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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-97 last
To: R. Scott
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.

It's all perspective. A carrier looks positively tiny when seen from the back window of a C-2 circling around to land (crash?) on board.

51 posted on 03/18/2006 8:23:25 AM PST by magslinger (Pray for your enemies, It's like taking a B52 to a gun fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jimtorr
From what I gathered while I was still in the Navy, the 77 is going to be a hybrid between the Nimitz class and the new CVN-X class carrier....stuff like magnetic catapults, new reactor systems, and other things to minimize maintenance and therefore crew requirememts, just like the new class of SSNs.
52 posted on 03/18/2006 8:29:34 AM PST by Laz711 (The Barbarians are in Rome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

By SWATH, I'm assuming you mean a catamaran-type hull?

Probable answer is: no. Because the gear and contrivances necessary to run the carrier (catapults, arrestor gear, angled flight deck, elevators, hanger space, ordnance storage, crew accomodations, just as examples) could not be crammed into a catamaran hull without astounding problems in design and engineering, or creating a totally different beast altogether, at enormous expense.

It is simply easier to keep the standard design and make improvements to it as technology comes along.


53 posted on 03/18/2006 8:42:29 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
See the page I linked to. It has a comparison diagram. The tonnage is about 2/3rds and it holds less than half the aircraft, but it's almost as long and wide as a Nimitz (more like 75%-80% in those dimensions) so that it can handle non-S/VTOL aircraft.
54 posted on 03/18/2006 8:48:29 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
The French are jumping on the British design in exchange for some of the contracts to built it and possibly contracts for some planes to put on it. It's also cheaper for the French than to build their own. The speculative name for the French carrier is interesting -- "Cardinal Richelieu". The two UK carriers are speculatively named "Queen Elizabeth" and "Prince of Wales".
55 posted on 03/18/2006 8:51:33 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

Cool. The Frogs can barely get their (single) CV and (single) CVN to float, let alone turn them into effective weapons of war or deterrence.

I will, however, give the French Navy high marks for their skill in ASW and the quality of their pilots, having seem them in action. The same is true (even more so) for the Brits -- I'd sail into Harm's Way with them any day of the week.


56 posted on 03/18/2006 8:56:35 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
I believe the current plan is for the CVF to not be nuclear.
57 posted on 03/18/2006 9:00:39 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

Interesting. I'll assume gas turbine of some sort for propulsion, but what about generating steam to launch planes?


58 posted on 03/18/2006 9:03:53 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
Are sailors still portioned a measure of rum each day or did that custom end?

The daily "grog" ration was a British tradition that ended in the 1970.

" On January 28, 1970 the "Great Rum Debate" took place in the House of Commons, and July 30, 1970 became "Black Tot Day," the last pipe of "Up Spirits" in the Royal Navy.(5)"
59 posted on 03/18/2006 9:07:23 AM PST by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tlb
The USS Clinton.....


60 posted on 03/18/2006 9:09:13 AM PST by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

How about the USS Rush Limbaugh CVN-77?


61 posted on 03/18/2006 9:14:26 AM PST by Vision ("There are no limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence" Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Clinton will have a carrier named after him.
It will be in the Red Chinese Navy.


62 posted on 03/18/2006 9:17:03 AM PST by Cheburashka (World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: magslinger

I’ve heard it compared to landing on a postage stamp.


63 posted on 03/18/2006 9:38:39 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 51 | View Replies]

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

The BUSH is set to launch this fall. There is an effort going on though to have the next carrier after USS GHW BUSH named USS AMERICA after the carrier that was sank to gather data to design it. Name CVN78 USS America A new flagship for America! This site was put up by a former crew member.

64 posted on 03/18/2006 9:42:54 AM PST by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Because all then VTOL aircraft will take years to bring online,

Yep they've been working on them over 25 years now. Before I got out in 1980 I saw Harriers doing flight ops off a nearby LPH I think in late 1979. From what I understand it simply still takes too much fuel to get them in the air thus cutting down on effective radius.

65 posted on 03/18/2006 9:48:57 AM PST by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
Hum, Look Mom no visable Secondary Con in the upper bow. Secondary CON is the back up Navigation Bridge usually on the 03 level right below the Flight Deck used if the Island is destroyed.
66 posted on 03/18/2006 9:53:11 AM PST by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

Trust me, when your circling to land, that boat doesn't look nearly that large! Just sit back in the seat and pray the pilot is as good as he thinks he is.


67 posted on 03/18/2006 10:19:05 AM PST by magslinger (Pray for your enemies, It's like taking a B52 to a gun fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: tlb
Carter got a sub cause he served on one. Reagan and Bush got because they were strong supporters of the military. Clinton will be lucky to get a tug boat. And you know it will instantly be nicknamed "The Love Boat." Hell the only that should be named after Clinton is a new strain of VD.
68 posted on 03/18/2006 11:52:11 AM PST by Bookie1066
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: magslinger

I’ve never experienced a carrier landing, and don’t really like flying in anything larger and faster than a Piper Cub. I’ve talked to a few friends and neighbors who were carrier qualified – true adrenaline junkies.


69 posted on 03/18/2006 12:42:31 PM 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 67 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
" You've confused the Raptor with the JSF, only one model of which, F-35B, has S/VTOL capability."

- The F-35B is a Raptor with a modification to it's engine which adds a vertical turbine to permit the downward deflection of exhaust that gives it VTOL capability. The Marine Corp wants this model to replace the Harrier. All Services will use the Raptor, modified in some way or other to suit their particular needs while reducing the overall costs of production, since most build requirements and spare parts can be standardized. As with the Harrier, a VTOL Raptor works best with a very short ramp built into the ship to allow it to take off without using the extra fuel that would be needed if it had to rise vertically.
Basically there would be no need for a flight deck at all, as the ship could be crammed from bow to stern with aircraft in a storage area one deck below and brought up, in sequence, to the ramp for take off at the bow. Retrieval would be by an elevator at the stern.
Storage of aircraft would then be out of the weather and maintenance could be carried out without moving the aircraft below, as is now the case.
This sounds like a plan to me, but I think the Navy is fixated on a WW11 configuration.
70 posted on 03/18/2006 3:03:59 PM PST by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
There is an effort going on though to have the next carrier after USS GHW BUSH named USS AMERICA after the carrier that was sank to gather data to design it.

Much better than naming our fleet after politicians. Expecially the Clinton-loving ones.

71 posted on 03/18/2006 3:08:07 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government "job" attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2
JSF and Raptor are two completely separate aircraft. They share some similarities in appearance, but that is all.
72 posted on 03/18/2006 3:16:40 PM PST by Spruce (Keep your mitts off my wallet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2

No its not. Im in the air force and they are 2 differant planes completly.JSF(single engine)=F-16/F-18 replacement F-22(two engine and differant body)=F-15 replacement.


73 posted on 03/18/2006 3:25:58 PM PST by MARKUSPRIME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
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.

Before the air museum was opened on the Intrepid, I took a tour of it, and there was a display with a scale model of the Intrepid next to the Nimitz. After having walked around the flight and hanger decks, and being being amazed at what a huge ship that was, I was shocked to see how the newer CVNs just dwarfed the Intrepid.

Someday, now that there's a museum there, I'd love to go back. I heard that there's another warship there too, as well as a Russian submarine.

Mark

74 posted on 03/18/2006 3:36:10 PM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2
The F-35B is a Raptor

Nope, you're still confused.

F-22 Raptor

F-35 JSF

The Marine Corp wants this model to replace the Harrier.

The F-35B will replace both the AV-8B and the F/A-18As and Cs flown by the Marines.

which adds a vertical turbine to permit the downward deflection of exhaust that gives it VTOL capability.

Nope, wrong again. The shaft driven lift fan moves clear air, not exhaust, and it precedes the engine, the exhaust nozzle swivels deflecting the engine exhaust.

All Services will use the Raptor,

Nope, wrong again. The F-22 Raptor is USAF only although some in the Pentagon are floating the idea of selling some to foreign users. The F-35 JSF is scheduled to be flown by the Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and several foreign users.

As with the Harrier, a VTOL Raptor

Nope, wrong again. No such thing as a VTOL F-22 Raptor.

works best with a very short ramp built into the ship to allow it to take off without using the extra fuel that would be needed if it had to rise vertically.

