Gerald R. Ford Class CVN

The tale of woe with the Ford class carriers continues, the Navy had initially projected a delivery date of June 2024 for the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), Rear. Adm. Casey Moton, program executive officer for aircraft carriers told the Senate Armed Services Seapower subcommittee the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) is now 95 percent complete, but is continuing to experience “critical path challenges” with the advanced weapons elevators and advanced arresting gear. With an anticipated delivery date in 2026. Enterprise (CVN-80), the next in the class, also has a slipping delivery timeframe; Moton said he now estimates it will be 28 months behind schedule, revised from 18-26 months a year ago. Delivery is now expected in early 2030, with Doris Miller (CVN-81) following in 2032. Costs, meanwhile, are climbing. Moton said John F. Kennedy is now projected to cost $12.9 billion; Enterprise $13.5 billion; and Miller an eye-watering $14 billion. (My understanding the Navy $ values based on the year the NDAA authorizes the ship, but the actual $ spend is higher as its funded from the yearly appropriations bills which include inflation)

https://news.usni.org/2025/04/09/first-columbia-class-sub-two-aircraft-carriers-face-delivery-delays-navy-officials-tell-senate#:~:text=The future USS John F,anticipated delivery date in 2026.
 
SSgtC said:
So I missed this earlier, but did you really just say that Fleet Admiral Chester W Nimitz was not worthy of having an aircraft carrier named after him? The man who led the Pacific Fleet throughout WWII isn't a worthy name for a carrier?
Click to expand...
No. I said that there were lots of names that were not. Not that Nimitz was not.
 
Threads about USN next CVN, SSN, SSBN are being reduced to their naming.

I always praised USA naming street convention after using just plain numbers. Just a practical decision. Why not applying the same to the US Navy: CVN78 class. Ships in the class: CVN78, 79, 80, 81...Argumentation ends here.
 
Antonio said:
Threads about USN next CVN, SSN, SSBN are being reduced to their naming.

I always praised USA naming street convention after using just plain numbers. Just a practical decision. Why not applying the same to the US Navy: CVN78 class. Ships in the class: CVN78, 79, 80, 81...Argumentation ends here.
Click to expand...
Because a ship is more than just the hull number.

The only USN hulls that were only a number were expendables. PT boats, landing craft, etc.

I served on two different Ohio-class. Georgia BN (I transferred off just before her strat offload and start of conversion to GN) and Kentucky. They were two very different ships, not just because Georgia was C4 and Kentucky D5. Something as stupid as the firehoses had different numbering! Georgia's were numbered Compartment-Level-Number, Kentucky's were just Compartment-Number.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom