View previous topic :: View next topic
Author	Message
Batman47 Board Founder/CNC User is Offline Joined: 10 Feb 2007 Posts: 394 Karma: 5 applaud / smite 425 points 0 warnings 0 tempbans	Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:01 am    Post subject: CVN-78 Gerald Ford · Quote CVN-78 Gerald Ford The lead ship of the CVN-21 class, designated CVN-78, is intended to eventually replace the USS Enterprise. Most of the recently retired aircraft carriers bore the names of famous warships [Constellation, Ranger] or battles [Saratoga, Lexington]. Some older aircraft carrier names have been applied to amphibious assault ships: Kearsarge, Bonhomme Richard, Essex, Wasp. In 2006 the Congress directed that CVN-78, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier of the Navy, shall be named the USS Gerald Ford. In the 2006 Defense Authorization Bill, Congress made the following findings. Gerald R. Ford served his country with honor and distinction for the past 64 years, and continues to serve. Gerald R. Ford joined the United States Naval Reserve in 1942 and served valiantly at sea on the USS Monterey (CVL-26) during World War II, taking part in major operations in the Pacific, including at Makin Island, Kwajalein, Truk, Saipan, and the Philippine Sea. The USS Monterey earned 10 battle stars, awarded for participation in battle, while Gerald R. Ford served on the vessel. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-78.htm CVNX Program multirole aircraft carriers (0+2 ships) Specifications unknown - evolved from Nimitz Class. “Concept/Program: CVNX is a new carrier design intended to follow the Nimitz class in production. The design will be gradually evolved from the existing Nimitz design, rather than starting with a completely "clean sheet". Details are not yet determined, but the ships will feature much lower manning, new electronic systems, electromagnetic catapults, and a new propulsion plant. CVN 77, the final Nimitz class ship, will be a "transition" ship, and will include some of the CVNX technology” (Ref. 674). Builders: Northrop Grumman Newport News, VA. Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter announced today the selection of USS Gerald R. Ford as the name of the first aircraft carrier in what will be the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers. This selection honors the 38th President of the United States and pays tribute to his lifetime of service in the Navy, in the U.S. government and to the nation. “President Gerald R. Ford provided the United States great leadership at a time of constitutional crisis,” said Winter. "I am honored to have the opportunity to name the first ship in the new class of aircraft carriers after this great sailor, this great leader, this great man.” Born in Omaha, Neb., in 1913, he grew up in Grand Rapids, Mich. He starred on the University of Michigan football team where he was a center and team most valuable player in 1934. After graduation he attended Yale Law School, where he served as assistant football coach while earning his law degree. During World War II he attained the rank of lieutenant commander in the Navy, and served on the light carrier, the USS Monterey. After the war he returned to Grand Rapids, where he began the practice of law, and entered political life. Ford was the first Vice President chosen under the terms of the Twenty-fifth Amendment and, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, succeeded the first President ever to resign; serving as the 37th Vice President (1973–1974) and the 38th President of the United States (1974–1977). Prior to becoming Vice President, he served for more than eight years as the Republican Minority Leader of the House of Representatives as a representative from Michigan's 5th congressional district. The USS Gerald R. Ford will be the premier forward asset for crisis response and early decisive striking power in a major combat operation. The carrier and the carrier strike group will provide forward presence, rapid response, endurance on station, and multi-mission capability. The USS Gerald R. Ford and subsequent Ford class carriers will provide improved war fighting capability, quality of life improvements for sailors and reduced acquisition and life cycle costs. http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=10399 Navy Names Newest Carrier After President Ford By Donna Miles American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Jan. 16, 2007 – With flags around the nation still at half staff in memory of the late President Gerald R. Ford, Vice President Richard B. Cheney called today’s naming of the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier in Ford’s honor an even more fitting tribute because it looks to the future. Speaking today at the Pentagon naming ceremony for the ship, Cheney joined Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter and other officials and servicemembers in naming the first of the new CVN-21 class of aircraft carrier the USS Gerald R. Ford. The new class will replace the USS Enterprise and CVN-68 class carriers. When USS Gerald R. Ford enters the Navy fleet in seven or eight years, it and its sister ships “will help ensure the sea power of the United States for the