It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

News about the CVN-21

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
6 June 2005
Defense Systems Daily

In a 2 June exchange with DSD and other trade press, Rear Admiral Denny Dwyer, the Programme Executive Officer (PEO) for CVN-21 shared the following metrics on the Navy's next generation carrier:

CVN-21 is now finishing concept design and detail design is about 15% complete. First hull unit steel fabrication on the carrier started April 15, 2005.

Despite the challenges of ushering in a new carrier class, CVN-21 will come in at $8.1 billion in acquisition costs, cheaper in Fiscal 2008 dollars than the $8.4 billion CVN-77, the last of the Nimitz class.

The 50-year total ownership cost of the CVN-21 carrier is anticipated to be $27 billion - five billion less than for the Nimitz class (in FY04 dollars).

Shrinking the size of the carrier's island will contribute to a slightly larger flight deck and a substantially increased sortie generation rate - from 120/day sustained (192/day surged) in the Nimitz class to 160/day (270 surged) with the new carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The island, or superstructure, of the Navy's new CVN 21 aircraft carrier is at the heart of numerous improvements planned for the ship. The new carrier, scheduled for launch in 2014, is to have an improved aircraft sortie rate, a crew that is far smaller than that of the Nimitz-class vessels, and lower life-cycle costs.

The means to achieve those goals began with a smaller, redesigned island that is made partly of composites and moved aft, or further back, on the deck relative to islands of the 10 Nimitz-class carriers. Rear Adm. Dennis M. Dwyer, program executive officer for aircraft carriers, said the redesign of CVN 21's island is "the real transformational part of the 'airport'" operations on board the carrier.

Slimming down the island and moving it about 100 feet aft created space on deck for the creation of a centralized re-arming and re-fueling location the Navy has dubbed the "pit stop," after the similar process in auto racing. It enables the crew to service the aircraft and get them quickly back into the air for another tactical mission. "That is the concept," said Dwyer. At present, "we do a lot of ... pushing planes around the deck and that takes a lot of time. They don't push cars in a NASCAR race. They drive them into the pit and they get out in 14 seconds. We [could be] doing that."

CVN 21, to be built by Northrop Grumman's Newport News Operations, Newport News, Va., is the Navy's first new carrier design since 1965. The ship is expected to last 50 years, and the CVN 21 carrier class of ships will be the centerpiece of the Navy's expeditionary strike force for more than 100 years. Therefore, the Navy wants quantum improvements in capability in a hull design that is about the same size as the Nimitz class: approximately 1,092 feet in length; a beam of 134 feet; and a flight deck width of 252 feet. A larger hull would have brought penalties in size and cost. Anything larger than a Nimitz CVN would have required new, larger drydocks, for example.

However, CVN 21 will have a new nuclear reactor that produces 25 percent more power. Steam produced by the reactor will generate three times the electrical power of the Nimitz, which suffers from chronic overloading of its electrical generators.

The new reactor and other changes permit substantial reductions in crew size. Overall, the CVN 21 will have a crew of 2,100 to 2,500 men and women. The Nimitz crew totals approximately 3,000 personnel. That reduction should bring substantial cuts in life-cycle costs of the CVN 21, relative to the Nimitz class, but Dwyer is reluctant to estimate the savings at this early point in the ship's development.

But the Navy's excitement about the new carrier stems in large part from the improvement in operations to be derived from the redesigned island and the airplane 'pit stop' that will generate aircraft sorties of 140 to 160 per day, with a surge capability to 220 sorties per day. The Nimitz's normal sortie rate is about 120 per day. Ordnance, fuel, and electronic support systems all will be located at or near the pit stop, eliminating the need to drag fuel hoses across deck to the planes and push ammo dollies through long distances on the flight and hangar decks.

On the Nimitz class, "we go through a two-hour cycle and quarter of a mile hauling bombs throughout the hangar bay and the mess deck" to get them to an upper stage elevator and onto a deck staging area, said Dwyer. That made re-arming planes "the long leg" in sortie rates on the Nimitz.

On the CVN 21, ordnance will moved by robotic devices from the magazines to re-located weapons elevators and then to "little bomb farms" near the pit stops, said Dwyer. Thus, re-arming a plane will probably be measured in "minutes instead of hours."

"We can pull [the aircraft] in once ... and do everything [we need] to them, and they can cycle right out, get to the catapult and go again," Dwyer said.

As is the case for ordnance, the movement of JP5 aviation fuel around today's flight decks is a cumbersome process, accomplished by dragging long hoses from hatches and catwalk stations on deck. The CVN 21 design would place shorter fuel hoses directly in the aircraft pit. Diagnostic stations also will be positioned at the pit for maintenance troubleshooting.

