Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Franklin

Captain
I still don't understand the need for the Gerald R. Ford class as the US can easily make most of the same improvements of the Gerald R. Ford class on the Nimitz class hull with far fewer costs. The USS George H. W. Bush CVN-77 costs 6,2 billion $, the Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 costs 13,5 billion $. More than twice!

What’s So New About America’s New Aircraft Carriers?

The USS Nimitz (CVN-68), the name ship of the most numerous class of aircraft carriers since the World War II-era Essex, was laid down in 1968. George H. W. Bush (CVN-77), the final carrier in the class, entered service in 2009. Many of the carrier’s escorts, including the California and Virginia-class cruisers and the Spruance-class destroyers, went through their entire production runs and life cycles during the Nimitz production run. The last ship of the Nimitz-class may not leave service until the 2060s. It’s hardly hyperbole to suggest that the Nimitz and her sisters have set the standard of maritime primacy for longer than any other single class of warships in modern history.

But as with any production run of extended length, the differences between the early and later ships are significant. The service-life extension program (SLEP) gave the U.S. Navy (USN) the opportunity to update the earlier ships, although Nimitz still differs considerably from George H.W. Bush. And rather than continue with the evolutionary process, the USN has decided to make a more substantial step into the Gerald R. Ford class.

Many of the differences between the Nimitz and Ford classes are well known. Continuing the trend from the George H.W. Bush, the crew size of the Ford will be considerably smaller than the early Nimitz class carriers, and even smaller than CVN-77. A reorganization of the flight deck and elevator system gives the Ford class a 15 percent higher sortie rate than the Nimitz class. Altogether it will be able to launch about 90 total aircraft. The electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) reduces strain on aircraft and eliminates the need for the elaborate steam catapult system that has launched carrier aircraft since the 1950s. EMALS will also facilitate the launch of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

The Ford’s power plant generates considerably more electricity, allowing the ships to “grow into” future energy demands. This opens space for the genuinely transformational potential of the Ford class: directed energy weapons that could make cruise and ballistic missiles obsolete, and unmanned aircraft that could rewrite the history of air warfare.


The Ford is a step ahead, but not necessarily a leap. A short distance from where the Ford is being readied to be christened on Saturday, the USS Enterprise is undergoing nuclear defueling and partial disassembly. This process echoes the development of the first supercarriers, which were put into service as their pre-war predecessors were carved into scrap. The Ford will have much more in common with the Nimitz class than the USS Forrestal had with USS Midway, or than USS Midway had with USS Essex.

However, given the halting steps towards new carrier construction taken by India, China, and others, the continued development of the Ford class will ensure that the United States will retain the most effective class of carriers in the world, possibly into the next century. No ship under construction anywhere can equal the technological sophistication of the Nimitz-class; the Ford takes that level of dominance one step further.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
I still don't understand the need for the Gerald R. Ford class as the US can easily make most of the same improvements of the Gerald R. Ford class on the Nimitz class hull with far fewer costs. The USS George H. W. Bush CVN-77 costs $6.2 billion, the Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 costs $13.5 billion . More than twice!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The reason is Nimitz class service life is 50 years. Those ships will not last forever. And the improvements you highlighted.
 

Franklin

Captain
The reason is Nimitz class service life is 50 years. Those ships will not last forever. And the improvements you highlighted.

What i meant to say is why the US poured so much money into a new hull design while it could be much cheaper just to keep building Nimitz hulls with most of the improvements of the Gerald R. Ford class build into it ie just keep improving the Nimitz hulls with new technology.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I still don't understand the need for the Gerald R. Ford class as the US can easily make most of the same improvements of the Gerald R. Ford class on the Nimitz class hull with far fewer costs. The USS George H. W. Bush CVN-77 costs 6,2 billion $, the Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 costs 13,5 billion $. More than twice!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
That's a good question. Let me try and answer.

The new reactors are not something you can economically retrofit into the Nimitz class carriers. They are much smaller and you would have to literally dismantle major portions of each ship to make it happen.

The amount of power that the new reactors provide, well over 200% more power, drive the other changes to the ship. Like the electromagnetic catapults. 1st, without the new, more powerful reactors, you could not drive the EM cats. Then, in addition to dismantling the engineering spaces to add the reactors, you would have to completely dismantle the deck and sub-deck areas to take out the steam cats and all of its equipment, and then add the new EM cats and its very different driving equipment.

Same for the new Dual Band Radars. These are more powerful and more effective than existing radars on the CVNs, but they also require a lot more power. Again, without the new reactors, you do not get the power necessary to install the new radars. Then, if you did, now you have to completely rebuild the Island.

This is just a start at the explanation. The new flight deck layout takes out one elevator and allows for better sortie rates and location of aircraft on the deck. It moves the island well back on the deck to accomplish this. It requires an expansion of the hanger deck to the aft of the vessel which requires new sponsons aft to accomodate this. To get that additional sortie rate and deck space use, another HUGE rebuild would be required on the Nimitz.

So, the fact is, you cannot get the same capabilities retrofitted onto the Nimitz without, in essence, performing a very extensive, time comsuming and expensive rebuild. Then you have to add all of that much more expensive hardware to the vessels. By the time you do all of that, you might as well have built a new carrier...which is what the Ford is. In essence, the Ford class is an improved, a much improved, Nimitz design that takes advantage of all of the things we just discussed.

Yes, the 1st vessel is much more expensive. There are a whole lot of R&D costs and new cutting edge hardware and software to be recouped. Initially the DBR R&D was going to also benefit a class of 32 destroyers, but now, there will only be three of those DDGs and they are not using the DBR anyway. As more vessels are built and as Newport News perfects their construction methodologies, the costs will lower, though I imagine they will, even at their lowest, still cost over $10 billion each.

But the US Navy is also going to save $4 billion per carrier in operational costs over the life of the carrier, so the differnce in construction costs will largely be offset by the lower operational costs such that the total cost of ownership will be much closer...with a LOT more capability and room for growth and modernization in the new builds (because they are designed with that in mind) than the existing Nimitz class.

Hope that helps.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
What i meant to say is why the US poured so much money into a new hull design while it could be much cheaper just to keep building Nimitz hulls with most of the improvements of the Gerald R. Ford class build into it ie just keep improving the Nimitz hulls with new technology.

in many ways Franklin Ford is a evolution of Nimitz. Some of the early CVN-21 concepts were far more radical one I remember seeing navy concept art for had a enclosed deck, another lacked a island moving navigation to a slopped substructure reminiscent of the nose of a aircraft. As it stands though Ford keeps the same conventional layout established with American super carriers, where she differs is more evolutionary if you look at late model Nimitz you see alot of the same features and concepts coming in. I like to think of ford like the 747-8 and Nimitz as the 747.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Video of Christening:


[video=youtube;A56Qs0jAoKk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A56Qs0jAoKk[/video]

Former Vice President, and former Secretary of defense, Dick Cheney's speech at the Christening.


[video=youtube;K3ZMSXlpddo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3ZMSXlpddo[/video]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top