New Aircraft Carrier Class Revealed

[Miktar]

Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carrier (http://cars.ign.com/articles/815/815627p1.html)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/CVN21-artist.jpg/775px-CVN21-artist.jpg


Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carrier (CVN-21)

Production Status: Construction begins in 2007 on the first ship in the line, also called Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78); completion expected in 2015

Function: Deployment and recovery of aircraft; seafaring airbase; sea-to-air, sea-to-land, and sea-to-sea offensive capabilities; traveling back in time to prevent the Pearl Harbor attack, Final Countdown-style

Unique Features: Electromagnetic catapults and advanced arresting gear; radar-blocking stealth profile; two A1B nuclear reactors; reduced crew complement as a result of increased automation

Under the Hood: The next generation of supercarrier for the U.S. Navy, the Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier will be 1,092 feet in length with a displacement of 100,000 tons and a 134-foot beam. What does all that mean? Basically, it's gonna be big, capable of carrying up to 75 aircraft (such as the JSF, F/A-18E/F, EA-18G, E-2D, MH-60R/S, and J-UCAS) and a standard crew complement of around 4,600 -- and that's with the increased onboard automation that is meant to cut down on the number of crewmembers. According to the U.S. Navy, the Gerald R. Ford carrier is "the premier forward asset for crisis response and early decisive striking power in a major combat operation." In other words, it's loaded for bear with two nuclear reactors, surface-to-air missiles (including Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles and Rolling Airframe Missiles), close-in weapons systems, and plenty of other high-tech gadgetry and munitions -- all that, plus electromagnetic catapults and advanced arresting gear that are designed to support future airwing configurations including unmanned vehicles, and radar-blocking stealth capabilities.

Chances of Owning One: You have a better chance of becoming president some day yourself and getting one named after you than you have of ever owning one of these babies.

[Aesir]

radar-blocking stealth profile

1092 feet in length with a displacement of 100,000 tons and a 134-foot beam. What does all that mean? Basically, it's gonna be big

LOL, something 100 times the size of my house and it has a stealh profile. You might be invisible to radar but if you come within 30km of the shore anyone with eyes will see you.

It's like that story I saw on discovery of a low profile tank. They won't see you but they will hear you when you start the thing 1000 miles away. That said, hopefully you use that tank in a bushy area, are there trees at sea?

But looks nice, leave it to the superpowers to find new and exciting ways of killing us.

[Miktar]

It's always interesting to me, what people read from a post. :)

[Ruandre]

Function: ...traveling back in time to prevent the Pearl Harbor attack, Final Countdown-styleHahaha :D

[Aesir]

Oh my, didn't read that part, woops :)

[Gldm]

The stealth features aren't really so people don't see it coming. It's more so that bombs and torpedoes have a harder time picking it out against the ocean with their radar systems and can't lock it as easily.

[BurNThaM]

in my opinion it would be bloody difficult to miss...

[Miktar]

in my opinion it would be bloody difficult to miss...

Why?

[wir]

Seems easy enough to miss to me.
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5126/untitleddu8.jpg
Now a missle doesn't have eyes to see, just radar(amirite?)
With stealth, it could be quite hard to hit it.

[Aesir]

The stealth features aren't really so people don't see it coming. It's more so that bombs and torpedoes have a harder time picking it out against the ocean with their radar systems and can't lock it as easily.

Not to argue but most of the countries the US is fighting will probably have quite a lot of heat seeking missiles, and I can imagine that thing makes quite a lot of heat.


Seems easy enough to miss to me.
Now a missle doesn't have eyes to see, just radar(amirite?)
With stealth, it could be quite hard to hit it.

Have you ever seen a ship at sea? Ships half, even quarter that size can be seen quite easily, even if it is on the horizon. Now imagine if you are in the air and your sight is even further, now screw radar based missiles. There are thousands of missiles that does not use radar.

[Miktar]

The problem with torpedoes, is that the delivery mechanism, the submarine, needs to *avoid* detection as long as possible, otherwise it's very easy to maneuver out of the way of an incoming Fire and Forget torpedo that has limited ECM and even more limited seeking.

Have you ever played a Sub simulator? It's much harder to hit the broadside of a carrier than you think.

[Azimuth]

Naval warfare is all about radar blips. If it ain't on the radar, it ain't there.

[Miktar]

Naval warfare is all about radar blips. If it ain't on the radar, it ain't there.

QFE

[Mic]

mmm... miktar maybe you should do a review about a naval war game (if you haven't already) and maybe I'll be interested enough to go "out" and buy a sub/ship simulator.... but I have but one question... since that quote has allot of sarcasm in it is it all real or just a fake?

[PloPshoP]

Naval warfare is all about radar blips. If it ain't on the radar, it ain't there.

Unless you have sonar ;)
That aircraft carrier probably has some sonar absorbent material* on it's hull, much like how the F117 absorbs radar* in order to maintain radar stealth.

*classified

[kHayne]

Lawl. The level of military-knowledge here seems particularly retarded (*not* looking at you Mik/Azi ;) )

eg

Not to argue but most of the countries the US is fighting will probably have quite a lot of heat seeking missiles, and I can imagine that thing makes quite a lot of heat.
Rofl. IR-type guidance is typically only effective at short range. There are literally zero long-range delivery systems that rely on IR solely. Yes, many will switch to IR for purposes of accuracy once within range but for guidance to the target from BVR (which is what matters), virtually all missile delivery systems rely on radar guidance. 'Heat-seeking' is typically only effective in air-to-air close combat.

There are thousands of missiles that does not use radar.
Stop posting in this thread. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Moving on.

Naval radar low-signature is the next gen. Stealth carriers/destroyers/etc have been in the cards for a while. Primarily due to the fact that the greatest threat to an asset such as a carrier today, is a cruise missile rather than a conventional airstrike or torpedo. CAP's around strike configuration packages ensure that no medium to high altitude enemy aircraft will get in range to pose a threat, and it is equally unlikely that many third-world nations would be able to field submarines that could circumvent a destroyer-screen.

Virtually all of today's major navies are exploring it, Britain (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3724219.stm) and Sweden (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/) for example, so it's not just the 'stupid Americans' that recognize it's potential.

Nice article on stealth tech adoption in open-sea warfare. (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_StealthShips,,00.html?ESRC=sol diertech.nl)

[Azimuth]

Unless you have sonar ;)
That aircraft carrier probably has some sonar absorbent material* on it's hull, much like how the F117 absorbs radar* in order to maintain radar stealth.

*classified

Additionally, low radar signatures (or cross-sections) on ships are achieved with low profiles and that somewhat strange, uh, blocky or angular design. You won't find any right angles on modern warships. Essentially, the ship shrugs off incoming radar waves. The famous F-117 Nighthawk uses the same design principles.

[kHayne]

Even South Africa is fielding them these days.

http://www.ports.co.za/navalnews/article_2004_05_31_4253.html

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko/

And this was 3 years ago.

[Azimuth]

Unlikely as it sounds, I've installed radar equipment on two of those.

I've had an interesting sort of career. http://s138.photobucket.com/albums/q258/azimuth666/lolly.gif

[kHayne]

oO

Awesome! Tell me moar! Or would you have to kill me?

[Azimuth]

Not much to tell, actually. My dad designs and builds radar equipment for the SA Navy, and - while still penniless student scum - I used to help him out. We'd scramble around inside the mast installing waveguides around the antennas. Lots of sweating and squeezing into small spaces.

[Icenflame]

well I'm not surprised the good ol USofA is developing a new carrier. If all any of you where in CT when the USS Enterprise came to visit back in 2001 I think you would see how HUGE these ships are.

You can't really describe it one can imagine it being big with a compliment of 4,600 seamen. This excludes the Marine Units which often hitch lifts aboard these mammoths.

It is quite amazing to see them. The funny thing is that the Carrier was so big it couldn't dock in the military naval base in Simon's Town but docked in our Main harbor.

[GhOsT_828]

Tip: not all threats to Aircraft Carriers is from below.
During the Cold War, the Soviets had established a plan to tackle US naval groups. Codenamed Красный октябрь.
This came down to using their older bomber models, nicknamed Bears, (who had a larger carrying capacity) to launch, from long distance, missiles that had a radar imprint similar to that of MiGs (can't remeber which, though it might e the MiG-27).
The idea was that the US would see these hundreds of 'attack aircraft' approaching, and scramble all available forces to intercept them.
When the US fighters were near the dummy-missiles, the primary Russian attack force would hit from the opposite side with longe range missiles. The US fighters, already having used up a lot of fuel, would be redirected to attack the primary bombing group.
This would prompt a flanking attack from the same side as the dummy missiles, and the US air assets would simply not have enough fuel to circle back and engage them as well.
Tom Clancy used this idea in his book, Red Storm Rising.

[Negasta]

The few missiles that would actually be able to lock on to the carrier through its masses of counter technology, would be shot out of the sky by the ship's Phalanx CIWS anti missile cannons.

The ship probably also has a myriad of torpedo countermeasures that are kept secret. And the ships in the carrier battle group would most likely take out any sub foolish enough to come within sonar range.

The only way you could probably take out this carrier is to detonate a nuke somewhere near it.