Gerald R. Ford Class CVN

[NMaude]

Defense Updates has put out a video about why the Ford class EMALS and AAG could be used on land:

General Atomics is exploring the adaptation of its ship-based Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) for land-based operations. Initially developed for the U.S. Navy's Ford-class aircraft carriers, these systems are now being considered for expeditionary campaigns ashore, addressing the need to operate aircraft without large traditional runways.

This information was revealed by The War Zone.

C. Mark Brinkley, a General Atomics spokesman, told the outlet: “Our friends at GA-EMS [General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems Group] have been exploring expeditionary electromagnetic launch and recovery systems and have conducted extensive research into the concept.”

Viewers may note that in addition to being utilized on the U.S. Navy's Ford-class carriers, derivatives of the EMALS and AAG designs have been chosen for France’s next-generation carrier and are expected to be included on India’s future INS Vishal.

In this video, Defense Updates analyzes why Ford class EMALS and AAG could be installed on land ?

#defenseupdates #usvschina #usmilitaryhttps://www.youtube.com/hashtag/usmilitary

Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
02:08 EMALS & AAG OVERVIEW
03:56 LARGE U.S BASE ARE TARGET
04:57 EMALS & AAG ADVANTAGE
06:26 ANALYSIS

 

[Scott Kenny]

Mind yous that still 82 megawatts for ONE!

Frack!

 

[Hydroman]

EMALS and AAGS great for short fields. If linear induction motors work well for the roller coasters, opens up more options for smaller air field locations.

 

[Forest Green]

This is probably coming to the Gerald Ford Class eventually.

Supercarrier USS George H.W. Bush Now Has First Of its Kind Drone Control Center

The Unmanned Air Warfare Centers to control MQ-25 Stingray tanker drones and other future advanced uncrewed aircraft.

www.twz.com

 

[Forest Green]

Sidus Space Secures $2 Million Contract for U.S. Navy Propulsion Project

Los Angeles CA (SPX) Aug 21, 2024 - Sidus Space, Inc. (NASDAQ: SIDU), a provider of precision space infrastructure solutions, has been awarded a $2 million subcontract by Craig Technologies. The contract involves manufacturing two Fle

www.spacewar.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

From back in March of this year:

https://news.usni.org/2024/03/15/aircraft-carrier-enterprise-delivery-delayed-by-18-months-says-navy

 

[Moose]

The future Enterprise has floated for the first time. Well, a portion of it. The current structure was floated and towed from one end of the assembly drydock to the other before being dropped in a new set of keelblocks. This will allow construction of the future Doris Miller to begin in the same dock while Big-E is finished.

View: https://youtu.be/Hn-Y0lAkoqU?si=kPz7ZtNzvJ-IKyIc

 

[NMaude]

Is the mid-body section where the CVN's nuclear-reactors are located?

 

[Ozair]

Appears to be

 

[NMaude]

Appears to be

View attachment 749115

That would explain why parts of the "Deck" of the mid-body were blurred.

 

[Hydroman]

You can see the reactor boxes.

 

[NMaude]

You can see the reactor boxes.

Are they in the middle of the mid-body?

 

[Hydroman]

Are they in the middle of the mid-body?

Yes, staggered propulsion layout for the two reactors and main machinery rooms.

 

[fightingirish]

President Biden has announced, that the next two Ford-class aircraft carriers will be named USS William J. Clinton (CVN 82) and USS George W. Bush (CVN 83).
Source:

Statement from President Biden Announcing the Names of CVN 82 and CVN 83 | The White House

I am proud to announce that the next two Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers will be named for two former presidents: Bill Clinton and

www.whitehouse.gov

No offence, but now we can certainly predict, that the future CVN-84 and CVN-85 will be named after POTUS 44 and POTUS 45/47.
Sorry, I just wish former aircraft carrier names like USS Saratoga, USS Lexington or even the USS Nimitz again etc. should be chosen instead.