LHAs and LHDs aren't equipped with ski jump bows.

Basically there would be no need for a flight deck at all,

Nope, wrong again. You still need a flight deck long enough to execute a rolling STO even with a ski jump bow.

Retrieval would be by an elevator at the stern.

Very inefficient. Doesn't allow for near simultaneous recoveries, restricts refueling, rearming, maintenance, crew swap, marshalling, etc. Aircraft also need to cool off before being taken below deck.

Storage of aircraft would then be out of the weather and maintenance could be carried out without moving the aircraft below, as is now the case.

A lot of maintenance already takes place on deck and some of it has to take place on deck not to mention loading and unloading of ordinance and fueling. Exactly how many LHAs and LHDs, and with which HMMs, have you served on?

This sounds like a plan to me,

Fortunately, people like you don't get to make plans.

I think the Navy is fixated on a WW11 configuration.

If that were the case then CVNs would be a lot smaller than Nimitz class boats.

Your knowledge and "philosophy" rivals that of Gary Hart.

75 posted on 03/18/2006 7:51:12 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
From what I understand it simply still takes too much fuel to get them in the air thus cutting down on effective radius.

The problem isn't that the short takeoff burns too much fuel, it's that a shorter (or worse yet vertical) takeoff run significantly reduces allowed GTOW. You don't have a full load of fuel in the first place.

76 posted on 03/18/2006 11:05:11 PM PST by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK
Thanks for the explanation. It was odd watching them. We were roughly 5 miles or so away from the helo carrier just enough where you could see the plane disappear as it crossed the flighteck. We weren't close enough to watch them land with the naked eye. This was likely among the first sea trials. We heard such a plane was being developed. It was kinda like flying fish you think you saw something but you weren't quite sure LOL.
77 posted on 03/18/2006 11:29:54 PM PST by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

I’ve been through the Battleships North Carolina and Texas, as well as several smaller warship museums. I think I was most impressed with the WW II submarines – I thought our old LCUs were cramped until I saw them.


78 posted on 03/19/2006 2:49:17 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 74 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Sea trials for the Marine Corps Harriers were conducted in the early 70s. VMA-231 embarked 12 AV-8As aboard the FDR, CV-42, some of which are pictured below, on her final cruise as part of CVW-19 in 1976 in the med.


79 posted on 03/19/2006 8:50:27 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

More photos from VMA-231 aboard CV-42.


80 posted on 03/19/2006 9:15:25 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

A former carrier captain once told me, actually, he asked me then gave me the answer. He asked, how many kinds of ships do you think we have in the US Navy? I said, I don't know. He said, the answer is real simple. We have two kinds, submarines and targets.


81 posted on 03/19/2006 9:20:24 AM PST by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb
This may be fiercely debated, i.e., naming the pride of the USN after an impeached executive who also forwarded secret technology to many of our potential enemies. If this tragic precedent is enacted, we should also launch other naval vessels with monikers such as the USS Benedict Arnold, Julius/Ethel Rosenberg, Whitaker Chambers,as well as some of recent CIA/FBI traitors...Perhaps-if the Justice Department does it's job-Sandy Berger and Jay Rockefeller as well.
82 posted on 03/19/2006 9:35:51 AM PST by Brofholdonow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
Thanks for the pictures and the info. I wasn't exactly sure when they did the Harrier sea trials I just know most of us {in ships company} had not seen them before till 79 or so. They didn't go out with us from 77-80 unless it was after October 80. I saw the ROSIE I'm thinking in early 77 in NNSY Portsmouth. We went back in the yards around mid 78 but I think she was gone to Philly by then. I know our MM1 got some parts off of her.
83 posted on 03/19/2006 7:55:09 PM PST by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME
Cool pic here


84 posted on 03/21/2006 8:13:55 AM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos; Wombat101
SWATH is Small Water Area Twin Hull. Not exactly a catamaran. More like a flat deck placed on two pylons resting on two submarine hulls.

IIRC the design ends up with very good seakeeping characteristics.

I doubt that it would work for something as large as a cvn however. But then again, I don't work in that area. I know when they first started looking at SWATHs (in the 80s) they did a study for CVN's but I don't know the results.

85 posted on 03/21/2006 12:33:51 PM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101; finnigan2
That and fuel use. Plus landing damaged aircraft. A VTOL coming back from a mission low on fuel and damaged can not make a vertical landing. Also most VTOLS are not capable of taking off vertically with a full load of bombs and fuel. Plus there is the risk factor. For the marines VTOLS have the big benefit of operating off of helo carriers there by giving them better teeth and self defense. They compliment conventional aircraft and add an extra capability but are not a total replacement.
86 posted on 03/21/2006 12:38:54 PM PST by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: John O

In that case, I can only envision a monstrosity where most of the gear and infrastructure required for both flight ops and to run the ship is located mostly above decks. God only knows what that does to stability and sea keeping, with that much weight topside (otherwise you no longer have a catamaran or Twin Hull or whatever you want to call it).

It would certainly not make for a very good aircraft carrier and would, in my opinion, negate the very reason you would want SWATH technology incorporated into the design in the first place. I'm not an engineer or ship designer, so I wouldn't know for certain.


87 posted on 03/21/2006 2:59:57 PM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
780 tons seems a bit light for a carrier.

Just a tad - aren't most of them about 78,000 tons? Our little frigate PATTERSON (FF-1061) was 4,000 tons.

88 posted on 03/21/2006 3:10:28 PM PST by jimfree (Freep and ye shall find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jimfree

Yeah, I didn't read closely enough. St Patrick's day was to blame. That portion of the article was only referring to the bow. It was one of my DOH' moments.


89 posted on 03/21/2006 3:36:10 PM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: jimfree

I think that '780 tons" referred to the bow section seen in the accompanyihng photograph.

Of course, tonnage is expressed in a variety of ways;

1. Amount of water, by volume, displaced when the ship is sitting in the water.

2. Metric tons vs. imperial tons

3. Tonnage as an enmumeration of the total volume (cubic tonnage) within the ship (i.e. as if the ship were an empty container).

4. Displacement of water at various "loads" (i.e. empty, with fuel and ammo aboard, etc).

5. GRT (which, I think. not completely sure) is the actual weight in actual pounds.

4.


90 posted on 03/21/2006 4:38:06 PM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
At that size (1100 plus feet long, with a beam to match), SWATH has little positive effect on stability in high seas. The carrier hull itself is so large that little disturbs it, though of course flight ops are more difficult in extreme seas anyway.

But equally important, the carrier has to be so large, for in-place armor, aircraft fuel, stores, bomb storage areas, and support/maintenance areas, that the small diameter submerged hulls that make a SWATH effective get too large. All of the volume (weight) has to get supported by underwater volume, but that means that the SWATH (basically circular, submarine-shaped) hulls get too deep.

Too deep means that the carrier can't get into drydocks, harbors, ports, or maintenance docks.
91 posted on 03/21/2006 4:45:33 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
In this case, "tons" means structural steel weight. Crane weight capacity for that lift.
92 posted on 03/21/2006 4:46:38 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: John O; Wombat101
SWATH is OK for smaller (frigate-sized) flat-topped hulls, like you pointed out. A small ship sees good advantages in stability, but at a higher cost to build, more water resistance (you need more fuel to go the same distance = more displacement = more weight = even more drag) and with a depth penalty: again, bearable if you have a small ship.

SWATH isn' effective for larger ships, mainly for the displacement answer I gave above, but also because the very large carrier sized ships don't get an advantage from SWATH in sea-keeping. Worse, they pay an extreme penalty in hull weight and complexity and expense of manufacturing and difficulty of construction for limited benefit.
93 posted on 03/21/2006 4:52:10 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

I worked with one of the older carriers (conventional) that had a similarly-shaped sonar bow dome.


94 posted on 03/21/2006 4:59:22 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Thanks for the explaination RAC !

Stay safe !!!


95 posted on 03/21/2006 5:28:14 PM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Thanks. It's been a while since I worked with hull forms at all (and I never worked with them in depth anyway) so I appreciate the info.


96 posted on 03/22/2006 8:12:29 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Thanks.


97 posted on 03/22/2006 8:39:48 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


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