Posted on 03/18/2006 5:06:44 AM PST by MARKUSPRIME
The carrier is under construction at Northrop Grumman's Newport News sector, the nation's sole designer, builder and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Weighing 780 tons and made up of 25 steel sections, the upper bow is one of the heaviest crane lifts in the ship's production plan. Newport News began construction on the upper bow unit last February.
"Landing the fully-outfitted upper bow on the ship is a significant milestone in the design and construction of CVN 77, and most importantly, a great team effort by our shipbuilders," said Scott Stabler, vice president for the CVN 77 program at Northrop Grumman Newport News. "We are on track for record shipboard construction progress at launch in October."
(Excerpt) Read more at spacewar.com ...
Man, oh man,
That is some crane lifting the bow "super lift" into position.
as long as the Empire State Building is tall...
Gooooooolly Sarge!
When the contract for CVN 77 was let, there was talk of incorporating some of the design features of the next series of carriers. Features such as stealthy superstructure, greatly increased automation and smaller crew.
I personally own a Grumman carrier. Here's one just like it: http://img.alibaba.com/img/product/11/15/75/11157514.jpg
780 tons seems a bit light for a carrier.
Never mind, the article wasn't talking about the whole ship.
Huge floating acres of sovereign American territory.
So nicely put that I thought it beared repeating.
How thick is the metal on an aircraft carrier?
Does the Navy still use wood for decks or steel?
Are sailors still portioned a measure of rum each day or did that custom end?
5.56mm
It will be the USS Bill Clinton, count on it. After the USS Carter, the USS Reagan, and the USS George H Bush, it's Clinton's turn.
Where do they keep the cigar locker?
No, clinton gets a submarine.
GOD FORBID!!!!!!!!
?? The article says that it's the George H.W. Bush.
Can't,....there's already a garbage scow and Carrier named after him. I saw a jpg of it here on FR. LOL
If anyone wants to be truly impressed, visit Newport News. Go downtown to the shipyard area and look at a carrier under construction or refit – the tallest building in Newport News is any carrier in the shipyard. These ships are truly huge, but they don’t look all that big until you get within a few blocks of the shipyard.
In all honesty I would hope that if he gets anything it's an Auxillary of some sort, something low end as possible.
The 780 tons is just a very small (?) bow section.
C'mon,..zeros mean nothing don't they? 78, 780, 780,000 what's the diff?
You are correct, this article is about the USS G H Bush. I didn't open the article and assumed it concerned the work commencing on the next carrier after the GHB. The shipbuilders three or four months ago began cutting the metal for this unnamed follow-up carrier. My mistake but the point remains, the next carrier will almost surely be the Clinton.
".........the nation's sole designer, builder and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers."
Disturbing. The concentration of military production facilities is short sighted. It may be cost effective but the lack of production redundancy could prove fatal.
What a nightmare.
Correct, that is what I should gotten from that statement.
I know. A zero here, a zero there, and pretty soon we're talking about real tonnage!
When a company came to remove the tree, its crane toppled onto the Barretts' house.
"- Why are shipyards still building these monster carriers for future operations when they have the tri- service Raptor aircraft in final testing which has VTOL technology built in? Such an aircraft would make those long flight decks virtually obsolete while shrinking the size of the carrier and increasing it's aircraft carrying capacity."
Because all then VTOL aircraft will take years to bring online, will not be available in great numbers for some time, and in the meantime, other aircraft like the F/A-18, S-3 and E-3 still have a lot of useful life in their airframes, and aren't VTOL. They still perform important roles and require a full-sized flight deck for launch and recovery with any sort of safety.
We will not talk about how systems like double hulling and the concept of reserve bouyancy affect the overall size of a ship, because that's an incredibly complicated subject, but it is another reason why these behemoths grow to such a size.
In addition, one purpose of a CVN is to steam anywhere over 75% of the earth's surface and arrive off an enemy's shore with an air force (80 or so aircraft, depending on mission) bigger than that of most small countries. Those aircraft require fuel, spare parts, repair facilities, ordnance, and the crews to maintain them, and therefore, the ship is by necessity, a monster.
You make a big mistake if you believe that shrinking the carrier's size automatically leads to an increase in aircraft capacity because of VTOL. If wwe had an all-VTOL airfleet, the ship would get smaller, true, but so would the compliment of aircraft because the smaller ship could not accomodate fuels, stores, etc to keep them in the air for extended periods of time.
