Gerald R. Ford Class CVN

TomS said:
ESSM drops its TVC module fairly close in, as soon as the missile has turned horizontal out of the launcher.

The concern about ESSM debris fallback on carriers was something I heard from folks in PEO Ships back in the day.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I knew I wasn't losing my mind! (this time)

I would have addressed that by installing the VLS block(s) with a 5-10 degree outboard angle, but for whatever reason that apparently was either insufficient or not considered. Which is extremely unfortunate, since a single 8-cell Mk41 module would hold 32x ESSMs ready to launch, as opposed to the 8x that the box launcher has ready. I believe in arming carriers with enough onboard missile defenses to handle a Russian or Chinese bomber regimental attack, ~48x aircraft carrying up to 4x missiles each.

I'd want 4x modules on the carrier in 2 sets of 2, 2-3x RAM (since it's highly unlikely that the USN would adopt the OTO 76mm Sovraponte), and 2-3x CIWS.

The other option would be some fancy programming for the TVC module, to know where it was relative to the ship and not drop the TVC until the missile was clear of the ship (including wind drift)
 
To help with re-supply and crew rotation--perhaps future scuttling of Navy ships can be done atop shallow sea-mounts--with oil derricks relocated there as a cheapo JMOB.

Sitting duck though it may be, you would just have low cost supplies.

Should a Ford be struck--it might sail over the top of an oil platform with added legs whose surface is beneath the waves.
 
www.navalnews.com

SECNAV names two future U.S. Navy aircraft carriers - Naval News

SECNAV announced the names of two upcoming Gerald R. Ford-class of aircraft carriers as the future USS William J. Clinton (CVN 82) and the future USS George W. Bush (CVN 83).
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

www.defensedaily.com

Navy Names Two Carriers After Presidents Clinton And Bush, Future SSNs and Third SSBN - Defense Daily

The Navy and Biden administration on Monday announced the names of the next two aircraft carriers, the third Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine
www.defensedaily.com www.defensedaily.com
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Thank you, I knew I wasn't losing my mind! (this time)

I would have addressed that by installing the VLS block(s) with a 5-10 degree outboard angle, but for whatever reason that apparently was either insufficient or not considered. Which is extremely unfortunate, since a single 8-cell Mk41 module would hold 32x ESSMs ready to launch, as opposed to the 8x that the box launcher has ready. I believe in arming carriers with enough onboard missile defenses to handle a Russian or Chinese bomber regimental attack, ~48x aircraft carrying up to 4x missiles each.
Click to expand...
This is what the Angled Adaptable Deck Launcher (formerly Cocoon) is intended for. I'm very surprised the Navy never adopted it.

 
Last edited:
TomS said:
ESSM drops its TVC module fairly close in, as soon as the missile has turned horizontal out of the launcher.

The concern about ESSM debris fallback on carriers was something I heard from folks in PEO Ships back in the day.
Click to expand...
I recall the ESSM's TVC being jettisoned after the turnover maneuver.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That's a much flatter angle than I had intended. I meant 5-10 degrees off vertical, or whatever putting the doors of the inboard cells vertically over the base of the outboard cells ends up being.
Click to expand...

There are enough advantages to the flatter angle, especially for a self-defense launcher, to justify that rather than fiddling around with just a few degrees.
 
CIC-TAO said:
FR Charles de Gaulle also uses VLS to launch Aster , and I remember the Aster's booster also only burns for a few seconds. any difference?
Click to expand...

The TVC on ESSM isn't propulsive, it's just an add-on sitting in the exhaust stream of the main missile motor. So it comes off before the missile has done most of its acceleration, unlike the ASTER booster, which comes off after the dart is fully accelerated. So, the TVC has to be falling closer to the ship than an ASTER booster.
 
Here an interesting video about the Ford Class Aircraft Carrier program, uploaded by former USN RIO Ward Carroll today.
Be aware, this video is also political, because it brings up older comments on steam versus electromagnetic catapults by POTUS Trump in his first term.
View: https://youtu.be/t23y2PM6TjU?si=QdXTJj_gmxSCrCzE
 
fightingirish said:
President Biden has announced, that the next two Ford-class aircraft carriers will be named USS William J. Clinton (CVN 82) and USS George W. Bush (CVN 83).
Source:
www.whitehouse.gov

Statement from President Biden Announcing the Names of CVN 82 and CVN 83 | The White House

I am proud to announce that the next two Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers will be named for two former presidents: Bill Clinton and
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov
No offence, but now we can certainly predict, that the future CVN-84 and CVN-85 will be named after POTUS 44 and POTUS 45/47.:(
Sorry, I just wish former aircraft carrier names like USS Saratoga, USS Lexington or even the USS Nimitz again etc. should be chosen instead.:)
Click to expand...
Could not agree more. Rename CVN-77, USS Bush for both President Bushs, and name CVN 82 for USS United States and CVN 83 for USS Lexington. Clinton can have a destroyer or submarine named after him, so can Mr. Trump.
 
Archdude said:
Could not agree more. Rename CVN-77, USS Bush for both President Bushs, and name CVN 82 for USS United States and CVN 83 for USS Lexington. Clinton can have a destroyer or submarine named after him, so can Mr. Trump.
Click to expand...
Disagree with naming any ship "United States". It's all propaganda, and sinking "the United States" would be a coup of epic proportions.

I'd like Midway, Coral Sea, Hornet, etc back as carrier names.

As to the Presidents, Bush the Elder was a Sailor. Flew TBM Avengers in WW2. JKF should be well known for his PT boat. Jimmy Carter got a submarine, which is good because he was a submarine officer. Nixon was a sailor. LBJ did not serve. Ford was also a WW2 pilot (instructor). Clinton didn't serve. Bush the Younger was an Air Force pilot, I'm not entirely comfortable naming a ship for an airedale.

I'd honestly rather go back to the 41 for Freedom and recycle those names than use presidents, especially those who didn't serve in the Navy.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Bush the Younger was an Air Force pilot,
Click to expand...

He was in the Texas ANG (He used his father's connections to jump the queue because ANG and NG personnel weren't sent to Vietnam) where he flew obsolete F-102A Delta Daggers (The MAD Magazine had something pointed to say about that).
 
NMaude said:
He was in the Texas ANG (He used his father's connections to jump the queue because ANG and NG personnel weren't sent to Vietnam) where he flew obsolete F-102A Delta Daggers (The MAD Magazine had something pointed to say about that).
Click to expand...
Not USN, therefore not worthy of having a carrier named for him.
 
Arjen said:
George Washington, Abraham Lincoln.
Click to expand...
Arguable, but we did use them in the 41 for Freedom before they were carriers. Okay, I'll allow it.

Which makes a total of 3.5 out of 10. GW, Abe, a maybe for Teddy, and Bush the Elder

The others? Not worthy, IMO.

Eisenhower? Good president, not a Sailor.
Vinson? He might have been the father of the two-ocean navy, but he was a screaming racist who tried to overturn the 15th amendment. The amendment that guaranteed blacks the right to vote.
Stennis? Okay, he was on the Senate Armed Services Committee, but another screaming racist who championed segregation and swore to violently oppose Brown v Board of Education.
Truman? Good president, not a Sailor. Truman was an artillery officer in the Army in WW1.
Reagan? Good president, definitely good for the Navy. Not a veteran.
 
Scott Kenny said:
IIRC the first and hopefully the last.

But still not a Sailor. Name an Army vehicle or base after him, not a carrier.
Click to expand...
Eisenhower was the third five-star general, of five total.

Name - Date of Rank
George Marshall - 16 December 1944
Douglas MacArthur - 18 December 1944
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 20 December 1944
Henry H. Arnold - 21 December 1944
Omar Bradley - 22 September 1950
 
NMaude said:
I wonder if there will be a carrier named after James H. Doolittle in the future?
Click to expand...
Probably not, but I can see why it might be considered.

Edit: Doolittle was an Army pilot, not Navy. So while he did demonstrate the reason for the USN to want long range bombers off carriers, he's more likely to be recognized elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
The tale of woe with the Ford class carriers continues, the Navy had initially projected a delivery date of June 2024 for the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), Rear. Adm. Casey Moton, program executive officer for aircraft carriers told the Senate Armed Services Seapower subcommittee the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) is now 95 percent complete, but is continuing to experience “critical path challenges” with the advanced weapons elevators and advanced arresting gear. With an anticipated delivery date in 2026. Enterprise (CVN-80), the next in the class, also has a slipping delivery timeframe; Moton said he now estimates it will be 28 months behind schedule, revised from 18-26 months a year ago. Delivery is now expected in early 2030, with Doris Miller (CVN-81) following in 2032. Costs, meanwhile, are climbing. Moton said John F. Kennedy is now projected to cost $12.9 billion; Enterprise $13.5 billion; and Miller an eye-watering $14 billion. (My understanding the Navy $ values based on the year the NDAA authorizes the ship, but the actual $ spend is higher as its funded from the yearly appropriations bills which include inflation)

https://news.usni.org/2025/04/09/first-columbia-class-sub-two-aircraft-carriers-face-delivery-delays-navy-officials-tell-senate#:~:text=The future USS John F,anticipated delivery date in 2026.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom