MikedaddyH Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 12 Billion dollar aircraft carrier. Edited March 2, 2017 by shepp
planeflyer21 Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 Hard to appreciate without a side-by-side. The Ford class has a considerable amount more square footage on the flight deck than the Nimitz class, which were bigger than the 1st gen "super carriers," which were quite a bit larger than the Midway class. This little graph doesn't have the in-between sizes:
planeflyer21 Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) Here's a better view of the Nimitz class vs. the Ford class on square footage: It may not look like much but with props spinning and engines turning, that flight deck gets real small real fast. Edited March 2, 2017 by planeflyer21
planeflyer21 Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, shepp said: Fify mike Thread title still has something from Star Trek.
MikedaddyH Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 21 minutes ago, shepp said: Fify mike Could you change it to ... USS Gerald Ford Like I tried to with the second thread.
planeflyer21 Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, MikedaddyH said: Still less expensive than the B-2 Spirit program. Edited March 2, 2017 by planeflyer21
MikedaddyH Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, planeflyer21 said: Still less expensive than a B-2 Spirit. FA-18 and F-35 aircraft are not included !
Sisco Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 Wonder if we can afford many more in the era of long range command link satellite guided anti ship missles. And steerable nuclear delivery vehicles like China is testing. Going to have to start thinking of arming them with long range stealth drones to keep them out of harms way. If a $5 million anti ship missle or nuclear warhead can take out a $13 billion aircraft carrier, we need to rethink our strategy of how to use them.
planeflyer21 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Posted March 3, 2017 31 minutes ago, Sisco said: Wonder if we can afford many more in the era of long range command link satellite guided anti ship missles. And steerable nuclear delivery vehicles like China is testing. Going to have to start thinking of arming them with long range stealth drones to keep them out of harms way. If a $5 million anti ship missle or nuclear warhead can take out a $13 billion aircraft carrier, we need to rethink our strategy of how to use them. You mean that "rocket technology" that Bill Clinton sold them? 32 minutes ago, Sisco said: Wonder if we can afford many more in the era of long range command link satellite guided anti ship missles. And steerable nuclear delivery vehicles like China is testing. Going to have to start thinking of arming them with long range stealth drones to keep them out of harms way. If a $5 million anti ship missle or nuclear warhead can take out a $13 billion aircraft carrier, we need to rethink our strategy of how to use them. Particle/chemical lasers and focused energy weapons. Been out for long enough to be perfected. Still wouldn't put it past "them" to sacrifice a carrier to justify a war.
survivalshop Posted March 3, 2017 Report Posted March 3, 2017 Notice how far back they are moving the Island towards the Stern . Wouldn't be surprised if it was moved all the way back the next one .
planeflyer21 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Posted March 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, survivalshop said: Notice how far back they are moving the Island towards the Stern . Wouldn't be surprised if it was moved all the way back the next one . They sure don't need the entire tower there. I'd seen suggestions for a low profile island. We'll see what comes about.
survivalshop Posted March 3, 2017 Report Posted March 3, 2017 13 minutes ago, planeflyer21 said: They sure don't need the entire tower there. I'd seen suggestions for a low profile island. We'll see what comes about. Ya , I don't see them seeing over the Bow any way , so why have it sticking up so far . Just enough for flight operations .
planeflyer21 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, survivalshop said: Ya , I don't see them seeing over the Bow any way , so why have it sticking up so far . Just enough for flight operations . Man, this took a while to find. Still not what I was seeking out. Edited March 3, 2017 by planeflyer21
blue109 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Posted March 3, 2017 Not to mention we have more aircraft carriers currently floating than the rest of the world combined.
Armed Eye Doc Posted March 3, 2017 Report Posted March 3, 2017 I watched or heard someone who proposed that the US could/should build many more battleships or cruisers for the same price as one carrier. They could be built to serve a smaller aircraft complement, including drones now. That way, there could be many more ships that could cover a larger area for the same cost as one USS Ford. It made sense to me but I'm not a military genious.
jtallen83 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Posted March 3, 2017 12 minutes ago, Armed Eye Doc said: I watched or heard someone who proposed that the US could/should build many more battleships or cruisers for the same price as one carrier. They could be built to serve a smaller aircraft complement, including drones now. That way, there could be many more ships that could cover a larger area for the same cost as one USS Ford. It made sense to me but I'm not a military genious. I know some Navy officers that feel the same way. Politics get in the way of military strategy way to easily these days.
.jpg.ec3114612c85a81fc2e14c82e05fc5bb.thumb.jpg.dfb6b2c84b74631c1f4143b61d62c2b1.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now