3rd (final) elevator installed on USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-79

World Maritime News ^ | 17 August 2013 | Jeff Head

[Jeff Head]

Third (and final) Elevator Installed on USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-79

3rd Elevator Installed on USS Gerald R. Ford

World Maritime News
Newport News, Virginia
Huntington Ingalls Industries:
Huntington Ingalls announced yesterday that its Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) division installed the third and final aircraft elevator on the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78).

The elevator, which is used to move aircraft from the hangar bay to the flight deck quickly and safely, is located on the starboard side of the ship. It measures 85 feet long and 52 feet wide and weighs 120 tons, akin to a steam locomotive.

“The Ford class is designed with three aircraft elevators, one less than the Nimitz class,” said Rolf Bartschi, NNS vice president, CVN 78 carrier construction. “The design provides greater flight deck area for increased sortie rates over the Nimitz-class design. The location and number of aircraft elevators are an integral part of the design.”

Gerald R. Ford’s primary hull structure reached 100 percent structural completion in May, bringing more than three years of structural erection work to a close. Work continues on the ship, including work on the piping and electrical systems and habitability areas such as the galley and mess spaces. Shipbuilders are also in the process of painting the hull prior to the ship’s christening, scheduled for Nov. 9[/I>

Christening will be on November 9th! That date is going to come quickly now.

[cva66snipe]

We only had escalators on destroyers. :=)

I'm not making this up. We had one passanger elevator. It was The Old Mans and Admirals. It went IIRC from his stateroom or right beside it to the Bridge. I have a feeling his staff such as cooks got the most use of it though.

[cva66snipe]

Not a naval architect so I’m asking ‘cause I don’t know. Why not build a carrier in a catamaran design? Granted it would be unable to traverse the Panama and Suez but I would think that it would provide a huge increase in flight deck.

A vast amount of a carriers below decks space beside the Engineering Plants and berth areas is storage rooms and fuel tanks. Even the nukes carry fuel. As well the piping and wiring logistics alone would be a nightmare. BTW as far as I know no carriers go through Panama. That's why east coast carriers head east and transit through The MED and Suez. We even did without the Suez carrier wise from The Six Day War - 1981 when the America went through.

[Bob]

There wasn’t a stop on the deck with the bowling alley??

[Orangedog]

Can the navy please get out of this habit of naming their ships after US presidents before there ends up being one named after Slick, Junior or the current clown in the white house?

[tanknetter]

#80 will be built. CVN-79 has already started, and lead time items and logistics for the USS Enterprise are already well under way, along with a lot of funding.

I fully expect that CVN-80 will be built as well.

However I don't believe for a minute it will be named "Enterprise". My guess is that President Hillary Clinton will either rename it the USS Barack Obama, or the USS William Jefferson Clinton.

For reference, please see what happened to CVN-75. This was, I believe, the only carrier named during the Bush (41) Administration. It was laid down as the "USS United States". However Bill Clinton (or, rather, his SecNav ... ) renamed the ship the "USS Harry S Truman" in retaliation for the GOP Congress directing that CVN-76 be named for President Reagan.

Adding insult to injury, the previous ship that was supposed to hold the name USS United States was the first Supercarrier, CVB-58. This ship was summarily cancelled (only a few days after it was laid down) by ... Harry Truman. Because USAF B-36 bombers were better instruments of US policy than USN carriers. It spurred a little thing called "The Revolt of the Admirals".

[tanknetter]

Two things interesting about that elevator.

First, they’re going from four elevators (standard since the USS Forrestal) to three. The article seems to suggest that it’s to increase available deck space, but more than likely it’s due to the need to reduce manning and maintenance requirements. Although it could be possible that the weapons trials/sinkex with the ex-USS America demonstrated that the risk(s) associated with the elevators wasn’t worth having a fourth one.

Second, the elevator is squared-off. Can’t tell if it’s a real square, rectangular or possibly even somewhat trapezoidal. Since the Kitty Hawk class US carrier elevators have had a distinct tab/ear on the ocean-end of them, which facilitated being able to lift two aircraft at a time while still limiting the hole in the side of the hull.

[rlmorel]

Great book. Gerald Ford has his flaws, no doubt. But he served honorably.

[The Sons of Liberty]

I saw a picture of the uss baraq hussein 0bama last week. It is a garbage scow that patrols the New Jersey coast.

[Jim Noble]

Not only is it a disgrace on its own, it guarantees the USS Barack Obama.

Only the HW Bush is worse.

[cva66snipe]

There wasn’t a stop on the deck with the bowling alley??

Nah it was a choice between a bowling alley and a MickeyD LOL.

Lot's of changes. When I was in while we were on a MED Cruise if you wanted to call home it was a 2-6 hour wait at the USO or phone company once we hit a port. I did manages to call home from a phone booth in Vience though in 1979. My cousin was in for Gulf War Two on the Washington I think. He could call home from ship in the crews lounge and send e-mails at sea. The only way we could call home from the ship at sea was via HAM Radio and usually emergencies involving a death in family etc.

[Oztrich Boy]

Second, the elevator is squared-off. Can’t tell if it’s a real square, rectangular or possibly even somewhat trapezoidal. Since the Kitty Hawk class US carrier elevators have had a distinct tab/ear on the ocean-end of them, which facilitated being able to lift two aircraft at a time while still limiting the hole in the side of the hull.

This means they will no longer be able to operate the RA-5C Vigilante

[GeronL]

I wish it was called the Executioner, the Punisher,... anything besides the Gerald R Ford

Run and hide, here comes Gerald!

[Pan_Yan]

The USS Gerald R. Ford will also have a tendency to bump into things.

I'm sure you're just making a joke but I hate to see liberal media stereotypes get perpetuated. Ford not only was a star on two national championship teams but had two offers to play professional football.

[Gamecock]

Thanks for that post. I had no idea of the details of his service.

[elcid1970]

OK, OK, but it has been often pointed out that tall men sometimes bump their heads on aircraft passenger doors.

I mean holy smoke I never said Gerald Ford was clumsy. Outside of declaring in 1976 that Poland was a free country, nothin’ like that.

[dfwgator]

I guarantee there will be a USS Harvey Milk, before too long, especially since he “served.”

[mad_as_he$$]

Why not just make the carrier fly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicarrier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XKdTQKN_zY

Making large cats is a difficult engineering problem. They also have limited space below the main deck. CVN’s have enormous space under the flight deck.

http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/1999/sep01_wf.html

[Jeff Head]

The name has already been selected, announced, and approved. It will be the USS Enterprise, announced on the date of the USS Enterprise, CVN-65’s decommissioning.

[21twelve]

Years ago when Ford was president (or maybe just “retired) I stayed at a family friend’s house in Vail with my parents. The house was used by the Secret Service, and was next to where Ford would stay.

On a low door leading out of the kitchen was a note taped to the molding: “Mr. President - Please watch your head.”

I always figured he might have gone to that house for briefings or a game of cards with the guys. Writing about it now, I wonder if it was just a funny way of warning about the low door.

[tanknetter]

The name has already been selected, announced, and approved. It will be the USS Enterprise, announced on the date of the USS Enterprise, CVN-65’s decommissioning.

I saw the Enterprise's inactivation streaming on Navy.mil, so I'm aware. But c'mon Jeff. You and I both know that that the Harry S Truman (CVN-75) was laid down in 1993 as the United States, but the Clinton Administration changed her name in 1995 - about two years into her actual construction.

I'd say that the point for locking in a ship's name (or at least a carrier's) is after the Christening. But the second Midway-class carrier (CVB-42) was laid down and Christened as the "Coral Sea" but nine days after her Christening President Truman changed her name to the Franklin D. Roosevelt (Coral Sea being reassigned to CVB-43).

So there's precedent (some recent) out there for renaming a carrier well after a name has been assigned, the ship laid down and even following its Christening.