- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The USS Gerald R. Ford
Posted on 7/25/17 at 1:21 pm to kywildcatfanone
Posted on 7/25/17 at 1:21 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Does it really take 12-15 years to build one of these?
Picture your average sized town in the United States.
Now, make it float and be able to move 50 mph across the water. Then put an airport on top of it.
It takes a LONG time.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 1:45 pm
1
Posted on 7/25/17 at 1:51 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
Picture your average sized town in the United States.
Now, make it float and be able to move 50 mph across the water. Then put an airport on top of it.
It takes a LONG time.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:00 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:too much force would pull nosegear off jet.... not enough.. splash..
quote:
I wonder if there's any issues with cold weather operations (i.e., North Atlantic). Magnets tend to lose strength in cold weather.
They're connected to a friggin' nuclear reactor. Just turn them up to 11.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:13 pm to udtiger
quote:
I wonder if there's any issues with cold weather operations (i.e., North Atlantic). Magnets tend to lose strength in cold weather.
Electromagnetic, not magnetic. Electric current creates a magnetic field and pushes the carrier (attaches to the nosehook) down the catapult.
Posted on 8/5/17 at 1:29 pm to choupiquesushi
Because they sound cool!
If the science/engineering ain't right yet that sucks. Thanks for the input.
If the science/engineering ain't right yet that sucks. Thanks for the input.
Posted on 8/5/17 at 3:03 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
USS Gerald R. Ford
Posted on 8/5/17 at 3:26 pm to TheFonz
LONG ARTICLE ON CARRIER AIRWING SHRINKAGE
Here is an article about the size of the carrier air wing, says the shrinking due to the capabilities of the aircraft we are putting on them is a concern. I went back 3 pages in the thread, if already posted whack it. I have no opinion because I know nothing on the subject, wondering what you who know more think.
second and third paragraphs ofthe article:
The air wing—the actual aircraft on the aircraft carrier, naturally—is the true measurement of a carrier’s worth. Without the air wing we wouldn’t need these ships at all. The size of the carrier has not drastically changed since the USS Nimitz entered the fleet in 1975. They remain close to 100,000 tons and about 1,100 feet in length. What has changed, however, is the size of the air wing and how far those aircraft can fly and fight before having to return to the ship.
As the air wings have gotten smaller and the aircraft have a shorter combat radius (the distance the aircraft can fly from the carrier, attack the enemy and still have fuel to return) the real “carrier” debate should mostly focus on the air wing. A smaller and less effective air wing can no longer justify the enormous expense of the carrier, the strike group of escort ships and the aircraft themselves.
Here is an article about the size of the carrier air wing, says the shrinking due to the capabilities of the aircraft we are putting on them is a concern. I went back 3 pages in the thread, if already posted whack it. I have no opinion because I know nothing on the subject, wondering what you who know more think.
second and third paragraphs ofthe article:
The air wing—the actual aircraft on the aircraft carrier, naturally—is the true measurement of a carrier’s worth. Without the air wing we wouldn’t need these ships at all. The size of the carrier has not drastically changed since the USS Nimitz entered the fleet in 1975. They remain close to 100,000 tons and about 1,100 feet in length. What has changed, however, is the size of the air wing and how far those aircraft can fly and fight before having to return to the ship.
As the air wings have gotten smaller and the aircraft have a shorter combat radius (the distance the aircraft can fly from the carrier, attack the enemy and still have fuel to return) the real “carrier” debate should mostly focus on the air wing. A smaller and less effective air wing can no longer justify the enormous expense of the carrier, the strike group of escort ships and the aircraft themselves.
Posted on 8/5/17 at 3:31 pm to rmnldr
quote:
dat hurricane bow
I would imagine that thing would not be too badly affected by a hurricane. It also would not be too badly affected by any other countries navy on the planet.
Posted on 8/5/17 at 3:34 pm to goofball
I thought CV-67 was already named after Kennedy????
Posted on 8/5/17 at 3:40 pm to gthog61
That article seems short sited. The carrier air wing mission has changed. Gone are the days you need 400 aircraft in the air from mulyiple carriers in a group to simultaneously perform offensive and defensive maneuvers against an enemy.
Every carrier is now capable of handling almost an entire air war by itself, and the support ships in it's fleet. The U.S. also has so many carriers that we can cover almost the entire world simultaneously.
We also have far more air force bases than we used to in Europe and Asia. Between all of the air force bases ad carriers there is no where on earth we can't touch.
Every carrier is now capable of handling almost an entire air war by itself, and the support ships in it's fleet. The U.S. also has so many carriers that we can cover almost the entire world simultaneously.
We also have far more air force bases than we used to in Europe and Asia. Between all of the air force bases ad carriers there is no where on earth we can't touch.
Posted on 8/5/17 at 3:40 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
I would doubt a sub could hit that speed on the surface due to cavitation of its propeller and the hull not being designed to plane out of the water.
At full throttle would the Ford plane out of the water? That would be incredible to see.
Posted on 8/5/17 at 3:42 pm to alphaandomega
I was told by a guy who used to work close to the bridge on the Enterprise that it could hit 70 knots if they wanted to.
Carriers can and will leave everything else in the fleet behind if necessary.
Carriers can and will leave everything else in the fleet behind if necessary.
Posted on 8/5/17 at 3:45 pm to gthog61
quote:
and the aircraft have a shorter combat radius (the distance the aircraft can fly from the carrier, attack the enemy and still have fuel to return) the real “carrier” debate should mostly focus on the air wing.
Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet - Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km)
Grumman F-14 Tomcat - Combat radius: 500 nmi (575 mi, 926 km)
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - Combat range: 367 nmi; 423 mi (680 km)
You also have to look at the advances in radar and missiles to get a fair comparison
Posted on 8/9/17 at 11:20 pm to RatLTrap
The range can be extended if the jet is configured 5 "wet" or in other words, with 5 extra drop tanks of fuel. Could fly for 8 hours extra.
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 11:21 pm
Posted on 8/9/17 at 11:42 pm to upgrayedd
quote:When I was in the Marines I did 4 months at Newport News shipyards guarding the nuclear fuel. They were building one carrier, the Bush or Reagan I think, and refueling the Eisenhower. And you are correct, standing in dry dock under those things is an awe inspiring sight.
It's gotta be unreal to stand under the keel of that thing and look up.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News