Not to mention that VTOL aircraft carrying heavy loads eat fuel up in emormous quantities in the simple act of taking off. Even the Royal Navy, which operates small carriers with VTOL aircraft (Harriers), incorporates a 'ski-jump' bow to allow laden planes to make rolling take-offs, which is more fuel efficient and safer.
By the way, those RN carriers (the British call 'em 'Through-deck cruisers') are 1/3 the size of an American CVN and operate about 20 aircraft (mix of Harriers and helocopters). This is a fabulous arrangement for local operations (ASW, Local Air superiority) but you cannot porject power with it (read up on the Falkland's War).
I've served on three carriers in my lifetime (Midway, Enterprise, Eisenhower) as an aviation ordnanceman (AO1), and I'm damned proud of it. These ships have capabilities, and give commanders a flexibility, that the average person simply cannot comprehend.
"By the way, those RN carriers (the British call 'em 'Through-deck cruisers') are 1/3 the size of an American CVN ...."
Excuse me, that should have read "less than 1/3 the size of an American CVN".
My bad.
Interesting comments -- thanks.
Whoops! Caught another mistake on my part...
CVN's operate E-2's (Hawkeye) not E-3's (Sentry), which is the Air Farce's AWACS.
Just points out the problems inherant with posting before you've had your morning coffee!
I hope these aircraft carriers aren't cold, noisy and apt to stick to rocks. ;~)
Heck, cold and noisy are merely part of the charm. The Navy does not consider these to be 'hardships' but part of the 'adventure'.
As for sticking to rocks, I was aboard the Big E when she ran aground entering Tokyo Bay (if memory serves, that would be 1986 or so). Not a funny situation.
I was on an amphib with Harriers. The pilots said they take off on the long runways to save fuel. They have to land vertically, though.
The Raptor, F-22, is USAF only. Too fragile to operate from a carrier and no V/STOL capability. You've confused the Raptor with the JSF, only one model of which, F-35B, has S/VTOL capability.
Such an aircraft would make those long flight decks virtually obsolete while shrinking the size of the carrier and increasing it's aircraft carrying capacity.
You don't know much about carrier ops or what happens to usable payload when operating in VTO mode. Also, a shorter flight deck means a smaller boat. A smaller boat means fewer aircraft, not more.
Will the French carrier ever put to sea, or will it have the wrong propellers, a leaky reactor, and a tendancy to break down at slow speeds like the current French flattop?
It would be good to see the Brits back in the carrier business, however, since they invented the concept and they would be a valuable adjunct to US Naval Aviation (the same holds true of the Indian Navy).
It's been proven throughout history: he who controls the sea, controls the course of events.
Never happen.
Sometimes, just as important is the angle of dangle.
Does SWATH technology / design have a place in something as large as a Carrier ?
Seemed a possibility from what I have seen and read.....I'll yeild to those with time and knowledge of the carrier for answers.
That is standard Navy speak for the power of the carriers.
It varies. The outer hull is about an inch thick.
Does the Navy still use wood for decks or steel?
Steel decks. IIRC the last wood deck carrier was decommissioned in the early '70's.
Are sailors still portioned a measure of rum each day or did that custom end?
Prohibition ended that little bennie. Since the late '70's they don't even give brandy to aircrew fished out of the water. When that happened, you could hear the scream of outraged pilots over the sound of a F-4 winding up to full afterburners.
VTOL is great for close in work and fleet air defense. But as you say, they are severely limited in the amount of ordinance they can carry over long distances. Same applies in a large measure even to VSTOL and ski jumps. Makes their power rojection and strike at sea, or land capabilities very limited compared to large deck carriers like ours.
For a great comparison of ALL carrier classes wolrd-wide, including the large deck amphibs, see my:
The "compare all" link tells the story.
Yeah, I've been following this, and I think it's good that the UK will have more capable carriers. (The French carrier won't be helpful to the free world, but I guess its construction will help keep costs down for the Brits, by spreading their development costs over an additional vessel.)
If I've read the news right, their ships will displace about 2/3's as much as our Nimitz-class ships.
I didnt' realize this new carrier was going to be named after 41. The USS Poppy Bush! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.