USN Carrier configuration

[PR19_Kit]

I got a copy of 'Warships' magazine today, something I only do every few months as I normally can't stand their wholly biased reporting against anything that ISN'T pro-the Royal Navy!

There's an item in there with a CGI drawing of the USN carrier CVN78 'Gerald R. Ford' which shows the superstructure to be right aft, any further aft and it would fall off the back of the deck!

My question is why? The Forrestal Class had the island around mid ships with a deck lift fore and aft and the later Kitty Hawks had the island slid back a bit so there were two lifts forward of it. Now the 'Fords' have ALL the starboard side lifts forward of the island, so is there some advantage to be gained here?

Of course our QEIIs will have two islands, just to be different.  

There's also an item in there about a potential 'AEW gap' for the Royal Navy's fleet. Why does this sound familiar..........?

[Hobbes]

a smaller, redesigned island will be pushed further back relative to the older classes of carriers. Moving the island creates deck space for a centralized re-arming and re-fueling location. This reduces the number of times that an aircraft will have to be moved after landing before it can be launched again. Fewer aircraft movements require, in turn, fewer deck hands to accomplish them, reducing the size of the ship's crew.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier)

[pyro-manic]

IIRC the island was moved back to improve deck operations. The loss of visibility was seen as an acceptable trade-off.

[sandiego89]

I drove by her 2 weeks ago as she sits in the graving dock at Newport news and the island is fitted  I get up close to the carriers routinely and you can readily tell that this island is markedly smaller, and is placed VERY aft.  Looks quite strange compared to the Nimitz class.  Should serve the design purpose well and free up tons of room for aircraft taxing and work- but much less room for "Vultures Row" or "Goofers" to watch the action.   

[PR19_Kit]

Makes sense, thanks. I'm surprised it took THIS long for them to figure that out, but maybe they had lots of surplus manpower in the early days and didn't pay them much to constitute a major cost item back then.

Visibility can't be too much of an issue though, super-tankers and bulk carriers of similar or even larger size have had their bridge structures that far aft for years now, and the 'Ford' has its offset to starboard too.

[pyro-manic]

I think automation is another factor - the Ford class will be much less manpower-intensive than the Nimitz. I think it's telling that the Ford will have a complement of over 1000 less than a Nimitz.

[eatthis]

is landing more dangerous?

[sandiego89]

is landing more dangerous?

Not sure, I had the same thought as I observed her.  Undoutedly much wind tunnel design went into it.  I know there have been issues with other classes of the island causing interfernces, or a burble of wind, into the flight path, and this island is MUCH closer to the approach groove.  Most of the burble issues were with the hot exhaust funnel gasses from conventionally fueled carriers, obviosuly not an issue with the Ford class.  I could not help thinking there will be some wind wake issues, and a stall/crash to starboard (like the T-2 Buckeye crash video on the LEXINGTON) will be disasterous.   

[strilekawk]

I was ship's company on the USS Saratoga, pre-SLEP, and worked on the Roof as a fueler. The reason the island and elevator's were changed between the Forrestal class and Kittyhawk class was if El 2 was down at the hangar bay the landing zone was "fouled" and could not be used. Although it's not common practice to strike gear and aircraft either below decks or topside during air ops it is done from time to time. As for landing, it's not any dangerous between the various classes of carriers. My last time on the roof was as an Aviation Ordnanceman with VFA-305 on the Nimitz. I used to watch the landings and did not notice anything different form my days on the Sara.

[Thorvic]

I got a copy of 'Warships' magazine today, something I only do every few months as I normally can't stand their wholly biased reporting against anything that ISN'T pro-the Royal Navy!

There's an item in there with a CGI drawing of the USN carrier CVN78 'Gerald R. Ford' which shows the superstructure to be right aft, any further aft and it would fall off the back of the deck!

My question is why? The Forrestal Class had the island around mid ships with a deck lift fore and aft and the later Kitty Hawks had the island slid back a bit so there were two lifts forward of it. Now the 'Fords' have ALL the starboard side lifts forward of the island, so is there some advantage to be gained here?

Of course our QEIIs will have two islands, just to be different.  

There's also an item in there about a potential 'AEW gap' for the Royal Navy's fleet. Why does this sound familiar..........?

You mean as opposed to the Pro-Crab Air attitudes of most of the aviation magazines ?, yes WI is a tad bias but then again somebody has to stand up and be counted as history has shown us the RN can't trust the RAF as they do what ever they can to dismiss Naval Aviation for their own self interest time and time again. However the standard of Defence Journalism has gone discintly downhill over the years, rather than being impartial, most tend to favour one service and the level background history checking done these days is criminal resulting in gutter press level level statements full of opinion and seriously short on fact and background.

Fact - yes their will be a an AEW shortfall when the Sea Kings retire in 2016 as they expect Project Crowsnest not to stand up till 2020 to join the QEC flight group, however the technology options are both being tested and either solution could be implemented at short notice if the need arises. One is to reuse the current Watchkeeper system bolted onto a frame on the side of af an ASW Merlin that can be lowered on rails in flight, the other is the LM(UK) Vigilent system using a podded version of the F-35 radar that can bolt on to the ASW Merlin weapon ptlon mounts. The project is in definition phase at the moment and funding will be earmarked in the next SDSR for full procurement and implementation.

Yes the CVN-78 GRF has a new flight deck design and Island, it also has the new EMALS electromagnestic catapults and the new 3 wire ARG Advanced Arresting Gear so it quite a departure from the Nimitz design although not quite as radical as some of the CVN-21 proposals. The New island is stealthly and incorporates the radar that would have been previously mounted on a seperate tower structure aft of the Island. The Island is located aft in the location of the usual fourth deck lift to optimise the flight deck lay out and flight operations management, i suspect ship operations and navigation makes up for the loss of visibility with a back of cameras radar and computers to give a more detailed 3D model of ship and anything in clos proximity to it.



The key aspect now with the Ford's is will the USN be able to replace all its Nimitz class on a one to one basis or will they be forced to draw out the build and eventually draw down the carrier numbers to more affordabl levels ?

[eatthis]

i see 2 stealth looking things on the deck

[PR19_Kit]

You mean as opposed to the Pro-Crab Air attitudes of most of the aviation magazines ?, yes WI is a tad bias but then again somebody has to stand up and be counted as history has shown us the RN can't trust the RAF as they do what ever they can to dismiss Naval Aviation for their own self interest time and time again. However the standard of Defence Journalism has gone discintly downhill over the years, rather than being impartial, most tend to favour one service and the level background history checking done these days is criminal resulting in gutter press level level statements full of opinion and seriously short on fact and background.

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I mean, except WI goes to the most extraordinary lengths to shove their opinions down the reader's throat, especially those of their columnist 'Odin', who I suspect has never flown in an aircraft in his/her entire life!

The British aviation magazines are obviously pro-RAF, but nowhere NEAR as hard-over as WI is toward the Royal Navy. Putting forward ideas like the whole of British military flying should be in the hands of the RN is just plain stupid, about the same level of stupidity as that proposed by whoever thought up 'Joint Force Harrier'..........

[PR19_Kit]

Re the EMALS systems, my own previous employers developed the control systems for this device maybe 10-15 years back but the whole thing has been taken over by General Atomics as it wasn't seen '......as part of our core business......' Accountant-speak for 'This could cost us an arm and a leg if it goes wrong!'  

I ecorted one of our sales guys to the Bath MoD site to discuss the use of the EMALS on the QEII class carriers way back before I retired, but it never came to anything as both the MoD and my employers had changed their mind by the time it came to it!  

[Gondor]

I ecorted one of our sales gus to the Bath MoD site to discuss the use of the EMALS on the QEII class carriers way back before I retired, but it never came to anything as both the MoD and my employers had changed their mind by the time it came to it! 

Probably changed their minds again from what I have heard with the continual mind changing on the QEII.

Gondor