Prototype Aircraft Carrier Being Commissioned This Month!

samt1996

So the United States is finally commissioning it's brand new prototype supercarrier later this month after extensive sea trials. It includes several revolutionary new technologies including the Electro-Magnetic Launch system that unlike steam catapults can launch everything from the new stealth drones being developed to extremely large heavy bombers. It also has numerous improvements to aircraft load and care that will equipment it to use the band new F-35 Lightning II and many others. The most important piece of tech is the new A1B Nuclear Reactor which has three times the power output at half the size compared to the previous generation of carriers.

This ship was christened as the lead ship of the Gerald R. Ford class, named after a former president who served aboard naval carriers. It is due to replace CVN 65 U.S.S. Enterprise which was decommissioned in 2012 after serving fifty four years of active duty (A World Record for a carrier).

There are two more under contract the next will be completed in 2018 and the third will be completed in 2023 and commissioned in 2025 as CVN 80 U.S.S. Enterprise and will be the ninth ship and third carrier in US history to bear the name.

Compared to previous models she is roughly the same size but considerably more automated, better designed and will be cheaper to operate. They are due to serve for more then fifty years as the backbone of the United States naval defense. She has also been designed to accommodate energy weapons and dynamic armor like free-electron lasers and even Railguns!

Anyways this is the first carrier class built in forty years and likely the only one most of us will see in our life times so i thought it was worth sharing!

rattler2

Awesome.

mustrumridcully0

I suppose one should hope it will have less technical difficulties than the F35. Or not, depending on how you stand on warfare and military projects.

angrytarg

As long as it doesn't fly I'm not impressed.

#helicarrier​​

samt1996

LOL, the F-35 project was indeed a mess but it looks to have finally succeeded so we should make plenty of money selling it to other people.

mhall85

I bet the Starship Trait and console are trash, though... government sending, amirite?

samt1996

LOL

mustrumridcully0

samt1996 wrote: »

LOL, the F-35 project was indeed a mess but it looks to have finally succeeded so we should make plenty of money selling it to other people.

Well, the last news I heard was the RADAR was turning itself off or at least needs the occassional restart during flight, so it seems not done yet. The UK has apparently been flip-flopping on what kind of F35 they want to use, and apparently is not buying as much as originally projected (are they ever?). (But hey, decided that the Aircraft Carrier they've been working on would not be immediately mothballed upon commissioning it, but actually put into service, so at least they'll need something)

Though I wonder in general if the F35 project came at an unfortunate time - kinda like the "Jäger 90"/Eurofighter/Typhoon project - but in a different way. The Jäger 90 was devised for a Cold War that could turn into a Hot War some day, and then the Soviet Union fell. The F35 comes at a time instead where drones get a very wide-spread adaptation rate and look to replace most traditional fighter craft. The F35 might turn out to be a relic of an older military doctrine.

I figure the Aircraft Carrier will remain a bit more relevant there, since you can choose to launch Drones instead of Fighter planes from it, and you can still use them to project power, which at least is what the US "needs" or wants considering that the chances of it needing significant military power on its home land or even its home continent is slim.

I wonder if military projects needs faster turn around times than they currently have. A project might be in the works for decades sometimes, and so much can change there. Or can they rest easy that the contracts they'll have ensure that they'll never lose money, even if whatever they build isn't actually useful anymore?

adamkafei

You guys might want to read this.

samt1996

Your correct technology is evolving rapidly so they try and take that into account and design these things to be adaptable. But while it is true tech is made obsolete more quickly than ever before it also is expensive to build all that new tech so having a blueprint for an uber-ship is one thing while building it is entirely different. If you catch my point, it doesn't just happen over night.

samt1996

By themselves carriers are very weak, the strength they have is in their air group and the numerous other ships which always travel with them in strike groups.

Hell you could porbably destroy a solo carrier with no air support using only a speedboat and some homemade plastic explosives... that's why they are never alone. Rest assured they are well protected in their task force groups.

equinox976

mustrumridcully0 wrote: »

The UK has apparently been flip-flopping on what kind of F35 they want to use, and apparently is not buying as much as originally projected (are they ever?).

I think that is because the F35 (as it stands) is an over hyped piece of TRIBBLE.

So well done to the UK

antonine3258

adamkafei wrote: »

You guys might want to read this.

That's been a serious point of debate since the late Cold War on the viability of a surface carrier group in terms of the advantages of its power projection versus the serious difficulty in defending against missile strikes. Red Storm Rising's pretty old now, but has an excellent sequence with early-gen AEGIS dealing with a bomber attack badly.

staq16

adamkafei wrote: »

You guys might want to read this.

Not exactly an unbiased source, though . In any case, once the article started talking about Russia using nuclear weapons on a US carrier group... well you're not really talking measured exchanges.

theraven2378

antonine3258 wrote: »

adamkafei wrote: »

You guys might want to read this.

That's been a serious point of debate since the late Cold War on the viability of a surface carrier group in terms of the advantages of its power projection versus the serious difficulty in defending against missile strikes. Red Storm Rising's pretty old now, but has an excellent sequence with early-gen AEGIS dealing with a bomber attack badly.

The French carrier Foch is sunk by Soviet Backfire bombers with missiles in Red Storm Rising

adamkafei

staq16 wrote: »

adamkafei wrote: »

You guys might want to read this.

Not exactly an unbiased source, though . In any case, once the article started talking about Russia using nuclear weapons on a US carrier group... well you're not really talking measured exchanges.

There's a difference between a missile being capable of delivering a nuclear warhead and actually mounting them although using a nuclear warhead on a carrier group isn't quite as ludicrous as it sounds. A carrier group is still dangerous without it's carrier and said carrier can be replaced, it's also worth noting that carrier strike groups are the US navy's primary weapon and power projection platform so wiping one out with a couple of missiles serves to take out a powerful weapon in the US's arsenal, it demoralises the rest of the US navy and forces the Pentagon to rethink their entire strategy for power projection.

equinox976

It sounds like the carrier has some very nice specs and defensive/offensive capabilities; however - is it possible that a couple of special forces frogmen could take this out very easily under the cover of darkness with a bag full of limpet mines?

It's unlikely they would be picked up by radar/sonar.

gawainviii

equinox976 wrote: »

It's unlikely they would be picked up by radar/sonar.

While I can't speak to SONAR, I think you greatly underestimate the potential sensitivity which RADAR is capable of achieving. Depending on the specs of the system being used, it's range, beam width, and PRF, among other things, it can pick up objects as small as the ID tags on a bird's leg. Depending on the size of the object being detected and its distance from the RADAR, it's location can be pinpointed to within 190 ft. (58 m) at 60 nmi distance, to accurate as +/-4 feet (1.2 m) at 500 at a range of 500 feet (152 m).

The AN/SPY-1, an S-band Phased Array RADAR system, has a max range of 175nmi, 1.7 degree beam width, variable PRF, a selectable pulse width from 51us to 6.4us, and, at 12 RPM, it is capable of tracking 800 independent targets simultaneously. A dude in SCUBA gear could be pinpointed with enough accuracy that a sailor could aim a rifle from the top deck and hit him at night without NVGs.

artan42

No thanks. We already have an Enterprise.

​​

gawainviii

artan42 wrote: »

No thanks. We already have an Enterprise.

That HMS, not USS... it don't count! >.<

artan42

gawainviii wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

No thanks. We already have an Enterprise.

That HMS, not USS... it don't count! >.<

Other way around.​​

equinox976

gawainviii wrote: »

While I can't speak to SONAR, I think you greatly underestimate the potential sensitivity which RADAR is capable of achieving. Depending on the specs of the system being used, it's range, beam width, and PRF, among other things, it can pick up objects as small as the ID tags on a bird's leg. Depending on the size of the object being detected and its distance from the RADAR, it's location can be pinpointed to within 190 ft. (58 m) at 60 nmi distance, to accurate as +/-4 feet (1.2 m) at 500 at a range of 500 feet (152 m).

The AN/SPY-1, an S-band Phased Array RADAR system, has a max range of 175nmi, 1.7 degree beam width, variable PRF, a selectable pulse width from 51us to 6.4us, and, at 12 RPM, it is capable of tracking 800 independent targets simultaneously. A dude in SCUBA gear could be pinpointed with enough accuracy that a sailor could aim a rifle from the top deck and hit him at night without NVGs.

I understand what you are saying, but when I mentioned special forces frogmen, that was upon the assumption that they would either be underwater (either with webbed feet, or using one of those fancy 'james bond' mini motors that pull you along.)

I know that RADAR is incredibly accurate, but as far as I know it is limited on its 'skim' distance; that is it does not pick up things just above sea level (like a frogmans head popping out of the water).

SONAR is also incredibly accurate and can now pin-point objects up to 600 miles away according to some sources - but the question is would a 'frogman' be picked up and identified as a potential threat' considering whales are much larger and dolphins about the same size (who also like to trail ships).

angrytarg

equinox976 wrote: »

(...)
SONAR is also incredibly accurate and can now pin-point objects up to 600 miles away according to some sources - but the question is would a 'frogman' be picked up and identified as a potential threat' considering whales are much larger and dolphins about the same size (who also like to trail ships).

I have absolutely no idea about the military practices that would apply but I would suspect on a carrier with so many people someone's job would be to use a camera to check when they pick up something closing on the ship. Every car has a parking cam so a carrier like this should have underwater cams to look around.​​

artan42

angrytarg wrote: »

Every car has a parking cam so a carrier like this should have underwater cams to look around.

My 2005 car with non-electric rear windows would disagree there.​​

gawainviii

equinox976 wrote: »

(...)
SONAR is also incredibly accurate and can now pin-point objects up to 600 miles away according to some sources - but the question is would a 'frogman' be picked up and identified as a potential threat' considering whales are much larger and dolphins about the same size (who also like to trail ships).

A definite advantage of SONAR over RADAR is it's ability to discern shape.

angrytarg wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea about the military practices that would apply but I would suspect on a carrier with so many people someone's job would be to use a camera to check when they pick up something closing on the ship. Every car has a parking cam so a carrier like this should have underwater cams to look around.​​

I can't say for certain, but I'd imagine so. Air Force has Traffic Controllers that specialize in visual identification of electronically detected targets... (they're the guys standing out on the balcony of the tower with binoculars).

angrytarg

artan42 wrote: »

My 2005 car with non-electric rear windows would disagree there.

So does my 2001 Golf But the ship in question is new I figured and I wouldn't suspect the US government to save a few bucks on the parking cam on a multi-million dollar aircraft carrier ​​

mustrumridcully0

equinox976 wrote: »

gawainviii wrote: »

While I can't speak to SONAR, I think you greatly underestimate the potential sensitivity which RADAR is capable of achieving. Depending on the specs of the system being used, it's range, beam width, and PRF, among other things, it can pick up objects as small as the ID tags on a bird's leg. Depending on the size of the object being detected and its distance from the RADAR, it's location can be pinpointed to within 190 ft. (58 m) at 60 nmi distance, to accurate as +/-4 feet (1.2 m) at 500 at a range of 500 feet (152 m).

The AN/SPY-1, an S-band Phased Array RADAR system, has a max range of 175nmi, 1.7 degree beam width, variable PRF, a selectable pulse width from 51us to 6.4us, and, at 12 RPM, it is capable of tracking 800 independent targets simultaneously. A dude in SCUBA gear could be pinpointed with enough accuracy that a sailor could aim a rifle from the top deck and hit him at night without NVGs.

I understand what you are saying, but when I mentioned special forces frogmen, that was upon the assumption that they would either be underwater (either with webbed feet, or using one of those fancy 'james bond' mini motors that pull you along.)

I know that RADAR is incredibly accurate, but as far as I know it is limited on its 'skim' distance; that is it does not pick up things just above sea level (like a frogmans head popping out of the water).

SONAR is also incredibly accurate and can now pin-point objects up to 600 miles away according to some sources - but the question is would a 'frogman' be picked up and identified as a potential threat' considering whales are much larger and dolphins about the same size (who also like to trail ships).

I suspect that Sonar would be able to pick them up, and that a big problem would be getting close enough.

IIRC, a lot of sea animals dislike the noise from ships - so I would expect that the few times they see something that might just be a whale or a dolphin gets near, it would be enough reason for some sailors to get excited and see if they can identify it... I figure it would end up being a well-documented attack, too.

equinox976

coldnapalm wrote: »

crashdragon wrote: »

Australian subs and ships make so much noise that the enemy runs away just to get some piece and quiet.

Thus why no one has manged to get close enough to our shores to invade.
That and all the bloody poison filled wild life we use as defense.

* goes back to the Rabid Wombat Launcher *

Just try it..........

Yeah...we ain't running from your sub's noise...it's those damn spiders that killed all the snakes that we are really afaird of. Austrilia, it's a land full of venomous snakes...but don't worry, the spiders killed most of them.

Hehe; do they do this:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VUm7lXjHUg[/video]