New USN carrier gets comissioned

mr.bean · Post by **mr.bean** » 10 Jan 2009, 23:13

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 10 Jan 2009, 23:57

Ahh, the last of the mighty Nimitz's....

Post by **VulcanDriver** » 11 Jan 2009, 06:42

Is the USN planning a new class of carrier or is she last of the super carriers?

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 11 Jan 2009, 11:27

Is the USN planning a new class of carrier or is she last of the super carriers?

There is no forseeable end to the supercarrier....it's easily the MOST important piece of hardware the US military has. When there's trouble in the world the President's first question is always "Ok....where are the carriers??"

To my knowledge they still haven't settled on the new CVX design though

Post by **VulcanDriver** » 11 Jan 2009, 14:34

So I guess the USS Gerald Ford will not happen now. Or did she become the Bush? Mind you President Ford was not one of the most memorable of Presidents. I only remember him because LBJ said of him "He can't walk and chew gum at the same time".

Lets hope the USN keeps the super carriers. They are truly awe inspiring. And they always draw a huge crowd when they do a shore leave in the UK.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 11 Jan 2009, 16:38

Put it this way, she's the last that will be using steam catapults and some of the other old technologies that the CVX will not have.

An interesting article on the CVX project:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 81161.html

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 11 Jan 2009, 16:58

Put it this way, she's the last that will be using steam catapults and some of the other old technologies that the CVX will not have.

An interesting article on the CVX project:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 81161.html

My vote's for the modified Nimitz out of those 3 pictures....the stealth looks cool but sounds impractical (at least for the forseeable future) and unnecessary. The ski jump just looks stupid and too much like other nation's carriers.

Put it this way, the F-35 was designed for catapaults along with the E-2C/D, C-2A, F/A-18C/D/E/F, and EA-18G....all of which will be flying off the new boat. Whether it's a steam cat or not is up for grabs....

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 11 Jan 2009, 21:07

I could care less what it looks like - flat or ski jump. Looks don't win battles. Same thing goes as far as steam cat or something else (magnetics?).

I'm all for nuke power for numerous reasons - as opposed to gas/diesel fuel.

Remember, this is a WARship. It's made for killin' - as efficiently as possible. Efficiency has both cost and time components - I definitely don't remember anything about visuals ever being referenced. (Stealth may have a apparent "representative visual" but look at the difference between the F-117 and the B-1/B-2...different means to accomplish the same goal - but looks was not a consideration I heard of.)

Dem's mah 2 centavos.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 11 Jan 2009, 22:19

A good article on the whole steam vs. electromagnetic catapults:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/EMA ... ers-05220/

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 12 Jan 2009, 03:16

I definitely don't remember anything about visuals ever being referenced. (Stealth may have a apparent "representative visual" but look at the difference between the F-117 and the B-1/B-2...different means to accomplish the same goal - but looks was not a consideration I heard of.)

Oh really?? Remember this one:

http://www.aerofiles.com/boe-x32a.jpg

One of the deciding factors against it was that, and I quote, "It's too damn ugly!!"

Looks do count, to some extent. Is it always the absolute deciding factor?? No. But it counts for something

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 12 Jan 2009, 05:06

Jumpshot724 wrote:Oh really?? Remember this one:

Nope. Never heard of that one. I guess it proves another of my beliefs: decision makers are just like the rest of us - occasionally even the genius among us does or says something downright silly.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 12 Jan 2009, 16:42

You gotta admit, that Boeing JSF designs was U G L Y !!

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 12 Jan 2009, 17:06

Nope. Never heard of that one. I guess it proves another of my beliefs: decision makers are just like the rest of us - occasionally even the genius among us does or says something downright silly.

I semi agree with your point that looks shouldn't matter in a military hardware contest, but look at it this way. Boeing's JSF wasn't really any better than the now F-35, so in this case yes looks did push the F-35 over the edge.

In any other contest if the "ugly" one was vastly superior to the "pretty" one, I'm sure the ugly one would still win.