This ship is slated to replace the aging USS Enterprize. It is the CVN 78 tentatively named Gerald R. Ford.
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, videos and photo galleries. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other users, upload videos and photos in your own photo album and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
I don't know about this new aircraft carrier concept. The days of the giant carrier are numbered. Something we learned in the First Gulf War is that our big carriers simply do not carry enough warplanes. And this new design will not carry warplanes in any greater numbers than our current ones. Yes the Enterprise is old and needs to be replace, but is this the right way to go about it? Even though it will be armed with the brand new F35 Lightning IIs, it seems to me that there are better ways of doing this. I admint I have not thought this through completely yet. I would like to invite all of your opinions and arguments for and against building a new giant carrier of this nature, which by the way will require rebuilding the Panama Canal to widen and deepen the canal. I'm just not sure about this at all, yet.
Johann (my youngest) said that Obama is looking at reducing military spending to help with the costs of Universal Healthcare and become more isolationist as they did after the 1st World War
Is first and foremost a Power Whore, He tells anyone what they want to hear! He will move anyone aside that gets in his way!
He tends to be a Marxist. Prescribes to Saul Alinsky's theories. His father was a Communist agitator all over Africa. To sum it up he is a neo-Christian, Muslim, marxist, Socialist ASSHOLE!
لن أستسلم لموتُ لالاس "I will not submit.Death to Islam!"
The Socialists told us long ago that since they could not beat us with force, that they would destroy us slowly from within. So far it is working pretty well. MOLON LABE
I've seen that before with Tony Blair in the UK. I would love to agree with you 'cos I do, one problem I want us to move and settle in the US so can I whisper it hoping no one will notice?
is a new class carrier, but about the same size as the current class, about 100,000 tons displacement just like the Stennis, Lincoln, Reagan, etc. The US Navy now uses the 'Carrier Strike Group' and what is now called the 'Amphibious Ready Group' (Exoeditionary Strike group) as its two primary means of projecting force. Both groups have a main ship which is a carrier, plus support ships in the form of Arleigh-Burke class destroyers and cruisers, a supply ship, and a fast attack submarine. The only difference is the 'carrier,' which with the Amphibious Ready Group is a smaller (circa 60,000 tons displacement) carrier that is primarily for helicopters and Harriers. The ARG carries Marines and is capable of going ashore and actually invading on the ground. We now have eleven carriers and five ARG's.
None of these ships has to travel through the canal because there is an equal amount stationed on both coasts: San Diego, Puget Sound, Hawaii, and Japan on the west coast and primarily Norfolk on the east coast.
If you don't think carriers are the way to go, how would you project US force, particularly air power?
Those who do not read good books have no advantage over those who cannot read them -- Mark Twain
I think Carrier strike groups have a very valid role today given the shrinking list of allies that are willing to let us use their airstrips. I agree that they could use more aircraft aboard, but it may be a question of practicality of size. It gives the US a large advantage to be able to park a mobile airport anywhere in the world to support the troops. Is it enought to win a war? Absolutley not. But mabye it's enough to have a couple of carrier groups supporting Marine amphibious groups that can drive inland and then "take" opposing air strips for more aircraft to be stationed at. You might try to replace carrier groups with what essentially amounts to large cruise missle carriers, but I'm not sure if that would be as efficient. Also, in times to come, I think you will see less and less manned aircraft. The navy was working with Boeing on a unmanned jet aircraft to be launched from a carrier. If things go that way, you might see more aircraft on the carriers due to reduction in size. Just my opinion.
"10 acres of soverign American territory parked off your coast: 90,000 tons of diplomacy" If you ever see three of them in one place, you know the shit is about to fly.
Those who do not read good books have no advantage over those who cannot read them -- Mark Twain
of south carolina is always a good place to see the navy..we have seen everything from subs running above water to carriers..never get close enough to get numbers off ships but we have been buzzed a few times by jets..we do the "bonzie" chant, bowing with our hands over our heads..hey what else is there to do out there??
