fat overpaid government contractors

I fail to see what the rush is

>>62502811
>Wait, what the fuck dude? You’re telling me I gotta be efficient and shit? What are you, some kinda corporate fag?
>Nah, this is a Union job buddy. I still gotta milk this boat job for a few more years to pay off the camper van and the above-ground pool the bitch wife got for the kids.

>>62502863
>ameritards fall for the 'le ebil unions' narrative again
The US MIC is a setup for rich corpos to get richer off tax dollarss

imagine you are having a competition with your neighbor to build the tallest flagpole, but you're only allowed to use materials from your garden to build it.

Yours is 20 foot tall. You have quarter of your garden devoted to growing willow, which you use to add height to your pole. You have appropriate gloves, a grand compost pile and all the tools you need to grow and prepare your willow sticks.

Your neighbors is 10 foot tall. They have half the garden devoted to growing willow and are buying in special fertiliser to make it grow quicker.

They're adding 2 feet to their flagpole, whilst you're only adding one to yours. At this rate, in 9 years, they will have a taller flagpole than you.

You have no intention of allowing your neighbor to beat you, but understand that for the next 4 - 5 years you can keep chickens in the quarter of your garden that isn't being used to grow willow. Your neighbor is buying eggs from you, and you can keep an eye on their progress and ramp up willow production as and when required.

>>62502880
>>Wait, what the fuck dude? You’re telling me I gotta be efficient and shit? What are you, some kinda congressional fag?
>>Nah, this is a MIC job buddy. I still gotta milk this boat job for a few more years to pay off the Adirondack lakeside condo and the infinity pool the bitch wife got for the kids.

Nuclear powered supercarriers a very easy to build. That's why every country has a dozen. Hold on, I'm being passed a note here. Oh. Oh I see.

>>62502892
Listen up tourist, last time a company decided to use cheap outsourced materials their planes crashed.

>>62502780
>why does it take so long?
because we already have 11 so we don't need 24/7 and 3 shifts.

>>62503157
sure but 14 years is absurd

>>62502791
>fat overpaid government contractors
wages at ship yards are SHIT

like literally lower than Fast Food once you factor in shit.

>>62502780
USN is retarded. Next question.

>>62503215
Oh I didn't realise we had an expert in the room, what's your expert opinion on the correct timeline?

>>62503215
For ships meant to stay in around the clock operation for the next 50 years no it isn't.

>>62502780
Idk i guess they are big and complicated boats, it took the chinks 9 years to finish a 68% completed one that doesn't even have a catapult or a nuclear reactor.

>>62502780
Boat big. Important parts of boat require many engineer to sign off and highly skilled workers to build. Rest of boat built by the most ghetto, illiterate, time wasting basketball Americans you can imagine. Therefore boat take long time to build.

t. Guy who picked up a new construction CVN in Newport News once upon a time

>>62503439
That was their first carrier, the third one with EMALS catapults was started back in 2015 and it's already conducting Sea Trials:>>62503489

>>62503507
Yes, but it's also conventionally powered and doesn't have to deal with American levels of QC and regulation.

Also, and I'm asking this out of genuine curiosity, do we know if it has launched or trapped any aircraft yet?

>>62503215
divide it by 3
>3.5 years to make the most capable CVN in the world
that's pretty reasonable.

File: azaD9D3r_700w_0.jpg (29 KB, 684x442)

29 KB JPG

>>62502780
It was scheduled to be commissioned shortly before the Nimitz is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2026 so there's no gap, that's it really.

Nimitz decommissioning was pushed back due to issues with scrapping Enterprise (6 reactors are no joke). Because of the longevity of carriers and how they were refueled, the USN has a fairly long time scale they get to work on when it comes to building replacement carriers as the Nimitz class is retired. This combined with personnel issues means they are more willing to accept more relaxed fitting and trial times rather than accept a ship they can't crew and they don't need active right now

>>62503507
It still isn't nuclear nor designed to be in constant operation so the design guidelines are far more simplistic in nature. I don't understand why they are not going with nuclear and spend a decade or 2 making a better one instead of just a accelerated ego project with 0 strategic implications.

>>62503489
Is this the same ship that has portholes opening inwards?

