Noyhauser Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Current carriers have nowhere near the max draught nor beam listed for the Suez though. Plenty of room. I hate you David... you forced me to spend five hours poking around a few databases to dig up the answer I was sure of the answer because I had read it in an article about the USS United States, upon which the modern U.S. Supercarrier (Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, Big E and Nimitz are all based.) However I don't have the book anymore, so I couldn't verify it. The size of the US Carrier fleet has been remarkably stable for the past 60 years due to a number of reasons, one of which is limitations on dock size, the Suez Standard and a design envelope whereby its present size gives the Navy the best balance of speed, size and capability. The original USS United States was limited in its length due to shipway limitations. Thats partly because countries didn't build ships above the Suezmax standard at the time... that was unthinkable until the 1960s with the introduction of the first oil supertankers designed to disregard these sizes. So from the start it was implicitly based on the standards. However the standards haven't changed in the years since, partly because the Navy (Specifically Newport News) has never upgraded their dock sizes. Since then the Navy has found that the present size of its carriers, approximately 310m x 40m x 11m gives the best balance of capabilities. Its possible one could get a couple of extra meters if they did upgrade, but there were/are compelling reasons not to. One would also desire some redundancy in the Suezmax standards particularly for a military ship. What happens if the carrier is torpedoed and shipping water, increasing her draught by two meters and you only had two meters to spare? You really don't want to force the carrier to travel all the way back around the cape of Good Hope, where she could be buffeted by treacherous waters or open to further attack while it limps back home. This isn't the only reason either. Apparently (you might be able to tell us more about this David) the US Navy has problems filling its air wings since the 1990s. Making ships accommodate more airwings actually decreases the navy's capabilities as the present number of 11 carriers allows it to keep its readiness high. So its present size is based on a number of factors. Anyway, thats why the standards have remained the same for so many years. Edited January 12, 2009 by Noyhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 They keep decommissioning squadrons, and making existing squadrons smaller. Yeah, that would make it harder to give a wing a 'full load' of planes... One could argue multi-role effectiveness---60 craft that can do anything and so you could use many for any given mission, rather than 85 that are highly specialized so only a few at a time are used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big F Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Well at least if the call it the George Bush they can save money and paint on making two, as most people wont know which of the two Bush's they are referring to. I wonder if the president elect will get his own carrier one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bri Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Is this ship replacing one of the older (non-nuclear) carriers, or is it an expansion of the fleet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The article mentions the ship will carry F/A-18C Hornet, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters, E-2C/D Hawkeye, EA-6B Prowler, EA-18G Growler and other future aircraft-carrier based aircraft. I hope "other future aircraft-carrier based aircraft" means VF-1, VF-1 Super Strike fighters and ES-11D Cat's Eye. Technically, I hope not. Because that would mean I have to relocate, NOW, to a little Pacific Island.... or get vapourized a few years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 It'll have a big "Mission Accomplished" banner on the island all of the time!!! Kind of like a hypothetical USS Jimmy Carter which would have a white flag on the island all of the time!!! The mission was "accomplied" in that Saddam's government was overthrown and that his military was defeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The mission was "accomplied" in that Saddam's government was overthrown and that his military was defeated. You get a free potatoe for winning the spelling contest. ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Can we go 3 posts without mentioning war/politics? Might as well just close this thread... Anyways, this carrier will replace the Kitty Hawk. Ford will replace the Enterprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miriya Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Are there pictures of this ship yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Several zillion, it's been under construction for years, and wasn't shrouded or anything (unlike submarines). Just google "CVN-77". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taksraven Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Is this ship replacing one of the older (non-nuclear) carriers, or is it an expansion of the fleet? How many non-nuclear carriers do they have left?? Taksraven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Kitty Hawk is the last conventional carrier, when it's officially gone the fleet will be all-nuclear. Enterprise is basically "a Kitty Hawk with reactors" and is far less efficient (by several definitions) than Nimitz class, and is just plain old, which is why that's going too, when Ford arrives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taksraven Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Can we go 3 posts without mentioning war/politics? Might as well just close this thread... I must say, the mods have been allowing this thread a lot of 'latitude' in regards to politics, especially since I once had a thread edited by a mod for saying "Dubya". I am not pro-censorship, but I think that