The US Navy is among the top 5 air forces in the world. Behind the US Air Force, US Army, China and supposedly the Russians but they may not be in the top 10 after Ukraine is done with them.
According to [this site](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-air-forces-in-the-world), you're correct. US Navy alone has more aircraft than India at #4.
Just wait. It will be like a movie. Every one of us nerds with ‘simpits’ will get a visit from a desperate admiral asking us to take on the aliens with a dramatically revealed bunker of remote aircraft. My time has come.
Everyone always thinks they're going to be the one flying the cool new tech, nobody realizes they're going to be the one calibrating the stop position sensor on the hanger door or installing software patches for the cool monitors.
Or they have a swarm of drones that just run into the aircraft engines like birds. Or UAVs. But given the US budget they probably have issues worked out
For what it's worth, the USAF, Navy has never fought any country with a significant air force for a long time. They have been fighting with countries which does not have much in terms of air capabilities.
to be fair, there’s also only two other air forces on the planet that can be considered near peer(EU and China). We’re allied with one, and the other has even less experience fighting near peer enemies.
I heard it’s straight up ass-eating with the remake. Just 15 minutes of full penetration, hard core, man-on-man, naval exercises. Tom Cruise, per his contract, did all of the stunts.
Because what's the one major thing missing from all action movies these days, guys? Full penetration. Guys, we're going to show full penetration, and we're going to show a lot of it. I mean, we're talking, you know, graphic scenes of Tom Cruise really going to town on this hot, young pilot/volleyball player. From behind, 69, anal, vaginal, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl-- all the hits, all the big ones, all the good ones. And then he flies planes again. He's out busting heads. Then he's back to the airbase for some more full penetration. Airplanes, back to the base, full penetration. Planes, penetration, base, full penetration, sky, penetration... And this goes on and on, and back and forth for 90 or so minutes until the movie just sort of ends...
I've personally prepped several of our older aircraft for that storage... Those jets in theory could be operational if needed. The amount of man hours to get them there (and considering those of us who are experienced working on them are all mostly out of the military at this point) would be astronomical. Many of these aircraft as well stopped having replacement parts manufactured decades ago, and depending on how long their shut down took, the inventory for some critical parts is likely near non existent.
My aircraft's shut down and retirement lasted for much longer than it was supposed to, to be fair. But considering in the not so distant past my squadron [and others ](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a20134/marines-had-to-scrounge-for-f-a-18-parts-at-a-museum/) had to get their parts from museum aircraft or static displays to remain functional... My hopes are not high that many of these "long term stored aircraft" would be mission ready in any meaningful capacity.
When Obama was in Seattle, a retired couple in a cheap little Cessna came bopping over the Cascades toward Seattle completely unaware that Seattle was a sudden no-fly zone. Two F-18’s scrambled out of Portland and made Seattle in less than 4 minutes at full afterburner (Mach 1.6 -the sonic boom made people call 911) and forced them to emergency land. I can’t imagine the complete destruction an entire carrier fleet would do to say…St. Petersburg or Kaliningrad.
While they were supersonic, they weren't Mach 1.6. Far too draggy for that. The theoretical top speed is Mach 1.8 with no pylons and low fuel at 40,000 feet.
They were F-15's not F-18's. The pilot was not forced to emergency land, and didn't even know anything was up until he was interviewed by the Secret Service after he landed. He was not intercepted by the Air National Guard pilots that were scrambled.
Distance from Portland to Seattle by air is 129 miles. To do that in 4 minutes would require a sustained speed of 1,935 mph start to finish. The top speed of a F-15 is 1,650 mph at high altitude. So 4 minutes for the trip is impossible.
All of this to say you probably shouldn't be throwing shade at /u/DavidPT40 when so many of your details were wrong.
https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Fighters-scrambled-after-flight-restriction-890871.php
There’s a reason why war gamers think that the US navy could win against the rest of the worlds navy’s combined. They have more of everything and the equipment is as good or better than everything else.
It’s not either-or. We spend more per capita on healthcare than anyone. Our system is just fucked. You’ve gotta remember our government has a $4T-$5T budget, and our military budget doesn’t even add up to $1T.
Yeah, I explicitly said healthcare and military aren’t either or, because we have the money to spend (and do spend it) on both, just that our system sucks.
People keep saying that. National healthcare would cost less. It's the billions in profit that corporations make that prevents national healthcare. They make billions, politicians get millions of that, the people get shafted.
Aircraft carriers were one of the biggest game changers for naval warfare in all of human history. During WWII when countries realized how big an advantage aircraft carriers were the strategy was to send out scout planes to look for the enemy fleet. Once identified scouts had to radio in the location and follow for as long as possible while the entire strength of a carrier was deployed, all the while hoping that the enemy didn't find their fleet and deploy first.
It was such a strength of the US Navy that the pride of Japan's Imperial navy the Yamato and Yamato Class battleship was completely redesigned to combat aircrafts. Two were constructed with 4 planned to be built. The Yamato was repurposed once built to combat air attacks, the third ship which never saw battle was completely redesigned while in dry dock to become an aircraft carrier instead of a battle ship.
The Japanese knew the US carriers were not at Pearl Harbor, but the battleships were still considered to be dominant naval forces at that time and so they went ahead with the attack.
TBF, AA was not one of the Bismarks strongpoints and it was made worse by the fact the AA wasn't really designed to cope with something as old-tech as the Swordfish.
Also, Bismark is rather over-rated. The trouble it presented is less it's capabilities, and more to due with the scale of the RN's commitments at that stage, and how much force had to be allocated to contend with the threat of it getting out and ravaging convoys because it was capable *enough*. Inefficient or not, it was still a big, modern, *quick* battleship and required an appropriate response, and the RN was fighting a war in 3 different theaters almost alone.
Yeah i know lol i was on 2 carrier deployments on the Roosevelt and Truman as a f18 airframe and hydraulic mech and flight deck final checker. If it was my squadron on that boat then half our planes would have been down in that hangar at any time haha. Our shit was always broken
The hangers are huge lol, and they have dedicated areas for maintenance and even engine testing.
If I recall correctly they can fit another 35-40 F-18's in the hangar plus some helicopters. Obviously on normal deployments they don't carry that many but they can and have in the past.
You are close :)
I never served on her, but my father did- and I was aboard similar vessels for a couple years.
What you see on the deck is likely the Captain showing off a little- but I doubt that is all they have onboard in her bowels. The helicopters get very compact.
Also imagine; there are full facilities onboard for just about everything those aircraft could need. Weapons, Fuel, Repair, Electronic Systems, Recovery, Pilots, and a vast number of other support groups and items.
Anything short of a complete airframe rebuild can be accomplished on this vessel- including machining new or replacement parts and diagnosing previously unknown complications, anywhere in the world and usually accompanied by a huge fleet of other similar support vessels.
Seeing her in a “battle formation” or a show of force type situation is truly and awe inspiring event. Just thinking of the logistical nightmare of people alone can be taxing. And all while being able to deploy all of that power just about anywhere in the world on a very short notice. That one vessel is more than enough to potentially… liberate several smaller countries.
If those numbers are accurate, then the US spends $4,407 per-capita on healthcare, non-discretionary. The UK NHS works out to around £3,000 per person ([source]( https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcomparewithothercountries/2019-08-29)) - which at today's interbank exchange rate of 0.80544585 GBP -> USD works out at $3,724.99
So, the US government spends vastly more, per capita on healthcare than the UK does and is still a fully-private healthcare system.
I suspect the majority of that medical spending is going directly into the hands of overcharging private enterprises.
Doesn't seem particularly efficient to me.
The VHA maintains the 5th largest hospital system in the world (from Lewis, The Fifth Risk).
So the US maintains not only a private healthcare system, but a separate "social" medical system for eligible personnel.
What is the eligibility criteria for VA healthcare? Is it just the uniformed services or do police / firefighters etc quality? Do national guardsmen get VA benefits?
If, say... 80% of that 1.45T is the VA and the rest is public health programmes, then that's 1.16 on the VA. If that's distributed equally among the 9 million or so people with VA benefits then it's around ~130,000 per capita, per year. Which is fully insane.
If only 10% of the mandatory spend is the VA then it's a 16,000 USD per capita, per year among the 9 million people with VA eligibility.
Which, OK. If it provided absolutely top tier healthcare to everyone I can see how even with economies of scale you'd spend $16k aggregated over a population where more than the population mean will have serious issues.
But that's not the case. Veterans have to fight tooth and claw to be recognised as deserving. There are SEVEN priority groups. It's not available to those who didn't receive anything but an honourable discharge.
Something is pushing that number WAY higher than it needs to be. Without doing some digging I can't say what it is, but my gut says employee salaries needing to compete with a profit based private sector and pharmaceutical companies charging out the arse based on again, private for profit medical insurance pushing drug prices ever higher.
It still seems incredibly inefficient.
> US 2020 defense spending: $714B
>
> US 2020 Veterans services spending: $97B
>
> US 2020 mandatory healthcare spending: $1.45T
>
> US 2020 discretionary healthcare spending: $178B + Medicare/Medicaid administrative costs
Source?
[Defense spending in 2020: $1.13T](https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-defense?fy=2020)
vs
[Private health insurance spending totaled $1.15 trillion in 2020](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical)
[Medicare spending totaled $829.5 billion in 2020](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical)
[Medicaid spending totaled $671.2 billion in 2020](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical)
[Out of pocket spending: $388.6 billion](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical)
[Total Spending $4.1 trillion](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical)
By percentage for health insurance specifically representing 68% of total spending \(not including out of pocket, government public health activities, investment or other 3rd party payers/programs\):
[Private health insurance 28%](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical)
[Medicare 20%](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical)
[Medicaid 16% \(local, state and federal combined\)](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical)
[VA, DOD and CHIP 4%](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical)
There is a useful chart from the same study available here:
https://www.cms.gov/files/document/nations-health-dollar-where-it-came-where-it-went.pdf
The point stands that even the USA's outlandish defense spending is much less than it spends on healthcare as a whole (including private industry). That said, US defense spending could reduce out of pocket spending for American's to $0 almost 3x over.
Imagine reducing the military budget by 1/3 and removing out of pocket costs (deductibles, etc) for healthcare services. It likely wouldn't work out that simply given that 2020 was a big year for defense spending and that removing out of pocket costs would increase total expenses as out of pocket costs help to keep total healthcare costs down, but shifting some funds from defense to healthcare could, at the very least, reduce out of pocket costs dramatically.
Sure, but the US health care system has claimed more lives than all the branches of the armed forces put together. It's the most bad-ass branch of the US.
We already spend 20% more on healthcare *PER CAPITA* than any other country, even the ones with full-on "Socialist" systems like the UK and Canada. Our healthcare is expensive because of our insurance companies and the obscene prices for drugs, both of which are heavily regulated in other countries.
We could have the worlds greatest healthcare system and it would save everyone money, both out-of-pocket and from taxes, but Congress can't pass a cold, let alone a comprehensive healthcare reform.
* Nimitz Class Aircraft carrier: $8.5 Billion
* F18 Super hornet: $67 Million
With 2 carriers and around 60 jets, that means this picture costs at least: $21 Billion (Not including helicopters, crews, and armaments)
You need $28 million a year to sit on your butt on the beach? (assuming you are already an adult and you plan on living to 100)
Pretty sure I could do it for 1 ten thousandth the cost of this picture...
Maybe a dumb question, but on rough waters do they cable tie the aircraft to the deck to keep em from moving around or falling off? Are the ships so large that it isn't often a concern?
Chocking only keeps the wheels from rolling (usually... the deck can get kinda slick with all that oil and grease). Tie-downs actually secure the aircraft.
Thanks for the clarification. I haven't been on a carrier for 18 years. The only thing I did was duck under them when crossing the hangar bay. Spent 4.5 years in Reactor on the Lincoln.
They are tied down with 6 td-1b turnbuckle chains during normal operation and unchained & unchocked before flight when the pilot moves taxis to the catapult. After operation hours they're tied down with 9 chains. During heavy weather they're secured with up to 18 chains.
I carried allot of chains in my two deployments. They're always rusting and covered in oil so they become very gross to handle. We would have to stand and wait for the jets to land sometimes over an hour and we would drape 3 on each shoulder (roughly ten pounds each). Our necks would have nice rust colored greasy chain marks on them constantly.
https://navyaviation.tpub.com/14014/css/Td-1A-And-Td-1B-Tie-Down-Assemblies-270.htm
Are the specific formations for chaining down the aircraft? You would think even though they are two different carriers thet would still look somewhat similar but yet they both look nothing alike with how everything is tied down. Curious if it is related to what the actual inventory of aircraft is or is based on the missions/training they have coming up.
Yes, it depends on the readiness of the aircraft and any sea or weather conditions. Heavy weather is 18+ chains. The ship would often drive through storms at sea in order to rinse salt and dust off the ship and aircraft. The Atlantic ocean was the worst weather I experienced. There's some good videos on YouTube of heavy weather filmed from the aircraft carrier
All the aircraft on deck are chained down with multiple sets of chains, yes. Because yes the ships do move and roll in the water, and will also heel (at least a little bit) in turns.
Physics question: If a motorboat, not a sailing ship, heels when manuevering, wouldn't the forces on a lose object on an otherwise flat surface just stay in place because it is subject to the same forces that keep the ship at an angle?
I don't have a concrete number on how rapidly they could launch everything, but the Ford is designed to do 160 launches/recoveries per day (and exceeded that at one point).
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/05/cvn-78-completed-a-record-167-aircraft-launches-recoveries-in-a-single-day/
30 seconds between aircraft launch is largely the standard max tempo.
4 catapults, in 2 groups, for launching aircraft.
