Aircraft Carriers III

Carries easily twice the airwing of the Invincible Class it replaces and is more flexible, with a longer range at sea.
The design of the hull was supposed to be able to be built as it was built or with catapult and arrestor.
the question is if Kirkuk, Iraq

(in an imaginary scenario, possibly catastrophic like ISIL rising again, but that's obviously not my point here; I picked Kirkuk because of its geographical location)

would be within their combat radius from either sea:

7572eec16732c088aade5c9487464d95.jpg


the distance is roughly (don't nitpick) 800 km, and the combat radius depends on the mission, right?
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
F35B has a Combat Radius of between 868 and 935 km without refueling So assume 2 refuels one on ingress one on egress.
Special Analysis: The Navy's 2nd Ford-Class Carrier -USS Kennedy
The 2nd US Navy Ford-Class high-tech aircraft carrier has grown 70-feet longer and is now 50-percent structurally complete with the addition of the lower stern,



The 2nd US Navy Ford-Class high-tech aircraft carrier has grown 70-feet longer and is now 50-percent structurally complete with the addition of the lower stern, Huntington Ingalls Industries announced.

“We are halfway through lifting the units onto the ship, and many of the units are larger and nearly all are more complete than the CVN 78 (USS Ford) lifts were. This is one of many lessons learned from the construction of the lead ship that are helping to reduce construction costs and improve efficiencies on Kennedy,” Mike Shawcross, Newport News’ vice president, John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) and Enterprise (CVN 80) aircraft carrier construction, said in a written statement.

HII ship developers have been employing a newer construction strategy for the Kennedy, involving a handful of techniques intended to lower costs and call upon lessons learned from the building of the first Ford-class carrier in recent years, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78).

With so much of the ship built, hundreds of structural units have been completed on items such as pipe assemblies, cabling, shafts, rudders and struts for the ship.

Huntington Ingalls Industries Video of USS Kennedy construction




The USS Kennedy will replace the USS Nimitz which is due to retire by 2027; the Ford-class carriers are slated to replace the existing Nimitz-class carriers on a one-to-one basis in an incremental fashion over the next fifty years or so.

One of the construction techniques for Kennedy construction has included efforts to assemble compartments and parts of the ship together before moving them to the dock – this expedites construction by allowing builders to integrate larger parts of the ship more quickly.

This technique, referred to by Huntington Ingalls developers as “modular construction,” was also used when building the Ford; the process welds smaller sections of the ship together into larger structural “superlift” units before being lifted into the dry dock, HII statements explained.

Construction begins with the bottom of the ship and works up with inner-bottoms and side shells before moving to box units, he explained. The bottom third of the ship gets built first. Also, some of the design methods now used for the Kennedy include efforts to fabricate or forge some parts of the ship - instead of casting them because it makes the process less expensive, builders explained.

HII ship developers have been making an aggressive effort to lower costs of the USS Kennedy. Officials have said that the cost of the USS Kennedy will be well over $1.5 billion less than the costs to build the first Ford-Class ship.

The Navy received substantial criticism in recent years from lawmakers and government watchdog groups during the construction of the USS Ford for rising costs. Construction costs for the USS Ford wound up being several billion above early cost estimates. Cost overruns with the construction wound up leading Congress to impose a $12.9 billion cost-cap on the ship.

At the time, Navy officials pointed out that integrating new technologies brings challenges and that at least $3 billion of the Ford’s costs were due to what’s described as non-recurring engineering costs for a first-in-class ship such as this. Nonetheless, service leaders have consistently said that the Navy is making substantial progress with efforts to lower costs for the Kennedy.

Also, Newport News Shipbuilding – a division of HII - was able to buy larger quantities of parts earlier in the construction process with the Kennedy because, unlike the circumstance during the building of the USS Ford, the Kennedy’s ship design was complete before construction begins.

As for the design, the Kennedy will be largely similar to the design of the USS Ford, with a few minor alterations. The Kennedy will receive a new radar and its aircraft elevators will use electric motors instead of a hydraulic system to lower costs.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

1/2
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
2/2
New Radar for USS Kennedy

The Navy plans to test and operate a new, highly-sensitive ship-defense radar technology for its 2nd Ford-Class aircraft carrier -- to detect incoming enemy fire, anti-ship cruise missiles and airborne threats such as attacking drones, fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters.

The new radar, called the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar, or EASR, is slated to go on the now-under-construction USS Kennedy (CVN 79), as well as several of the service's amphibs such as the LX(R) and its third big-deck America-class amphib, LHA 8.

Testing is slated for next year and technical development of EASR is now underway, Navy officials said.

EASR uses gallium nitride (GaN) semi-conductor technology and builds upon common hardware, software and processing elements of the Navy’s next-generation AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar slated for the service’s Flight III DDG 51 destroyers.


“EASR is a SPY-6 variant, using identical hardware, signal processing and data processing. EASR will have the additional capability of air-traffic control radar, which ADMR does not have,” a senior Navy official told reporters.

Much like SPY-6, EASR is engineered to be cyber-hardened and reliable, according to Raytheon statements.

“EASR has cost and reliability benefits of gallium nitride. It uses digital beam forming and advanced algorithms for operations in high-clutter, near-land electromagnetic interference environments,” a Raytheon statement said.

The AN/SPY-6 is described by radar engineers as being 35-times more powerful than most-current ship-based radar systems; developers say it enables detection of objects twice as far away and half the size compared with existing radars.

In radar terminology, a 15-decibel increase with AMDR translates into roughly 35 times more power and sensitivity compared to the existing AN/SPY-1D radar.

AMDR (AN/SPY-6) consists of S-band and X-band radars and a radar suite controller. Together, the technologies are able to scan, track and search the horizon and surrounding area for threats by sending an electromagnetic signal into the atmosphere, then analyzing the return signal of what it hits. The information can provide dimensions of a missile or other incoming threat by identifying its size, shape, location and trajectory.

Similar to its predecessor, the Aegis AN/SPY-1D radar, the AMDR includes a phased-array radar, Navy officials said. The S-band radar is engineered for long-range detection, whereas the X-band radar performs the over-the-horizon search capability, according to the service.

AMDR is optimized for anti-air and ballistic missile defense missions but is also capable in the anti-surface and counter-battery arenas.

Much like today’s AN/SPY-1D radar, the AMDR will be able to scan the surface as well, assisting with the fire-control technology needed to identify where an incoming threat can be intercepted.

The idea with EASR and AMDR is to give ship commanders more time and decision-making abilities by identifying approaching threats and enemy attacks more precisely and at much farther distances. This phenomenon is naturally of great relevance in today’s global threat environment wherein potential adversaries are quickly developing longer range, precision weaponry and electronic warfare systems. Giving commanders increased response time – when under attack – can save sailors lives and multiply offensive and defensive mission possibilities.

Furthermore, the need for more powerful radar is unambiguously strengthened by weapons developments now being pursued by potential US adversaries such as lasers and possibly hypersonic enemy weapons in the future.

The current Navy strategy hinges upon the recognition that providing needed advanced technology while establishing greater technical commonality better facilitates modernization and upgrades of radar systems across the fleet. Such an approach is also intended to improve sustainment, permit hardware to quickly integrate new software as threats emerge, and lower acquisition costs throughout the life-cycle of the system.

The decision for the new radar emerged out of a special radar commonality and affordability study conducted by the Navy which looked at finding technologies that would work across multiple platforms.

The EASR is being engineered as a 3-faced phased array radar designed to be adaptive and rotate.

For cost and cross-fleet commonality reasons, EASR was chosen as the future radars for carriers and amphibs, despite the fact that the first Ford-Class carrier uses Dual Band Radar.

Dual Band Radar was originally slated to go on 27 new, high-tech DDG 1000 destroyers. However, when the Navy changed plans and only decided to procure three DDG 1000s, the price of Dual Band Radar went up, Navy developers explained.

Navy developers say commonality and cost reduction are entirely consistent with integrating next-generation detection ability; further, carriers do not need radar as sensitive and powerful as Dual Band Radar, in part because carriers typically have a destroyer or a cruiser nearby to help protect it by providing a defensive radar envelope.

EASR will not have some of the technical capabilities of the Dual Band Radar such as fire control radar capability, however engineering the new EASR for the USS Kennedy, or CVN 79, will save the Navy $180 million in the cost of the ship.

EASR will, among other things, be configured to perform the functions of existing ship radars such as the AN/SPS-49 and the three-dimensional AN/SPS-48 anti-aircraft sensor currently on Navy destroyers and cruisers.

The Office of Naval Research previously helped develop the radar through a on a $6 million EASR study and development contract with Raytheon.

EASR radar could also be back fitted onto Nimitz-class carriers, which will be around through 2057.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
spinning vertical takeoff into success huh?
no single disadvantage mentioned huh?

oh what did I expect LOL!

EDIT
due to the "STOBAR solution", the QEs will be Escort Carriers according to me Aug 19, 2017
Sorry have to call you out on this, we both just denounce Vertical take off and you say we're spinning it positively?

B...S..T!

STOVL stands for Short Take Off / Vertical LANDING, which is the method employed by all Harrier and F-35B operators use. Nobody uses Vertical Take Off for jet aircraft as anything other than a last resort, or for air shows. You burn a ridiculous amount of fuel getting off the ground and can't carry much if any payload when you do it.
The 'V' is for Vertical LANDING, and that's the safest way to get back on the deck.

STOBAR? What has this to do with the QECs? They are not STOBAR carriers, they have no arrestor wires. That would make landing aircraft a much more dangerous affair as the Russians, Indians and Chinese have found out.

Escort Carriers? I think you are losing it mate. A 70,000tonne carrier capable of operating up to 50 of the most advanced strike aircraft and helos, and you are equating it with a WW2 converted merchant carrier that struggled to operate between 6 and 20 biplanes and second line fighters? Whatever you are smoking you need to stop!
 
Sorry have to call you out on this, we both just denounce Vertical take off and you say we're spinning it positively?

B...S..T!

STOVL stands for Short Take Off / Vertical LANDING, which is the method employed by all Harrier and F-35B operators use. Nobody uses Vertical Take Off for jet aircraft as anything other than a last resort, or for air shows. You burn a ridiculous amount of fuel getting off the ground and can't carry much if any payload when you do it.
The 'V' is for Vertical LANDING, and that's the safest way to get back on the deck.
before posting Today at 8:32 AM I missed any drawbacks of the ski jump mentioned by you Yesterday at 9:54 PM


STOBAR? What has this to do with the QECs? They are not STOBAR carriers, they have no arrestor wires. That would make landing aircraft a much more dangerous affair as the Russians, Indians and Chinese have found out.
oops, I meant to say "SRVL solution" (not "STOBAR solution")
LOL it was early in the morning, but yeah, I was wrong about the acronym of course

EDIT I'm unsure about
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Escort Carriers? I think you are losing it mate. A 70,000tonne carrier capable of operating up to 50 of the most advanced strike aircraft and helos, and you are equating it with a WW2 converted merchant carrier that struggled to operate between 6 and 20 biplanes and second line fighters? Whatever you are smoking you need to stop!

well by Escort Carriers here I mean their role which I can imagine to be (quoting
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

"... to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, defending them from enemy threats such as submarines and planes. In the invasions of ..., escort carriers provided
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to ground forces during
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
."

and which I can't imagine to be 'deep strike' as in Today at 10:45 AM
the question is if Kirkuk, Iraq

(in an imaginary scenario, possibly catastrophic like ISIL rising again, but that's obviously not my point here; I picked Kirkuk because of its geographical location)

would be within their combat radius from either sea:

7572eec16732c088aade5c9487464d95.jpg


the distance is roughly (don't nitpick) 800 km, and the combat radius depends on the mission, right?

Whatever you are smoking you need to stop!
since you're the second guy here who jumped at me because of my "classification of the QE class as Escort Carriers", I'll drop it
(I don't log on to fight, I log on to have fun)

cool?
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Down sides of the ramp, takes up deck space, changes the weight and balance of the ship, no real use by conventional helicopters, bunch of skate boarders constantly trying to sneak aboard for some shwickwd air.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
A New Study Says the Bigger the Aircraft Carrier, the Deadlier

The CVN LX is cheaper to build and operate, but it would require the Navy to design an entirely new carrier—which is expensive. “The CVN LX concept would allow considerable savings across the ship’s service life and appears to be a viable alternative to con- sider for further concept exploration,” the report states. “Construction costs would be lower; design changes and life-cycle costs would reflect the lessons already applied in the Ford class. The reliance on hybrid drive with fewer mechanical parts than legacy platforms is likely to further reduce maintenance cost. However, CVN LX would be a new design that would require a significant investment in non-recurring engineering in the near term to allow timely delivery in the 2030s.”

A new RAND Corporation study has concluded that bigger aircraft carriers such as the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
are more effective and more survivable than smaller carriers.
...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top