Looking more like a carrier now. http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2013/01/topping-off-a-carrier-gerald-r-ford-cvn-78-island-landing/
By: Jinan - 21st November 2013 at 21:32
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223048[/ATTACH]
It’s a matter of angle also
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223117[/ATTACH]
By: steely dan - 21st November 2013 at 15:58
It’s strange seeing the island so far back, I’m sure we’ll get used to it.
With the stern-creeping island, we’re getting ever closer to the maritime equivalent of an Imperial Star Destroyer………. which is nice.
By: Portagee - 21st November 2013 at 00:32
It’s strange seeing the island so far back, I’m sure we’ll get used to it.
By: Jinan - 20th November 2013 at 19:23
Dang! She’s big and a beauty.
By: 19kilo10 - 20th November 2013 at 00:59
Some shots of her being moved out of drydock to pier 3.[ATTACH=CONFIG]223048[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]223049[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]223050[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]223051[/ATTACH]
By: 19kilo10 - 10th November 2013 at 00:22
Some shots of the Christening.[ATTACH=CONFIG]222809[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]222810[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]222811[/ATTACH]
By: 19kilo10 - 6th November 2013 at 23:33
Three days to go![ATTACH=CONFIG]222721[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]222722[/ATTACH]
By: Arabella-Cox - 14th October 2013 at 04:35
What a monster…….
By: 19kilo10 - 11th October 2013 at 23:48
Filling the drydock today………she’l be floating soon.[ATTACH=CONFIG]221888[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]221889[/ATTACH]
By: Arabella-Cox - 3rd October 2013 at 03:44
Some recent images of H[ATTACH=CONFIG]221401[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]221402[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]221403[/ATTACH]er. They’re getting Her ready for next month.
Very Nice Pics! Much more angular in shape than the preceding Nimitz Class. I assume that is to improve its RCS???
By: 19kilo10 - 2nd October 2013 at 17:28
some more of the screws[ATTACH=CONFIG]221481[/ATTACH]
By: 19kilo10 - 30th September 2013 at 22:28
more.[ATTACH=CONFIG]221406[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]221407[/ATTACH]
By: 19kilo10 - 30th September 2013 at 22:25
Here’s a couple more.[ATTACH=CONFIG]221404[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]221405[/ATTACH]
By: 19kilo10 - 30th September 2013 at 22:23
Some recent images of H[ATTACH=CONFIG]221401[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]221402[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]221403[/ATTACH]er. They’re getting Her ready for next month.
By: 19kilo10 - 7th September 2013 at 22:43
Probably……….the Ford PCU is getting pretty active over here now. There is ALOT of new equipment on that vessel, and it will take some time to iron out the bugs. Hopefuly it will go smoother than with the LCS nightmare.
By: Arabella-Cox - 7th September 2013 at 20:53
LOL I bet the Ford will be Commissioned and enter full service pretty much as planned……….
By: 19kilo10 - 7th September 2013 at 17:53
True true………..but the US Navy does like to have an airplane that can takeoff with a payload, so they will probably stick with the 35C and SH.:very_drunk:
By: Arabella-Cox - 7th September 2013 at 12:12
As I read this, the situation is the F35C has not yet been proven to be able to catch a wire reliably, the new Ford Class carriers cannot use EMALS to launch them reliably nor can the Ford Class say to the pilot that he can land back on as the new arresting gear does not work either. Makes one think that the UK made a considered decision to revert to the F35B….
By: 19kilo10 - 7th September 2013 at 10:52
That does sound like the US Military. If it ain’t broke……….we simply must have something new.
By: H_K - 7th September 2013 at 06:46
Seems the Ford will be way over budget and not as capable as hoped when delivered. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/06/gao-blasts-navys-ford-class-carrier-program/
Full report available here: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657412.pdf
This is the real scary part: EMALS currently has an MTBF of… 1. 😮 Yes, this means that EMALS experiences a “critical failure” after every launch.
Go straight to pages 37-38 for the gory details. Furthermore, even the USN doesn’t expect EMALS to reach its “minimum reliability requirement” (MTBF of ~90 launches*) until 2032… this according to a ‘projection’ that has already been rebaselined once and which EMALS is currently not even close to on track to meeting. And EMALS appears to be doing better reliability-wise than the new arresting gear and dual band radar…
* Note that C13 catapults had an MTBF of 900 launches… back in 1965.
Sign In
January 27, 2013 at 4:24 pm