US Navy Ford Class nuclear carriers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I do like the fact that the berthing is limited to 36 for E-6 and below. And the berthing lounges are in a seperate space. On my last two deployments I slept with ear pugs in because of the chatter from guys playing cards, watching Tv etc...
I find this difficult to believe. Real hard. There's always separate dining for officers and CPO's. Even on shore. Perhaps all the chow will be prepared in the same galley...
Huh? Oh yea. She's a she.. they have females aboard the ships these days....guess you have to get your pants on to go to the head....jeez....back in the day..oh, never mind
Ridiculous....
Sey what?..the food police led by Michelle Obama musta come up with this one.
I find this difficult to believe. Real hard. There's always separate dining for officers and CPO's. Even on shore. Perhaps all the chow will be prepared in the same galley...
Huh? Oh yea. She's a she.. they have females aboard the ships these days....guess you have to get your pants on to go to the head....jeez....back in the day..oh, never mind
Ridiculous....
Sey what?.
.the food police led by Michelle Obama musta come up with this one.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I do like the fact that the berthing is limited to 36 for E-6 and below. And the berthing lounges are in a seperate space. On my last two deployments I slept with ear pugs in because of the chatter from guys playing cards, watching Tv etc...
I find this difficult to believe. Real hard. There's always separate dining for officers and CPO's. Even on shore. Perhaps all the chow will be prepared in the same galley...
Huh? Oh yea. She's a she.. they have females aboard the ships these days....guess you have to get your pants on to go to the head....jeez....back in the day..oh, never mind
Ridiculous....
Sey what?.
No deep fryers and urinals? What is this an all female cruise ship? Are they gunna bake the fries? That'll be bad for morale chowing down baked fries and steaks.
On a little different note.
It is important to know why the first four Ford class carriers are deemed so important.
They are needed to replace the Enterprise and the first three Nimitz class whose nuclear reactors require core refueling more often. I know that the US Navy wants to get them replaced with the Fords where the refueling time significantly increased.
The Enterprise A2W reactors required cores to be refueled at varying times as core design was improved. I think the first was after 3 years. Then at the second refueling, seven years later in 1971, her cores were improved to last ten years between refueling.
All of the Nimitz A4W nuclear reactor cores have core refueling after 25 years. Originally the design was for 13 years, to be improved to 25 years...but the improvements made it into the Nimitz and ever carrier after. (Updated after popeye's post)
Initially, the Ford A1B reactor will have a core life of 30 years...but they hope to improve it to be as long as the service life of the vessels.
Not having to go through very expensive and time consuming core refueling will save a lot of money over the life of the carriers.
It is important to know why the first four Ford class carriers are deemed so important.
They are needed to replace the Enterprise and the first three Nimitz class whose nuclear reactors require core refueling more often. I know that the US Navy wants to get them replaced with the Fords where the refueling time significantly increased.
The Enterprise A2W reactors required cores to be refueled at varying times as core design was improved. I think the first was after 3 years. Then at the second refueling, seven years later in 1971, her cores were improved to last ten years between refueling.
All of the Nimitz A4W nuclear reactor cores have core refueling after 25 years. Originally the design was for 13 years, to be improved to 25 years...but the improvements made it into the Nimitz and ever carrier after. (Updated after popeye's post)
Initially, the Ford A1B reactor will have a core life of 30 years...but they hope to improve it to be as long as the service life of the vessels.
Not having to go through very expensive and time consuming core refueling will save a lot of money over the life of the carriers.
Last edited:
Ahh..Nimitz was refueled from 29 May 1998 to 28 Jun 2001. So she was 25 years old when her RCOH began. Wow.. great engineering.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I go by commission date, which was 1975. So 1975 to 1998 makes 23 years in commission. If you go by launch date, then yes, 25+ years.
I looked back at this, and popeye is exactly right. Apparently upgrades to the core design DID make it into the first three. Their original core design was older and would have been only 13 years...but the advances were made before they fueled Nimitz the first time and she got the better cores, as did all the rest.
I will go back and fix that in my original post.
So far, the RCOHs have gone like this:
USS Nimitz, CVN-68, RCHO 1998-2001 (Commisionmed 1975) 23 years
USS Dwight Eisenhower, CVN-69, RCOH 2001-2005 (Commissioned 1977) 24 Years
USS Carl Vinson, CVN-70, RCOH 2005-2008 (Commissioned 1982) 23 years
USS Theodroe Roosevelt, CVN-71, RCOH 2009-2013 (Commissioned 1986) 23 years
USS Abraham Lincoln, CVN-72, RCOH 2013- (Commissioned 1989) 24 years
Four complete...the fifth underway.
Last edited:
Well its hard to believe that everybody eats the same and in the same room. But the Royal Netherlands Navy has started doing the same.
Cost efficient. Less space needed. Less to clean. Less menpower needed.
And more connection with the crew.
At least on ships with a crew up till 300 i know it is.
I have never served with more crew so i woulnd know about that on the scvn.
Cost efficient. Less space needed. Less to clean. Less menpower needed.
And more connection with the crew.
At least on ships with a crew up till 300 i know it is.
I have never served with more crew so i woulnd know about that on the scvn.
For those interested, I created a separate thread on the decommissioned US Navy Super Carriers:
Fate of decommissioned US Navy super carriershttps://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-navy-super-carrier-fate-after-decommissioning.t7358/https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-navy-super-carrier-fate-after-decommissioning.t7358/
Take a look and lets discuss them there.
Fate of decommissioned US Navy super carriershttps://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-navy-super-carrier-fate-after-decommissioning.t7358/https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-navy-super-carrier-fate-after-decommissioning.t7358/
Take a look and lets discuss them there.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
That is one fine looking girl albeit a lil big on the rear. I really like the island superstructure.
Compare to the more traditional island with the Ford class. You can also see the placement of DBRs. They would be one of a kind though. CVN-79 and later will use the modular and scalable EASR.
Compare to the more traditional island with the Ford class. You can also see the placement of DBRs. They would be one of a kind though. CVN-79 and later will use the modular and scalable EASR.