it is when you consider the fact that by scrapping her they learn valuable lessons for future construction and can get the engines out for use in her sisters.
That's fairly standard for the USN from memory, shock tests to prove the design. There was some complaints that the LCS hulls weren't tested to such conditions, mainly due to fears they would fail.
I also recall there being complaints over how long it was taking to do tests on Ford. The LCS designs were eventually shock tested, but not until after a few had been built.
Hello,
It is...
VIDEO: Explosive USS Gerald R. Ford Shock Trial Registered as 3.9 Magnitude Earthquake - USNI News
This post has been updated with additional footage from the shock trial. The Navy blasted its newest carrier with thousands of pounds of explosives in the Atlantic Ocean on Friday to simulate how the ship would perform in battle conditions, according to images released by the service and...
news.usni.org
The point of the shock test is to verify that construction was done properly, not that the ship was designed correctly. The Navy didn't want to do shock tests for the LCS because they said it wasn't meant to survive shock anyways.
If you are fearful they would fail such a test you much have did something very long. Then again the whole LCS project is proving to be a costly failure.
The Canadian Carrier HMCS Magnificent was originally ordered by the Shah of Iran before the revolution. After the Falklands war demonstrated the abilities of the Sea Harrier Canada purchased one which was completed in 1985. The second of the two Iranian ships was completed for Australia.
Which is why the Navy has switched over to the FFG(X) frigate program.
The US Navy flat-out didn’t want to do shock tests on Ford, as she is not considered representative in this regard to the rest of the class due to her unique island and radar fit. But the Congress wanted it and the Navy figured they could find out how the new island responded with the Constellations.
Pangur
Donor
I`m not sure what the point would be of having a single carrier, its like having one sock
The point is to see if it does go wrong so they can identify and fix/scrap defective ships before they go into service. (Not that it really matters in the post-WWII era, as most "modern battleship" threads have shown any survivability other than "don't get hit" is not going to work.)
Alternate Philippine Navy
- 4 x Fletcher-class destroyers
- 4 x Allan M. Summer-class destroyers
- 2 x Gearing-class destroyers
- 2 x Knox-class frigates
- 3 x Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates
- 1 x Minotaur-class light cruiser (formerly HMS Lion)
- 1 x Tiger-class light cruiser (formerly HMS Blake)
- 2 x Brooke-class guided missile frigates
- 2 x Maestrale-class frigates
- 3 x Incheon-class frigares
- 2 x Galicia-class landing helicopter docks
- 1 x Mackerel-class submarine
- 3 x Tench-class submarines
- 2 x Type 206 submarines
- 2 x Scorpene-class submarines
- 2 x Kilo-class submarines
We are not exactly the worlds policeman, nor fo we do much for power projection. A Canadian carrier would be something you send on NATO and coalition exercises and fights when it is not in refit. As much to prove we were there as anything.
Canada has a much better point for one carrier than many other countries. They are in close alliances with multiple other powers and little motivation for independent action.
Contribute to nato operations when you want and refit other times. Maybe the plan is that between the UK and Canada there will always be a 2 carriers available in the Atlantic to support Nato operations.
Last edited:
not to mention that as an ASW navy having a flat-deck ship able to put up a dozen helicopters at once is a very useful capability to have on hand.
As is the ability to have some form of AWACs and fighter defense