Military Review

The aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford. New technologies, new opportunities and new spending

68
November 9 will host the launch of the new American aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) at the Newport News Shipbuilding (Newport News, Va.) The construction of the head ship of the same type began in the 2009 year and will soon enter the final stage. The introduction of the aircraft carrier into the US Navy is scheduled for 2016 year. In the future, the Pentagon is going to build two more ships of this type.




The aircraft carrier "Gerald R. Ford" is one of the most important US military projects recently. This attitude to the ship is primarily due to the fact that for the first time since the sixties, American shipbuilding has created and is implementing such a large project. Currently in the Navy, aircraft carriers such as the Nimitz were built in accordance with the project developed in the sixties. Since then, the project has been repeatedly refined before the construction or modernization of ships, but has not undergone significant changes. Gerald R. Ford type ships, the first of which will soon be launched, are being built according to a new project created in accordance with the current requirements of the naval forces.

One of the most interesting features of the new project is the approach to equipping ships with various equipment. So, in terms of size and displacement, the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford is almost the same as its predecessors of the Nimitz type. The ship with a total displacement of about 100 thousand tons has a length of over 330 meters and a maximum width of the flight deck 78 m. At the same time, internal equipment, radio-electronic equipment, weapons, etc. A new aircraft carrier can be considered a big step forward. It is argued that the use of a number of new systems will significantly reduce the crew of the ship, but at the same time raise the intensity of the combat wing of the wing at least 30%. The consequence of the latter will be an increase in the combat effectiveness of the ship.

The higher performance of the new aircraft carrier in comparison with those currently in operation is due to the use of two nuclear reactors A1B, designed specifically for aircraft carrying ships of the new project. If necessary, such a power plant can produce power by 25% greater than the maximum power of the reactors of the Nimitz aircraft carriers. In this case, the complexity of the maintenance of reactors is reduced by half. The A1B power plant with two reactors is the first system of this type that does not require refueling during service. New reactors are designed in such a way that nuclear fuel is enough for all 50 years during which the aircraft carrier will serve. This, among other things, increases the safety of the operation of the ship, since all radioactive materials from the moment of loading to the decommissioning of the aircraft carrier will be in an airtight volume.



Using a more powerful power plant made it possible to equip the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier with EMALS electromagnetic catapults. With the help of new catapults, an aircraft carrier will be able to ensure normal flight intensity aviation at the level of 160 sorties per day. For comparison, modern aircraft carriers such as Nimitz can provide only 120 sorties per day. If necessary, a promising aircraft carrier will be able to increase the flight intensity to 220 sorties per day.

The main element of the Gerald R. Ford vehicle radio complex will be the DRB radar system. It includes the Raytheon AN / SPY-3 multifunction radar and the Lockheed Martin VSR surround review radar. Similar electronic equipment is supposed to be installed on the new destroyers of the Zumwalt project. It is assumed that the radar VSR will be used to monitor the air situation and target designation of aircraft or ships. The second radar station, AN / APY-3, is intended not only for viewing or tracking targets, but also for controlling certain types of weapons.

When designing a new aircraft carrier, the experience gained in the operation of the previous ones was taken into account. In connection with this, the layout of the hangar deck was changed. So, the aircraft carrier "Gerald R. Ford" has a two-section hangar deck. To lift the aircraft on the flight deck, the ship received three elevators instead of four used on aircraft carriers of the previous type.



According to official data, the new aircraft carrier will be able to transport and support combat work over several types of 75 aircraft. Initially, the main striking force of the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford will be F / A-18E / F Super Hornet aircraft. Over time, they will be joined and then replaced by the newest F-35C. The composition of long-range radar detection aircraft, electronic warfare, as well as helicopters for various purposes will remain the same. In addition, it is planned to place unmanned aerial vehicles of several types on the new aircraft carrier. In the distant future, such technology can press manned aircraft and helicopters.

For air defense and missile defense of the ship, the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford will equip with anti-aircraft missile systems RIM-116 RAM and RIM-162 ESSM. Such weapons will allow the ship to intercept dangerous targets at ranges up to 50 km. In addition, to protect against threats in the near zone on the aircraft carrier will install several anti-aircraft artillery systems.

At the moment, all the basic structures of the new aircraft carrier are assembled and the final stage of construction and equipment will soon begin. After the launch of the ship, planned for 2016, the United States Navy will again be 11 aircraft carriers. In 2012, after decommissioning the aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN-65), the number of ships of this class was reduced to 10. In the future, it is planned to transfer the structure of the aircraft carrier fleet for the constant use of 10 ships.

In September, the Congressional Research Service published new data on the financial side of aircraft carrier construction. According to the service, construction of the Gerald R. Ford cost the budget 12,8 a billion dollars (at current prices). At the same time, construction funding was fully completed in the 2011 year, and since then no funds have been allocated to the new ship. To compensate for the growth in the cost of individual components and work in the 2014 and 2015 fiscal years, it is planned to further allocate about 1,3 billion.



In the near future, the US Navy will place an order for the construction of a second aircraft carrier of the Gerald R. Ford type, which will be named "John F. Kennedy." Bookmark the second ship is scheduled for next year. During 2014-2018, it is expected to spend about 11,3 a billion dollars on construction, 944 million of which will be allocated in the first year of construction. In the 2018 year, it is expected to sign a contract, in accordance with which the shipbuilding industry will build a third aircraft carrier of the same type (there is information about its name - Enterprise). The cost of this ship in 2014 fiscal year prices is estimated at 13,9 billion.

The plans of the Pentagon for the next ten years include the construction of only three aircraft carriers of a new type. The service life of these ships will be 50 years. What projects will be engaged in American shipbuilding after 2023, when it is planned to launch the Enterprise, is still unknown. By that time, it is possible to update an existing project or start work on a new one. Anyway, over the next 10-12 years, the naval forces of the United States will receive three new aircraft carriers, which by their characteristics are superior to the ships currently used.

Like any other expensive and ambitious project, the construction of new aircraft carriers was heavily criticized. In the light of recent cuts in the military budget, the construction of such expensive ships looks at least ambiguous. For example, a retired US Navy officer G. Hendricks, who is a consistent opponent of modern aircraft carriers, regularly cites the following argument against the newest ships. The last of the aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type cost the treasury about seven billion dollars. Head "Gerald R. Ford" in the end will cost almost twice as much. At the same time, the normal flight intensity provided by the electromagnetic catapult will be only 160 sorties per day against the Nimitz 120. In other words, the new aircraft carrier is twice as expensive as the old one, but the increase in combat effectiveness, expressed in the number of possible sorties, is only 30%. It should be noted that at the maximum load on the Gerald R. Ford electric systems can provide 220 sorties per day, but even this does not allow achieving proportional growth of combat effectiveness.

The authors of the project of new aircraft carriers regularly mentioned that the operation of these ships will cost less than the use of existing ones. However, the savings in operation will not immediately be able to influence the financial part of the project. The main reason for this is twice the high cost of building ships. In addition, we should not forget that aircraft carriers are working as part of carrier-assault groups (AUG), which also includes ships of other classes. As of the beginning of 2013, the operation of one AUG cost approximately 6,5 million dollars daily. Thus, savings in aircraft carrier operation may not have a significant impact on the overall financial performance of the respective US Navy compounds.

Another financial problem is the aviation group. For the first years, F / A-18E / F fighter-bombers will be the basis of strike aviation of new aircraft carriers. In the future, they will be replaced by the latest F-35C. A characteristic unpleasant feature of both variants of the composition of the air group is the actual cost of combat missions. According to G. Hendrix, the entire life cycle of F / A-18 aircraft, including the cost of building and training pilots, costs the military department about 120 million dollars. Over the past ten years, carrier-based naval aviation of the United States, participating in various conflicts, has used about 16 thousand bombs and missiles of various types. Thus, the average amount of ammunition used by each of the F / A-18 aircraft operated in ten years is equal to 16 units. From the cost of the life cycle of machines, it follows that each bomb drop or missile launch cost the taxpayers 7,5 million dollars. The cost of construction and operation of the newest deck aircraft F-35C will be significantly higher than similar parameters of modern technology. In this regard, the average cost of a single bomb drop may increase significantly.

Thus, we can already say with confidence that one of the most ambitious American projects of the last time will also be one of the most expensive. Moreover, there is reason to doubt that the measures applied, aimed at saving due to a number of new systems, etc., will significantly affect the overall economic performance of the project. Nevertheless, the construction of new aircraft carriers - even if they are excessively expensive - will allow the US Navy to raise its combat potential and ensure the ability to perform combat missions over the next 50 years.




The aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford. New technologies, new opportunities and new spending






On the materials of the sites:
http://defense-update.com/
http://navytimes.com/
http://militarytimes.com/
http://naval-technology.com/
http://cnas.org/
Author:
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 25 October 2013 08: 42 New
    +5
    The plans of the mericatos, for worldwide military expansion, have never changed. This once again emphasizes the launching of this aircraft carrier.
    Will our answer be?
    1. MilaPhone
      MilaPhone 25 October 2013 09: 16 New
      30
      Here, everything is written about the recession of the Americans, the sequestration, the general lack of funds, but all this does not prevent them from systematically and purposefully building the eleventh aircraft carrier.
      Installing propellers:
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 25 October 2013 09: 22 New
        0
        Let them build. Throw away their green papers, accumulating public debt. The larger the cabinet, the louder it falls.
        1. Papakiko
          Papakiko 25 October 2013 11: 05 New
          10
          Quote: Wedmak
          Throw away their green papers, accumulating public debt.

          They inject this muKALatura into the real sector of production and the real values ​​(Movable-immovable-wearable property). Science is being moved in many sectors of the applied mechanic-physicist-chemistry, from equipment to component parts.
          Kiril for work -respect and respect.
          Only I really do not see the coolest novelty in this wafer, in the form of mega-difference and revolutionism.
          Electronics is compact!
          Automation Level!
          Reactors are smaller, more compact and more productive!
          Engine room without kilometer propeller shafts!
          Electro-magnetic catapult! (How will it work in the rain?)
          A two-section hangar is not a two-tier hangar ???
          Aerofinisher former ???
          And TD and TD.
          The biggest disappointment is that the case uses metal-iron rather than luminescence. Sorry. wink
          1. cdrt
            cdrt 25 October 2013 22: 33 New
            +2
            Quote: Papakiko
            Quote: Wedmak
            Throw away their green papers, accumulating public debt.


            The biggest disappointment is that the case uses metal-iron rather than luminescence. Sorry. wink


            Is it to burn better? laughing
            1. Papakiko
              Papakiko 25 October 2013 22: 35 New
              +2
              Quote: cdrt
              Is it to burn better?

              yes-yes-yes-yes-yes-yes-yes-yes-yes.
          2. spravochnik
            spravochnik 26 October 2013 02: 08 New
            +1
            How many times to write that aluminum is dangerous in military shipbuilding - the infection burns.
          3. sergey158-29
            sergey158-29 26 October 2013 19: 48 New
            +1
            When the Russian Federation will have an aircraft carrier at least LIKE NIMITS, one can talk about "NOVELTY" ...

            In the meantime, you can only envy them ...
        2. Nayhas
          Nayhas 25 October 2013 14: 29 New
          +5
          Quote: Wedmak
          Let them build. Throw away their green papers, accumulating public debt. The larger the cabinet, the louder it falls.

          Usually a person of a puny physique does not expect that the very "closet" does not hear about it, I am sure that you are not like that and this is just bravado ...
        3. Dusk
          Dusk 25 October 2013 18: 17 New
          +2
          only he won’t fall repeat
          1. cdrt
            cdrt 25 October 2013 22: 36 New
            +2
            Quote: Dusk
            only he won’t fall repeat


            In my childhood it was said that the collapse of American capitalism is inevitable ...
            For a long time, those who wrote this have become liberal politicians, corrupt officials, corrupt deputies, but the collapse does not go on. laughing
            Maybe it's just a mantra? laughing
        4. Walker1975
          Walker1975 26 October 2013 00: 29 New
          10
          Russia, too, is accumulating a public debt, but its defense capability is not noticeably growing. The Olympics, the summit, the World Cup in football ... on a large scale and the overhaul of asphalt tiles 3 times, if on trifles.

          And most importantly - the army of officials. The employees of federal ministries and departments - 1,6 million people, the rest of the government with the deputies - 1,3 million, all kinds of regulatory and registration bodies - 1,3 million, pension, social and medical funds - 2,2 million. The total number of drivers transporting officials throughout Russia can be estimated at approximately 2 million people.

          Compare with the armed forces - here they are armies, divisions, brigades ...
        5. wei
          wei 28 October 2013 02: 11 New
          0
          Let them build. Throw away their green papers, accumulating public debt


          in order to build so as not to repay debts

          build on our money, note (stub fund), and not on their own
          pay off with all candy wrappers (the dollar has been untied from gold since 1971 the United States has moved away from the dollar based on precious metals and switched to the dollar based only on government decrees)

          anyone interested http://www.thingshistory.com/kak-politiki-pobedili-finansistov/
      2. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 25 October 2013 11: 17 New
        +5
        Quote: Milafon
        a general lack of funds, but all this does not prevent them from systematically and purposefully building the eleventh aircraft carrier.

        Once again, increase the threshold of public debt, and print more candy wrappers. That's all. While everyone is praying for the dollar, they will use it. But the boat is really serious.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 25 October 2013 22: 45 New
          +2
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Quote: Milafon
          a general lack of funds, but all this does not prevent them from systematically and purposefully building the eleventh aircraft carrier.

          Once again, increase the threshold of public debt, and print more candy wrappers. That's all. While everyone is praying for the dollar, they will use it. But the boat is really serious.


          I already wrote, it’s a simple economy.
          The dollar is the currency of world trade. The growth of world trade until 2011 is more than 5% per year, even now - 2-3% per year. At least 1 trillion. The Americans MUST print dollars in 2011, at least 400bn. They should print in 2012. They should be just to ensure the growth of only trade.
          To ensure the global economic growth of 2% (forecast for 2013), it is necessary to additionally issue at least 1,6 trillion. dollars. And all this is FREE for the economy of both the USA and the world. In other words, dominance in the oceans (as ways of world trade) gives Americans the opportunity to have an additional up to 1,6 trillion dollars per year
          (Well, the reasoning is rather crude, but not incorrect)
      3. Gari
        Gari 25 October 2013 12: 14 New
        +4
        Quote: Milafon
        Here, everything is written about the recession of the Americans, the sequestration, the general lack of funds, but all this does not prevent them from systematically and purposefully building the eleventh aircraft carrier.

        According to the service, the construction of the Gerald R. Ford cost the budget $ 12,8 billion.
        The second is 11,3 billion dollars
        The third is 13,9 billion.
        Although the machine that prints the dollars they have,
        eh at least for an hour would work for me
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 25 October 2013 22: 47 New
          +1
          Quote: Gari
          Quote: Milafon
          Here, everything is written about the recession of the Americans, the sequestration, the general lack of funds, but all this does not prevent them from systematically and purposefully building the eleventh aircraft carrier.

          According to the service, the construction of the Gerald R. Ford cost the budget $ 12,8 billion.
          The second is 11,3 billion dollars
          The third is 13,9 billion.
          Although the machine that prints the dollars they have,
          eh at least for an hour would work for me


          13 billion dollars - PPC !!!!!
          Truly technological advances shut up similarly.
          After 30 years, the next vilification will cost how much - 60-100 billion dollars?
      4. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 25 October 2013 13: 22 New
        +5
        Quote: Milafon
        Here we have everything the Americans write down the economic downturn, sequestration, general shortage ...


        Those who build such small things as a recession are not interested. Nothing will stop them from pumping money out of the country's budget, this is their personal feeding trough and nobody will give them a decree, let alone sequestration ...
      5. teleset
        teleset 25 October 2013 14: 07 New
        +3
        So they are with us and borrow this money, our gold currency reserve of 500 billion dollars is 90% and consists of their pieces of paper and bonds and that's how they collect tribute from all over the world!
    2. report4
      report4 25 October 2013 09: 20 New
      -1
      Quote: aszzz888
      The plans of the mericatos, for worldwide military expansion, have never changed. This once again emphasizes the launching of this aircraft carrier.
      Will our answer be?

      Our answer is already many years old and he still beats these very AUGs. This answer is called TNW.
      1. Witold
        Witold 25 October 2013 12: 00 New
        26
        So far, I have not seen a single dead TYAO AUG. Patriotism is good when it is sober.
    3. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 25 October 2013 13: 23 New
      +2
      Quote: aszzz888
      The plans of the mericatos, for worldwide military expansion, have never changed. This once again emphasizes the launching of this aircraft carrier.
      Will our answer be?


      There will be of course - self-propelled tactical nuclear mines laughing .
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 25 October 2013 15: 41 New
        +1
        Oleg, this Site, for drones, is being developed, just die, without it. Without those components for which they will fight, they hang and songs about that, but mathematics show that the president will have perfect resemblances to take off. And manned aircraft Radar, electronic warfare, electronic warfare, electronic warfare, and then, all these niches are shrinking intelligence. All BA and progress does not stand still. It flies, demon pilot. Before criticizing, so estimate for what time period such a project is calculated and imagine (speculatively, of course) about breakthrough. It’s much more interesting how, in response to this level of technical superiority, they will hide their rockets in the ground, and so ... uh .... aircraft insights have the deepest potential, like the core of control, jump and action. N, And the fact that aircraft carriers were not used for its intended purpose: I won’t even list the whole team, it’s already counted) And, so, Oleg, smash my hair and dust, maybe the Sun will loom out of the fog to us
    4. T-100
      T-100 25 October 2013 16: 34 New
      -3
      It would be a pity to sink such a boat)))) (to our Navy)))
    5. mirag2
      mirag2 26 October 2013 06: 22 New
      +3
      Again pogoskalstvo ....
      The ship is good — and the old were strongest opponents, influencing the entire world order (albeit in its own way, but it is) —and this one is even better.
      I envy. I want more ships to be built here, moreover any, not necessarily an aircraft jack.
      Better, of course, new submarines ...
    6. Sterlya
      Sterlya 28 October 2013 01: 10 New
      -1
      print paper s. 85 billion a month. (officially known. I suspect that billions of min. 10, quietly) I wonder how it will all end ...
  2. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 25 October 2013 09: 13 New
    +7
    The dimensions of the dock and crane are impressive.
    1. Starina_hank
      Starina_hank 25 October 2013 21: 43 New
      +2
      You can just say a damn yourself a dock!
  3. Zhaman-Urus
    Zhaman-Urus 25 October 2013 09: 40 New
    +7
    "which will receive the name" John F. Kennedy "As Captain Vrungel used to say:" As you name the ship, so it will float! "I am afraid that in this case, they will sink the aircraft carrier themselves))
  4. air wolf
    air wolf 25 October 2013 09: 48 New
    -17 qualifying.
    Hmm, just this fucking? They have a budget crisis and spending money on such garbage doesn’t make sense, because All these functions can be performed by our Kuznetsov with SVPP Yak-141. Demonstration of the flag? No air defense and anti-aircraft defense will save from a real attack and destruction of this aircraft carrier. What for?? In the United States there are more beggars than in Russia and the CIS countries combined. I believe that the posting of the upgraded Yak-141 should be included in the strategic program for the development of the Navy in the near future, and not stamping the useless MiG-29K and Su-33, whose accident rate on the deck is several times higher. And the efficiency is lower.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 25 October 2013 23: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: amp
      Their nemits were also useless in Soviet times. Even if we ignore the fact that the war with the USSR would be a nuclear war that would lead to the destruction of life on Earth, their aircraft carriers were not dangerous for the USSR. Even now, TU 22 will easily make aircraft carriers a useless floating pile of iron. One hit on the take-off deck and all. And if you get into the steam catapult, then generally tryndets.


      Admirals of the USSR Navy disagree with you.
      NIR I remember such was the "Order", after which they decided to build real aircraft carriers.
      Before the truth ...
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 25 October 2013 23: 38 New
      +2
      What nonsense have I just read?
  5. lex fim
    lex fim 25 October 2013 10: 17 New
    +5
    What is "expensive" for the people if they print money themselves and how much they want for practically the whole world. Why do they need a war when there are enough threats, while the whole world is already under them. After all, any sane person knows and understands, Money rules the world. As long as the dollar rules our economy, our aircraft carriers are not afraid of us.
  6. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 10: 19 New
    +7
    Let them build. Throw away their green papers, accumulating public debt. The larger the cabinet, the louder it falls.


    The fact of the matter is that they give printed papers, but they get an aircraft carrier.

    No air defense and anti-aircraft defense will save from a real attack and destruction of this aircraft carrier.


    And who, apart from NATO countries, is capable of carrying out such an attack? Only China, if it has brought its ballistic missile with guided warheads "to mind".
  7. Gato
    Gato 25 October 2013 10: 37 New
    +3
    Um .. Reading the article, I expected to see the signature of another author
  8. lotar
    lotar 25 October 2013 10: 41 New
    +2
    Here McCain will be delighted. Surely there were some embezzlers here. It is interesting as a percentage of how much money was spent here in a targeted way.
    1. Witold
      Witold 25 October 2013 12: 04 New
      +3
      I think more than you do. They even steal fuel from the tank "biathlon".
  9. HAM
    HAM 25 October 2013 10: 57 New
    +1
    Here is just one good quality of the Americans: they have something to do with everything and they have money for everything, even if they are "drawn", but there is.
  10. stalker
    stalker 25 October 2013 11: 26 New
    -5
    Well, where to! where they have so many of them, with one foot in the grave, and all their precious pellets are cooked up by dear, and then they are put under the hammer for one cent))
    1. vahatak
      vahatak 25 October 2013 14: 47 New
      +2
      The same can be said with great reason about the USSR of the seventies: with one foot in the grave, and tanks are being built by tens of thousands.
      1. stalker
        stalker 26 October 2013 08: 21 New
        -2
        Wake up, there is no longer the USSR, we are talking about today.
        1. vahatak
          vahatak 26 October 2013 13: 53 New
          +2
          The flag of the USSR is next to your name, and I need to wake up ???????????? And I minced, because I can not stand unwarranted speculation that the West will soon go to the grave, etc., etc.
          1. stalker
            stalker 31 October 2013 19: 42 New
            -1
            That's right, I was born in the USSR, so what flag should I put?) Unfortunately, there is no longer this great power and this is a fact, but what you can’t stand is your problem, I won’t enter into a polemic with you over choking America , time will tell who is right, but for now minus you dear!
    2. stalker
      stalker 26 October 2013 00: 17 New
      -1
      could not stand some wise guy and zaminusil from anger)
  11. poccinin
    poccinin 25 October 2013 11: 43 New
    +8
    they are building. and we are waiting for OUR SUPERMEGA AIRCRAFT CARRIER WITH THE ADDITION "THERE ARE NO ANALOGUES IN THE WORLD" for the state it is offensive. It seems like a sea. It seems like it is washed by three oceans. and a mosquito fleet.
    1. Witold
      Witold 25 October 2013 12: 06 New
      +2
      Throw yourself. Putin is missing just one more floor of a villa in Zurich.
  12. indiggo
    indiggo 25 October 2013 12: 05 New
    +7
    Damn, how are you tired, can you understand that we have nowhere stupid to build it? the only place to build an aircraft carrier is ZVEZDA, which will not be built until 2018 ...
  13. Zymran
    Zymran 25 October 2013 12: 13 New
    10
    Envy silently, as they say.
  14. spirit
    spirit 25 October 2013 12: 50 New
    10
    I'm sorry, what! and the industrial power of their shipyards is impressive !! At 9 laid, now ready. Neither delays nor whining that the money was not enough. Purely professional Respect and respect! And in order to name the 2 bombers in the name of Kennedy? well yes! and what? The man who restrained the Washington hawks during the Caribbean crisis and the one who did not want a war in Vietnam))) John would probably be very "happy" smile
  15. vahatak
    vahatak 25 October 2013 14: 50 New
    +1
    critics of aircraft carriers are right. After the collapse of the Union, 10 ships are a bit much, because they use them a little. Maybe after 2023, the pace will slow down and disable a couple more Nimits.
    1. amp
      amp 25 October 2013 15: 18 New
      -11 qualifying.
      Their nemits were also useless in Soviet times. Even if we ignore the fact that the war with the USSR would be a nuclear war that would lead to the destruction of life on Earth, their aircraft carriers were not dangerous for the USSR. Even now, TU 22 will easily make aircraft carriers a useless floating pile of iron. One hit on the take-off deck and all. And if you get into the steam catapult, then generally tryndets.
      1. Abracadabra
        Abracadabra 25 October 2013 16: 23 New
        +5
        Yeah .., just still need to fly and get ..
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 26 October 2013 12: 36 New
          +2
          Quote: Abra Kadabra
          Yeah .., just still need to fly and get ..

          Do not tear people into a pattern if they begin to think about such problems as detection, target designation, radius of action, then the percentage of hat-inspiring moods will drop sharply ...
  16. amp
    amp 25 October 2013 15: 08 New
    -13 qualifying.
    A waste of money and human labor.
    The PPH of any sufficiently developed country will sink this tin can in a few minutes. And for the war with the Papuans, many aircraft carriers are not required.

    It seems to me that the USA is making the same mistake as the USSR. Only the USSR stamped tanks, and aircraft carriers mattresses.
    1. Bishop
      Bishop 25 October 2013 23: 44 New
      +1
      It's a pity, I lost the article with the mention of the meaning of "stamping" tanks by the Union. In it, it was said that the military leadership of the USSR, including on a computer, was calculating the result of a possible military clash with NATO. In that article, one of the high-ranking military officers said something like the following: “We should not have allowed a repeat of 41, our troops, in the event of a possible conflict, in any case, should have reached the western coast of Europe.” Thus, the “stamping” of tanks in the USSR in that a concrete historical situation had its own justification.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 26 October 2013 12: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: amp
      The PPH of any sufficiently developed country will sink this tin can in a few minutes.

      I do not understand what is relevant to this topic Пermsky Рadiotechnical Кcollege?
  17. amp
    amp 25 October 2013 15: 21 New
    -4
    We can defend our country with land-based aviation, but we are not going to attack Papua New Guinea.

    Let the mattresses spend money on useless toys, and we’d better build a couple of hundred T 50 extra.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 25 October 2013 23: 26 New
      +2
      Quote: amp
      We can defend our country with land-based aviation, but we are not going to attack Papua New Guinea.

      Let the mattresses spend money on useless toys, and we’d better build a couple of hundred T 50 extra.


      The history of the struggle between coastal aircraft and aircraft carriers does not confirm your confidence ...
      1. Know-nothing
        Know-nothing 26 October 2013 08: 48 New
        0
        We are protected from aircraft carriers by nuclear weapons, stability (predictability) and integration into the global economy. And for a country that is at war only on its own territory and in the immediate vicinity, aircraft carriers are really "useless toys."
  18. Axel
    Axel 25 October 2013 15: 27 New
    0
    The Stealth Technology Center (STC) of the Maritime University of South Korea (KMU) has created a new type of paint that absorbs radio emission. It can cover any military equipment - from ships to airplanes.
    The new development is able to absorb up to 99% of radio emission and negate the radar visibility of equipment. If this is true, it will be problematic to find such a whopper in the sea.
  19. moremansf
    moremansf 25 October 2013 15: 36 New
    +1
    Aircraft carriers are more of a political argument in resolving territorial disputes and organizing regime change. They themselves are well aware that each AB unit is closely monitored not only from opponents but also allies in the block. Every aircraft carrier outside the base is under the gun of all kinds of means to destroy it. It is possible to use these types of ships in local conflicts, but no more ... this is a kind of psychological weapon aimed at suppressing the will of the leaderships of countries in the region of interest to the United States. An example is Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc. Such an amount, in my opinion, is unnecessary, in our time 4 units would be quite enough, one for each theater of operations. As the saying goes: - "It's not nice to count money in someone else's pocket." I think that, like in any state, the will of the country's leadership is there, right down to personal interest!
  20. MAG
    MAG 25 October 2013 17: 48 New
    +6
    This is how many kilometers of welding I would have lost my mind if I had been cut such a front of work))
  21. MG42
    MG42 25 October 2013 18: 11 New
    +3
    On November 9, at the Newport News Shipbuilding shipyard (Newport News, Virginia), the launch ceremony of the new American aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) will take place.
    In the future, the Pentagon is going to build two more ships of this type.

    In the English video, they even said the name of the next probably CVN-79 John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    After that, they will switch to the construction of aircraft carriers of the new CVX class? obviously, the Americans will not abandon the aircraft carriers under any sauce, ignoring the material costs = while they have a printing press, and the US dollar is the world reserve currency ..
  22. Ahmed Osmanov
    Ahmed Osmanov 25 October 2013 18: 13 New
    +6
    Yeah ... Almost every day we hear that the US economy is sinking. But in fact, we see the opposite: the defense industry is on strike, aircraft carriers, destroyers, new planes, UAVs, etc. are being built. When will they begin to build at the same pace. And with so many orders from the Pentagon and the US special services, industry will not go to the bottom for a very long time.
  23. rrrd
    rrrd 25 October 2013 18: 24 New
    +5
    Absolutely! Well done! For such a short time such vessels to do.
  24. Ross
    Ross 25 October 2013 18: 29 New
    +1
    Quote: aszzz888
    The plans of the mericatos, for worldwide military expansion, have never changed. This once again emphasizes the launching of this aircraft carrier.
    Will our answer be?


