Aircraft Carriers III

Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
cockneyjock1974 said:
I personally feel the GRF will be a world beater eventually, However if I was the USN I wouldn't touch her with a barge pole until EMALS and AAG are up and running FULLY.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%...and that is what they are doing.

we kow the equipment works. They have used the same equiment in New Jersey at the land based facility to launch every aircraft in the air wing at varying loadouts.

They used the equipment on the Ford to launch the test tugs before her sea trials, launching them into the JAmes River.

So, there is something to tweek to ensure its absolute safety aboard the carrier at sea conditions.

But now there is urgency building to get it fixed and I rest assured that they will do so.

But until it is fixed and they are sure t is safe for all of those personnel and their aircraft...they are not going to take her out or bring the entire Air Wing aboard.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
bd popeye said:
I agree 100%....But you guys know what? It's all part of the show.
Click to expand...
exactly!
I haven't seen, and won't see, the USN to admit anything, anything at all, might be wrong ... LOL if something in fact was wrong, it'd be 'tremendous amount of data gathered', 'exciting challenge', 'great opportunity to learn' ...

I've posted about dozen of rants like this:
Sep 1, 2016
Jura said:
not sure what you mean, Jeff: I didn't notice anybody criticizing the hull or sea-going capabilities of the CVN-78/her class, the issue is called concurrency (and it's not just me hahahah
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/aircraft-carriers-iii.t7304/page-85#post-395328
criticizing it) which requires something like a half of a dozen unproven (I mean in realistic conditions, now just for example on a lake during initial testing) technologies now being scrambled into a single ship (instead spreading them over the first three of the class), now I guess Engineers have to guess what's worth waiting for at a particular moment, what will work at what particular moment; of course Vendors bragging of the capabilities of what they're trying to sell, and Navy brass posting supposedly cool videos
(some of the above would be happening if the new technologies had been fielded more gradually, I know, just the risk would've been reduced)

so, if the class is to serve into 22nd Century (LOL that's the first time I've ever written that date), why rush with first of the class AND RISK THE CLASS IS CUT AFTER CVN-80 because of delays, cost overruns etc.??
(I guess the answer would be it's because 15 or ten years ago concurrency had to be incorporated into the design, as back than only so called transformational projects had a chance to get funded, revolutionary changes to the battlefield of the future transforming it into higher dimension, LCS, F-35, ...)
Click to expand...
and you know what, I got fed up myself
LOL!
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
@bd popeye @Jura @FORBIN @Obi Wan Russell @dtulsa @Air Force Brat @Miragedriver

Well, in the end, the proof will be in the pudding. That means, when all is said and done, and ten years we wook back on this, we will know if they got it right or not.

Like I have said many, many times...they are bringing new things forward. And it is not the 1st time the US Navy or other US Armed forces have done so, and have done so with two or three or four or five things at once.

Not will it be the last.

The US is one of, if not the only, nation that can still do that. it's what it takes to stay a generation or more ahead of others.
Now, many people today are so into instant gratification that they MUST see everything work perfectly ou of the chute...or they think something has gone terribly wrong.

But it hasn't...it's just the nature of staying in front of, or right on the edge of the curve.

That is all.

If they bit off too much...we will know it in a few years.

I do not think they have with the Ford, or the Zumwalt, or the F-35. I think all three of those are going to be looked back upon as unbelievably successful and unbelievably leap ahead projects.

I think the issue with the LCS is different.

In that case, they simply screwed up with people taking what could be a very good hull and trying to make something wierd out of it with modules, small crews, and some kind of forward "thinking" that did not hit on what was really needed for the warfighters and for such a class of ships.

That is not the case (IMHO) with the Ford, or the Zumwalt, or the F-35. All of those...if they work as advertised, are going to be generational and leap ahead.

Contrary to that, the LCS, if it had worked exactly like the dreamers wanted it...it still would not have been able to defeat peer or near peer vessels of similar sizes and in similar areas of the battle space. The LCS HAD to chaange to even be viable...and thank God it is changing, and that in addition to changing the actual LCS so they can fight, we are going to get and actual FFG now too.

But that is a completely different story from those other projects (Ford, Zum, and F-35).

Anyhow...that's my story and I am sticking to it.
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Jeff Head said:
@bd popeye @Jura @FORBIN @Obi Wan Russell @dtulsa @Air Force Brat @Miragedriver

Well, in the end, the proof will be in the pudding. That means, when all is said and done, and ten years we wook back on this, we will know if they got it right or not.

