First Ford Class Carrier Readies for Launch

reply to post by Zaphod58


I'm almost clueless at math in spite of my successful algebra classes etc.

But that sounds like 10 sailors per gallon of water.

So each sailor gets a shower of 1/10th of a gallon of water?

So, it's a decision as to whether to wash one's face or one's right hand and nothing else?

Or do they shower very quickly once every 10 days and issue lots of Brute?

Sounds to me like the ship would need to come to port quite frequently just for fumigation. LOL.

What am I missing?

.

reply to post by BO XIAN


It's more than that. The average crew on the Ford will be 4000-4500, with 500 gallons in the shower system. They won't be able to take a long shower like you can on land, but they'll be able to do more than, get wet, turn the water off, soap up, turn it on and rinse off, like they had to do for years.

We already have five times more carriers than any other nation this ship was just a waste of money. This money would be better spend taking care of our vets who are homeless and not getting the medical care they need. But the war machine needs to be fed so damn the people.

reply to post by buster2010


We also have at least five carriers reaching the end of their life cycle. A fleet of 10 carriers gives you less than half that available at any given time, a fleet of less than 5 would give you maybe one available.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Good to hear.

Maybe it's some kind of magical exotic tech expanding-at-the-shower-head water. LOL.

I guess I really like my long showers and I'm cluelessly just not comprehending how 500 gallons of water in the shower system per day accomplishes much for 4,000-4,500 sailors.

I thought--well, maybe the replinishment is so quick and constant that it's not a problem. But the figure is 500 gallons per day . . . that seems to cover the replinishment issue.

Don't know why this 'silly' issue has my curiosity up so. It just seems like an impossible puzzle bee in my noggin for some reason. Sorry for the bother.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I'm torn on the need for the Ford etc.

I think we do well to have a large carrier fleet.

It's survival nice to be the big boy on the block when enemies come knocking.

However, given these globalist genocidal idiots building the tyrannical global government and under the table in charge globally already . . .

twoday.net...

All the wars since probably the French revolution

have been a sick Kabuki dance of genocidal monsters playing global power politics toward the tyrannical global government

AND engineering genocidal mass murder to reduce the global population toward 200-500 million in this era.

The inescapable conclusion is that even grand machines like the Ford are merely demonized ruthless genocidal tools in the hands of madmen.

I still think that we need it because they are choreographing, structuring, scheduling WW3 with China and Russia attacking--perhaps even before the Ford is ready for action. Whether they'll allow the Ford to be ready first, remains to be seen. And how much would they allow the Ford to defend CONUS? That is a hard question to answer. They really REALLY ARE demonized genocidal madmen.

Anyway--I'm an ex Navy guy. I like to see the Navy get good effective toys . . . regardless of how rational it is. LOL.

Besides . . . it's not as though the average person on the street is able to do anything to alter such globalist power politics and expenditures in the slightest. The mass mind control group psychology propaganda efforts of the globalist tyrants are too successful and refined at this stage.

Zaphod58
reply to post by buster2010

 

We also have at least five carriers reaching the end of their life cycle. A fleet of 10 carriers gives you less than half that available at any given time, a fleet of less than 5 would give you maybe one available.

Zaphod is pretty much on the money here as to how many carriers are available at any one time. In the bullseye...the X ring.
The UK with their few crarriers coming on line are going to find this out quickly.


As to the water accomodations..I can tell you that a Nimitz carrier has four 100,000 gallon per day steam distillers when they are in good condition and working at full capacity. That is up to 400,000 gallons per day between the steam catapult system, Nuclear power plant and any other systems needed including cooking/galley and cleaning. Someone is monitoring these distillers..24/7 when out to sea. As much as possible all potable water tanks are filled from shore facilities before putting to sea.

But remember ...these systems are cycled up and down so one is often off line for repairs and being cleaned...flushed out before being put back on line.
Nonetheless..you do not waste potable water on any ship.

What we call a "Hollywood shower" where you can just let the water run is a rarity onboard ship. The showers onboard have this little push button spring gadget on them...on the end of a hose..like a shower sprayer. You wet yourself down and then when you lather or soap up..the sprayer gadget springs to the shut position so as not to waste water. You get used to it after awhile. Then when finished lathering up..you spray off..little water wasted. Same thing on a submarine or other surface ships. You do not waste potable water.

However...it is not unheard of for sailors to come into port and check into hotels and motels just to get in the shower and let the hot water run..."Hollywood Shower." This is a luxury for them...to let the hot water run...something we land lubbers so take for granted. Remember that when you speak of our Navy. We tend to become ignorant of this kind of living when we dont know and take so much for granted.

The new ships are going to a reverse osmosis...large volume set ups to make their water..meaning less steam demand as in the older carriers and ships. Reverse osmosis is not a new system but they have been upgraded over the years to accomodate higher volumes.

I do not know what the capacities are on the New Ford Class Carriers...but you now have a baseline from the Nimitz class ships.
I am just speculating..you dont have to buy into this ..but I think water accomodations will be better with fewer sailors onboard due to more automation.
That does not mean that water discipline will be non existent. Any sailor knows how quickly rough and or changing conditions can become when out to sea.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by orangetom1999


THX THX. I feel a bit better about things on the Ford, now. LOL.

Seems to me a hot shower would be a big morale boost.

Thanks for the details in your post. Enlightening.

I wasn't on the minesweeper I was briefly assigned to, overnight, so I didn't experience the 'glories' of such a shower. LOL.

BO XIAN
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

THX THX. I feel a bit better about things on the Ford, now. LOL.

Seems to me a hot shower would be a big morale boost.

Thanks for the details in your post. Enlightening.

I wasn't on the minesweeper I was briefly assigned to, overnight, so I didn't experience the 'glories' of such a shower. LOL.

You are most certainly welcome Sir. Glad to have been of some help.

And yes...a hot shower is indeed a moral boost. At times a sailor who has done well or exceptionally ..is rewarded with a "Hollywood Shower."

I can tell you that after Hurricane Isabell we had no hot water for about 9 days. It was only when My Friend allowed me to uses her hot water in the apartments across town..that I got said hot water shower. It was indeed luxurious. I had till then only been heating hot water on the stove and never enough...sort of dry cleaning. Most of it was cold showers.

I salute our sailors , soldiers, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines for going the distance they do without "Hollywood Showers."

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by orangetom1999


ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

CHEERS TO ALL CONCERNED.

I can still remember the cold showers in boot camp in San Diego.

Thankfully it was midsummer in San Diego. LOL.

Very cool

reply to post by Kukri


Ya it's neet and all but what bothers me is they don't build these units the way other countries do. They actually "use them". Like all these other superpowers and big countries build these for "defense only". They "never use them". But what bothers me is the states using them. That's ship is gonna be the instrument of death for possibly millions of people in 2nd and 3rd world countries. Because the states doesn't use them for defense, mostly offense. They just find whatever country has some resources, false flag, go in depose the dictator and steal the country. It's there new norm. But then in the process so many innocent civilians are killed. Often for no good reason. Just because. So ya nice ship that's gonna kill millions of innocent people.

spartacus699
reply to post by Kukri

 

Ya it's neet and all but what bothers me is they don't build these units the way other countries do. They actually "use them". Like all these other superpowers and big countries build these for "defense only". They "never use them". But what bothers me is the states using them. That's ship is gonna be the instrument of death for possibly millions of people in 2nd and 3rd world countries. Because the states doesn't use them for defense, mostly offense. They just find whatever country has some resources, false flag, go in depose the dictator and steal the country. It's there new norm. But then in the process so many innocent civilians are killed. Often for no good reason. Just because. So ya nice ship that's gonna kill millions of innocent people.

Spartacus699,

You seriously need to think this through carefully ....much more carefully. Particularly about second and third world nations. Someone arms them...someone shows them what to do with their arms. In many of these nations you have armed bands of people who do not have a pot to piss in ..or the famous window out of which to throw it.....but they have AK 47s, AK 74s, grenades or RPGs. Some of these 2nd and 3rd world nations have people in them who operate as organized pirates and their government can do little about it..their governments are so weak and ineffective.
These people in these 2nd and 3rd world nations are holding up ships ..private and corporate and hijacking them..stealing their cargos...even highly hazardous cargos...without knowing what is in those containers..industrial materials...and to their peril and the peril of the nations in which they force these ships to dock when they are pirated.

Do you think for one minute that if we wanted we could not go into these nations and "Pacify " them ..like overnight?? Including nations like in the far east with dictatorships and when they have been hit so hard by a Tsunami or tidal wave.
We could easily overtake and overthrow these governments...particularly around the aftermath of a national weather disaster.

As I have posted before here on ATS..I suggest strongly you look closely at a concept or ideology called

Democide..or death by ones own government.

en.wikipedia.org...

What is so interesting about Democide is the number of people in the West who have never heard or even thought about it at all. Democide is simply not taught to people next to the significance of what it bodes in individual thinking capacity about the true nature of the world around us.

Watch this one Spartacus699... concerning what the author R. J. Rummel has discovered about Democide.

His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle.

He is saying that in the last 100 years six times more people have been killed in Peacetime and by thier own governments than have been killed in all the wars/battles.

More people have been killed by their own governments and at a faster rate than in centuries past.

By aircraft carriers??? By Navys?? Think this through carefully??

I am not debating that all our wars or conflicts are just...only that there is a much bigger picture taking place out here..and one for which someone ..even our own governments do not want us to know or even consider when viewing the bigger picture.

For you see..Spartacus699...the oldest dictum of war and conflict is that the "Victors Get the Spoils."

That we as Yanks...spend so much monies and blood in these conflicts and wars...but do not bring home any spoils, territories et al...this means we are not the victors. Common sense really.

It means we are often fighting someone elses wars and conflicts. Someone who does not wish to be seen or known in relation to these conflicts..but has a very heavy investment in them. It may even be for someone who is not even American.

This is, I believe, why Democide is not a desired topic because of how it can change ones thinking about the nature of this world around us. Cause us to think outside of the blocks/boxes of what media and politics tries to have us think is normal.

If we wanted...to take off the gloves..this would be a very very different globe than what we see out here Spartacus699...very different.

This world is not the product advertised..no matter how big ones Navy or ships.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by spartacus699


First, what other nations build Aircraft Carriers anywhere remotely close to the level or type the United States does? If there is one, I missed it. So there is no comparison to "Other nations make them but don't use them" .. Um.. No other nation in the world makes Super Carriers.

Also.. This ship will kill MILLIONS? How do you figure? What US Carrier or even combination of Carriers have ever 'killed millions'?? How about the Millions they have saved and helped? Now Millions DOES apply as a number there. Haiti, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines...just to name a few recent disasters where US Carriers were directly involved and instrumental in the assistance and aid to innocent victims.

Not everything about the US is evil. Not every ship in the US Navy is out to kill people as it's primary mission (only a couple are so singularly focused, actually) and not everything the US does is to hurt people. I think that's a fine vessel being put to Sea.

One of the few true American symbols our President hasn't managed to destroy.

Wow Wrabbit2000,

Thanks..I am gratified to know that someone else out here gets it.


And Sparticus699...here is a bit of additional informatoin's for you ...no cover charge.

I've spent alot of my time in this shipyard..working on Submarines..not carriers as I am presently doing but Submarines. The older Boomers, The Los Angeles class..or what is also called the 688 class submarines and also the current Virginia Class boats under construction.

Now you want a vessel with the capability to kill millions and you would never see it coming ..there it is.. A submarine..particularly a Boomer or what is called a Ballistic Missile Submarine.

I know how these boats work ..internally as well as externally. I also know that their loadouts or weapons compliment can be changed.

So I ask myself from where you get your thinking process... Your informations with this type of guilt programming and blame game.

For you see Sparticus...in war...you show the feint to distract the enemy. They must think the feint or what is visible is often the real thing.

You seldom see or hear about news reporters in depth hanging around the submarine piers..but they are all over the destroyer and carrier piers.

You show your kings and make people think they are Aces...you do not show your aces..those you hold back...so they never see them coming until it is to late.

You want to talk about killing millions of people..there it is!! Not carriers per se..but submarines.



If I want that kind of Blame Game stuff I listen to a politician and I can tell in certain arenas how and why they are pulling our leg..because of the work I have done over the years. The RISKS I have taken. This does not make me better than others..but it does make me different.

Guilt progamming and shame or Guilt conditioning does not work on me. But it is quite politic and popular amongst people with not much experience and high on emotions.

You do not do this kind of work and be an emotional train wreck. You will get yourself and others killed or hurt. Drama does not cut it.

So when I see a leader trying to do this I know they are a poor example of a leader. I would not trust them to feed my pets.

Some food for thought...no cover charge. Hope it helps not only you Spartacus699 but other readers out here.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Too many eggs in one basket for my tastes,

As said up thread, 10 or so commissioned, 5 in refit, maintenance or decommissioning. I remember photo of half the fleet in harbor virtually side by side at the same time.

My opinion is that's just asking for another Pearl harbor to happen. Smaller ships open up basing options so that any single strike would not deliver a knock out blow to the carrier forces ah la Pearl harbor which fortunately had our carriers by happenstance out to sea that day, had they not been the story of pacific war would have been very different - that was luck though!

Would that occur then we'd have to surge operate what we have left till operational effectiveness is seriously in decline or if refit needed it then reduces operations down to 1 or 2 carrier groups at any given time. That's not a good place to be in.

Super Carrier's have their place as large survivable platforms in conventional warfare but I'd like to see the fleet augmented with many more Medium Carriers. I think Medium Carriers could carry out 99% of missions that Super Carriers are currently doing without the exposure that fewer numbers of Super Carriers present.

I am not saying do away with Super Carriers but am saying augment the current inventory with Medium Carriers used in conjunction with current CBG's or in their own CBG when mission dictates, most missions IMHO would not require presence of Super Carrier.

The implementation of such a plan would allow longer life cycles, longer duration between major refits and improved availability of Super Carriers, besides one can imagine A Super Carrier CBG with a couple of TF's attached using Medium Carriers being extremely hard to counter in any imaginable large conflict. There are only so many places an imagined enemy could concentrate enough force to resist a combination like that.

Another would be using a Medium Carrier as "tip of the sword" while Super Carrier CBG provide cover.

Just because a U.S. Carrier Battle Group has not experienced any form of effective attack up till now does not mean it is invulnerable to attack - anyone who thinks otherwise is living in the past. I'm of the opinion that its not the Carrier Battle Group that has prevented a sinking of a Super Carrier, rather its our Nuclear Umbrella and its threat that has because no one wants to take risk at that level.

Sure that's worked but its a very inflexible policy to say the least.

I dont know if some of you realize it but the most dangerous vessel to a carrier battle group is a submarine. Not missiles per se. This is not usually all that advertised to the public when pulling on the public's string to set the hook politically...with fear techniques.

Also ..carriers are a very expensive to operate...along with the rest of the support ships. We are talking about ships which carry the beans, and supplies. Ships which carry the fuel...along with the destroyers and submarines. This is very expensive..whether smaller carriers are used or more big carriers.

I was many years ago...stationed at Keflavik, Iceland. I asked why the USA does not simply station a carrier out there. I was told because such a fleet is very expensive and would tie up a carrier fleet from being maneuverable..and flexable.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by orangetom1999


I also have to think that the GIUK gap was where USSR attack subs transited to the open Atlantic may not have been a place to station a CBG.