The US shipbuilding industry is in general in crisis.
>stop-start procurement in the 90s and 00s rekt skills and career stability
>tight market for skilled workers and even unskilled - Amazon pays well, there's a poor apprenticeship pipeline etc. (the USN now pays huge bonuses for workers to stay on projects)
>newbies even when they get made aren't getting the training and experiance they need working on the civilian market and port facilities have been neglected
>government procurement is awful and made worse by anything involving skills being outsourced in the 90s so people are signing shit off who are just generic drones
>the experienced labour is retiring

A lot of this is also applicable to the other industries in crisis at the moment - nuclear especially has compounding issues.

>>62503529
I think this always downplays how big a deal it is to build a carrier fleet (or at least the beginnings) in such a quick timeframe. Partly what's delaying a US naval build-up is that a lot of this stuff is effectively like shitting out a Pyramid in the Bronze Age but China's making leaps at it having gone from nothing.

I'm not saying the USN has much to fear given the technological edge, existing fleet and simple experiance but it really is 'most implessive'.

>>62503626
I think the PLAN is just aware that if they did (one day) build an advanced fleet it would still be liable to be btfo from a lack of training and doctrine. That and it's not like they're really going for global projection at the moment.

>>62502780
JFK is a cursed name. I'll see my way to /x/ now, thanks.

>>62503675
To be fair, nobody has actual experience of fleet vs fleet combat. The last naval battles were from WW2. Everything else is just projection of WW3, USN vs Red Navy roleplay.

>>62502780
It took China that long to put a conventional powered carrier that may or may not work out.

>>62503424
>>For ships meant to stay in around the clock operation for the next 50 years no it isn't.
Carriers spend most of their life out of service. They might operate for 50 years but would clock less than 15 at sea operation. Which sounds like a lot until you measure it against the 35 years it spends being repaired.

>>62503722
USS JFK was launched back in 2019.
Type 003 was launched back in 2022.
Guess which one is conducting Sea Trials right now?

>>62503712
I was thinking along the lines of the more basic peacetime missions you could expect. Operating carriers effectively isn't easy and China already has a bad reputation when it comes to humanitarian missions, imagine the PLAN trying to make a big show of helping in a natural disaster in Malaysia but failing miserably in what should be a grand prestige/intimidation project.

Or imagine sailing a brand new carrier out to protect shipping and then getting humiliated by some post-Houthi group.

>>62502880
Yes I'm sure an absolutely massive ship for millions of moving parts, complex launching systems and two fucking nuclear reactors is easy and cheap to make.

But china can make a diesel powered aircraft carrier in 2 years, implessive.

>>62503819
Guess which one is powered by kerosene and nigger rigged a maglev system on top? Guess which one lacks CATOBAR capable fighters, cargo/ferry airframes, AEW? Guess which one lacks experience operating a CSG? Guess which one is untested and unproven?

>>62502863
Americans are fucking retarded for this gay attitude towards organized labor

File: begone anon.jpg (408 KB, 1920x1080)

408 KB JPG

>>62502892
this is an excellent analogy
>>62502780
>thread theme: we need our ship numbers to go up
This is ignoring the merchant fleet, hull tonnage, systematic knowledge, combat veterancy, and real world operations on a global level.
China is a threat, but they are not the SINK ARR AMERICAN VESSERS in one engagement that shills and doomposters make them out to be. The real clincher is the recruiting crisis and making sure the boats are manned and trained enough for operational readiness

>>62504093
>recruiting crisis
Is the dumbest thing to be surprised about. We aren't at war with anyone and there are no wars in sight. A war with china is never going to happen, we will neve enter ukraine, and gaza is small time terrorism business. We have a couple ships in the red sea and that's it (along with a few other nations).

There's nothing to be up in arms about so of course no one is joining the military right now. If another pearl harbor or 9/11 happened then that would completely change.

>>62502780
It's on purpose to keep the lines open.
Newport News has two slipways/assembly facilities that can build carrier sized ships, having redundancy is important, you don't want to go down to single points of failure. At the same time, if you build "too fast" you have to furlough workers during the downtime between ships and risk losing their expertise, so you want your shipyards to be utilized at all times by pacing your build speed.
The Nimitz class is expected to serve 55 years, there's 10 of them, so with 2 construction facilities you replace one from one facility every 10 years. Kennedy was laid down in 2015 and planned to commission in 2025, which is right on schedule.

>>62504051
Organized labor here is fucking retarded.

>>62503323
also, reminder that when we went into WW2 our shipyards were basically dead with nobody working at them, until that sweet government money got shot into it and they started hiring women. American ship yards have always been shit until there's a reason not to be shit, then they somehow produced absurd amounts of tonnage

>>62502780
I see you're still butthurt that someone laughed at you over the Type 003 taking 10 years to finish the other day.

>>62504239
Ships of today are nothing like liberty ships of 1942. A virginia class submarine takes 7 years to build. A modern aircraft carrier dwarfs ww2 aircraft carriers and have multiple nuclear powerplants in them. Welding needs to be so precise today that they are all done using computers and robotics that all require highly specialized facilities. Parts come from all around the world.

It's not longer just slapping a bunch of steel together and calling it a day. If a large scale war broke out, what you start out with is all you're going to get for the entirety of the war.

>>62503626
Its likely going to operate in the South China Sea. Chinese shipbuilders have a tendencey to launch 1 or 2 vessels of a new class with older tried & tested powerplants before integrating newer ones meant for streamlined mass production. The sister ship currently under construction is likely to be nuclear

>>62504334
>likely to be nuclear
doubt

>>62504051
Organized labor in the US was infiltrated by the communists in the '30s and the mob in the '50s. Leadership rarely has much interest in seeing to the long-term profit of the men on the assembly line. Perhaps its different in other countries, but that's what we have here.

File: big sten.jpg (477 KB, 2000x1312)

477 KB JPG

>>62502892
>>62502912
>>62503474
>>62503626
>>62503615
>>62504295
>USS Nimitz
I just looked and several of the Nimitz class, which were also 100,000 ton, 1,000 foot long, nuclear powered supercarriers, went from keel laying to commissioning in less than five years. The John C. Stennis was ready for action just 45 months after the first weld was done on it.

The Nimitz itself, which understandably had the "first in new class" hiccups, took seven

File: WhoaDude.jpg (8 KB, 160x109)

8 KB JPG

>>62502780

>>62504385
Yeah but the cold war arms race and insane spending did that, there isn't a country on the planet that will ever replicate that. The "chinese buildup" is peanuts compared to the peak of US MIC.

>>62504385
The Nimitzes were basically just refinements of the Kitty Hawks and Enterprise, and were for the most part very safe designs. The Fords have far more innovations and advancements over the Nimitzes which will naturally add complexity.

>>62502880
>>62504051
>Not realizing both sides of the coin suck since they are organizations composed of people trying to maximize income
Why do all Yuros have the analytical skills of twelve year olds?

>>62504385
there was actually a need for more carriers at the time. there is no desire for more carriers than what is legally required, because again, why would you want more capital ships when you can't crew them?

>>62505751
okay chang.

File: every su57.jpg (52 KB, 1000x605)

52 KB JPG

>>62505751
>China and Russia
kek Russia is the guy who goes "Just put my name on it too" on a birthday card
like how the US has 11 carriers and announced that's the number they'll stay at
and how China has 3 carriers and announced they intend to have 7 by 2040
and how Russia has -1 carriers and announced they intend to have one by three years ago

or how the US has 700 fifth generation fighters and builds 70 more a year
and China has 300 fifth generation fighters and builds 120 more a year
and Russia has 3 fifth generation fighters and a decade from now they might make it back to 4 after that one crashed

>>62503760
>Carriers spend most of their life out of service. They might operate for 50 years but would clock less than 15 at sea operation. Which sounds like a lot until you measure it against the 35 years it spends being repaired.

Dont forget the mid life refit. I dont understand why ships arent made out of corten steel or even full chrome stainless steel. It would save a lot of time spent on doing maintenance.

File: 1631349502585.png (122 KB, 512x269)

122 KB PNG

>>62505751
>china
yes
>russia
lol

File: IMG_2486.jpg (1.11 MB, 2033x1516)

1.11 MB JPG

>>62502892
This, we're going to be putting out a new cvn approximately once every 3 years for the next decade

File: pepe - southern pepe.png (329 KB, 736x960)

329 KB PNG

>>62504048
>Guess which one is powered by kerosene and nigger rigged a maglev system on top?

Their nigger rigged DC catapult works unlike the space magic american AC catapult because the basic constructon only consists of 3 parts of which only one moves. I myself would design a carrier catapult with an enormous horizontal manual wheel windlass manned by 100 handpicked bucks from Georgia and a series of gigantic rubber bands. The bucks would be trained to sing old seaman shanties while they stretch the required number of rubber strings. An Ovaseeah officer equipped with a Motivator-lash Mk. 1 would ensure full buck performance when the skipper wants to launch fully laden aircraft in rapid succession.

