# US Navy gets new aircraft carrier **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 1, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862 "2017-06-01T18:59:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/21 "2017-06-02T22:03:55Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > And then they can transfer Captain James Kirk from the USS Zumwalt to command it. Though if he is worth anything as a Captain, he should be an Admiral by then and thus would be in charge of the Fleet the Enterprise is the flagship of. Admiral James Kirk will due. ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/22 "2017-06-02T23:11:07Z")
$12.9 billion? Jeez, kids don’t know the value of a dollar these days. In my day, a Nimitz-class carrier cost $4.5 billion. The GHW Bush was built in 2009 and cost $6.2 billion. Inflation hasn’t been that high, it shouldn’t double in cost in less than a decade. I hope it’s just the first one that costs $12.9 billion in order to recoup R&D costs. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/23 "2017-06-03T01:58:04Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > Though if he is worth anything as a Captain, he should be an Admiral by then and thus would be in charge of the Fleet the Enterprise is the flagship of. Admiral James Kirk will due. “Admiral?!? Admiral! _Admiral…_ Never told you how _Admiral_ Kirk sent seventy of us into exile on this barren sandheap…” ---
**Author:** ![Patch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Patch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patch)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/24 "2017-06-03T02:55:25Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > The JFK has had its keep laid. The Kennedys are still at it, I see. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/25 "2017-06-03T03:01:01Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In tangentially related news, the Navy has released some photos of the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) and USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) operating together in the Sea of Japan. They’re pretty cool if you think aircraft carriers are cool: > > [http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-OY799-1389.JPG](http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-OY799-1389.JPG) > > [http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-GD109-195.JPG](http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-GD109-195.JPG) > > [http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-GD109-200.JPG](http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-GD109-200.JPG) > > [http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-GD109-070.jpg](http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-GD109-070.jpg) Having served aboard the USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70), I think that ship is more than rather cool. ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/26 "2017-06-03T04:18:50Z")
If they had built two of them, they could be the _Erebus_ and the _Terror_. Or the _Tweedledum_ and the _Tweedledee._ ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/27 "2017-06-03T17:05:49Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > Pardon me for being pedantic, but I thought it didn’t become “USS” Gerald R. Ford until its commissioning. Correct. After commissioning, it\* becomes the USS _Gerald R. Ford_ (CVN-78). Prior to that, is referred to as [PCU _Gerald R. Ford_ (CVN-78)](http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/11/08/pcu-gerald-r-ford-cvn-78-christening-ceremony/), where PCU stands for [pre-commissioning unit.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Commissioning_Unit) \*While it is traditional to refer to a ship as “she,” is seems odd to use that pronoun when the vessel is named after a male person. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/28 "2017-06-03T18:16:20Z")
> [@robby](#): > > \*While it is traditional to refer to a ship as “she,” is seems odd to use that pronoun when the vessel is named after a male person. Call her Geri is it makes you more comfortable. ---
**Author:** ![Kelevra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/97f17d/32.png) [@Kelevra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kelevra)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/29 "2017-06-05T15:01:38Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Having served aboard the USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70), I think that ship is more than rather cool. Is that formation just for a photo op? In your experience would the Task Force lead with a carrier? Seems like the destroyers should be well out to the front/rear/sides to provide a picket. Maybe I’m stuck in WWII thinking. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2017, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/30 "2017-06-05T16:46:19Z")
> [@Kelevra](#): > > Is that formation just for a photo op? In your experience would the Task Force lead with a carrier? Seems like the destroyers should be well out to the front/rear/sides to provide a picket. > > Maybe I’m stuck in WWII thinking. That looks like a photo op formation. Note this similar Wikipedia photo: [linky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group#/media/File:George_Washington_Carrier_Strike_Group.jpg) “Such a formation, referred to derisively as the “bullseye” formation, would not be used in combat.” From the Wikipedia entry “U.S. Carrier Group tactics”, there is this: > [@](#): > > A standard formation provides a number of layers of defence, designed to give maximum protection to the fleet’s high value units (HVUs) or main body. Furthest out are the picket ships, Combat Air Patrol (CAP) craft and early warning aircraft (AEW). These units operate at 200 nautical miles (370 km) or more out from the main body. The units of the outer screen operate between 12 and 25 nautical miles (22 and 46 km) from the main body. The inner screen is within 10 nautical miles (19 km) of the HVUs. Edit: I think the rule of thumb is that the horizon is visible out to 15 miles on a clear day, from sea level. (IIRC) ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/31 "2017-06-05T17:37:18Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > That looks like a photo op formation. > > Note this similar Wikipedia photo: [linky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group#/media/File:George_Washington_Carrier_Strike_Group.jpg) > > “Such a formation, referred to derisively as the “bullseye” formation, would not be used in combat.” > > From the Wikipedia entry “U.S. Carrier Group tactics”, there is this: > > Edit: I think the rule of thumb is that the horizon is visible out to 15 miles on a clear day, from sea level. (IIRC) If your eye is at sea level, the horizon is exactly 0 miles (feet, inches, millimeters) away. A rough formula is distance to horizon in miles = 1.2 \* (square root of height above surface in feet). So for an observer standing at the waters edge, the horizon would be about 2.9 miles away. To get a 15 mile horizon, you need to be about 150 ft above the surface. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/32 "2017-06-05T17:39:52Z")
