A quick note for some of you intrested in this kind of stuff.
The first piece of steel has been cut for the new Aircraft Carrier series
CVN 21 here in Virginia. Lots of work left to do. Looking foreward to seeing her come up out of the dry dock years down the road.

Orangetom

is it as big as the carriers we have now? how many aircraft can it hold, what kind? how much will it cost? etc...

Well, the CVN-21 is not a hull number, it is the type, which stands for "nuclear carrier for the 21st century". The first hull will be CVN-78, and my guess is that it will be named the "George HW Bush", who was, of course, a naval aviator in World War II. But that's only a guess, and asumes that he'll be dead by 2013, when the carrier's scheduled to goe into service.

The hull will look like a Nimitz class carrier, but will differ in that it will have the Bechtel A1B reactor, a smaller radar and sonar cross section, and will use electromagnetic rather than steam catapults to launch its aircraft.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Off_The_Street]

CVN77 the last of the Nimitz class carriers is under construction and coming up out of the dry dock as we speak. Lots of work to do on her before she is waterborne and on the piers for outfitting. She is already named for George H.W. Bush,the elder and Naval Avaitor in WW2. They do not seem to have a name selected for the CVN78 as of yet.
Off the Street is pretty much correct in thier description of the new class of carrier. I am curious to see how well the new electromagnetic catapults will work. This is something totally new... and I am thinking it will require a totally dedicated power generation system for this alone. This should, however, free up alot of steam systems as the current systems use alot of steam and support systems spread through out the ship...and I mean alot.
With most new designs what they are looking for is more automation and less crew maning requirements. Also with this carrier they are looking for more space for airplanes. They are taking advantage of computer designs to eek out any possible space advantage for more planes combined with the retiring of the F14 series of aircraft as they take up alot of room on carriers. Also ..yes...some stealth features seem to be built in .as it seems to be standard now in designs.
As to costs...any new class of system...is expensive..especially in a item not being mass produced or where there is only one construction site. The C5 Galaxy cargo plane project comes to mind. I do not know the exact amounts on the bid but I can only tell you that it is expensive.

Thanks,
Orangetom

All American naval asset construction costs have dramatically risen, here are a few example:

Construction costs of the 2 DDX destroyers have risen 1.5 billion USD to 6.3 billion USD.

Construction costs of CVN-21 have risen by 2 billion USD to an astounding 13.7 billion USD.

Virginnia class SSNs have risen by 400 million/vessel to 2.5 billion USD.

Northrop Grumman have stated that the future USN fleet size would decrease from the original planned 375 vessels to 260 vessels and created tensions between military contractors and the pentagon.

The CVN-21 class is gonna cost a GIANT whopping.

There are several factors in play here some of which are not discussed for what they really are or how it effects us daily.

First is inflationary effects on the purchasing power of the dollar. No matter what they tell you ..inflation is happening and continuing. Whenever you spend 80 plus billion to finance a war. I mean finance..not pay for ..you depreciate the value or purchasing power of the dollar. Then you ask for another 80 plus billion in financing ...to continue this war and then later undoubtedly more moneys. This billions ..removes goods and services from our economy ..with moneys created in government ledgers...and we must survive off of what is left in the economy. This is a huge auction house of bidding against real goods and services by a group who can create or borrow moneys unlimited. We must survive off of what is left in the economy when they get thiers first. The result is higher prices for everything ..including technology and ships or whatever is needed in the defense department. This because of the loss of purchasing power of the dollar ..which we incorrectly label inflation. Inflationary figures are factored into may defense contracts. Either deliberately ...or decietfully and purposely...government figures are balking at the results of what they helped to create. They are liars and phoneys in this arena and are decieving the puplic.