TO Every action, there is an Equal and Opposite Reaction..Sir Isaac Newton >>>>.. REMEMBER THE RULE OF GUNFIGHTING..HAVE A GUN..LT COL. JEFF COOPER, MARINE
My dad is just pondering about this new Ford Class carrier system and if you look it up on the net you will find that it will require extensive modification to the Panama Canal in spite of what Schuyler San pointed out. Now I'm not dissing Schuyler san at all. He makes some credible and valid points, but the system will in fact require the enlargement of the panama canal and this is planned into the development of the system. I agree that carrier strike groups are an essential part of our navy, but look at the picture of the USS Virginia on my dad's home page here. Save it to your desktop and that way you can look at if full size. Then look it up on the web and you will find more about the capabilities of this new fast attack submarine system that is replacing the much older Los Angeles class fast attack subs. Also half of our Ohio class submarine force is being modified to be exactly this cruise missile carrier system you are advocating. It's a wonderful idea since the huge D-5 Trident missile is practically useless now without any real mission to serve. But to rearm these Ohio subs and also modify them to support large contingents of Navy SEALs Special Forces Groups is a very very good idea as to what to do with the old Ohios since they no longer have a real mission as they are. But the upgrades and modifications to the old Ohios is one of the better ideas the US Navy has come up with in a long time.
BTW, my aniki chan's favorite all time heavy weaponry system is in fact the brand new SSN USS Virginia Class Submarines. You will find an excellent picture of the Virginia with extensive notes on the cutaway view of the sub on my dad's homepage here. Hope you enjoy it as much as my brother Ryo chan does.
Send it!
Never point a weapon at anyone you don't intend to kill.
from the Nimitz on up have a beam of 134 feet, a length of 1092 feet, and a draft of 37-41 feet. So does the proposed Gerald R. Ford. The dimeensions and draft are exactly the same.
The 'Panamax' dimensions for the maximum size ship that can transit the canal are a length of 965 feet, a width of 106 feet, and a draft of 39.5 feet. The displacement of a Panamax ship typially does not exceed 60,000 tons compared to a Nimitz-class carroer of 90-100,000 tons.
In other words, NONE of the Nimitz class carriers have ever been able to transit the Panama Canal. The proposed Ford class, being the same size exactly, won't either. The Panama Canal Expansion Project, which is going to happen regardless of any carriers, looks to be able to accomodate the carriers as its dimesnions are listed as 1400 feet long by 180 feet wide by 60 feet deep. However, the carrier super-structure, whuch is way bigger than the ships at the waterline, may prevent that from happening.
However, as I stated before, there really is no need. With half the carriers based on either coast, either coast can send its carriers to any place in the world just as easily. Our west coast carriers take turns patrolling the middle east with the east coast carriers all the time. I have found nothing to suggest that the navy is particularly interested in this.
So the question remains: If you are not going to use carriers, what are you going to use? We're not talking missles on DDGs or SSGNs. We're talking 100% control of the airspace.
Those who do not read good books have no advantage over those who cannot read them -- Mark Twain
Send_it, yes, I saw the picture you guys put of the the Virginia. It is quite remarkable. I'm getting off subject here a bit, but I would like to look at how the Seawolf class compares to the Virginia. I know the Seawolf is far more expensive and larger, but I'd like to compare their capabilities. Sometimes I wonder if we did the right thing in cancelling the Seawolf program. Perhaps we did, but I wonder if we lost a little capability in silence or firepower with the Virginia.
The Seawolf class SSN subs are quite remarkable indeed, but they were over engineered to do the same job that the Virginia class is quite capable of doing. Seawolf is not any faster than Virginia. It is somewhat quieter, but not very much. I can dive much deeper, but this is not a problem for the Virginia class subs because they are designed to work close in to the shore in what is called, littoral waters. The new propulsor unit that drives the Virgnia class is in fact much more advanced than that of Seawolf. It's really my brother that you should discuss this with. He can talk your ear off on this subject if he manages to corner you. ;) He loves submarines and in fact he believes we did the right thing in cancelling the Seawolf program and moving on to the Virginia program. He's the real expert that you need to talk to, not me.
Send it!
Never point a weapon at anyone you don't intend to kill.
15 Comments
Ironkoji
I don't know about this new aircraft carrier concept. The days of the giant carrier are numbered. Something we learned in the First Gulf War is that our big carriers simply do not carry enough warplanes. And this new design will not carry warplanes in any greater numbers than our current ones. Yes the Enterprise is old and needs to be replace, but is this the right way to go about it? Even though it will be armed with the brand new F35 Lightning IIs, it seems to me that there are better ways of doing this. I admint I have not thought this through completely yet. I would like to invite all of your opinions and arguments for and against building a new giant carrier of this nature, which by the way will require rebuilding the Panama Canal to widen and deepen the canal. I'm just not sure about this at all, yet.
Koji
Ironkoji
The boys just got home so i need to see if they want a snack or something first. I'll catch up to you guys later.
Koji
Kerryod
I'm into self service, if they don't feed themselves, they don't get. The joys of grown up children!
Take care
Kerry
Kerryod
Johann (my youngest) said that Obama is looking at reducing military spending to help with the costs of Universal Healthcare and become more isolationist as they did after the 1st World War
samD
Is first and foremost a Power Whore, He tells anyone what they want to hear! He will move anyone aside that gets in his way!
He tends to be a Marxist. Prescribes to Saul Alinsky's theories. His father was a Communist agitator all over Africa. To sum it up he is a neo-Christian, Muslim, marxist, Socialist ASSHOLE!
Mosinfreak
do you think you could skip the term 'pole-smoker' in that statement anywhere? just a thought.
Kerryod
I've seen that before with Tony Blair in the UK. I would love to agree with you 'cos I do, one problem I want us to move and settle in the US so can I whisper it hoping no one will notice?
Hugs,
Kerry
Schuyler
is a new class carrier, but about the same size as the current class, about 100,000 tons displacement just like the Stennis, Lincoln, Reagan, etc. The US Navy now uses the 'Carrier Strike Group' and what is now called the 'Amphibious Ready Group' (Exoeditionary Strike group) as its two primary means of projecting force. Both groups have a main ship which is a carrier, plus support ships in the form of Arleigh-Burke class destroyers and cruisers, a supply ship, and a fast attack submarine. The only difference is the 'carrier,' which with the Amphibious Ready Group is a smaller (circa 60,000 tons displacement) carrier that is primarily for helicopters and Harriers. The ARG carries Marines and is capable of going ashore and actually invading on the ground. We now have eleven carriers and five ARG's.
None of these ships has to travel through the canal because there is an equal amount stationed on both coasts: San Diego, Puget Sound, Hawaii, and Japan on the west coast and primarily Norfolk on the east coast.
If you don't think carriers are the way to go, how would you project US force, particularly air power?
catfish88
I think Carrier strike groups have a very valid role today given the shrinking list of allies that are willing to let us use their airstrips. I agree that they could use more aircraft aboard, but it may be a question of practicality of size. It gives the US a large advantage to be able to park a mobile airport anywhere in the world to support the troops. Is it enought to win a war? Absolutley not. But mabye it's enough to have a couple of carrier groups supporting Marine amphibious groups that can drive inland and then "take" opposing air strips for more aircraft to be stationed at. You might try to replace carrier groups with what essentially amounts to large cruise missle carriers, but I'm not sure if that would be as efficient. Also, in times to come, I think you will see less and less manned aircraft. The navy was working with Boeing on a unmanned jet aircraft to be launched from a carrier. If things go that way, you might see more aircraft on the carriers due to reduction in size. Just my opinion.
Schuyler
"10 acres of soverign American territory parked off your coast: 90,000 tons of diplomacy" If you ever see three of them in one place, you know the shit is about to fly.
ivantank
of south carolina is always a good place to see the navy..we have seen everything from subs running above water to carriers..never get close enough to get numbers off ships but we have been buzzed a few times by jets..we do the "bonzie" chant, bowing with our hands over our heads..hey what else is there to do out there??
Send_it_Boi
My dad is just pondering about this new Ford Class carrier system and if you look it up on the net you will find that it will require extensive modification to the Panama Canal in spite of what Schuyler San pointed out. Now I'm not dissing Schuyler san at all. He makes some credible and valid points, but the system will in fact require the enlargement of the panama canal and this is planned into the development of the system. I agree that carrier strike groups are an essential part of our navy, but look at the picture of the USS Virginia on my dad's home page here. Save it to your desktop and that way you can look at if full size. Then look it up on the web and you will find more about the capabilities of this new fast attack submarine system that is replacing the much older Los Angeles class fast attack subs. Also half of our Ohio class submarine force is being modified to be exactly this cruise missile carrier system you are advocating. It's a wonderful idea since the huge D-5 Trident missile is practically useless now without any real mission to serve. But to rearm these Ohio subs and also modify them to support large contingents of Navy SEALs Special Forces Groups is a very very good idea as to what to do with the old Ohios since they no longer have a real mission as they are. But the upgrades and modifications to the old Ohios is one of the better ideas the US Navy has come up with in a long time.
BTW, my aniki chan's favorite all time heavy weaponry system is in fact the brand new SSN USS Virginia Class Submarines. You will find an excellent picture of the Virginia with extensive notes on the cutaway view of the sub on my dad's homepage here. Hope you enjoy it as much as my brother Ryo chan does.
Send it!
Schuyler
from the Nimitz on up have a beam of 134 feet, a length of 1092 feet, and a draft of 37-41 feet. So does the proposed Gerald R. Ford. The dimeensions and draft are exactly the same.
The 'Panamax' dimensions for the maximum size ship that can transit the canal are a length of 965 feet, a width of 106 feet, and a draft of 39.5 feet. The displacement of a Panamax ship typially does not exceed 60,000 tons compared to a Nimitz-class carroer of 90-100,000 tons.
In other words, NONE of the Nimitz class carriers have ever been able to transit the Panama Canal. The proposed Ford class, being the same size exactly, won't either. The Panama Canal Expansion Project, which is going to happen regardless of any carriers, looks to be able to accomodate the carriers as its dimesnions are listed as 1400 feet long by 180 feet wide by 60 feet deep. However, the carrier super-structure, whuch is way bigger than the ships at the waterline, may prevent that from happening.
However, as I stated before, there really is no need. With half the carriers based on either coast, either coast can send its carriers to any place in the world just as easily. Our west coast carriers take turns patrolling the middle east with the east coast carriers all the time. I have found nothing to suggest that the navy is particularly interested in this.
So the question remains: If you are not going to use carriers, what are you going to use? We're not talking missles on DDGs or SSGNs. We're talking 100% control of the airspace.
catfish88
Send_it, yes, I saw the picture you guys put of the the Virginia. It is quite remarkable. I'm getting off subject here a bit, but I would like to look at how the Seawolf class compares to the Virginia. I know the Seawolf is far more expensive and larger, but I'd like to compare their capabilities. Sometimes I wonder if we did the right thing in cancelling the Seawolf program. Perhaps we did, but I wonder if we lost a little capability in silence or firepower with the Virginia.
Send_it_Boi
The Seawolf class SSN subs are quite remarkable indeed, but they were over engineered to do the same job that the Virginia class is quite capable of doing. Seawolf is not any faster than Virginia. It is somewhat quieter, but not very much. I can dive much deeper, but this is not a problem for the Virginia class subs because they are designed to work close in to the shore in what is called, littoral waters. The new propulsor unit that drives the Virgnia class is in fact much more advanced than that of Seawolf. It's really my brother that you should discuss this with. He can talk your ear off on this subject if he manages to corner you. ;) He loves submarines and in fact he believes we did the right thing in cancelling the Seawolf program and moving on to the Virginia program. He's the real expert that you need to talk to, not me.
Send it!