Jeff Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 The "island" looks smaller and has that CVN-65 vibe in it. I like it. The pix make the Ford look small. Still strikes me just how far aft the bridge structure is on the Ford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalkre Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 The "island" looks smaller and has that CVN-65 vibe in it. I like it. The pix make the Ford look small. Still strikes me just how far aft the bridge structure is on the Ford. Anyone know why that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halidon Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 (edited) The "island" looks smaller and has that CVN-65 vibe in it. I like it.The pix make the Ford look small. Still strikes me just how far aft the bridge structure is on the Ford.Anyone know why that is?The new location improves the flow of aircraft handling on the deck. By moving it aft and deleting a full-size elevator, they've created a "pit stop" between the two starboard elevators where aircraft can quickly be refueled and rearmed. Sortie generation rate should be greatly improved. Edited April 16, 2017 by Halidon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Would the rest of the navy world and news media be willing to add to their inventory the use of "guard ship" and the types of "guards ships". Of course not They write about "battle cruisers" still. The (mis)nomer "destroyer" for JMSDF ships is so deeply ingrained it won't go away. journalists most of the time only refer to other journalists and thus replicate errors over and over and are taken for gospel by journalists. But back to Gerald: Problems with the new catapults. As is expected with any new technology The $13 Billion Aircraft Carrier That Has Trouble With Planes by Anthony Capaccio -Landing system costs soared to fix flaws during development -Carrier still can’t launch jets with full extra fuel tanks The newest and costliest U.S. aircraft carrier, praised by President Donald Trump and delivered to the Navy on May 31 with fanfare, has been dogged by trouble with fundamentals: launching jets from its deck and catching them when they land. Now, it turns out that the system used to capture jets landing on the USS Gerald R. Ford ballooned in cost, tripling to $961 million from $301 million, according to Navy documents obtained by Bloomberg News. While the Navy says the landing system has been fixed, the next-generation carrier built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. still hasn’t been cleared to launch F/A-18 jets carrying a full complement of fuel tanks under their wings, a handicap that could limit their effectiveness in combat. The twin issues underscore the technical and cost challenges for the planned three-ship, $42 billion Ford class of carriers that is drawing increased congressional scrutiny. The Navy and Trump want to increase the carrier fleet from 11 authorized by law to 12. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain has long criticized the Navy’s management of the Ford program and joined a congressional effort that capped funding for the first carrier at $12.9 billion and for a second ship under construction, the John F. Kennedy, at $11.4 billion. He grilled Navy officials on the carrier’s costs at a hearing of the committee on Thursday. While it’s encouraging to see the Ford “finally delivered to the Navy,” the Arizona Republican said, the service’s funding request for it exceeds the congressional budget cap by $20 million. Now, McCain said, the Navy wants to award a construction contract for the third ship that’s $1.6 billion more than the previous one. “This is unacceptable for a ship certified to be a repeat design that will deliver just three years later,” he said. General Atomics The surge in costs for the development phase of the advanced arresting gear -- built by General Atomics to catch planes landing -- was borne by the Navy under terms of that contract. In addition, the program acquisition costs of the three systems built so far more than doubled to $532 million each from $226 million, an increase which must be paid by closely held General Atomics. General Atomics spokeswoman Meghan Ehlke referred all questions to the Navy “per our contract.” Captain Thurraya Kent, a Navy spokeswoman, said the contractor forfeited all bonus fees it could have made during the 2009-2016 development phase and the service is reviewing the company’s master schedule for the John F. Kennedy weekly. The Navy also has placed personnel at the company’s facility in Rancho Bernardo, California, to monitor progress. Most of the cost increase was driven by an underfunded technology phase that didn’t allow enough time for the discovery and correction of problems and for the technology to mature before the start of the development phase, Kent said. It’s “a lesson the Navy will ensure is applied to all future programs,” Kent said. The Navy reported the cost increase to Congress last month because it breached thresholds established under a 1982 law for major weapons systems. It’s separate from the 22 percent increase since 2010 for construction of the carrier, which resulted in Congress imposing the $12.9 billion cost cap. Trump, who has repeatedly complained about the high cost of major weapons systems -- and then taken credit for reining them in -- did that in a Coast Guard commencement address on May 17. The Ford “had a little bit of an overrun problem before I got here, you know that. Still going to have an overrun problem; we came in when it was finished, but we’re going to save some good money.” ‘It’s No Good’ Trump said “when we build the new aircraft carriers, they’re going to be built under budget and ahead of schedule, just remember that.” Still, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report Tuesday that the John F. Kennedy’s cost estimate “is not reliable and does not address lessons learned” from the Ford’s performance. Trump