    You got ahead, but this article raises this question! hi
    1. killganoff
      killganoff 25 October 2013 19: 22 New
      +4
      The Mistral floating barracks are almost on steam and will kick ass 12 AUG to the treacherous Yankees in the near future! Great Pu chose the right path for the development of the Navy and the Armed Forces as a whole!
  25. killganoff
    killganoff 25 October 2013 19: 16 New
    +3
    A striking indicator of the "decaying" US Army ... We have as many as 2 (!) "Mistrals" under construction!
  26. EdwardTich68
    EdwardTich68 25 October 2013 19: 24 New
    +1
    Here he is a masterpiece of military thought.
  27. coserg 2012
    coserg 2012 25 October 2013 20: 58 New
    +2
    For women, the legislators of the mod are France, and for the designers of the Navy, the United States. To raise technology, to upgrade (not to upgrade!) The machine park, and then - the three crosses allure.
  28. nod739
    nod739 25 October 2013 23: 06 New
    0
    Quote: lex-fim
    What is "expensive" for the people if they print money themselves and how much they want for practically the whole world. Why do they need a war when there are enough threats, while the whole world is already under them.


    it’s not so simple, the workers who build the ship, and the miners who mine ore for metal, eat green waste paper, they need bread, pants, cars and popcorn .... and this is a public debt
  29. Army strong
    Army strong 25 October 2013 23: 06 New
    +4
    Quote: Akhmed Osmanov
    Yeah ... Almost every day we hear that the US economy is sinking. But in fact, we see the opposite: the defense industry is on strike, aircraft carriers, destroyers, new planes, UAVs, etc. are being built. When will they begin to build at the same pace. And with so many orders from the Pentagon and the US special services, industry will not go to the bottom for a very long time.


    It is in the Russian press that the "patriotic hurray" of the US economy is sinking. It has been going on for many years, but for some reason it will not work.

    And about Russia:

    1. rrrd
      rrrd 26 October 2013 00: 58 New
      +2
      here by the way they shake and we will have 10 AUG! )
  30. voliador
    voliador 26 October 2013 00: 12 New
    +1
    And we have a submarine since 2009 they still can’t put into operation.
  31. Su-9
    Su-9 26 October 2013 00: 34 New
    0
    Cyril (and all)
    I have a question on catapults.
    From the article: "With the help of new catapults, the aircraft carrier will be able to ensure the normal intensity of aviation flights at the level of 160 sorties per day."
    It is not very clear how the new EM catapult is connected with the number of sorties - and why the maximum number is so small (220).
    I thought that the number of sorties was connected with the need to service the planes - and that it was impossible to simply prepare each plane 2-3 times in conditions of an aircraft carrier. But where does the catapult? Even earlier, there were enough steam for nuclear carriers - and electricity should be enough even more so.
    1. mixxlll
      mixxlll 26 October 2013 01: 00 New
      0
      Probably robots are sitting at the controls of the aircraft, maintenance personnel are cyborka personnel, since at maximum load of the ship and all systems 220 and the big question is how much can he work in such a rhythm.
  32. mixxlll
    mixxlll 26 October 2013 00: 58 New
    +1
    Here's what I will say to all "well-wishers from beyond the hill",. We will somehow survive, the army is developing, science too, not as we would like, but even so. I advise you to look at your "mighty" countries.
  33. rate
    rate 26 October 2013 07: 04 New
    0
    Quote: Dusk
    only he won’t fall repeat

    Wait already. It will fall down during our lives.
  34. white_f
    white_f 26 October 2013 08: 30 New
    0
    How much dough was sawn ...
  35. Ahmed Osmanov
    Ahmed Osmanov 26 October 2013 08: 54 New
    +1
    Quote: Army Strong
    Quote: Akhmed Osmanov
    Yeah ... Almost every day we hear that the US economy is sinking. But in fact, we see the opposite: the defense industry is on strike, aircraft carriers, destroyers, new planes, UAVs, etc. are being built. When will they begin to build at the same pace. And with so many orders from the Pentagon and the US special services, industry will not go to the bottom for a very long time.


    It is in the Russian press that the "patriotic hurray" of the US economy is sinking. It has been going on for many years, but for some reason it will not work.

    And about Russia:



    Absolutely right! Well done!
  36. borys
    borys 3 November 2013 16: 05 New
    0
    All these aircraft carriers look very impressive. But not a single serious war
    have won. And they will never win.