things have to be consistent here to be fair to all. So whats the deal?? Taksraven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Because every mod's different, and there is no formal mod rule book to follow. I close stuff that EXO lets go, Azrael closes stuff that I let go, Roy closes everything, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taksraven Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Kitty Hawk is the last conventional carrier, when it's officially gone the fleet will be all-nuclear. Enterprise is basically "a Kitty Hawk with reactors" and is far less efficient (by several definitions) than Nimitz class, and is just plain old, which is why that's going too, when Ford arrives. I am astounded that they have any conventional carriers left. Must have been a pain in the backside to keep such a museum piece operating. Taksraven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vifam7 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) I am astounded that they have any conventional carriers left. Must have been a pain in the backside to keep such a museum piece operating. Taksraven IIRC the Kitty Hawk was one of the last conventional powered carrier to remain in service due to the fact that it was (and reportedly still in) excellent condition. That and Japan forever resisting having a nuclear powered ship ported in Yokosuka. Edited January 13, 2009 by Vifam7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Yup. The Kitty Hawk was supposed to be decom'd years ago--it's the oldest---but it turned out all the others were in worse condition. The JFK was in godawful condition--it was the one originally scheduled to go to Japan to replace Independence, being the newest and most advanced conventional carrier---but it was so bad it was decom'd, and Kitty Hawk was sent in its place. (the JFK had catapults that couldn't launch, it was that bad) The Kitty Hawk has only survived so long due to literally decades of care. I think 20 years ago it was reported to be "better than expected for its age" and got out of drydock months earlier than originally planned.(a major refit for a carrier can be a good 2 years) Seems the Kitty Hawk just got lucky for a long time with the people onboard really taking good care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Yup, America and Enterprise where the front runners for the name, with America as the Favorite. I think that there are 3 planned so far so there are hopes that the next 2 will be named America and Enterprise. Since the Ford is replacing the current Enerprise I really want one of themto be Enterprise, best legacy name in the navy. I'd like to see all of the famous WW2 carriers "reincarnated." Yorktown, Saratoga, and Ranger could/should all come back before Enterprise (at least on the map until the current Enterprise is mothballed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I'd like to see all of the famous WW2 carriers "reincarnated." Yorktown, Saratoga, and Ranger could/should all come back before Enterprise (at least on the map until the current Enterprise is mothballed). Agreed. Those are awesome names that carry a lot of weight behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron5864 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 More aircraft carrier info... It seems that the next aircraft carrier Gerald Ford (CVN78) is a hugh jump in improvement and technology. That ship is have the A1B Reactor nuclear power plant with three times the power to supply electrical power to the electromagnetic aircraft launch system, energy based weaponry and dynamic armor. I looked up dynamic armor on Aviation Week and this is what they say: "This month's Defense Technology International carries a piece (page 10) on electromagnetic armor. The idea is to blunt the impact of the high-speed jets of metal formed by shaped-charge warheads. The armor comprises two charged metal plates, spaced apart. The warhead jet shorts the two plates and the resulting electromagnetic force helps to break it up. The problem, Michael Dumiak reports, is providing enough power to achieve the desired effect." What it means is that the projectile gets a massive charge of electricity once it hits the first layer of outer armor, and the projectile turns into soft molten metal. It will then lose all penetrating effect on the second layer of armor since it will be a blob of puddy. Ok, so it is not the Pinpoint Barrier System. But better than adding thicker and heavier plating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobber Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) I'd like to see all of the famous WW2 carriers "reincarnated." Yorktown, Saratoga, and Ranger could/should all come back before Enterprise (at least on the map until the current Enterprise is mothballed). Yup all great names, Enterprise WILL be decommed, though. The Ford is replacing her and no ship in the fleet has a history like the Enterprise. David, I wouldn't nessessarily call Enterprise a Nuclear kitty Hawk. There are many differences to her shape and superstructure compaired to Kitty Hawk and her sisters. IIRC, Enterprise is still the longest Carrier. The Nimitz class is larger though, by displacing more water and tonage. Chris Edited January 13, 2009 by Dobber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Enterprise always was longest, and they made it longer. (same time they completely redid the superstructure). Enterprise is the fastest, partly due to its length. (length=sleekness for a ship). I consider the JFK fully Kitty Hawk class. (if the JFK isn't Kitty Hawk, then the Bush isn't Nimitz) Enterprise is her own class, but clearly "Kitty Hawk esque". (kind of like Ticonderoga vs Spruance) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 More aircraft carrier info... It seems that the next aircraft carrier Gerald Ford (CVN78) is a hugh jump in improvement and technology. That ship is have the A1B Reactor nuclear power plant with three times the power to supply electrical power to the electromagnetic aircraft launch system, energy based weaponry and dynamic armor. I looked up dynamic armor on Aviation Week and this is what they say: "This month's Defense Technology International carries a piece (page 10) on electromagnetic armor. The idea is to blunt the impact of the high-speed jets of metal formed by shaped-charge warheads. The armor comprises two charged metal plates, spaced apart. The warhead jet shorts the two plates and the resulting electromagnetic force helps to break it up. The problem, Michael Dumiak reports, is providing enough power to achieve the desired effect." What it means is that the projectile gets a massive charge of electricity once it hits the first layer of outer armor, and the projectile turns into soft molten metal. It will then lose all penetrating effect on the second layer of armor since it will be a blob of puddy. Ok, so it is not the Pinpoint Barrier System. But better than adding thicker and heavier plating. Actually, it doesn't affect projectiles(which go molten when they hit anyways, at the class of firepower we're talking about). It affects shaped-charge warheads, which use explosives in a special layout to create essentially a large powerful blowtorch for a brief period of time. It's designed to disrupt jets of flaming gasses, not solid projectiles.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loner Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Whoa, whoa whoa, backup there. There's no plans on commissioning a new Enterprise!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Whoa, whoa whoa, backup there. There's no plans on commissioning a new Enterprise!? At the moment, no. When Enterprise is decommissioned the the coming years, she may be the last aircraft carrier to bear that name. And you people wonder why I'm unhappy with the current naming scheme of our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlightman Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 At the moment, no. When Enterprise is decommissioned the the coming years, she may be the last aircraft carrier to bear that name. And you people wonder why I'm unhappy with the current naming scheme of our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. I actually wonder why you'd care what an aircraft carrier is called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loner Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 There cannot be a point where there's no carrier named Enterprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I actually wonder why you'd care what an aircraft carrier is called. Because they are THE symbol of America to much of the world. Certainly our power. (getting darn close to politics here). And the biggest/newest ones get the most attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlightman Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Because they are THE symbol of America to much of the world. Uh, no. When the rest of the world thinks of the US, aircraft carriers are not the first thing they thing about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 But they are a major ambassador-- tons of military buffs and curious onlookers turn up whenever a CV docks in my country. It is kinda sad that the Big E ends here... afterall, ideals and place names are better than people when you want to name something, because people are oh so fallible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The carrier is now what the battleship was 50 years ago---whenever there's a "minor" conflict in the world starting or about to start---send one in the region. Things'll usually quiet down. Their mere presence is a big part of diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big F Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Ok, so it is not the Pinpoint Barrier System. But better than adding thicker and heavier plating. "Shields up!" Well its one step nearer reality. There is a lot of weight carried with the name of a ship both the U.K and U.S Navies should follow that tradition. If anything it is a moral booster for all involved. I remember when the Enterprise came to the U.K when I was a kid. It was parked off shore in full view from my Grandparents house. The sight of our smaller carrier and type 42's along side was humbling. Our carrier I think it would have been Hermes or maybe Ark Royal was big but in comparison it was a mere support vessel. As long as they keep some of the names and don't go naming everything after presidents and pop stars thats o.k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobber Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Yeah, I too am tired of the Presidents and statesmen naming trend we (the US) has taken for carriers. I don't mind if some are named after them, but freaking all of them!!?? There are too many good names and legacy names (Enterprise, Ranger, Hornet, ect...) to let them slip into history. However, there was a good 10-15 year gap between the legendary CV-6 Enterprise to the CVN-65 Enterprise. So it may be a while before the name returns...if it does at all. My understanding of the nameing thing was that the trend of nameing carriers after Presidents and statesman was on the downtrend, and the new class was suppoded to be America but then Cheney just named it Ford supprising many. Hopefully it will stop. I can't think of too amny other presidents they could name a ship after that would have any relivance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Because they are THE symbol of America to much of the world. Certainly our power. (getting darn close to politics here). And the biggest/newest ones get the most attention. Indeed. Which is where this image always brings it into perspective: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Indeed. Which is where this image always brings it into perspective: If you added in the escorts and support ships for each of the flatdecks in there, it looks even more lopsided. If I was the PLAN I would be waving a blown up version of that picture everytime someone across the pond started talking about the threat of military build-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts