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 ...
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.
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.