scoffed at the carrier’s troubled electromagnetic launch system in a Time magazine interview last month, saying it doesn’t work and “you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.” Saying the Navy should stick with an old-fashioned steam-driven catapult, he added, “The digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.” Until the catapult problem, which was discovered in 2014, is resolved it limits how much combat fuel can be carried in planes being launched from the carrier’s deck. That “would preclude normal employment” of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the radar-jamming Growler version because “the aircraft are limited in the types of missions that they can accomplish” without added under-wing fuel tanks, Army Lieutenant Colonel Roger Cabiness, spokesman for the Pentagon’s testing office, said in an email. He said the Navy asserts that testing on the ground has solved a software flaw that caused excessive vibrations of those fuel tanks. Acting Navy Secretary Sean Stackley told the Senate committee Thursday that fixing the vibrations was simply part of a “systems tuning effort” for each plane that will launch from the carrier. “The Navy estimates the software problem will be resolved and software updates incorporated” on the carrier for testing at sea during the vessel’s post-shakedown phase between May and November of 2018, Michael Land, spokesman for the Naval Air Systems Command, said in an email. He said actual launches of jets with wing tanks will follow in 2019. The Navy still has time to fix the catapult issue. Though the Ford has been delivered, the ship is not scheduled to be declared ready for operations until 2020, with first actual deployment planned for about 2022, according to spokeswoman Kent. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-15/new-u-s-carrier-hobbled-by-flaws-in-launching-landing-planes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemo Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 When did "escort" get adopted? The name 護衛艦 (goeikan) was adopted in 1961. Before that was 警備艦 (keibikan) which was adopted in 1954, the same year the Self-Defense Force was established. The first word used was 警備船 (keibisen) in 1952. Essentially allowing Japan to re-militarize by using other word to skirt around treaty/law obligation-- with full connivance of US. 1952 is during Korean War and 1954 is just after.USSR also did it with 'aviation cruiser'. Japan now up the ante with helicopter escort that is no less than a full helicopter carrier that can be converted to operate STOVL aircraft -- essentially a light carrier. US 'destroyers' are essentially cruisers for the purpose of getting it around the Congress. If US Congress can pass law to call tomato a vegetable instead of fruit, no name is really sacred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 When did "escort" get adopted?The name 護衛艦 (goeikan) was adopted in 1961. Before that was 警備艦 (keibikan) which was adopted in 1954, the same year the Self-Defense Force was established. The first word used was 警備船 (keibisen) in 1952. Essentially allowing Japan to re-militarize by using other word to skirt around treaty/law obligation-- with full connivance of US. 1952 is during Korean War and 1954 is just after.USSR also did it with 'aviation cruiser'. Japan now up the ante with helicopter escort that is no less than a full helicopter carrier that can be converted to operate STOVL aircraft -- essentially a light carrier. US 'destroyers' are essentially cruisers for the purpose of getting it around the Congress. If US Congress can pass law to call tomato a vegetable instead of fruit, no name is really sacred.That's an interesting viewpoint, although I don't agree with that sentiment, but I hope to see more posts from your perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted June 22, 2017 Author Share Posted June 22, 2017 Details on the cat problems, via Strategypage:https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20170622.aspx----Bonus feature-- Ford doesn't have pissers:"The Ford will be the first modern American warship built without urinals. There are several reasons for this. The Ford will have a smaller crew (by at least 20 percent) and more of them will be women. Currently about ten percent of American warship crews are women, but the Ford crew will be at least 15 percent female. Since women sleep in all-female dormitories ("berthing areas"), a toilet ("head") will now be attached to each berthing area (instead of being down the hall). Moreover, berthing areas will be more spacious (because of the smaller crew) and hold a third to half as many bunks as previous carriers. Finally, drain pipes for urinals more frequently get clogged than those coming from toilets. So eliminating the urinals means less work for the plumbers. Many of the junior sailors, who have to clean the heads, won't miss the urinals, which are more of a chore to keep clean than the toilets." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Why do people always drop all manner of trash into urinals? cigarette filters are among the worst. And why are so many incapable to stand exactly in front of them as shown by the regularly found traces of dripped urine in front of them? Really there should be signs above urinals saying "one step closer, he is shorter than you think". Yes I have worked in pubs in the past. Why do you ask? Now they only have to put signs above the pots on the Ford to prescribe sitting down. Many are incapable of aiming, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Why do people always drop all manner of trash into urinals? cigarette filters are among the worst. And why are so many incapable to stand exactly in front of them as shown by the regularly found traces of dripped urine in front of them? Really there should be signs above urinals saying "one step closer, he is shorter than you think". Yes I have worked in pubs in the past. Why do you ask? Now they only have to put signs above the pots on the Ford to prescribe sitting down. Many are incapable of aiming, too. Ah! Exporting Sitzplinkerism, you are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnm Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 Under weighhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f2ZH7L5ORUBand is playing Anchors Away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 "Anchors Aweigh" sport! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 But it should be "under way", so there is somewhat of a balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rScnnAL6jMs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted July 2, 2017 Author Share Posted July 2, 2017 (edited) 'Under weigh', 'under way'...the debate's ongoing... https://wordsmith.org/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=172290 Edited July 2, 2017 by shep854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 No way! Weigh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalkre Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 Details on the cat problems, via Strategypage:https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20170622.aspxWhy in the world if one catapult goes down with EMALS are they all inoperable? How in the world did that make it this far into the development of that system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halidon Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) That article is unsourced and contains some really suspect writing. Edited July 3, 2017 by Halidon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) 'Under weigh', 'under way'...the debate's ongoing... https://wordsmith.org/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=172290 Thought that after that Medway Raid unpleasantry, English sailors would be more wary of Dutch false friends... Edited July 3, 2017 by sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 When did "escort" get adopted? The name 護衛艦 (goeikan) was adopted in 1961. Before that was 警備艦 (keibikan) which was adopted in 1954, the same year the Self-Defense Force was established. The first word used was 警備船 (keibisen) in 1952. Essentially allowing Japan to re-militarize by using other word to skirt around treaty/law obligation-- with full connivance of US. 1952 is during Korean War and 1954 is just after.USSR also did it with 'aviation cruiser'. Japan now up the ante with helicopter escort that is no less than a full helicopter carrier that can be converted to operate STOVL aircraft -- essentially a light carrier. US 'destroyers' are essentially cruisers for the purpose of getting it around the Congress. If US Congress can pass law to call tomato a vegetable instead of fruit, no name is really sacred. What's in a name? Convenience and other aspects do count. For the Russians, the international treaties covering the Turkish Straits prohibit the passage of aircraft carriers, hence aviation cruiser. For the US, the retirement of the USN missile cruisers, mostly converted CA and CL types, left the USN with an embarrassing shortage of cruisers at the same time the Russian Navy was launching new classes of missile cruisers. So, the USN redesignated most of its DLG [then called frigates, a resurrection of the age of sail warship], to CG, with a stroke of a pen, the last such class being the Ticonderogas. Problem solved. Nowadays, I suppose nobody has cruisers in any number, so it's back to the drawing board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 'Under weigh', 'under way'...the debate's ongoing... https://wordsmith.org/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=172290 Thought that after that Medway Raid unpleasantry, English sailors would be more wary of Dutch false friends... There is considerably more recent Dutch perfidy that focuses English minds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted July 24, 2017 Author Share Posted July 24, 2017 http://taskandpurpose.com/us-navys-advanced-warship-join-fleet-today/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tp-today&utm_content=imageThe US Navy’s Most Advanced Warship Joins The Fleet Today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr King Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 As a little kid, my school science book had a demonstration of taking a magnet to a CRT television. It looked like quite the fun science experiment, so I went home and got my fathers very strong magnet and went to work on our television....luckily I did not ruin it. With the maglev catapult, I wonder how much shielding they had to do on the ship to protect both the ship and aircraft. . I imagine military electronics are hardened against EMP's but I don't know how that translates into the magnetic interference of a maglev catapult firing in rapid cycle over the span of the ships life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT1UGqpLebU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 The RF energy from the radar sets all over carriers are going to be more of an influence on electronics. Having a jammer pod from a buddy escorting would be plenty of RF hazard i suspect, if that doesnt screw the electronics, a big magnet won't. Crews areprobably advised already not to carry their wallets and credit cards out onto the deck during flightops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 I would argue 1893 in ENGLISH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daring-class_destroyer_(1893) But the idea can be grasped Pffft... Copycats. Except the ship that you champion was built in England.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 I would argue 1893 in ENGLISH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daring-class_destroyer_(1893) But the idea can be grasped Pffft... Copycats. Except the ship that you champion was built in England.............. iPhones are built in China, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now