In addition, Navy tactics have changed, reducing the number of sorties flown against most targets. The "whole philosophy of what a sortie is has changed ... because of technology," said Dwyer. When Nimitz was designed, carrier air wings included A-4s, A-6s, A-7s, F-4s, and F-8s. Multiple sorties were then launched to release large numbers of usually unguided munitions against single targets. Since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the strike platforms in the typical carrier air wing have evolved and now are based on the F/A-18 Hornet series of tactical aircraft. The ordnance delivered by the airplanes also has changed, and now includes larger numbers of precision-guided munitions, such as the GPS-assisted Joint Direct-Attack Munitions series and various laser-guided bombs. Therefore, aircraft involved in Operation Enduring Freedom, over Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom often engaged multiple targets.

As CVN 21 gets underway, new aircraft will enter the fleet equipped with advanced maintenance diagnostics capabilities. Maintenance systems aboard ship will be more sophisticated, mirroring some of the computer and datalink capabilities in warfare systems centers. For example, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which enters naval service after 2010, will send data messages to the vessel, giving maintenance specialists an indication of what repairs are needed before the aircraft lands on deck.

"This will really help sortie generation rates," Dwyer said.

More advanced systems also are expected to enter fleet service after the end of the decade, such as the joint Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) program. The command-and-control and support requirements for a mixed air wing of manned and unmanned aircraft aboard would also demand greater flexibility in the CVN 21 design.

The first of the CVN 21 class of aircraft carriers will be in service in the fleet until 2064, Dwyer said. In 1965, when the Nimitz was designed, "could I have ever imagined 2064? The rest of the class goes on after that, into the 22nd century. So ... we need to be flexible. We have learned that now." *-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The new carriers will cost less to run than the Nimitz class and will provide atleast three times the capability.

Leveraging upsised versions of the nuclear reactors on the Virginia Class submarine, the CVN-21's powerplant provides three times the amount of electrical power on the Nimitz Class. Eliminating the use of steam for making water, powering catapults, and other maintenance-intensive hassles facilitates necessary manning reductions.

The Navy is striving for a total CVN-21 manning reduction of over 1,200 over the Nimitz class, including 800 for ship manning (from 3,291 down to 2,491) and nearly 500 for the airwing manning (from 2,270 down to 1,786).

The CVN-21's airwing will include four Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) systems as well as F-35 JSF, E-2C, F/A-18E/F, EA-18G aircraft, and MH-60R/S helicopters.

CVN-21 employs a novel kind of strengthened steel called SHLI 165, a steel not particularly good for making curved surfaces, but strong and cost effective.

The USS. America (CV 66), instrumented for a year prior to its sinking last month well off the shore of North Carolina by explosive charges, provided valuable survivability data that CVN-21 development will leverage.

The CVN-21 is being designed to go 36 months between depot maintenance, a time period roughly 50% longer than is experienced below.




posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
its a big improvement over the older carriers but an improvement, not revolution, lets start making carriers that can go underwater liike a submarine and go as fast as 80 knots and capable of carrying 400 aircraft, also a fusion power with unlimited power and no reactor change after like 25 years like they do on the older carriers. but this is my view and the U.S. Navy thinks to think ahead and not just change a little bit of this or a little bit of that.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I don't think so.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
underwater carriers...not likely. I suppose you have never worked on a watertight hatch. I dont mean the ones used on surface ships..but the really high pressure ones used on submarines. The amount of difficulty required to keep them working/watertight when they fail is staggering to the average human. Building a hatch large enough to watertight and launch a manned airplane is beyond most technology today. The tolerances are very tight compared to a surface ship hatch. Also..exotic metals go into submersable hatchs..not found on surface ships. Translation...much more expensive.
If underwater carriers are ever built they will launch UAV's of some type and you already have those in attack submarines launching tomahawk or harpoon type missles. The future of this is in unmanned vehicles. The removal of a human pilot simplifys alot of the support systems needed in a airplane and a submersible vessel.

As to the CVN 21 series of carriers...yes its going to be a intresting project. Lots of problems will have to be overcome as with any new project. It was so with the first of the Nimitz class carriers based on the lessons learned from the first nuclear aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. New systems and new technologies are coming on line...new tactics mean new systems..etc etc etc. It takes alot of work from start to finish to integrate these innovations into a huge platform such as a carrier. Its going to be intresting.
I have worked on Nimitz class carriers from the island house to the bilges fore to aft...drydocking and in the water...huge platforms and very complex. Alot of walking involved in carrier work in a shipyard. Dont recommend it for the faint hearted. This type of work seperates the men from the boys and the women from the girls ..very quickly. For those who can go the distance it is intresting and educational.

