Talk:Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
CVN 77?
According to the U.S. Navy Ship 20th Century Historical Database, the lead ship of the new class is the USS George H W Bush, which has the designation CVN 77. It even lists CVN 78 as being of the CVN 77 class. I've read some stuff here and there that indicate that the George H W Bush is supposed to be a Nimitz-class Carrier, so I'm not completely sure. If someone could clear this up for me, that'd be great. --M45k3d N1Nj4 G4R0 07:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Its a phase in, thats why. The last "simone-pure" Nimitz-class carrier was USS Harry S. Truman. Both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush are official Nimitz-class carriers, but they will serve as stepping stones for the upcoming CVN-21 class carrier. The idea is to reduce the cost of commissioning a totally new carrier design, which would cost the USN millions (probably closer to billions when all is said and done). TomStar81 02:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"The CVN-78 being designed at the Newport News shipyard is set to be named next month.
The Navy has scheduled a Pentagon ceremony for mid-January to name the next generation aircraft carrier being designed at Northrop Grumman Newport News."
THE NAME GAME: A SECRET IDENTITY -- AT LEAST UNTIL JANUARY By PETER DUJARDIN pdujardin@dailypress.com | 247-4749 20 December 2006 Daily Press
Name is official (fortunately)
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=27323 Ng.j 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Aircraft compliment?
Why does it say over 75, then claim it's going to be larger and thus can hold more aircraft than the Nimitz class? The Nimitz class can hold over 90 aircraft. Doesn't make much sense to say it can hold more than the Nimitz then give the aircraft compliment as less than what the Nimitz can hold. 64.236.245.243 15:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Within those 90 aircraft carried aboard the Nimitz class carriers are planes that specialize in Carrier Onboard Delivery (or COD for short), E-2 Hawkeye radar survalience craft for monitering enemy aircraft, refueling tankers for the fighter wing, electronic jamming aircraft to deny an enemy the ability to acurately lock onto and fire missiles at USN aircraft and ships, and so forth; as a result, the actual number of fighter aircraft aboard an aircraft carrier is usally somewhere in the neighborhood of 45-50 (give or take). My guess is that the number 75 is ment to reflect on the fighter capable aircraft these new carriers will have, since 75 fighters per carrier is a signifigant improvement over 45-50. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Russian Link
In the article, there's a link to a Russia article. Nice... only... I don't speak Russian. Nor would most people using this article. Why is there a link to a Russian page, for an ENGLISH encyclopedia. It's pretty useless to the common Yank/Brit: other than being a cool link to Ruski stuff... but cool links is not what Wikipedia is about. I'm removing it if someone can't justify it with some common sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.60.240.18 (talk • contribs) 28 June 2007
"...they will overcome the biggest complaint..."
In the introduction, this sentence is confusing: "If the Navy can reduce the cost of constructing and maintaining an aircraft carrier, they will overcome the biggest complaint received in the U.S. Congress — that of funding." The way this is written, it sounds like if only the US Navy could make cheaper aircraft carriers, then Congress wouldn't complain about military funding anymore. Many more factors go into military funding than just aircraft carriers - if they mean to say that Congress is complaining specifically about the cost of aircraft carriers, it should say that. Edwardaggie98 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
What a waste of money
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
In the days of unmanned missles, unmanned a airplanes, in air refueling, the carrier is a relic like the battleship. Not to mention nuclear proliferation also means TACTICAL nukes. Give me a fricking break, if one terrorist in a boat can drive up to a destroyer and blow a 20 foot wide hole in it, what can they do with a nuke.
Hell, even keeping overseas military bases as power projection is obsolete. Congress decides to take out Iraq twice, BADA BING BADABOOM, we win in a couple months. Even though the closest base was in Isreal.
OBSOLETE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.248.211 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't you create a criticisms section and add these objections (with citations of course)? Alternative technologies for overseas power projection like existing and future intercontinental strike bombers and missiles (X-43, X-51, Blackstar, etc.) would certainly belong. -- Brianhe 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll tear this down bit by bit.
"In the days of unmanned missles, unmanned a airplanes, in air refueling, the carrier is a relic like the battleship."
Missiles are always unmanned. UAVs are expensive and you need a forward base to control them with out noticable lag.
"Not to mention nuclear proliferation also means TACTICAL nukes."
Firstly, you don't understand MAD, mutually assured destruction. If country were to nuke our carriers we would respond in kind and nuke them. Things would esclate and both sides would end up being completely destroyed.
"Give me a fricking break, if one terrorist in a boat can drive up to a destroyer and blow a 20 foot wide hole in it, what can they do with a nuke."
After the USS Cole, the millitary place many .50 caliber machines on the side railings off ships to prevent this kind of attack. Also, They wouldn't get through the Defenses of Carrier Battle Group which is a task force made up of about 2 dozen ships most of which are escorts at the edge. Said boat would have to get past those ships and helos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.147.141 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
this is just a guess,BUT: since the a1b reactor is going to turn out a lot more power than the a4w, and, since the cvn21 class will be the same size or smaller than the nimitz: either these things are going to go like a bat out of hell,OR, they are going to mount directed energy weapons, the best bet being some next generation variant on the THEL system. 72.81.216.227 (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
link to Northrop Grumman Newport News?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Now that Northrop Grumman Newport News redirects to Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, I would like to see the sentence rewritten to say something like "built at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding facilities in Newport News, VA." For full disclosure of any potential COI, I am a Northrop Grumman employee, so I do not want to directly edit this article. If this change seems reasonable, would someone please do it? Thanks. Psu256 (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for being conscientious about COI. Brianhe (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 200
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
"spring of 2007"
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
"Construction began on components of CVN-21 in the spring of 2007"...I know it's a US ship, but there ARE other people living in other countries that are reading this page - "spring" doesn't mean a whole lot to the rest of the world. Can someone put a date on it? 210.50.176.59 (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Article in Janes
19 August 2008
Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding has secured a USD5.1 billion contract for detailed design and construction of the first of a new class of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier for the US Navy. The work on Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) will include engineering, integration, advanced planning, design weight estimates, lifecycle support products, production planning and test and evaluation. The first steel was actually cut at the company's Newport News, Virginia, facility in August 2005, beginning advanced procurement work under a separate USD2.7 billion contract. The 100,000 ton, 333 m-long ship is scheduled to launch in 2013 and commission in September 2015. Eleven Ford-class carriers are planned, with construction continuing through to 2058. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.184.195 (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Names of CVN-79 and CVN-80
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Does anyone know when they will decide the names of the two ships, or how?Khan_singh (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ship naming and launching#American ship naming and launching gives an overview of US Navy naming. This should help you. - BillCJ (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
2 ships named Ford?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
If the current USS Ford (FFG-54), a Perry-class frigate commissioned in 1985 (named after Vietnam era Gunner's Mate Patrick O. Ford, not President Ford), is still in commission when CVN-78 enters service, there will be two commissioned warships on the Naval Vessel Register named Ford.
How do you figure this? From what I see, there would be a USS Ford, and a USS Gerald R. Ford. They do both contain the word Ford, but the names are not the same. This should probably be removed, since it doesn't even make any sense. Any thoughts? Lest69 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Stealthier features
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Anyone ever wondered why "Stealthier features to help reduce radar profile" is actually necessary? Doesn't look like a kind of thing that can be kept unnoticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.152.8 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |