This is a discussion on The Building of America's next "Super" Carrier, CVN-78 USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) II within the World Armed Forces forums, part of the World Strategic Defence Area category; Link back to old thread http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/worl...html#post64675 Keeping on with this thread and now making it generic for each ensuing US ...
Senior Member
Link back to old thread
The Building of America's next "super" Carrier
Keeping on with this thread and now making it generic for each ensuing US Navy Super carrier, we can now discuss the USS Gerald. R. Ford. The first in class of the new Ford Class carriers, which will revolutionize a number of aspects of aircraft carrier operations.
From a much more efficient and smaller reactors that prodcue over 200% more electricity each than the old ones, to EMALS catapaults, to dsitrubuted computing and networking, to new weapons handling, to new directed energy defenses, to the new, smaller island, to reducing down to theree elevators, these carriers are going to be the next step in carrier evolution.
To this point now, the carrier is moving along rapidly and is over 75% structurally complete.
On October 5, 2012, the largest deck "lift" occurred where an over 1,000 mectric ton unit was lifted onto the deck which comprised the gallery deck to flight deck bridge assembly. It was the 435th of over 500 lifts necessary to complete the structure of the vessel.
Here's ia an article regarding this lift:
The next major life, and an important milestone for the carrier, is the lift of the ISland structure onto the carrier schedule to occur before the end of Novmber. We will document that lif here as well.Originally Posted by Huntiington Ingalls Newport News Shipbuilding
Last edited by bd popeye; 10-19-2012 at 04:57 PM.
The Last Jedi
Sigh.. still don't like the name. I just cannot get use to it. I don't have a problem with Nimitz, Kennedy, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D Esienhower, Ronald Reagan, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.Time is running out for the Sec. USN to name CVN-78 something other than USS Gerald Ford..Whadda joke...
I would have preferred Enterprise, Coral Sea, Yankee Station station instead.
Last edited by bd popeye; 10-20-2012 at 07:40 AM.
Be sure to check out...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
don't forget
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"
Senior Member
Understood, and I concur. but it is what it is and they aint changing it now. We'll have Kennedy next. I still hope the third is Enterprise.
It is just not right to not have a USS Enterprise around. Heck, since I was old enough to start thinking about Navy Ships...about 6 years old...there has been the USS Enterprise out there protecting life and liberty and in pursuit of anyone and anything that threatened it!
But the building of this new carrier is amazing. I was at Newport News earlier this year and we were able to go by the yards there. Just amazing the way they are pulling it together.
One other note for you, Popeye. You know in the years you and I have been watching the Chinese Carrier, CV-16 Lianing come together (and it is, as we both have said an amazing undertaking and accomplishment for the Chinese)...but it will still be a while (probably at least two years if not more) before it is truly out there with a complete and initially trained airwing..the US will have completed three 100,000 ton super carriers...the USS Ronald Reagan, CVN-76, the USS George H.W. Bush, CVN-77, and now the USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78. Pretty amazing...and the USS John Kennedy, CVN-79, is already building and right behind the Ford.
Junior Member
How about USS Bill Clinton ? ... Clinton is one of the most successful US presidents, definitely in 30-40 years. Under him, The USA was booming, respected and the economy was at the best ( fiscal positive, lowest unemployment, high US dollar, etc )
Senior Member
Sorry...but he most certainly was not. Bill Clinton was no friend to the US Military. He was a shameful disgrace who was impeached while in office because of tawdy sexual affair in the White House with an intern young enough to be his daughter...and a married man at that. IN addition, he then attempted obstruction and did lie about it under oath. After his presidency he was disabrred over it, bringing upon himself yet more disgrace. His name is not worthy of a US Naval vessel. He was only brought to economic sanity because of the 1994 mid term elections which ushered in a GOP Majority into the house. He either worked with them (which he had not done at all before) or he would not have been re-elected.
That's why his name is not on the table.
Beyond that, this is not ..and certainly not meant to be a political thread...please do not bring politcis into it.
Jedi Master
Oh come on Jeff, be fair, it's perfectly understandable that he strayed, after all he was/is married to a lesbian...
Back on topic. The US is making amazing progress with the GRF (better to use initials, that way you don't have to think about the name too much) and we are fast approaching the point when she begins to look like a carrier and not just a random building site (completion of the flight deck and positioning of the island). The radical new look of this design compared to the preceding Nimitz class has so far only been seen in artists impressions, and it is only when you see a new design like this in the flesh (steel?) that it stops being a pie in the sky fantasy. Over the last couple of decades I have seen a number of ships go through this process (as have many of us), from destroyers and frigates (Daring class, Arleigh Burkes, Horizons, FREMMs, type 23s, LCS etc) and amphibs (Albion class, America class, Mistral class etc) and carriers of course (QE, Charles de Gaulle and GRF). The moment for me when QE 'came to life' was not the large blocks being moved to Rosyth, but the first glimpse of the forward island beig structurally complete at Portsmouth (it is still there but will move soon), as at last the ships had a 'face'. I'm definately looking forward to GRF having a 'face' at last, not too long to wait I hope.
"Without Organic Airpower at Sea (Aircraft Carriers), you don't have a Navy, You have a Coast Guard!"
New Member
I read somewhere that one of the later members of the class was going to be named Enterprise. It will be a sad day when the current one is decommissioned, sadly not long now, always thought it looked better than the Nimitz class!
Senior Member
Sorry Jeff, but if you talk about the names of ships and those names are derived from politicians it is really diffucult to say a name is or is not acceptable and for political reasons while keeping politics out of it.
