Decommissioning the Nimitz is a Huge Mistake..

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Actually the key for an aircraft carrier is how fast it can launch and recover aircraft.
Thus, the key is the flight deck, not the power plant.
A 50 year old flight deck is toast

Not very knowledgeable, but the Nimitz is one of 10 Nimitz class carriers.
USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
USS George Washington (CVN-73)
USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)

Don't know if all have the same flight deck configuration, but if same/similar, that would mean the '50 year old flight deck' argument either applies to all of the 9 remaining ships or is not really that relevant when discussing decommissioning versus refit of Nimitz.

[royamcr]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Actually the key for an aircraft carrier is how fast it can launch and recover aircraft.
Thus, the key is the flight deck, not the power plant.
A 50 year old flight deck is toast

The new carriers have electro mechanical catapults, the older carriers have steam powered.

I imagine adjusting power for different weight aircraft is much easier and faster than dialing in steam power.

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by royamcr

The new carriers have electro mechanical catapults, the older carriers have steam powered.

I imagine adjusting power for different weight aircraft is much easier and faster than dialing in steam power.

Related Trump comments

“Seriously, I’m putting out an order. I’m going to sign an executive order. When we build aircraft carriers, it’s steam for the catapults and it’s hydraulic for the elevators. We’ll never have a problem,”

“He agrees. Everybody agrees. But, ahh, these people in Washington.”

“Give me a glass of water, let me drop it on the magnets, that’s the end of the magnets,”

“They spent $993 million on the catapults trying to get them to work. And they had steam, which works so beautifully, and it has for 50 years,”

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by royamcr

The new carriers have electro mechanical catapults, the older carriers have steam powered.

I imagine adjusting power for different weight aircraft is much easier and faster than dialing in steam power.

Wonder if they'll have a rail gun attachment for that

[Unique_Carpenter]

Originally Posted by RX792P

Not very knowledgeable, but the Nimitz is one of 10 Nimitz class carriers.
USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
USS George Washington (CVN-73)
USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)

Don't know if all have the same flight deck configuration, but if same/similar, that would mean the '50 year old flight deck' argument either applies to all of the 9 remaining ships or is not really that relevant when discussing decommissioning versus refit of Nimitz.

Depends on when they were built.
The Nimitz was the first of the class.
This run of ships was designed for a 50 year cycle, with one nuke refuel.
Commission dates
Nimitz - 1975
Eisenhower - 1977
Vinson - 1982
Roosevelt - 1986
Lincoln - 1989
GW - 1992
Stennis - 1995
Truman - 1998
Reagan - 2003
Bush - 2009

So add 50 years to each of these dates to get to approximate retirement date.
The GW and earlier have had their nuke refuel.
Stennis is currently being refueled.

The first Ford class - Ford commissioned 2017
Note the hull design is similar to the Nimitz.
Initial plan is 10 Ford class.
Three Ford class are in various stages of construction with deliveries estimated every 5 plus years with the Kennedy being delivered spring 2027. Following that another Enterprise, so the CVN 65 Enterprise (not a Nimitz) days are numbered.

Note, Newport news shipyard is the only facility that can build these, and they have three currently in different stages of construction. Schedule is trying to get production down to a 5 year run or less.

You all need to drop the idea of "Save the Nimitz". There's an entire multiple decade program in place to replace CVN's every 5 years, hopefully 4.
There are currently 11 active carriers, although the Stennis is currently in refit/refuel. There will always be 10 out on the water is the game plan.

[Precious_b]

Maybe they'll haul it to Fredricksburg as a static display

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by royamcr

The new carriers have electro mechanical catapults, the older carriers have steam powered.

I imagine adjusting power for different weight aircraft is much easier and faster than dialing in steam power.

that is one of the main reasons to go to electro-mechanical systems. they also require far less maintenance than the old steam catapults.

Originally Posted by RX792P

Not very knowledgeable, but the Nimitz is one of 10 Nimitz class carriers.
USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
USS George Washington (CVN-73)
USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)

Don't know if all have the same flight deck configuration, but if same/similar, that would mean the '50 year old flight deck' argument either applies to all of the 9 remaining ships or is not really that relevant when discussing decommissioning versus refit of Nimitz.

the design is the same. the design used was based on several prior designs, the first being the Forrestal and refined by several sub-classes. interestingly several Essex class WWII era carriers were retro fitted for angled flight decks which extended their life cycles by decades.


the Ford class is the first significant redesign of the flight deck since Nimitz.


compare them ..






the most significant change is moving the tower farther back on the Ford class





the US and China aren't the only ones designing new aircraft carriers .. the new British Queen Elizabeth class is a non-nuclear state of the art carrier with a unique two tower design.







the British planned for two and have completed both. and like the Ford not without some issues with the new design.



this design came from an initial joint design effort with the French. the French wanted nuclear power where the British ultimately decided against. the French did not go forward with a new design.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_...rcraft_carrier


interestingly the French operate the only other nuclear powered angle deck catapult based carrier, the Charles de Gaulle


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French...rles_de_Gaulle







the French design also had/has ongoing technical issues. to coin a phrase .. it's a piece of shit!



BAHHAHAAAA

[pxmcc]

^^the shit you can learn on a hooker board..

good info TWK!

maybe i'm missing something, but the 50 year thing seems arbitrary af. we should learn from our B-52 experience, which is a borderline miracle imho..

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

^^the shit you can learn on a hooker board..

good info TWK!

maybe i'm missing something, but the 50 year thing seems arbitrary af. we should learn from our B-52 experience, which is a borderline miracle imho..

the difference is the cost and time to refuel the reactors. updating engines and electronics on the B-52 vs. refueling nuclear reactors isn't even in the same ball park.


the Navy needs the Ford class for several reasons one is the planned power design upgrades for advanced weapons like rail guns and most importantly laser based weapons that can counter hyper sonic missiles. the other is to continue the ability to construct these massive ships.



you can't just stop/start this ability like a light switch.

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by TWK

that is one of the main reasons to go to electro-mechanical systems. they also require far less maintenance than the old steam catapults

so you differ with Trump

“Seriously, I’m putting out an order. I’m going to sign an executive order. When we build aircraft carriers, it’s steam for the catapults and it’s hydraulic for the elevators. We’ll never have a problem,”

[Precious_b]

So, for a person who ain't a squid, I once heard that India builds the floating part for ships and the rest of the stuff and goodies are done here. Did this occur with any ships that were in the US fleet or was this for other countries?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by RX792P

so you differ with Trump

yes. i do. the new technology is needed. Trump is overreacting to issues with the new technology which did happen but by now those issues have been resolved. and it wasn't just the catapults they also applied it to the elevators for munitions too.


issues with these new advanced systems delayed operational status by several years. those issues have been solved now and will not delay the construction or certification in the next carriers of the class.