Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The New American Aircraft Carriers

Discussion in 'The War at Sea' started by Varyag, Aug 27, 2006.

  1. Varyag

    Varyag New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The CVN-77 George H.W. Bush is on its way into service. It is described as 'transition ship' incorporating much of the attributes of the CVNX/CVN-21 class.

    Construction of the first carrier of the new class, CVN-78 is scheduled to begin next year.

    [​IMG]

    The new class is described as having "a sortie rate increased by 25% thanks to an enhanced flight deck layout, with improved weapons movement and "pit stops" to fuel and arm aircraft, a redesigned and relocated island, three (instead of four) faster and more powerful elevators, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS, instead of steam catapults) and an Advanced Aircraft Recovery System (AARS); a new nuclear power plant; a new combat system; allowance for future technologies and reduced manning".

    Please consider this as both an invitation to a debate and an inquiry for more details.
     
  2. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    That's nice. But, Varyag, you're a little late 'cause I already heard of the new carrier. Still, thanks for bringin' it up.
     
  3. Varyag

    Varyag New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I'm sure many of you have heard about them, which is why I wrote "please consider this as both an invitation to a debate and an inquiry for more details".

    I just wanted to talk about them.
     
  4. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I hadn't :grin:
     
  5. McRis

    McRis New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    a_centauri
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, i'm surprised by this! :eek:
    I've read that the US are planning to reduce their carrier fleet and pospone all new carrier projects due to financial problems.
     
  6. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    Wow! For once a lieutanent-not just any lieutenant, but me, who rarely does any research, knows something that a general-an administrator, doesn't! Guess knowledge and seniority really aren't the same thing. No offence.
     
  7. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    You're the only one on here that even refers to the ranks at all Blaster, everyone else just ignores them as being basically irrelevant.

    They're completely meaningless. They convey no inferred seniority or privileges and do not imply that you're more knowledgable than a junior rank, they just mean you've exceeded a certain post count.

    That's why the rest of us ignore them.
     
  8. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Being an Admministrator does not mean that you know everything - otherwise I'd never be one :wink:
     
  9. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    The reason I put that "guess knowledge and seniority aren't the same after all" sentence was to try to prevent another talking-to by one of the senior (but not neccessarily more knowledgable) members by trying to show that I understand that ranks aren't everything. But, I got a talking-to anyways, so I got it and never mind.
     
  10. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Blaster, it wasn't my intention to give you a talking to then or now.

    It isn't necessary to show that you understand ranks aren't everything (To be honest for most of us, if not all, they aren't anything), if you want to do so the easiest thing to do is simply not mention them at all.

    It is impossible to convey the intended tone of a typed post, people will read things differently, often depending on their own mood at the time. Use of the Emoticons or smilies is a great way of showing if you mean something to appear tongue in cheek or sarcastic.

    For instance:

    and:

    Read differently, the first appears serious, the latter clearly doesn't.

    Lastly, I doubt anyone here regardless of level of expertise or rank would seriously claim to know everything, so it shouldn't come as a surprise when even those whose knowledge seems pretty wide ranging come up against a gap in what they know.
     
  11. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    anybody who claims to know everything military is a complete ass!

    Even claiming to know all there is to know all there is about a narrow subject, such as WW2 tanks, is still probably an ass and going to get bit on the bum for such a comment.

    But yes, forums lack the subtleties of speach and a simpe comment and be misconstrued to a different meaning which often causes offence. I find it best to let everything wash over you and ignore the lot.

    FNG

    PS, anyone think they should rename the CV Bush to the CV Bomb Iraq as that's all they seem to do. Besides I thought it was bad form to name a floating ship against a living person as any attack on the ship is a slur to the person concerned? And what has Bush done to deserve a CV? Why not Reagan or Nixon?
     
  12. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    Reagan already has a carrier named after him (CVN 76)

    IIRC this one is named after Bush Senior, not the present incumbent.

    I dont know if "Tricky Dickie" has any warships named after him. Since he left office under less than perfect circumstances, it seems unlikely

    Tom
     
  13. Varyag

    Varyag New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Gerald Ford is suggested as the name for CVN-78 so they skipped Nixon again! :wink:
     
  14. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Why use a thread in the war at sea section regarding a particular class of warship to inject your political opinions? Isn't there a more appropriate place on these forums for that?
     
  15. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I'd consider such a remark bad taste too, I'm sure anyone with a few minutes and the inclination to do so could come up with a hundred other positive things the US has done. As an aside, I believe the ones doing the bombing in Iraq at the moment are the insurgents rather than anyone else.

    BTW we British don't have a problem with the QE2 as named do we? :wink: Last I checked Elizabeth was still on the throne...
     
  16. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    Different Navies, different traditions (and the QE2 is a merchie)

    It used to be that the first major warship laid down in a new sovereign's reign would be named after them, hence the "Wobbly Eights" (King Edward VII class of pre-dreadnoughts) and the first King George V dreadnought. Before that, the RN had an "HMS Queen", "HMS Empress of India" (and Emperor of India) and the ill-fated HMS Victoria

    This seems to have broken down with George VI

    Tom
     
  17. PMN1

    PMN1 recruit

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Me, I would have preferred Trafalgar and Excalibur, there's also Lionheart but thats had even less chance than Trafalgar.........



    :smok:

    http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discu ... 5284.topic
     
  18. McRis

    McRis New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    a_centauri
    via TanksinWW2
    HMS Banockburn seems to be another option. It sounds good anyway :lol: :D :grin:
     
  19. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    Somehow the Sassenachs wouldnt go for that one (or HMS Flodden or HMS Prestonpans), There were, however, a number of HMS Culloden's from shortly after 1746 right up to the late Napoleonic Wars.


    IMHO, the new RN carriers (if they ever get built) should re-use a couple of the "I" names (Invincible and Illustrious are out, but there's still Indomitable and Indefatigable) since they have good CV associations.

    Now, please no-one mention armoured flight decks :D
     
  20. McRis

    McRis New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    a_centauri
    via TanksinWW2
    Flodden was an English victory wasn't it? Prestopans a Scottish one... I'm a little confused...
     

Share This Page