To me the most galling thing about this is how low the bar has already been lowered - and the Navy is still completely incapable of meeting it: ... So they set a goal that 2 years after accepting...
To me the most galling thing about this is how low the bar has already been lowered - and the Navy is still completely incapable of meeting it:
It’s another setback for contractor Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. -- and for the Navy, which had said in December it planned to complete installation and testing of all 11 elevators before the Ford completed its post-delivery shakedown phase this month, with at least half certified for operation.
So they set a goal that 2 years after accepting delivery (which was itself 2 years late) they wanted to have half of the elevators certified for operation. And they failed to meet that goal.
I honestly really wonder how something like this could happen? Like were they too ambitious? Did they not allocate enough resources? Was the right contractor chosen? Are these people just scarily...
I honestly really wonder how something like this could happen? Like were they too ambitious? Did they not allocate enough resources? Was the right contractor chosen? Are these people just scarily lazy?
I don't know what you do exactly or for how long you've been doing it for, but based on what you've written, I can almost guarantee there are lots of opportunities for you in the private sector....
I don't know what you do exactly or for how long you've been doing it for, but based on what you've written, I can almost guarantee there are lots of opportunities for you in the private sector. Albeit they would be jobs with ambiguous titles like 'consultant'. Being able to problem-solve and manage logistics of unusual projects with a diversity of people at a large scale is a valuable skill. It's just more of a matter of carving it out yourself, within the boundaries of a particular company/group rather than choosing something off the shelf.
I'm currently in a university and I truly hope and dream about that happening.
"But ideally we get a Progressive President sworn in 2021, and they work towards fixing the absolute mess our university system has been allowed to become."
I'm currently in a university and I truly hope and dream about that happening.
I might be missing something, but my main question is why does this ship need to exist in the first place? No other country has aircraft carriers that compare to the US' current carriers. What is...
I might be missing something, but my main question is why does this ship need to exist in the first place? No other country has aircraft carriers that compare to the US' current carriers. What is this carrier supposed to combat?
I generally understand that, but why does the US need a shiny new one? If I am remembering correctly, the US has 10 active carriers already. Are they so terrible they can't be maintained?
I generally understand that, but why does the US need a shiny new one? If I am remembering correctly, the US has 10 active carriers already. Are they so terrible they can't be maintained?
The currently active carriers are Nimitz class, first launched in 1972. There have been refits and upgrades since then obviously, but the platform is still old. The older ships in the class are...
The currently active carriers are Nimitz class, first launched in 1972. There have been refits and upgrades since then obviously, but the platform is still old. The older ships in the class are nearing the end of their service lives and will need to be replaced soon.
At a certain point, you want to design a new class of ship rather than just continually build older designs that don't take into account the current mission or technological developments that have been achieved over the 50 year period that these carriers are usually active for.
The Nimitz will be decommissioned some time around 2022 at half a century old, and if you don't have a carrier lined up to replace her, you've left a hole in our defense strategy.
But what country / enemy can exploit that hole? To my knowledge, no other country actively uses aircraft carriers comparable to the Nimitz class or the new replacement class. Also, its a pet peeve...
But what country / enemy can exploit that hole? To my knowledge, no other country actively uses aircraft carriers comparable to the Nimitz class or the new replacement class.
Also, its a pet peeve of mine, but "defense" is not all military actions / functions. Just because the Department of War rebranded itself as the Defense Department doesn't actually change its nature. Aircraft carriers have very little defensive functionality.
That's a different discussion entirely. The fact of the matter is that the US has a defense mission outlined by the legislative and executive branches, in order to complete that mission, it needs...
To my knowledge, no other country actively uses aircraft carriers comparable to the Nimitz class or the new replacement class.
That's a different discussion entirely. The fact of the matter is that the US has a defense mission outlined by the legislative and executive branches, in order to complete that mission, it needs X amount of carriers. If that number becomes X - 1, it can no longer achieve its mission, so either the mission needs to change, or we fail at it.
Ships, and aircraft carriers especially can't be compared 1:1 with other individual navies to decide whether we need more or less, like a 1v1 strategy game. They perform a lot of missions, and their capabilities, and presence in a given part of the world applies different amounts of leverage in diplomatic matters. A hole in our defense strategy doesn't mean that an enemy carrier will now attack the mainland US, it means that there is a gap in our overall force projection capabilities that was previously filled. That could mean that a certain adversarial country now has more breathing room to work against American interests, a certain region is now less stable than it was previously, or a certain ally now feels like the US is no longer being as supportive as they should be.
I'm not qualified enough to specifically say whether we need 10 carriers, or 5 carriers, or 15, but I do know that the simple act moving one 100 miles can have drastic knock on effects, and the number of carriers we need is an incredibly complex decision that has a ton of military and geopolitical consequences.
Because the "defence industry" employs a vast amount of people, directly and indirectly, and without continual commissioning and reordering a lot of people would be out of a job.
Because the "defence industry" employs a vast amount of people, directly and indirectly, and without continual commissioning and reordering a lot of people would be out of a job.
I am fine with government make work, I am not fine with it in the military or manifested in the private sector. The US infrastructure needs enormous repairs; why not give people jobs fixing real...
I am fine with government make work, I am not fine with it in the military or manifested in the private sector. The US infrastructure needs enormous repairs; why not give people jobs fixing real problems within the US?
To me the most galling thing about this is how low the bar has already been lowered - and the Navy is still completely incapable of meeting it:
...
So they set a goal that 2 years after accepting delivery (which was itself 2 years late) they wanted to have half of the elevators certified for operation. And they failed to meet that goal.
I honestly really wonder how something like this could happen? Like were they too ambitious? Did they not allocate enough resources? Was the right contractor chosen? Are these people just scarily lazy?
Thanks for the insight man, and it seems that maybe you might want to start looking for something in the private sector
I don't know what you do exactly or for how long you've been doing it for, but based on what you've written, I can almost guarantee there are lots of opportunities for you in the private sector. Albeit they would be jobs with ambiguous titles like 'consultant'. Being able to problem-solve and manage logistics of unusual projects with a diversity of people at a large scale is a valuable skill. It's just more of a matter of carving it out yourself, within the boundaries of a particular company/group rather than choosing something off the shelf.
I'm currently in a university and I truly hope and dream about that happening.
I might be missing something, but my main question is why does this ship need to exist in the first place? No other country has aircraft carriers that compare to the US' current carriers. What is this carrier supposed to combat?
I generally understand that, but why does the US need a shiny new one? If I am remembering correctly, the US has 10 active carriers already. Are they so terrible they can't be maintained?
The currently active carriers are Nimitz class, first launched in 1972. There have been refits and upgrades since then obviously, but the platform is still old. The older ships in the class are nearing the end of their service lives and will need to be replaced soon.
At a certain point, you want to design a new class of ship rather than just continually build older designs that don't take into account the current mission or technological developments that have been achieved over the 50 year period that these carriers are usually active for.
The Nimitz will be decommissioned some time around 2022 at half a century old, and if you don't have a carrier lined up to replace her, you've left a hole in our defense strategy.
But what country / enemy can exploit that hole? To my knowledge, no other country actively uses aircraft carriers comparable to the Nimitz class or the new replacement class.
Also, its a pet peeve of mine, but "defense" is not all military actions / functions. Just because the Department of War rebranded itself as the Defense Department doesn't actually change its nature. Aircraft carriers have very little defensive functionality.
That's a different discussion entirely. The fact of the matter is that the US has a defense mission outlined by the legislative and executive branches, in order to complete that mission, it needs X amount of carriers. If that number becomes X - 1, it can no longer achieve its mission, so either the mission needs to change, or we fail at it.
Ships, and aircraft carriers especially can't be compared 1:1 with other individual navies to decide whether we need more or less, like a 1v1 strategy game. They perform a lot of missions, and their capabilities, and presence in a given part of the world applies different amounts of leverage in diplomatic matters. A hole in our defense strategy doesn't mean that an enemy carrier will now attack the mainland US, it means that there is a gap in our overall force projection capabilities that was previously filled. That could mean that a certain adversarial country now has more breathing room to work against American interests, a certain region is now less stable than it was previously, or a certain ally now feels like the US is no longer being as supportive as they should be.
I'm not qualified enough to specifically say whether we need 10 carriers, or 5 carriers, or 15, but I do know that the simple act moving one 100 miles can have drastic knock on effects, and the number of carriers we need is an incredibly complex decision that has a ton of military and geopolitical consequences.
Because the "defence industry" employs a vast amount of people, directly and indirectly, and without continual commissioning and reordering a lot of people would be out of a job.
Least efficient welfare program ever
I am fine with government make work, I am not fine with it in the military or manifested in the private sector. The US infrastructure needs enormous repairs; why not give people jobs fixing real problems within the US?
I applaud the navy's obvious encouragement to its ammunition to take the stairs more often.