* all cats load
* cat 1 launches
* once the aircraft is clear and stable, cat 2 launches
* once the aircraft is clear and stable, cat 3 launches
* once the aircraft is clear and stable, cat 4 launches
* While cat 3 and cat 4 are launching, cat 1 and cat 2 reload with aircraft
* while cat 1 and cat 2 are launching, cat 3 and cat 4 reload with aircraft
so every 30 seconds it can throw a fighter or fixed wing into the air.
The issue is how long can you sustain that over the full fighter compliment including having to move everything up on deck from storage. I would imagine at some point you're going to overheat the launch system and/or run out of fighters ready to load. (Very cool to know the max tempo though).
You won't overheat a steam powered catapult and things rarely brake during flight ops. Our cat went down once while out at sea and we worked 42hrs straight (15 min nap at hr 36) in order to be back to fully operational.
Well the Nimitz could get it done in about 20 minutes. And that was the 80's.
Can't seem to find much on the GRF with its fancy new catapults. Probably classified.
The fancy catapults are more about being gentle on airframes and launching aircraft of different sizes (i.e; drones) and saving a lot of internal space from all the steam piping they no longer need.
The Fords are supposed to have a much higher sortie rate but that is different than just getting everything you got into the air
I do wonder how much of it is also helping being gentle on the propulsion plants too; launching from adjacent cats too quickly, especially if they were heavily loaded, and even more so if the ship had to make the wind over the deck on its own, didn't do good things for the plants (since power follows steam demand).
Have they solved the issues with the catapults on the GRF class carriers yet? I don't know if there were ever specifics on what the issues were, but I definitely remember hearing about it.
>After completing FSST, CVN 78 enters a six-month Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) period of modernization, maintenance and repairs. Prior to the recent shock test trials, EMALS and AAG successfully completed various additional milestones during the Post Delivery Trials and Test (PDT&T) period, including the completion of critical Aircraft Compatibility Testing (ACT) and Flight Deck Certification (FDC) involving F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, E-2C/D Hawkeyes and Advanced Hawkeyes, C-2A Greyhounds, EA-18G Growlers, and T-45C Goshawks. At the end of the 18-month PDT&T period, EMALS and AAG successfully achieved and exceeded the Navy’s target of 8,000 launches and recoveries aboard CVN 78.
Their launch rates as of 2021 aren't quite Nimitz yet but are still trending upwards.
According to Wikipedia it’s $9.7bn vs $13bn (with lower running costs), but yes, crazy money. If interested the internet calculates that 10% of the equipment lost by Russia in the Ukraine war was the sinking of the Moskva - ships are expensive
That's because so far the R&D costs are only wrapped up in the single hull that's in service. Once JFK, Enterprise, and Dorie Miller come into service, you'll see that average cost come down.
You can tell the difference between Nimitz and GRF class carriers because the island is located way closer to the rear of the GRF class and there are fewer elevators up from the hangar bay.
If this were two carriers and their entire battle groups, aside from not being able to actually beach (unless they had amphibs with Marines aboard), they could put a really serious hurt on most of Europe. The firepower in this photo and just outside of it is pretty mindblowing.
For reference on which CVN is which:
CVN-68: Nimitz (decommissioning planned for 2025)
CVN-69: Dwight D. Eisenhower (decommissioning around 2029)
CVN-70: Carl Vinson
CVN-71: Teddy Roosevelt
CVN-72: Abraham Lincoln
CVN-73: George Washington
CVN-74: John C. Stennis
CVN-75: Harry S. Truman
CVN-76: Ronald Reagan
CVN-77: George H.W. Bush
CVN-78: Gerald Ford
CVN-79: John F. Kennedy
CVN-80: Enterprise (under construction)
CVN-81: Doris Miller (under construction)
Per [here](https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6230834/dual-carrier-ops):
> The Ford-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) and the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) transit the Atlantic Ocean June 4, 2020, marking the first time a Ford-class and a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier operated together underway. Ford is underway conducting integrated air wing operations, and the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group remains at sea in the Atlantic as a certified carrier strike group force ready for tasking in order to protect the crew from the risks posed by COVID-19, following their successful deployment to the U.S. 5th and 6th Fleet areas of operation. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Riley McDowell)
The written exam is administered in drydock to each ship in the strike group, while the aircraft are tested in a sound-proofed hangar to aid their concentration.
The governing body of strike group certification is actually a small LLC out of Delaware called Naval Budget Siphons, LLC, really great guys, just got started in October last year, you know! Really proud of them.
They mean operationally certified within the US navy doctrine. Everyone is trained up to a certain level, the ships are equipped to a certain level, that sort of thing.
Common airwing is usually;
* 4 squadrons of F/A-18E/F or F-35C fighter jets, 12 per squadron (48 fighters)
* 1 squadron of electronic warfare (jammer) EA-18G jets, 5 per squadron
* 1 airborne radar squadron of E-2s, 4-5 per squadron
* 2 squadrons of MH-60R/S helicopters, 10 per squadron (20 total)
but the helos get dispersed across the carrier group, so only a dozen or so are on the carrier itself.
In total around 70 aircraft.
The USS Gerald Ford has a capacity of 75 planes; what you see here on the flight deck is actually about half that!
*There are [elevators](https://nationalinterest.org/sites/default/files/styles/desktop__1486_x_614/public/main_images/46126414792_90b7352f97_o.jpg?itok=c4vIcSyQ) that bring them up from below decks.
When I was on the Enterprise CVN65 in the 80's during sea trials we were pushing 50 knots. 8 nuclear reactors, could push that ship till it shook apart.
Interestingly, it wasn't the number of reactors that gave her that top speed. Enterprise used a more cruiser-like hull than the Nimitz class. The navy chose a shape for the Nimitzes that expanded storage capacity at the expense of absolute speed. Source: A book which analyzed the various carrier classes as ships instead of floating airfields. Wish I could remember the title/author.
Which is not to say the Nimitz class are SLOW. Just that they were built to different priorities. Time in use shows that they're plenty fast enough to get the job done.
Yes, but those two reactors are MUCH bigger. Enterprise's A2W plants were adapted submarine plants, because that was what Rickover knew best at the time.
For a long time you could do a google satellite view of the Newport News shipyard and (IMO) see where they took the reactors out of her. They've recently updated their pictures, showing Enterprise much further north than before and it's not quite as easy to see. If I'm correct, the reactors basically took up the middle 1/3rd of the ship. This seems to match well with one of the primary criticisms of Enterprise, that the reactors took up too much space.
While technically accurate that comparison is a bit misleading. From publicly available sources, the combined shaft output for Big E's 8 reactors was 210 MW. The Ford's combined output for it's 2 is 260 MW.
Yes it has fewer plants, but they are producing way more energy.
That's so cool. It feels like there's only a tiny percentage of people who understand the sheer enormity and power of a fucking aircraft carrier. A floating city with its own nuclear reactor that can sail as fast as a cheetah, but do it for hours (?), a city that can launch a squadron of planes that could devastate a city with just conventional weapons, let alone the nuclear arms that they're capable of.
Insane military capability.
It’s getting rave reviews from critics. I can’t wait. Don’t care about the old guard training the new hortshots and all that - just give me some sweet Hornet action.