Like I have said many, many times...they are bringing new things forward. And it is not the 1st time the US Navy or other US Armed forces have done so, and have done so with two or three or four or five things at once.

Not will it be the last.

The US is one of, if not the only, nation that can still do that. it's what it takes to stay a generation or more ahead of others.
Now, many people today are so into instant gratification that they MUST see everything work perfectly ou of the chute...or they think something has gone terribly wrong.

But it hasn't...it's just the nature of staying in front of, or right on the edge of the curve.

That is all.

If they bit off too much...we will know it in a few years.

I do not think they have with the Ford, or the Zumwalt, or the F-35. I think all three of those are going to be looked back upon as unbelievably successful and unbelievably leap ahead projects.

I think the issue with the LCS is different.

In that case, they simply screwed up with people taking what could be a very good hull and trying to make something wierd out of it with modules, small crews, and some kind of forward "thinking" that did not hit on what was really needed for the warfighters and for such a class of ships.

That is not the case (IMHO) with the Ford, or the Zumwalt, or the F-35. All of those...if they work as advertised, are going to be generational and leap ahead.

Contrary to that, the LCS, if it had worked exactly like the dreamers wanted it...it still would not have been able to defeat peer or near peer vessels of similar sizes and in similar areas of the battle space. The LCS HAD to chaange to even be viable...and thank God it is changing, and that in addition to changing the actual LCS so they can fight, we are going to get and actual FFG now too.

But that is a completely different story from those other projects (Ford, Zum, and F-35).

Anyhow...that's my story and I am sticking to it.
Click to expand...

Agreed to 110%, of reactor power! hope we don't melt the core?? The LCS is a "HOT MESS?" and not at all attractive either??
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Air Force Brat said:
Agreed to 110%, of reactor power! hope we don't melt the core?? The LCS is a "HOT MESS?" and not at all attractive either??
Click to expand...
in fact, LCSs will be built by dozens, as they've recently become the White House PORK
(it's off topic of
Aircraft Carriers III
so just: Jul 10, 2017
Jura said:
Jul 1, 2017

... details emerging:

"On May 23, the U.S. Navy rolled out its 2018 budget request that included one littoral combat ship, or LCS. The logic was that since Congress had given the Navy three in fiscal year 2017, an additional one would keep both builders — Wisconsin-based Marinette Marine and Alabama-based Austal USA — afloat.

But inside the White House, alarm bells went off in some sectors. Peter Navarro, the head of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade and industrial policy office, was looking at information indicating one ship could trigger layoffs at both shipyards. Those concerns were shared by senior Trump aides Rick Dearborn and Stephen Miller — both old hands of long-time Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions — and together they lobbied and prevailed upon Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to add a second ship to the request."

Life support: The Navy's struggle to define a LCS bare minimum
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

goes on below due to size limit
Click to expand...
here)
 
C

cockneyjock1974

New Member
Registered Member
From another forum......Warships1royalnavyboard.

I know you're all gonna get cross, but STRNs [Save The Royal Navy] account is a bit billy bollocks. The external water lubricated shaft bearings are installed as seen and aligned by laser in dry dock before installation of bearing assemblies (another alignment) and then the shafts installed. The shafts are run at full tilt with the 'brake blades' installed whilst alongside during propulsion work up and de-risking, so anything untoward would manifest during this phase.

There is in fact a defect, and it is propeller-and-shaft related. It is to do with incorrect installation and there is a defect involving another part of the shafting fit. Is it fixable without dry-docking? Yes. Is it a ship-stopper? Yes. Will ACA deliver? Yes.
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Waiting the ceremony :), here
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


For man the ships about 4500 mens ! 2600 + 2200 CAW

First new classes since 40 years and for desingn with 3 elevators, flight deck, island more small etc... different than Nimitz based on Kitty Hawk in fact since 55 years !

So for few hours USN again to 11 carriers, historic numbers since retirement of Essex and only big Midway with Super carriers are in the Fleet

Early 1980 12 CV/CVNs ( 9 + 3 ): 7 with Atlantic Fleet, 5 Pacific with USSR logicaly more for Atlantic

The peak in 1989 with 3 new Nimitz the 2nd batch/Roosevelt one enter in service all 3 years ! : 15 CV/CVNs ( 9 + 6 )

Decrease to 10 all nuclears in 2012 with Enterprise retirement, also last conventionnal the Kitty Hawk retired in 2008

And now increase to 11 number planned for at less 10 years surely 6 for Pacific, 5 Atlantic
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top