"Will the USS Gerald Ford be remembered as the doomed... " Topic

…Yamato of the carrier era?

"Commissioned by the Japanese in December of 1941, just over a week after their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the Yamato was the largest, most powerful battleship that had ever existed — a title that it still holds to this day, over 75 years later. With its nine 18.1-inch guns, it could fire 3,000 pound shells up to 26 miles away — so far that it required spotter aircraft to identify targets over the horizon. In comparison, the heaviest guns on U.S. battleships were 16 inches and limited to a maximum range of 20 miles. To paraphrase President Trump, it was truly a ship to make its enemies shake with fear.

While the Yamato was the pinnacle of the battleship era, the recently commissioned USS Gerald Ford represents the state of the art of what came next — the era of naval aviation and, crucially, the aircraft carrier. At 1,100 feet long and displacing over 100,000 tons, the Ford is a massive ship. However, while what distinguished the Yamato from its peers was the size of the ship and its cannons, what distinguishes the Ford are its technological improvements. Of roughly similar size and speed as the previous Nimitz class of supercarriers, Ford's advantage comes, in part, from its increased efficiency. Advances in design allow it to launch 25 percent more sorties per day, greatly increasing its striking power. It also operates with at least 20 percent fewer crew members due to improved automation.

The Ford is adding to an existing fleet of 10 Nimitz class supercarriers. These are joined by an additional nine amphibious assault ships that, while much smaller and with more limited capabilities, are still capable of launching a range of helicopters and vertical takeoff and landing fixed wing aircraft. By comparison, the rest of the world's major navies have one to two carriers either in service or under construction. The outlier is Japan with three. And almost all of these are closer in size and aircraft complement to our amphibious assault ships than to our supercarriers. In short, when it comes to the ability to project naval airpower, the United States so far outpaces the rest of the world that there is no comparison…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

It appears we want our ships to be able to do more rather than have more ships. I do not see how that is really a benefit since losing one ship is like losing 2-4.

The Ford having fewer crew is going to cause more fatigue and stress on the crew that is available.

The Ford having fewer crew is going to cause more fatigue and stress on the crew that is available.

Not necessarily. It depends on how extensive the automation is and how its integrated. It may well reduce the fatigue.

Fewer crew makes damage control a major challenge. That is extremely concerning to me.

I remember when I bought my 1989 Chevy Cavalier – my first car that had any significant digital equipment. I remember thinking this is kinda neat having all these chips and things replacing real parts. That wore off quickly when the chips started failing regularly and repeatedly, resulting in stranding, unanticipated down time, and repairs that were more costly than had they been working parts. I hope that is not the direction we are going with all this automation.

I would hate to think that right in the middle of a strike launch we get an "updating… do not use or turn off your catapult….03% complete".

Well, remember that the carrier still has a crew of over 1000.

That's not counting the flight deck.

It's not like the LCS hulls, where a crew of 30 is supposed to do the work of 75!

According to the pundits carriers have been obsolete for decades, and yet there they are standing by during every conflict in the world….