Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

USS (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- Status???

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Re: USS (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- Status???
Post by Michael Riddell   » Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:19 am

Michael Riddell
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:10 pm
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.

The E wrote:I was actually referring to the whole USS America thing.


Same principle though. The QE's are optimised specifically for the F-35B, the Ford isn't. As the last UK Government scrapped the Harrier, there aren't any fixed wing, manned, aircraft that can be used aboard them currently in UK inventory. There will be, once the Lightning II is cleared for service, but the Queen Elizabeth will be ready slightly before the aircraft are.

Mike.
---------------------
Gonnae no DAE that!

Why?

Just gonnae NO!
---------------------
Top
Re: USS (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- Status???
Post by Ensign Re-read   » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:28 pm

Ensign Re-read
Commodore

Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:24 pm

Annachie wrote:Why'd they name it after Ford anyway. Nothing against him but he isn't the first president I think of when it comes to naming Aircraft carriers.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


1st, Ford did serve in WW2 on a carrier; Wiki it.

2nd, the US electorate elected the Bushes to be POTUS; the end results are predictable, as Reagan and Bush Sr. already have ships named after them.

Carter has a sub (he was a submarine officer).

I expect that Truman was selected under Clinton administration.




.
=====
The Celestia "addon" for the Planet Safehold as well as the Kau-zhi and Manticore A-B star systems, are at URL:
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/weber/.
=====
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68506297@N ... 740128635/
=====
Top
Re: USS (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- Status???
Post by HB of CJ   » Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:13 pm

HB of CJ
Captain of the List

Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:46 pm
Location: 43N, 123W Kinda

About 25 years ago when we had our solar powered off grid homestead there were primitive electronical (sp) gadgets that would detect from over one mile away the 60Htz "humm" from local utility power useage.

Then the same gadget would synckro your home grown DC-AC power into compatable utility 60Htz AC 110-220 volt power so you could intertie into the commmercial power grid. This was 20 years ago.

Flash forward to today. I bet we have orbiting or geo synckro spy stuff that can detact a knat farting from 25,000 miles up. Sosss, is this new catapault system complete EMP silent? Dunno fur sures.

I bet it is not. I also think it is detectable from a very long ways off. A distinctive pulse. Thus a cover up. But then I am kinda an aluminum foil kind of guy. Oven tempered or quilted strength? Yikes! HB :)
Top
Re: USS (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- Status???
Post by The E   » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:13 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

HB of CJ wrote:I bet it is not. I also think it is detectable from a very long ways off. A distinctive pulse. Thus a cover up. But then I am kinda an aluminum foil kind of guy. Oven tempered or quilted strength? Yikes! HB :)


Not that it actually matters. By the time you'd be able to detect the EM from the catapult, you would probably be detecting the Radar and Radio emissions from the carrier for some time already.

Also, the greatest danger for a Carrier are submarines using non-nuclear air-independent propulsion, and those things don't really use EM during target acquisition.

Put another way, by the time you can feasibly detect the EM off of the catapult, you're already deep into the Carrier's notional exclusion zone (aka the zone in which nothing exists unless the Carrier permits it). Carriers, it has to be said, aren't stealthy.
Top
Re: USS (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- Status???
Post by Charybdis   » Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:12 pm

Charybdis
Captain of the List

Posts: 714
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:53 am
Location: Gulf Coast Florida USA

Annachie wrote:Why'd they name it after Ford anyway. Nothing against him but he isn't the first president I think of when it comes to naming Aircraft carriers.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


I am reasonably certain that it is to follow the current naming conventions of these recent CVN aircraft carriers. Of the 12 since and including the USS Nimitz (CVN-68), in service or building, 9 are named for US Presidents and of the 12, 9 have significant US Navy or Navy-friendly ties. The Ford's immediate predecessor is the USS George H W Bush (77) honoring his WW2 Naval Aviation service.

President Ford was active duty US Navy (1942-46) and Navy Aviation support in the West Pacific on the CVL-26 USS Monterey, a 'light' aircraft carrier and thus ample justification for the name. Add to that his lengthy service in the US House and support of the US Navy there, matches the 'credentials' of Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and John Stennis (74).

N.B.: Although built upon the hull design of its preceding Nimitz-class sisters, the USS Ford is considered innovative enough in technology and automation to be the lead ship in what will be called the Ford-class CVNs.

