fight.

[Blue_Tires]

3. Funny how so many local teabaggers and newborn deficit hawks

absolutely LURVE 'big gummitt' when it comes to defense...

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Because that's the way the US military works?

[randr]

5. The new one has more brass?

[SwampG8r]

6. and cup holders!

[Ready4Change]

7. From what I understand...

(I'm not a Navy guy, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.)

The Nimitz class carriers are a 50 year old design now. Their design is running into some limitations. Their power generation is beginning to have a hard time meeting modern demands. Upgrades to their various systems are pushing them near the point of having stability problems (becoming top heavy.) An example of needed upgrades is China's development of an advanced anti-shipping missile. To defend against those, new equipment needs to be mounted high up on the carrier, exasperating stability issues.

The Nimitz does still have a LOT of life left, but replacements can't be built overnight. Expensive as it is, we need a new design, work the bugs out of it (and there WILL be bugs,) and get it into production. That way old ones can be taken off-line as new ones come on line, and there wont be a gap in coverage. (Such as we currently have with NASA and our means of reaching the ISS.)

[unhappycamper]

10. There's one hellova difference between $4.5 billion dollars and $40 billion dollars.

That $40 billion dollar aircraft carrier (sans people and aircraft) is just the latest in a line of an ever increasing war toys.

$5 billion dollar Zumwalt-class destroyers (3 on order), $418 million dollar F-22s, $500 million dollar LCS target barges, $318 million dollar C-17s, $243 million dollar F-35s, $5+ billion dollar submarines, etc., etc., etc.

There's a reason why we are spending over a trillion dollars a year on military crap and this is part of it.


To put these costs in perspective, in 1945v a delivered P-51 Mustang cost $51,000.

[Javaman]

8. Because they can. nt