 

[SSgtC]

President Biden has announced, that the next two Ford-class aircraft carriers will be named USS William J. Clinton (CVN 82) and USS George W. Bush (CVN 83).
Source:

Statement from President Biden Announcing the Names of CVN 82 and CVN 83 | The White House

I am proud to announce that the next two Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers will be named for two former presidents: Bill Clinton and

www.whitehouse.gov

No offence, but now we can certainly predict, that the future CVN-84 and CVN-85 will be named after POTUS 44 and POTUS 45/47.
Sorry, I just wish former aircraft carrier names like USS Saratoga, USS Lexington or even the USS Nimitz again etc. should be chosen instead.

50 bucks says that the Clinton and Bush get renamed within a month of Trump taking office.

 

[Josh_TN]

I wish the US would suspend the habit of naming carriers for politicians. I could see a George Washington or a Lincoln, but that should be the limit.

 

[Kat Tsun]

I do not see how that would be useful in wartime. It’s still immobile infrastructure that can be destroyed.

So is any other expeditionary airbase. Henderson Field didn't move.

Difference between Henderson and this is that it won't require excessive length of takeoff run to be demolished or graded. Or rather...similarity between Henderson and the Expeditionary EMALS.

 

[NMaude]

President Biden has announced, that the next two Ford-class aircraft carriers will be named USS William J. Clinton (CVN 82) and USS George W. Bush (CVN 83).

I don't know about those two, definitely not naming one after president Blowmonkey as that pliable ignoramus named laid the groundwork for the Fanta Fascist to become president (And he was a draft-dodger).

 

[fightingirish]

50 bucks says that the Clinton and Bush get renamed within a month of Trump taking office.

Either that or the Ford-Class will be cancelled after CVN-81, because the upcoming administration will say, that aircraft carriers (like decades ago as with the battleships ) don't represent modern naval warfare anymore.
IMHO from 2040 onwards other platforms will take over the role of aircraft carriers.

 

[Lc89]

Uss William Seward?

 

[sferrin]

50 bucks says that the Clinton and Bush get renamed within a month of Trump taking office.

I sure hope so. What Clinton did to the miltary was an insult (even Carter, it could be argued, served in the USN) and we already have a Bush. I'd prefer something more traditional like Yorktown, Independence, Intrepid, Essex, etc.

 

[sferrin]

Either that or the Ford-Class will be cancelled after CVN-81, because the upcoming administration will say, that aircraft carriers (like decades ago as with the battleships ) don't represent modern naval warfare anymore.
IMHO from 2040 onwards other platforms will take over the role of aircraft carriers.

Until you can come up with something as versatile and capable as a carrier it's going to reign supreme. Never heard of anything else that even comes close without a lot of hand-waving, buzzwords, and unsupported assumptions.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I sure hope so. What Clinton did to the miltary was an insult (even Carter, it could be argued, served in the USN) and we already have a Bush. I'd prefer something more traditional like Yorktown, Independence, Intrepid, Essex, etc.

Carter was a nuclear engineer on subs, so he rightly got a submarine named for him. Rosalyn Carter also sponsored USS Georgia, I got to see her signature on the keel (she signed in pen, then a welder went in over the top so it'd never be lost)

 

[NMaude]

What Clinton did to the miltary was an insult

What earned your ire over Clinton's handling of the US military?

 

[SSgtC]

I'd prefer something more traditional like Yorktown, Independence, Intrepid, Essex, etc.

The last Yorktown was decommissioned in 2004, so she could be a possibility. Independence was just decommissioned in 2021 and is still listed on the NVR, so that name isn't available. Intrepid was just announced as the name for an upcoming Flight III Burke (DDG-145). And Essex is a currently commissioned LHD. The names I'd really like to see on a carrier again are Lexington, Midway, Coral Sea, Saratoga, and Hornet.

 

[NMaude]

The names I'd really like to see on a carrier again are Lexington, Midway, Coral Sea, Saratoga, and Hornet.

What about Langley?

 

[CIC-TAO]

seeing older images of Ford class has brought a question to mind.
In some early conceptual image, Ford class use VLS system rather than the Mk 29. Is there a reason for this?

 

[joshjosh]

seeing older images of Ford class has brought a question to mind.
In some early conceptual image, Ford class use VLS system rather than the Mk 29. Is there a reason for this?

I don't believe a VLS would be very useful when installed deep inside the bowels of the ship underneath the flight deck, unless you're trying to protect the ship from anti-ship missiles that are prowling about inside the ship

Edit: oh wait, this is installed outside the ship. At first it looked like it was installed inside the engine room.

 

[BlackBat242]

Ranger.

 

[BlackBat242]

I don't believe a VLS would be very useful when installed deep inside the bowels of the ship underneath the flight deck, unless you're trying to protect the ship from anti-ship missiles that are prowling about inside the ship

Did you even look at the illustration?

The VLS is in a sponson extending out from the hull.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What about Langley?

Has an issue with the current occupants of that location. The CIA.

seeing older images of Ford class has brought a question to mind.
In some early conceptual image, Ford class use VLS system rather than the Mk 29. Is there a reason for this?

They ran into trouble with the VLS boosters not clearing the flight deck.

 

[NMaude]

Has an issue with the current occupants of that location. The CIA.

I meant Langley as in USS Langley CV-1, the USN's first CV.

 

[Firefinder]

They ran into trouble with the VLS boosters not clearing the flight deck.

Try cost not old myth.

First is the three other carriers in Europe that have VLS and don't suffer from such problem.

Two the shortest booster burn out puts its 2 kilometers away and that one is the Tomahawks. The ADA ones drop it over 5km away.

Third and most damning. Someone did the math unless they open up the bottom to the sea you can only fit the Self Defense length MK41 in those spots, meaning basically only the ESSM can be use which lacks the booster.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I meant Langley as in USS Langley CV-1, the USN's first CV.

I know.

But today if you say "Langley" in relation to something the US is doing, you're invoking the CIA.

 

[Josh_TN]

For similar reasons the USN apparently has ruled out the name Hornet.

 

[sferrin]

Try cost not old myth.

First is the three other carriers in Europe that have VLS and don't suffer from such problem.

Two the shortest booster burn out puts its 2 kilometers away and that one is the Tomahawks. The ADA ones drop it over 5km away.

Third and most damning. Someone did the math unless they open up the bottom to the sea you can only fit the Self Defense length MK41 in those spots, meaning basically only the ESSM can be use which lacks the booster.

ESSM is the only one you'd want to put out there anyway.

 

[TomS]

Try cost not old myth.

First is the three other carriers in Europe that have VLS and don't suffer from such problem.

Two the shortest booster burn out puts its 2 kilometers away and that one is the Tomahawks. The ADA ones drop it over 5km away.

Third and most damning. Someone did the math unless they open up the bottom to the sea you can only fit the Self Defense length MK41 in those spots, meaning basically only the ESSM can be use which lacks the booster.

ESSM drops its TVC module fairly close in, as soon as the missile has turned horizontal out of the launcher.

The concern about ESSM debris fallback on carriers was something I heard from folks in PEO Ships back in the day.

 

[SSgtC]

What about Langley?

I think Langley would make a better name for an deep draft supply ship rather than a carrier at this point. The last Langley was the WWII CVL.

 

[NMaude]

For similar reasons the USN apparently has ruled out the name Hornet.

Imagine a USS Hornet carrying several squadrons of Super Hornets.

ESSM drops its TVC module fairly close in, as soon as the missile has turned horizontal out of the launcher.

IIRC the TVC module is referred to as the JVC module (The VL RIM-7P has something similar).

 

[sferrin]

Imagine a USS Hornet carrying several squadrons of Super Hornets.



IIRC the TVC module is referred to as the JVC module (The VL RIM-7P has something similar).

Or USS Bush with a bunch of Growlers.