Okay, who's gonna pull out the Jane's Manual?
Speaking of the Lexington (class), there is a good series of post on IG by Grey Haze or Haze Grey about them. Guy is REALLY good with his post.
Otherwise, for y'alls entertainment before tempers flare
Originally Posted by Precious_b
This be the guy I talked about. Originally Posted by Precious_b
The Gerald Ford is operational. as of last year. it took several years longer than usual to shakedown the new design, mainly because many of the new systems such as the electromag launch and recovery system were being designed and tested while the Ford was under construction. this led to several years of refitting these new systems before the carrier was finally certified for active service.Let me clue you in about what "operational" means in navy parlance. When the Ford left on deployment there were probably a number of civilians on board that represented the companies that installed the equipment. These are tech reps. They were probably on board for a few weeks to fix and troubleshoot problems. At some point they would leave because the system worked now. However, somewhere in the US some people had their bags packed and were supposed to walk at the sound of a phone call to make connections. Their goal was to get on board the Ford within 12 hours. I've never been on a brand, spanking new ship before but I have been on older ships with radically new equipment installed to replace the older things. That is how it was done then. That word "operational" may not mean what you think it does.
interestingly the new Chinese type 03 carrier also uses electromag launch and recovery systems. it'll be interesting to see how many issues they have in getting their new carrier fully operational.
Operational service
Gerald R. Ford left Naval Station Norfolk for her maiden deployment on 4 October 2022. The carrier was to conduct operations and training exercises alongside NATO allies and partners throughout the Atlantic Ocean. Gerald R. Ford's Carrier Strike Group 12 included Carrier Air Wing 8, USS Normandy, Destroyer Squadron 2 with USS Ramage, USS McFaul and USS Thomas Hudner, auxiliaries USNS Joshua Humphreys and USNS Robert E. Peary, and the United States Coast Guard cutter USCGC Hamilton.[86] Among the first NATO ships assigned to CSG-12 was the German frigate Hessen.[87]
Gerald R. Ford returning to Naval Station Norfolk after completing its inaugural deployment to the Atlantic Ocean, 26 November 2022.
Gerald R. Ford's first port visit outside of her home country was on 28 October 2022, to Halifax Harbour in Nova Scotia, home of CFB Halifax, Canada's largest military installation and home port of the Royal Canadian Navy's Atlantic fleet.[88][89][90] On 14 November 2022 the ship arrived in United Kingdom waters, for a four day visit anchored in Stokes Bay near Gosport.[91] Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
Once again the barley guy is completely wrong about the branch he claims to have served.Talk about being wrong...
"Yes, The Chinese Navy Has More Ships Than The U.S. Navy. But It’s Got Far Fewer Missiles."
China now possesses the biggest navy in the world by number of hulls, the U.S. Defense Department confirmed in its recent report on Beijing’s armed forces.
But that’s not necessarily the metric that matters. “There’s more to the comparison than number of hulls,” Jerry Hendrix, author of To Provide and Maintain a Navy. “The real number in the competition is the number of missile tubes.”
Comparing the offensive missile capacities of the U.S. and Chinese fleets is illustrative. Yes, the People’s Liberation Army Navy has 355 front-line warships at least as large as a corvette—and more than 400 if you also count small coastal missile boats. The U.S. Navy by contrast has just 305 front-line ships.
But the American ships pack more than twice as many offensive missiles—and that’s not even counting the missiles that the U.S. fleet’s carrier air wings could bring to bear.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...-missiles/amp/
In your ignorance, you call for impeachment. If only you were smarter. You would realize China wouldn't let your lack of knowledge onto their ships. You try to undermine our navy by talking theirs up.
Kowtow much?
Originally Posted by Tigbitties38
Let me clue you in about what "operational" means in navy parlance. When the Ford left on deployment there were probably a number of civilians on board that represented the companies that installed the equipment. These are tech reps. They were probably on board for a few weeks to fix and troubleshoot problems. At some point they would leave because the system worked now. However, somewhere in the US some people had their bags packed and were supposed to walk at the sound of a phone call to make connections. Their goal was to get on board the Ford within 12 hours. I've never been on a brand, spanking new ship before but I have been on older ships with radically new equipment installed to replace the older things. That is how it was done then. That word "operational" may not mean what you think it does. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn
China and the US aren't the only Navies suddenly in an aircraft carrier building race. both the UK and Japan are also building new state of the art carriers. in the case of the UK it's the Queen Elizabeth class carrier. they built two of the class on the concept of readiness, one in port and one deployed. when you have more the numbers go up, more on deployment. the US has 12 carriers where 7-8 are on deployment and the rest in port but ready to deploy, minus 1 or 2 undergoing extensive refit.That fucking ski jump has to be hard on the pilot.
seems the Queen Elizabeth had a rather smooth built out and shakedown. the same can't be said for her sister ship the Prince of Wales. built on the same design by the same lead contractor BAE and at the same shipyard, the Prince of Wales is having a rough shakedown.
this is a new class like the Ford and some build out issues are expected however the Queen Elizabeth went smoothly while the Prince of Wales did not. some idiots in the UK are already talking about mothballing a brand new carrier. stupidity.
the Ministry of Defense was correct. the UK needs two carriers where one can be on deployment and the other at port. in wartime both would be deployed.
would you park a brand new Ferrari because you bought two of them? Nope. you'd drive one one day and the other the next.
the design has one unique feature. two separate air towers. never before done. the thinking was to isolate air ops fore and aft. interesting concept. while the US stayed with the single tower concept the Ford's tower was moved aft for generally the same reason, improved air ops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_...rcraft_carrier Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
That fucking ski jump has to be hard on the pilot. Originally Posted by royamcr
lol you could certainly call it a "leap of faith" but no more so than a catapult. it is a viable launch system and very simple compared to the gear needed for a catapult system.i am surprised that a steam powered system can't be calibrated. it is after all based on the amount of water pressure that can be brought to bear.
one of the major problems the Ford class carrier experienced which delayed its operational status for a long time is the new electromagnetic launch system that replaced the old but tried and true steam powered system. one of the advantages of electromagnetic launch systems is that they can be calibrated to the total weight of the aircraft where the old steam system could not.
by calibrating to the actual weight of the aircraft there is less stress on the air frame which for smaller and lighter aircraft was a long term maintenance issue. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
.jpg)