USS Gerald R Ford - CVN 78 - Commissioned Today
 

USS Gerald R Ford- first of the class - was commissioned today.

Great coverage on TV here with a rousing speech from President Trump, a nice speech from President Ford's daughter (the ship's sponsor) and full coverage of the military part of the ceremony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u7FtnESM-Q&t=2918s



CO talking here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn7EVSC8VRQ



Nice to see my taxes going towards something worthwhile these days - albeit my contribution was a pretty small part of $12.9 Billion !

Indeed, good coverage. On the down side, sounds like there is much work to be done- even more than all new ships require, especially with EMALS and many uncompleted spaces. Perhaps 4 years until first deployment, although I saw elsewhere this might be whittled down to 3 years if they defer the shock testing to the next hull (JFK).

More importantly....."Old Ironsides" leaves dry dock tonight after a period of upkeep.....launched originally in 1797 and is the oldest commissioned Warship afloat.

She will go alongside for some more restoration work before returning to duty.

http://www.navysite.de/ships/other-images/const_2.jpg

My sister just got back from a short cruise on the "eagle".

In the 80s, I bought a mazda RX-5 cosmo from a guy who had been a captain on it when it was called "horst wessel".

Is CVN78 now the Worlds largest moving target?

SASless indeed operative word being afloat... HMS Victory still commands the oldest commissioned warship title

Having been on both I am always amazed at the amount of work that goes into both to keep them in preserved condition and even more so the USS Constitution to keep here afloat

Interestingly her sister ship the USS Cheasapeake is in my village... and now makes up the floor of our flower mill.

IIRC the last carrier damaged in combat was @1945. How many sorties and combat sorties have been launched from carriers since then? Yes I realize there are many systems designed to take out a carrier, and things could get very nasty in a peer conflict, but I would hardly call carriers sitting ducks.

Correct me if I am wrong but is it easy not to get damaged if you spend most of that time attacking countries that don't have the means of reponding.:)

Planet Basher: Projection of power is the name of the game and we will be back to smite the bad boys, and provide assistance to friendly states in the foreseeable future, like we always have done. Will be bound to get involved with humanitarian aid as well.

You obviously weren't a submariner, in military aviation, or a missileer. If you were, you'd know that it's a giant, juicy, slow target.

Target ? Look at it this way - CVN 78 is likely to be much better protected than HMS Queen Elizabeth ever will be.

A US Carrier Strike Group would have at least 1 x Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruiser and 2 or 3 Arleigh Burke class destroyers (or even up to 6 if necessary). That lot easily out trumps (pun intended) a Type 45 - that's if the Type 45 can get out of port and doesn't have to go anywhere too hot ! (banter - I know there is an expensive plot to fix the issues but quantity and multiple defensive missile options have a quality all of their own).

Also, with the current President and SecDef, I don't think there would be any pussyfooting around if someone did attack a 7,500-person unit worth at least $35 Billion (including aircraft but not including the enormous additional cost of missiles on ships) - a significant deterrent effect.

http://i.imgur.com/3rlcMlB.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleig...lass_destroyer

A US CSG is certainly much less of a target than a RAFG air base would have been had the Cold War gone hot and it has much better systems defending it !

Moving target = carrier surrounded by numerous moving body guards.
Fixed target = air base surrounded by air defence guards???

Imagine if it had been a country that did have "the means of responding".

Don't forget the Attack Subs that tag along with every Carrier Strike Group playing sheep dog to the sheep dogs.

How well will the UK Carrier(s) be protected?

Assuming 1) they both get built.....2) they should ever deploy out of Home waters

Does the UK adhere to the NATO Strategy of the USN being responsible for Blue Water Ops and NATO (assuming that includes the RN) naval forces are responsible for Brown and Green water Ops?

Really? :rolleyes: One is already built (HMS Queen Elizabeth) and undergoing sea trials and the second (HMS Prince of Wales) is nearing completion...

-RP

More submarines have been sunk than aircraft carriers.

A few more short videos:

CNO Adm Richardson interview + EMALS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TmIGfs3zoU

Crew interviews / technology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2id3jmwFopI

Didn't Trump "order" the USN to go back to steam catapults? Must be a more complicated subject than anyone knew...

Although there's nothing that can be achieved in HMS Victory that couldn't also be done in a portakabin...

The US Navy lost an Aircraft Carrier to enemy action during the Vietnam War.....to Combat Swimmers.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/a0e00c0...commandos.html

Hmm. Does being holed & settling in twenty feet before repair and return to service seven months later count as 'lost'?

It seems that 'aircraft carrier' might be a little tenuous, too - she certainly wasn't serving as such & had, in fact, been laid down as a merchantman.

Just sayin'...

