Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier

Gerald R. Ford class (or Ford class; previously known as CVN-21 class) is a class of aircraft carrier being built to replace USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and eventually the United States Navy's existing Nimitz-class carriers, beginning with the delivery of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). The new vessels have a hull similar to the Nimitz carriers, but introduce technologies since developed such as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, as well as other design features intended to improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, including sailing with smaller crews.[N 1][8][9]

Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
USS Gerald R. Ford underway in July 2017
Class overview
Name: Gerald R. Ford–class aircraft carrier
Builders: Newport News Shipbuilding
Operators:  United States Navy
Preceded by: Nimitz class
  • Program cost: US$37.30 billion (FY2018)[1]
  • Unit cost: US$12.998 billion (FY2018)[1]
In service: 2017–present
Building: 2
Ordered: 2[1]
Planned: 10[2][3]
Completed: 1
Active: 1
General characteristics
Type: Aircraft carrier
Displacement: About 100,000 long tons (100,000 tonnes) (full load)[4]
Length: 1,106 ft (337 m)
  • 256 ft (78 m) (flight deck)
  • 134 ft (41 m) (waterline)
Height: 250 feet (76 m)
Draft: 39 ft (12 m)[5]
Decks: 25
Installed power: Two A1B nuclear reactors
Propulsion: Four shafts
Speed: In excess of 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range: Unlimited
Endurance: 50-year service life
  • 508 officers
  • 3,789 enlisted[5]
Crew: 2,600 approx.[6]
Aircraft carried: 75+[7]
Aviation facilities: 1,092 ft × 256 ft (333 m × 78 m) flight deck

Design features

Carriers of the Gerald R. Ford class will have:[1]

The biggest visible difference from earlier supercarriers will be the more aft location of the island (superstructure).[17] The Gerald R. Ford-class carriers are to have a reduced whole-life cost due in part to reduced crew size.[11] These ships are intended to sustain 160 sorties per day for 30-plus days, with a surge capability of 270 sorties per day.[18][19] Director of Operational Testing Michael Gilmore has criticized the assumptions used in these forecasts as unrealistic and has indicated sortie rates similar to the 120/240 per day of the Nimitz class would be acceptable.[19][20]


The current Nimitz-class aircraft carriers in US naval service have been part of United States power projection strategy since Nimitz was commissioned in 1975. Displacing about 100,000 tons when fully loaded, a Nimitz-class carrier can steam faster than 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph), cruise without resupply for 90 days, and launch aircraft to strike targets hundreds of miles away.[21] The endurance of this class is exemplified by USS Theodore Roosevelt, which spent 159 days underway during Operation Enduring Freedom without visiting a port or being refueled.[22]

The Nimitz design has accommodated many new technologies over the decades, but it has limited ability to support the most recent technical advances. As a 2005 Rand report said, "The biggest problems facing the Nimitz class are the limited electrical power generation capability and the upgrade-driven increase in ship weight and erosion of the center-of-gravity margin needed to maintain ship stability."[23]

With these constraints in mind, the US Navy developed what was initially known as the CVN-21 program, which evolved into CVN-78, Gerald R. Ford. Improvements were made through developing technologies and more efficient design. Major design changes include a larger flight deck, improvements in weapons and material handling, a new propulsion plant design that requires fewer people to operate and maintain, and a new, smaller island that has been pushed aft. Technological advances in electromagnetics have led to the development of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and an Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG). An integrated warfare system, the Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS), has been developed to allow the ship to more easily take on new missions. The new Dual Band Radar (DBR) combines S-band and X-band radar.[24] Flight deck changes support the requirements for a higher sortie rate, around 160 a day with surges to 270.

These advances will allow the new Gerald R. Ford-class carriers to launch 25% more sorties, generate triple the electrical power with improved efficiency, and offer crew quality-of-life improvements.[7][8]

Flight deck

Changes to the flight deck are the most visible differences between the Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford classes. Several sections have been altered to improve aircraft handling, storage, and flow, all in the service of increasing the sortie rate.

Catapult No. 4 on the Nimitz class cannot launch fully loaded aircraft because of a deficiency of wing clearance along the edge of the flight deck.[25] CVN-78 will have no catapult-specific restrictions on launching aircraft, but still retains four catapults, two bow and two waist.[8] The number of aircraft lifts from hangar deck to flight deck level was reduced from four to three.

Another major change is that the smaller, redesigned island will be further aft than those of older carriers. This shift creates deck space for a centralized rearming and refueling location, and thereby reduces the number of times that an aircraft will have to be moved after landing before it can be relaunched. Fewer aircraft movements require, in turn, fewer deck hands to accomplish them, reducing the size of the ship's crew and increasing sortie rate.

As well, the movement of weapons from storage and assembly to the aircraft on the flight deck has been streamlined and accelerated. Ordnance will be lifted to the centralized rearming location via higher-capacity weapons elevators that use linear motors.[26] These elevators are located so that ordnance need not cross any areas of aircraft movement, thereby reducing traffic problems in the hangars and on the flight deck. In 2008, Rear Admiral Dennis M. Dwyer said these changes will make it hypothetically possible to rearm the airplanes in "minutes instead of hours".[27]

Power generation

The new Bechtel A1B reactor for the Gerald R. Ford class is smaller and simpler, requires fewer crew, and yet is far more powerful than the Nimitz-class A4W reactor. Two reactors will be installed on each Gerald R. Ford-class carrier, providing a power generation capacity at least 25% greater than the 550 MW of the two A4W reactors in a Nimitz-class carrier,[28] and three times that of "current carrier power plants".[29]

The propulsion and power plant of the Nimitz-class carriers were designed in the 1960s, when onboard technologies required less electrical power. "New technologies added to the Nimitz-class ships have generated increased demands for electricity; the current base load leaves little margin to meet expanding demands for power."[30]

The Gerald R. Ford-class ships convert steam into power by piping it to four main turbine generators (MTG) to generate electricity for major ship systems, and the new electromagnetic catapults.[31][32] The Ford-class ships retained steam turbines for propulsion. [33] Compared to the Nimitz-class reactor, the Gerald R. Ford-class reactor has about half as many valves, piping, major pumps, condensers, and generators. The steam-generating system uses fewer than 200 valves and only eight pipe sizes. These improvements lead to simpler construction, reduced maintenance, and lower manpower requirements as well as to a more compact system that requires less space in the ship. The modernization of the plant led to a higher core energy density, lower demands for pumping power, a simpler construction, and the use of modern electronic controls and displays. The new plant requires just one-third the watchstanding requirements and a decrease of required maintenance.

A larger power output is a major component to the integrated warfare system. Engineers took extra steps to ensure that integrating unforeseen technological advances onto a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier would be possible. The Navy expects the Gerald R. Ford class will be part of the fleet for 90 years, until the year 2105, which means that the class must successfully accept new technology over the decades. Only half of the electric power generation capacity is used by currently planned systems, with half remaining available for future technologies.[34]

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System

The Nimitz-class carriers used steam-powered catapults to launch aircraft. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) of the Ford class is more efficient, smaller, lighter, more powerful, and easier to control. EMALS' improved control will enable it to launch both heavier and lighter aircraft than the steam catapult and will reduce the stress on airframes, resulting in less maintenance and longer lifetimes for the aircraft. (EMALS will not be retrofitted onto the Nimitz class, which cannot generate enough electricity to power it.)

Advanced Arresting Gear landing system

Electromagnets are also being used in the new Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) system. The current system relies on hydraulics to slow and stop a landing aircraft. While the hydraulic system is effective, as demonstrated by more than fifty years of implementation, the AAG system offers a number of improvements. The current system is unable to capture unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) without damaging them due to extreme stresses on the airframe. UAVs do not have the necessary mass to drive the large hydraulic piston used to trap heavier, manned airplanes. By using electromagnetics the energy absorption is controlled by a turbo-electric engine. This makes the trap smoother and reduces shock on airframes. Even though the system will look the same from the flight deck as its predecessor, it will be more flexible, safe, and reliable, and will require less maintenance and manning.[35]

Sensors and self-defense systems

Another addition to the Gerald R. Ford class is an integrated active electronically scanned array search and tracking radar system. The dual-band radar (DBR) was being developed for both the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers and the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers by Raytheon. The island can be kept smaller by replacing six to ten radar antennas with a single six-faced radar. The DBR works by combining the X band AN/SPY-3 multifunction radar with the S band Volume Search Radar (VSR) emitters, distributed into three phased arrays.[36] The S-band radar was later deleted from the Zumwalt destroyers to save money.[14]

The three faces dedicated to the X-band radar handle low-altitude tracking and radar illumination, while the three S-band faces handle target search and tracking regardless of weather. "Operating simultaneously over two electromagnetic frequency ranges, the DBR marks the first time this functionality has been achieved using two frequencies coordinated by a single resource manager."[24]

This new system has no moving parts, therefore minimizing maintenance and manning requirements for operation. The AN/SPY-3 consists of three active arrays and the Receiver/Exciter (REX) cabinets abovedecks and the Signal and Data Processor (SDP) subsystem below-decks. The VSR has a similar architecture, with the beamforming and narrowband down-conversion functionality occurring in two additional cabinets per array. A central controller (the resource manager) resides in the Data Processor (DP). The DBR is the first radar system that uses a central controller and two active-array radars operating at different frequencies. The DBR gets its power from the Common Array Power System (CAPS), which comprises Power Conversion Units (PCUs) and Power Distribution Units (PDUs). The DBR is cooled via a closed-loop cooling system called the Common Array Cooling System (CACS).[37]

The REX consists of a digital and an analog portion. The digital portion of the REX provides system-level timing and control. The analog portion contains the exciter and the receiver. The exciter is a low-amplitude and phase noise system that uses direct frequency synthesis. The radar's noise characteristics support the high clutter cancellation requirements required in the broad range of maritime operating environments that DBR will likely encounter. The direct frequency synthesis allows a wide range of pulse repetition frequencies, pulse widths, and modulation schemes to be created.

The receiver has high dynamic range to support high clutter levels caused by close returns from range-ambiguous Doppler effect waveforms. The receiver has both narrow band and wideband channels, as well as multichannel capabilities to support monopulse radar processing and side lobe blanking. The receiver generates digital data and sends the data to the signal processors.

The DBR uses IBM commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) supercomputers to provide control and signal processing. DBR is the first radar system to use COTS systems to perform the signal processing. Using COTS systems reduces development costs and increases system reliability and maintainability. The high-performance COTS servers perform signal analysis using radar and digital signal processing techniques, including channel equalization, clutter filtering, Doppler processing, impulse editing, and implementation of a variety of advanced electronic protect algorithms. The IBM supercomputers are installed in cabinets that provide shock and vibration isolation. The DP contains the resource manager, the tracker, and the command and control processor, which processes commands from the combat system.

The DBR utilizes a multi-tier, dual-band tracker, which consists of a local X band tracker, a local S band tracker, and a central tracker. The central tracker merges the local tracker data together and directs the individual-band-trackers' updates. The X band tracker is optimized for low latency to support its mission of providing defense against fast, low-flying missiles, while the VSR tracker is optimized for throughput due to the large-volume search area coverage requirements.

The combat system develops doctrine-based response recommendations based on the current tactical situation and sends the recommendations to the DBR. The combat system also has control of which modes the radar will perform. Unlike previous-generation radars, the DBR does not require an operator and has no manned display consoles. The system uses information about the current environment and doctrine from the combat system to make automated decisions, not only reducing reaction times, but also reducing the risks associated with human error. The only human interaction is for maintenance and repair activities.

The Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) is a new design surveillance radar that is to be installed in the second Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), in lieu of the Dual Band radar. The America-class amphibious assault ships starting with LHA-8 and the planned LX(R) will also have this radar.[38] The EASR suite's initial per-unit cost will be about $180 million less than the DBR, for which the estimate is about $500 million.[39]

The carrier will be armed with the Raytheon Evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM), which defends against high-speed, highly maneuverable anti-ship missiles. The close-in weapon system, and the rolling airframe missile (RAM) from Raytheon and Ramsys GmbH are also on board.

Possible upgrades

Future defense systems, such as free-electron laser directed-energy weapons, dynamic armor, and tracking systems will require more power. "Only half of the electrical power-generation capability on CVN-78 is needed to run currently planned systems, including EMALS. CVN-78 will thus have the power reserves that the Nimitz class lacks to run lasers and dynamic armor."[34] The addition of new technologies, power systems, design layout, and better control systems results in an increased sortie rate of 25% over the Nimitz class and a 25% reduction in manpower required to operate.[40]

Breakthrough waste management technology will be deployed on Gerald R. Ford. Co-developed with the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, PyroGenesis Canada Inc., was in 2008 awarded the contract to outfit the ship with a Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System (PAWDS). This compact system will treat all combustible solid waste generated on board the ship. After having completed factory acceptance testing in Montreal, the system was scheduled to be shipped to the Huntington Ingalls shipyard in late 2011 for installation on the carrier.[41]

The Navy is developing a free-electron laser (FEL) to fight off cruise missiles and small-boat swarms.[42][43][44][45][46]

3D computer-aided design

Newport News Shipbuilding used a full-scale three-dimensional product model developed in Dassault Systèmes CATIA V5 to design and plan the construction of the Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers.[47] This enables engineers and designers to test visual integration in design, engineering, planning and construction of components and subsystems. CVN-78 is the first aircraft carrier to be designed in a full-scale 3D product model. This modeling enabled the rooms within the ship to be modular, so that future upgrades can be implemented by designers simply by swapping a box in and locking it down.

This method of designing workflow also resulted in improvements to weapon handling procedures and an increase in potential sorties-per-day. Weapons-handling paths on Nimitz-class ships were designed for the potential nuclear missions of the Cold War. The current flow of weapons from storage areas in the interior of the Nimitz-class ship to loading on aircraft involves several horizontal and vertical movements to various staging and build-up locations within the ship. These movements around the ship are time-consuming and manpower-intensive and typically involve sailors manually moving weapons loaded on carts. Also, the current locations of some of the Nimitz-class weapons elevators conflict with the flow of aircraft on the flight deck, slowing down the generation of sorties or making some elevators unusable during flight operations.

The CVN 21 class was designed to have better weapons movement paths, largely eliminating horizontal movements within the ship. Current plans call for advanced weapons elevators to move from storage areas to dedicated weapons-handling areas. Sailors would use motorized carts to move the weapons from storage to the elevators at different levels of the weapons magazines. Linear motors are being considered for the advanced weapons elevators. The elevators will also be relocated such that they will not impede aircraft operations on the flight deck. The redesign of the weapons movement paths and the location of the weapons elevators on the flight deck will reduce manpower and contribute to a much higher sortie generation rate.[48]

Planned aircraft complement

The Gerald R. Ford class is designed to accommodate the new Joint Strike Fighter carrier variant aircraft (F-35C), but aircraft development and testing delays have affected integration activities on CVN-78. These integration activities include testing the F-35C with CVN-78's EMALS and advanced arresting gear system and testing the ship's storage capabilities for the F-35C's lithium-ion batteries (which provide start-up and back-up power), tires, and wheels. As a result of F-35C developmental delays, the US Navy will not field the aircraft until at least 2018—one year after CVN-78 delivery. As a result, the Navy has deferred critical F-35C integration activities, which introduces risk of system incompatibilities and costly retrofits to the ship after it is delivered to the Navy.[49]