Thanks for a good post,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Anyone who is reading, please don't bring up the Japanese sub carriers or the earlier French sub carriers.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
The new CVN-21 will certainly mean that the CVN-77, being currently constructed and christened USS George H. W. Bush, will be the last of its kind.

I'm guessing the new CVN-21 would be named after Vice-Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, a great American hero (and the man who condemned Israel's disastrous attack on USS Liberty).

And he also sounded a warning of a potentially huge conflict between US and China in the future. The man knew something about China that many people don't.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Oleneo,

I have just completed reading a book called "Resource Wars" and am into my second book of this series called "Hubert's Peak" about diminishing oil recources predicted back in the 1950s.
What you claim about China seems to be a quiet conclusion in this book "Resource Wars". Not only in the avenue of availability of oil resources but eventually food. With exploding populations ..food and potable water is two of the resources mentioned in this book. Something we tend to take for granted here in the USA. It is quite a shock for me to learn how many foreign countrys are dependent on America for a percentage of their food staples. When the energy goes there goes their food supply. So that senerio or variations of it are not unreasonable.
We are talking not only about access to resources but also the trade routes by which the resources are shipped. Throw in the factors of huge loans made to China and other countries to create this new economy....reniging on the loans is another huge problem. Historically the banks do not take kindly to this reniging on the loans under military force as was the case with the Japanese and Germans in WW2. Someone will try to call in the repo man. How do you repo a country as large as China.??
Will China intercede in the mid east to gain access to the energy resources she despirately needs???
Intresting concept...as history plays out before us. I suspect most people are sleep at the wheel on this one.

By the way..China is looking into building larger aircraft carriers too. A offensive weapons system...definitely.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
i remember reading one book title Invasion which China invaded the US with aircraft carriers some 6000 feet long. it that possible? in ani case we need bigger aircraft carriers. of course thats my vision.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
i remember reading one book title Invasion which China invaded the US with aircraft carriers some 6000 feet long. it that possible? in ani case we need bigger aircraft carriers. of course thats my vision.


i found it, the author is Eric L. Harry and the book is titled Invasion

www.amazon.com...=1118185825/sr=1-40/ref=sr_1_40/104-2813478-8815948?v=glance&s=books

talks about supercarriers and stuff.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
Anyone who is reading, please don't bring up the Japanese sub carriers or the earlier French sub carriers.


Interesting note on that...

A Japanese sub-carrier surfaced off the coast of Oregon and bombed a forest, hoping to start a major fire. It's the only time a bomb has been dropped in anger on US soil.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
lol lol lol,

I dont know if you guys realize what is at stake in ship construction. There is a theoritical limit to current construction techniques as far as size etc.
The current design of Aircraft carriers and also tankers/container ships are pushing the practical limits on design and construction techniques. The larger you go in design the more and larger the ribs need to be to give the vessel ridgidity/ stiffness.
This became apparent to the US Navy some time after WW2 when several surface ships became "bent" during a paricularly bad storm season. The construction designs were for wartime and hasty production not necessarily long term usage as happened with many ships after the war. Large ships flex alot. You cant do this with a carrier as the flight deck will warp and bend ..alot of necessary machinery...catapult troughs , jet blast doors...arresting gear will not flex back into place...if the ship is to big or not ridgid enough. Misalignment would be disasterous. Satisfactory alignmnent techniques is one of the reasons the Russians have never been able to produce a satisfactory steam catapult system. It is a huge undertaking to get it right and keep it right. And I mean Huge...you never see this side of the house when you look at all these launch and recovery films.
As to physically invading America. Now that is a laugh. Not smart. It is one thing to get a beachhead..somewhere ..it is another one to maintain it ..period. Only a handful of countries and usually working together in a coalition have even a chance of accomplishing this. Logistics of such a undertaking are a huge problem. Protecting supply lines is a very difficult proposition.
You guys need to worry more about our wimpy vote grabbing politicians giving it away to the UN than invasion.
Try to imagine the Chinese or anyone else physically invading this country when one in four people own a firearm and ammunition. Now do you guys understand why wimpy organizations like the UN want us disarmed??? Find this view in a public school textbook.!! It wont happen.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
We are talking not only about access to resources but also the trade routes by which the resources are shipped. Throw in the factors of huge loans made to China and other countries to create this new economy....reniging on the loans is another huge problem. Historically the banks do not take kindly to this reniging on the loans under military force as was the case with the Japanese and Germans in WW2. Someone will try to call in the repo man. How do you repo a country as large as China.??
Will China intercede in the mid east to gain access to the energy resources she despirately needs???


Every year, China is building up and strengthening its own financial resources from its economic successes in the past few years. Foreign businesses can make money in China but China restricts it to a minimum for companies exporting its revenues overseas or via foreign banks. Any larger profit made in China STAYS in China. It locked the back door and weld-shutted it.

China have plenty of resources it can turn to in the immediate areas or neighboring states. Why do you think China is engaging in a trade war with the US and EU over textile quotas? Because there is a surplus on textile and China wanted to flood the markets with cheap-grade textiles, especially in the US and EU (and which would drive American and European textile producers out of business or cut back productions). If there's a surplus on textile in China, then there may be other surpluses on other resources China have waiting in the wing (but first they wanted to see how the textile trade war goes with the US/EU).


Originally posted by orangetom1999
By the way..China is looking into building larger aircraft carriers too. A offensive weapons system...definitely.


The US already have a contingency plan to wipe out China's naval yards that would build its aircraft carriers. They had it for years with the Soviets.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
No problem on contingency plans on China. I have known this for years. Contingency plans to take Mexico and Canada if needed. No problem. These things are done constantly at think tanks and war colleges.
As to profits. Banks are not in the buisness of investing in countries if a profit is not gauranteed or contractual. Banks , Insurance companys, Manufactures are loyal to their profits..not necessarily to a country of origin. This is known in history. This is also beyond the capacity of thinking of most peoples. Americans in particular. Many are asleep at the wheel here. Hey...how about those Redskins????!!!!

As to textile or other manufacturers...I submit to you that American and other manufacturers have invested heavily in China..including the cigarette manufacturers and tobacco growers..with China being the huge market. These industrys have deliberately abandoned the USA and other nations with a view to investing in China as this is the new growth area in the world. The new up and coming market place. As I said ..they are not loyal to a country ..but to thier profits. These are the same decendent industries who invested in Japan, Germany , and Korea...who abandoned them too when costs exceeded profit margins and China looked like a better market. I dare say .they cultivated China for this very purpose begining way back with ping pong diplomacy. These events are not random accidental occurences but careful planning ..one step built upon another. Little is left to accident.
Thanks for your post.
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Interesting note on that...

A Japanese sub-carrier surfaced off the coast of Oregon and bombed a forest, hoping to start a major fire. It's the only time a bomb has been dropped in anger on US soil.


Uhhh... Simply NO!
The bombs that you are referring to were dropped from a high altitude air balloon launched off Japan and designed to ride the air currents and jet stream to the U.S. pacific coast and drop its bombs on U.S. soil. Several were launched but only one actually made it to the U.S. it landed in a forest but it did not go off. Some Civilian hikers found it and when they started messing around with it the bombs went off and killed them, they were the only civilians casualties of WWII on the U.S. Continental mainland.

I have no idea where you got your sub-carrier story.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I recall reading a couple of articles to the facts you state west point. Thanks for the recap on that ..

Orangetom



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   
There were plans to bomb the Panama Canal with aircraft from sub carriers. There were also plans to use bio weapons dropped by sub launched aircraft on America.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Just about all conutries have plans to attack there `allies` , there are war plans for if the EU , NATO or the UK become a threat.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I am sure you are correct with this statement

"The US already have a contingency plan to wipe out China's naval yards that would build its aircraft carriers. They had it for years with the Soviets."

But I'll tell you what I was thinking. Those three dams..the Three Rivers Dam projects. I think the dams are already targeted in some contingency plans some where. It would be a disaster for the Chinese Economically. The loss of the electricity and the flooding would be disasterous. Those dams were build with western know how and financing.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Interesting note on that...

A Japanese sub-carrier surfaced off the coast of Oregon and bombed a forest, hoping to start a major fire. It's the only time a bomb has been dropped in anger on US soil.


Uhhh... Simply NO!
The bombs that you are referring to were dropped from a high altitude air balloon launched off Japan and designed to ride the air currents and jet stream to the U.S. pacific coast and drop its bombs on U.S. soil. Several were launched but only one actually made it to the U.S. it landed in a forest but it did not go off. Some Civilian hikers found it and when they started messing around with it the bombs went off and killed them, they were the only civilians casualties of WWII on the U.S. Continental mainland.

I have no idea where you got your sub-carrier story.


Actually westpoint you are wrong my friend, a Japanese sea plane did take off from a Japanese I400 class submarine. It's mission was to drop fire bombs over the forests of Oregon to start a huge bushfire.

Here is the full story westpoint if you want to educate yourself.

www.kilroywashere.org...



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I don't understand the people who want underwater carriers... WHY? The US subs already have strike capabilities with their Tomahawks. The SSNs carry not that much, but for example Ohio SSGNs have more than 150 Tomahawks each. That's enough, there is no need for somthing such costly and complicated as underwater carriers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join