# Why is the USS Ford so narrow at the waterline? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 24, 2015, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364 "2015-06-24T15:32:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/1 "2015-06-24T15:32:23Z")
I’ve just been reading about the [USS Ford](http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-us-new-13-billion-warship-2015-6). One thing that strikes me from the pictures is how narrow it is at the waterline. The flight deck overhangs each side by a considerable amount. Does this not make it vulnerable to wind from the side? What is the reason for the narrowness? ---
**Author:** ![bizerta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@bizerta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizerta)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/2 "2015-06-24T15:35:47Z")
A man, a plan, a canal, Panama. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/3 "2015-06-24T15:40:07Z")
It doesn’t look appreciably different from the Nimitz-class carriers. There were some changes to the flight deck design to maximize the operations that can take place. The bigger the flight deck the better. > **[Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier | Flight deck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier#Flight_deck)** > > Catapult No. 4 on the Nimitz class cannot launch fully loaded aircraft because of low wing clearance along the edge of the flight deck. > The movement of weapons from storage and assembly to the aircraft on the flight deck has also been streamlined and accelerated. Ordnance will be lifted to the centralized rearming location via higher-capacity weapons elevators that use linear motors. These elevators are located so that ordnance need not cross any areas of aircraft movement, thereby reducing traf... ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/4 "2015-06-24T15:42:28Z")
> [@bizerta](#): > > A man, a plan, a canal, Panama. Nope. [How The Panama Canal Changed The Shape Of War](http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/how-panama-canal-changed-shape-war) > [@](#): > > The U.S. Navy’s Enterprise- and Nimitz-class carriers are all too big for the canal (at around 1100 feet long and 130 feet wide), and the new Gerald R. Ford class of carriers will be as well, even after the canal finishes its latest expansion project. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/5 "2015-06-24T15:47:47Z")
Suez? Sorry, no palindrome. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/6 "2015-06-24T15:54:28Z")
The Ford class carrers have a [beam of 134 feet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier), exactly the same as the Nimitz class. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/7 "2015-06-24T15:58:19Z")
And they’re only 6 feet wider above the waterline, too. > [@Quartz](#): > > The flight deck overhangs each side by a considerable amount. Does this not make it vulnerable to wind from the side? What is the reason for the narrowness? At 100,000 tons, it’s not going to tip over no matter how wide the flight deck is. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/8 "2015-06-24T16:53:40Z")
Carriers have a very large relative void (hangar deck) below the flight deck (you could see in many pics of WW2 carriers the flight deck was obviously a “roof”). Plus there’s the matter of a couple of rather considerable nuclear reactors with the attending shielding in the bowels of the ship. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/9 "2015-06-24T16:59:18Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > Suez? Sorry, no palindrome. Zeus sees Suez. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/10 "2015-06-24T17:15:14Z")
WAG : to let it use the same dry dock facilities as previous era carriers ? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/11 "2015-06-24T18:22:55Z")
Why not make it a standard U shape and have that much more room below-decks? ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/12 "2015-06-24T18:32:59Z")
Aircraft carriers have to be pretty fast ships, both to help planes land as well as to quickly travel to wherever they’re needed. The best hull shape for a big ship designed for speed has fairly specific optimal dimensions, making it long and skinny. However, optimal deck shape basically needs to be twice as wide as a minimally narrow runway. This is to make room for an angled flight deck, so that the carrier can simultaneously launch and land planes. (Landing planes need a clear deck in front of them, so that they can go around for another try if they don’t stick the first landing.) Conceivably, if you wanted an extra wide carrier you could build some sort of double hulled ship, but that would be a very unconventional design that would need a lot of engineering effort and new infrastructure. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/13 "2015-06-24T18:41:03Z")
Aren’t all these new carriers just grandstanding? A sort of modern equivalent of gunboat diplomacy. Surely it’s the submarine that rules the sea these days and a carrier is no use at all against terrorists. The uk is building some too and it’s my opinion that the money would have been better spent elsewhere - a lot of it was down to the last government propping up the shipyards for political reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/14 "2015-06-24T18:46:33Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > Aren’t all these new carriers just grandstanding? A sort of modern equivalent of gunboat diplomacy. Surely it’s the submarine that rules the sea these days and a carrier is no use at all against terrorists. > > The uk is building some too and it’s my opinion that the money would have been better spent elsewhere - a lot of it was down to the last government propping up the shipyards for political reasons. The problem with subs is they don’t contribute to gaining air superiority. They really have a different purpose than the carrier. I agree though, those carriers are a juicy target for every enemy sub captain out there and probably very vulnerable. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/15 "2015-06-24T19:05:10Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > Aren’t all these new carriers just grandstanding? A sort of modern equivalent of gunboat diplomacy. Surely it’s the submarine that rules the sea these days and a carrier is no use at all against terrorists. Mostly; yes; not really; one word: cruise missiles; okay, one more word: sorties. A carrier group is a relatively fast mobile chunk of US might. It puts a self-sufficient battle complex pretty much anywhere on earth in a matter of days and gives a platform for air and land superiority, intelligence, long range attack and general rapid-response capability. A submarine can sneak around and launch missiles. I do question why we need eleven carrier groups, ten more more than any other nation on earth. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/16 "2015-06-24T20:14:15Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Mostly; yes; not really; one word: cruise missiles; okay, one more word: sorties. And a third word: drones. Kind of overkill to be launching drones from an aircraft carrier, but if we have to wage today’s war somewhere we don’t have access to an airbase, a carrier is the way to go. ---
**Author:** ![SanDiegoTim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@SanDiegoTim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanDiegoTim)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/17 "2015-06-24T20:24:50Z")
Referencing the speed, I do believe the top speed of the Nimitz class carriers is a somewhat guarded number. The max speed of the earlier/conventionally powered ships (Midway, for example) was 32 knots. CVNs are probably a bit faster. You need at least 30 knots across the bow to launch and recover. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/18 "2015-06-24T21:24:35Z")
Bit of a hijack, please. In [the cite provided in the OP](http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-us-new-13-billion-warship-2015-6), much is made of [China’s accelerating expertise in anti-ship cruise missiles](http://www.businessinsider.com/these-weapons-could-be-chinas-most-threatening-military-advancement-2015-1). Is that a valid concern? Can non-nuclear cruise missiles take out a Nimitz-class carrier that’s displacing 100,000+ tons? Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/19 "2015-06-24T21:55:31Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Can non-nuclear cruise missiles take out a Nimitz-class carrier that’s displacing 100,000+ tons? I suppose “taking out” a carrier means preventing flight ops. Something slamming into the upper structure at Mach 6 would certainly complicate things I think. ---
**Author:** ![Marion\_Wormer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Marion\_Wormer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marion_Wormer)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364/20 "2015-06-24T22:36:09Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I’ve just been reading about the [USS Ford](http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-us-new-13-billion-warship-2015-6). One thing that strikes me from the pictures is how narrow it is at the waterline. Carrier Spanx? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-uss-ford-so-narrow-at-the-waterline/723364.md?page=2)