Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Northrop Grummans Newest Aircraft Carrier Takes a Bow(Bow laid for newest carrier)
Spacewar ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: aircraftcarrier; cvn77; newportnews; northropgrumman; usn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last
Go navy. This is the last carrier in this series. The next carrier will have a new redesign. Nothing like our carrier fleet on the planet. Huge floating acres of sovereign American territory.
1 posted on 03/18/2006 5:06:45 AM PST by MARKUSPRIME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm


2 posted on 03/18/2006 5:06:54 AM PST by MARKUSPRIME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

Man, oh man,

That is some crane lifting the bow "super lift" into position.


3 posted on 03/18/2006 5:09:44 AM PST by PeteB570 (Guns, what real men want for Christmas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

as long as the Empire State Building is tall...

Gooooooolly Sarge!


4 posted on 03/18/2006 5:13:41 AM PST by Mrs. Shawnlaw (No NAIS! And the USDA can bugger off, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

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.


5 posted on 03/18/2006 5:15:42 AM PST by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

I personally own a Grumman carrier. Here's one just like it: http://img.alibaba.com/img/product/11/15/75/11157514.jpg


6 posted on 03/18/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by WorkingClassFilth (Di'ver'si'ty (adj.): A compound word derived from the root words: division; perversion; adversity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

780 tons seems a bit light for a carrier.


7 posted on 03/18/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

Never mind, the article wasn't talking about the whole ship.


8 posted on 03/18/2006 5:25:11 AM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

Huge floating acres of sovereign American territory.

So nicely put that I thought it beared repeating.


9 posted on 03/18/2006 5:28:08 AM PST by Mrs. Shawnlaw (No NAIS! And the USDA can bugger off, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

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?


10 posted on 03/18/2006 5:33:30 AM PST by sergeantdave (The business of business is none of the government's business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME; Jeff Head
Bird farm bump.

5.56mm

11 posted on 03/18/2006 5:36:26 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

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.


12 posted on 03/18/2006 5:42:36 AM PST by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

Where do they keep the cigar locker?


13 posted on 03/18/2006 5:55:03 AM PST by txroadhawg ("Stuck on stupid? I invented stupid! " Al Gore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tlb

No, clinton gets a submarine.


14 posted on 03/18/2006 5:55:22 AM PST by Coastie ("You have to go out. You don't have to come back"- Old USCG motto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tlb

GOD FORBID!!!!!!!!


15 posted on 03/18/2006 5:55:54 AM PST by taillightchaser (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tlb

?? The article says that it's the George H.W. Bush.


16 posted on 03/18/2006 6:02:10 AM PST by cweese (Hook 'em Horns!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tlb

Can't,....there's already a garbage scow and Carrier named after him. I saw a jpg of it here on FR. LOL


17 posted on 03/18/2006 6:03:17 AM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

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.


18 posted on 03/18/2006 6:05:00 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coastie

In all honesty I would hope that if he gets anything it's an Auxillary of some sort, something low end as possible.


19 posted on 03/18/2006 6:05:31 AM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

The 780 tons is just a very small (?) bow section.


20 posted on 03/18/2006 6:06:28 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

C'mon,..zeros mean nothing don't they? 78, 780, 780,000 what's the diff?


21 posted on 03/18/2006 6:06:49 AM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: cweese

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.


23 posted on 03/18/2006 6:11:10 AM PST by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

".........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.


24 posted on 03/18/2006 6:11:19 AM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

What a nightmare.


25 posted on 03/18/2006 6:18:42 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jimtorr
"When the contract for CVN 77 was let, there was talk of incorporating some of the design features of the next series of carriers."

- 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.
26 posted on 03/18/2006 6:28:36 AM PST by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

Correct, that is what I should gotten from that statement.


27 posted on 03/18/2006 6:28:43 AM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

I know. A zero here, a zero there, and pretty soon we're talking about real tonnage!


28 posted on 03/18/2006 6:29:21 AM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
You have clearly never worked with a crane.
John kelly has very relavent collum in the Nov. 2 2005 Washington Post for why those weights must be accurate.

When a company came to remove the tree, its crane toppled onto the Barretts' house.

29 posted on 03/18/2006 6:33:42 AM PST by Fraxinus (Warning: Opinion may be less useful than it appears)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2

"- 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.


30 posted on 03/18/2006 6:51:48 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

"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.


31 posted on 03/18/2006 6:54:48 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

Interesting comments -- thanks.


32 posted on 03/18/2006 6:57:52 AM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

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!


33 posted on 03/18/2006 7:00:37 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
I've always liked this photo. The British carriers are powerful and effective, but I think the photo gives some idea about how much more powerful and effective our carriers are.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

34 posted on 03/18/2006 7:01:43 AM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth

I hope these aircraft carriers aren't cold, noisy and apt to stick to rocks. ;~)


35 posted on 03/18/2006 7:08:29 AM PST by kanawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kanawa

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.


36 posted on 03/18/2006 7:34:20 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
The upcoming Royal Navy CVF (the French may also build on) is much more comparable in size to the Nimitz-class CVN (see: this page. What's deployed on it will depend on whether the UK and US can sort out their current arguments over the codes on the JSF.
37 posted on 03/18/2006 7:36:14 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
The British (and possibly French) are looking to build carriers more comparable in size to our Nimitz-class carriers. See this page for some info on their CVF plans and size comparisons with other carriers in service.
38 posted on 03/18/2006 7:38:52 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2

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.


39 posted on 03/18/2006 7:40:58 AM PST by RandallFlagg (Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2
when they have the tri- service Raptor aircraft in final testing which has VTOL technology built in?

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.

40 posted on 03/18/2006 7:42:00 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

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.


41 posted on 03/18/2006 7:42:50 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tlb

Never happen.


42 posted on 03/18/2006 7:43:30 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Fraxinus

Sometimes, just as important is the angle of dangle.


43 posted on 03/18/2006 7:47:57 AM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101; Jeff Head; Travis McGee

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.


44 posted on 03/18/2006 7:58:53 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Shawnlaw

That is standard Navy speak for the power of the carriers.


45 posted on 03/18/2006 8:10:40 AM PST by Laz711 (The Barbarians are in Rome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

CVN 77 Upper Bow Lift - March 15, 2006
The nation's tenth and final Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), grows by 780 tons as the upper bow unit is placed onto the ship. Photo by Chris Oxley

CVN 77 Upper Bow Lift - March 15, 2006
The George H.W. Bush is the second carrier with the bulbous bow design. USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) is the first. Photo by Rick Thompson

CVN 77 Upper Bow Lift - March 15, 2006
The addition of the upper bow on the George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) completes the flight deck and extends the overall length of the carrier to its full size, which is as long as the Empire State Building is tall. Photo by Rick Thompson

46 posted on 03/18/2006 8:12:37 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
How thick is the metal on an aircraft carrier?

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.

47 posted on 03/18/2006 8:14:15 AM PST by magslinger (Pray for your enemies, It's like taking a B52 to a gun fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101; finnigan2; 68skylark
Well said wombat and spot on.

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.

48 posted on 03/18/2006 8:17:57 AM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
The British (and possibly French) are looking to build carriers more comparable in size to our Nimitz-class carriers.

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.

49 posted on 03/18/2006 8:19:40 AM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

I didnt' realize this new carrier was going to be named after 41. The USS Poppy Bush! :)


50 posted on 03/18/2006 8:22:19 AM PST by lawgirl (Cake is a powerful food!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson