New Class of Aircraft Carriers

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#1
I just learned about this at work the other day. It looks as if they are getting ready to retire some of the old Nimitz Class carriers and start replacing them with the new Ford Class carriers (named after President Ford). The oldest of the Nimitz Class carriers is the USS Nimitz which is still in commission, but is aging as it was launched in 1975. The newest and last of the Nimitz Class carriers was the USS George H.W. Bush which was launched in 2008. There are currently 10 carriers in service, all Nimitz class.

Apparently these new Ford Class carriers are larger and have more deck space for more jets. They are more energy efficient and can produce more energy with less "fuel". They also have better weapon systems and radar, unlike it's predecessor the Nimitz class ships. They have laid the hull for the first Ford Class named after President Ford. When they name the first ship of a new class, that name becomes the name of that new class of ship, in the case the first ship is the USS Ford... so the new class of carriers will be called the Ford Class carriers. Any ships built after that will have a new name, but will be built with the same specs as the first (until they create a newer, better class). The USS Ford is due to set sail in 2015. There are two more carriers planned after that.

They also plan of retiring the USS Nimitz and the USS Eisenhower soon (Both Nimitz class). I would imagine that will be when they launch a few of the new Ford Class carriers.

I just thought this was neat and wanted to share it ;)

Artist depiction of the new Ford Class carrier:


Picture of the old Nimitz Class:
 
Last edited:

MAgnum9987

Do What Thou Wilt
#2
I knew about this 4 years ago. :D

And then, they where just to be called CBN class with out a proper name.

God Damn, I could not think of a worse person to name the class after. FORD? What did he do? He was a pretty unremarkable president. A better choice would be Johnson Class, considering he was President during Vietnam. And Ford Class doesn't sound as cool as Johnson Class.

They'll start service in 2013. And billions of dollars would've gone down the shitter if 2012 is true :lol:
 

Hatton

Registered Member
#3
I had heard about this some time back - the ship I served on is a Nimitz class. Interesting lines, the strange thing for me is the fact that the angle-deck is so much larger yet the Navy has moved to a F-18 base airframe, which is smaller than the phantom, avenger and tomcat base frames. I'd figure the next class of carrier would actually be smaller.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
#4
They'll start service in 2013. And billions of dollars would've gone down the shitter if 2012 is true :lol:
Yea, good thing this wasn't a colossal waste of money. I'm sure this nice boat we just sunk billions into will be able to stop a kid from strapping on a suicide bomber vest in his basement before he walks up the occupying soldiers.

Meanwhile...





 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#5
Gavik... In war there is no such thing as "excessive force". Using only the amount of force necessary to win, insures that you will lose. These carriers are necessary as the older carriers are beginning to age and need to be scrapped. Not to mention, defense of our nation is one of the few things the government is allowed to spend money on.

As for the rest of that... thats what happens when the government gets involved with things... as it always does... shit breaks, and doesn't work as it supposed to. See the DMV, Post office, public schools, FDA, TSA... need I continue?
 
Last edited:

Nevyrmoore

AKA Ass-Bandit
#6
Gavik... In war there is no such thing as "excessive force". Using only the amount of force necessary to win, insures that you will lose. These carriers are necessary as the older carriers are beginning to age and need to be scrapped. Not to mention, defense of our nation is one of the few things the government is allowed to spend money on.
Also, it's more effective. What wastes more resources, sending out a single aircraft carrier filled with jets, or two with one half loaded?
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#7
Also, it's more effective. What wastes more resources, sending out a single aircraft carrier filled with jets, or two with one half loaded?
These new ones I hear are more fuel efficient and can carry more armament and jets as well. You are right, it will be cheaper to operate then the ones now. Don't forget that carriers aren't just there to launch jets, they can carry small battalions of marines, carry navy seals, and can act as a cargo vessel to supply mail and food to ground troops. In addition they have full hospitals which can treat battlefield injuries. A carrier can be a lot closer then medivacing injured soldiers to a base in Germany or state side.
 
Last edited:

Gavik

Registered Member
#8
Gavik... In war there is no such thing as "excessive force". Using only the amount of force necessary to win, insures that you will lose. These carriers are necessary as the older carriers are beginning to age and need to be scrapped. Not to mention, defense of our nation is one of the few things the government is allowed to spend money on.
are you even listening to yourself? My issue is not the excessive force. You can't send an aircraft carrier to do a CIA agent's work.

As for the rest of that... thats what happens when the government gets involved with things... as it always does... shit breaks, and doesn't work as it supposed to. See the DMV, Post office, public schools, FDA, TSA... need I continue?
You should probably keep going, as you've yet to hit the basic idea of funding, which is where I was going.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#9
You should probably keep going, as you've yet to hit the basic idea of funding, which is where I was going.
Throw more money at the problem? Here's a novel idea, maybe it's not the money ;) Government (Liberals) never think what they are doing is wrong, they only think they haven’t done enough of it yet or it is underfunded.
 
Last edited:

Gavik

Registered Member
#10
Throw more money at the problem? Here's a novel idea, maybe it's not the money ;) Government (Liberals) never think what they are doing is wrong, they only think they haven’t done enough of it yet or it is underfunded.

Yea, a little more money to keep the bridges and levees to the basic safety specs wouldn't have saved ANY lives...