[Exel]

How will this new class of CVN differ from the Nimitz, apart from being slightly larger? What new capabilities will the Ford class bring to the table?

I take it that the USN is going with an evolutionary design rather than trying something revolutionary à la DDG 1000?

[DKTanker]

Okay, so it's Wikipedia, still....

http://en.wikipedia....R._Ford_(CVN-78)

New power plant

Larger Flight deck

Smaller Island moved aft

Better, robootic, armament and fuel handling

No more steam catapults, now are electro-magnetic

Probably the same type of EM for the arresting gear

No catapult weight restrictions. Heretofore #4 catapult had weight restrictions

And smaller crew

This post has been edited by DKTanker: 21 September 2008 - 1629 PM

[Hellfish6]

Is it equipped with a phased-array radar system? Kinda looks like the island has Aegis.

[DKTanker]

Hellfish6, on Sun 21 Sep 2008 2232, said:

Is it equipped with a phased-array radar system? Kinda looks like the island has Aegis.

I dunno but let's remember the picture is an artist's rendering.

[Exel]

DKTanker, on Mon 22 Sep 2008 0028, said:

Larger Flight deck

Does this mean it can house a larger air wing, or just extra convenience?

[Sardaukar]

Bigger target ? :blink:

Hopefully it doesn't turn out like another DDG-1000.... USN also needs some good news for a while.

[DKTanker]

Exel, on Mon 22 Sep 2008 0231, said:

Does this mean it can house a larger air wing, or just extra convenience?

I had the impression the larger flight deck was to increase plane handling efficiency.

[TomasCTT]

I recall a popsci or popmech article that CVs of the future would be smaller and stealthier, some based on a catamaran or trimaran hull. Ford is quite a conventional design compared to those in the said article.

[Josh]

Hellfish6, on Mon 22 Sep 2008 0332, said:

Is it equipped with a phased-array radar system? Kinda looks like the island has Aegis.

Dual band S/X. I believe the same set up basically to be fitted to DDG-1000.

[Josh]

TomasCTT, on Tue 23 Sep 2008 0238, said:

I recall a popsci or popmech article that CVs of the future would be smaller and stealthier, some based on a catamaran or trimaran hull. Ford is quite a conventional design compared to those in the said article.

popsci and popmech are for kids. Aviation Leak is where the real stuff is. As far as smaller carriers, the idea has always been floated and I don't believe any section of the USN ever was a proponent. I'm not sure the trimaran scales up to 100,000 tons well and the use of nuclear power might make efficiency less of an issue; AFAIK USN CV hulls are optimized for top speed, not efficient cruising speed, because with a nuclear reactor the cruising efficiency is moot.

[Olof Larsson]

jua, on Tue 23 Sep 2008 1517, said:

I'm not sure the trimaran scales up to 100,000 tons well and the use of nuclear power might make efficiency less of an issue; AFAIK USN CV hulls are optimized for top speed, not efficient cruising speed, because with a nuclear reactor the cruising efficiency is moot.

On the other hand a 100'000 ton trimaran-carrier, would have a huge flightdeck
(you might have the landingdeck more of less parallell to the ship on one side,
take-off from the bow and leave ~1/2 the deck as parkingspace)
and the same would probably be true for the hangars.

Getting the thing through the Suezcanal might be problematic thou.

[Exel]

Can any of the supercarriers enter the Suez canal? :blink:

[Olof Larsson]

Exel, on Tue 23 Sep 2008 1735, said:

Can any of the supercarriers enter the Suez canal? :blink:

Suezmax is currently 16m/53ft draft, 46m/151ft beam, 70m/230ft width and 68m/223ft height.

It's Panamax that the carriers don't comply to.

[pdoktar]

Olof Larsson, on Tue 23 Sep 2008 1951, said:

Suezmax is currently 16m/53ft draft, 46m/151ft beam, 70m/230ft width and 68m/223ft height.

It's Panamax that the carriers don't comply to.

It says in wiki that the suezmax width of the ship can be 70 meters. The 46m beam width is only a typical width of a 150,000 dwt "suezmax" ship. So width should be no problem for carriers be them like 200,000 tons, if they can handle the most constraining 16m draft.

[Garth]

Exel, on Tue 23 Sep 2008 1135, said:

Can any of the supercarriers enter the Suez canal? :blink:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/mb5155wrangler/SFUEbSbgn7I/AAAAAAAAAoM/M01WtslOUCU/s512/060215-N-0685C-009.jpg

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/enterprise/suez0915.jpg

http://www.av8rstuff.com/gifs/cvn71ditch.JPG

Go to images.google.com . Type in your favorite carrier's name + suez. Lots of transit pics, at least for the East Coast CVNs.

--Garth

[Garth]

DKTanker, on Sun 21 Sep 2008 1728, said:

Okay, so it's Wikipedia, still....

Two more things ...

Three aircraft elevators, not four.

Three arresting wires, not four (apparently current CVNs generally only have three in operation during flightops anyways).

--Garth

[Luke Y]

Garth, on Wed 24 Sep 2008 0021, said:

Two more things ...

Three aircraft elevators, not four.

Three arresting wires, not four (apparently current CVNs generally only have three in operation during flightops anyways).

--Garth

The Ronald Regan CNV76 has only three arrester wires with greater strength / machinery etc, although I don't know about older CVN's using only three of the four, do you have any sources?

[Ken Estes]

jua, on Tue 23 Sep 2008 1317, said:

popsci and popmech are for kids. Aviation Leak is where the real stuff is. As far as smaller carriers, the idea has always been floated and I don't believe any section of the USN ever was a proponent. I'm not sure the trimaran scales up to 100,000 tons well and the use of nuclear power might make efficiency less of an issue; AFAIK USN CV hulls are optimized for top speed, not efficient cruising speed, because with a nuclear reactor the cruising efficiency is moot.

You are right about the single-mindedness of the USN CV program, since USS United States. Of course, the USN has had no competition for its carrier battle groups since 1944, and can remain confident for another generation or two that no new Battle of Midway is in the offing.

Only half-waggishly, I encouraged my masters at HQMC to urge the David Taylor Center designers to consider incorporating dry wells in the sterns of the new CVN design. The well decks would not compromise hangar decks or storage/admin spaces aft, which could be modular. This would allow them to be converted quickly to LHD's carrying LCAC, thus plusing the amphib force without dedicated hulls that the USN would not build anyway. Needless to say, nobody wanted to take on the USN leadership over one of its most cherished programs....

We also have to consider the reduced size vs. greater cost of USN aviation, so that carrying more aircraft has become less and less a consideration for future CV designs. USMC squadrons have deployed routinely with CVs for almost a generation, akin to the lean period 1946-1950.