Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
TheGreatBlasto

Gerald R Ford CVN

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

312
[BROOK]
Members
1,618 posts

 

 

Quote

“The US Navy’s Gerald R Ford carrier is suffering from a number of issues which could affect major areas of flight operations, rendering it 'not ready for warfare', according to a Department of Defense memo obtained by Bloomberg News. The $12.9bn Ford may struggle to launch and recover aircraft, mount a defence and move munitions, all rather significant problems for a project already two years off schedule, as Claire Apthorp finds out.”

 

One would think that most of these lessons would have been learned with the Nimitzes.

 

http://www.army-technology.com/features/featureglobal-defence-technology-issue-68-5029717/featureglobal-defence-technology-issue-68-5029717-7.html  

 

:Smile_child:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
838
[MIA-A]
Supertester
2,589 posts
8,410 battles
6 minutes ago, TheGreatBlasto said:

 

 

 

One would think that most of these lessons would have been learned with the Nimitzes.

 

http://www.army-technology.com/features/featureglobal-defence-technology-issue-68-5029717/featureglobal-defence-technology-issue-68-5029717-7.html  

 

:Smile_child:

To be fair, Ford is a test bed for a whole bunch of new tech. Specifically magnetic catapults... Which are the biggest issue at the moment. 

 

Added to that the massive Charlie Fox that is DoD procurement, and you get boondoggles like this. "We'll get it working eventually! Thanks for the extra cash though!"

Edited by Show_Me_Your_Cits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,359
[O7]
Beta Testers, Supertester
6,399 posts
7,363 battles

13 billion dollars and it's still not ready.

 

*cough* scam *cough* F-35 *cough* useless *cough* congress *cough* 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370
[HELLS]
Members
1,703 posts
15,579 battles

They are attempting to use linear induction accelerator technology (linear induction motors) for both catapult launching and arrested landings and it is not working too good. Does not surpise me...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

She has passed all trials and is delivered to the Navy, she will be commissioned later this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,369
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,249 posts
9,954 battles

meh it could be worse....... better to find this out now instead of it emerging during an actual battle/war.:fish_panic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,865 posts
19,071 battles

What a waste of huge amount of tax payers money , which could of been put to more Important projects ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,231
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,414 posts
9,604 battles

And sometimes, information like this is posted to give our enemies too much confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
886
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,459 posts
8,119 battles

Okay, are we really surprised?

 

-Design F-4 phantoms with no gun, have to add one back on.

-Vietnamese use similar guerrilla warfare tactics as the Japanese, still can't counter it, and to this day struggle against it.

-Ejection seats invented in the 50's? F-35 suddenly can't get them working.

-The old joke of "US spent a million dollars to develop a pen that writes in space, Russians used a pencil"

-On a similar note, several US based firearms as well as European countries, have many moving parts and require in some cases a good bit of maintenance to operate in harsh conditions, where Kalashnikov patterns are generally simpler and less prone to jamming the same way.

-And lets not forget the guys that brought us the F-22, and been trying to bring us the F-35, had a hand in designing speed skating uniforms that anyone with the most basic understanding of aerodynamics should have gone "Wait, these openings are a bad idea" because in a sport where .01 second can make a difference, those slots allow air in that causes it to drag like a parachute as well as general turbulence in the air as opposed to a smooth flow. 

 

If it is true, because as AVR points out there is a chance it's misdirection, I'm really not surprised. Much as I love our country, it tends to sometimes over-complicate things that turn into a problem. Or gets hyped about the next new thing and later on, we go back to the old ways because the shiny new thing can't work the same. "Missiles will make guns on planes obsolete" which was proven false, never made that mistake again. All these high tech jets? Well, now in areas where we have well established air control like Afghanistan or Iraq were looking to bring in propeller driven aircraft, to which I say we get the last couple non-nuclear CV's back up and running and start making Corsairs and the like for those scenario's. Missile defense is a thing now so were trying to make rail guns work cause you can't jam a round that's unguided or shoot it down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
398
[R-F1]
Beta Testers
1,868 posts
6,892 battles

Could be worse.

 

The zumwalt ddg can't fire it's main guns because the ammunition is too expensive to make, meaning they have empty magazines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,701
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,864 posts
11,578 battles
1 hour ago, Zakuul said:

13 billion dollars and it's still not ready.

 

*cough* scam *cough* F-35 *cough* useless *cough* congress *cough* 

 

A fighter that we didn't even need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
886
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,459 posts
8,119 battles
1 hour ago, Shadeylark said:

Could be worse.

 

The zumwalt ddg can't fire it's main guns because the ammunition is too expensive to make, meaning they have empty magazines.

 

Let me get this straight from what I find - just for this "advanced gun" that supposedly the round has GPS guidance and ability to hit 60 miles in, is 800 grand, which is too damned expensive and they are now looking at 68 grand for GPS guidance and 26 miles, if they can't get the rail gun option, up and running, when current ships with 5 inch guns have only 5 miles less, at something like 2-3 grand a shell, and a BB 16 inch shell I'm pretty sure would cost less, have more impact, and oh, right, only be a couple miles short, a decent gunnery crew could just, y'know, blanket an area.

 

We seriously just can't build a new class of Battlecruiser maybe with big but not that big guns that maybe have higher range than the Iowa and just rely on the low tech, not taken out by loss of electronics method and all that costs a fraction of this nonsense per shell? And if you need that precision I don't know we have how much aircraft based precision long range ordnance?

 

More I read about our new military toys and all, the more I think we need to go backwards, not forwards in tech. :etc_red_button:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,068
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,186 posts
11,702 battles
3 hours ago, TheGreatBlasto said:

 

 

 

One would think that most of these lessons would have been learned with the Nimitzes.

 

http://www.army-technology.com/features/featureglobal-defence-technology-issue-68-5029717/featureglobal-defence-technology-issue-68-5029717-7.html  

 

:Smile_child:

Ford has a lot of new tech that isn't thoroughly tested.  Yo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,068
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,186 posts
11,702 battles
38 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

 

We seriously just can't build a new class of Battlecruiser maybe with big but not that big guns that maybe have higher range than the Iowa and just rely on the low tech, not taken out by loss of electronics method and all that costs a fraction of this nonsense per shell? And if you need that precision I don't know we have how much aircraft based precision long range ordnance?

In 1970, the 8-inch cruiser St Paul successfully engaged VC targets at ranges up to 64km with special sabot long range shells.  Max range was 66km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,297 posts
4,143 battles
3 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

Okay, are we really surprised?

 

-Design F-4 phantoms with no gun, have to add one back on.

-Vietnamese use similar guerrilla warfare tactics as the Japanese, still can't counter it, and to this day struggle against it.

-Ejection seats invented in the 50's? F-35 suddenly can't get them working.

-The old joke of "US spent a million dollars to develop a pen that writes in space, Russians used a pencil"

-On a similar note, several US based firearms as well as European countries, have many moving parts and require in some cases a good bit of maintenance to operate in harsh conditions, where Kalashnikov patterns are generally simpler and less prone to jamming the same way.

-And lets not forget the guys that brought us the F-22, and been trying to bring us the F-35, had a hand in designing speed skating uniforms that anyone with the most basic understanding of aerodynamics should have gone "Wait, these openings are a bad idea" because in a sport where .01 second can make a difference, those slots allow air in that causes it to drag like a parachute as well as general turbulence in the air as opposed to a smooth flow. 

 

If it is true, because as AVR points out there is a chance it's misdirection, I'm really not surprised. Much as I love our country, it tends to sometimes over-complicate things that turn into a problem. Or gets hyped about the next new thing and later on, we go back to the old ways because the shiny new thing can't work the same. "Missiles will make guns on planes obsolete" which was proven false, never made that mistake again. All these high tech jets? Well, now in areas where we have well established air control like Afghanistan or Iraq were looking to bring in propeller driven aircraft, to which I say we get the last couple non-nuclear CV's back up and running and start making Corsairs and the like for those scenario's. Missile defense is a thing now so were trying to make rail guns work cause you can't jam a round that's unguided or shoot it down. 

A few things to touch on.

 

Aks vs other weapons. Mostly the differences are because of planned use differences. The aks most notably the ak-47 was designed mostly as a heavier than a submachine gun. Short range engagements that volume of fire trumps accuracy. The heavy bolt carrier and off center recoil compensation spring make the weapon flex in the middle every time it shoots.  I own a saiga chambered for a .223 mil and it's great.  But in a real fire fight I would much rather my old m16a2, more accurate and more flexible.

The space pen is just a joke.  It was privately funded and after it worked the ussr bought them too. Also NASA didn't use pencils because of the risk of fire.  The Soviets just didn't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
398
[R-F1]
Beta Testers
1,868 posts
6,892 battles
2 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

 

Let me get this straight from what I find - just for this "advanced gun" that supposedly the round has GPS guidance and ability to hit 60 miles in, is 800 grand, which is too damned expensive and they are now looking at 68 grand for GPS guidance and 26 miles, if they can't get the rail gun option, up and running, when current ships with 5 inch guns have only 5 miles less, at something like 2-3 grand a shell, and a BB 16 inch shell I'm pretty sure would cost less, have more impact, and oh, right, only be a couple miles short, a decent gunnery crew could just, y'know, blanket an area.

 

We seriously just can't build a new class of Battlecruiser maybe with big but not that big guns that maybe have higher range than the Iowa and just rely on the low tech, not taken out by loss of electronics method and all that costs a fraction of this nonsense per shell? And if you need that precision I don't know we have how much aircraft based precision long range ordnance?

 

More I read about our new military toys and all, the more I think we need to go backwards, not forwards in tech. :etc_red_button:

im firmly convinced that when the next big war comes (i.e. a war against a major industrial power and not these backwaters with less industrial capacity than 1800's era europe), that the first casualty will be all our advanced tech, on both sides.  electronic and cyber warfare will quickly render both sides advanced technologies useless and the side who can make good ol guns that fling big dumb chunks of steel a long distance first and in biggest quantity, will be the side that wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[WOLF4]
Members
173 posts
1,280 battles
On 6/17/2017 at 11:00 PM, Shadeylark said:

im firmly convinced that when the next big war comes (i.e. a war against a major industrial power and not these backwaters with less industrial capacity than 1800's era europe), that the first casualty will be all our advanced tech, on both sides.  electronic and cyber warfare will quickly render both sides advanced technologies useless and the side who can make good ol guns that fling big dumb chunks of steel a long distance first and in biggest quantity, will be the side that wins.

Most likely it will never happen because there wouldn't be anything left to fight over. A war now between any major nation is an impossibility and all this flexing everyone does is just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
398
[R-F1]
Beta Testers
1,868 posts
6,892 battles
2 hours ago, Kunra_1 said:

Most likely it will never happen because there wouldn't be anything left to fight over. A war now between any major nation is an impossibility and all this flexing everyone does is just that.

Mutually assured destruction is an obsolete concept in a world where the major powers all have nukes.

 

We live in a post-MAD world; we live in a mutually assured survival world.

 

No nuclear nation will ever use nukes against another nuclear nation except when faced with the prospect of losing everything (as such no nation will ever push the other that far).  Nukes are a stabilizing influence, insuring that any wars between nuclear powers necessarily remain limited.

 

Conventional war between nuclear powers is no less likely due to nukes, the only difference nukes make is that the victor will not be able to demand unconditional surrender due to the spectre of the losing side saying "[edited] it, I've got nothing else to lose"

 

No nuclear nation will ever suffer major infrastructure damage, not by conventional means nor via nukes, such as occurred in ww2 due to the shield the threat of nuclear retaliation provides... but that does not preclude the destruction of conventional forces immediately followed by an offer of a conditional armistice by the victor to the loser before the use of nukes gets seriously considered by the loser, and such an offer must be accepted by the loser because the only alternative is for the loser to use nukes and be nuked in retaliation.

Edited by Shadeylark
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
746
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
3,004 posts
13,719 battles
On 08/07/2017 at 2:35 AM, TheGreatBlasto said:

How did they make it so small?

 

:Smile_playing:

Good pick up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[SEAF]
Beta Testers
347 posts
1,008 battles
On 6/17/2017 at 4:27 PM, TheGreatBlasto said:

 

 

 

One would think that most of these lessons would have been learned with the Nimitzes.

 

http://www.army-technology.com/features/featureglobal-defence-technology-issue-68-5029717/featureglobal-defence-technology-issue-68-5029717-7.html  

 

:Smile_child:

hmm for a ship that cant launch or recover aircraft she seams to be able to well launch and recover aircraft

https://youtu.be/6qahWEhrDfg

Edited by Iekika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×