USS Gerald R. Ford launches Saturday

Ol’ Will has an airport too. But that’s ok, he was just a passenger – he didn’t fly himself into the ground.

It was Wiley Post who drilled Will into the ground, yethe too has an airport! Oddly enough, also near Oklahoma City.

I think the folks in Oklahoma might be a bit confused as to the concept of, er, flying.

Just have to protect the USS Ford with swimming rabbits. :smiley:

One sighting of USS William Jefferson Clinton

The story says the picture is taken somewhere between Vancouver and Seattle, but that looks a lot like Sutro Tower in San Francisco in the background - then again, that doesn’t look much like San Francisco’s skyline off to the right .

There appear to be some Navy barges here.

There’s a breakwater nearby, and shooting SSW past that point could put Sutro tower in the background.

Google Earth kills my computer now, so I can’t zoom in and look around like I used to…

I have to agree with That Don Guy on this. Good eye.

I agree, it does look like Sutro Tower. My guess is that the picture was taken from the vicinity of Oyster Point / SSF and Candlestick Park (Candlestick Point). From there, that skyline could be SF with Hunter’s Point in the foreground.

[quote=“echo7tango, post:9, topic:673759”]

It’s its own new class, the Ford class of carriers. QUOTE]

Really?? F O R D = Fix Or Repair Daily.

Bit ominous innit…

One result of the Ford being the first of her class will become apparent when there are several in service and the name has become routine. The President will some day, as a crisis mounts, ask “Do we have any Fords in the area?”

Canada is launching its own Ford-class carrier. Runs on booze and crack, and has an unfortunate tendency to capsize - but displaces more than any other nation’s vessels. :stuck_out_tongue:

I think the electro-magnetic launching system is welcome and way overdue.
But what about the landing system? Is it still the old cable and hook? Would it be possible to incorporate a magnetic system to land these planes?

Nice one. But I’m not sure Rob Ford counts. Is he even house broken?

I did not realize there were ugly looking Canadians.
:slight_smile:

Why is the US still building aircraft carriers? They seem obsolete now, given that the cold war is over and that the military has shifted to UAVs.

When we didn’t, it set off an even bigger war.

Condolences to the JFK CTers who were disappointed that such a “flimsy, whitewashed and full of holes” ship didn’t sink right out of the ways.

How would you do that? A giant magnet under the deck would just collapse the landing gear and crush the planes down onto the deck.

All wars start with the last one’s technology and end with the next one’s. We started WWII with fifteen mounted regiments.

I do find our national need for eleven carrier groups - ten more than any other nation on earth - a bit obsessive, though.

I think it has to do with drone deployment. From Nov. 11th.

Judging by the latest council meetings … no. :frowning:

I’m guessing the actual launching interface between the plane and the catapult is the same - a big hook that attaches to the front landing gear. It’s just that the hook will be moved by EM instead of steam. Otherwise, you’d have to redesign all your aircraft, and they’d be completely incompatible between carriers. Which means the arresting gear won’t change either, for the same reason. I guess they could replace the damping pistons with EM gear, but that seems to add complexity for little or no benefit.

Here’s a chartthat really put’s that into perspective. I have to confess though that it sort of cracks me up. :eek: :cool:

They come in handy after typhoons.