New USN Carrier USS Gerald R Ford
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New USN Carrier USS Gerald R Ford
Come aboard USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78), the newest aircraft carrier
Pretty good pictures of the great ship in build, its in the graving dock at Newport News. Very impressive. Has now been floated up and will be moved to make space for the new USS JFK (CVN 79), which is already in prefabricated form and will be assembled shortly.
The pictures remind me of my time spent on ships in various states of repair or refit. For every dockyard matey actually doing something (like welding) there are about fifty aimlessly walking around, or standing in small groups, ditting on. Look!
Pretty good pictures of the great ship in build, its in the graving dock at Newport News. Very impressive. Has now been floated up and will be moved to make space for the new USS JFK (CVN 79), which is already in prefabricated form and will be assembled shortly.
The pictures remind me of my time spent on ships in various states of repair or refit. For every dockyard matey actually doing something (like welding) there are about fifty aimlessly walking around, or standing in small groups, ditting on. Look!
Last edited by Hangarshuffle; 10th Nov 2013 at 18:41.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One heartily approves of the fact that "US law requires the military to maintain 11 aircraft carriers..."
(US Navy christens costly new carrier, USS Ford)
Would that the to55ers in our pathetic excuse for a government had written such a law into the statute books.
(US Navy christens costly new carrier, USS Ford)
Would that the to55ers in our pathetic excuse for a government had written such a law into the statute books.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To WW
Yes its hard to be positive about our efforts now. I finally concede its looking very grim. What a mess it became. All that effort people have made and yet it all seems to be falling apart even before even one of the ships is complete.
I also tried to upload some close up detailed pictures of the new Chinese J-15 Carrier Fighter. They are on
http:/globalmilitaryreview.********.com
I tried to upload the link but failed dismally.
Drifting onto the Chinese military....about 23 years go I watched a documentary made by the BBC about their military. The flight school involved the students walking and talking to each other as they would as pilots in formation (whilst still on the ground). I mean like children playing - arms outstretched like wings, walking around in formation, taking off and landing etc. a bizarre sight but really only what is now called visualization training I suppose. Thinking back then it mildly amused me, as outside my window I could hear real naval aircraft and aircrew who were actually training properly, with real planes and helicopters (I lived onboard at Yeovilton).
Not laughing now. The Chinese are way, way full ahead hard with their military programs - question to me is - why?
And further edited- on this day of all days I truly pray that the USS Ford and the J15 never ever have to fire a shot in anger in their future working lives.
Yes its hard to be positive about our efforts now. I finally concede its looking very grim. What a mess it became. All that effort people have made and yet it all seems to be falling apart even before even one of the ships is complete.
I also tried to upload some close up detailed pictures of the new Chinese J-15 Carrier Fighter. They are on
http:/globalmilitaryreview.********.com
I tried to upload the link but failed dismally.
Drifting onto the Chinese military....about 23 years go I watched a documentary made by the BBC about their military. The flight school involved the students walking and talking to each other as they would as pilots in formation (whilst still on the ground). I mean like children playing - arms outstretched like wings, walking around in formation, taking off and landing etc. a bizarre sight but really only what is now called visualization training I suppose. Thinking back then it mildly amused me, as outside my window I could hear real naval aircraft and aircrew who were actually training properly, with real planes and helicopters (I lived onboard at Yeovilton).
Not laughing now. The Chinese are way, way full ahead hard with their military programs - question to me is - why?
And further edited- on this day of all days I truly pray that the USS Ford and the J15 never ever have to fire a shot in anger in their future working lives.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magnificent. The epitome of of air/sea power. But we'll show 'em when our two
big carriers, erm, finally enter service. With the erm, aircraft that we'll erm, be
putting on them. Err, sort of.
Oh yes, if Red Dave doesn't sort it, then Comrade Millibandski sure as hell will.
Sleep tight now.
big carriers, erm, finally enter service. With the erm, aircraft that we'll erm, be
putting on them. Err, sort of.
Oh yes, if Red Dave doesn't sort it, then Comrade Millibandski sure as hell will.
Sleep tight now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Stendec
Yep its looking bad. I don't think any of our politos of any shade are going to come up looking good. Have they not all meddled about with it? It seems to have dragged on for years now doesn't it? They just don't get it.
I've been reading Austerity Britain 1945-51 by David Kynaston and what a mighty tome it is. How Labour under Attlee tried to cope with the demands of that era in Government - very sobering to see/read of the problems they faced. But we got through it. Maybe things will turn out okay once more.
Yep its looking bad. I don't think any of our politos of any shade are going to come up looking good. Have they not all meddled about with it? It seems to have dragged on for years now doesn't it? They just don't get it.
I've been reading Austerity Britain 1945-51 by David Kynaston and what a mighty tome it is. How Labour under Attlee tried to cope with the demands of that era in Government - very sobering to see/read of the problems they faced. But we got through it. Maybe things will turn out okay once more.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Whilst it's hard not to admire the commitment to defence shown by our American cousins the simple fact is can they afford it? Have a look at:
http://http://www.usdebtclock.org/
This website tracks US spending and debt, which currently stands at $17 trillion, a whopping $54 000 per citizen. Whilst it's nice to have a large set of the latest toys at some point they are going to have to reduce spending. Each carrier is $13 billion and they're building 11 of them.
Whilst the UK also has a hefty debt our government is trying to rein in spending, even if they're doing a pretty poor job of it.
http://http://www.usdebtclock.org/
This website tracks US spending and debt, which currently stands at $17 trillion, a whopping $54 000 per citizen. Whilst it's nice to have a large set of the latest toys at some point they are going to have to reduce spending. Each carrier is $13 billion and they're building 11 of them.
Whilst the UK also has a hefty debt our government is trying to rein in spending, even if they're doing a pretty poor job of it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: No longer a hot and sandy place....but back to the UK for an indefinite period
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remind me -exactly how many USN carrier groups are in port at the moment?
Very sad fact, but only a few are active!
Very sad fact, but only a few are active!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft carriers are very complex systems. The USN aircraft carriers are required to balance three goals. This RAND study looks at how those goals can be traded-off.
http://www.rand.org
Cycles and Operational Availability
Given a fixed number of months for maintenance, deployments, and time between deployments (consistent with personnel quality-of-life goals), Navy planners face a three-sided trade-off in setting ship schedules. They must balance goals of
- deploying carriers and generating forward presence
- holding a carrier in reserve and keeping it surge-ready to meet emerging needs
- maintaining the materiel condition of the ship.
This is a zero-sum trade-off in which improving the ability to meet one goal can adversely affect the ability to meet the others.
Under the current 32-month, one-deployment cycle, for example, in which both the deployment and maintenance periods typically last six months, a carrier is deployed 19 percent of the time, able to surge within 30 days 46 percent of the time and within 30-90 days an additional 11 percent of the time, and in depot maintenance 24 percent of the time. A shorter, 18-month cycle would see a carrier deployed 31 percent of the time, able to surge within 30 days 15 percent of the time and within 30-90 days 18 percent of the time, and in depot maintenance 36 percent of the time.
A longer, 42-month cycle featuring two 6-month deployments would see a carrier deployed 29 percent of the time, able to surge within 30 days 44 percent of the time and within 30-90 days 9 percent of the time, and in maintenance 18 percent of the time. A longer cycle would help meet the “6+1 fleet” goal of having at least six carriers deployed or able to deploy within 30 days and an additional one able to deploy in 90 days. It is not clear, however, whether required depot maintenance can be completed in one 6-month period every three and a half years……………………….
On balance, our analysis suggests that shortening the one-deployment cycle will increase the forward presence of the carrier fleet but reduce its ability to meet the 6+1 fleet goal. Shorter cycles can also help level workload at the shipyards. Longer, two-deployment cycles will increase forward presence while sustaining higher levels of readiness for longer periods of time only if the workload management challenges they raise are addressed. As noted, the Navy needs to perform engineering studies to examine the impact of increased maintenance demands in two-deployment cycles. Table 1 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each notional cycle mentioned above over the current 32-month cycle.
Given a fixed number of months for maintenance, deployments, and time between deployments (consistent with personnel quality-of-life goals), Navy planners face a three-sided trade-off in setting ship schedules. They must balance goals of
- deploying carriers and generating forward presence
- holding a carrier in reserve and keeping it surge-ready to meet emerging needs
- maintaining the materiel condition of the ship.
This is a zero-sum trade-off in which improving the ability to meet one goal can adversely affect the ability to meet the others.
Under the current 32-month, one-deployment cycle, for example, in which both the deployment and maintenance periods typically last six months, a carrier is deployed 19 percent of the time, able to surge within 30 days 46 percent of the time and within 30-90 days an additional 11 percent of the time, and in depot maintenance 24 percent of the time. A shorter, 18-month cycle would see a carrier deployed 31 percent of the time, able to surge within 30 days 15 percent of the time and within 30-90 days 18 percent of the time, and in depot maintenance 36 percent of the time.