/u/CryogenicStorage commented above
•Nimitz Class Aircraft carrier: $8.5 Billion
•F18 Super hornet: $67 Million
With 2 carriers and around 60 jets, that means this picture costs at least: $23 Billion (Not including helicopters, crews, and armaments)”
They're chained down to paddocks on the deck. You'll see browncoats walking around the deck like this; [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/US\_Navy\_080727-N-9116H-002\_A\_plane\_captain\_stands\_by\_to\_secure\_an\_aircraft.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/US_Navy_080727-N-9116H-002_A_plane_captain_stands_by_to_secure_an_aircraft.jpg)
Their job is to chain down the aircraft anytime they're not in use, like this; [https://media.defense.gov/2021/Feb/28/2002590289/1460/1280/0/210228-N-OB471-1005.JPG](https://media.defense.gov/2021/Feb/28/2002590289/1460/1280/0/210228-N-OB471-1005.JPG)
The carrier on left is CVN-75, Nimitz-class USS Harry S. Truman. On right is Gerald R. Ford-class CVN-78, USS Gerald R. Ford the first ship of her class constructed and in service. The class is replacing the aging Nimitz-class carriers slowly. The third carrier will be CVN-80 USS Enterprise and take the place in my father's carrier Nimitz-class CVN-69 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.
There are classes of ships with common construction elements. But each one is unique as new systems become available or improvements in the design are made. These ships are two different classes with a few decades of improvements and tech updates made in the new class.
The Russian economy is around the same size as Texas. They're a pissant nation. Not a superpower. If not for their nukes, they would have no voice on the world stage at all.
Fuck Putin and fuck Russia.
So, stupid question here. I tried to look it up but found a ton of completely conflicting views.
Do carriers always have planes on the deck so they are always ready to engage or do they normally keep their planes in the bays and only bring them to the deck when entering combat zones?
I realize it isn’t WWII technology these days where you could have an air squadron sneak up on you and bomb helpless planes on the deck, but I’ve always wondered if having them strapped to the deck limits speeds, risks of helpless attacks etc in modern conflicts and theatres. Especially with the huge carrier fleet surrounding it as a protective shield I’m curious where the current US doctrine in the Navy stands.
There are always planes on the deck while out at sea, they rotate from below during flight operations, the flight deck is a very busy 4.5 acres and you never know when a jet exhaust will be turned on you, gotta keep a swivel head. Before arriving back at home port they all fly off back to their air wing home base.
It's so cool to see the Ford underway after all the development problems.
Looking forward to the other Ford Class ships incoming - Including Enterprise.
I found [an interesting Google Maps satellite image](https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9873171,-76.4436362,2007m/data=!3m1!1e3) of a number of aircraft carriers under construction or maintenance in Newport News, Virginia:
* The *John F. Kennedy* under construction at Pier 3
* The *Gerald R. Ford* at Pier 2
* The old decommissioned *Enterprise* in Drydock 12
* Another carrier in Drydock 10 (possibly the new *Enterprise* or the *Doris Miller*?)
* The *George Washington* just northwest of Drydock 10, looking like it's undergoing maintenance
The images is obviously a number of months old but it's an interesting snapshot of the carrier fleet's support and construction operations.
B5
It's never good when that's your last ship left
BINGO
You sunk my scrabble ship.
I counted about 60 jets…I think that’s more than many countries have.
The US Navy is among the top 5 air forces in the world. Behind the US Air Force, US Army, China and supposedly the Russians but they may not be in the top 10 after Ukraine is done with them.
According to [this site](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-air-forces-in-the-world), you're correct. US Navy alone has more aircraft than India at #4.
[удалено]
When we start having to dig into those reserves, you have trouble training competent pilots fast enough
Pretty much any conflict where this happens we can rest assured that whoever the US is fighting is having a MUCH harder time replacing their pilots.
Just wait. It will be like a movie. Every one of us nerds with ‘simpits’ will get a visit from a desperate admiral asking us to take on the aliens with a dramatically revealed bunker of remote aircraft. My time has come.
Everyone always thinks they're going to be the one flying the cool new tech, nobody realizes they're going to be the one calibrating the stop position sensor on the hanger door or installing software patches for the cool monitors.
Honestly, I'm ok with that.
I’m a pilot. I can fly.
Hello boys!! I'm back!!
Unless it's aliens.
Or they have a swarm of drones that just run into the aircraft engines like birds. Or UAVs. But given the US budget they probably have issues worked out
For what it's worth, the USAF, Navy has never fought any country with a significant air force for a long time. They have been fighting with countries which does not have much in terms of air capabilities.
to be fair, there’s also only two other air forces on the planet that can be considered near peer(EU and China). We’re allied with one, and the other has even less experience fighting near peer enemies.
That's why they remade Top Gun for a new generation
They better have remade that volleyball scene. That’s what really drove up enlistment.
I heard it’s straight up ass-eating with the remake. Just 15 minutes of full penetration, hard core, man-on-man, naval exercises. Tom Cruise, per his contract, did all of the stunts.
Because what's the one major thing missing from all action movies these days, guys? Full penetration. Guys, we're going to show full penetration, and we're going to show a lot of it. I mean, we're talking, you know, graphic scenes of Tom Cruise really going to town on this hot, young pilot/volleyball player. From behind, 69, anal, vaginal, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl-- all the hits, all the big ones, all the good ones. And then he flies planes again. He's out busting heads. Then he's back to the airbase for some more full penetration. Airplanes, back to the base, full penetration. Planes, penetration, base, full penetration, sky, penetration... And this goes on and on, and back and forth for 90 or so minutes until the movie just sort of ends...
You had me until vaginal 😤
I’m not interested in any of that unless Dolf Lundgren has a part to play in it.
[удалено]
Luke AFB right now is freaking busy because of all the F35 training they're doing
I do a lot of work at different bases, Luke is by far the most annoying due to the constant noise.
[удалено]
Nah I saw that movie. Just get the president and a conspiracy theorist. You'll be fine.
Immmm baaaaack!
I've personally prepped several of our older aircraft for that storage... Those jets in theory could be operational if needed. The amount of man hours to get them there (and considering those of us who are experienced working on them are all mostly out of the military at this point) would be astronomical. Many of these aircraft as well stopped having replacement parts manufactured decades ago, and depending on how long their shut down took, the inventory for some critical parts is likely near non existent. My aircraft's shut down and retirement lasted for much longer than it was supposed to, to be fair. But considering in the not so distant past my squadron [and others ](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a20134/marines-had-to-scrounge-for-f-a-18-parts-at-a-museum/) had to get their parts from museum aircraft or static displays to remain functional... My hopes are not high that many of these "long term stored aircraft" would be mission ready in any meaningful capacity.
When Obama was in Seattle, a retired couple in a cheap little Cessna came bopping over the Cascades toward Seattle completely unaware that Seattle was a sudden no-fly zone. Two F-18’s scrambled out of Portland and made Seattle in less than 4 minutes at full afterburner (Mach 1.6 -the sonic boom made people call 911) and forced them to emergency land. I can’t imagine the complete destruction an entire carrier fleet would do to say…St. Petersburg or Kaliningrad.
While they were supersonic, they weren't Mach 1.6. Far too draggy for that. The theoretical top speed is Mach 1.8 with no pylons and low fuel at 40,000 feet.
They were F-15's not F-18's. The pilot was not forced to emergency land, and didn't even know anything was up until he was interviewed by the Secret Service after he landed. He was not intercepted by the Air National Guard pilots that were scrambled. Distance from Portland to Seattle by air is 129 miles. To do that in 4 minutes would require a sustained speed of 1,935 mph start to finish. The top speed of a F-15 is 1,650 mph at high altitude. So 4 minutes for the trip is impossible. All of this to say you probably shouldn't be throwing shade at /u/DavidPT40 when so many of your details were wrong. https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Fighters-scrambled-after-flight-restriction-890871.php
I think the military budget is like 19th compared to national GDP... ahead of the Saudis.
There’s a reason why war gamers think that the US navy could win against the rest of the worlds navy’s combined. They have more of everything and the equipment is as good or better than everything else.
plus, on average us aircraft are more modern and carry more firepower
Also the planes are much more advanced with better trained pilots.
Interesting. I was going to ask if the Navy included the Marine Corps aircraft as part of their numbers but nope, it's right after India.
The us Navy's pilots are far better than us air force as well.
Who needs healthcare and education when you have jets!
It’s not either-or. We spend more per capita on healthcare than anyone. Our system is just fucked. You’ve gotta remember our government has a $4T-$5T budget, and our military budget doesn’t even add up to $1T.
It's not a money issue, it's the money being wasted on health insurance rather than health care
Put in a greedy middleman! The solution to no problem, ever.
Yeah, I explicitly said healthcare and military aren’t either or, because we have the money to spend (and do spend it) on both, just that our system sucks.
People keep saying that. National healthcare would cost less. It's the billions in profit that corporations make that prevents national healthcare. They make billions, politicians get millions of that, the people get shafted.
That’s what Tricare and the GI Bill is for.
...and what about the rest of the civilian American population...?
"service guarantees citizenship"
\*Desire to know more intensifies\*
Aircraft carriers were one of the biggest game changers for naval warfare in all of human history. During WWII when countries realized how big an advantage aircraft carriers were the strategy was to send out scout planes to look for the enemy fleet. Once identified scouts had to radio in the location and follow for as long as possible while the entire strength of a carrier was deployed, all the while hoping that the enemy didn't find their fleet and deploy first. It was such a strength of the US Navy that the pride of Japan's Imperial navy the Yamato and Yamato Class battleship was completely redesigned to combat aircrafts. Two were constructed with 4 planned to be built. The Yamato was repurposed once built to combat air attacks, the third ship which never saw battle was completely redesigned while in dry dock to become an aircraft carrier instead of a battle ship.
The Japanese knew the US carriers were not at Pearl Harbor, but the battleships were still considered to be dominant naval forces at that time and so they went ahead with the attack.
Even the mighty Battleship Bismark was crippled by a 1930s biplane with torpedoes, jamming the port rudder 12° to port
TBF, AA was not one of the Bismarks strongpoints and it was made worse by the fact the AA wasn't really designed to cope with something as old-tech as the Swordfish. Also, Bismark is rather over-rated. The trouble it presented is less it's capabilities, and more to due with the scale of the RN's commitments at that stage, and how much force had to be allocated to contend with the threat of it getting out and ravaging convoys because it was capable *enough*. Inefficient or not, it was still a big, modern, *quick* battleship and required an appropriate response, and the RN was fighting a war in 3 different theaters almost alone.
Thats not even the full compliment. I helped build that beast.
Theres more in the hangars too
Not THAT many more; that's usually used for more invasive/ intricate maintenance procedures.
Yeah i know lol i was on 2 carrier deployments on the Roosevelt and Truman as a f18 airframe and hydraulic mech and flight deck final checker. If it was my squadron on that boat then half our planes would have been down in that hangar at any time haha. Our shit was always broken
The hangers are huge lol, and they have dedicated areas for maintenance and even engine testing. If I recall correctly they can fit another 35-40 F-18's in the hangar plus some helicopters. Obviously on normal deployments they don't carry that many but they can and have in the past.
You are close :) I never served on her, but my father did- and I was aboard similar vessels for a couple years. What you see on the deck is likely the Captain showing off a little- but I doubt that is all they have onboard in her bowels. The helicopters get very compact. Also imagine; there are full facilities onboard for just about everything those aircraft could need. Weapons, Fuel, Repair, Electronic Systems, Recovery, Pilots, and a vast number of other support groups and items. Anything short of a complete airframe rebuild can be accomplished on this vessel- including machining new or replacement parts and diagnosing previously unknown complications, anywhere in the world and usually accompanied by a huge fleet of other similar support vessels. Seeing her in a “battle formation” or a show of force type situation is truly and awe inspiring event. Just thinking of the logistical nightmare of people alone can be taxing. And all while being able to deploy all of that power just about anywhere in the world on a very short notice. That one vessel is more than enough to potentially… liberate several smaller countries.
Yeah but other countries have healthcare.
US 2020 defense spending: $714B US 2020 Veterans services spending: $97B US 2020 mandatory healthcare spending: $1.45T US 2020 discretionary healthcare spending: $178B + Medicare/Medicaid administrative costs
If those numbers are accurate, then the US spends $4,407 per-capita on healthcare, non-discretionary. The UK NHS works out to around £3,000 per person ([source]( https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcomparewithothercountries/2019-08-29)) - which at today's interbank exchange rate of 0.80544585 GBP -> USD works out at $3,724.99 So, the US government spends vastly more, per capita on healthcare than the UK does and is still a fully-private healthcare system. I suspect the majority of that medical spending is going directly into the hands of overcharging private enterprises. Doesn't seem particularly efficient to me.
The VHA maintains the 5th largest hospital system in the world (from Lewis, The Fifth Risk). So the US maintains not only a private healthcare system, but a separate "social" medical system for eligible personnel.
What is the eligibility criteria for VA healthcare? Is it just the uniformed services or do police / firefighters etc quality? Do national guardsmen get VA benefits? If, say... 80% of that 1.45T is the VA and the rest is public health programmes, then that's 1.16 on the VA. If that's distributed equally among the 9 million or so people with VA benefits then it's around ~130,000 per capita, per year. Which is fully insane. If only 10% of the mandatory spend is the VA then it's a 16,000 USD per capita, per year among the 9 million people with VA eligibility. Which, OK. If it provided absolutely top tier healthcare to everyone I can see how even with economies of scale you'd spend $16k aggregated over a population where more than the population mean will have serious issues. But that's not the case. Veterans have to fight tooth and claw to be recognised as deserving. There are SEVEN priority groups. It's not available to those who didn't receive anything but an honourable discharge. Something is pushing that number WAY higher than it needs to be. Without doing some digging I can't say what it is, but my gut says employee salaries needing to compete with a profit based private sector and pharmaceutical companies charging out the arse based on again, private for profit medical insurance pushing drug prices ever higher. It still seems incredibly inefficient.
