I know this may be a newbie question but i thought this may be the best place to ask. I've been doing some research for a small presentation im going to give on future naval vessels and i was wondering if anyone could help me with info on the Ford Class Aircraft carriers. Specifically the number that are planned on being built. I did a google search and found conflicting numbers- ranging from wikipedia's 3 to 11 according to some newspapers. So i was wondering if you guys has some more concrete info for me....i would appreciate anything...thanks
Ford Class Carriers
- Thread starter barnyard2
- Start date
right now i believe congress and the Navy are initially planning 3 but if these three go well then we well entirely replace the Nimitz class of 11 ships so both answers are right
t68
Well-Known Member
So how is the build going,is it running into any difficultys as i have heard nothing about the ship's.seem all quiet on the forum about them.
Last Nimitz class set to retire about 2058,if they build for a one for one last ford class should still be going in 2105 roughly.god i hate to think what navy and the world would be like then.
Last Nimitz class set to retire about 2058,if they build for a one for one last ford class should still be going in 2105 roughly.god i hate to think what navy and the world would be like then.
Completely Agree
yes i do believe the current plan is for a one for one build at the vary least half of the Nimitz would be replaced by the Ford i am not sure if major changers in the future may call for a need to develop a more advanced carrier someday in the future how ever all navel advancements that are on the R&d funding in the navy the Ford takes into account and can be refitted to carry much of it like the Virginia class Subs the Ford well be completely upgradeable and easily done relatively and Quick.
CVN-78 USS Gerald R. Ford . . .
Currently plans call for 10 Ford class carriers to be built. The first two ships, CVN-78 and CVN-79 wll be commisioned in 2015 and 2019 respectively. Then plans call for construction continuing in five year intervals until around 2060. That is a long term plan spanning decades and many things could change. Threats could appear or vanish, technologies could make things obsolete overnight, the funding might be diverted or disappear, a massive world war over resources could increase production, enviromental impact might alter the plans or a government with a different agenda might come to power. I don't see any other nation, even China, coming close to matching US naval power in the next half centuy and ten super carriers should guarantee that. Although their strategy does not seem to be to try to match the US navy conventionally. They seem to want to invest more in submarines, ballistic missiles that go after carriers, missiles and lasers to attack our network of space based assets and the ability to attack and deny our mastery of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Anyways, the keel laying ceremony for CVN-78 USS Gerald R. Ford was held November 14th, plans call for CVN-78 to be finished in 2015. The programs cost is astounding, but it is the center-piece of American naval power well into the 21st Century and will be called upon to represent the US, deter problems, lend help and strike back at enemies for the next Century. It will also provide and guarantee jobs for alot of people and help the US retain the ability to produce marvels of engineering.
Currently plans call for 10 Ford class carriers to be built. The first two ships, CVN-78 and CVN-79 wll be commisioned in 2015 and 2019 respectively. Then plans call for construction continuing in five year intervals until around 2060. That is a long term plan spanning decades and many things could change. Threats could appear or vanish, technologies could make things obsolete overnight, the funding might be diverted or disappear, a massive world war over resources could increase production, enviromental impact might alter the plans or a government with a different agenda might come to power. I don't see any other nation, even China, coming close to matching US naval power in the next half centuy and ten super carriers should guarantee that. Although their strategy does not seem to be to try to match the US navy conventionally. They seem to want to invest more in submarines, ballistic missiles that go after carriers, missiles and lasers to attack our network of space based assets and the ability to attack and deny our mastery of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Anyways, the keel laying ceremony for CVN-78 USS Gerald R. Ford was held November 14th, plans call for CVN-78 to be finished in 2015. The programs cost is astounding, but it is the center-piece of American naval power well into the 21st Century and will be called upon to represent the US, deter problems, lend help and strike back at enemies for the next Century. It will also provide and guarantee jobs for alot of people and help the US retain the ability to produce marvels of engineering.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Only one blogger was saying their was problems with EMALS and he never provided evidence to back up his statement.
he said that EMALS simply didn't work and couldn't be made to work
that was unsupported
what IS supported is that EMALS is massively overbudget and behind schedule and is a major problem for the Ford
t68
Well-Known Member
I saw a documentary on TV the other night regarding the awesome industrial might of the US in WW2, how complete factory went from producing consumer goods to full production off military equipment.
It also showed the rate of ship building and the production lines of ships being built like a cars production facility.
My question is it currently takes five to seven years to complete a Nimitz class carrier in which i suspect is only to keep the yard ticking along, due to the complexity of modern aircraft carriers and also destroyers and frigates, if push came to shove how long would it takes to build a new carrier if buy some chance that the current fleet took at hit with the loss of two or more carriers, only looking at the United States ability to replace lost shipping, what would be the time frame to build a Nimitz or Ford class carrier?