The next CVN in line is the John F Kennedy (79) which replaces its predecessor in name (CVN-67) now out-of-service, sometime around 2020.

FYI: The sole US President to graduate from the US Naval Academy, James E Carter, is honored by the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), the third and final Seawolf-class attack submarine, reflecting his nuclear submarine service after graduation.
-----

What say you, my peers?
Top
Re: USS (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- Status???
Post by HB of CJ   » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:09 pm

HB of CJ
Captain of the List

Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:46 pm
Location: 43N, 123W Kinda

USS Enterprise.
Top
Re: USS (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- Status???
Post by Tenshinai   » Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:31 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Michael Riddell wrote:
Same principle though. The QE's are optimised specifically for the F-35B, the Ford isn't. As the last UK Government scrapped the Harrier, there aren't any fixed wing, manned, aircraft that can be used aboard them currently in UK inventory. There will be, once the Lightning II is cleared for service, but the Queen Elizabeth will be ready slightly before the aircraft are.

Mike.


There has been some "not quite official" talk coming this way in regards to the possibility of making a special variant navalised Gripen NG. Idea being that since it´s made for very short take-off/landing and rough capable, as well as the smallest useful modern aircraft for the role, it might just be achievable to make a "special version just for the Brits" that can use the QE without the super expensive refit needed for most(all?) other potential planes.

Would be fun if it happened even if i don´t expect it. Still, it is telling that UK has made the inquiries at all, even if it was unofficial.




#####

naming conventions of these recent CVN aircraft carriers.


I have to say, i find it rather tacky to name ships after people who haven´t even been dead 50 years, or worse, are not even dead at all yet. :|

And really, what was wrong with the earlier CV names?
Top
Re: USS (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- Status???
Post by Relax   » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:27 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

HB of CJ wrote:About 25 years ago when we had our solar powered off grid homestead there were primitive electronical (sp) gadgets that would detect from over one mile away the 60Htz "humm" from local utility power useage.

Then the same gadget would synckro your home grown DC-AC power into compatable utility 60Htz AC 110-220 volt power so you could intertie into the commmercial power grid. This was 20 years ago.

Flash forward to today. I bet we have orbiting or geo synckro spy stuff that can detact a knat farting from 25,000 miles up. Sosss, is this new catapault system complete EMP silent? Dunno fur sures.

I bet it is not. I also think it is detectable from a very long ways off. A distinctive pulse. Thus a cover up. But then I am kinda an aluminum foil kind of guy. Oven tempered or quilted strength? Yikes! HB :)


For the love of..... It is nothing but an electric motor. Ai caruba...

The 60hz synchro works because there are these giant ass ANTENNA's called POWER LINES radiating constantly.

The linear motor is buried under a steel deck. Surrounded by a steel hull. At worst it will radiate some energy straight up.

If you want long range detection, ye godz, heard of SONAR? You can hear a giant aircraft carrier/cargo ship over 1000 miles away due to their propellers in the open ocean. Land mass or shallow seas decrease this range. It is only hard to do today because there are so many sources of noise. If there was war, the noise sources would drastically reduce. Locating ships at sea is quite easy. Locating with pin point accuracy is a bit rougher. Why one of the best places to hide is during ice breakup during spring in the arctic regions or in storms as wave action will deaden the massive noise signature of the massive slow turning propellers. Why a submarines propeller design is radically different than that used on surface vessels.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: USS (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- Status???
Post by Ensign Re-read   » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:27 pm

Ensign Re-read
Commodore

Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:24 pm

Does anyone have any additional information about the lastes th delays?
=====
The Celestia "addon" for the Planet Safehold as well as the Kau-zhi and Manticore A-B star systems, are at URL:
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/weber/.
=====
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68506297@N ... 740128635/
=====
Top
Re: USS (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- Status???
Post by Dilandu   » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:27 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

Relax wrote: If there was war, the noise sources would drastically reduce. Locating ships at sea is quite easy.


Reduce? They would multiple! It wouldn't be really hard to build tens of thousands cheap acoustic decoys, that could imitate the acoustic signature of the carrier? You would have thousands of acoustic signals, with no way to know, which is the real and which is the decoy.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...