A $13 billion U.S. aircraft carrier is about to hit the open seas. Its the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-7, the most expensive and most advanced warship ever built. The ship was christened in November 2013 and is scheduled to be commissioned this summer, said Lieutenant Jesus Uranga of the Navy Office of Information. It had been slated to be commissioned this month. The Naval behemoth can house more than 4,500 people and weighs 90,000 tons. The CVN-78 is the lead ship in the Ford class of aircraft carriers, replacing some of the U.S. Navys existing Nimitz-class carriers. At first glance, both classes have a similar-looking hull, but the Ford class introduces a series of technical innovations designed to improve carriers operating efficiency, and reduce operating costs and crew requirements. The launch system is just a small piece of the CVN-78s puzzle. The ship has a redesigned and relocated island (the part of the carrier where air-traffic control and the bridge are located), three faster and more powerful elevators (compared with four on Nimitz-class carriers), an Advanced Aircraft Recovery System (AARS) and design changes to the flight deck. Those changes are vital to increasing the number of sorties launched. The carriers sensory array has received an overhaul with the addition of an integrated active electronically scanned array (AESA) search-and-tracking radar system. This new system has no moving parts, so it therefore minimizes maintenance and crew requirements for operation. Further, advanced AESA radars enable the ship and aircraft to broadcast powerful signals while remaining stealthy, which greatly improves combat effectiveness. Speaking of combat, the carrier is more than capable of holding its own. The Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) defends against high-speed, highly maneuverable anti-ship missiles, and the weapon system of choice is the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). One must not forget various Gatling and heavy machine gun mounts as well as 75-plus aircraft ready to be launched at any given time......snip~ http://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ate-the-seas-2016-03-09?siteid=yhoof2&ref=yfp
I wasn't Navy so I couldn't tell ya......what do you think. Does this gives up the upper hand and the ability to dominate the seas?
What they did do was to eliminate anything that wasn't politically correct like urinals. There are no urinals to be found on the USS Ford, just gender friendly commodes and any male sailor who leaves the toilet seat up will find himself in front of a captains mast.
IIRC, the port side elevator which was normally used to move aircraft to the two waist catapults was on the older carrier classes used far, far less than the three on the starboard side. If the three starboard elevators cycle faster than before they would probably make up for losing the port one.
Actually I believe a Nimitz class carrier air wing has more aircraft than the Ford class carrier air wing will have. Under Obama, the U.S. Navy has more carriers than carrier air wings. But Trump is suppose to fix that so he says. Doesn't Obama and Valerie Jarrett understand that the basics, that aircraft carriers have to have aircraft to operate from ? Carriers also should have a detachment of Marines aboard.
That's what they are saying, getting the sorties out faster. They also didn't mention what would be accompanying it. - - - Updated - - - How many planes did it have, as this is 75 plus.
That's a closer to max number. Most of the Nimitz's from the 1990s onward haven't been carrying but around 48 aircraft. That said, even in the mid 1990s, the U.S. Navy didn't have enough squadrons to fill out their carrier air wings. Some Marine Corps squadrons of F/A-18s were thus based aboard to fill in the gaps.
What do you mean? IIRC, most carriers are still defended by 2 Burkes and at least 1 Ticonderoga which gives the group close to 300 Standard II antimissile missiles it can put into the air.
The Nimitz class was able to have a 90 plane carrier air wing (CAW) but it's been a long time since CAW's were that large. I believe that the Ford class carriers don't have the berthing space for a 90 aircraft CAW. The Ford class carrier was designed for women to serve aboard and female sailors need more space than male sailors and also female sailors use three times more water for personal hygiene than male sailors. And I'm sure the Ford class carrier has special compartments for PC diversity classes to be held in. I've seen photos of the crews birthing rooms and nothing like ever seen on any other warship. The Nimitz class carriers had 120 man birthing squad bays with racks (beds) four high. The Ford's crew birthing facilities racks are only three high and only 40 sailors to each birthing facility. It's not warship but a PC loveboat. What I have read, there's 600 less racks on the Ford class carriers than on the Nimitz class carriers. Back during the early 2000's they played around with the idea of having a Marine rifle company deployed on each Nimitz class carriers. But the Marines took up almost 200 racks on the ship that there wouldn't be enough birthing space for an entire FA-18 squadron crew members. The carrier would lose an entire FA-18 squadron that they scrapped the idea after three CSG's cruises in the 6th Fleet AOR. But the Ford class carrier is suppose to be able to conduct a 15% higher flight sorties per hour/day than the Nimitz class carriers. But an Iowa class BB can still put more ordnance on target in just one hour than an entire carrier air wing can in 24 hours. The Ford class carriers will have a larger CIW system for self protection than the Nimitz had.
