US Navy starts an earthquake to see how its newest carrier withstands combat conditions Following the recent decision by the United States Air Force to assassinate four snails and 90 giant clams in the name of missile research, the US Navy obviously felt that it, too, should be doing something faintly bizarre with its shiny, expensive equipment. So on Friday, the Navy took its newest aircraft carrier, the 100,000 …
If they were going for the stone skipping record, they need to work a bit more on the reproducability of their throws. Those trucks hit at very different angles sometimes. You would have thought that an elctromechanical system would produce more reliable results than that.
(always presuming they weren't testing different energies, of course)
I wonder why no one else is trying out putting a bit of a ramp at the end instead just a flat deck? Not being an aviation engineer, I don't know, but I'd have thought giving some mechanical assist to the angle of attack would be a good thing, no matter the (air)craft being flung off the end.
> I wonder why no one else is trying out putting a bit of a ramp at the end instead just a flat deck?
The Russians and the Chinese do. The Chinese AC's are modeled based on Soviet AC designs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Gorshkov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Kiev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Shandong
The ski ramp style of flight decks limits their usability. It's also a function of the jet engines' thrust. A tilted flight deck indicates that the jets cannot deploy sufficient thrust for takeoff.
> I wonder why no one else is trying out putting a bit of a ramp at the end instead just a flat deck?
Generally speaking it's a choice between catapult-assisted or ramp.
Ramps are used for STOVL-type aircraft, that can vector thrust downwards on takeoff as they traverse the ramp, balancing on their downwards thrust as they accelerate until forward motion (well, airspeed) allows the wings to generate lift.
Using catapults, non-STOVL aircraft, such as E2-Hawkeye, Viking cargo planes, can be launched that are not STOVL-capable. All their lift comes from air flowing over the wings, as opposed to downwards thrust (for takeoff).
Also, think of the forces on the landing gear of an aircraft being dragged by a catapult that then hits a ramp, thus changing the force directions and so on on the gear. It'd tear the landing gear off unless it was made so heavy as to be impractical.
If you wanted to mix catapults and ramps, you'd have to do it on different take-off 'lanes' (runways?)
So, on something like the Gerald R. Ford that has four catapults for launching, you could replace a catapult (or 2) with a ramp, but then you'd lose a catapult take-off spot to a ramp. ALthough I guess you could use moveable ramps, that could move out of the way, or flatten, when using a catapult, but that'd add huge cost and complexity for no added benefit, because a catapult - once you've taken the time and expense to develop and install one - can be used for launching both conventional (non-STOVL-type aircraft, F-18s, E2, etc.) and STOVL (F-35B, Harrier, etc.) aircraft. However, a ramp can only be used for STOVL-type aircraft. Therefore replacing a catapult with a ramp doesn't gain you anything, as it reduces the variety of aircraft that can be flown from that takeoff path.
By their nature, STOVL-type aircraft have to be lighter aircraft, which means limited weapons payload or range, or both. A catapult-launched F-35C has both increased fuel load (i.e. more range) and an increased payload (i.e. more weapons) than a ramp-launched STOVL F-35B.
Using a ramp, and sticking to STOVL aircraft, saves you the expense of developing and installing a catapult, and the maintainence of a "moving parts" catapult, at the sacrifice of reduced aircraft variety that can be used. But if you have already gone to the time and expense to develop and install a catapult, using a ramp (on the same vessel) is a backwards step.
Those test objects (trucks to you lot) clearly have the aerodynamics of bricks. First quality red clay bricks.
But as to the 40kilopound shock tests, I'm sure the builder was pleased with the results, but what if the bright shiny new ship had sank? Red faces all around?
I find it odd that the United States would call a navy ship Gerald R Ford.
I assumed Americans are all completely embarrassed that he ever ran the joint, and they just pretend they didn't have a president between 1974 and 1977.
Maybe the next one they build will be the Richard M Nixon.
No, traditionally aircraft carriers are named after Presidents, like battle ships were named after states. The only exception is a submarine is named after Jimmy Carter because he served aboard a submarine in WWII.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt Served in the Army and there are carriers named after them.
Enterprise is a traditional carrier name; CVN-80 is the third carrier named Enterprise. Doris Miller should have had the Medal of Honor for his actions at Pearl Harbor, and would have had it instead of the Navy Cross he did get, if he had been white. As he was black he was damn lucky to get the Navy Cross. Finally naming a carrier for him is the least the USN can do. USS Miller FF-1091 was named for him.
Carriers were traditionally named for Revolutionary War battles (Saratoga, Lexington, Yorktown) or ships in the Revolutionary War and/or the War of 1812 (Wasp, Hornet, Enterprise). Enterprise CVN-65 was named for Enterprise CV-6; Enterprise CVN-80 was named for Enterprise CVN-65. Starting with the Nimitz class, carriers were named for people (John Kennedy and Theodore Roosevelt had carriers named for them prior to Nimitz, but they were special cases.) Note that Nimitz was an admiral and Stennis was a senator, not a prez.
Some traditional carrier names have been assigned to amphibious warfare ships which would be called carriers if serving in any navy other than the USN; the latest Wasp is an amphibious assault ship. Others were used by AEGIS cruisers, also named for Revolutionary War battles; the latest Yorktown is an AEGIS cruiser, not a carrier.
Gerry Ford’s failures have long since been eclipsed by G W Bush and D J Trump. And Gerry was not merely a Navy man, he actually served on a carrier, and was nearly killed during Halsey’s Typhoon; several ships had problems in that storm, a fictional version featured heavily in The Caine Mutiny. And he was a lot smarter than he’s sometimes made out to be, easily one of the dozen smartest Prezzes. (Not that that’s a high bar…)
Yes. You don't have to be a Ford fan in particular to recognize that as US presidents go he wasn't particularly bad. Someone could certainly argue that pardoning Nixon was a mistake, and that it would be better to have let the Executive Branch not be a complete consequence-free zone; but subsequent presidents of both parties have done more damage to civil rights and restraint on the Executive.
Aside from that, he mostly had to try to deal with a really miserable economy and the '70s "malaise" (to use Carter's term). He signed the Helsinki Accords, which was a step toward defusing the Cold War.
He was ridiculed for physical clumsiness and wasn't a gifted speaker. Neither of those are terrible relevant to his ability as POTUS. He was unelected, which certainly made many people unhappy, but that doesn't reflect his ability to serve in the role either.
One survey of historians puts him 25th of 43 presidents, and I dare say 44 would come in below. So a middling president, by consensus.
I wonder whether there will be any analysis of the wildlife killed or otherwise harmed by the explosion? Did they choose a place that was as far away as possible form known whale locations?
I realise that the USN has to do tests, but I do hope they don't have to do any more like this for a very long time.
Whale migration along the Florida coast is long since past by now. Happens in late winter early spring.
The black tip shark migration is winding down right now but they stay fairly close to shore just over the sand bars off the coast near where I live. Most swimmer are oblivious to the fact that at any given time in May and June that there could be several thousand black tip sharks < 100 yards from where they are swimming.
I , for one , am a fan of C-4 Semtex and other assorted high explosives. They are great ! .. there's nothing like a great kaboom to start the day off . Nothing i'd like better than to have a chance to press the switch on a high rise building and watch it go boom.
Aircrafts carriers are sitting ducks waiting to be sunk. A pair of it may be useful to exert attacks against a third world country, but in a full scale war against a powerful enemy they will end as artificial reefs for fishes in a few hours.
Building 10 of those is a huge waste of money that could be better spent to try to help mankind rather than destroying it.
See this article for more explanation: This Is How the Carriers Will Die
Look also at this
Right back to the 70s the soviets planned to deal with carriers with either long range cruise missiles in bulk or torpedos. I wouldn’t fancy testing it, but look at what the Brit carriers did in Argentina. Deliberately sat at max range to screw over the abilities of their opponents.
A major war would likely follow similar tactics, so force multipliers like air refuelling are vital.
The electronics have improved but I don’t see any basic changes to guided missile tactics at a macro scale.
That's what I said, aircraft carriers are useful only against third world armies.
In the Falkland war, 40 years ago, UK was fighting against an under-equipped army. Argentina had only six Exocet missiles, with 5 intended to be launched from an aircraft. With those six missiles, they were able to sunk a guided missile destroyer and badly damage a container ship and another destroyer. UK was very lucky no carrier was hit.
Would Argentina have 60 Exocet missiles instead of 6, the British fleet would have been annihilated.
In a major war, a carrier would not face one of two missiles, but dozens. Look at the Millenium Challenge 2002, it's quite easy to overwhelm defence capacities.
For air refuelling, you don't necessarily require a carrier, if you have some airbases available strategically around the World.
Except that missile defences have been vastly improved since the days of the Falklands. Because the Soviets had the doctrine of saturation cruise missile attacks, the US developed the Aegis system - so a US carrier group will now have multiple SM3-equipped ships, coordinating which missiles they're trying to shoot down.
The Falklands war happened in an odd period, where both sides had some missiles, but most of the combat was still taking place with bombs and shells. The Royal Navy were still doing shore bombardment with guns, rather than cruise missile strikes - and the Argentinian Airforce were mostly using gravity bombs. In general Argentina's Navy stayed out of it after the Belgrano was sunk (by torpedo) - though if I remember rightly they lost a submarine to the combination of a missile fired from a helicopter and land-based small arms and mortar fire. It was caught on the surface.
Except that missile defences have been vastly improved since the days of the Falklands
There is _no_ defence against hypersonic missiles.
King, who represents the state where half the Navy’s destroyers are produced, also said he’s concerned about the long-term viability of aircraft carriers in a world with hypersonic missiles.
“I think it does raise a question of the role of the aircraft carrier if we cannot figure a way to counter this capability,” he said. “I don’t want indefensible, $12 billion sitting ducks out there. I’m not prepared to say the carrier is obsolete, but I say that this weapon undermines the viability of the carrier.”
the US developed the Aegis system
We have yet to see if it would be efficient in a real war. The USS Stark was equipped with a Phalanx CIWS, but was nonetheless hit by two missiles, who were undetected.
Argentinian Airforce were mostly using gravity bombs
Exactly what I said: Argentina had a third-world army. In that case aircraft carriers can be useful, but you just a couple of them, not tens, especially if the cost of one is $12 billion!
Against a modern army, carriers are just expensive targets.
For air refuelling, you don't necessarily require a carrier, if you have some airbases available strategically around the World.
Not even, just enough refueling planes, the British were perfectly capable of bombing the Malvinas (under Argentinian control at that time, so using the Argentinian name) from the UK.
Potemkine!: "it may be useful to exert attacks against a third world country, but in a full scale war against a powerful enemy they will end as artificial reefs for fishes in a few hours."
The USA (and the UK, and Russia) have shown they are quite willing to mount military attacks against countries with less effective military capabilities. The USA in particular seeks to extend its military capabilities globally, where most countries do not have large numbers of ship killing missiles. I'm sure the strategists in the Pentagon (and the MoD and the Kremlin) consider which weapons systems are most useful against which opponents, although I have to admit that ten new carriers does seem like quite a lot.
As an aside, President Gerald Ford was the only US President was not elected as either President or Vice President. When Nixon's vice-president Spiro Agnew resigned, Ford was appointed VP by Nixon, when Nixon resigned in disgrace after the Watergate scandal and cover-up, Ford became president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Gerald_Ford
At the start of WWII the Japanese Navy outnumbered the US Navy in Ships and planes, The Japanese Zero outclassed the US Navy's primary fighter the F4F in every category. Early engagements between Zeros and F4Fs were only won by some American pilots by their ingenuity and adaptation to combat conditions not by the quality of the aircraft. If it had not been for the luck of decrypting Japanese communications and the also luck of finding the Japanese fleet at Midway the early war could have gone very badly for the US.
The Japanese Navy never fully recovered after Midway. And Japan could not out manufacture the US. The subsequent F5F Hellcat and F4U Corsair vastly out matched the Zero in speed and durability in combat.
Modern carriers can operate many many miles away from their intended target due to in-flight refueling. Anti-missile technology is vastly more superior today. Those who discount carrier effectiveness do not understand how they are deployed and used.
Regarding "powerful enemies" today the only one close are the Chinese. They they do not have anything close to a valid carrier based multi-purpose aircraft. They are currently using a repurposed Russian design that is a very poor match for current US carrier based fighters. Chinese aircraft design is many years behind the US. (Unless they are successful is stealing designs from us which I would not doubt under this current administration)
The Zero was an amazingly fast and agile opponent, and it's quite understandable that the US pilots in their big clunky Wildcats and Avengers and Buffaloes felt hopelessly outmanoeuvred by them.
But the Zero was agile because it had no armour, unlike the Americans. It's like the old saying, "You may be lucky fifty times, but I only need to get lucky once".
The way America won the Pacific war was a wonderful illustration of why military preparedness - doesn't actually matter that much, if you're as large as that. The USA was actually better off for not having a large pre-existing military establishment - it meant it could gear up its unmatched industry and produce the right equipment for the war it actually found itself in, rather than one some strategist had dreamed up twenty years earlier. Japan never had a hope in heck of overrunning the USA - a brief glance at any atlas would have told everyone concerned that much - and without doing that, there was no way of stopping them from eventually out-producing Japan.
Japan never had a hope in heck of overrunning the USA - a brief glance at any atlas would have told everyone concerned that much - and without doing that, there was no way of stopping them from eventually out-producing Japan.
I suggest you take a brief glance at a 1939 or 1940 atlas, Japan was a major colonial power at that time (Manchuria and the complete Korean peninsula, it wasn't divided yet).
I saw this on the BBC the other day and assumed it was an older carrier, i was shocked when i checked wikipedia and saw it was their most recent vessel and had been suffering issues where it wasn't fully accepted into service.
Thankfully our favourite red top had been bothered to fill in the details as to why the tests are being performed.
Not sure the Brit press would be happy with the Royal Navy deliberately blowing up 18 tonnes of high explosive next to one of our new carriers.
"Not sure the Brit press would be happy with the Royal Navy deliberately blowing up 18 tonnes of high explosive next to one of our new carriers."
It's not for the Brit press to be happy or not. It's all about testing that the platform performs as it should before it fully enters service. There'll be plenty more acceptance tests, this was just one of the more visible ones.
“ It's not for the Brit press to be happy or not. It's all about testing that the platform performs as it should before it fully enters service.”
The Ford is late and not combat ready (just like the other Ford’s I’ve owned)
From the wiki link.
“ According to a GAO report in mid-2020 the Gerald R. Ford was still reporting significant problems with the operation of its weapons elevators,[77] while a DoD report in early 2021 stated that the ship was still not combat-ready, citing continuing problems with the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). Designed to achieve 4,166 aircraft launches between operational mission failures, instead it went 181 launches between failures, "well below the requirement".[78][79][80]”
By al means test it’s ability to survive stuff but you’ll likely want to test a fully functioning example.
Also if the enemy is able to explode 18 tonnes of high explosives in close proximity to your carrier battle group something has seriously gone wrong.
Still, exploding 18tonnes of high explosives next to $13bn of new hardware, that should be replacing the enterprise decommissioned in 2012, would generate much consternation over here.
That’s a few hospitals or free school meals put in harms way that will require significant refurbishment after.
While the Ford was in need of refurbishment despite being new and not combat ready, it’ll require even more maintenance, refurbishment and inspection now.
Apparently, the Russian Air Force has just provided a similar test for the RN's Type 45 destroyer.
From 'Forces Net' (14;20 23/06), Russian Foreign ministry claim that they fired warning shots and dropped 4 bombs ahead of a RN destroyer to warn it off entering Russian waters.
RN deny it happened, and state that they were in Ukrainian territorial waters.
Hopefully, the next test isn't of Defender's anti-aircraft missiles.
The RN is so short of destroyers[0] that I can imagine them not being put anywhere near harm's way for a long time in order to have more than zero with the aircraft carriers[1]
[0] Especially ones that haven't broken down.
[1] Probably one of the reasons why the QE has American and Dutch escorts too
It's called testing. You need to see what the explosion has done to all your electrical connections. Plus the thing's been doing trials, so there'll be a whole load of gremlins on the list to sort out anyway. Presumably it makes sense to do your big explosion test just before maintenance, in case.
Really, you'd need to do a very thorough inspection just before the test, to separate the test damage from the "gremlins" you speak of. Might be easiest to give it two six-month overhauls virtually back to back, with the test in between.
These carriers are built on the East coast, they cannot pass through the Panama canal so to get a carrier to the west coast it is either a circumnavigation of the world or sailing around the horn which should only be tried in the southern summer.
So testing is always done on the east coast,
Your level of ignorance is really quite shocking. Have you even bothered to learn WHY those "trucks" (There called sled's by the way.) are launched? Do you know what non-destructive testing (NDT) is?
Well, seeing as your mostly a bunch of IT (Idiots in Transition) people, I'm not shocked you are clueless on NDT.
Get a real engineering education or stop writing about real engineering.
s/There/They're/
s/your/you're/
Yes, we're fully aware of what they were doing. That level of knowledge allows us to lighten the mood with some humour. I realise that most Americans lack that trait, but we're British so we are born with a full complement of it.
If you're going to call other people idiots, you had better not make incredibly basic mistakes in your comment that even a 6 year old would avoid.
s/American muppet/British humour/
" Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System catapult"
Wonderful! I had the dubious honor of being in the Air Wing participating in the trials for the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. Some genius decided that hydraulics were a better Idea than steam to power the catapults. The loss of 4 multi-million dollar aircraft and the serious injury of 2 highly trained fighter pilots resulted in the scrapping of that decision and steam catapults installed.
Hydraulic catapults where swapped out in the 1950’s
http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,860952,00.html
“ The hydraulic catapults on U.S. aircraft carriers have figured in a long series of postwar accidents, e.g., the explosion that took 103 lives on the U.S.S. Bennington (TIME, June 7). Last week the Navy announced that it is abandoning the hydraulic catapult. A steam-powered model of British design, already tested successfully aboard the U.S.S. Hancock, will be installed on all American carriers. The steam catapult, utilizing a hooked piston riding in a slotted cylinder, is safer than the old hydraulic model because it uses no highly volatile, explosive liquids.
But the chief reason for the change is not safety. The Navy switched to the "steam slingshot" mainly because it is faster and vastly more powerful. On larger carriers like the Forrestal, four steam catapults will launch as many as 32 interceptors in four minutes.”
If you notice in the video there's a few different angles of view of the detonation , in one it clearly shows that what looks like freaking massive is just because of the point of view , so .. the real explosion was way less important than certain angles would let you believe. Got to be carefull with cams and angles .. they will easily fool you.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