next half century,” the vice president said. Winter described the capability the new carriers will bring to the fleet. “This fleet of the most technologically advanced aircraft carriers in the world will be the Navy’s premier forward asset for crisis response and principal platforms in providing early, decisive striking power in a major combat operation,” he told the audience. The new carriers will be able to generate 25 percent more aircraft sorties than current carriers, generate three times the electricity, and include an improved, fully integrated warfare system and other new design technologies, he said. “CVN-21 is an investment in our future, and the Department of the Navy is urgently moving forward to turn our plans into reality,” Winter said. Cheney described the technical marvel the USS Ford will present when it hits the high seas. “When completed, the USS Gerald R. Ford will be a sight to behold: 100,000 tons of American ingenuity and power, riding 20 stories above water level, about as long as the Empire State Building, and able to sail the oceans for 20 years without refueling,” he said. Winter said USS Ford and its sister carriers will send a message wherever they sail. “A U.S. Navy aircraft carrier is a symbol recognized around the world,” he said. “It represents American power. It is a reminder of America’s global interests and global reach. It is, in the eyes of freedom-loving people everywhere, a safeguard in a troubled and dangerous world.” As an example, he noted the Jan. 11 announcement that President Bush had ordered an additional carrier strike group, the USS Stennis group, to the Middle East. “We do not expect this to be the last time the commander in chief will be turning to Navy carriers to respond immediately to a crisis far from our shores,” Winter said. Like Bush, Ford recognized the important capability carriers bring to the Navy, Cheney said. “He understood that protecting the American people required defending our interests in far-away places,” he said. “He understood that, for our forces to be credible, they must be able to deploy wherever and whenever needed.” This, he said, requires the power to sail the world’s oceans and control the water’s surface, the ocean depths and the skies overhead. Winter called the naming of the first CVN-78 carrier after Ford a fitting way to honor the former president’s service and recognize his deep, lifelong personal connection to aircraft carriers. “He served aboard a carrier during (World War II),” Winter said of Ford. “As president, he commanded carriers in the fleet. During his tenure as president, he also commissioned USS Nimitz, the first in its class of nuclear-powered carriers. “No one would have appreciated more the honor of having a carrier named after him than President Ford,” Winter said. Susan Ford Bales, the late president’s daughter, thanked the U.S. military for the tribute its members paid her father during his funeral services and expressed the family’s pride in having an aircraft carrier named for him. She recounted Ford’s own words, when he knew Winter was considering naming a carrier for him, as expressed in a personal letter. “It is a source of indescribable pride and humility to know that an aircraft carrier bearing my name may be permanently associated with the valor and patriotism of the men and women of the United States Navy,” Ford wrote shortly before his Dec. 26 death. Betty Ford, Ford’s widow, was not at today’s ceremony but watched it from home on the Pentagon Channel, her daughter noted at the ceremony. http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=2710 The 38th President of the U. S. Gerald R. Ford dies at 93 http://www.freepowerboards.com/owcommandpost/owcommandpost-about1331.html Preparations & Funeral of President Gerald Ford I http://www.freepowerboards.com/owcommandpost/owcommandpost-about1330.html Preparations & Funeral of President Gerald Ford II http://www.freepowerboards.com/owcommandpost/owcommandpost-about1329.html Preparations & Funeral of President Gerald Ford III http://www.freepowerboards.com/owcommandpost/owcommandpost-about1328.html July 26, 2006 Navy CVN-21 Aircraft Carrier Program:Background and Issues for Congress http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf Order Code RS20643 Updated July 26, 2006 Navy CVN-21 Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for CongressRonald O’RourkeSpecialist in National DefenseForeign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary The Navy’s proposed FY2007 budget requests $739 million in advance procurement funding for CVN-78, the first ship in the CVN-21 class of aircraft carriers,and $45 million in advance procurement funding for the aircraft carrier CVN-79, thesecond ship in the class. The House- and Senate-reported versions of the FY2007 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 5631) recommend approving this request. This report will be updated as events warrant.BackgroundThe Navy’s Current Carrier Force. The Navy’s current carrier force includestwo conventionally powered carriers (the Kitty Hawk [CV-63] and the John F. Kennedy[CV-67]) and 10 nuclear-powered carriers (the one-of-a-kind Enterprise [CVN-65]) and 9 Nimitz-class ships (CVN-68 through CVN-76). The most recently commissioned carrier, the Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), was procured in FY 1995 at a cost of $4.45 billion and entered service in July 2003 as the replacement for the Constellation (CV-64). The next carrier, the George H. W.Bush (CVN-77), was procured in FY 2001 and is scheduled to enter service in 2008 as the replacement for the Kitty Hawk. The Navy is  retired the Kennedy in FY2007 and thereby reduced the carrier force to 11 ships. 1. The Aircraft Carrier Construction Industrial Base. All U.S. aircraft carriers procured since FY 1958 have been built by Northrop Grumman Newport News Shipbuilding (NGNN) of Newport News, VA — the only U.S. shipyard that can buildlarge-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. The aircraft carrier construction industrialbase also includes hundreds of subcontractors and suppliers in dozens of states. 2. Navy Aircraft Carrier Acquisition Programs.CVN-77. CVN-77, which was named the George H. W. Bush on December 9, 2002, is the Navy’s final Nimitz-class carrier. Congress approved $4,053.7 million in FY 2001 procurement funding to complete the ship’s then-estimated total procurement cost of $4,974.9 million. Section 122 of the FY 1998 defense authorization act (H.R. 1119/P.L.105-85 of November 18, 1997) limited the ship’s procurement cost to $4.6 billion, plus adjustments for inflation and other factors. The Navy states that with these permitted adjustments, the cost cap now stands at $5.357 billion. The Navy also states that CVN-77’s estimated construction cost has increased to $6.057 billion, or $700 million abovethe cost cap. The Navy this year is requesting that Congress amend Section 122 of P.L.105-85 to increase the cost cap to $6.057 billion. CVN-21 Program. TheNavy’s successor to theNimitz-class aircraft carrier designis the CVN-21 design. CVN-21 means nuclear-powered aircraft carrier for the 21st Century. Compared to the Nimitz-class design, the CVN-21 design will incorporate several improvements, including an ability to generate substantially more aircraft sortiesper day, as well as features permitting the ship to be operated by a crew that is severalhundred sailors smaller, significantly reducing life-cycle operating and support costs. CVN-78. The Navy wants to procure CVN-78 in FY 2008 and have it enter service in FY 2015 as the replacement for the Enterprise, which is scheduled to retire in 2013, atage 52. The Navy estimates CVN-78’s total acquisition (i.e., research and developmentplus procurement) cost at about $13.7 billion. This figure includes about $3.2 billion inresearch and development costs and about $10.5 billion in procurement costs. The procurement cost figure includes about $2.4 billion for detailed design and non recurring engineering (DD/NRE) work for the CVN-21 class, and about $8.1 billion for building CVN-78 itself. The Navy’s proposed FY 2007 budget requests $739 million in advance procurement funding for CVN-78. Congress has been providing advance procurement funding forCVN-78 since FY2001. As shown in Table 1, under the Navy’s proposed funding plan,the ship is to be funded over a total of 9 years, with 35.3% of it’s procurement cost to beprovided in advance procurement funding between FY 2001 and FY 2007, 32.1% to beprovided in the procurement year of FY 2008, and 32.6% to be provided in FY2009.Dividing the main portion of the ship’s procurement cost between two years(FY 2008 and FY 2009) is called split funding, which is a 2-year form of incremental funding. Although incremental funding is not consistent with the full funding policy that normally governs defense procurement, it has gained a measure of acceptance in recent years as a method for funding aircraft carriers and LHA/LHD-type large-deck amphibious assault ships. Since these are very expensive ships that are typically procured once every few years, using split funding can mitigate the budget “spikes” that would occur if theseships were fully funded in a single year. Accommodating such spikes within a finite Navy or DOD budget can require moving other Navy programs into neighboring years, whichcan increase the costs of these other defense programs by disrupting their production schedules. By mitigating budget spikes associated with funding carriers or LHA/LHD-For discussion of the full funding policy and incremental funding, see CRS Report RL32776, Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative Funding Approaches — Background and Options forCongress, by Ronald O’Rourke. 3. Christopher P. Cavas, “U.S. Ship Plan To Cost 20% More,” Defense News, December 5, 2005: 1, 8.type ships, split fundingcan reduce the need to shift other programs to neighboring years, avoiding the extra costs associated with disrupting their production schedules. 2. CVN-79 and CVN-80. CVN-79 and CVN-80 would be very similar to CVN-78.The Navy wants to procure CVN-79 in FY2012 and have it enter service in 2019. The Navyreportedlywants its procurement cost to be no more than $8.8 billion. 