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.

 

cvn 78 gerald ford class supercarrier

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
i dont understand the current thinking the us navy has why does it spend billions of dollars to build something that takes 8 years to build god forbid they lose one they have to wait another 8 years to replace it.

i further dont understand why there isnt more defensive armament on them either. its a simple design to add more cwis and vls on the sides like the russians did with the admiral kuznatsov.

i dont understand why current airwings have shrunk from the 95 aircraft i can hold to acutal 60 for the current wings strength.

i do see the logic with reduced manpower the next gen carrier is suppose to have. but even less cwis.


www.naval-technology.com...

theres alot that i am not aware and some more experienced views are welcome.




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


It has a battlegroup for protection. The more stuff you put on one ship, the more men and supplies you need to operate it. It would get to a point where it was so chock full of ammo and parts for the guns there would be no room for the stuff needed for the planes.

I'm sure if they wanted to, they could make some uber ship with everything on, but it would have to be massive, would be ludicrously expensive and would be putting all your eggs in one basket.

A Carrier is supposed to be a mobile airfield, not a battleship.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


A carrier is an airfield at sea...Essential in war to get planes to the hotspot fast,quick turnaround and without the need to refuel. The price is relatively cheap when you think about it..

BTW, when was the last US carrier sunk???



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Good questions...and while I'm far from the best-informed person on the planet, I'll do my best to give you good answers. Let's go in order...


i dont understand the current thinking the us navy has why does it spend billions of dollars to build something that takes 8 years to build god forbid they lose one they have to wait another 8 years to replace it.


In a word, doctrine. In any military organization since, oh, the Roman Empire, armies, navies, and later air forces have all had general themes (doctrines) that set out how they would engage the enemy. Doctrine is important, since it drives the design and procurement of weapons and equipment, and drives the training of every level of the service from recruit through officer candidate. "Train like you fight, fight like you train." is something you'll hear a lot. To bring this back to topic, the U.S. Navy is ca carrier-based force (and has been for the last 67 or so years). Changing that will take years (or a sudden shift in the power structure, such as the loss of the Pacific battle line at Pearl Harbor). The carrier battle group is the centerpiece of current naval doctrine, and will remain so as long as it remains the most effective way to accomplish the Navy's strategic and tactical goals...and probably for a couple of decades past that point while a new doctrine (and the associated new hardware and training) are developed.




i further dont understand why there isnt more defensive armament on them either. its a simple design to add more cwis and vls on the sides like the russians did with the admiral kuznatsov.


Form follows function. There's very little on a modern warship that's there "because it looks cool". In the case of a USN aircraft carrier, the primary purpose of the ship is to carry, support, and operate her aircraft. Anything that takes away from that purpose is bad design. It's easy to say "just tack on a CIWS mount" or "just drop in a few VLS cells", but it's much easier to say than to do. Those defensive weapons place demands on the ship's utility network (power, compressed air, and other support), occupy a lot of internal volume (particularly the VLS cells), and occupy (or render dangerous) fair-sized patches of deck space. You might think that a ship as big as a CVN would have no shortage of internal volume, and that 4+ acres of flight deck would be plenty of space, but take a quick look at photos or videos of carrier operations, and you'll find that both hull volume and deck space are worth their weight in gold. By the time you factor in the increased weight, utility load, and volume / deck area requirements, it's a choice between 1 CIWS mount and 1-2 aircraft...or 1 VLS pack and a dozen aircraft. Given that the CVN's primary purpose is to operate aircraft, that trade simply isn't worth it.



i dont understand why current airwings have shrunk from the 95 aircraft i can hold to acutal 60 for the current wings strength.



Two reasons for this. One is the overall reduction in the Navy's aircraft inventory...it's considered better to operate all the carriers with reduced air wings (allowing more deployment options, and some insurance against loss or damage) than to give up flight decks in order to fill up the remaining ones. The other is a trade-off between the number of aircraft, and the quality of support. With fewer aircraft on board, conditions aren't as crowded and dangerous on and below decks. More spares per airframe can be carried, and overall fuel consumption drops, allowing longer or more active deployments for the remaining airframes. That said, the degree of the reduction bothers me more than I like to think about...



i do see the logic with reduced manpower the next gen carrier is suppose to have. but even less cwis.


www.naval-technology.com...

theres alot that i am not aware and some more experienced views are welcome.


The reduction in manpower is an attempt to reduce operating costs more than anything else. As for the lack of intrinsic defensive weapons, remember that a CVN doesn't go *anywhere* alone. She travels with an escort group tasked with her protection, and modern battle-management systems tie the entire group together into a remarkably symbiotic relationship. In an all-up engagement, one ship may assume control over the weapons and sensors on another ship that has a better engagement geometry. Essentially, the escorts protect the carrier, and the carrier provides the offensive punch for the escorts.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by neo96
 


A carrier is an airfield at sea...Essential in war to get planes to the hotspot fast,quick turnaround and without the need to refuel. The price is relatively cheap when you think about it..

BTW, when was the last US carrier sunk???


Better question....when was the last US carrier mission-killed? Answer: 14 January, 1969. What makes that even scarier is that it was a self-inflicted shot. Combat is a scary, dangerous, and hideously unpredictable place, and carrier aviation cranks all three of those dials well past "11". The Enterprise fire was a disaster, but a similar accident today would effectively incapacitate 10 percent of the USN's available flight decks. If it happened during conflict (the most likely time for such a thing) it would be catastrophic, even if the carrier survived.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


Brother,

Thank you for taking an illiterate OP and turning it into an interesting read.

Good job and a star for you.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The navy is in fact stuck in that doctrine the other posters mentioned. They are of the mindset that the money needs to be out in the FLEET.

It is one of the worst mistakes out there. A larger sum needs to be invested in training and continuing education/training. More money into drills as well, not just the vaunted FLEET.

There have been improvements in education/training techniques that could be implemented.

1) the best example is to bring up the physical fitness standard for the whole DOD to the Marine core standard. Not that hard...As well as the shooting standards of the core.

2)A better example would be the implementation of more of a bootcamp standard during schools. With a larger focus on OJT, shortening class time increasing hands on.


The use of billions of dollars to keep aged carriers that are not really worthy of their age or the next war afloat is a complete sham.

The money should be used to phase into the next generation of warships, subs, and a space fleet. Not aging relics... The navy should seriously consider air carriers or space carriers....

The next generation of platforms and weapons needs pushing and carrier groups dropped more. Mix the strategy... The Chairforce's job is air cover. The US Navy's is projection of force to the point even our allies want to be sure it is ok before they do something.

IMHO, I S and F'ed it..

BTW that does read funny


edit on 17-10-2010 by ripcontrol because: one bloody r, replaced a bloody f



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join