Aircraft Carriers III

... As they come on lone and as the technologies and advancements become apparent, the rest of the class will be built as well.
now Jeff, slippages aside, what's your take on the reduction of the number of aircraft aboard the Ford as compared to the Nimitz class please? I was searching Internet a moment ago, think the explanation could go along this line:
"The new design ... reduces the number of aircraft elevators from four to three, and increases the sortie rate by 25 percent, helping to more quickly deploy aircraft ..." from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

but found also a negative stuff :)
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
now Jeff, slippages aside, what's your take on the reduction of the number of aircraft aboard the Ford as compared to the Nimitz class please?

"The new design ... reduces the number of aircraft elevators from four to three, and increases the sortie rate by 25 percent, helping to more quickly deploy aircraft ..." f
Well, the reduction in elevators is a well known decision, and will help them optimize the use of deck space with minimal impact.

In fact with the optimization of deck space and with the new cats and other technologies, they will increase the sortie rate as stated

As to number's of aircraft, these carriers will be able to, like the Nimitz, hold up to 90 aircraft.

Today's peace time air wing is much smaller.

Even in the current types of conflicts being engaged in, where the order of the day is bombing and attacking terrorists and lower tier states, and providing air cover for that, the number is still well below the maximum the Nimitz or the Ford are capable of carrying.

I would expect, that if a near peer were to go to war with the US on the high seas., you would see numbers of aircraft on the Nimitz and Ford carriers that were higher and along the lines of the cold war days.


Eighty aircraft or more. Popeye, do you agree?
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
The issue of the Ford class as part of the USN procurement is not in question (at least not yet) but the significant cost overrun is. It is not business as usual when the cost overrun is so significant and in a commercial world, heads will roll.
Not necessarily. it depends on the nature of the project and the nature of the new technology trying to be developed.

Certainly, if mismanagement, corruption, or incompetence is involved, that is so...but that is not always the issue.

A recent article basically outlined the problem during the build process of defining interfaces between the ship design and combat systems design when both were still WIP.
As I sad, when bringing so much new technology to the fore, the costs are going to be high.

But the US, as it has done in the past, will slug through and produce them.

Certainly good program management and good cost awareness is essential.

But do not make the mistake of thinking that just because it is higher than thought, that this is the result of either mismanagement or poor cost measures.

Sometimes new technologies are simply more difficult to bring forward.

If the technologies are deemed critical for national interests and security, either the economy will pick up (which I believe is imminently possible) and the schedule will be maintained in some semblance of order. Or, if the economy doe snot make that possible and costs become that big of an issue, the project will slip and the technology will come forward as the issues are resolved.

As I said, this does not necessarily mean there is mismanagement, incompetence, or bad cost handling.

I have personally seen both conditions (program/project issues -or- technical development issues) that have caused delays. Each is responded to much differently.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Hi gents. I feel a Ford class could easily host 80+ aircraft and I'm sure she has the accommodations to do so. Why you ask?

As I've posted some years in this forum ago while aboard America in 1981 we had 89 or so aircraft assigned to CVW-11. That is a lot of aircraft and America handled them well.

While onboard CV-66 in '81 we had the following airwing onboard;
24 Tomcats
24 A-7E Corsairs
15 A-6E Intruders
10 S-3A Vikings
6 SH-60 Seahawks
4 E/A-6B Prowlers
4 E-2 Hawkeyes
2 C-2 Greyhounds(Logistics)
= 89 aircraft

I've also posted that the elevator behind the Island on Nimitz and previous carriers was seldom used to move aircraft. It's primary use was as a transfer station during UNREPs. Ford class CVNs now have a dedicated stations for that.

Ford class now has the Bomb farm under the flight deck instead of behind the island...I'll have to see how that works.
 