A longer, 42-month cycle featuring two 6-month deployments would see a carrier deployed 29 percent of the time, able to surge within 30 days 44 percent of the time and within 30-90 days 9 percent of the time, and in maintenance 18 percent of the time. A longer cycle would help meet the “6+1 fleet” goal of having at least six carriers deployed or able to deploy within 30 days and an additional one able to deploy in 90 days. It is not clear, however, whether required depot maintenance can be completed in one 6-month period every three and a half years……………………….
On balance, our analysis suggests that shortening the one-deployment cycle will increase the forward presence of the carrier fleet but reduce its ability to meet the 6+1 fleet goal. Shorter cycles can also help level workload at the shipyards. Longer, two-deployment cycles will increase forward presence while sustaining higher levels of readiness for longer periods of time only if the workload management challenges they raise are addressed. As noted, the Navy needs to perform engineering studies to examine the impact of increased maintenance demands in two-deployment cycles. Table 1 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each notional cycle mentioned above over the current 32-month cycle.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One heartily approves of the fact that "US law requires the military to maintain 11 aircraft carriers..."
(US Navy christens costly new carrier, USS Ford)
Would that the to55ers in our pathetic excuse for a government had written such a law into the statute books.
(US Navy christens costly new carrier, USS Ford)
Would that the to55ers in our pathetic excuse for a government had written such a law into the statute books.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if wrong but USN carriers named after people are named after people with military experience.................mmmm then thinking of CVN Ronald Reagan.
At least a POTUS is de facto CinC, and RR was at least a serving officer.
Not sure how Abe Lincoln's military career stacks up either.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,076
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Considering they're blowing 3.5 billion on a Destroyer!!!!!! 13 billion isn't bad for a Carrier, even the yanks have baulked at the 3.5 billion for the Destroyers and have cut them back from 20 to 3. 
US Navy gets largest and most expensive destroyer ever ? RT USA
Mind you, it beats these, I wonder if BAe had a hand in the design
Pentagon admits: Navy's newest warship can't survive combat ? RT USA
US Navy gets largest and most expensive destroyer ever ? RT USA
Mind you, it beats these, I wonder if BAe had a hand in the design
Pentagon admits: Navy's newest warship can't survive combat ? RT USA
Last edited by NutLoose; 11th Nov 2013 at 01:56.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ford was a serving USN officer. Cant remember what Carter did, but think he served. LBJ was also in the USN (I think, or maybe Army) as some sort of made up number for the war at some point, but did fly in a dangerous combat mission in the Pacific.
Obama would make it onto my carrier list, no problem. He's clever, cold, calculating and very ruthless, has no problem doing whatever it takes to get his and the USA's way in the world. He's kept a concentration camp going, carried on with a war, led and helped start or try and start new wars (Libya and Syria and possibly in the future the Ukraine, Taiwan, Yemen, N Korea, Somalia, N Ethiopia, Pakistan) spied on his allies, carried out repeated drone strikes (now practically worldwide) on his enemies regardless of the by-catch. Good record so far. Surely up there from a what, nasty winning at all cost sort of bloke? Got to be on the list from a military winning waypoint>?
If you get one for being a 20th C prez, why isn't Carter on it? (the carrier list). Why not LBJ? Are they deemed as failures and not worthy?
What's in a name anyway? Ours are what, HM the Queen (increasingly very harmless gentle much loved but occasionally slightly waspy old lady whose done her duty to the max), and Prince Charles (is that the one that will be instantly mothballed? I'm not going there).
Think I would have been tempted to have called one of them HMS Trumpton, to reflect upon harmless gentle make believe nostalgia that reflected on a long ago, long gone Britain. (Google Trumpton, cousins).
Obama would make it onto my carrier list, no problem. He's clever, cold, calculating and very ruthless, has no problem doing whatever it takes to get his and the USA's way in the world. He's kept a concentration camp going, carried on with a war, led and helped start or try and start new wars (Libya and Syria and possibly in the future the Ukraine, Taiwan, Yemen, N Korea, Somalia, N Ethiopia, Pakistan) spied on his allies, carried out repeated drone strikes (now practically worldwide) on his enemies regardless of the by-catch. Good record so far. Surely up there from a what, nasty winning at all cost sort of bloke? Got to be on the list from a military winning waypoint>?
If you get one for being a 20th C prez, why isn't Carter on it? (the carrier list). Why not LBJ? Are they deemed as failures and not worthy?
What's in a name anyway? Ours are what, HM the Queen (increasingly very harmless gentle much loved but occasionally slightly waspy old lady whose done her duty to the max), and Prince Charles (is that the one that will be instantly mothballed? I'm not going there).
Think I would have been tempted to have called one of them HMS Trumpton, to reflect upon harmless gentle make believe nostalgia that reflected on a long ago, long gone Britain. (Google Trumpton, cousins).