I’m waiting for the USS _Robert S. MacNamara_. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2017, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/33 "2017-06-05T18:01:07Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Makes me wonder what the ops are to make sure aircraft land on the correct carrier. If there are two in the area, shoot at one of them, and see who starts yelling at you on the radio. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/34 "2017-06-05T18:16:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In tangentially related news, the Navy has released some photos of the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) and USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) operating together in the Sea of Japan. They’re pretty cool if you think aircraft carriers are cool: > > [http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-OY799-1389.JPG](http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-OY799-1389.JPG) > > [http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-GD109-195.JPG](http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-GD109-195.JPG) > > [http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-GD109-200.JPG](http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-GD109-200.JPG) > > [http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-GD109-070.jpg](http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/170601-N-GD109-070.jpg) I can’t find a ship number for the one in the front of the middle column. What kind of ship is it? It almost looks like a mini-carrier from the front. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2017, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/35 "2017-06-05T19:01:23Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > I can’t find a ship number for the one in the front of the middle column. What kind of ship is it? It almost looks like a mini-carrier from the front. It’s the Japanese “destroyer” [_Hyūga_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JDS_Hy%C5%ABga) (that is, the Japanese refer to it as a “destroyer”, because aircraft carriers are far too militaristic for the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force to have. Everyone else calls it a mini-carrier or helicopter carrier). You can clearly see the Rising Sun ensign in picture number four, and if you zoom in on picture number one you can make out the hull number. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/36 "2017-06-05T19:09:48Z")
Thanks, I was wondering about that flat deck, too. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2017, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/37 "2017-06-05T20:52:54Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > So when do they take it out and get it on plane? They’ve already done this several times. Builder’s trials and acceptance trials most recently. > [@Velocity](#): > > Trump’s comments in that article are a great example of “penny wise and pound foolish.” If we should ditch EMALS because of the initial delays and cost overruns, well then we might as well have never had F-22, F-35, Seawolf, Virginia-class, B-2, etc. I was disappointed in Trump’s comments about EMALS. Hopefully SecDef Mattis explains things to him. > [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > Pardon me for being pedantic, but I thought it didn’t become “USS” Gerald R. Ford until its commissioning. I believe you are correct. Thanks for the clarification. Commission is expected sometime > [@Chronos](#): > > Thanks, I was wondering about that flat deck, too. It really is designed for helicopter operations more than what most people think of as “aircraft carrier” stuff - launching and recovering fixed-wing aircraft. The Japanese currently don’t have any formalized plans to acquire Harriers or F-35B’s that could operate from their “helicopter destroyers”, although a more bellicose North Korea / China could probably persuade them to make some. ---
**Author:** ![Encinitas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@Encinitas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Encinitas)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/38 "2017-06-06T08:55:49Z")
[Monty Python]“You’ve… you’ve got a nice aircraft carrier here, Commander. We wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.”[/MP] ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/39 "2017-06-06T12:40:12Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > (that is, the Japanese refer to it as a “destroyer”, because aircraft carriers are far too militaristic for the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force to have. [Certainly wouldn’t want one’s military to be too militaristic.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNdPPEwguDQ) ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862/40 "2017-06-06T13:40:43Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Makes me wonder what the ops are to make sure aircraft land on the correct carrier. During WWII there were Japanese pilots who would mistake a US carrier for one of their own and try to land on it. The Battle of the Coral Sea was one heck of a confusing battle, for [example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea#Afternoon_operations). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-navy-gets-new-aircraft-carrier/787862.md?page=3)