Second ..America has been in the forefront of one type of war or another ..since the so called conclusion of WW2. It is America who defends much of Europes economic affluence..or Japan or Korea..or others. This requires a huge expenditure in manpower and technology. A commodity that just doesnt exist in Europe. It never really has though they have tried with limited success.
America is in the buisness of defending the economic status quo of arrangements which have been made years ago...to the unknowlege of most involved in these ventures. Not all of them American buisness deals..but international.
In my mind ..and in careful readings of history ..America has become the boot lackey to this economic system ..spending and dying when poor economic decisions take place..and assets are in jepordy. Once again ..not always American property or assets.
Being an American ..I do not always agree with this course of action ..but it is the very nature of economic whoredom that this happens. It was happening in other empires ..it is happening in this one. Portions of the Roman Empire ..its rise and fall are textbook of this right down to the inflationary effects of which I describe.

Gentlemen ..some food for your thoughts.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by COWlan
All American naval asset construction costs have dramatically risen, here are a few example:

Construction costs of the 2 DDX destroyers have risen 1.5 billion USD to 6.3 billion USD.

Construction costs of CVN-21 have risen by 2 billion USD to an astounding 13.7 billion USD.

Virginnia class SSNs have risen by 400 million/vessel to 2.5 billion USD.

Northrop Grumman have stated that the future USN fleet size would decrease from the original planned 375 vessels to 260 vessels and created tensions between military contractors and the pentagon.

The CVN-21 class is gonna cost a GIANT whopping.

It's mostly in part thanks to the shipyards, and not the actual ships.

Originally posted by Daedalus3


China acnnot/should not build a carrier...
Unless they build 3 at the same time..and christen them together...
That carrier will need a hefty escort to feel secure in the deep blue pacific..

Again I don't think any one answered what the A/C capacity of these new CVN-21s is going to be..
Obv. they will hold the JSFs and maybe a few UCAV s as well..

Also another question..
What good does it do to stealthen a carrier..??
Its firstly not a loner at seas..
And secondly they're pretty big.. stealth or no stealth..

Probably hold the same number if not a few more than current ones. I read that it will be able to launch 1 plane more every minute than current ones. CVN-21 is going to be stealth, says who?

[edit on 6-5-2005 by NWguy83]

[edit on 6-5-2005 by NWguy83]

By giving the ship a stealthier configuration it should be harder to target from a distance. This should also make it more difficult to pick out of a battle group. It won't look like the biggest blip on the screen.

I'm presuming it'll still look bigger than anything else out there..
Are we talking reducing RCS to that of a destroyer??!!

China has started the process of obtaining carriers but we won't be reaching a point to challenge the US in sea dominance anytime soon, probably 30 years. The Varyag was moved into drydock two months ago and the process of finishing up the project has started. I'll get a pic, I just saw the pic so its real. Project 001/701 reportedly has started but won't be finished in a few years. Carriers isn't on China's priority right now, Air Defence Ships, FAC and Subs are more important because in a conflict with US, AIP and Diesel subs are much more effective than a carrier. Especially when facing 2+ CBGs but Taiwan isn't gonna declare independance so the conflict won't ever come.

NW Guy,

"It's mostly in part thanks to the shipyards, and not the actual ships."

You need to think this one through alot.
If this were true..the Navy Yards would be building aircraft carriers from the ground up...themselves. The facts are that the Government run Navy Yards are very hard pressed to repair and maintain the ships themselves. They drown their processes in paperwork and policitics which cost more in time and moneys than private yards. Much more. This is known in the trades but a piece of information not spoken about on the evening news. Government Navy yards are an organization like politicians often given a free pass to play through with very little accouontability. This too is known in the Trades.
No private shipyard can take a continued loss on a long term project and stay in buisness it just isnt done. This too is not told to the general public. Navy Yards do not have to turn a profit for thier bottom line.
No US Navy yard has the facilities or manpower to build a aircraft carrier or submarine from scratch. They repair and overhaul some of them but not build them from the ground up. It would take five or more times as long and cost ten times as much. This too is known in the trades and you never see this point of view brought up by "politicians"
The government is asking private shipyards to build ships long term over 5 to 7 or more year contracts against a depreciating/ inflated dollar. This is the main problem..among many. It is also once again a view not heard in the standard information outlets...that pass for news or information. When they give this dollar amount on a bid....they are telling you ...they expect the dollar to weaken this much and they must bid this much to make a profit. Anymore when I see figures like this on any item ..my first instinct is not sticker shock but the realization that the dollar will fall in purchasing power....that much.
Once again ..not a piece of information you will get on the news ...which is "looking out for you ". It is not allowed.
Once again ..they are deliberately causing depreciation/inflation of the dollar and telling the private sector to get more effecient ...and rebuking those who cannot or will not. Eventually depreciation/inflation will get bad enough that you simply cannot get effecient enough to keep up with rising prices....period. This too is recorded in history ..over and over. When this happens ..all economic activity stops ..or you will take a loss if you dont. Common sense. This is happening all across the nation..in ways not ordinarily seen by the public. Especially in items that are not mass produced to keep down costs..ie ..military items.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Are we talking reducing RCS to that of a destroyer??!!