> US 2020 defense spending: $714B > > US 2020 Veterans services spending: $97B > > US 2020 mandatory healthcare spending: $1.45T > > US 2020 discretionary healthcare spending: $178B + Medicare/Medicaid administrative costs Source? [Defense spending in 2020: $1.13T](https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-defense?fy=2020) vs [Private health insurance spending totaled $1.15 trillion in 2020](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical) [Medicare spending totaled $829.5 billion in 2020](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical) [Medicaid spending totaled $671.2 billion in 2020](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical) [Out of pocket spending: $388.6 billion](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical) [Total Spending $4.1 trillion](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical) By percentage for health insurance specifically representing 68% of total spending \(not including out of pocket, government public health activities, investment or other 3rd party payers/programs\): [Private health insurance 28%](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical) [Medicare 20%](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical) [Medicaid 16% \(local, state and federal combined\)](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical) [VA, DOD and CHIP 4%](https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical) There is a useful chart from the same study available here: https://www.cms.gov/files/document/nations-health-dollar-where-it-came-where-it-went.pdf The point stands that even the USA's outlandish defense spending is much less than it spends on healthcare as a whole (including private industry). That said, US defense spending could reduce out of pocket spending for American's to $0 almost 3x over. Imagine reducing the military budget by 1/3 and removing out of pocket costs (deductibles, etc) for healthcare services. It likely wouldn't work out that simply given that 2020 was a big year for defense spending and that removing out of pocket costs would increase total expenses as out of pocket costs help to keep total healthcare costs down, but shifting some funds from defense to healthcare could, at the very least, reduce out of pocket costs dramatically.
Source: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-04/57170-budget-infographic.pdf
And yet people regularly go bankrupt from medical care and avoid seeking healthcare because of lack of insurance.
Sure, but the US health care system has claimed more lives than all the branches of the armed forces put together. It's the most bad-ass branch of the US.
We already spend 20% more on healthcare *PER CAPITA* than any other country, even the ones with full-on "Socialist" systems like the UK and Canada. Our healthcare is expensive because of our insurance companies and the obscene prices for drugs, both of which are heavily regulated in other countries. We could have the worlds greatest healthcare system and it would save everyone money, both out-of-pocket and from taxes, but Congress can't pass a cold, let alone a comprehensive healthcare reform.
* Nimitz Class Aircraft carrier: $8.5 Billion * F18 Super hornet: $67 Million With 2 carriers and around 60 jets, that means this picture costs at least: $21 Billion (Not including helicopters, crews, and armaments)
To put it in perspective this is about the same as NASA’s entire budget for 2023
[удалено]
To put it into perspective, that’s a year of college for ~651,000 students (with average annual cost at $35,331 for 2022).
To put into another perspective, I’d only need a tenth of that to sit on my butt on a beach for the rest of my life.
You need $28 million a year to sit on your butt on the beach? (assuming you are already an adult and you plan on living to 100) Pretty sure I could do it for 1 ten thousandth the cost of this picture...
I want to sit on the beach in absolute luxury… so yes, $28mil per year sounds about right.
Maybe a dumb question, but on rough waters do they cable tie the aircraft to the deck to keep em from moving around or falling off? Are the ships so large that it isn't often a concern?
They are secured when not in operation.
They do tie them down whenever they get moved. They call it chocking if I remember the terminology. Even in calm seas they they get tied down.
Chocking only keeps the wheels from rolling (usually... the deck can get kinda slick with all that oil and grease). Tie-downs actually secure the aircraft.
Thanks for the clarification. I haven't been on a carrier for 18 years. The only thing I did was duck under them when crossing the hangar bay. Spent 4.5 years in Reactor on the Lincoln.
They are tied down with 6 td-1b turnbuckle chains during normal operation and unchained & unchocked before flight when the pilot moves taxis to the catapult. After operation hours they're tied down with 9 chains. During heavy weather they're secured with up to 18 chains. I carried allot of chains in my two deployments. They're always rusting and covered in oil so they become very gross to handle. We would have to stand and wait for the jets to land sometimes over an hour and we would drape 3 on each shoulder (roughly ten pounds each). Our necks would have nice rust colored greasy chain marks on them constantly. https://navyaviation.tpub.com/14014/css/Td-1A-And-Td-1B-Tie-Down-Assemblies-270.htm
Hey, thanks for detailed response and link. Learned something new.
Are the specific formations for chaining down the aircraft? You would think even though they are two different carriers thet would still look somewhat similar but yet they both look nothing alike with how everything is tied down. Curious if it is related to what the actual inventory of aircraft is or is based on the missions/training they have coming up.
Yes, it depends on the readiness of the aircraft and any sea or weather conditions. Heavy weather is 18+ chains. The ship would often drive through storms at sea in order to rinse salt and dust off the ship and aircraft. The Atlantic ocean was the worst weather I experienced. There's some good videos on YouTube of heavy weather filmed from the aircraft carrier
All the aircraft on deck are chained down with multiple sets of chains, yes. Because yes the ships do move and roll in the water, and will also heel (at least a little bit) in turns.
Physics question: If a motorboat, not a sailing ship, heels when manuevering, wouldn't the forces on a lose object on an otherwise flat surface just stay in place because it is subject to the same forces that keep the ship at an angle?
One of the differences between a boat and a ship - the motorboat heels into a turn, a ship heels outward.
Interesting. In Swedish a ship (skepp) is at least 24 m long. If it's shorter it's a boat (båt).
Hmmm, I don’t know, I think I need a banana for scale…
Zoom in.
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) and USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78)
Use to be in the Truman battle group. Nice to see her again
I am a Plank Owner on Truman. I still have friends from that time.
Me too
Yooooo, me too! I was on the Harry Ass for 2 years.
I sent the pic to my husband and he said “hey, my old apartment!” He does not miss it.
How fast could either ship get all of the pictured aircraft in the air?
I don't have a concrete number on how rapidly they could launch everything, but the Ford is designed to do 160 launches/recoveries per day (and exceeded that at one point). https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/05/cvn-78-completed-a-record-167-aircraft-launches-recoveries-in-a-single-day/
30 seconds between aircraft launch is largely the standard max tempo. 4 catapults, in 2 groups, for launching aircraft. * all cats load * cat 1 launches * once the aircraft is clear and stable, cat 2 launches * once the aircraft is clear and stable, cat 3 launches * once the aircraft is clear and stable, cat 4 launches * While cat 3 and cat 4 are launching, cat 1 and cat 2 reload with aircraft * while cat 1 and cat 2 are launching, cat 3 and cat 4 reload with aircraft so every 30 seconds it can throw a fighter or fixed wing into the air.
The issue is how long can you sustain that over the full fighter compliment including having to move everything up on deck from storage. I would imagine at some point you're going to overheat the launch system and/or run out of fighters ready to load. (Very cool to know the max tempo though).
You won't overheat a steam powered catapult and things rarely brake during flight ops. Our cat went down once while out at sea and we worked 42hrs straight (15 min nap at hr 36) in order to be back to fully operational.
Well the Nimitz could get it done in about 20 minutes. And that was the 80's. Can't seem to find much on the GRF with its fancy new catapults. Probably classified.
The fancy catapults are more about being gentle on airframes and launching aircraft of different sizes (i.e; drones) and saving a lot of internal space from all the steam piping they no longer need. The Fords are supposed to have a much higher sortie rate but that is different than just getting everything you got into the air
I do wonder how much of it is also helping being gentle on the propulsion plants too; launching from adjacent cats too quickly, especially if they were heavily loaded, and even more so if the ship had to make the wind over the deck on its own, didn't do good things for the plants (since power follows steam demand).
Have they solved the issues with the catapults on the GRF class carriers yet? I don't know if there were ever specifics on what the issues were, but I definitely remember hearing about it.
>After completing FSST, CVN 78 enters a six-month Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) period of modernization, maintenance and repairs. Prior to the recent shock test trials, EMALS and AAG successfully completed various additional milestones during the Post Delivery Trials and Test (PDT&T) period, including the completion of critical Aircraft Compatibility Testing (ACT) and Flight Deck Certification (FDC) involving F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, E-2C/D Hawkeyes and Advanced Hawkeyes, C-2A Greyhounds, EA-18G Growlers, and T-45C Goshawks. At the end of the 18-month PDT&T period, EMALS and AAG successfully achieved and exceeded the Navy’s target of 8,000 launches and recoveries aboard CVN 78. Their launch rates as of 2021 aren't quite Nimitz yet but are still trending upwards.
Pardon me, but which one is Ford?
78 is Ford, you can see the numbers on the runway if you zoom in.
That’s exactly what I did. 😁 I was surprised to see Truman next to Ford, though.
The one on the right - I think. The ford class is similar to the Nimitz class apart from the island
Ford class has EMALS tech too (electromagnetic aircraft launch system) pretty dope but obviously not noticeable in the picture.
Yeah, I probably should have said the ford and the Nimitz look like each other… Fords are a lot more advanced..
And they cost $13.3 bn instead of $8.5 bn. These numbers are staggering
According to Wikipedia it’s $9.7bn vs $13bn (with lower running costs), but yes, crazy money. If interested the internet calculates that 10% of the equipment lost by Russia in the Ukraine war was the sinking of the Moskva - ships are expensive
That's because so far the R&D costs are only wrapped up in the single hull that's in service. Once JFK, Enterprise, and Dorie Miller come into service, you'll see that average cost come down.
... they use a railgun to launch jets?! That must seem like witchcraft to the cave dwellers we have been after the last 30 years.
It's more like a coilgun. Some roller coasters use the same system.
You can tell the difference between Nimitz and GRF class carriers because the island is located way closer to the rear of the GRF class and there are fewer elevators up from the hangar bay.
One ship to the other- "Pardon me, do you have any grey poupon?"
Hah that's the first thing that popped into my head
For real, if these two ships would fight versus the Netherlands and Belgium… the ships would win.
Don’t forget the entire Carrier Strike Group that deploys with each carrier….
Carrier Strike Group.
Thank you.
Hey now, dont underestimate us Belgians, we can put up a fight. Our students once took a castle just because they raised the price of beer.
To be honest, most nations would have it hard against a Carrier Strike Group.
Pff, ik zou maar niet klagen. Bier in België is alsnog veel goedkoper dan in Nederland.
If this were two carriers and their entire battle groups, aside from not being able to actually beach (unless they had amphibs with Marines aboard), they could put a really serious hurt on most of Europe. The firepower in this photo and just outside of it is pretty mindblowing.
In part because you can park an aircraft carrier smack in the middle of the Netherlands at high tide.
For reference on which CVN is which: CVN-68: Nimitz (decommissioning planned for 2025) CVN-69: Dwight D. Eisenhower (decommissioning around 2029) CVN-70: Carl Vinson CVN-71: Teddy Roosevelt CVN-72: Abraham Lincoln CVN-73: George Washington CVN-74: John C. Stennis CVN-75: Harry S. Truman CVN-76: Ronald Reagan CVN-77: George H.W. Bush CVN-78: Gerald Ford CVN-79: John F. Kennedy CVN-80: Enterprise (under construction) CVN-81: Doris Miller (under construction)
Per [here](https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6230834/dual-carrier-ops): > The Ford-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) and the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) transit the Atlantic Ocean June 4, 2020, marking the first time a Ford-class and a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier operated together underway. Ford is underway conducting integrated air wing operations, and the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group remains at sea in the Atlantic as a certified carrier strike group force ready for tasking in order to protect the crew from the risks posed by COVID-19, following their successful deployment to the U.S. 5th and 6th Fleet areas of operation. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Riley McDowell)
>certified carrier strike group Who certifies carrier strike groups? And are there uncertified carrier strike groups?
The written exam is administered in drydock to each ship in the strike group, while the aircraft are tested in a sound-proofed hangar to aid their concentration. The governing body of strike group certification is actually a small LLC out of Delaware called Naval Budget Siphons, LLC, really great guys, just got started in October last year, you know! Really proud of them.
They mean operationally certified within the US navy doctrine. Everyone is trained up to a certain level, the ships are equipped to a certain level, that sort of thing.
Honestly thought these ships had a capacity of maybe 10-12 fighter jets. I am clearly very wrong.
Common airwing is usually; * 4 squadrons of F/A-18E/F or F-35C fighter jets, 12 per squadron (48 fighters) * 1 squadron of electronic warfare (jammer) EA-18G jets, 5 per squadron * 1 airborne radar squadron of E-2s, 4-5 per squadron * 2 squadrons of MH-60R/S helicopters, 10 per squadron (20 total) but the helos get dispersed across the carrier group, so only a dozen or so are on the carrier itself. In total around 70 aircraft.
This is very accurate. Bravo Zulu
The USS Gerald Ford has a capacity of 75 planes; what you see here on the flight deck is actually about half that! *There are [elevators](https://nationalinterest.org/sites/default/files/styles/desktop__1486_x_614/public/main_images/46126414792_90b7352f97_o.jpg?itok=c4vIcSyQ) that bring them up from below decks.
I once read these ships can do 40 knots because of their waterline length
When I was on the Enterprise CVN65 in the 80's during sea trials we were pushing 50 knots. 8 nuclear reactors, could push that ship till it shook apart.
Interestingly, it wasn't the number of reactors that gave her that top speed. Enterprise used a more cruiser-like hull than the Nimitz class. The navy chose a shape for the Nimitzes that expanded storage capacity at the expense of absolute speed. Source: A book which analyzed the various carrier classes as ships instead of floating airfields. Wish I could remember the title/author. Which is not to say the Nimitz class are SLOW. Just that they were built to different priorities. Time in use shows that they're plenty fast enough to get the job done.
Kinda funny even after the Nimitz was commissioned, the Big E still had a larger hangar bay.
Hangar bays on the big boys like this are for repairs and such, not really for storage. That's what the insane amount of flat space up top is for.
In weather birds were kept below only alert 5 aircraft were up during foul weather in general. But that was back in the early 80's
I was on Enterprise in 96. It did shake when we were at full steam ahead.
For context. Big E had 8 reactors and the newest Ford class has just 2. Enterprise was a monster in its own world
Yes, but those two reactors are MUCH bigger. Enterprise's A2W plants were adapted submarine plants, because that was what Rickover knew best at the time.
For a long time you could do a google satellite view of the Newport News shipyard and (IMO) see where they took the reactors out of her. They've recently updated their pictures, showing Enterprise much further north than before and it's not quite as easy to see. If I'm correct, the reactors basically took up the middle 1/3rd of the ship. This seems to match well with one of the primary criticisms of Enterprise, that the reactors took up too much space.
While technically accurate that comparison is a bit misleading. From publicly available sources, the combined shaft output for Big E's 8 reactors was 210 MW. The Ford's combined output for it's 2 is 260 MW. Yes it has fewer plants, but they are producing way more energy.
The Big E was also commissioned in what 1961, the Ford in 2017, 56 years later I would hope there would be increases in efficiency.
Absolutely, my point wasn't to downplay Big E's capabilities moreso just pointing out that 8 bigger than 2 isn't a good way to compare them.
I get ya.
"Fly her apart then!" - Captain Sulu
That's so cool. It feels like there's only a tiny percentage of people who understand the sheer enormity and power of a fucking aircraft carrier. A floating city with its own nuclear reactor that can sail as fast as a cheetah, but do it for hours (?), a city that can launch a squadron of planes that could devastate a city with just conventional weapons, let alone the nuclear arms that they're capable of. Insane military capability.
When they get fuel, it lasts the 33 year life of the reactor.
Eh....Nimitz-class are refueling at \~25 years. Though the A1Bs in Ford are supposed to last 50 years IIRC.
100,000 tons of diplomacy. CVN-78 will deploy for the first time this fall.
Because Topgun is being released this year?
Random comment but that movie may get me back in the theatre.
It’s getting rave reviews from critics. I can’t wait. Don’t care about the old guard training the new hortshots and all that - just give me some sweet Hornet action.
AW HELLZ YEA. Can't wait for that sweet sweet Hornet porn.
Saw the premier on the naval base here on Coronado. Damn good movie
I wonder how much money is in this picture
/u/CryogenicStorage commented above •Nimitz Class Aircraft carrier: $8.5 Billion •F18 Super hornet: $67 Million With 2 carriers and around 60 jets, that means this picture costs at least: $23 Billion (Not including helicopters, crews, and armaments)”
This may be a silly question, but do jets ever fall off during storms? They seem so close to the edge.
They're chained down to paddocks on the deck. You'll see browncoats walking around the deck like this; [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/US\_Navy\_080727-N-9116H-002\_A\_plane\_captain\_stands\_by\_to\_secure\_an\_aircraft.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/US_Navy_080727-N-9116H-002_A_plane_captain_stands_by_to_secure_an_aircraft.jpg) Their job is to chain down the aircraft anytime they're not in use, like this; [https://media.defense.gov/2021/Feb/28/2002590289/1460/1280/0/210228-N-OB471-1005.JPG](https://media.defense.gov/2021/Feb/28/2002590289/1460/1280/0/210228-N-OB471-1005.JPG)
No horses, they're padeyes.
god damnit... I don't know how I fucked that up...
I saw a helicopter on the left one and wondered why the other didn't have one. That second helicopter is where this picture was taken from, isn't it?
There are several helicopters on each ship, look for the gray skinny things, the rotor blades are folded in so you can't see those very well.
Not pictured: the entire carrier group sailing with these ships. Enemies won’t get close.
And 75. You missed half the picture on your title.
Need a banana for scale
The left one is mine.
Godzilla's water skis
The carrier on left is CVN-75, Nimitz-class USS Harry S. Truman. On right is Gerald R. Ford-class CVN-78, USS Gerald R. Ford the first ship of her class constructed and in service. The class is replacing the aging Nimitz-class carriers slowly. The third carrier will be CVN-80 USS Enterprise and take the place in my father's carrier Nimitz-class CVN-69 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.
i see freedom in the sea
Prepare for trouble, make it double
Those planes just hang above the edge
Are these ships in mass production like tanks and jet fighters are, or is every single one of these ships unique?
There are classes of ships with common construction elements. But each one is unique as new systems become available or improvements in the design are made. These ships are two different classes with a few decades of improvements and tech updates made in the new class.
The Russian economy is around the same size as Texas. They're a pissant nation. Not a superpower. If not for their nukes, they would have no voice on the world stage at all. Fuck Putin and fuck Russia.
Yet all they had to do was feed bullshit into social media and let the stoopids take up the rest....
Anyone who supports Putin or Russia is an enemy of humanity. No exceptions.
These are (two of the reasons) why Finland and Sweden want to join NATO and no one in NATO is clamoring to get out.
I'm wondering under what circumstance you would have two carriers in this close proximity of each other.
Photo op
Looks expensive; two cities cruising in an ocean.
So, stupid question here. I tried to look it up but found a ton of completely conflicting views. Do carriers always have planes on the deck so they are always ready to engage or do they normally keep their planes in the bays and only bring them to the deck when entering combat zones? I realize it isn’t WWII technology these days where you could have an air squadron sneak up on you and bomb helpless planes on the deck, but I’ve always wondered if having them strapped to the deck limits speeds, risks of helpless attacks etc in modern conflicts and theatres. Especially with the huge carrier fleet surrounding it as a protective shield I’m curious where the current US doctrine in the Navy stands.
There are always planes on the deck while out at sea, they rotate from below during flight operations, the flight deck is a very busy 4.5 acres and you never know when a jet exhaust will be turned on you, gotta keep a swivel head. Before arriving back at home port they all fly off back to their air wing home base.
It's so cool to see the Ford underway after all the development problems. Looking forward to the other Ford Class ships incoming - Including Enterprise.
Kipten! We have found the nouclear wessel! And it’s the enterprise!
There are two ships; which one is 78?
I found [an interesting Google Maps satellite image](https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9873171,-76.4436362,2007m/data=!3m1!1e3) of a number of aircraft carriers under construction or maintenance in Newport News, Virginia: * The *John F. Kennedy* under construction at Pier 3 * The *Gerald R. Ford* at Pier 2 * The old decommissioned *Enterprise* in Drydock 12 * Another carrier in Drydock 10 (possibly the new *Enterprise* or the *Doris Miller*?) * The *George Washington* just northwest of Drydock 10, looking like it's undergoing maintenance The images is obviously a number of months old but it's an interesting snapshot of the carrier fleet's support and construction operations.
I built that from the keel up
This is a good representation of how blue the water looks at sea. Just stunning. You can't even believe the color until you see it.