Jump to content

USS Gerald R. Ford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.176.136.241 (talk) at 16:44, 20 September 2008 (→Ship naming). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Future ship

CVN-78
History
US
NameUSS Gerald R. Ford
NamesakeGerald R. Ford
Awarded10 September 2008
BuilderNorthrop Grumman Newport News
Cost5.1 Billion
Laid downest. 2009
Commissionedest. 2015
StatusCurrently in Design and Development stage
General characteristics
Class and typeGerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
Displacementappx. 100,000 tons
Length1,092 ft (333 m)
Beam134 ft (41 m)
Propulsion2 x A1B reactor
Speed30+ knots
RangeUnlimited distance; 20–25 years
EnduranceLimited only by supplies on board
Complement4,660
Armamentlist error: <br /> list (help)
Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile
Rolling Airframe Missile
Close-in weapons system(CIWS)
Aircraft carriedMore than 75

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is to be the lead ship of her class of United States Navy supercarriers. As announced by the U.S. Navy on January 16 2007, the ship will be named after the 38th President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford.[1]

Ford is scheduled to be laid down in 2009, concurrently or nearly so with the commissioning of USS George H. W. Bush. Construction work has begun; on August 11, 2005, Northrop Grumman held a ceremonial steel cut for a 15-ton plate that will form part of a side shell unit of the carrier. The schedule calls for the ship to join the U.S. Navy’s fleet in 2015. Ford is slated to replace the current Enterprise, ending her 50-plus years of service with the United States Navy.[2]

Ship naming

In 2006, while President Ford was still alive, Senator John Warner of Virginia proposed to amend a 2007 defense spending bill to declare that CVN-78 "shall be named the U.S.S. Gerald Ford."[3] The final version signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006[4] declared only that it "is the sense of Congress that ... CVN-78 should be named the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford."[5] Since such "sense of" language is typically non-binding and does not carry the force of law,[6] the Navy was not required to name the ship after Ford.

On January 3, 2007, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the aircraft carrier would be named after Ford during a eulogy for the president at Grace Episcopal Church in East Grand Rapids, Michigan.[7] Rumsfeld indicated that he had personally told Ford of the honor during a visit to Ford's home in Rancho Mirage a few weeks before Ford's death. This makes the aircraft carrier one of the few U.S. ships named after someone still alive. Later in the day, the Navy confirmed that the aircraft carrier would indeed be named for the former president.[8] On January 16, 2007, Navy Secretary Donald Winter officially named CVN-78 the USS Gerald R. Ford. Ford's daughter, Susan Ford Bales, was named the ship's sponsor. The announcements were made at a Pentagon ceremony attended by Vice President Dick Cheney, Senators Warner and Levin, General Guy C. Swan III, Bales, Ford's other three children, and others.[9]

The USS America Carrier Veterans Association (CVA) had pushed to name the ship USS America.[10] The CVA is an association of sailors who served aboard USS America (CV-66), which was decommissioned in 1996 and scuttled in 2005.

From the Nimitz to the Ford

The Nimitz class aircraft carrier has been an integral part of United States power projection strategy since the Nimitz was first commissioned nearly thirty-five years ago. Displacing approximately 100,000 tons when fully loaded the Nimitz class carrier is capable of steaming faster than thirty knots, self-sustaining for up to ninety days, and launching aircraft to strike targets hundreds of miles away.[11]The endurance of this class can be exemplified by the USS Theodore Roosevelt, which spent 159 days underway in support of Operation Enduring Freedom without the need to be refueled or visit a port. [12] Over the lifespan of the class many new technologies have been successfully integrated into the design of this vessel. However, with the technical advances made in the past decade the ability of the US Navy to make improvements to this class of ship has been limited by hard constraints. “The biggest problems facing the Nimitz class are the limited electrical power generation capability and the upgrade-driven increase in ship weight and erosion of the center of gravity margin needed to maintain ship stability.” [13]

With these constraints in mind the Navy developed CVN-78, the USS Gerald R. Ford. Improvements were made through developing technologies and more efficient design. Major design changes include a larger flight deck, improvements in weapons and material handling, a new propulsion plant design that requires fewer personnel to operate and maintain, and a new smaller island that has been pushed aft. Technological advances in the field of electromagnetics have lead to the development of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System, (EMALS), and an Advanced Arresting Gear, (AAG). An integrated warfare system has been developed to support flexibility in adapting the infrastructure of the ship to future mission roles. The new Dual Band Radar (DBR) combines S-band and X-band radar in a single system. [14] With new design and technology the Ford will have a 25% increase in sortie generation, three fold increase in electrical generating capacity, increased operational availability, and a number of quality life improvements. [15]

Changes to the flight deck are the most visible of the differences between the Nimitz and Ford classes. Several sections have been added to the layout of the Nimitz flight deck to improve aircraft handling, storage, and flow. Catapult number four on the Nimitz class cannot launch fully loaded aircraft because of a deficiency of wing clearance along the edge of the flight deck. [16] CVN-78 will have no catapult specific restrictions on launching aircraft. The design changes to the flight deck are instrumental in the maximization of sortie generation.

Another major change; a smaller, redesigned island will be pushed back relative to the older class of carriers. By moving the island there is now 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. Minimized aircraft movements leads to a decreased workload on personnel, therefore, there are also reduced manpower requirements.

By altering the path and means that weapons are moved from storage to the flight deck there is a reduction in manpower and an increase in the sortie generation rate. On Nimitz class carriers the time that it takes to launch a plane after it has landed is defined by the time necessary to re-arm. To minimize this time ordnance will be moved by robotic devices from storage areas to the centralized re-arming location via re-located weapons elevators. The new path that ordnance follows does not cross any areas of aircraft movement, thereby reducing traffic problems in the hangers and on the flight deck. According to Rear Admiral Dennis M. Dwyer these changes will make it possible to re-arm in “minutes instead of hours.” [17]

The propulsion and power plant of the Nimitz class carriers was designed in the 1960s. Technological capabilities of that time did not require the same quantity that modern technologies do. “New technologies added to the Nimitz class ships have generated increased demands for electricity; the current base load leaves little margin to meet expanding demands for power.”[18] Increasing the capability of the Navy to improve the technological level of the carrier fleet required a larger capacity power system.

The new A1B reactor plant is a smaller, more efficient, design that provides approximately three times the electrical power of the Nimitz class A4W reactor plant. The modernization of the plant lead to a higher core energy density, lower demands for pumping power, a simpler construction, and the use of modern electronic controls and displays. These changes resulted in a two thirds reduction of watch standing requirements and a significant decrease of required maintenance. [19]

A larger power output is a major component to the integrated warfare system. Engineers took extra steps to ensure that integrating unforeseen technological advances onto a Ford class aircraft carrier would be possible. The Nimitz class will be an integral component of the fleet for a total of nearly ninety years. One lesson learned from that is for a ship design to be successful over the course of a century requires a great deal of foresight and flexibility. Integrating new technologies with the Nimitz class is becoming more difficult to do without any negative consequences. To bring the Ford class into dominance during the next century of naval warfare requires that the class be capable of seamlessly upgrading to more advanced systems.

The Nimitz class aircraft carriers use steam-powered catapults to launch aircraft that were developed in the 1950s. Steam catapults have been exceptionally reliable. For over fifty years at least one of the four catapults has been able to launch an aircraft 99.5% of the time. [20] However, there are a number of drawbacks. “The foremost deficiency is that the catapult operates without feedback control. With no feedback, there often occurs large transients in tow force that can damage or reduce the life of the airframe.” [21] The steam system is massive, inefficient (4-6%)[22], and hard to control.

Control problems with the system results in minimum and maximum weight limits. The minimum weight limit is above the weight of all UAVs. An inability to launch the latest additions to the Naval Air Force is a restriction on operations that cannot continue into the next generation of aircraft carriers. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System provides solutions to all these problems. An electromagnetic system is more efficient, smaller, lighter, more powerful, and easier to control. Increased control means that EMALS will be able to launch heavier and lighter aircraft than the steam catapult. Also, the use of a controlled force will reduce the stress on airframes, resulting in less maintenance and a longer lifetime for the airframe. Unfortunately the power limitations for the Nimitz class make the installation of the recently developed EMALS impossible.

Electromagnetics will also be used in the new Advanced Arresting Gear system. The current system relies on hydraulics to slow and stop a landing aircraft. While effective, as demonstrated by more than fifty years of implementation, the AAG system offers a number of improvements. The current system is unable to capture UAVs without damaging them due to extreme stresses on the airframe. UAVs do not have the necessary mass to drive the large hydraulic piston used to trap heavier manned planes. By using electromagnetics the energy absorption is controlled by a turbo-electric engine. This makes the trap smoother and reduces shock on airframes. Even though the system will look the same on the flight deck it will be more flexible, safe, reliable, and require less maintenance and manning. [23]

Another new addition to the Ford class is an integrated search and tracking radar system. The Dual Band Radar is being developed for both the DDG 1000 and the Ford. The island can be kept smaller by replacing six to ten radar antennas with a single 6-faced radar. The DBR works by combining the X-Band AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar with the S-Band Volume Search Radar. [24] The three faces dedicated to the X-band radar are responsible for low altitude tracking and target illumination. While the other three faces dedicated to the S-band are responsible for target search and tracking regardless of weather. “Operating simultaneously over two electromagnetic frequency ranges, the DBR marks the first time this functionality has been achieved using two frequencies coordinated by a single resource manager.” [25] This new system has no moving parts therefore minimizing maintenance and manning requirements for operation.

Each new technology and design feature integrated into the Ford class aircraft carrier improves sortie generation, manning requirements, and operational capabilities. Preparing for the future is trademark of the Ford. New defense systems, such as laser guns, dynamic armor, and tracking systems will require more power. “Only half of the electrical power-generation capability on the CVN 78 is needed to run currently planned systems, including EMALS. CVN 78 will thus have the power reserves that the Nimitz class lacks to run lasers and dynamic armor.” [26] The addition of new technologies, power systems, design layout, and better control systems results in an increased sortie generation rate of 25% over the Nimitz class and a 25% reduction in manpower required to operate.[27]

See also

References

  1. ^ Navy Names New Aircraft Carrier USS Gerald R. Ford - Official Announcement from Secretary of the Navy
  2. ^ Navy CVN-21 Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress Retrieved 8 December 2006
  3. ^ United States Library of Congress. Template:PDFlink, Senate Amendment 4211. Retrieved December 5, 2006.
  4. ^ Defense Link News Article. President Signs 2007 Defense Authorization Act. Retrieved December 1, 2006
  5. ^ United States Library of Congress. House Resolution 5122, Section 1012 (p. 292). Retrieved December 1, 2006.
  6. ^ C-SPAN's Capitol Questions. Sense of Congress. Retrieved December 5, 2006.
  7. ^ Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum
  8. ^ Next Navy aircraft carrier to be named for late President Gerald Ford, buried Wednesday Retrieved 3 January 2007
  9. ^ Gerald R. Ford Foundation and exhibits, speakers and activities it supports
  10. ^ Dujardin, Peter, Skirmish erupts over naming of new carrier, Newport News Daily Press, October 25, 2006. Retrieved December 5, 2006
  11. ^ "Ship Information." USS Nimitz Homepage. 4 Mar. 2008
  12. ^ "Our Ship." USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) Web Page. 4 Mar. 2008
  13. ^ Schank, John. Modernizing the U.S. Aircraft Carrier Fleet: Accelerating CVN 21 Production Versus Mid-Life Refueling. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 2005. p. 76
  14. ^ Larrabee, Chuck. "DDG 1000 Dual Band Radar (DBR)." Raytheon. 1 Mar. 2008
  15. ^ Aircraft Carriers - CVN 21 Program." The US Navy -- Fact File. 8 Oct. 2007. 4 Mar. 2008
  16. ^ Schank, John. Modernizing the U.S. Aircraft Carrier Fleet p. 77
  17. ^ Keeter, Hunter. "New carrier island is a heart of higher sortie rates for CVN 21 ." BNET Business Management Network. 4 Mar. 2008
  18. ^ Schank, John. Modernizing the U.S. Aircraft Carrier Fleet p. 78
  19. ^ John Schank ... ; et al. (2005). "Modernizing the U.S. aircraft carrier fleet : accelerating CVN 21 production versus mid-life refueling" (PDF). RAND. p. 78. Retrieved 2008-09-14. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); line feed character in |title= at position 84 (help)
  20. ^ Schank, John. Modernizing the U.S. Aircraft Carrier Fleet p. 80
  21. ^ Doyle, Michael, Douglas Samuel, Thomas Conway, and Robert Klimowski. "Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System - EMALS." Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst. 1 Mar. p. 1
  22. ^ Doyle, Michael, "Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System - EMALS." p. 1
  23. ^ Rodriguez, Carmelo. "Launch and Recovery Testing." ITEA-SAN. Turboelectric Arresting Gear. Mission Valley Hotel, San Diego. 16 June 2005.
  24. ^ Larrabee, Chuck. "Raytheon Successfully Integrates Final Element of Dual Band Radar for DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer." Raytheon News Release. 4 Mar. 2008
  25. ^ Larrabee, Chuck. "DDG 1000 Dual Band Radar (DBR)." Raytheon. 1 Mar. 2008
  26. ^ Schank, John. Modernizing the U.S. Aircraft Carrier Fleet p. 83
  27. ^ Taylor, Leslie. "CVN 21 MS&A Overview." NDIA. 7 June 2006. 1 Mar. 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Gerald_R._Ford&oldid=239810618"