I remember talking about US Presidents with an American student in 1976 and she and I agreed that Richard Milhous Nixon was the best US President since 1945. What about a USS Richard Milhous Nixon?
Junior Member
And a USS Watergate (perhabs an amphib with a wet-dock)? What kind of rules are there for naming these ships? Presidents Carter and Johnson could also merit a carrier.
The Last Jedi
There are ships named after presidents Carter and Johnson...
USS Jimmy Carter
Navy Names Zumwalt-class Destroyer USS Lyndon B. Johnson
It is the Secretary of the USN job to name ships..click the link for the entire article.
Naming of Navy ships returns to tradition - Washington Times
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, under fire from Congress and veterans for naming ships after fellow Democrats and social activists, plans to announce another round of ship names in the near future that will be more traditional, a Pentagon official tells The Washington Times.
The official said Mr. Mabus has chosen names for five surface ships - three for war heroes and two for locations. Ships typically are named after states and cities.
“I think they would be more consistent with what most people would say traditions and naming conventions are,” the official said.
Asked whether this was a response to criticism, the official said: “It isn’t. I think if you look at these five additional ships, I think you’ll see examples that are very traditional.” The official said three ships would be named after highly decorated Navy or Marine Corps personnel.
Mr. Mabus, a former Mississippi governor, broke with Navy conventions in the past three years when he named an amphibious ship, two cargo ships and a littoral combat ship after two social activists and two fellow Democrats.
“The Navy’s ship-naming process remains the subject of criticism based on several recent decisions,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, wrote to Mr. Mabus on Tuesday. He said there are still opportunities “for the Navy to show its intent to uphold the integrity and tradition of this process.”
Mr. Hunter, who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq as a Marine Corps officer, renewed his recommendation that the Navy name a ship after a war hero, the late Marine Sgt. Rafael Peralta.
Sgt. Peralta received the Navy Cross for valor in smothering the blast of a grenade with his body during a 2004 raid in Fallujah, Iraq. Congress‘ 2012 budget bill urged the Navy to name a ship after him.
For years, Congress has taken a keen interest in ship-naming, an honor that travels in deployments around the world and sometimes into battle. The power to name ships resides solely with the Navy secretary.
“There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else,” according to a Congressional Research Service report in March.
“Some observers in recent years have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships.”
Lawmakers have begun to closely monitor Mr. Mabus‘ choice of names.
In December, senators added language to the defense budget bill that directs the defense secretary to submit a report to Congress on the process it uses for naming ships. The bill asks whether the Navy has detoured from historical practices and, if so, why.
“There have been a number of controversial ship-namings recently, and one way to deal with that is to have more input and to think more clearly about who we are going to name Navy vessels after,” said Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Mabus defended his selections.
“The secretary of the Navy’s office receives hundreds of letters and suggestions each year from citizens, military retirees, members of Congress, industry and others recommending names for U.S. Navy ships,” Capt. Pamela Kunze said.
“The Navy appreciates the interest of all who participate in the ship-naming process, and all inputs are given careful consideration. Naming ships after people or places which represent the American spirit or the tremendous dedication and sacrifice made by those in and out of uniform is an honor and a privilege which is taken very seriously.
“Throughout the 200 years secretaries of the Navy have been naming ships, there have always been exceptions to naming conventions for various ship classes. Generally speaking, names are chosen to honor individuals who have displayed uncommon commitment, service or courage, or to recognize geographic locations or traits representative of American values.”
Mr. Mabus has drawn criticism in the namings of three ships.
Be sure to check out...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
don't forget
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"
Super Moderator
I agree, USS enterprise just has a nice touch to it. I don't like this naming of aircraft carriers to Presidents. It gets overly political.
Senior Member
I believe vessels should not be named for any living politician...and that any politician name should be held off for at least 20 years after their death so history can have the chance to show what their overall impact was...and then, for a US Naval combatant, it should be because of very significant US naval, or overall military impact, and witheld if there was any major scandal that resulted in impeachment or resignation.
That's my feeling and if that meant the Reagan had to wait another ten years...so be it. Same for Bush. Both of those men had significant impact on US Naval issues...but we should wait until history bears that out.
Under such a program, Clinton or Nixon would never be considered.
As it is, we are making the naming of US capital vessels a political football and I feel it is completely disgraceful.
Last edited by Jeff Head; 10-20-2012 at 10:24 AM.
Senior Member
Back on topic...please lets stop with the naming issue and take that to another thread if someone wants to start it.
Mods...would you please back up this request?
I agree. and it's my fault..sorry. Let's move on..
bd popeye
Anyhow, here's the video of the first flight deck portion being lifted back in April, six months ago. Over 700 tons and brought her top 75% complete.
Lot's has happened since.
Last edited by bd popeye; 10-20-2012 at 02:30 PM. Reason: Fixed a couple of typos
Banned Idiot
Modular assembly at its best. This goes back to when American shipyards were turning out a Liberty ship on the average of one every 42 days
Senior Member
That was an average from many, many yards.
During World War II, a Liberty Ship could be built in about two weeks at the Kaiser yards, which were the most advanced. Average of one ship evey 14 days in those yards.
In November 1942, one of Kaiser's Richmond yards built a Liberty Ship, the Robert E. Peary, in 4 days, 15 hours, and 29 minutes to show how fast they actually could do it if they pulled out all the stops.
Across the nation, with the overall averge being 42 days, by 1943, three Liberty Ships were being completed each day in the US. The US proved it could build merchant vessels for itself and its allies far faster than the Germans and Japanese could sink them.
Posting Permissions
48Likes
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks