PDA

View Full Version : First of the New Super-Carriers(warning Big Image)



Praxus
18 Feb 04,, 02:23
http://www.yellowpan.com/twnmil/phpBB2/files/dcs03-41.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027801.jpg

bigross86
18 Feb 04,, 14:25
Huh? Why is that any different than the Nimitz class super-carriers?

Blademaster
18 Feb 04,, 14:33
the way they placed the superstructure is a bad idea because if a plane tries to land on it and missed, there is a greater chance that the plane will hit the superstructure.

I like the other idea. Split the superstructure into two smaller ones, the mast and the lookout center.

Praxus
18 Feb 04,, 21:16
Huh? Why is that any different than the Nimitz class super-carriers?

For one it has a much smaller super-structure and phased array radar. On top of this it will have a more powerful Nuclear Reactor(25% increase), Electromagnetic Catapult, and perhaps even Lasers for Missile Defense.

The second ship in the new series is going to incorporate a completly new hull design and deck.


the way they placed the superstructure is a bad idea because if a plane tries to land on it and missed, there is a greater chance that the plane will hit the superstructure.

Nimitz is similar and by the way you land from the rear heading away from the super-structure.

There is no way you could pull out of it if you missed by that much and you were landing on a Nimitz either unless it was by an act of God.

Anvilanthony
20 Feb 04,, 07:50
What are the demensions on this mother?

Who will it be named after?

Praxus
20 Feb 04,, 21:12
I would guess it's displacement to be similar to the USS Ronald Reagon which is about 100,000 tons. It will pretty much have the same dimensions.

Anvilanthony
21 Feb 04,, 04:21
The Ronald Reagan is 98,000 tons.

1098ft long and forgot what it is wide.

Praxus
21 Feb 04,, 04:29
The Ronald Reagan itself is not 98,000 tons, it displaces 98,000 tons of water:D

Blademaster
21 Feb 04,, 07:00
ok then how much does it weigh?

Praxus
21 Feb 04,, 17:12
Don't have a damn clue;)

Ironduke
21 Feb 04,, 18:02
Originally posted by Praxus
The Ronald Reagan itself is not 98,000 tons, it displaces 98,000 tons of water:D
Displacement = weight.

Praxus
21 Feb 04,, 18:43
Displacement = how much water the ship displaces, which very well may be the weight of the ship I am not sure how it works.

Ironduke
22 Feb 04,, 03:13
The weight of the ship is equivalent to displacement. There are no scales large enough to weigh a ship, but the amount of water it displaces can be measured.

The other method of measuring a ship is by gross tonnage, which has nothing to do with size, but rather, a gross ton is equivalent to 100 cubic feet. Therefore a ship that is 50,000 gross tons would be 5,000,000 cubic feet.

tomas
23 Feb 04,, 11:22
wheres the pic all i get is an x

Blademaster
23 Feb 04,, 21:00
What if an object just floats on the water. Obviously it weighs something but its density that it doesn't displace the water. How do you account for that weight?

Praxus
23 Feb 04,, 21:17
Anything that has mass and is denser then air is going to displace water.

feynman
28 Jun 04,, 12:40
The buoyant force on an object is equal to the weight of the liquid (water in this case) displaced by the object. This is known as Archimede's Principle and is true whether the object is partially or completely submerged.

In the case where something is floating (like we hope our ship is), the weight of the water displaced will be the weight of the ship. However, measuring the displacement of something that sinks, like a brick or whatever, will only tell you that it weighs more than the water it displaces...but won't tell you the weight.

Se7eN
28 Jun 04,, 21:31
I saw a documentary recently with Tom Brokaw, and he was talking with some officer about this new ship. He asked what the speed increase was, and the guy said it was 'classified, but faster' to paraphrase.

Any idea why the Navy would be so paranoid to release data like that? I'm sure it's good enough reason, but my curiosity begs the question.

Bill
29 Jun 04,, 08:54
So the enemy doesn't know how fast it is...

bigross86
29 Jun 04,, 10:00
Cuz if you expect the CVBG to come in four days, giving you time to fortify your positions, and it comes in 2 and a half, it really fucks up your day

Se7eN
29 Jun 04,, 15:40
Cuz if you expect the CVBG to come in four days, giving you time to fortify your positions, and it comes in 2 and a half, it really fucks up your day

Haha, true.

Blademaster
01 Aug 04,, 16:58
Cuz if you expect the CVBG to come in four days, giving you time to fortify your positions, and it comes in 2 and a half, it really fucks up your day


Yeah if the carrier come on its own. However remember its escorts. There is no way in hell that the escorts can cruise for 2 days at more than 30 knots. Yeah they can speed at 30 knots but not sustain it.

The CVBG is limited by the slowest ship in its fleet.

bigross86
09 Aug 04,, 14:15
Top speeds are classified, but I'm pretty sure that it's over 30 knots, and they're using nule reactors. They can keep that speed up for quite a while

Praxus
09 Aug 04,, 14:42
A battleship can go 30 knots for an entire trip and then level 1300 targets without a reload and not including it's secondary weapons.

:biggrin: :biggrin:

Bill
09 Aug 04,, 16:01
The Burke DDGs and Tico CGs can sustain 30kts in calm seas for quite some time.

Hk40
27 Aug 04,, 16:11
The Project is -
CVN 21 Program
Advanced design work on the first new generation carrier, CVN 21, is underway at Newport News with construction slated to begin in 2007. Innovations for the next-generation aircraft carrier include an enhanced flight deck with increased sortie rates, improved weapons movement, a redesigned island, a new nuclear power plant, allowance for future technologies and reduced manning.

These and many other evolutionary new designs are being developed by our engineers to build the most capable aircraft carriers ever for the U.S. Navy.

NewPort News is the 'prime' on this and most of what is being rumored around sites like this were before the merger with Norhtrop Grumman. Since the merger Northrop Grumman has really sealed the info on this project, but I managed to get this too:

First unit (CVN-78) scheduled to begin construction in 2007 and to be placed in commission in 2014 to replace USS Enterprise (CVN-65), by then 53 years old.

Second unit (CVN-79) scheduled to start construction in 2012 and slated to be placed in commission in 2018; will replace USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67), by then 50 years old.

And . . .

Artistís concept (illustrated at top of topic) of CVN-21 one of a new class of aircraft carriers. A new nuclear propulsion plant will power the next class of aircraft carriers. The new plant will require fewer operators thereby lowering life-cycle costs, and will provide increased electrical power that will be available for the demands of developing technology. Smart sensors will assist in further reducing Navy watch standing requirements and in automating damage control functions such as detecting fire and flooding situations. Flight deck redesign and a transition to an advanced aircraft recovery system (AARS) will reduce crew workload, enhance safety and reduce the costs of operating and maintaining a carrier throughout her planed 50-year life cycle. U.S. Navy graphic (# 030606-N-0000X-001), June 6, 2003.

Note: At the 2003 Navy League show Newport News displayed a model of a new carrier with four catapults and three, rather than four, elevators ó the island being moved aft. The large, redesigned deck makes it easier to handle aircraft. When combined with the newer, more powerful and faster elevators and catapults, it is claimed that the number of sorties per day can be significantly increased.
Cheer!

Hk40
27 Aug 04,, 16:28
I would guess it's displacement to be similar to the USS Ronald Reagon which is about 100,000 tons. It will pretty much have the same dimensions.

(1) Reagan is 1,092 feet long, and once completed, will be home to 6,000 sailors, carry more than 80 aircraft and cruise at speeds in excess of 30 knots.

USS RONALD REAGAN (CVN 76) is the first carrier since USS NIMITZ (CVN 68) to have major carrier design changes. The shipís design incorporates many changes including a completely re-designed island, a bulbous bow and flight deck modifications.

Island Structure

∑ Inside the island is a re-designed and state-of-the-art primary flight control station (pri-fly), giving a 270-degree view of all aircraft on deck and within the carrierís airspace. This larger, expanded panorama ensures better visibility of operations and control of the precise actions on the flight deck. That, in turn, provides a safer working environment for the crew.

The aft radar antennae and a new weapons elevator were incorporated into the island structure, making it 20 feet longer and giving RONALD REAGAN a unique profile.
The overall height of the island house did not change, but the new island has one less deck, and individual deck heights were increased by nine inches to accommodate overhead systems and allow growth margins for future capability improvements.
For the first time aircraft carrier island structure was designed using a 3-D product model and all the construction work for the island was done indoors, in the Modular Outfitting Facility.

Flight Deck
∑ The flight deck angle has increased from 9.05 degrees to 9.15 degrees from the centerline. This allows unobstructed simultaneous launching and recovering of aircraft.

∑ There is one less arresting gear engine and three wires instead of four. This allows for more space for other essential equipment. The new three-wire arresting gear design can withstand more aircraft landings than the old design due to stronger wire sheaves.

Systems
∑ USS RONALD REAGAN is the first carrier to have the Integrated Communication Advanced Network (ICAN) installed throughout all areas of the ship.

∑ Digital communications run on a laser fiber backbone for enhanced communications and future upgrade capability.

∑ The shipís engines have been outfitted with Titanium pistons for increased strength.

∑ There are six, 800-ton air condition units vice the eight 360-ton units on other aircraft carriers.

∑ Digital flat panels, instead of analog panels, are installed on the bridge. The shipís control console uses a touch screen format.

Weapons
∑ USS RONALD REAGAN is equipped with Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM), which replaces the Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) used on other carriers. RAM Systems pack 21 fire and forget missiles capable of destroying any high-speed incoming targets.

∑ An aircraft weapons elevator was relocated from the flight deck and now extends up into the aft section of the island, allowing for more efficient movement of aircraft ordnance during flight operations.

Additional Innovations
RONALD REAGAN has a large bulbous bow, similar to commercial tankers, resulting in increased list, stability and speed.
∑ Fifty-person life rafts versus the twenty-five-person life rafts on other carriers.

Here are the facts:
Name / Length O.A. / Beam / Depth / Displacement
RONALD REAGAN (CVN76) 1,092'0" 134'0" 100'6' 91,209

Cheers!

Praxus
27 Aug 04,, 16:58
Thanks for the info:)

Hk40
27 Aug 04,, 17:10
Thanks for the info:)
Hey Prax? No sweat pal. I figure I owe ya a couple, for the help you gave me.

The Chap
27 Aug 04,, 23:30
Anything that has mass and is denser then air is going to displace water.

Surely you mean anything that is denser than water will diplace water assuming it is a solid or a liquid that will not diffuse in the medium. :)

The Chap
27 Aug 04,, 23:34
A battleship can go 30 knots for an entire trip and then level 1300 targets without a reload and not including it's secondary weapons.

:biggrin: :biggrin:

A battleship fan! Any sites you can recomend regarding high tech refit ideas? Someone has to correct this insane carrier based policy! :cool:

Praxus
28 Aug 04,, 00:00
http://www.usnfsa.org/

The foremost exports on the subject.


Surely you mean anything that is denser than water will diplace water assuming it is a solid or a liquid that will not diffuse in the medium.

Of course, I don't know what I was thinking when I posted that.

derek_c
31 Aug 04,, 01:14
Displacement = how much water the ship displaces, which very well may be the weight of the ship I am not sure how it works.

If the weight of water the ship displaces is less than its weight, it sinks!

Praxus
31 Aug 04,, 01:51
Ok thanks:)

Hk40
02 Sep 04,, 01:46
A battleship fan! Any sites you can recomend regarding high tech refit ideas? Someone has to correct this insane carrier based policy! :cool:
Chap? I'm curious about why it is you think that carrier based policy is insane?
Simply brining more options (aircraft) to the sea engagement is a good thing.

The Chap
02 Sep 04,, 04:45
Chap? I'm curious about why it is you think that carrier based policy is insane?
Simply brining more options (aircraft) to the sea engagement is a good thing.

Perhaps imprudent or myopic would be more appropriate. Presumably the role of a Carrier ( and its attendent, costly, group ) is one of force projection. Planes and shells can only deny ground, never hold it. If a refitted or new BB can achieve highly accurate fire support at, say, 500nm, and is tactically self-sufficient, why chuck all these planes and pilots into the air in an attempt to do the same job at greater cost and higher risk? Regardless, it's still the infantry that has to go in after the fireworks. ;)

PS: "Simply"? followed by "is a good thing". How simply? A good thing why? Dogma and Doctrine alert! :tongue:

Otto von Smirf
04 Sep 04,, 16:28
Anything that has mass and is denser then air is going to displace water.

