http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=30854
Didn’t look real close but it certainly seems lacking in the defensive armament category. Then again it’s suppose to have 25% more power (Would bump it to something like 325,000 – 350,000shp) and much higher electrical power so maybe they’re planning on fitting it with solidstate laser CIWS.
By: xanadu - 4th January 2006 at 06:28
Anyone got any pics of the design that lost out for the new CVN project?
By: sferrin - 28th December 2005 at 16:34
Why have the Island so far back ? there have been so many carriers built in the last 90 years that would have thought they would have defined best practice by now 😀
Is this the one thats going to have the electro-magnetic launch system ? Last thing I heard the RN were going to offer to part fund its development, but was being held up due to American government rules on sharing new technology ?
They got rid of the elevator behind the island (apparently it isn’t used much) and that made it so they could slide the island back to give them more room up front.
By: SteveO - 28th December 2005 at 15:43
Better pics and more info on the CVN-21 program website http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/cvn21/index.html
By: EdLaw - 28th December 2005 at 15:05
Yes, because catapult technology is so dangerous… Just think, you could replace all the current fighters, bombers and missiles with a piece of metal, fired by catapult…
By: Super Nimrod - 28th December 2005 at 14:58
Why have the Island so far back ? there have been so many carriers built in the last 90 years that would have thought they would have defined best practice by now 😀
Is this the one thats going to have the electro-magnetic launch system ? Last thing I heard the RN were going to offer to part fund its development, but was being held up due to American government rules on sharing new technology ?
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th December 2005 at 14:48
That looks like a really nice carrier – what are the estimated unit costs? Or hasn’t the DoD got that far yet?
By: wd1 - 28th December 2005 at 13:17
Is it me, or does the island look dangerously far back, i.e. very close to the landing path?
It is interesting that they claim ‘cost savings’ as a reason for the new design – the ships are predicted as ~$3-4bn more than a new Nimitz class, all to save a predicted $5bn over the 50 year life of the carrier…
the $3-4bn extra for CVN-78 factors in the R&D and new-technology costs for all the new inventions – EMCAT, electric drive, increased intraship networking etc. should be able to spread out the cost as more new carriers are built. a
and the $5bn savings is just the money – think of all the benefits the new tech brings. increased launch weights and better safety from the EMCATs and new arrestor schemes, more flexible power management from the electric drive etc.
By: EdLaw - 28th December 2005 at 08:35
Is it me, or does the island look dangerously far back, i.e. very close to the landing path?
It is interesting that they claim ‘cost savings’ as a reason for the new design – the ships are predicted as ~$3-4bn more than a new Nimitz class, all to save a predicted $5bn over the 50 year life of the carrier…
By: danrh - 28th December 2005 at 02:52
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=30854
Didn’t look real close but it certainly seems lacking in the defensive armament category. Then again it’s suppose to have 25% more power (Would bump it to something like 325,000 – 350,000shp) and much higher electrical power so maybe they’re planning on fitting it with solidstate laser CIWS.
Seems to have a similar mix of Sea Sparrow, Phalanx and RAM that is fitted to current models. Besides since when is 2-3 DDGs and CG considered a lack of defensive armament. 😉
Daniel
Sign In
December 28, 2005 at 1:43 am