3. The FY2007budget requests an initial increment of $45 million in advance procurement funding forthe ship. The Navy wants to procure CVN-80 in FY 2016. Its procurement cost would likely be similar to that of CVN-79, plus inflation. Source: U.S. Navy data provided to CRS February 16, 2006. a. Additional funding to be provided beyond FY2011.Issues for CongressCVN-21 Acquisition Strategy. One issue for Congress concerns theacquisitionstrategy to be used for the CVN-21 program. Specific questions here include 2-year vs.4-year incremental funding, economic order quantity (EOQ) of long-leadtimecomponents, and block-buy contracting.2-year vs. 4-year Incremental Funding. Some observers have proposedshifting from 2-year incremental funding (i.e., split funding) to 4-yearincremental funding for procuring carriers. Under 4-year incremental funding, the main portion of the ship’sprocurement cost would be divided between the year the ship is procured and three subsequent years. In the case of CVN-78, shifting to 4-year incremental funding would result in the ship being funded over a total of 11 years (FY2001-FY2011). Supporters could argue that 4-year incremental funding would more fully mitigatethe budget spikes associated with procuring aircraft carriers, and consequently further reduce the need to disrupt other programs by shifting them away from the year that thecarrier is procured. Opponents could argue that the budget spike associated withprocuring a carrier is sufficiently mitigated by 2-year incremental funding, that shifting to 4-year incremental funding would result in an 11-year funding profile for a ship with a nominal 7-year shipyard construction period, and that shifting to 4-year incrementalfunding would further weaken the full funding policy, encouraging advocates of otherdefense programs to seek the use of incremental funding for their programs. Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) of Long-Lead time Components. Long-lead time components are components whose manufacturing times require that they beordered before the end item itself (in this case, a ship) is procured. For nuclear-poweredships, long-leadtime components include, for example, nuclear propulsion components, which are typically ordered two years prior to the year the ship is procured. Some observers have proposed an up-front batch procurement of long-leadtime components for CVN-78, CVN-79, and CVN-80. An up-front batch procurement of long-leadtime itemsfor multiple end items is referred to as an Economic Order Quantity (EOQ). Supporters could argue that procuringlong-leadtime components for all three CVN-21 class carriers through an EOQ could reduce the cost of these components by as muchas 15%, reducing the total procurement cost of the three ships. Supporters could arguethat the enduring value of aircraft carriers, the Navy’s commitment to the CVN-21 design,and Congress’ support over the last several years for procuring CVN-78, together makeit very unlikely that DOD or a future Congress would change its mind about the need for CVN-79 and CVN-80. Supporters could argue that although EOQs normally take placeonly within programs that have been approved for multiyear procurement (MYP), forwhich the CVN-21 program has not been approved, Congress can nevertheless choose toapprove the use of an EOQ for the CVN-21 program as a means of realizing cost savings. Opponents could argue that an EOQ for all three ships would tie the hands of futureCongresses — something that Congress traditionally tries to avoid in decisions ondiscretionaryspending— by creating in the near term a financial commitment to fund theprocurement of CVN-80, a ship that is not scheduled to be procured until 9 years fromnow, in FY2016, under the 114th Congress. In spite of the enduring value of carriers andDOD and Congressional support for the CVN-21 design, they could argue, potentialchanges over the next 9 years in the strategic environment, budgetary conditions, ortechnology make it less than certain that the Navy will still want to procure CVN-80 in FY 2016. It would be inappropriate, opponents could argue, to use an EOQ for the CVN-21 program, because the programhas notbeenapproved for MYP. The programcurrently would not qualify for MYP, they could argue, because it cannot meet the requirementunder the law governing MYP (10 USC 2306b) that candidate programs demonstratedesign stability — a requirement that is normally met in shipbuilding programs bydelivering at least one completed ship built to the design. Even if the CVN-21 programwere to qualify for MYP, opponents could argue, the MYP law limits MYP arrangementsto end items that are to be procured over a period of no more than 5 years, meaning thatthe arrangement could cover CVN-78 and CVN-79, but not CVN-80. An EOQ covering long-leadtime components for all three ships, theycould argue, would create an MYP-like commitment to procure end items over an unprecedented 9-year (FY2008-FY2016)procurement period. Block-Buy Contract For CVN-78 and CVN-79. Another acquisition optionwould be to procure CVN-78 and CVN-79 under a block-buy contract. Block-buycontracts aresimilar to MYP arrangements in that theypermit a single contract to be used to contract for the construction of multiple end items that are to be procured over anumber of years. As with MYP, block-buy contracting can reduce the cost of the itemsbeing procured by a few percent by giving the construction facility (in this case, NGNN) the confidence about future business that is needed to justify investments that can betteroptimize its workforce and production equipment for the expected work. Unlike MYP, block-buy contracting does not require demonstration of design stability, and it does notinclude authority for using EOQ on long-leadtime items (which is the second way that MYP arrangements reduce the total cost of the end items being procured). Block-buycontractingwas invented for the Virginia-class submarine program,whereit was used to contract for the first four boats in the program; these boats were procuredover the 5-year period FY1998-FY2002. Based on the Virginia-class experience, a block-buy contract for CVN-78 and CVN-79 might reduce the cost of the ships by a fewpercent. Since these two ships have a combined construction cost of about $17 billion,a 3% reduction, for example, would equate to a savings of roughly b$500 million — aboutenough to procure a Navy auxiliary ship or two Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs).Supporters of a block-buy contract for CVN-78 and CVN-79 could argue that suchan arrangement would be consistent with both past practicein the Virginia-class programand congressional support for procuring CVN-79, as reflected, for example, in a decisionto approve the Navy’s requested for $45 million in FY 2007 advance procurement funding for CVN-79. Supporters could also argue that the potential savings from a block-buycontract, though fairly small in percentage terms, could be significant in absolute terms,in light of the combined construction cost of the two ships. Opponents of a block-buycontract for CVN-78 and CVN-79 could argue that it would tie the hands of futureCongresses by creating a commitment to procure a ship (CVN-79) that is not scheduled for procurement until FY 2012, and that this commitment would be much greater than thecommitment created byapprovingthe Navy’s request for $45 million in FY 2007 advanceprocurement funding. Potential Alternatives to Large-Deck, Nuclear-Powered Carriers. Asecond issue for Congress is whether to continue procuring only large-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers like CVN-21 class ships, which have full load displacements ofabout 100,000 tons, or whether procurement of such ships should be replaced by, orsupplemented with, procurement of smaller and less expensive aircraft carriers. Some observers have suggested procurement of smaller carriers such the 57,000-ton medium-sized carrier or the 13,500-ton high-speed carrier proposed by DOD’s Office of Force Transformation in a 2005 report to Congress on potential alternative Navy force architectures, or an even smaller “pocket” carrier proposed a few years ago by the Naval Postgraduate School under the project name Corsair. Supporters of smaller carriers could argue that they would have much lower unitprocurement costs than large-deckcarriers, would improve the fleet’s abilityto withstandenemyattack byputting fewer eggs (i.e., carrier-based aircraft) into each basket (i.e., eachcarrier), and that buildinga larger number of smaller carriers is consistent with idea under defense transformation for shifting over time to more highly distributed forcearchitectures. Supporters of continued procurement of only large-deck carriers could For more on Navy ship names, see CRS Report RS22478, Navy Ship Names: Background For Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke. argue that smaller carriers are individually less survivable than larger carriers, that they are less cost-effective in terms of the number of aircraft theycan embark and sorties theycan generate per unit expenditure, and that the Navy is already moving to a more distributed force architecture through things such as Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) andunmanned vehicles. Legislative Activity FY 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 5122/S. 2766). House. Section 122 of H.R. 5122 limits the procurement cost of CVN-78 to $10.5billion, and the procurement cost of subsequent CVN-21 class carriers to $8.1 billioneach, both with permitted adjustments for inflation and other factors. Section 216 makes $4 million in research and development funding available only for implementing orevaluating proposals for the CVN-21 program and DD(X) destroyer program under theDefense Acquisition Challenge Program. The House Armed Services Committee, in itsreport (H.Rept. 109-452 of May 5, 2006) on H.R. 5122, stated that it accepts the use ofsplit funding in certain cases for aircraft carriers and LHA/LHD-type ships, but that itdoes not support the idea of permanently authorizing the use of split funding for all suchships (page 69).Senate. Section 121 of S. 2766 authorizes 4-year incremental fundingfor CVN-21 class ships, beginning with CVN-78, and advance procurement of components for CVN-79 and CVN-80, beginning in FY2007. Section 123 increases the CVN-77 cost cap to $6.057 billion. The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report (S. Rept. 109-254 of May 9, 2006) on S. 2766, directed the Navy to review EOQ and long-leadtime materialprocurement for the CVN-21 class and report next year on the advance procurementrequirements to potentially optimize EOQ savings and escalation avoidance for the first three CVN-21 class ships (page 67). The report expressed concern over CVN-77 costgrowth, and directed the Navy to report quarterly on the CVN-77 contract (page 69). Inconsidering S. 2766, the Senate on June 14, 2006, adopted by voice vote an amendment (S.Amdt. 4211) to add a provision (Section 1013) to S. 2766 naming CVN-78 in honorof President Gerald Ford. 4FY2007 Defense Appropriation Bill (H.R. 5631). House. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees, in their reports (H.Rept. 109-504 of June 16, 2006, page 141, and S. Rept. 109-292 of July 25, 2006, page114, respectively) on H.R. 5631, recommended approvingthe Navy’s request for FY 2007 procurement funding for CVN-78 and CVN-79. The House report expressed concernabout cost growth on the CVN-77 construction effort (page 140). http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:cndMHCnWMTkJ:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf+U.S.+AIRCRA FT+CARRIER+AND+THE+CARRIER+INDUSTRIAL+BASE&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us Navy Awards $5 Billion Contract for Future Aircraft Carrier USS Gerald R. Ford Story Number: NNS080911-04 Release Date: 9/11/2008 6:35:00 AM From Naval Sea System Command Public Affairs WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy awarded a $5.1 billion contract to Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding Newport News Sept. 10 for the detail design and construction of the future USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the lead ship in the Navy's newest class of aircraft carrier. Under this contract, Northrop Grumman will complete the detail design and construction of CVN 78, which includes engineering; integration; related development efforts including drawing and work package development; advanced planning; design weight estimate; lifecycle support products and related logistics data; production planning; test and evaluation; further definition of initiatives to reduce CVN 78 class total ownership costs; and data necessary to support construction of CVN 78. "This is an exciting day for the CVN 78 Program Office and for the Navy," said Capt. Brian Antonio, CVN 78 program manager in the Program Executive Office for Aircraft Carriers. "When USS Gerald R. Ford is delivered to the fleet in 2015, it will bring superior warfighting capability and meaningful quality-of-life improvements for Sailors, in addition to greatly reduced lifecycle costs. Most important, CVN 78-class carriers will be able to adapt and evolve to defend this nation and our allies well into the 21st century," he said. CVN 78 is the Navy's first major investment in aircraft carrier design in more than three decades and features many improvements over the 1960's Nimitz-class design. CVN 78 includes a new flight deck with an improved weapons handling system, advanced arresting gear, a completely re-engineered electro-magnetic aircraft launch system, new and simplified nuclear propulsion plants, a new electrical power generation system and reconfigurable design architecture. "Together, these improvements provide transformational warfighting capabilities and enable reduced manning, ultimately reducing the total ownership cost of each Ford-class carrier by approximately $5 billion over the life of the ship," said Antonio. CVN 78 was officially named Gerald R. Ford by the Secretary of the Navy in January 2007 and will be constructed in Newport News, Va. The keel is scheduled to be laid in late 2009, and the ship is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy in 2015. The Navy plans to build 11 Ford-class aircraft carriers, and construction of Ford-class aircraft carriers is projected to continue through 2058. http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=39656 For more news from Naval Sea Systems Command, visit www.navy.mil/local/navsea _________________ U. S. Navy Veteran  August 1977 to July 1983 Yoeman Second Class, with student pilot's license
Back to top
All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

Related topics
Topics		Replies	Author	Views	Last Post
•	Announcement: Forum rules and code of conduct	10	Outsider	4084	Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:29 am Outsider
•	Announcement: Guidelines for interacting with Military personell	4	Outsider	994	Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:01 pm Outsider
•	Announcement: Posting Rule changes, updated:17 November 2006	0	Outsider	1355	Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:24 pm Outsider
•	Sticky: OPSEC & PERSEC	0	Outsider	4285	Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:32 am Outsider
•	Civil servants all in one	5	Doc McKelvie	1050	Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:31 am Doc McKelvie

EQNEED  is in no way endorsed or supported by the US government Dept. Of Defense Or ANY branch of

of the United States military.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on this message board is being distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational or criticism purposes only. Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work including such use by reproduction in copies or phono records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is NOT an infringement.