The way it works is that the thing will only float if it weighs LESS than the water it displaces. If it weighs more than the water being displaced, ie like a brick, it will sink. As to what the name of CVNX, the Navy has not yet decided. Scuttlebut has it that it may be USS Enterprise, as CVN 65 will be due to decommision at about that time, if it lasts that long.
Otto von Smirf, USN

Praxus
04 Sep 04,, 16:31
Look someone has already explained it, so shutup please. ;)

Otto von Smirf
04 Sep 04,, 16:32
Look someone has already explained it, so shutup please. ;)
Excuse me for taking longer to reply than someone else.
Otto von Smirf, USN

The Chap
05 Sep 04,, 09:42
http://www.usnfsa.org/

The foremost exports on the subject.



Of course, I don't know what I was thinking when I posted that.

My heart goes out to you :)

You poor sod. That snafu is going to haunt you for an undeservedly long time yet. :eek:

With appologies to Hemmingway:

Never read sober what you posted when drunk. This will teach you not to type. ;) :) :biggrin:

Praxus
05 Sep 04,, 15:06
Excuse me for taking longer to reply than someone else.
Otto von Smirf, USN

Notice the wink, I was joking around in an effort to hide my pittifuly pathetic knowledge about water displacement;)

sw55
03 Jan 05,, 16:16
so it that link with the pic of CN-78 the final configuration of hull and flight deck? Which ship was going to be the transitional one, was that CVN-77?

And where did this hiddious design go? I hope the trash bin...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-77.htm

Broken
09 Jan 05,, 18:44
Top speeds are classified, but I'm pretty sure that it's over 30 knots, and they're using nule reactors. They can keep that speed up for quite a while

The Nimitz class don't just go well over 30 kts, they go well over 40 kts. That speed would leave the escorts in the dust, so it would only be useful in a mad-dash from a nuke aimpoint or something.

sw55
10 Jan 05,, 17:57
The Nimitz class don't just go well over 30 kts, they go well over 40 kts. That speed would leave the escorts in the dust, so it would only be useful in a mad-dash from a nuke aimpoint or something.

One rumor is "over 50 knots".
Who knows?

Broken
10 Jan 05,, 20:21
One rumor is "over 50 knots".
Who knows?

I heard they can make quite a rooster-tail.

Bill
10 Jan 05,, 21:00
"The Nimitz class don't just go well over 30 kts, they go well over 40 kts. That speed would leave the escorts in the dust, so it would only be useful in a mad-dash from a nuke aimpoint or something."

That's just a rumor. There is no public acknowledgement that they can exceed the low 30kt range.

Broken
11 Jan 05,, 06:26
"The Nimitz class don't just go well over 30 kts, they go well over 40 kts. That speed would leave the escorts in the dust, so it would only be useful in a mad-dash from a nuke aimpoint or something."

That's just a rumor. There is no public acknowledgement that they can exceed the low 30kt range.

The Abraham Lincoln paid a PR visit here in Santa Barbara a few years ago. A buddy of mine got a "press-tour" with the captain and I tagged along. I asked the captain, "So, how often have you had her up to 42 knots?"

A big grin broke out on his face, then he got mock-serious and said "I can neither confirm nor deny".

Well, that was the only question I got in, because the captain was mostly occupied entertaining the ladies in our group, heh, heh. However, as I shook his hand to thank him for the tour, he asked, "Where did you learn about aircraft carriers?".

Bill
11 Jan 05,, 08:47
I know guys that have served on em that claim the high speeds are bull, and guys that have served on em that claim 50kts.

The truth, i suspect, lies somewhere in the middle. ;)

Broken
11 Jan 05,, 08:55
I know guys that have served on em that claim the high speeds are bull, and guys that have served on em that claim 50kts.

The truth, i suspect, lies somewhere in the middle. ;)

I guessed 42 knots because someone told me they go about 50 MPH ...which is 42 knots.

Franco Lolan
12 Jan 05,, 06:04
nice tour.

Brian
21 Jan 05,, 02:44
Great thread, guys....I've been away from here too long! :tongue: