Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  max steel on Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:52 pm

    Navy’s $12.9 Billion Carrier Isn’t Ready for Warfare, Memo Says


    The U.S. Navy’s newest aircraft carrier isn’t ready for warfare. The $12.9 billion USS Gerald R. Ford -- the most expensive warship ever built -- may struggle to launch and recover aircraft, mount a defense and move munitions, according to the Pentagon’s top weapons tester. On-board systems for those tasks have poor or unknown reliability issues, according to a June 28 memo obtained by Bloomberg News.

    “These four systems affect major areas of flight operations,” Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation, wrote Pentagon and Navy weapons buyers Frank Kendall and Sean Stackley. “Unless these issues are resolved, which would likely require redesigning” of the aircraft launch and recovery systems “they will significantly limit the CVN-78’s ability to conduct combat operations,” Gilmore wrote, using a technical name for the carrier.
    More Delays

    The reliability woes mean that delivery of the Ford -- the first of three carriers ordered up in a $42 billion program -- will probably slip further behind schedule. The Navy announced last week that the ship, originally due by September 2014, wouldn’t be delivered before November this year because of continuing unspecified testing issues.

    The service has operated 10 carriers since the retirement of the USS Enterprise in 2012. Extended deployments of the remaining ships have placed stress on crews and meant added strain meeting global commitments from the battle against Islamic State to ensuring freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, home to $5 trillion in annual trade.

    A prolonged delay could also hamper the military if a new conflict arises.

    “Based on current reliability estimates, the CVN-78 is unlikely to conduct high-intensity flight operations” such as a requirement for four days of 24-hour surge operations “at the outset of a war,” Gilmore wrote.

    As delivery of the Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. vessel approaches, “my concerns about the reliability of these systems remain and the risk to the ship’s ability to succeed in combat grows as these reliability issues remain unresolved,” Gilmore said.
    ‘Unacceptable’ Delays

    Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the Navy’s announcement of additional delays last week “unacceptable,” adding that it was a “case study in why our acquisition system must be reformed.”

    A Navy spokeswoman, Lieutenant Kara Yingling, said the Navy was aware of the report but referred additional comment to Kendall’s office. Kendall spokesman Mark Wright said in an e-mail "we don’t feel it is appropriate to release our response to this internal memo.”
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1811
    Points : 1806
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Sep 06, 2016 4:48 am

    Top US Navy Admiral Says Russia, China Defenseless Against US Aircraft Carriers

    Recent naval advances by China and Russia have been heralded by defense experts who contest that America’s reign of dominance over the high seas may be coming to an end, but America’s Chief of Naval Operations thinks the US Navy remains unstoppable.

    In an interview with National Interest, Admiral John Richardson claimed that US aircraft carriers could operate unscathed within China and Russia’s anti-access area denial (A2/AD) zones boasting about the long standing naval superiority of America’s Pacific Fleet.

    "This A2/AD, well, it’s certainly a goal for some of our competitor, but achieving that goal is much different and much more complicated," said Admiral Richardson. "I think there is this long-range precision-strike capability, but A2/AD is sort of an aspiration. In actual execution it’s much more difficult."

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160906/1045001218/russia-china-pacific-fleet-navy.html

    This guy is suppose to be there top admiral, his words not only put his competence into question, but also his sanity.
    The Russian and Chinese navies have nothing to worry about with U.S officers of such "incredible" caliber. Laughing

    P.S: I wasn't able to find the original NI article, mostly because there website is completely disorganized.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5299
    Points : 5452
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Sep 06, 2016 7:01 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Top US Navy Admiral Says Russia, China Defenseless Against US Aircraft Carriers

    Recent naval advances by China and Russia have been heralded by defense experts who contest that America’s reign of dominance over the high seas may be coming to an end, but America’s Chief of Naval Operations thinks the US Navy remains unstoppable.

    In an interview with National Interest, Admiral John Richardson claimed that US aircraft carriers could operate unscathed within China and Russia’s anti-access area denial (A2/AD) zones boasting about the long standing naval superiority of America’s Pacific Fleet.

    "This A2/AD, well, it’s certainly a goal for some of our competitor, but achieving that goal is much different and much more complicated," said Admiral Richardson. "I think there is this long-range precision-strike capability, but A2/AD is sort of an aspiration. In actual execution it’s much more difficult."

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160906/1045001218/russia-china-pacific-fleet-navy.html

    This guy is suppose to be there top admiral, his words not only put his competence into question, but also his sanity.
    The Russian and Chinese navies have nothing to worry about with U.S officers of such "incredible" caliber. Laughing

    P.S: I wasn't able to find the original NI article, mostly because there website is completely disorganized.

    But the U.S. officers have to worry about the "incredible" Kalibr.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4970
    Points : 5095
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  kvs on Tue Sep 06, 2016 2:35 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Top US Navy Admiral Says Russia, China Defenseless Against US Aircraft Carriers

    Recent naval advances by China and Russia have been heralded by defense experts who contest that America’s reign of dominance over the high seas may be coming to an end, but America’s Chief of Naval Operations thinks the US Navy remains unstoppable.

    In an interview with National Interest, Admiral John Richardson claimed that US aircraft carriers could operate unscathed within China and Russia’s anti-access area denial (A2/AD) zones boasting about the long standing naval superiority of America’s Pacific Fleet.

    "This A2/AD, well, it’s certainly a goal for some of our competitor, but achieving that goal is much different and much more complicated," said Admiral Richardson. "I think there is this long-range precision-strike capability, but A2/AD is sort of an aspiration. In actual execution it’s much more difficult."

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160906/1045001218/russia-china-pacific-fleet-navy.html

    This guy is suppose to be there top admiral, his words not only put his competence into question, but also his sanity.
    The Russian and Chinese navies have nothing to worry about with U.S officers of such "incredible" caliber. Laughing

    You are right, this is yet another hubris filled windbag propaganda koolaid drinker. Note the "long-range precision strike capability"
    drivel. Sure thing there, sunshine, Russia is too primitive to have such "high tech" capability. When you read wiki-crappia and its
    claims about Russian ICBM CEP numbers remember this clown and his drivel. NATO idiots really believe that Russian laser gyroscopes
    are less accurate than NATO laser gyroscopes. These NATO idiots never took a physics course in their lives; they are a bunch of
    high school dropouts who worked their way up as interns for various politicians. Their uneducated gut feelings tell them that all Russian
    missiles miss their targets by miles.

    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6664
    Points : 6731
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  JohninMK on Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:37 am

    Couple of issues just been exposed but shouldn't slow things much. I like the way they can just conjure up the $39M or so to repair the generators out of 'savings'.

    WASHINGTON – For over a year, the US Navy and its shipbuilders have been anxious to get the new aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) to sea and begin engineering trials of the first-of-class design. A number of publicly-announced target dates have come and gone, but the ship is still firmly moored at Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia.

    Now, however, a key factor in preventing the ship from casting off lines and getting underway is coming into view. A serious voltage regulator problem on the carrier’s four main turbine generators (MTGs) has prevented engineers from running the motors up to full power, and only now has the problem been identified and a fix decided upon.

    The MTGs are a significant element in the ship’s power generation system – an all-new layout supporting a plant developing at least three times the electrical power of previous carriers.

    The problem manifested itself June 12 when a small electrical explosion took place on the No. 2 MTG during testing. Navy sources disagree whether the term “explosion” is appropriate, but two sources familiar with the situation used the reference, one noting that “it was enough of an explosion that debris got into the turbine.” Smoke from the event reportedly was drawn into other spaces, one source reported.
    ...................................................
    But, according to sources, the June 12 event severely damaged the No. 2 MTG, and the accident slowed further MTG testing until the problem could be identified. Then in July, a similar, less-dramatic event took place on the No. 1 MTG, according to a Pentagon source.

    Eventually the root cause was found to be faulty voltage regulators, the Pentagon source said. It is not clear if the voltage regulators are part of the generators, which are made by Northrop Grumman Marine Systems, or are a sub-component from another supplier.

    Engineers were also debating how to repair the generators, and for a time it was feared the entire 12-ton No. 2 MTG would have to be lifted out and replaced – a complex, time-consuming and expensive operation that would involve disrupting numerous ship systems and making major cuts in several decks.

    But subsequent investigation showed the No. 2 MTG’s rotors could be removed and replaced without the major disruption of a complete replacement, and No. 1 MTG could be repaired in place. Several repair options were developed, including whether or not to completely repair the MTGs before sea trials and delivery – causing further delays -- or wait until a post-commissioning shipyard period to finish the work.
    ...................................................................
    The ship’s Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) is more problematic, and “has had significant delays in completing its land-based test program due to the technical challenges encountered in transitioning from design” through final testing, Mabus reported. Other Navy sources report dozens of roll-through tests have been conducted with the AAG at the Navy’s test facility in Lakehurst, New Jersey, but to date no true arrested landings have been accomplished.


    Much more along at http://www.defensenews.com/articles/carrier-ford-has-serious-power-problem
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13958
    Points : 14455
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  George1 on Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:18 am

    US Navy decommissions first nuclear aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65)

    The US Navy has decommissioned its nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65) at the vessel’s hangar bay.

    The vessel is the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and has served the navy for almost 55 years.

    USS Enterprise commanding officer captain Todd Beltz said: “For all that Enterprise represents to this nation, it's the people that bring this ship to life.

    “So as I stand in this ship that we all care so much about, I feel it’s appropriate to underscore the contributions of the thousands of sailors and individuals that kept this ship alive and made its reputation. We are ‘The Big E’.”

    USS Enterprise is the US Navy’s eighth naval ship to carry the name and began operations in 1961, cruising more than one million nautical miles on nuclear power throughout its entire lifetime.
    "USS Enterprise is the US Navy’s eighth naval ship to carry the name, and cruised more than one million nautical miles on nuclear power throughout its lifetime."

    Beltz added: “As this ship retires, we know the memory will live beyond her and we the sailors, the shipbuilders, the supporters of Enterprise are that link to the next Enterprise.”

    The US Navy looks forward toward the future of the namesake in the proposed development of the ninth USS Enterprise aircraft carrier CVN 80, according to a letter written by USS Enterprise’s third commanding officer admiral James Holloway III.

    USS Enterprise was assigned to the scrapyard in August 2013, and engineers have since de-fuelled the vessel, in addition to removing its reactors. This first step taken to decommission the vessel ultimately marked the last significant engineering feat carried out on the ship in its lifespan.

    http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsus-navy-decommissions-worlds-first-nuclear-powered-aircraft-carrier-enterprise-cvn-65-5732123
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13958
    Points : 14455
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  George1 on Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:51 pm

    The aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford went to sea

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 4081964_original

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2539937.html
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1811
    Points : 1806
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:06 pm

    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1811
    Points : 1806
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Top US Navy Admiral Says Russia, China Defenseless Against US Aircraft Carriers

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:17 pm

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13958
    Points : 14455
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  George1 on Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:45 pm

    US Accepts Delivery of Next Generation Gerald R. Ford Aircraft Carrier - Navy
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 637
    Points : 639
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  nomadski on Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:04 pm


    All we have to do , is develop land trade routes in Asia . Cheaper then fighting their navy at sea . Where land route is blocked by hostile nation . Like usraeli blockade of Africa route . Then coastal defences must be set up in friendly nations . To allow ships to hug the coastline . And skip from port to port . Some coastal nations become strategically important . Such as coastal nations of the Arabian peninsula and horn of Africa . They can be helped along the road to independence . By investment and trade . Fighting becomes cheap when people are on your side .
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13958
    Points : 14455
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  George1 on Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:37 pm

    Aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford transferred to the US Navy

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 4484595_original
    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 4484725_original

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2744611.html
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2509
    Points : 2501
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:46 pm

    George1 wrote:Aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford transferred to the US Navy

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 4484595_original

    Gotta hand it to the Americans, they build them big, they build them strong US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 1f1fa_1f1f8 US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 1f1fa_1f1f8 US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 1f1fa_1f1f8
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13958
    Points : 14455
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  George1 on Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:06 am

    The first take-offs and landings on the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 20543972_1467355803352887_8864950610289118012_o
    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 20369504_1467355303352937_1154097371894259948_o
    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 20423852_1467356226686178_3118299766770576519_o
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13958
    Points : 14455
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  George1 on Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:02 pm

    The US Navy issued a contract for the construction of two nuclear aircraft carriers

    On January 31, 2019, a signing ceremony was held by the US Department of Defense shipyard Huntington Ingalls Industries - Newport News Shipbuilding (Newport News, Virginia) of a contract worth $ 14.91773838145 billion for the US Navy at once two regular (third and fourth) Gerald R. Ford nuclear aircraft carriers with hull numbers CVN 80 and CVN 81. With two more additional contracts issued on the same day (worth $ 263.096868 million and $ 31.097671 million, respectively) for additional work on the technical design of these ships and on the design of improvements in the project, the total value of one-time contracts received on January 31 by Huntington Ingalls Industries - Newport News Shipbuilding reaches $ 15.212 billion.

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3519438.html
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4130
    Points : 4120
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty First two Ford class carrier are not able to use f-35. And their cost reached 13 billion $ each.

    Post  Isos on Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:56 pm

    https://news.usni.org/2019/06/03/congress-unhappy-with-ford-class-inability-to-deploy-with-f-35-fighters

    First two Ford class carrier are not able to use f-35. And their cost reached 13 billion $ each.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3131
    Points : 3129
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:32 pm

    But they'll be able to use the F-35Bs, the STOVL variant, to save the day!
    Hannibal Barca
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1330
    Points : 1342
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:33 pm

    If the S400 detectes the F35 at 35km compare to 200km for f16/f15/f18/su35 like the Turkish say, then the F35 is certainly worthwhile.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4130
    Points : 4120
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  Isos on Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:42 pm

    Hannibal Barca wrote:If the S400 detectes the F35 at 35km compare to 200km for f16/f15/f18/su35 like the Turkish say, then the F35 is certainly worthwhile.

    Even the small radar of su-35 can detect it at much greater distance than 35km, a much bigger s-400 radar will detect from great distances.

    Nebo and other gamma radars will spot it at even greater distances.

    Most of the time S-400 command post will tell another buk or pantsir to destroy it before it can reach the s-400 thanks to the IADS.

    If it was really 35km, US wouldn't be so affraid to sell f-35s to turkey knowing they will get s-400.


    Anyway back to the topic, 13 billion a carrier not ready to carry f-35 and those f-35 still having major defaults isn't really a success for the US navy. They will still operate mostly f-18 in the next 15 years.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22589
    Points : 23133
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:47 am

    But hang on... the Fords don't have back up steam cats, so they wont be operating any F-18s either... it will be vertical take off F-35s or biplanes...

    There are a range of different radars that support S-400, so if the sets being sold to Turkey only detect export F-35s at 35km I suspect they are not getting the full spec system.

    A bit fishy that the F-35 can be detected at 35km... does that mean a MiG-21 can be detected at 21km?

    Of course it is all a bit redundant as the US seems set to ensure they don't enter service together within the same force structure...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3131
    Points : 3129
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:57 am

    .. the Fords don't have back up steam cats, so they wont be operating any F-18s either... it will be vertical take off F-35s or biplanes...
    + tilt-rotors, helos & UAVs. Bad news for EMALS fans! Perhaps they could install a rump so the lightly armed F-18s can use it! Their AWACSs can fly off a different CVN. Otherwise, it would be super LHAN with 2x+ the aircraft.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 573
    Points : 573
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:52 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    .. the Fords don't have back up steam cats, so they wont be operating any F-18s either... it will be vertical take off F-35s or biplanes...
    + tilt-rotors, helos & UAVs. Bad news for EMALS fans! Perhaps they could install a rump so the lightly armed F-18s can use it! Their AWACSs can fly off a different CVN. Otherwise, it would be super LHAN with 2x+ the aircraft.
    they could still sell it to India, after installing a ramp, and let it operate mig 29k Very Happy
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3131
    Points : 3129
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:39 pm

    India may not be able to afford it, unless the price is reduced & the US looses $Bs on it. Therefore, the USN will keep them as training & experi/developmental ships &/ use them as LHAs until if/when all the problems r fixed.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22589
    Points : 23133
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:23 am

    Bad news for EMALS fans!

    Why would you say that?

    I am an EMALS fan and I couldn't care less if the Americans can't get one right... it means nothing to me.

    Perhaps they could install a rump so the lightly armed F-18s can use it! Their AWACSs can fly off a different CVN. Otherwise, it would be super LHAN with 2x+ the aircraft.

    The whole purpose of a carrier is awareness and reach... and AWACS provides the visibility and supports air operations which provide the reach... which pretty much makes these carriers big white elephants... with the inside made of solid gold so they are super expensive but still look cheap on the outside...

    Have never seen the F-18 use a ramp for takeoff alternatives without cat support...

    India may not be able to afford it, unless the price is reduced & the US looses $Bs on it. Therefore, the USN will keep them as training & experi/developmental ships &/ use them as LHAs until if/when all the problems r fixed.

    I doubt India would buy it any time within the next two decades... because that is how long the discussions on price would last and even if they got it for free they would find some reason to complain...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3131
    Points : 3129
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:28 pm

    I am an EMALS fan and I couldn't care less if the Americans can't get one right... it means nothing to me.
    If they (who used CAT for decades, after Brits invented it, & sold it to France & Brazil) can't, what r the odds that Russia & China can?
    ..AWACS provides the visibility and supports air operations which provide the reach... which pretty much makes these carriers big white elephants... with the inside made of solid gold so they are super expensive but still look cheap on the outside...
    Have never seen the F-18 use a ramp for takeoff alternatives without cat support...
    Well, they r too expensive to fail & some use will be found for them in the meantime. F-18s can be given some modifications; they already have strong landing gear & airframe. Tilt-rotors can be made into AWACS. Future high speed attack/transport helos & UAVs can also be based on those Ford CVNs.

    Sponsored content

    US Navy Aircraft Carriers - Page 2 Empty Re: US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:34 am