Crew accommodations

Systems that reduce crew workload have allowed the ship's company on Gerald R. Ford-class carriers to total only 2,600 sailors, about 600 fewer than a Nimitz-class carrier. The massive, 180-man berthing areas on the Nimitz class are replaced by 40-rack berthing areas on Gerald R. Ford-class carriers. The smaller berthings are quieter and the layout requires less foot traffic through other spaces.[50] Typically the racks are stacked three high, with locker space per person. The berthings do not feature modern "sit-up" racks with more headroom; bottom and middle racks only accommodate a sailor lying down. Each berthing has an associated head, including showers, vacuum-powered septic-system toilets (no urinals since the berthings are built gender-neutral)[51] and sinks to reduce travel and traffic to access those facilities. Wifi-enabled lounges are located across the passageway in separate spaces from the berthing's racks.[50]

Medical facilities

Gerald R. Ford, first in the class, has an on-board hospital that includes a full lab, pharmacy, operating room, 3-bed intensive care unit, 2-bed emergency room, and 41-bed hospital ward, staffed by 11 medical officers and 30 hospital corpsmen.[52]


Construction of the first vessel in the class, CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford, began on 11 August 2005, when Northrop Grumman held a ceremonial steel cut for a 15-ton plate that would form part of a side shell unit of the carrier.[53] Construction began on components of CVN-78 in early 2007,[54] with the final stages being completed at Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries (formerly Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding) in Newport News, Virginia. This is the only shipyard in the United States capable of building nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

In 2005, Gerald R. Ford was estimated to cost at least $8 billion excluding the $5 billion spent on research and development (though that was not expected to be representative of the cost of future members of the class).[11] A 2009 report said that Gerald R. Ford would cost $14 billion including research and development, and the actual cost of the carrier itself would be $9 billion.[55] The life-cycle cost per operating day of a carrier strike group (including aircraft) was estimated at $6.5 million in 2013 published by the Center for New American Security.[56]

Originally, a total of three carriers were authorized for construction, but if the Nimitz-class carriers and Enterprise were to be replaced on a one-for-one basis, eleven carriers would be required over the life of the program. However, the last Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is not scheduled to be decommissioned until 2058.

In a speech on 6 April 2009, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that the program would shift to a five-year building program so as to place it on a "more fiscally sustainable path". Such a measure would result in ten carriers after 2040.[57] That changed by 2016, when former Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus recommended a 355-ship fleet, with 12 aircraft carriers, in the December 2016 Force Structure assessment (FSA).[58][59] If enacted, this policy would necessitate an increase to a three to four-year building program.[60]

First-of-class type design changes

As construction of CVN-78 progressed, the shipbuilder discovered first-of-class type design changes, which it will use to update the model before the construction of the remaining vessels of its class. Several of these design changes related to EMALS configuration changes, which required electrical, wiring, and other changes within the ship. The Navy anticipates additional design changes stemming from remaining advanced arresting gear development and testing. According to the Navy, many of these 19,000 changes were programmed into the construction schedule early on—a result of the government's decision at contract award to introduce improvements during construction to the ship's warfare systems, which are heavily dependent on evolving commercial technologies.[49]


There was a movement by the USS America Carrier Veterans' Association to have CVN-78 named after America rather than after President Ford.[61] Eventually, the amphibious assault ship LHA-6 was named America.

On 27 May 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced the name of CVN-79 would be USS John F. Kennedy.[62]

On 1 December 2012, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that CVN-80 would be named USS Enterprise. The information was delivered during a prerecorded speech as part of the deactivation ceremony for the previous Enterprise (CVN-65). The future Enterprise (CVN-80) will be the ninth U.S. Navy ship to bear this name.[63]

Ships in class

There are expected to be ten ships of this class.[64] To date, five have been announced:

Ship Hull classification symbol Laid down Launched Commissioned Scheduled to replace Status References
Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 13 November 2009 11 October 2013[65] 22 July 2017 Enterprise (CVN-65) Active in service [66]
John F. Kennedy CVN-79 22 August 2015 16 December 2019 2020
Nimitz (CVN-68) Launched [67][1][68]
Enterprise CVN-80 2020
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Under construction [69][1]
Unnamed CVN-81 2023
Carl Vinson (CVN-70) Ordered [1]
Unnamed CVN-82 2027
Theodore Roosevelt
Ordered [1]

See also


  1. Before its redesignation to Gerald R. Ford class, the new carrier (CVN-78) was known as the CVNX carrier program ("X" meaning "in development") and then as the CVN-21 carrier program. (Here, "21" is not a hull number, but rather it is common in "future" plans in the U.S. military, alluding to the 21st century.)


  1. O'Rourke, Ronald (22 December 2017). "Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 December 2017. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
  2. Combat fleet of the world 2012
  3. Keller, John (8 June 2015). "Navy awards $3.4 billion contract to Huntington Ingalls to build Ford-class aircraft carrier". Military Aerospace Electronics Magazine. Archived from the original on 17 November 2015. Retrieved 28 October 2015.
  4. "Aircraft Carriers - CVN". Fact File. United States Navy. 12 January 2016. Retrieved 25 January 2016.
  5. "USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78)". U.S. Carriers. US Navy. Archived from the original on 28 March 2014. Retrieved 1 December 2012.
  6. Jenkins, Aric (22 July 2017). "The USS Gerald Ford Is the Most Advanced Aircraft Carrier in the World". Fortune. Archived from the original on 23 July 2017. Retrieved 23 July 2017.
  7. "AIRCRAFT CARRIERS – CVN". Department of the Navy. 16 October 2014. Archived from the original on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 24 June 2015.
  8. "CVN 78 Gerald R Ford Class". Naval 22 December 2009. Archived from the original on 20 December 2013. Retrieved 26 March 2010.
  9. "Navy Names New Aircraft Carrier USS Gerald R. Ford". U.S. Navy. 7 January 2007. Archived from the original on 15 August 2017. Retrieved 14 August 2017.
  10. Sweetman, Bill (1 June 2010). "Carrier Launch System Passes Initial Tests". Aviation Week. Archived from the original on 15 August 2017. Retrieved 14 August 2017.
  11. "Costing the CVN-21: A DID Primer". Defense Industry Daily. 19 December 2005. Archived from the original on 12 June 2007. Retrieved 7 November 2007. Covers the costs of the CVN-21 program, how those are calculated, and where the $5 billion savings on operational costs is expected to come from over the ship's planned 50-year lifetime.
  12. "Gerald R Ford Class (CVN 78/79) – US Navy CVN 21 Future Carrier Programme – Naval Technology". Archived from the original on 20 December 2013. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
  13. "AN/SPY-4 Volume Search Radar". Archived from the original on 11 August 2017. Retrieved 10 August 2017.
  14. O'Rourke, Ronald (31 May 2017). "Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 March 2015. Retrieved 4 April 2015.
  15. "US Navy selects builder for new MQ-25 Stingray aerial refueling drone". DefenseNews.
  16. "Aircraft Carriers – CVN 21 Program" (PDF). US Navy (Navy Fact File). 9 February 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 July 2011. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
  17. Keeter, Hunter (June 2003). "New Carrier Island Is at Heart of Higher Sortie Rates for CVN 21". Archived from the original on 27 September 2011. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
  18. "Head of the Class". Naval Aviation News. 22 December 2015. Archived from the original on 16 February 2016. Retrieved 15 February 2016.
  19. FY2013 Annual Report for the Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation – CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford Class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (PDF), Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, archived (PDF) from the original on 25 May 2014, retrieved 8 February 2014
  20. Tony Capaccio (10 January 2014). "Hagel Told New Carrier Unlikely to Meet Aircraft Goals". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved 28 December 2016.
  21. "Ship Information". USS Nimitz Homepage. 4 March 2008.
  22. "Our Ship". USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) Web Page. 4 March 2008.
  23. Schank, John. Modernizing the U.S. Aircraft Carrier Fleet: Accelerating CVN 21 Production Versus Mid-Life Refueling. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 2005. p. 76.
  24. Larrabee, Chuck. DDG 1000 Dual Band Radar (DBR). Raytheon. 1 March 2008.
  25. Schank, John. Modernizing the U.S. Aircraft Carrier Fleet, p. 77.
  26. "Advanced Weapons Elevators". Federal Equipment Co. Archived from the original on 22 February 2013. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
  27. Keeter, Hunter. "New carrier island is a heart of higher sortie rates for CVN 21". BNET Business Management Network. 4 March 2008.
  28. "Nuclear-Powered Ships". Archived from the original on 12 June 2013. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
  29. Ragheb, M. (18 June 2017). "Nuclear Marine Propulsion" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 August 2014. Retrieved 29 October 2014.
  30. Schank, John; Smith, Giles; Alkire, Brien; Arena, Mark V. (2005). "Modernizing the U.S. Aircraft Carrier Fleet: Accelerating CVN 21 Production Versus Mid-Life Refueling" (PDF). Rand. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 October 2014. Retrieved 25 August 2017.
  31. "How Not to Build a Ship: The USS Ford". Project on Government Oversight. Missing or empty |url= (help)
  32. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 6 July 2019. Retrieved 6 July 2019.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  34. Schank, John. Modernizing the US Aircraft Carrier Fleet p. 83.
  35. Rodriguez, Carmelo. "Launch and Recovery Testing". ITEA-SAN. Turboelectric Arresting Gear. Mission Valley Hotel, San Diego. 16 June 2005.
  36. Larrabee, Chuck. "Raytheon Successfully Integrates Final Element of Dual Band Radar for DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer". Raytheon News Release. 4 March 2008.
  37. Tolley, Alan L.; Ball, John E. "Dual-Band Radar Development: From Engineering Design to Production" (PDF). NAVSEA Warfare Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 December 2014. Retrieved 28 October 2014.
  38. "Navy C4ISR and Unmanned Systems". Sea Power 2016 Almanac. Navy League of the U.S. January 2016. p. 91. Archived from the original on 28 January 2017. Retrieved 9 November 2016.