It also showed the rate of ship building and the production lines of ships being built like a cars production facility.
My question is it currently takes five to seven years to complete a Nimitz class carrier in which i suspect is only to keep the yard ticking along, due to the complexity of modern aircraft carriers and also destroyers and frigates, if push came to shove how long would it takes to build a new carrier if buy some chance that the current fleet took at hit with the loss of two or more carriers, only looking at the United States ability to replace lost shipping, what would be the time frame to build a Nimitz or Ford class carrier?
Not sure i think there built right now in 4 to 8 yrs. So i figure 2 to 4 yrs at least as you said there complicated. One of the big things thought is that we have 1 place that builds them. We would need more in a protracted peir vs peir war. Also the Nimitz and Ford are built in a state of semi peace on the seas. So who knows what the navy would request if the fords took to long to build.
The DDG's are different. There are multiple yards capable of building them. And there are so many built that it would be far quicker than the Carriers. Frigates none are planned at present as the LCS are set to take there job.
In a world wartime situation with round the clock labor force a carrier could be built in less than half the time it takes with only one shift. Simply put, there would be more laborers and shifts reducing the build time considerably, especially when the goal is to win the war and not balance a budget.
But in any likely wartime scenario not involving a world war I doubt whether we could afford to build them any quicker. Currently we are building the carriers at a rate to sustain the Newport News Shipyard's workforce. The government doesn't want to see precious shipyard workers unemployed between building programs. Newport News Shipyard has a considerable political and economic influence in the Tidewater area of Virginia. It doesn't make any sense to lay them all off and then two or three years later recruit them during peacetime...
While President Eisenhower warned us about watching our military industrial complex, by no means did he advocate eliminating it. Worldwide many nations have done their best to maintain their military industrial complexes as well. After WWII Australia, for example, have done their best to build up a military industrial complex... Which is not easy for a nation with less than 30 million people...
Boom and bust cycles aren't good for any local economy, either in the private sector or in the government sector. To avoid block obsolescence its best to build ships every year. The US learned its lesson with the Samoan debacle during the late 1880s...
Believe it or not, the US allowed its navy to rot after the Civil War. We were so distracted by Manifest Destiny, settling the west we spent most of our defence funds on the army instead...
But in any likely wartime scenario not involving a world war I doubt whether we could afford to build them any quicker. Currently we are building the carriers at a rate to sustain the Newport News Shipyard's workforce. The government doesn't want to see precious shipyard workers unemployed between building programs. Newport News Shipyard has a considerable political and economic influence in the Tidewater area of Virginia. It doesn't make any sense to lay them all off and then two or three years later recruit them during peacetime...
While President Eisenhower warned us about watching our military industrial complex, by no means did he advocate eliminating it. Worldwide many nations have done their best to maintain their military industrial complexes as well. After WWII Australia, for example, have done their best to build up a military industrial complex... Which is not easy for a nation with less than 30 million people...
Boom and bust cycles aren't good for any local economy, either in the private sector or in the government sector. To avoid block obsolescence its best to build ships every year. The US learned its lesson with the Samoan debacle during the late 1880s...
Believe it or not, the US allowed its navy to rot after the Civil War. We were so distracted by Manifest Destiny, settling the west we spent most of our defence funds on the army instead...
Last edited:
Juramentado
New Member
The challenge in building such complex ships "faster" is partly due to long lead items. This is somewhat overly simplified, but the main supplier of naval nuclear reactors (or even sub-components) doesn't keep a shop full of spares. They have no demand to justify keeping such a stock since they only have a single customer. :smilie Every reactor they build and sit on the shelves would become obsolete in terms of up-to-date changes that NAVSEA would impose for each variant of a vessel class. The supplier is not being paid by the government to maintain that spare either, so it's money they don't have to spend in the first place. In the course of building previous Nimitz class CVNs, some components that had been installed at the beginning of the ship's build failed because they sat idle the whole time and would have to be replaced before PCU. Others would be removed entirely, replaced by new systems that had been on the drawing boards or as a result of other deployed ships' experiences, so it's a cycle of continuous improvements right up until commissioning. Then more during the shakedown. I don't think it's possible to shave too much more off the build cycle, even in a dire wartime scenario.
Last edited:
No.
The America's use gas turbines, no way to generate steam for conventional catapults without a "donkey boiler" just for the cats, and without a massive upgrade to the electrical plant EMALS won't work, either way you'd eat up lots of both space and weight and would have to redesign the ship to accommodate those systems. You'd also have to add arresting wires, which would eat space and weight and since the America doesn't have an angled flight deck you can't launch and recover aircraft at the same time.
A ski-jump isn't viable either, the America's are amphibs not aircraft carriers, a ski-jump eats up the space for at least one helicopter, and both the USN and the Marines both agree that getting that extra helo of Marines ashore faster is more important than a ski-jump for a handful of aircraft.
I believe any smaller US carrier would most likely be as large as the Queen Elizabeth CVF. There are sound reasons why the British CVF is its size...
From beedall.com Navy Matters website:
It was recognised that size is not directly related to costs - the Royal Navy demonstrated (and not just to its own satisfaction!) that a large ship is not only cheaper to build in terms of cost per tonne but also has lower maintenance costs.
There were soon four principle size drivers influencing the CVF design. First, the sortie generation is clearly related to the number of aircraft and therefore the size of the hangar, emissions, and aviation support. Second, there is the provisions of the ‘for but not with’ capability, for example allowing for the fitting catapults and arrester gears determines the length. Third, there is the overall complement required to be put in the ship, particularly given the more generous spaces for sleeping and recreation now required for all rates and ranks. Finally, there is the tankage volume necessary for unrefuelled range at the cruising speed. There are others, but those are the most important points.
The large size also provides the greatest possible deck area, which not only facilitates aircraft handling but also allows the incorporation of large magazines and fuel stowage. Magazines will in fact have a significant impact upon ship size and costs. However the larger hull sizes will create some operational and support problems, for example a lack of suitable dry docks, which could be expensive to resolve.
Certainly a large ship would ensure that (unlike the Invincible's) that there's plenty of room for mid-life update and expansion, and in an emergency the carrier could carry a much larger "surge" airgroup than normal.
The STOBAR CVF design was eliminated in January 2001, at the end of Assessment Phase Stage 1, but the two competing carrier contractors (BAE Systems and Thales Naval) continued to develop designs based on operating STOVL or CT
From beedall.com Navy Matters website:
It was recognised that size is not directly related to costs - the Royal Navy demonstrated (and not just to its own satisfaction!) that a large ship is not only cheaper to build in terms of cost per tonne but also has lower maintenance costs.
There were soon four principle size drivers influencing the CVF design. First, the sortie generation is clearly related to the number of aircraft and therefore the size of the hangar, emissions, and aviation support. Second, there is the provisions of the ‘for but not with’ capability, for example allowing for the fitting catapults and arrester gears determines the length. Third, there is the overall complement required to be put in the ship, particularly given the more generous spaces for sleeping and recreation now required for all rates and ranks. Finally, there is the tankage volume necessary for unrefuelled range at the cruising speed. There are others, but those are the most important points.
The large size also provides the greatest possible deck area, which not only facilitates aircraft handling but also allows the incorporation of large magazines and fuel stowage. Magazines will in fact have a significant impact upon ship size and costs. However the larger hull sizes will create some operational and support problems, for example a lack of suitable dry docks, which could be expensive to resolve.
Certainly a large ship would ensure that (unlike the Invincible's) that there's plenty of room for mid-life update and expansion, and in an emergency the carrier could carry a much larger "surge" airgroup than normal.
The STOBAR CVF design was eliminated in January 2001, at the end of Assessment Phase Stage 1, but the two competing carrier contractors (BAE Systems and Thales Naval) continued to develop designs based on operating STOVL or CT
A ski-jump is perfectly viable if you're building STOVL carriers (i.e. what was being suggested), rather than amphibious assault ships. Once you change the primary role, the importance of that extra helicopter spot changes. One can easily imagine the dedicated amphib America class, & the STOVL carrier XXX class, with ski-jump, & a bit of internal re-arrangement to increase avgas storage, weapons stores, etc. at the expense of space for troops. But I can't imagine the USN agreeing.
Turning it into a catapult-equipped carrier would, as you say, need a lot of work. It wouldn't be a quick fix.
In a major world war situation if the US had several losses of carriers and amphibious ships, the US would need the amphibious ships more than converting amphibious assault ships to light carriers. Better to convert some tankers or container vessels for light carrier duties than lose any sea lift capability. That is if there were any VSTOL aircraft left...
The truth is to many discount the worthiness of amphibious assault ships and place too much value on aircraft carriers. If necessary the USAF is capable of saving the situation in the air if our carrier forces have too many loses...Its all a big if..
The truth is to many discount the worthiness of amphibious assault ships and place too much value on aircraft carriers. If necessary the USAF is capable of saving the situation in the air if our carrier forces have too many loses...Its all a big if..