Scratch

Captain
Popeye, when such a carrier is fully laden with aircraft, how crowded / cramped are the deck and hanger actually? And how dense is the work? After the above discussion, I wonder if there is a direct correlation between number of aircraft on bord and sortie rates achievable.
Because I could imagine that with ever more aircraft standing in the way and needing attention, 90 instead of 70 doesn't necessarily produce more sortie rates. Or do they?
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
While onboard CV-66 in '81 we had the following airwing onboard;

24 Tomcats
24 A-7E Corsairs
15 A-6E Intruders
10 S-3A Vikings
6 SH-60 Seahawks
4 E/A-6B Prowlers
4 E-2 Hawkeyes
2 C-2 Greyhounds(Logistics)
= 89 aircraft
Hehehe...speaking of which, I happen to have this pic:

USS-America-CVW11-1981.jpg

USS America, CV-66, with CVW-11 embarked, passing through the Suez Canal May 6, 1981.

Popeye, you were probably somewhere aboard in this picture, eh?
 
Last edited:

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Yes Jeff I was aboard..more than likely asleep because I worked night check(Crew)..By the way we had no liberty(shore leave) while at Port Said.

Popeye, when such a carrier is fully laden with aircraft, how crowded / cramped are the deck and hanger actually? And how dense is the work? After the above discussion, I wonder if there is a direct correlation between number of aircraft on board and sortie rates achievable.
Because I could imagine that with ever more aircraft standing in the way and needing attention, 90 instead of 70 doesn't necessarily produce more sortie rates. Or do they?

Sortie rates are almost always the same. No matter how many aircraft are aboard. One thing that did occur is that my squadron VS-33 based 4 aircfat out of 10 on a rotational basis on Diego Garcia. Also only on C-2 was abroad at most times. The Flight deck on America operated well despite all the aircraft aboard.

Personally I always felt there were too many aircraft aboard but somehow the whole thing worked.

bYL8jje.jpg


May 6, 1981: USS America (CV-66) in Port Said Egypt awaiting southern transit throught the Suez Canal.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


ATLANTIC OCEAN (NNS) -- The aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) (Ike) completed the first successful carrier launch of the MK 234 Nulka countermeasure fired from the MK 53 Decoy Launching System (DLS), Dec. 16.

Nulka, an Australian Aboriginal word meaning to "be quick," is a rapid-response active expendable decoy (AED) capable of providing highly effective defense for ships against modern anti-ship missiles (ASM).

The decoy was developed through a joint effort by Australia and the United States. Australia developed the hovering rocket while the U.S. developed the electronic payload.

When launched, the Nulka decoy radiates a large, ship-like radar cross section that attempts to lure ASMs away from their intended targets.

"The Nulka system brings with it a needed upgrade to the Ike's current Anti-Ship Missile Defense (ASMD) capability," said Senior Chief Cryptologic Technician (Technical) Christopher Noltee, the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Program Executive Office (PEO), Information Warfare Systems (IWS) 2.0 military liaison. "When a signal originates from the ship, you're still a potential target. Nulka gives you separation. This round sends out the electronics, away from your ship. The goal is to get the missile to fly to the Nulka round instead of coming here."

Although the Nulka round has been used on smaller naval vessels for years, it had never been used aboard a ship as large as an aircraft carrier. Ike is the second carrier to have the MK 53 DLS installed, but the first to successfully deploy the Nulka countermeasure while at sea. It's considered a "soft-kill" weapon, which means that it's used to deceive and never makes physical "skin-to-skin" contact.

"Hard-kill weapons systems are used for both offensive and defensive purposes while soft-kill weapons systems are used strictly for defensive purposes." Noltee said.

During the testing phase, all aircraft and personnel were removed from the flight deck while weather conditions and the sea-state were closely monitored.

"For testing purposes, we wanted to have baseline conditions," said Senior Chief Cryptologic Technician (Technical) Robert Whiddon, Ike's Electronic Warfare Module leading chief petty officer. "We wanted to be able to control everything we could to mitigate risk. In the real world, you don't have hours to prepare for a Nulka launch, you have less than a minute. But when you're testing, you want to control the environment."

Cryptologic Technician (Technical) Seaman Apprentice Jerry Dalalo pressed the button that launched the first Nulka round from a carrier platform.

"I had to go through a lot of procedures to make sure every condition was right," Dalalo said. "I was really nervous. I had a lot of butterflies in my stomach, but luckily it went through fine."

Ike successfully launched the Nulka countermeasure five times over the course of three days, surpassing the minimum testing requirement by two launches.
 
Top