Sunk is sunk....just as so many battleships were at Pearl Harbor but were raised and refitted to serve later.

When your Keel is on the bottom and your engine room is full of water due to a huge hole in the side of the ship caused by explosives.....I submit that counts as being lost....until back in service.

That the river was only 48 feet deep kept the ship from sinking further.

She was patched and pumped out....then towed to Subic Bay then Yokosuka Japan for repairs.

As she had a load of Helicopters and Airplanes bound for repair/over haul in the USA....she was still an aircraft carrier even if they were craned on and off.

On a tour of Old Ironsides a few years ago, I noticed that the cannon were British(they had the royal GR cypher) Wondered how they got there.

What is brown and green water?

Very muddy and full of reeds ? The Leeds to Liverpool Canal ? (If we still have a Navy big enough to man a canal narrowboat )
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...boat-commander


Is it related to grey water which is the waste water output from housing and offices (sinks, showers, baths and washing machines) ?

MG,

Here's your answer....not real British guns.






https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/20...dern-armament/

SAS,

Thanks for solving that mystery. Surely you're not bothered by Brits having more "history" than you Americans ? After all, we are eternally grateful for the USA intervening in WWII. But history is factual.

Korea and Vietnam were a different kettle of fish. Please leave the paranoia out of it; after all this is a remarkable ship (and I'm not being sarcastic). If only we had the dosh to produce something like this in the present day.

NEO

OK SASless, bonus points to you, but I would call it a real stretch. Yes a big accomplishment for the swimmers to sink an enemy ship, but also note the ship was in USNS service (civilian manned) and designated as an aircraft transport at the time- as several ex-carriers of various nations were in late stages of their life. And it was in downtown Saigon at the time, and had been carrying aircraft, but I think few would consider it a "aircraft carrier" as in a ship of the line. Many USNS, MSC and MARAD ships carry aircraft as cargo, but calling them an "aircraft carrier" is mostly semantics folly.


I also enjoyed how the article you linked with the banner touting themselves as "Foreign Policy Experts Roundtable" use a photo of a "real" carrier, which if my eyes are correct in reading the stack number as "41"- making it the MIDWAY! Guess they are as good as the "experts" that label every fighter as a F-16 and every rifle as a AK-47 or AR-15.

Stretch? Is any elastic that strong? :hmm:

@SASless
That is an interesting link, thank you.

I am more impressed with the Italian frogmen and their mission in Alexandria in 1941.
Luigi Durand de la Penne, Emilio Bianchi, Vincenzo Martellotta, Mario Marino, Antonio Marceglia and Spartaco Schergat.
read about the raid here. . Their example quite deflates the nasty stereotype of Italians as other than brave. Bold men executing a bold plan. Actual Royal Navy warships were put out of action, which at that stage of the war was a serious matter.

The Italians seemed to be in the lead in such operations.....I am trying to remember the Title of a book that told their story.

a major difference between Americans and the British. The British think 300 miles is a long distance, and the Americans think 300 years is a long time.....

Possibly one of:
"The Black Prince and the Sea Devils: The Story of Valerio Borghese and the Elite Units of the Decima Mas", by Jack Greene and Alessandro Massignani, Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2004 284 pages, hardcover (ISBN 0-306-81311-4)

"Sea Devils" by J. Valerio Borghese, translated into English by James Cleugh, with introduction by the United States Naval Institute (ISBN 1-55750-072-X)

Paul Kemp : Underwater Warriors (1997) ISBN 1-85409-455-6

The Decima Mas were skilfull, brave, and unfortunately committed to fascism.

Indeed the two Nations have differing views on things due to the perspective from which we view the World and our respective roles in it.

Each of us is building/commissioning a new Aircraft Carrier and the differences in them demonstrates that difference as nothing else can do.

The Royal Navy is putting into service a new ship....billed as being the largest ever built for the Royal Navy.

It is designed to carry 36 Fighter type aircraft and 4 Helicopters, has a range of 10,000 miles at a top speed of 25 knots, is 920 feet long, has a flight deck that is 241 feet wide. Propulsion is by diesel and/or turbine engines. Airplanes deployed on the ship shall be required to have V/STOL take off capability. The ship can operate with a wide mix of helicopter types.


The US Navy's carrier is 1106 feet long, 256 feet wide, designed for 75+ aircraft, uses Catapults and Arresting Wire systems, has a top speed in excess of 35 knots and an unlimited range as it is nuclear powered. The ship can operate with Cat launched or V/STOL aircraft and Helicopters.

Two very different designs of ships....due to the Mission Set they are envisioned to under take.

The British Carrier will one of two while the American carrier will be one of Eleven and is the lead ship of a new class.