Don't think they will seem that small but I would imagine pretty close to it, like someone said confusion and denying long range targeting is probably why they are doing it. Also with the JSF and F/A-18 these carriers should be able to hold more planes as both are lighter and smaller than F-14’s right? Or will they just keep the number to 85?

I don't think that CVN-21 is designed to carry more ships than the Nimitz but I'll look that up.

They will definitely carry more planes. The size of the planes are on the average getting smaller than the F14 and with computers they know pretty well how much space is available on and below decks in the hanger spaces. This computer data is cross checked with actual data generated after the spaces are constructed by a technique called "photogrammetry. In this manner laser dimensions are taken of each individual ship/compartment/equipment...and plotted on a laptop computer to later be inserted into a manframe. The exact dimensions of each ship and the differences betweeen ships of a series are known. All this data is crunched and they know pretty much how many planes the ship will hold of different dimensions as the planes are also data crunched for dimensions. I surmise that the largest onboard plane carried will be the AWACS ..radar platform on the C2 Greyhound airframe. You know the one with the saucer dish on its back.
All this means it will be possible to carry more planes on flight deck as well as below deck in the hanger spaces. Designers are constantly using this data to crunch and eek out every design advantage possible...every concievable way to meet design goals...and also by this ..costs. It is a very flexable tool in this usage.
Photogrammetry is a technique that has changed alot about the way ships are built. From the time the first pieced of steel is laid to the time the ship is delivered ..these "photogrammetry guys are very busy.

Thanks,
Orangetom

THe replies to my stealth question were inconclusive..
IMHO unless the top off a carrier is domed off and it launches/receives aircraft from a peephole its RCS should be more or less the same..
Or it would have to have inwardly slanting raised edges on all sides..
Maybe I should shift the query to the radar thread.

Originally posted by COWlan
All American naval asset construction costs have dramatically risen, here are a few example:

Construction costs of the 2 DDX destroyers have risen 1.5 billion USD to 6.3 billion USD.

Construction costs of CVN-21 have risen by 2 billion USD to an astounding 13.7 billion USD.

Virginnia class SSNs have risen by 400 million/vessel to 2.5 billion USD.

umm...just where did you get these figures from, do you have any links, or are you just speaking off the top of your head ?

I fail to see how a Seawolf would cost US$13 billion+, which I assume is the USS Jimmy Carter.

[edit on 10-5-2005 by rogue1]

Daedalus,

Suggest you look up some electronic history .

In WW2 one of the navigation techniques used by the Germans when bombing England was to fly along a transmitted beam..until this beam met another transmitted electronic beam..and at that intersection..the bombs were dropped. The British when examinging a captured German bomber..realized how this apparatus worked and perfected a way to give a false intercept signal and get the Germans to drop their bombs in a different place. A place of British choosing.
I have no doubt that under certain conditions this can be done with a Radar return. Not all stealth has to do with just reducing radar cross section per se.
The story in certain trades is that when the Libian Migs were shot down ..when firing on American planes...the Migs got a radar lock and fired but when the missles got to the area of the radar return the American planes werent there. It was a false return. However ..the Migs did not present a false return and were splashed. This too is a type of stealth. part of the overall package.
Just some additional information for your consideration.

Thanks,
Orangetom