Decommissioning the Nimitz is a Huge Mistake..

[pxmcc]

so our 4 star decision makers have, in their infinite wisdom, reduced our flat-tops in action to 10.

dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb..

and a gift to China..

https://thehill.com/opinion/national...tical-mistake/

what do you think? do we need to be retiring our carriers now? if we're short personnel, is there any reason not to fill those gaps with so-called "illegals" who would love nothing better than to fight for America, and if needed, die for America?

[royamcr]

A carrier is refueled and refitted one time in it's 50 year life. Nimitz needs refueled and overhauled at a cost of around $3 billion and takes 4 years to complete. Nimitz is done.

[pxmcc]

^^and how much does a new carrier cost, and how long to build..

[Mort Watt]

And how many hypersonic missiles does it take to send one to Davey Jones' locker?

Technology is only making Carriers more vulnerable over time. Soon, any 3rd-world despot will be able to take one out.

.

[pxmcc]

Originally Posted by Mort Watt

And how many hypersonic missiles does it take to send one to Davey Jones' locker?

Technology is only making Carriers more vulnerable over time. Soon, any 3rd-world despot will be able to take one out.

.

those are allegations. right now we have destroyers and cruisers whose job is it to protect their carrier. China says they can penetrate those defenses. after what we saw in Venezuela, honestly, i don't think China could see the Nimitz, never mind sink it. i think they would do a hypersonic weapon dump trying to take out our-erstwhile and should be-11th carrier.

once they polished off all their ammo, the Nimitz could, alone or with the Ford, take Bejing. real talk.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

so our 4 star decision makers have, in their infinite wisdom, reduced our flat-tops in action to 10.

dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb..

and a gift to China..

https://thehill.com/opinion/national...tical-mistake/

what do you think? do we need to be retiring our carriers now? if we're short personnel, is there any reason not to fill those gaps with so-called "illegals" who would love nothing better than to fight for America, and if needed, die for America?

i typically agree with Gordon Chang but i'm going to somewhat disagree here. first how much power reserve does the Nimitz have left? enough for several years of operation? maybe, maybe not. the Navy certainly knows what the reactor status is and if Nimitz is low on fuel putting it into what could be a prolonged engagement could be a disaster. the ship could run so low on power not only could it not make fleet speed but also not be able to operate at 100 percent.



we have 10 carriers. and that's just the nuclear powered super carriers. something Chang neglects to mention is we still outnumber China by 3 to 1. we also have 8-10 conventional assault carriers



now we have a 6 to 7 to 1 ratio.

Originally Posted by Mort Watt

And how many hypersonic missiles does it take to send one to Davey Jones' locker?

Technology is only making Carriers more vulnerable over time. Soon, any 3rd-world despot will be able to take one out.

.

hyper-sonic weapons are largely untested in battle and if the Russians are any indication recently in Ukraine they are unreliable. theirs anyway and probably China's as well.



one of the technical issues with these missiles is the sheer speed produces both extreme heat and shock waves that can interfere with guidance systems especially gps data from satellites.


what good does it do if the missile can't hit it's target? with conventional warheads the missile becomes useless. even with nuclear warheads close enough might not be good enough to take out a carrier.



your claim "any 3rd-world despot" could take out a carrier is flawed. only a handful of nations on either side (Russia/China vs the US/UK and probably Israel) have the tech and expertise to build hyper-sonic weapons. where would some despot get one? from Russia or China? probably not because they don't want their tech in the wrong hands.



also carriers never sail alone they always have a battle group of frigates and destroyers to provide cover.



one of the reasons why the first nuclear carrier the Enterprise had 8 reactors is because the engineers on paper said 4 should be enough but since this had never been done before they used an old engineering rule .. "when in doubt double it". the Navy balked but after the engineers pointed out that if 4 weren't enough to power all the systems and make fleet speed you can't just cut it open and add more. the engineers won.


as it turns out the Enterprise was overpowered. using that real world data the Nimitz class has two reactors of improved design. the real top speed of the Enterprise/Nimitz carrier is far greater than 35 knots fleet speed. they can in fact reach speeds of up to 50 knots. the reactors aren't the limit, it's the shaft bearings.



the Nimitz class has plenty of power but was not designed for more modern weapons like rail guns and more importantly laser based weapons. a laser based weapon can intercept a hyper-sonic weapon. again, you can't just cut open a carrier and add a reactor. could you add extra convention power? probably but these designs are highly optimized with little room to spare.


this is why we need the new Ford class. it was designed from the ground up to have the power to run these new weapons systems.

[Unique_Carpenter]

The Nimitz has already been refueled and overhauled in 1999/2000, over 25 years ago.
It's done.

The US currently has three new carriers under construction, the first to be delivered early next year.
CVN79 to be delivered March 2027
CVN80 to be delivered July 2030
CVN81 has recently started construction.

As an add on to TWK's comment of fleet warships, currently at least one, sometimes a second, heavy cruiser of the Ticonderoga class accompanies every carrier. A Tico can destroy anything. And, so can an Arleigh Burke Destroyer, of which at least two accompany any carrier, both of which can easily handle any incoming anything. Btw, the Tico's can make things glow in the dark for decades if needed.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

...

one of the reasons why the first nuclear carrier the Enterprise had 8 reactors is because the engineers on paper said 4 should be enough but since this had never been done before they used an old engineering rule .. "when in doubt double it". the Navy balked but after the engineers pointed out that if 4 weren't enough to power all the systems and make fleet speed you can't just cut it open and add more. the engineers won.


as it turns out the Enterprise was overpowered. using that real world data the Nimitz class has two reactors of improved design. the real top speed of the Enterprise/Nimitz carrier is far greater than 35 knots fleet speed. they can in fact reach speeds of up to 50 knots. the reactors aren't the limit, it's the shaft bearings.



...

Could the Enterprise put all that extra power to the prop shaft? If so, do you know what the unofficial speed of it was since I don't think they would offer a rated speed.

I was reading about the problems with the power output of engines on the New York class battleships and the studies the engineers did with the Iowa class. It essentially boiled down to diminishing returns. I can't remember the numbers but it sorta mimicked that at a point you had to add 25% more power to just get a couple knots more speed. Crazy.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Could the Enterprise put all that extra power to the prop shaft? If so, do you know what the unofficial speed of it was since I don't think they would offer a rated speed.

I was reading about the problems with the power output of engines on the New York class battleships and the studies the engineers did with the Iowa class. It essentially boiled down to diminishing returns. I can't remember the numbers but it sorta mimicked that at a point you had to add 25% more power to just get a couple knots more speed. Crazy.

i told you. 50 knots. i was on the Enterprise for it's shakedown cruise post refit in Bremerton. as part of that they did a full power run. 50 knots. they can sustain that for about 30 minutes before the bearings start to overheat. and yes that's "unofficial".



the New York class was a WWI era design. not a fair comparison at all. the New York class was originally coal fired boilers. all future designs were fuel oil and the New York class (New York and Texas) were converted to fuel oil in 1926.

[The_Waco_Kid]

for those who think carriers are sitting ducks here's a modern task force at sea. and there are always multiple attack subs assigned too. you can see them in front of the formation. obviously in battle they would be submerged.

this is a sailing formation a battle formation would be more spaced out and layered with support ships trailing some distance behind. sometimes on station in a rear area waiting to resupply.

[CG2014]

By law, the Navy needs to have a fleet of no less than 11 aircraft carriers at all times.

This is law enacted by Congress but this Nimitz decommissioning was planned before President Trump was even in office.


Under Biden if you must know the truth.


There are news articles online trying to put the blame of this decommissioning on President Trump, of course.

[pxmcc]

^^"tough guy" Trump should act like a tough guy and cancel the decommissioning.

Biden doesn't get a free pass. if it was Jesus himself who gave the order, i'd still call him out for stupidity.

agreed twk. short of actually seeing a u.s. carrier-far over the horizon in battle scenarios-i feel strongly that enemy forces will have trouble finding the true location on regular radar. we've developed effective evasive fuckery somehow, at least as of right now. China is gaining fast tho, so no time for laurel resting.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

i told you. 50 knots. i was on the Enterprise for it's shakedown cruise post refit in Bremerton. as part of that they did a full power run. 50 knots. they can sustain that for about 30 minutes before the bearings start to overheat. and yes that's "unofficial".



the New York class was a WWI era design. not a fair comparison at all. the New York class was originally coal fired boilers. all future designs were fuel oil and the New York class (New York and Texas) were converted to fuel oil in 1926.

I wanted you to be clear since they are both different class carriers. But you neglected to say if the Enterprise was able to bear all reactors power output to the shafts.

And I was not comparing them. I was using them as an example of fluid dynamics and the drag efficiencies. Or loss of trying to push things faster. There definitely is a point of diminishing returns with a given hull design.

Amazes me these big aircraft carriers can shit-n-get that fast.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

^^"tough guy" Trump should act like a tough guy and cancel the decommissioning.

Biden doesn't get a free pass. if it was Jesus himself who gave the order, i'd still call him out for stupidity.

agreed twk. short of actually seeing a u.s. carrier-far over the horizon in battle scenarios-i feel strongly that enemy forces will have trouble finding the true location on regular radar. we've developed effective evasive fuckery somehow, at least as of right now. China is gaining fast tho, so no time for laurel resting.

might not be that simple. again .. it depends on the reactor reserves. only the Navy knows that and they estimate is has this much left .. one final deployment. otherwise a complete refuel would be needed.



Planned retirement

The Nimitz-class carriers have a lifespan around 50 years. Estimates on decommissioning for Nimitz herself were updated in April 2022, with the Navy Press Corps indicating, "USS Nimitz (CVN 68) was planned to be removed from the battle force in fiscal year (FY) 2025, when the Ship Terminal Off-load Program (STOP) begins, with inactivation scheduled to begin in 2027."[73]



In March 2025, the Navy announced that Nimitz would deploy one last time, then arrive at her new homeport of Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia no later than 12 April 2026. At that point, she will begin the one-year STOP process before shifting to Newport News Shipbuilding for initial defueling and deactivation.[74]

[pxmcc]

^^ok, so what, use her for target practice and turn her into a coral reef like we did the USS Tarawa? effing ridiculous..

desperate times call for desperate measures. China wasn't a near peer adversary when that timetable was drawn up.

i suppose we can check if our own hypersonic weapons actually work as advertised. great use of a battle-tested flat top while China's fleet has attained numerical superiority and our civilian-and military-ship building (and ironworks) industry is in tatters..