  39. "Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR)" (PDF). Aerospace Daily & Defense Report. Aviation Week Network. 24 August 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 October 2016. Retrieved 7 March 2016.
  40. Taylor, Leslie (7 June 2006), CVN21 MS&A Overview, NDIA.
  41. The Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System to Reduce Waste Aboard CVN-78, Seaframe – Carderock Division Publication, 2008, p. 13, archived from the original on 1 December 2012, retrieved 1 December 2012
  42. "Future is now: Navy to deploy lasers on ships in 2014", Fox news, 8 April 2013, archived from the original on 23 November 2014, retrieved 30 October 2014.
  43. Wang, Brian (4 March 2016). "US Navy plans for scaling Free electron lasers to megawatt weapon systems". Next Big Future. Archived from the original on 9 August 2017. Retrieved 9 August 2017.
  44. Ackerman, Spencer (18 February 2011). "Unexpectedly, Navy's superlaser blasts away a record". Wired. Archived from the original on 30 January 2017. Retrieved 7 March 2017..
  45. Templeton, Graham (18 April 2013). "The science of beam weapons". Extreme Tech. Archived from the original on 30 October 2014. Retrieved 30 October 2014..
  46. O'Rourke, Ronald (12 June 2015). "Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 March 2015. Retrieved 4 April 2015..
  47. Dassault Systemes 3D simulation – CATIA goes virtual reality. YouTube. 15 July 2011. Archived from the original on 18 August 2017. Retrieved 30 December 2017.
  48. "MODERNIZING THE U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER FLEET – Accelerating CVN 21 Production Versus Mid-Life Refueling" (PDF). National Defense Research Institute. RAND Corporation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 October 2014. Retrieved 17 March 2015.
  49. "FORD - CLASS CARRIERS: Lead Ship Testing and Reliability Shortfalls Will Limit Initial Fleet Capabilities" (PDF). GAO. September 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 September 2014. Retrieved 24 October 2014.
  50. Bacon, Lance M. (13 October 2014). "Crew's ship: Sailors' comfort a centerpiece of new supercarrier Ford". Navy Times. Retrieved 5 June 2017.
  51. Shapiro, Michael Welles (25 June 2012). "No urinals on the Ford-class carriers". Newport News Daily Press. Archived from the original on 7 April 2017. Retrieved 6 April 2017.
  52. "Meet Gerald R. Ford's Senior Medical Officer". 8 August 2016. Archived from the original on 5 January 2018. Retrieved 5 January 2018.
  53. "Ford Reaches 50 Percent Structural Completion" (PDF). Newport News Shipbuilding. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 October 2014. Retrieved 1 September 2011.
  54. Jon W. Glass. "Construction Begins on the First Ford-class Carrier". The Virginian-Pilot. Archived from the original on 31 January 2009. Retrieved 31 October 2008.
  55. "The Politician Class Carriers Evolve". 12 April 2009. Archived from the original on 15 April 2009. Retrieved 18 April 2009.
  56. Capt Henry J. Hendrix, USN (PhD) (March 2009). "At What Cost a Carrier?" (PDF). Disruptive Defense Papers. Center for a New American Security. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 August 2014.
  57. "Defense Budget Recommendation Statement (Arlington, VA)". US Department of Defense. 6 April 2009. Archived from the original on 3 December 2009. Retrieved 27 March 2010.
  58. Navy, This story was written by The Office of the Secretary of the. "Secretary of the Navy Announces Need for 355-ship Navy". Archived from the original on 7 April 2018. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
  59. "Navy Wants 355 Ships; New Assessment Adds Destroyers, Attack Subs". 16 December 2016. Archived from the original on 7 April 2018. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
  60. "Report to Congress on Gerald R. Ford Class Carrier Program - USNI News". 4 April 2018. Archived from the original on 7 April 2018. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
  61. LaGrone, Sam (23 April 2013). "Twenty Six US Navy Ship Naming Controversies" (USS Gerald R. Ford). USNI News. U.S. Naval Institute. Archived from the original on 13 August 2017. Retrieved 12 August 2017. The vets argued that Ford was not much more than an adequate president, so it was more fitting for the carrier-class to be known as America...
  62. "Navy Names Next Aircraft Carrier USS John F. Kennedy". U.S. Department of Defense. Archived from the original (News Release) on 20 August 2013. Retrieved 29 May 2011.
  63. "US Navy's Ford-class aircraft carrier to be named Enterprise". 4 December 2012. Archived from the original (Defence & Aerospace News) on 7 December 2012. Retrieved 4 December 2012.
  64. "CVN-77 Delivery Moved To December, Newport News on Track For January Commissioning". Defense Daily. 4 August 2008. Archived from the original on 13 August 2017. Retrieved 12 August 2017.
  65. "Aircraft Carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) Christened at Newport News Shipbuilding". Defence Talk. 12 November 2013. Archived from the original on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 2 December 2013.
  66. "The US Navy just took delivery of the world's most advanced aircraft carrier". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 1 June 2017. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  67. "Navy Names Next Aircraft Carrier USS John F. Kennedy" (Press release). Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs. 29 May 2011. Archived from the original on 2 June 2011. Retrieved 29 May 2011.
  68. Larter, David (4 May 2018). "Here's the latest on America's next supercarriers".
  69. "First cut of steel kicks off construction of the aircraft carrier Enterprise at Newport News Shipbuilding" (Press release). WTKR. 21 August 2017. Archived from the original on 15 September 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2017.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.