THere was a time not to many years ago we had Carrier Battle Groups, not Carrier Strike Groups. CSG: 1 X Nimitz class carrier with it's CAW aircraft 1 X Ticonderoga cruiser 2 X Arleigh Burke destroyers 1 X Attack submarine here's one -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carri...le:George_Washington_Carrier_Strike_Group.jpg Before Obama's PC Navy the Carrier Battle Group. CBG: 1 X Nimitz class carrier with it's CAW aircraft 2 X Ticonderoga cruisers 6 X Arleigh Burke destroyers 1 X Attack submarine Also some Frigate escorts for the CBG replenishment ships. Jet aircraft really like to suck up JP fuel. Here's a CBG -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group#/media/File:Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg
No. A decision was made back during the Bush II administration to buy nothing new surface warship wise aside from the more modern versions (Flights) of the Burke class destroyers. Makes sense as they are large enough and expandable enough to handle various capabilities. Take all their Standard II missiles out of the VLS missile cells and replace them with Tomahawk cruise missiles and you have the most fearsome anti ship or land attack missile platform ever deployed.
The Tomahawk is subsonic. At this time there is no anti-ship capable Tomahawk that can hit a moving target. There is an anti-ship Tomahawk that supposedly can hit moving ship in the pipeline but it's still subsonic. Being subsonic meaning it can be easily shot down. Question: Where's AboveAlpha ? He's been following the R&D of the anti-ship version of the Tomahawk. The U.S. Navy made a wrong turn a long time ago and has neglected naval surface warfare while the Soviets/Russians and the chi-coms haven't. The U.S. Navy has a lot of catching up to do. But the Navy just recently tested a supersonic (Mach 3.5) anti-ship missile and sank an Oliver Perry class frigate (sitting still, not moving) Guess what this new anti-ship missile is ? A freaking SM-6 Standard missile. Kinda of a small warhead in my opinion. A naval 8" gun would be more leathal.
Subsonic does not necessarily mean easy to shoot down. Especially at very low altitude. And surface ships are not always moving. For example ships in port. So land attack Tomahawks would still be useful in attacking for example a number of Chinese ships being fueled and armed at a base in the Spratly Islands. Standard surface to air missiles have always had very useful anti surface capability (just as I'm pretty sure Patriot SAMs can be used in surface to surface mode). IIRC during Operation Praying Mantis against Iran in the late 1980s, a Standard missile was launched at and hit an Iranian destroyer during that battle.
Ship launched anti-ship missiles usually have from a 1,000 lb. to 2,000 lb. warheads. The problem with subsonic anti-ship missiles, they are traveling so slow that the targeted ship has minutes to respond and take evasive actions. Most warships today have a CIWS. Supersonic anti-ship missiles the targeted ship only has from 10 to 30 seconds to react. The new surface warfare tactics that most of the worlds navies are playing with is getting as close as possible to the enemy before launching it's anti-ship weapons. 150 miles to even as close as 50 miles. The closer you are to the enemy, the less time the enemy has to take evasive action. A couple of years ago, it was launch your ant-ship missiles from 300 or more miles away. For decades there was scuttlebutt that the Soviets/Russian naval surface warfare tactics was firing salvos of anti-ship missiles at it's targets. 8 to 24 supersonic anti-ship missiles all coming on target at the same time with in a second of each other. This is no longer scuttlebutt but was confirmed when the Russian navy did it in Syria. Not even the U.S. Navy's land attack Tomahawk's are capable of being fired in multi launched salvos. They fire one Tomahawk at a time with a long pause before the next Tomahawk is fired.
Which given that a Ticonderoga can handle the interception of up to 16 incoming missiles simultaneously and the Burke's can direct 12 interceptions simultaneously.......I would not be overly worried about 24 incoming Russian antiship missiles. IIRC, around the end of the Cold War, the MINIMUM number of antiship missiles the Soviets felt they needed to attack a carrier was around 90 simultaneously.
Lets hope some day soon we again have a navy that the Russians don't want to challenge. The question is, how long would it take a Burke to put 12 missiles in the air when those incoming missiles are only 15 seconds away ?
Hawkeyes are only attached to carriers air wings. How many CSG's can the current incompetent CnC can put to sea that can fight ? Three at the most,
I'm assuming that the Pentagon if an American carrier entered any kind of high threat environment where there was a chance of encountering Russian or Chinese antiship missiles that a complete carrier air wing would in fact be deployed. I can't answer to the Obama Admin. aspects of any scenario. He's out of there in 10 months anyway. Thank god.
Whatever happened to the 'pocket carrier' strategy of FDR? If they aren't filling the super carriers up to their capacity of aircraft then why build the things? Smaller carriers are all that are needed in a lot of areas anyway; the big carriers are overkill in a majority of cases, not to mention a diminishing of power projection over wide areas. Say maybe 5 or 6 of the big battle groups and 12 to 15 smaller groups or something along those lines would be better. No current potential enemy we have is going to be able to match 5 of our current large carriers anyway, and a dozen or so smaller groups spread around would pose a bigger problem for any enemies on a 30 year horizon.
What the Navy is planning to do, with the Marine Corps F-35 B, they are suppose to be deployed on amphibious LHA's and LHD's and be used as small aircraft carriers. There is an aircraft carrier gap. For the U.S. Navy to be able accomplish it's mission during peace time, the Navy needs 15 super carriers. Today we only have ten carriers and under the Obama administration only two or three are ever capable to putting to sea and being mission capable. As of last Friday there were only two CSG on station in their assigned AOR. The 5th and 7th Fleets AOR's. The U.S. Navy has five AOR's. President Obama is the first CnC since 1946 who hasn't been able to keep a CBG or even a CSG in the 6th Fleet AOR 24/7. Remember the terrorist attack in Benghazi in 9-11-12 ? There was no Carrier Strike Group or no Amphibious Ready Group in the 6th Fleet AOR ( Mediterranean Sea ) Just three Arleigh Burke's who mission is providing a anti ballistic defense umbrella for Europe. The past 11 Presidents before Obama were always able to keep a Carrier Battle Group in the 6th Fleet AOR 24/7. Obama has failed. I digress. During the 1970's there was a debate taking place for building mini carriers. Building twenty or so small carriers and abandoning the super carriers. Most of the debate took place in the U.S. Naval Institute "Proceedings." You had your pro super carrier sailors and your pro small carrier sailors. What you quickly noticed that the older naval officers, Commanders, Captains and flag officers favored the super carriers while the younger officers Lt's and LtCmdr. were pushing for the small carriers. After a few years of debating it was exposed that the younger officers were scared of moving up the chain of command and becoming a Captain and finding themselves in command of a freaking big super carrier, a big freaking ship with 5,000 sailors and Marines under their command. That a super carrier is so freaking big, it takes a real sailor to get it in and out of port. No easy task.
Not quite true. Both Navy and Marines are part of "Naval Aviation". And when looking at "Naval Squadrons", you always have to add in the Marine Corps ones. Just look at the fame of the Marine squadrons during WWII. When it comes to Naval Aviation, the Navy and the Corps have always been combined aboard aircraft. While both work together on defense, on the Attack the idea is that the Navy aircraft will go after enemy ships, while the Marine aircraft will support the Marines on the ground. But if there is only one target both will concentrat on it.