The USN is actually very interested in CVF - its a significantly more revolutionary design than the FORD, which is more of an evolution of a design from over 40yrs ago and is very manpower intensive.


The US carriers also do not routinely operate with as many aircraft as perhaps thought - they tried it with 90 plus in the early cold war and quickly stopped due to the difficulties on storage on deck. Its highly unusual to see much more than 48 F18s these days on a carrier, and a 50-60 wing is the usual standard.


CVF is designed to carry 36 JSF plus helos, based as I understand it on hangar stowage only and in reality if a deck park is used could easily go above 50 aircraft, much like her US cousins. If you based US CVN capacity on hangar parking alone, then it would be akin to a CVF as only a proportion of the airwing fits in the hangar.


The final reason why CVF is the length she is, is that a US CVN is physically too big to enter UK harbours.


Finally I have no idea where the nonsense about blue/brown water missions came from - CVF is regarded by US Admirals as their 11th & 12th carrier groups (I should know, I've spoken to them about this). She will swap out rotations with CVNs in the Gulf and likely carry US aviators regularly. This discussion on 'brown water' is utter bovine excrement.

"....in the Gulf...." seems to be the defining phrase.

As we reduced our CVN fleet during the Obama Years.....I am sure having the RN Carriers will work to ease the deployment tempo for the US Navy slightly at some point in the future.

"Two very different designs of ships....due to the Mission Set they are envisioned to under take."

No - The RN would kill their mother for a "Ford" ...... we just can't afford it .... in fact we can't really afford a "QE" either

Agree with you Harry, not really the mission set, but much more to with what you can afford. Cat and Trap carriers are much more expensive to build, operate and maintain, but most will admit that the air-wing is much more capable. Very few navies have been able to afford true cat and trap carriers.


As for the size of the air-wing, "only" 48 F-18's is still quite an air-wing- larger than quite a few nations, and very few hanger queens. Capability of the air-wing must also be considered, not just the numbers, although numbers are a quality all their own, and QE will be much more capable than the INVICIBLE class.


A quality air-wing that can provide fighter, strike, AEW, ASW, anti-surface, refueling, COD, jamming, etc. with aircraft with adequate range and payload (CATOBAR) is tremendously valuable (and very expensive). While the F-35B will be much more capable than the Sea Harrier/Harrier, there is obviously a tradeoff with going to STOVL carriers and aircraft, with the inability to have fixed wing AEW as arguably the biggest loss.

A little clarification if I may.


Ford is a new design from keel up, including new reactor designs, new launch and recovery systems new flightdeck design and some other goodies. Some of the aviation thinking also went into QEC. BUT - when you have a pretty good template to start with, it's not going to look radically different. There was no equivalent template for QEC - although the RCNC tried (bless them) to build on CVS, it was never going to deliver any significant uplift in sortie rate or deck park. For that, you need more flightdeck width which means sponsons and d/e lifts, which incidentally means more freeboard twixt hangar deck (or more precisely the underside of the lift) and the deep waterline. Nor could it be based on Eagle/Ark IV.


The level of manpower applied in US CVN tends to reflect their different enlistment model, plus the fact that they are not (yet) as sensitive to manpower costs as the RN. They have tried to reduce manning, but are perhaps less willing to compromise on certain things than the RN.


The USN CVW numbers tend to reflect the reduction in tacair buys (both quantity and type) rather than any innate desire to free up deck space. The ships that did EastLant / Med deployments in the early 90s tended to have the full 80+ CVW. After that, when types (A6, F14, S3) started to retire without replacement the decks got significantly less crowded. Not really through space, but simply lack of cabs. CVW3 on Trumans visit to Portsmouth in 05(?) had five squadrons of F14/F18 aboard, plus S3, E2, EA6 and SH60 and the CoD. But it was the last F14 cruise and she was off to OIF. It's noticeable that the "gap" tends to be those aircraft that either the A12 or CSA programmes were supposed to deliver. Spot factor is an issue, but then the SuperBug is smaller than the Tomcat, even if the Classic Bug is bigger than the A7.


QEC has always had a deck park to accommodate the planned TAG/CAG. There were always those citing NorthLant weather and RN precedent, but the size of hangar required to make that work was prohibitive. Besides which, you can't operate with low handler manning if you're constantly shifting cabs up and down. If memory serves, the variants back in the very early days for CVSG(R) were 15/20 (hangared/total), 20/26 and 26/40 - which is where we ended up.

Arguably, the failure of the A12 and CSA programmes have had a similar effect on the CTOL (CATOBAR is a made-up interweb term) CVW. Good thing the SuperBug had the growth potential to replace the Prowler or it could have been worse. Likewise, had E2 ever gone out of production for a sustained period, that might have caused a few issues too.....

Thanks for that, SAS.