Sosus network and Submarines like the 688 made sense along with land base anti-submarine aircraft.

I agree that its expensive no matter how you cut it as 9/10ths any of this is costs to support and maintain the ships.

I say its even more expensive by far to lose Super Carrier(s) because of hubris. Not only in $$$ but also the resulting collapse of confidence and credibility of a 70 year plus belief in Carrier supremacy.

I alluded to vulnerability of CBG's to submarine attack something that's happened in fleet exercises but not talked of much. It can be said that in the thirties fleet exercises exposed the fallacy of Battleships invulnerability to air attack, that was likewise ignored and swept under the rug till hard facts showed otherwise.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by spartacus699

 

First, what other nations build Aircraft Carriers anywhere remotely close to the level or type the United States does? If there is one, I missed it. So there is no comparison to "Other nations make them but don't use them" .. Um.. No other nation in the world makes Super Carriers.

Also.. This ship will kill MILLIONS? How do you figure? What US Carrier or even combination of Carriers have ever 'killed millions'?? How about the Millions they have saved and helped? Now Millions DOES apply as a number there. Haiti, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines...just to name a few recent disasters where US Carriers were directly involved and instrumental in the assistance and aid to innocent victims.

Not everything about the US is evil. Not every ship in the US Navy is out to kill people as it's primary mission (only a couple are so singularly focused, actually) and not everything the US does is to hurt people. I think that's a fine vessel being put to Sea.

One of the few true American symbols our President hasn't managed to destroy.

Well there was only about a million civils dead after you stole the oil from iraq and the minerals from afgan. And ya that needed an aircraft carrier to help orchastrate. To think they're not killing machines is ludacrace. They send them out to "make money" not to save lives. The save lives part is 1% of the operations, just so they can use it to get some good press. And ya india launched a career recently so did china. So they're not a big and flashy, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying they don't go sending them out to kill people like the states does. ww2, Korea, vietnam, desert storm 1,2, etc etc. There's been over 100 wars since the revolutionary war in 1776 so far and counting. In those millions of useless deaths. All offensive. I think the only war that might have been necessary was WW2. As otherwise the nazi's would have taken over everything. Okay so hooorahh on that one. The rest useless senseless killing just to show off hardware and power and for conquest. Sounds like the romans.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by spartacus699


Umm.. Wow... Check that hatred for America for JUST a moment to get back to some reality, eh?

- First, please supply anything RELIABLE to support a MILLION dead civilians for Iraq and Afghanistan. That figure is laughably wild and off base...but I'd love to see backup to it. Then we can get into how many of those died by Coalition action and how many went at the hands of the terrorists we were a bit busy fighting. A US Aircraft Carrier wasn't blowing up busy markets (still are to this day, for that matter) full of women and children to make a political point. The "rebels" in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan get the award for willful murder in wholesale numbers.

- Second, please, explain to me how Aircraft Carriers were instrumental in the war for Afghanistan? They were useful in the opening stages of Iraq but Afghanistan wasn't an air war at any stage and..umm.. Checked a map for distances lately??? Aircraft Carriers DO have limitations and Landlocked nations like Afghanistan are not their strong points.

- Third, If we went to war for oil...WHERE IS MY OIL?! We haven't even seen favorable contracts, let alone TAKEN any Oil as spoils of war. If we'd done any of that, it may be fair to say it was about Oil. We didn't though, and in fact are more screwed for oil now than we were in 2001. It's ignorance to say it's about oil, IMO, when the facts say 100% the opposite.

Now, for general reference, those terrible ships that 'kill millions' in your view, also SAVE AND SERVICE MILLIONS on a regular basis, whenever a disaster strikes. Somehow that shouldn't count or mean anything tho right?

Due to the wars of the last 10+ years, the good the US Navy has done for the past 200 just go down the crapper, right?