U.S. Navy's Japan-based aircraft carrier heads home

One gone, another one in. Oh how I love to marvel at these great modern aircraft carriers!

I'm very thankful for the US presence in Japan. And the ships themselves are amazing pieces of engineering.

Just demonstrates big boys with toys mentality.

Among "big" other thing too. Got Huevos? LoL-

Why does the US Navy name their ships after people who are still alive or that have died within living memory? It strikes me as rather odd.

Obviously, very few people alive today can hold a deep personal grudge against someone like George Washington, but I imagine a significant number of the sailors who serve on the USS Ronald Reagan (or the USS George H.W. Bush), who were actually born in the 1980s, might have a deeply personal reason to dislike these men. For example, their parents might have been locked up in Reagan's 'war on drugs' or might blame their job loses on NAFTA passed by Bush etc. It seems way too soon for this in my opinion.

"For example, their parents might have been locked up in Reagan's 'war on drugs' "

Or more likely, bereaved family members of the 240 US Marines who were blown up in Beirut after Reagan sent them there on a suicide mission.

@onagagamo "And the ships themselves are amazing pieces of engineering" When you are going to destroy poor, undeveloped country with savages, armed by axes and bows, yes. They are incredible pieces of machinery. And when you are going to challenge a regional superpower with nuclear subs armed by supersonic cruise missiles, your "pieces of engineering" are nothing but sitting ducks.

Food for thought:

The life-cycle cost per operating day of a carrier strike group (including aircraft) was estimated at $6.5 million in 2013 published by the Center for New American Security.

6.5million? 6.5 billion

Aircraft carriers don't travel alone - they're part of the Carrier Battle Group:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carrier-group.htm

And when you are going to challenge a regional superpower with nuclear subs armed by supersonic cruise missiles, your "pieces of engineering" are nothing but sitting ducks.

The base "rats" will be getting ready for the return.

Nuclear subs cant destroy carriers.

.

Nuclear subs cant destroy carriers.

They can, but that's why carriers travel in Carrier Battle Group, to protect it. They've already thought of that possibility.

Navy Rear Admiral John Alexander said at a dockside news conference before the ship departed. “I would say when other countries are building an aircraft carrier, they’re doing it for a reason,...

Please, that reference to other countries when we damn well know he means China is a joke. China is living 70 years in the past and is just now building up its naval forces for a war that no one wishes to have anything to do with. It can't even copy a DC-9 and mass produce it when it STOLE two complete tool sets on loan from McDonnell Douglas over a decade ago. China has built an aircraft carrier that it has no aircraft that can land on or take off from, that's planning for you. China will self implode at the current rate of corruption so if we all just sit back, grab a bucket of popcorn and ignore their saber rattling, it will be the best entertainment for the next decade or so.

6.5million? 6.5 billion

4.5 billion is the initial cost of the carrier; another 3 billion will now be spent to extend the Washington's lifespan to its planned 50 years. 6.5 million is the average daily running cost of a carrier, its planes, and its attending group. But, heck, it's only money.

6.5million? 6.5 billion

No. It's just as it was stated. $6.5 million.

Carrier strike groups are expensive to buy and to operate. Factoring in the total life-cycle costs of an associated carrier air wing, five surface combatants and one fast-attack submarine, plus the nearly 6,700 men and women to crew them, it costs about $6.5 million per day to operate each strike group.

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS%20Carrier_Hendrix_FINAL.pdf

What this is saying is that the cost to operate six ships, a sub, and a carrier air wing costs $6.5 million/day. The carrier's costs are just a subset of that.

****No one wins a all out nuke war and we all know that, so now we play war games with conventional weapons . So let the games begin .

Aircraft cartier costed fortune for operational. It still needs protection from under water sub, Sound likes surface ship is prone to under water torpedo. it takes two to combat and wasting resources.

Why Not US navy retire them and deploying more economic and effective Japanese Diesel Subs. They do not need single Air craft or backup from under water. No pilot life will be lost from accidents of air crash too.

Somebody please mention that "nuclear" sub is referring to it's means of propulsion. I feel sorry when people get confused like this. Seriously, a few hours online learning modern submarine warfare basics will be a better investment of time than posing as some kind of expert.

Can a sub be a threat to a carrier group? Sure. That's why defense (detection and prosecution) are taken so seriously. (see lostrune2's link)

For a sub to be effective, it must be within range to attack. The closer, the better. Less time to react means a much higher probability of success, (and often death for you, because if you're located, you're usually screwed).

Diesel subs, running on batteries, make less noise (being kind and generally speaking) than nuke subs (which are going to be attack subs, not boomers). So discount them at your peril.