SMACK! Put your backs into it! SMACK! Massah wants the entire wing airborne now!

>>62504031
>But china can make a diesel powered aircraft carrier in 2 years, implessive.

These diesel carriers, loaded down with helis, an interceptor wing and several AEW aircraft is what will chase away USN SSNs from western pacific. Big deal if one gets sunk, the chinks will just make another.

shipyard is hiring women for shit like welding and electrical

>>62505751
>I can see a crumbling empire that cannot manufacture anything anymore.
CVN-79 is currently fitting out, CVN-80 will launch next year, and CVN-81's keel will be laid down 2 months after that.

>>62505897
>china claims

>>62502780
>Inb4 torpedoed by the CIA sub Lee Harvey Oswald

>>62505751
>Russia can go from blueprint to sailing the seas in a matter of a couple of years.

File: IMG_2487.jpg (306 KB, 1350x638)

306 KB JPG

>>62505789
>70 per year
Try 156

>>62505890
>Their nigger rigged DC catapult works unlike the space magic american AC catapult
Interesting, why then is the American one the only one that's been filmed (thousands of times) actually... launching aircraft then?

>>62505948
I was wondering about why your numbers don't match mine and it turns out I was only looking at the F-35s the Pentagon procures and not the ones that get exported

>>62505890
>Their nigger rigged DC catapult works
May I see it launching a fighter? Whay about 50 one after another?

>>62505929
>Torpedoed
Come on, missile on the top starboard side of the island from aft to front, after getting a missile on the aft portside elevator.

>>62502780
Kennedy got fucked by Covid desu, the Enterprise had its keel laid mid 22 and will launch late 25 but still won't be commissioned till 2029.
As far as our baby carriers go i'm not sure how long the Fallujah will take but the Bougainville went from keel laying to being christened in about 4 years

>>62502863
>He thinks this is how unions work

The reality is

>What the fuck, why is this taking so long?
>Because my boss's boss is a retard who isn't from the union and I'm not paid to hold his hand and do his job for him. If he has no fucking clue what I should do, I'll stand here until he does.

>>62503215
Anon, it takes private companies 6 years to build a single factory that's allowed to be shit.

>>62503157
Actually, NNS operates 24/7; however, most of the construction is done first shift and to a much lesser extent second shift. Third shift is usually focused on testing and other things to keep from stepping on people's toes. Only so many people can be working in the same space doing arguably productive things at the same time.

>>62503323
>wages at ship yards are SHIT
True that. It is one of the reasons why I left.

>>62504295
can you show me the large scale war? Is it in the room with us, alongside American Hegemony?

Its stupid and uninteresting, but a majority of American foreign policy is now wrapped up in soft control of other nation's foreign policies and making sure it stays that way. The navy doesn't want to admit it out out, but carriers are less important than the subs. They are an icon, a media darling, and, they aren't as useful as long range airpower is.

>>62506304
Third shift guys bring fishing poles to catch big seatrout in deep spots no one else can access

>>62502780
Why did the sailor on the Kennedy get run out of the navy for drinking alcohol in the bathroom?
On the Kennedy, you can't take a shot in the head.

>>62504137
having worked on similar projects this is probably the case. is there anything coming up after JFK?

>>62505921
81s (Doris Miller) keel was laid a year ago. They are presumably moving JFK guys over to that when that's done

>>62506256
>how long the Fallujah will take but the Bougainville
2 extremely kino carrier names desu.

>>62505751
We fly over your capitals and you can't even detect us.

>>62506671
I dont believe you Mr. Chinaman

>>62504295
>what you start with
Is why the USA has allies all over the world. A war against the USA is not just against the USA but pretty much vs the majority of 1st world nations and that's not a situation anyone with more than 2 brain cells wants to be caught in. That is unless they're on their deathbed and just don't give a fuck.

>>62505890
>. I myself would design a carrier catapult with an enormous horizontal manual wheel windlass manned by 100 handpicked bucks from Georgia and a series of gigantic rubber bands. The bucks would be trained to sing old seaman shanties
The shanties would definitely boost morale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP-7GNoDJ5c

>>62505751
>Russia
Even at the peak of the USSR Russia couldn't do this with large vessels, let alone today.

>>62504031
But when Americans pumped out Shermans in WW2 with the same mentality it was le heckin EPIC

>>62505751
>a matter of a couple of years
You can say a couple of years or a matter of years but you can't say a matter of a couple of years, chang.

>>62503760
I think 30% at sea time over their 50 yesr lifespan is a very low estimate. I know that the life cycle of every carrier I was on was:
>1 year of workups and CQ preparing for deployment, at sea approx 70% of the time
>1 year in which you have a deployment, which will be 6 to 9 months of being at sea nearly constantly
>6 month PIA, which probably gets extended to 9 months, followed by sea trials
>Cycle repeats
So in a given 3 years, you'll spend 2 years out to sea almost all the time, then part of a year in the yards, then back out again. Squadrons always need CQ, and the nukes need MTT and ORSE slots, so the ships are out there as much as possible unless they hit a major repair issue.

>>62502780
The government contract requires all sorts of stupid shit like "Preference for union members, and felons"
You can't just mass produce electricians, pipefitters and boilermakers and THEY have to have a security clearance. Also if you haven't noticed American shipyards are really shitty as well, 3rd world tier.

>>62506947
>>62503760
Every naval power is calibrated for 50% carrier availability except for France, which politely asks global crises to time themselves to accommodate when the Du Galle will be in the dockyard

>>62503507
And equip with which fighter wing? China doesn't have enough naval aircraft to fully equip all its new carriers. These are all currently eunuch carriers.

>>62503327
retard

>>62507165
Arguably the more important bit (which i assume has been posted), is that the production lines must be kept online with basically no downtime, that means you want to be finishing up the production around the time you need to replace the first ship of the class and starting work on the next ship. If they get things automated enough and nuclear reactors to be safe enough that they can stretch manpower a bit it'd probably be a decent idea to upside the marine carriers a so instead of 11 super carriers and 11~ LHA's you've got 20+ carriers where half have a well-deck. Imagine how many marines you could fit in an LHA if you doubled its displacement.

>>62504239
we also had an industrial base unlike today.

File: 1726374956021.webm (3.6 MB, 852x480)

3.6 MB WEBM

>>62507505
Yeah

>>62507821
>propaganda vid of what could easily be 3 j15s
yeah

>>62507821
Those are useless on the Type 03 as they're not CATOBAR capable. You would know this very, very basic thing if you weren't just a seething faggot from /pol/.

>>62503157

Good thing the Navy isn't retiring carriers faster than we can build them. Oh, wait.....*

*and stretching out retirements with "upgrades" to keep those sad old ladies floating because our modern Navy can't seem to build shite.

>>62508046
None of that is true.

>>62507603
how's the constellation replacement going on gay boi?

Not trying to be cheeky, however, do we have video evidence of the type 003 launching jets yet ?

>>62503626
Because unlike USA, China does not have global commitments to deal with. It's an actual baffling
>haha we're better because NOO-CLEAR
Why the fuck would the Italians need their aircraft carriers to be nuclear powered? Where are they going with them that needs them to be nuclear powered? At best you could argue the Bongs or French need one but again, their commitments are minor and their global territories are not particularly threatened.

>>62503626
As we all know Japan attacked Pearl Harbour with nuclear powered aircraft carriers since we all know that conventional powered ships don't have the endurance to make such a trip or even reach the US West Coast. Actually all container ships delivering goods around the world are also nuclear powered amirite?

>>62504135
>A war with china is never going to happen
A war with China is 100% going to happen within our lifetimes, probably within the next 5 years

>>62509203
China may not have global commitments but it does have global ambitions, and that is why it needs nuke boats

>>62502880
Unions exist to donate money to Democrat political campaigns and endorse Democrat politicians.
Yeah, they are useless in the 21st century.

>>62506256
>Fallujah
>Bougainville
mfw those are real LHA names

>>62505789
>china
>5th generation fighters
kek

>>62509203
>ship designed to carry planes needs fuel to move
>planes also need fuel to move
>ship and plane are competing for fuel storage

The Italians don't need aircraft carriers at all, but if they did, they'd want them to be nuclear. It's a game changer for operational tempo. Whether or not Italy (or Russia, or China, or Europeans) can afford it and are willing to put up with the drawbacks that come with it is another question, but let's not pretend that conventional aircraft carriers are anything other than a budget friendly option of something that, by its very nature, is not budget friendly.

>tl;dr conventional carriers are a cope

>>62507821
Why do the Chinese do so many jumps and cuts like muzzies?