Making the world's most cutting-edge aircraft carrier, USS Gerald Ford

[Ken_NJ]

Interesting reading...

Making the world's most cutting-edge aircraft carrier | Geek Gestalt - CNET News

[StevoJH]

The only thing I can think of that would make it the most advanced would be EMAL's. Fairly sure most of the other stuff is either already on other carriers or can be refitted fairly easily.

Sounds like a bit of a call to call it the "worlds" most cutting edge aircraft carrier. The "United States" most cutting edge aircraft carrier would probably be more accurate. I mean, the thing will still have almost 5,000 crew compared to the 1,500 or so on the QE class which are over 2/3rds the size.

[Gun Boat]

QE might be 2/3 the size but it would not have 2/3 the capability of the US carriers.

The US carriers have a buzzing nuclear reactor and twice the aircraft. Plus alot more jet juice and ordanance. I would think they'd be able to stay on station a lot longer without resupply.

QE will operate the f-35B which is cool but the US carriers will use the f-35C which is cooler.

I reckon the Gerald Ford is to the Nimitz class what the super hornet is to the hornet.

The amount of money/labor/expertise that goes into the new US carriers hurts my brain to think about. There is just no other country that would be capable of putting an equivelent into operation (without bankrupting themselves).

I stopped by Newport News on my US holiday last year. Seeing one in person is amazing. I could see all the pre cut steel for the Gerald Ford sitting in the yard (It think it was for the Ford anyway). Very cool.

[Big K]

i looked at the pictures and want to ask something,

isnt the tower a bit too close to the rear end? i mean what if a plane would get off-course during a landing? wouldnt it crash directly in to the tower??

i am a complete ignorant on this issue except making some 3rd class models and reading some stuff. so sorry if the question is inadequate or inappropriate

[StevoJH]

QE might be 2/3 the size but it would not have 2/3 the capability of the US carriers.

The biggest difference between the two is the Nimitz/Fords AEW, but then again, that could change.

The US carriers have a buzzing nuclear reactor and twice the aircraft.

Not necessarily more advanced then the QE class's IEP.
And no, they don't carry twice the aircraft, or at least not twice the Jets. Nimitz (and I assume Ford) carries roughly 48 fighters, QE will carry 36. That is 3/4 of what Nimitz carries.

Plus alot more jet juice and ordanance.

No idea

I would think they'd be able to stay on station a lot longer without resupply.

QE is supposed to be able to maintain 100+ sorties per day for 7 days before needing resupply. And don't forget the RN has the RFA to carry out that resupply on station.

QE will operate the f-35B which is cool but the US carriers will use the f-35C which is cooler.

Cool has nothing to do with it, and both don't have a gun.

I reckon the Gerald Ford is to the Nimitz class what the super hornet is to the hornet.

Err, the SH is barely related to the Hornet at all.

The amount of money/labor/expertise that goes into the new US carriers hurts my brain to think about. There is just no other country that would be capable of putting an equivelent into operation (without bankrupting themselves).

Last time I looked, the US was pretty much bankrupt. :))

[TopHatter]

i looked at the pictures and want to ask something,

isnt the tower a bit too close to the rear end? i mean what if a plane would get off-course during a landing? wouldnt it crash directly in to the tower??

i am a complete ignorant on this issue except making some 3rd class models and reading some stuff. so sorry if the question is inadequate or inappropriate

The angle of approach is different. (Hence the purpose of the angled deck: When landing, the aircraft will be pointed in a direction away from anything but open skies.)

In addition, most pilots will instinctively tend to pull to the left, away from the island.

On the other hand, having an island so far back will make conning the ship loads of fun, hence the forward island on the Charles De Gaulle and the split islands on the Queen Elizabeths.

[gunnut]

Sounds like a bit of a call to call it the "worlds" most cutting edge aircraft carrier. The "United States" most cutting edge aircraft carrier would probably be more accurate. I mean, the thing will still have almost 5,000 crew compared to the 1,500 or so on the QE class which are over 2/3rds the size.

A wise man once told me why a warship with that much automation is not a good thing. We need people for damage control and combat losses. A ship with just enough people to run her will not be able to stay in the fight if she suffers any kind of combat losses or battle damage.

[Maxor]

The biggest difference between the two is the Nimitz/Fords AEW, but then again, that could change.


Not necessarily more advanced then the QE class's IEP.
And no, they don't carry twice the aircraft, or at least not twice the Jets. Nimitz (and I assume Ford) carries roughly 48 fighters, QE will carry 36. That is 3/4 of what Nimitz carries.

No idea

The Queen class is supposed to carry 40 aircraft peace time and 50 for wartime operations. The Nimitz and presumably the Ford Class carries 60 to 65 peace time and up to 90 for war time. (though honestly 90 seems like it would be a bit busy)

[Dreadnought]

State of the art the Ford will be but she wont move an inch until her EMAG cats are perfected first and foremost.;)

[Blademaster]

I heard that F-35Cs can only operate on EMALs. Is that true or some BS pulled off by some JSF hating guys?

[Dreadnought]

I heard that F-35Cs can only operate on EMALs. Is that true or some BS pulled off by some JSF hating guys?

I never heard that before. But IMO, The carrier should be able to apprach sufficient speed into the wind to help aid in take off if necessary. I cant imagine them building fighter aircraft for the navy and it being obsolete to one brand new class of ships. If that were to happen then it would be a first especially since the new EMAL's havent yet even been tested at length. I would also think they would want the same fighter aircraft available to all carriers in service at the time.

[TopHatter]

I never heard that before. But IMO, The carrier should be able to apprach sufficient speed into the wind to help aid in take off if necessary. I cant imagine them building fighter aircraft for the navy and it being obsolete to one brand new class of ships. If that were to happen then it would be a first especially since the new EMAL's havent yet even been tested at length. I would also think they would want the same fighter aircraft available to all carriers in service at the time.

Exactly. Calling BS on that one as well.

[Gun Boat]

The biggest difference between the two is the Nimitz/Fords AEW, but then again, that could change.


Not necessarily more advanced then the QE class's IEP.
And no, they don't carry twice the aircraft, or at least not twice the Jets. Nimitz (and I assume Ford) carries roughly 48 fighters, QE will carry 36. That is 3/4 of what Nimitz carries.

No idea



QE is supposed to be able to maintain 100+ sorties per day for 7 days before needing resupply. And don't forget the RN has the RFA to carry out that resupply on station. :


Cool has nothing to do with it, and both don't have a gun.



Err, the SH is barely related to the Hornet at all.



Last time I looked, the US was pretty much bankrupt. :))

Having the reactor allows the US carriers to run around everywhere at flank speed. Providing they dont break. The QE's gas turbines will chew a massive amount of juice if she was to try that.

The F-35C has increased payload and range over the B which is what i meant by it being cooler

And in regards to the SH/H thing what i meant by that is the the GF class looks kind of like a Nimitz but is quite a bit different inside.

[StevoJH]

The Queen class is supposed to carry 40 aircraft peace time and 50 for wartime operations. The Nimitz and presumably the Ford Class carries 60 to 65 peace time and up to 90 for war time. (though honestly 90 seems like it would be a bit busy)

The USN has enough pilots and aircraft to put 90 aircraft onto all their CVN's? I doubt it. And the planes in AMARC are there for a reason, even if they could pull some of them out of storage, how long would their limited number of remaining flight hours last before they started falling out of the sky?

[StevoJH]

Having the reactor allows the US carriers to run around everywhere at flank speed. Providing they dont break. The QE's gas turbines will chew a massive amount of juice if she was to try that.

To an extent, however. I will say this again. Technologically, just because nuclear propulsion has a longer range then IEP, does *not* mean that is more advanced, or are you saying that the latest gas turbines and diesel engines being fitted to the QE are less advanced then the nuclear reactors fitted aboard the USS Enterprise?

Plus the engine layout of the QE's gives them an incredible amount of damage resistance.

The F-35C has increased payload and range over the B which is what i meant by it being cooler

Yes, but neither have a gun, and i'm not sure how much advantage the increased range actually is. Increased payload only usable if both aircraft give away the advantage of stealth.

And in regards to the SH/H thing what i meant by that is the the GF class looks kind of like a Nimitz but is quite a bit different inside.

I'll pay that one. :))