But one should also consider what weapons would be used. Torpedoes, even with increased range of modern types, are "short range" compared to anti-ship missiles, but can be more stealthy, depending on circumstances. And then we have to also consider the warhead. The bigger, the better if you're wanting to sink something big like a USN carrier. Otherwise, you're going to annoy a lot of people who will take offence at your shenanigans. Bigger warheads means bigger means of delivery, which means bigger subs. Probably nuke subs. So horses for courses. Smaller missiles are still a threat though. If an enemy sub's CO has the chance to do something unfriendly, he'll probably take it.

At the same time, getting in close enough, getting past a 1st rank carrier group's anti-sub measures, and finally hitting a carrier itself is going to be very, very hard. Not impossible. And subs can reign havoc just by being there, and disrupt the carrier group's effectiveness, at least temporarily.

And if there's more than one sub, I'll leave that up to your imagination...

Also, environmental factors can work to/against your or an opposing force's advantage. Very important.

A nice reprieve from the jet noise for the summer.

Why does the US Navy name their ships after people who are still alive or that have died within living memory? It strikes me as rather odd.

Obviously, very few people alive today can hold a deep personal grudge against someone like George Washington, but I imagine a significant number of the sailors who serve on the USS Ronald Reagan (or the USS George H.W. Bush), who were actually born in the 1980s, might have a deeply personal reason to dislike these men. For example, their parents might have been locked up in Reagan's 'war on drugs' or might blame their job loses on NAFTA passed by Bush etc. It seems way too soon for this in my opinion.

Hey genius NAFTA, Most Favored Nation Status to China were given by Clinton... A democrat. Reagan ended the cold war, I'd say that's significant. You may have been born in the 80's but apparently know little about very recent history. These men have carriers named after them because of their significant contribution. Carter (Naval Academy Grad) Clinton do not have carriers named after them.... disgraceful leadership is why.

But one should also consider what weapons would be used. Torpedoes, even with increased range of modern types, are "short range" compared to anti-ship missiles, but can be more stealthy, depending on circumstances.

In the real life, nothing is predictable. According USS Cole bombing, small boat with explosives itself became the lethal weapon too. Spending billions and billions and getting back up from another ship can not protect the carrier from low budget and low tech attack.

And then we have to also consider the warhead. The bigger, the better if you're wanting to sink something big like a USN carrier

Bigger warhead needed to be carried with heavy load and delivery process will be slower. How about smaller warheads attached together on single missile as MRITV ( Multiple Re-enty Independely targeted Vehicles). Some may be missed for target. Not everyone! No disrespect to your knowledge about modern navy warfare. In my opinion, Air Craft Carriers are big expensive toys which days will be numbered due to the high cost, high maintenance and big factor.

Big does not means, it will be effective in real combat, Bigger one needed to move longer. Bigger one needed larger space. After all bigger one needed fortune for building and maintenance. Elephant is slow to run during the bush fire. It is very visible for human hunters too.

In the real life, nothing is predictable.

I hinted at that myself.

According USS Cole bombing, small boat with explosives itself became the lethal weapon too.

Yes. But the matter under discussion is a carrier out at sea, and the several other vessels that will most definitely accompany it, not a single warship taken by surprise while docked in a friendly port.

Bigger warhead needed to be carried with heavy load and delivery process will be slower.

Do yourself a favour and compare Harpoons and Tomahawks (TASM variant) before writing nonsense next time.

Big does not means, it will be effective in real combat, Bigger one needed to move longer. Bigger one needed larger space. After all bigger one needed fortune for building and maintenance. Elephant is slow to run during the bush fire. It is very visible for human hunters too.

Like I and another poster has already said, carriers don't go out to sea without significant support from other vessels. Try to keep up.

My turn - why is the CCP also pressing ahead with it's own carrier program? In the interests of world peace?

Iff carrier can not go alone without backup. it will be disaster if the communication was mishandled. It does not make sense for military Gurus for deploying two ships together for delaying making decision. It is the burden for other ship.

Both Career and Sub have costed fortune. Even one of these is destroyed, it likes burning billions of cash. Leaner and meaner is better than showing off with non sense pride.

CCP likes US navy wanted to show off their only one big toy as modernization. in my humble view, they are so stupid for building Air craft carrier. Unlike US, they have less better trained pilots. Only east coast is useful for sea adventures. If US default the debt, CCP will be no longer afford to maintain their big toy.

Very likely CCP only air craft carrier will share the same cruel fate with USS Coles due to high visibility and dysfunctional decision making. Small is beautiful and lighter. Big is wasteful and slower.

Let them stay home. Bye bye.

Let them stay home. Bye bye.

Y'know they're being replaced by a bigger, better, newer one