Gerald R. Ford Class CVN

In_A_Dream said:
Given that it's the first of its kind, I'd like to think they're taking liberties to stretch its legs and monitor performance during sustained operations. That data can then translate into lessons learned for future builds & carrier ops.
Click to expand...

If half the entire crew decided not to re enlist, I’m sure that would be a significant dataset.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The US had no problem rotating carriers during the GWOT. I doubt that the US will have any trouble rotating carriers if the Special Military Operation goes long.
Click to expand...
Thing is, things are in worse shape now due in no small part to a combination of political urgency and a lack of long-term preparation. 1 CVN is being deactivated, 1 is preparing for RCOH, 1 is lingering in the yard because it's RCOH took a year longer than planned, 1 is still a year from being in the Navy's hands, and 3 are in maintenance periods which won't be complete for months. 77 is working up, but that's one hull available to relieve 2 carriers currently already on long deployments.
 
Moose said:
Thing is, things are in worse shape now due in no small part to a combination of political urgency and a lack of long-term preparation. 1 CVN is being deactivated, 1 is preparing for RCOH, 1 is lingering in the yard because it's RCOH took a year longer than planned, 1 is still a year from being in the Navy's hands, and 3 are in maintenance periods which won't be complete for months. 77 is working up, but that's one hull available to relieve 2 carriers currently already on long deployments.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more.
 
joshjosh said:
Looks like skipping this maintenance period had a shifty effect on the Ford.

View: https://x.com/BackupJeffx/status/2026030980406935717?s=20


View: https://x.com/backupjeffx/status/2026021517100806200?s=46
Click to expand...
The metaphors for these trying times would have had the book all this crap is in heaved across the room with great force at least a hundred pages and a dozen already overly hamfisted puns ago. I guess reality can and does remain exuberantly irrational longer than anyone's sense of believability can remain solvent.
 
Last edited:
Skipping brown jokes, on a slightly larger scale, the question is whether it's really worth it to have 10-11 carriers of one single top size?
If there's perpetual insufficiency of decks going around, either LHAs should get full deck, or part of the carrier fleet should get more affordable as to allow higher numbers?

Most contingencies USN meets require a carrier, not the carrier. And now, when situation does in fact need the carriers, it has to be done via playing with a chance of mutiny.
 
Ainen said:
Skipping brown jokes, on a slightly larger scale, the question is whether it's really worth it to have 10-11 carriers of one single top size?
If there's perpetual insufficiency of decks going around, either LHAs should get full deck, or part of the carrier fleet should get more affordable as to allow higher numbers?

Most contingencies USN meets require a carrier, not the carrier. And now, when situation does in fact need the carriers, it has to be done via playing with a chance of mutiny.
Click to expand...
We don't have "10-11 carriers of one size". We have 10-11 big ones and 10-11 smaller ones. As to whether it's worth having 10-11 big ones that was answered over half a century ago. The answer is obviously yes. Better to have 12 - 15 like we almost got with the 600-ship navy.
 
Sferrin said:
We don't have "10-11 carriers of one size". We have 10-11 big ones and 10-11 smaller ones. As to whether it's worth having 10-11 big ones that was answered over half a century ago. The answer is obviously yes. Better to have 12 - 15 like we almost got with the 600-ship navy.
Click to expand...
LHAs aren't carriers in full sense, they're landing ships with flat deck. Their flight generation capability is meh, which will likely grow much worse in few months （for most available ships) with retirement of harriers.
Ultimately, USN appears to really need more true decks. Maybe like (battotai intensifies) 8 CVA - 8 CVV.
 
Ainen said:
LHAs aren't carriers in full sense, they're landing ships with flat deck. Their flight generation capability is meh, which will likely grow much worse in few months （for most available ships) with retirement of harriers.
Ultimately, USN appears to really need more true decks. Maybe like (battotai intensifies) 8 CVA - 8 CVV.
Click to expand...
Yes, but no. It's not like the USN hasn't done studies before. Guess which way it goes. Go ahead, guess.
 
Sferrin said:
Yes, but no. It's not like the USN hasn't done studies before. Guess which way it goes. Go ahead, guess.
Click to expand...
Again, it was done in a different age with different capabilities. Now there's barely two carriers (one full of .... tired crew) for operation which would in the past take 2-3 times more. After same Ford spent months against country, which hardly needed this much of a ship.
 
Ainen said:
Again, it was done in a different age with different capabilities. Now there's barely two carriers (one full of .... tired crew) for operation which would in the past take 2-3 times more. After same Ford spent months against country, which hardly needed this much of a ship.
Click to expand...
Right. So lets build fewer of them. I'm sure that will fix things. Building small carriers just reduces your ability to build large ones, has been studied to death, and always results in the same answer: CVNs are the way to go.
 
Sferrin said:
Right. So lets build fewer of them. I'm sure that will fix things.
Click to expand...
But if there's not enough for operational needs, not changing anything is surely a wrong approach?
It took a decade to admit that you can't solve every OPV problem by throwing a Burke at it. Ultimately, navy of few ideal classes is pax Americana extravagance.
 
Adopting a new design would have costs in time, money, and availability that pretty much wipe out any argument against the current class. If more capacity is needed, it seems like the America class is the least costly/most accessible way of doing that.
 
Sferrin said:
Yes, but no. It's not like the USN hasn't done studies before. Guess which way it goes. Go ahead, guess.
Click to expand...
Yes, but no as well. The US also did once studies that led towards ships like the Zumwalts which all three needed an in-depth modification to be even somewhat viable today. Studies, especially studies done a good while ago, don't mean that circumstances haven't changed.

And seeing how the US struggles with keeping their ship production up (JFK slipped years behind the initial schedule) and now how they have to run their ships and crew harder and harder, longer and longer. It becomes clear that the current trajectory isn't sustainable. And as @Ainen pointed out, the LHA/LHDs can operate aircraft, yes, they're far from optimized for it. Conventionally powered flat decks meant to effectively operate F-35Bs (maybe even Cs) and Helos would alleviate the pressure put on the US supercarriers. Many situations call for a carrier to respond, but not always does it have to be a 100.000t displacement nuclear behemoth, even if that's more efficient for the purposes of an aircraft carrier than a smaller vessel. Sometimes the question is what's better for the environment you operate in, rather than having the most optimal component in a vacuum.
 
EmoBirb said:
Yes, but no as well. The US also did once studies that led towards ships like the Zumwalts which all three needed an in-depth modification to be even somewhat viable today. Studies, especially studies done a good while ago, don't mean that circumstances haven't changed.
Click to expand...
A one-off isn't the same as 75 years of experience. The last study led to the Ford class. So there's your answer.
 
Josh_TN said:
Adopting a new design would have costs in time, money, and availability that pretty much wipe out any argument against the current class. If more capacity is needed, it seems like the America class is the least costly/most accessible way of doing that.
Click to expand...
The America Class could be modified to be a proper CV, best of both worlds as in having an existing platform to work with but vastly improving it with necessary modifications. Not a complete clean sheet design, but not as compromised as the current ships.
 
EmoBirb said:
The America Class could be modified to be a proper CV, best of both worlds as in having an existing platform to work with but vastly improving it with necessary modifications. Not a complete clean sheet design, but not as compromised as the current ships.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what the America class IS. They built two that way and went, "wait, we like them the other way better". Ship 3 and on will go back to having a well deck.

You also have to acknowledge the politics. If a small carrier class somehow gets built, that's what we'll be stuck with. It's also why the USN stays away from non-nuclear powered submarines.
 
Sferrin said:
The change is to support existing carriers better.
Click to expand...
It's doubtful if the US nowadays, given economic, industrial and demographic changes, is able to support a fleet of 11 supercarriers "better". One may ask of they can even effectively maintain a fleet of 10 such vessels.

You need schedules, you need personelle, you need a skilled workforce, an industry and the necessary spare change to solve the issues the CVNs are facing in the US right now. And the only thing the US has nailed down is the Money.
 
Sferrin said:
Yeah, that's what the America class IS. They built two that way and went, "wait, we like them the other way better". Ship 3 and on will go back to having a well deck.

You also have to acknowledge the politics. If a small carrier class somehow gets built, that's what we'll be stuck with. It's also why the USN stays away from non-nuclear powered submarines.
Click to expand...
The first two ships a still greatly compromised though, a different deck layout for example would go a very long way in generating superior sortie rates.

And while I understand your second point, I doubt having a lower tier CV fleet will result in the CVNs getting killed off altogether.
 
EmoBirb said:
It's doubtful if the US nowadays, given economic, industrial and demographic changes, is able to support a fleet of 11 supercarriers "better".
Click to expand...
And yet you think they'd be able to support big carriers AND small carriers? Uhm. . .okay. Improving readiness is just a matter of money and effort. It's not some technological wall.
 
Scott Kenny said:
There's a reason that the Nimitz and Ohios used seawater to flush, but otherwise worked just like the system in your house.
Click to expand...

The surface navy now understands the vacuum toilet terror when everyone's dress whites need to be hung up in the head at least.

Ainen said:
Skipping brown jokes, on a slightly larger scale, the question is whether it's really worth it to have 10-11 carriers of one single top size?
If there's perpetual insufficiency of decks going around, either LHAs should get full deck, or part of the carrier fleet should get more affordable as to allow higher numbers?

Most contingencies USN meets require a carrier, not the carrier. And now, when situation does in fact need the carriers, it has to be done via playing with a chance of mutiny.
Click to expand...

A smaller carrier isn't any more affordable than a large one. You'd need to buy like 5 Fords (~$11 bn) to afford a single Queen Elizabeth ($9 billion), so eight would get you one and a half. Which is why the USN builds big. LHA-6 is basically a medium carrier, and costs about $3-4 billion, so you can get "about three" for a single Ford.
 
Kat Tsun said:
A smaller carrier isn't any more affordable than a large one. You'd need to buy like 5 Fords (~$11 bn) to afford a single Queen Elizabeth ($9 billion), so eight would get you one and a half.
Click to expand...
Entire QE program is 6 billion pounds, of which PoW(i.e. not lead ship) was ~2. I.e. a very good example of ship class which would indeed produce 8 ships in price of ~3, each of them having several times aviation capability of LHA.
 
Ainen said:
Entire QE program is 6 billion pounds, of which PoW(i.e. not lead ship) was ~2. I.e. a very good example of ship class which would indeed produce 8 ships in price of ~3, each of them having several times aviation capability of LHA.
Click to expand...
Well, you can keep wishing, but nobody in the USN wants them.
 
Ainen said:
Entire QE program is 6 billion pounds, of which PoW(i.e. not lead ship) was ~2. I.e. a very good example of ship class which would indeed produce 8 ships in price of ~3, each of them having several times aviation capability of LHA.
Click to expand...

It's a very irrelevant capability difference in meaningful terms. LHA-6 and QE2 are broadly comparable in general terms. Both host about two or three squadrons of F-35B and both can support limited air mobile Marine operations.

It makes a lot of sense for a country that, before the QEs, had basically no naval aviation capability whatsoever.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom