The nonaircraftcarier

[Harvs]

You have to wonder why you would approve a catapult system and arresting gear that does not work on your brand new shiny aircraft carrier :hmmm:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/icebergs-ahead-for-expensive-us-uk-aircraft-carrier-projects/story-fnpjxnlk-1227405344686

[ikalugin]

That is just sad.

But then, USN gets all the destroyers it needs and not 6 like the RN.

[Tango589]

Typical. The whole plan seems to come under the heading of 'all fur coat and no knickers'.:nope:

[Harvs]

Also the amphibious assault ship that isnt, some people need to lose their jobs and make way for someone with at least half a brain.

[Eichhörnchen]

Many seemingly great ideas for war-winning innovations conceived in peacetime do not (like the saying goes about plans) survive much past the first contact with the enemy. As an example, the specification for a single-engined fighter with rotating gun turret, which resulted in the Boulton-Paul Defiant in WW2.

The things that really work I reckon get invented in wartime, because they have to...

[CCIP]

As I keep saying, I think the age of the aircraft carrier is passing or (arguably) has already passed at the turn of the century. The technological, operational, and most importantly economical tides have already turned, and this is all just additional evidence for that. Even the working catapult/arrestor systems and the best possible aircraft wouldn't really make a big difference. Now it's not like carriers are suddenly dead and buried - they're still the most powerful ship on the seas, but we're certainly well past the point of diminishing returns for what's a needlessly expensive weapons system for today's world.

On the other hand, we're also at a point where UAV technology is heading in the direction where every ship will soon be a pretty effective aircraft carrier.

[Jimbuna]

As I keep saying, I think the age of the aircraft carrier is passing or (arguably) has already passed at the turn of the century. The technological, operational, and most importantly economical tides have already turned, and this is all just additional evidence for that. Even the working catapult/arrestor systems and the best possible aircraft wouldn't really make a big difference. Now it's not like carriers are suddenly dead and buried - they're still the most powerful ship on the seas, but we're certainly well past the point of diminishing returns for what's a needlessly expensive weapons system for today's world.

On the other hand, we're also at a point where UAV technology is heading in the direction where every ship will soon be a pretty effective aircraft carrier.

Pretty much says it all George :yep:

One thing though....the usual suspects will no doubt copy what will eventually get rectified regarding the current issues.

[Oberon]

I guess it's a good thing we went for the STOVL/SRVL approach after all. :doh:

[Harvs]

Just a question, would an EMP type weapon take out an electromagnetic catapult ?

[Oberon]

Just a question, would an EMP type weapon take out an electromagnetic catapult ?

If it wasn't hardened, I see no reason why it wouldn't, it runs on electricity after all. One would hope that most modern military equipment is hardened against such things though, especially something like a sea borne vessel which would be hard to repair if at sea and not in dock.

[em2nought]

Hey, they can't build the F-35 correctly either so no great loss. ROTFLMFAO :har:

Oh, and I'm also laughing at your camo USN. It should be rust, grease, paint, chili mac, battery acid stain colored if you really want to hide something.

[james_nix]

I wonder if this is all some kind of mass pysops. Planes don't work, aircraft carriers don't work, then someone attacks us then surprise! :har:

But usually you want the enemey to think you have a superior force, not an inferior one. :hmm2:

[Mr Quatro]

You have to wonder why you would approve a catapult system and arresting gear that does not work on your brand new shiny aircraft carrier :hmmm:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/icebergs-ahead-for-expensive-us-uk-aircraft-carrier-projects/story-fnpjxnlk-1227405344686

This is not a fair article about the new launching system on the Gerald R Ford USS CVN-78.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3FnbNByFmY&app=desktop

Give Newport News shipbuilding some credit they are working on it: http://news.usni.org/2015/06/16/first-public-emals-test-delayed-due-to-communication-type-issues-among-components?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=63dcd99be3-USNI_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0dd4a1450b-63dcd99be3-230436329&mc_cid=63dcd99be3&mc_eid=02aae12459



Scott Forney, president of General Atomics’ Electromagnetic Systems Group, said he was confident the system would be up and running shortly and able to successfully complete the test program this month.
“We’ve already successfully tested 452 airplanes and 3,400 dead loads at the Lakehurst land-based facility, which is the same as this system,” he said
The USS Ford will be used for 50 years, and the new class would serve through 2110.

The Ford features a new nuclear power plant, a redesigned island, electromagnetic catapults, new weapons and storage elevators, and an enhanced flight deck.

It has 10 million feet of electrical cabling on board, compared to 3 million on the predecessor ship, as well as 4 million feet of fiber optic cable, Moore said, noting sailors would also be able to watch television on board and receive regular emails.

The ship will produce 500,0000 gallons of fresh water a day, 100,000 more than earlier Nimitz-class carriers, Moore said. He said this would allow sailors to take "Hollywood showers," keeping water running while they bathe, instead of Spartan "Navy showers".

Ford-class ships also have far more automated systems, which would reduce their long-term operating costs. Such changes will allow the Navy to staff the ship with 900 to 1,200 fewer people than current levels around 5,500 to 6,000 people, including air wing personnel.

Newport News estimates the Ford-class ships will cost $4 billion less to operate over their lifetimes than earlier ships. About 40 percent of a ship's total lifetime cost is in maintenance.

The new ships require major maintenance every 42 months, compared to 32 to 36 months for the Nimitz-class ships.

[Harvs]

Good article but it does not mention the failure rate, it would be a great system when they sort out the kinks but i wouldn't like to be the pilot getting ready to launch reaching for full power and whooosh there goes the bow.

[em2nought]

This is not a fair article about the new launching system on the Gerald R Ford USS CVN-78.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3FnbNByFmY&app=desktop

Give Newport News shipbuilding some credit they are working on it: http://news.usni.org/2015/06/16/first-public-emals-test-delayed-due-to-communication-type-issues-among-components?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=63dcd99be3-USNI_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0dd4a1450b-63dcd99be3-230436329&mc_cid=63dcd99be3&mc_eid=02aae12459

So the more automated stuff is gonna take less maintenance. LOL ...and they plan to use the Ford for 50 years. How long has George Washington been in service, and they aren't planning to refuel it?

[Oberon]

To be fair though, what brand new system has worked perfectly from day one? Most weapons systems or military equipment has to be tinkered with and upgraded before it reaches optimum efficiency.