Northrop Grumman Celebrates Ceremonial Steel Cut and Facilities Grand Opening for CVN 21 Aircraft Carrier Program



NEWPORT NEWS, Va., Aug. 11, 2005 -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has reached its first construction milestone in the life of the new-generation aircraft carrier, CVN 21. The company cut one of the first pieces of steel, a 15-ton plate for a side shell unit of CVN 78, the first ship of the CVN 21 program.

Design work on the CVN 21 is underway at Northrop Grumman's Newport News sector, with the full construction contract anticipated in 2007. Advance construction began in 2005 to allow shipbuilders to test the design-build strategy before overall construction begins in 2007. Each ship of the class is valued at approximately $8 billion.

The ceremony also served as the grand opening for the shipyard's new heavy-plate bay facility, one of several new facilities built for CVN 21 construction. This facility houses some of the most technologically advanced machines in the shipbuilding industry, including the ESAB Avenger 3-Telerex burning machine used in the steel-cut ceremony. Other new CVN 21 facilities include the covered modular-assembly facility, covered modular-outfitting facility and unit-assembly facility. These facilities will allow employees to work uninterrupted by the weather, and will house additional cranes to build pre-outfitting units to a higher degree of completion than on all previous carriers.

Ceremony participants included Mike Petters, president, Northrop Grumman Newport News; Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.-1st District); Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.-3rd District); U.S. Navy Rear Adm. David Architzel, program executive officer for aircraft carriers; Navy Rear Adm. H. Denby Starling II, commander, Naval air force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet; Navy Capt. Michael E. McMahon, commanding officer, supervisor of shipbuilding, conversion and repair, Newport News; Joe S. Frank, mayor, Newport News, Va; and employees from the CVN 21 program.

"CVN 78 will have improved capabilities over the Nimitz-class, a class of ships that has proven very capable," said Petters. "CVN 21 is designed for efficiency over the 50-year lifecycle while providing America with the kind of forward presence unique to aircraft carriers and so critical in today's uncertain world."

Innovations for the CVN 21 program include an enhanced flight deck capable of increased sortie rates, improved weapons movement, a redesigned island, a new nuclear power plant, reduced manning and allowance for future technologies. These and many other evolutionary features are being developed to maximize efficiency and reduce acquisition costs, manning and weight while enhancing the ship's operational capabilities. Design and technology insertion costs are approximately $5.6 billion spread over the class of ships.

"Today celebrates a significant investment in the future of Newport News," said Architzel. "I can tell you there are no better warfighting platforms in the world than those that are built at Newport News."

What she'll looks like when she's finished....56k beware!

Soooo what's the tie-in to Battlestar Galactica?

Quoted: Soooo what's the tie-in to Battlestar Galactica?

Battlestar is an aircraft carrier in space. (The Viper is not as good as the F-18 Super Hornet.Lol). Ron Moore(the producer of BSG) is an admitted Naval fan, especially WWII, that's why the "new" BSG" has corded phones, paper, etc. in a ship that's capable of FTL..to give it the feel of WWII. Plus I figured anything with the title Battlestar and an F-18 mention in it would get lots of looks.

Theyre gonna be using B2s on aircraft carriers now?

No CIWS?

Quoted: Theyre gonna be using B2s on aircraft carriers now? No CIWS?

B2s? Those are X-45s.

CIWS is actually "close in weapon system" and isn't really synonymous with the Mk15 Phalanx. It can be the RAM, the Goalkeeper, NSSMS, and in this case the ESSM.

Quoted: Quoted: Theyre gonna be using B2s on aircraft carriers now? No CIWS? B2s? Those are X-45s. CIWS is actually "close in weapon system" and isn't really synonymous with the Mk15 Phalanx. It can be the RAM, the Goalkeeper, NSSMS, and in this case the ESSM.

Looking closely at the pic it does show the Rolling Airframe Missile as well as ESSM. My guess is the CIWS will be replaced with SEAram.

Will this be the "Bill Clinton" class of carrier?

I'm more interested in this "electro magnetic" launch system they are using...

Does it adjust how much its drawing the plane towards the magnets as the jets engine spins up, then release the pressure? I'm curious...

Quoted: Quoted: Theyre gonna be using B2s on aircraft carriers now? No CIWS? B2s? Those are X-45s. CIWS is actually "close in weapon system" and isn't really synonymous with the Mk15 Phalanx. It can be the RAM, the Goalkeeper, NSSMS, and in this case the ESSM.

WADR Young Padawan, CIWS has been used exclusively to mean the Mk-15 Close In Weapon System since its IOC in 1978 aboard carrier America.  The colloquial name given it by the design agent and builder, General Dynamics, was "Phalanx".

NSSMS, RAM and now ESSM have always called by their individual names as well.  I choose to exclude Goalkeeper because although we tested in in 1989, we never adopted it, preferring to proceed with development of the CIWS Block IB.

Sorry...

Quoted: Will this be the "Bill Clinton" class of carrier?

Its going to leave white stains in every port of call????

Nice......I want one!

Quoted: Quoted: Soooo what's the tie-in to Battlestar Galactica? Battlestar is an aircraft carrier in space. (The Viper is not as good as the F-18 Super Hornet.Lol). Ron Moore(the producer of BSG) is an admitted Naval fan, especially WWII, that's why the "new" BSG" has corded phones, paper, etc. in a ship that's capable of FTL..to give it the feel of WWII. Plus I figured anything with the title Battlestar and an F-18 mention in it would get lots of looks.

Those Vipers must really suck if they aren't better than the super bug..lol

Quoted: I'm more interested in this "electro magnetic" launch system they are using... Does it adjust how much its drawing the plane towards the magnets as the jets engine spins up, then release the pressure? I'm curious...

It works like a magnetic "rail" gun.
A slug/bullet is drawn down a rail with a magnetic charge on both sides, accelerating the slug to high speeds with no chemical/thermal reaction.  Now, imagine that the slug is the shuttle-cock (heh) that's attached to the launch gear in the aircraft's nosegear.  All you need is electricity (generated by this new class of boat) and the rail, not a large and cumbersome steam piston system.

Quoted: I'm more interested in this "electro magnetic" launch system they are using... Does it adjust how much its drawing the plane towards the magnets as the jets engine spins up, then release the pressure? I'm curious...

The launch shuttle that attaches to the nose gear of the planes will run on track rails or in a "tube" under the deck.  Like an electromagnet, these rails can be magnetised by passing an electric current through them.  When this is done, the shuttle is accelerated forward by opposing magnetic fields.  The speed and force are proportional to the current induced and the phase of the signal.  No more steam catapults, with all of their attendant problems.

The principle is the same for a "maglev" train or a "electromagnetic rail gun".

The engineering requires massive amounts of power.  This calls for using the new power system under development for the DD(X).

Quoted: B2s? Those are X-45s.

Looks like X-47s

Quoted: Nice......I want one!

GROUP BUY!!!

Quoted: WADR Young Padawan, CIWS has been used exclusively to mean the Mk-15 Close In Weapon System since its IOC in 1978 aboard carrier America.  The colloquial name given it by the design agent and builder, General Dynamics, was "Phalanx". NSSMS, RAM and now ESSM have always called by their individual names as well.  I choose to exclude Goalkeeper because although we tested in in 1989, we never adopted it, preferring to proceed with development of the CIWS Block IB. Sorry...

WADR,
Just because you call a Xerox a "copier" doesn't mean it isn't a Xerox. The Soviet Navy had systems that were classified as Close In Weapons Systems, as is the GoalKeeper. It's a class of weapon.
That leads me to my point was the new carrier will not be devoid of close in protection. The ESSM and RAM are both preferable for taking down an ASCM, in my opinion. Although, I'm a big fan of the BLK IB.
ETA: If you're talking about common usage, which upon reading your post again, I agree. CIWS and Mk15 are often used interchangably. However, I think it's time we start making the distinction given the newer systems that are coming on line.

Features Phalanx provides ships of the U.S. Navy with a "last-chance" defense against anti-ship missiles and littoral warfare threats that have penetrated other fleet defenses. Phalanx automatically detects, tracks and engages anti-air warfare threats such as anti-ship missiles and aircraft, while the Block 1B's man-in-the-loop system counters the emerging littoral warfare threat. This new threat includes small,high-speed surface craft, small terrorist aircraft, helicopters and surface mines. Phalanx accomplishes these engagements via an advanced search and track radar system integrated with a stabilized, forward looking infra-red (FLIR) detector. This integrated FLIR provides Phalanx with an unique multi-spectral detect and track capability for littoral warfare threats and dramatically improves the existing anti-air warfare capability. Block 1B also incorporates new Optimized Gun Barrels which provide improved barrel life, improved round dispersion and increased engagement ranges. Phalanx is the only deployed close-in weapon system capable of autonomously performing its own search, detect, evaluation, track, engage and kill assessment functions. Phalanx also can be integrated into existing Combat Systems to provide additonal sensor and fire-control capability. Background The Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) underwent operational tests and evaluation onboard USS Bigelow in 1977, and exceeded maintenance and reliability specifications. Phalanx production started in 1978 with orders for 23 USN and 14 Foreign Military Sales (FMS) systems.

Quoted: Quoted: B2s? Those are X-45s. Looks like X-47s

Could be. I was referring to this: www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=378591

Quoted: Quoted: I'm more interested in this "electro magnetic" launch system they are using... Does it adjust how much its drawing the plane towards the magnets as the jets engine spins up, then release the pressure? I'm curious... It works like a magnetic "rail" gun. A slug/bullet is drawn down a rail with a magnetic charge on both sides, accelerating the slug to high speeds with no chemical/thermal reaction.  Now, imagine that the slug is the shuttle-cock (heh) that's attached to the launch gear in the aircraft's nosegear.  All you need is electricity (generated by this new class of boat) and the rail, not a large and cumbersome steam piston system.

OHHHH.. wow I'm an idiot. Totally forgot about the steam powered catapult on carriers.

No steam cats, huh?  I don't know, a shame in a way.  I was on Independence from 70 to 72.  To be on the flight deck early in the morning when all the cats were firing, steam whisping up when the shuttle came back, jets turning up, running hard into the wind.....  I hope my boys get to see it.

And there's just something about steam power that says, well, power.

I'm interested in the deletion of one of the elevators, down to three.

Always wondered what the first part of a carrier to be made was. It's amazing to walk inside one of those things, to imagine that when they got started, it was just two pieces being welded together.

Also, why the insistance of nuclear power for the carriers when all the nuclear escorts have been deleted?

NTM

Quoted: I'm interested in the deletion of one of the elevators, down to three. Always wondered what the first part of a carrier to be made was. It's amazing to walk inside one of those things, to imagine that when they got started, it was just two pieces being welded together. Also, why the insistance of nuclear power for the carriers when all the nuclear escorts have been deleted? NTM

mag cats need lots of electricity!

Quoted: Also, why the insistance of nuclear power for the carriers when all the nuclear escorts have been deleted? NTM

There are several advantages.
#1 Huge amounts of power for propulsion
#2 Don't have to carry fuel for the main engines, so most of the fuel onboard can be used for flight operations.
#3 While the powerplant is expensive for an escort over the life of the ship, for a carrier and the massive amounts of fuel required it makes more sense.

Quoted: Quoted: Also, why the insistance of nuclear power for the carriers when all the nuclear escorts have been deleted? NTM There are several advantages. #1 Huge amounts of power for propulsion #2 Don't have to carry fuel for the main engines, so most of the fuel onboard can be used for flight operations. #3 While the powerplant is expensive for an escort over the life of the ship, for a carrier and the massive amounts of fuel required it makes more sense.

The escorts need fuel roughly every 3 days.  

The carrier sprints back and forth up and down wind for flight ops.  This would consume fuel much faster - the escorts don't always shadow the carrier during these runs.

As dport said, all of the fuel can be used for flight ops.  A thirsty carrier can be fueled during flight ops (BTDT) but it is a PITA, increases vulnerability since maneuverablility is restricted, and brings another (highly flammable) ship into the danger zone during flight ops.

How many LM2500s would it take to power such a big ship?

Quoted: How many LM2500s would it take to power such a big ship?

SWAG to follow:
The KITTY HAWK generates 280,000SHP-I know she's conventional, but I couldn't find numbers for a nuke ship.  A DDG generates 100,000SHP with four GTMs online. So at least 12 would be needed, probably more due to the size of the shafts and props. Let's stick with 12. That's 12 Gas Turbine Main engines doing nothing but generating propulsion. You still would need Gas Turbine Generators. The NIMITZ class is capable of generating 8,000kW on each of its 8 steam generators, powered by the same reactors that produce propulsion power mind you. To match that capability you would need 26 GTGs. Granted all of them wouldn't be online at the same time, but they each burn about 250 gallons per hour. I can't remember how much a GTM burns, but IIRC it's more than a GTG when operating at full power.

Tagged for my Navy buddies at work

Quoted: Quoted: Will this be the "Bill Clinton" class of carrier? Its going to leave white stains in every port of call????

It's definitely going to spill seamen all over the pier.

Quoted: Quoted: How many LM2500s would it take to power such a big ship? SWAG to follow: The KITTY HAWK generates 280,000SHP-I know she's conventional, but I couldn't find numbers for a nuke ship.  A DDG generates 100,000SHP with four GTMs online. So at least 12 would be needed, probably more due to the size of the shafts and props. Let's stick with 12. That's 12 Gas Turbine Main engines doing nothing but generating propulsion. You still would need Gas Turbine Generators. The NIMITZ class is capable of generating 8,000kW on each of its 8 steam generators, powered by the same reactors that produce propulsion power mind you. To match that capability you would need 26 GTGs. Granted all of them wouldn't be online at the same time, but they each burn about 250 gallons per hour. I can't remember how much a GTM burns, but IIRC it's more than a GTG when operating at full power.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Arfcom is the most informative internet site on the planet.  Imagine trying to find this out the hard way.

Thanks,

Merlin

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Will this be the "Bill Clinton" class of carrier? Its going to leave white stains in every port of call???? It's definitely going to spill seamen all over the pier.

bump for night crew ...cuz carriers are cool.

So where are the sharks with the friggin lasers?

CW

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Theyre gonna be using B2s on aircraft carriers now? No CIWS? B2s? Those are X-45s. CIWS is actually "close in weapon system" and isn't really synonymous with the Mk15 Phalanx. It can be the RAM, the Goalkeeper, NSSMS, and in this case the ESSM. Them's Northrop Grumman X-47B's über attack UCAVS tinypic.com/adf62s.jpg http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/jucas/jucas.html

www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/jucas/jucas.html


Type
X-47B unmanned Strike, ISR, EA & SEAD aircraft

Power Plant
Pratt & Whitney F100-220

Maximum Altitude
40,000+ feet (12 km)

Combat Radius
1,000 nautical miles Strike

Payload
4,500 pounds (2,045 kg) Internal

Ferry Range
3,500 nautical miles

Speed
High Subsonic

Sensors
EO/IR/SAR/GMTI/ESM

Armament
Two 2,000 lbs. GBU-31 (JDAMs


Damn if it doesn't have some power.

Quoted: Quoted: No steam cats, huh?  I don't know, a shame in a way.  I was on Independence from 70 to 72.  To be on the flight deck early in the morning when all the cats were firing, steam whisping up when the shuttle came back, jets turning up, running hard into the wind.....  I hope my boys get to see it. And there's just something about steam power that says, well, power. EMALS is much more powerful yet kinder to the airframe and the pilots, smoooooooth accelleration instead of the kick in the pants.  The Royal Navy will be fitting the same gear to its two new carriers. www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/emals.htm Andy

Aw crap, that's all we need:  A kinder, gentler $8B warship!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Theyre gonna be using B2s on aircraft carriers now? No CIWS? B2s? Those are X-45s. CIWS is actually "close in weapon system" and isn't really synonymous with the Mk15 Phalanx. It can be the RAM, the Goalkeeper, NSSMS, and in this case the ESSM. Them's Northrop Grumman X-47B's über attack UCAVS tinypic.com/adf62s.jpg http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/jucas/jucas.html

Yeah, I got dinged on that on the first page. Interesting capabilities.

LWilde, do you know anything about the phased array radar on 78? From the pictures it looks to be 3 planes, which I find interesting. Will it have Aegis-like radar-weapons integration? Also, can you give us a history of planar arrays on carriers. I know it was tried before, but I forgot why it didn't work out.

Our Robots can kick your ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoted: I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Arfcom is the most informative internet site on the planet.  Imagine trying to find this out the hard way. Thanks, Merlin

Yes, very informative.

Quoted: It's definitely going to spill seamen all over the pier.

LWilde, do you know anything about the phased array radar on 78? From the pictures it looks to be 3 planes, which I find interesting. Will it have Aegis-like radar-weapons integration? Also, can you give us a history of planar arrays on carriers. I know it was tried before, but I forgot why it didn't work out.

IIRC, planar arays were installed on Enterprise and Long Beach in their original configuration. Reading Normal Polmar`s Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, it was reported that the systems were difflcult and expensive to maintain as they were basically experimental units. They were removed in the 80`s I believe to standardize the Enterprise with the rest of the cvns. IIRC, lessons learned from Enterprise and Long Beach were applied to the Aegis program. Again, I`m not a naval officer, but I like naval history. YMMV.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Theyre gonna be using B2s on aircraft carriers now? No CIWS? B2s? Those are X-45s. CIWS is actually "close in weapon system" and isn't really synonymous with the Mk15 Phalanx. It can be the RAM, the Goalkeeper, NSSMS, and in this case the ESSM. Them's Northrop Grumman X-47B's über attack UCAVS tinypic.com/adf62s.jpg http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/jucas/jucas.html Yeah, I got dinged on that on the first page. Interesting capabilities. LWilde, do you know anything about the phased array radar on 78? From the pictures it looks to be 3 planes, which I find interesting. Will it have Aegis-like radar-weapons integration? Also, can you give us a history of planar arrays on carriers. I know it was tried before, but I forgot why it didn't work out.

Not Lwilde and I will defer to his extensive knowledege.. but I'll take a crack at it anyways.
CVN-78 is going to get the same radar as DDX IIRC. SPY-3 is going to go on on CVN-77 GB if time tables allow it instead of the legacy systems...so my guess is it will have a good deal of AEGIS capability but geared more for open water and less littoral like DDX. It's essentially the Volume Search Radar and the Multi-Function Radar replacing all the other legacy stuff. SPY-3 is the MFR..I think? I believe it will handle ship self defense and will even assist in landing planes...Or I might be talking out of my ass!
Hopefully LWilde will show up and set the record staight.

bump for weekend crew

Quoted: Quoted: How many LM2500s would it take to power such a big ship? SWAG to follow: The KITTY HAWK generates 280,000SHP-I know she's conventional, but I couldn't find numbers for a nuke ship.  A DDG generates 100,000SHP with four GTMs online. So at least 12 would be needed, probably more due to the size of the shafts and props. Let's stick with 12. That's 12 Gas Turbine Main engines doing nothing but generating propulsion. You still would need Gas Turbine Generators. The NIMITZ class is capable of generating 8,000kW on each of its 8 steam generators, powered by the same reactors that produce propulsion power mind you. To match that capability you would need 26 GTGs. Granted all of them wouldn't be online at the same time, but they each burn about 250 gallons per hour. I can't remember how much a GTM burns, but IIRC it's more than a GTG when operating at full power.

The USS Nimitz (and I presume most of the class) main engines generate 100K shp each.  IIRC, the 8MW per SG is about right.

BTW, the steam generators are not segmented between propulsion, electrical power generation, water distilling plants, and catapults.  They all feed the main steam loop, and systems are brought on-line and off the main steam loop as required.  Engineers also have the capability to shut off steam to the cats from below, but that is used only as a damage control measure.

A large, uncontrolled main steam leak will affect the reactors, due to something called the negative temperature coefficient of reactivity.  So engineers must have the ability to isolate ANY portion of the main steam loop at will, or the consequences can be catastrophic.

Former USS Nimitz Propulsion Plant Watch Officer here.

Former Abe Lincoln CMO here.

Steam generators generate steam.

The **** kW generators referred to are steam driven electric generators.

I don't remember if the main engines output is classified or not.  I wouldn't be running my mouth so much though.

With all due respect, Sir.

I hate to bust your bubble, but...

This aint no Battlestar.. ( Battlestars aren't real yet..)

1) It doesn't go into space. If it did, the enemy would crap in their pants.

2) Its kind of small. Its only the size of the Galatica's launch bay(pod)..

3) Its quite a bit slower than a Battlestar.

4) It will be retired(20 years depending on the Dem in charged) alot faster than a Battlestar.( Original BSG series the Galactica was was over twohundred years old.)

All kidding aside. Its the only military toy we have.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm more interested in this "electro magnetic" launch system they are using... Does it adjust how much its drawing the plane towards the magnets as the jets engine spins up, then release the pressure? I'm curious... It works like a magnetic "rail"coil gun. A slug/bullet is drawn down a rail with a magnetic charge on both sides, accelerating the slug to high speeds with no chemical/thermal reaction.  Now, imagine that the slug is the shuttle-cock (heh) that's attached to the launch gear in the aircraft's nosegear.  All you need is electricity (generated by this new class of boat) and the rail, not a large and cumbersome steam piston system.

My nitpick of the day, hehe. Railguns work on inductance, whereas a coilgun works using a magnetic pulse(or pulses)

www.railgun.org

-Storm

Quoted: The USS Nimitz (and I presume most of the class) main engines generate 100K shp each.  IIRC, the 8MW per SG is about right.

Great so instead of 12 GTMs you would need 16, at the very least.

BTW, the steam generators are not segmented between propulsion, electrical power generation, water distilling plants, and catapults.  They all feed the main steam loop, and systems are brought on-line and off the main steam loop as required.  Engineers also have the capability to shut off steam to the cats from below, but that is used only as a damage control measure.

As I noted, you would need more gas turbines, GTGs, to pick up the slack, when the tea kettles on the CVNs do it all. And if you're going with a rail gun type catapult then you'd need even more GTGs at 250gph!

A large, uncontrolled main steam leak will affect the reactors, due to something called the negative temperature coefficient of reactivity.  So engineers must have the ability to isolate ANY portion of the main steam loop at will, or the consequences can be catastrophic. Former USS Nimitz Propulsion Plant Watch Officer here.

Thanks for your prospective. Open sources I've found don't go into too much detail. Personally, I try to stay away from the bird farms.

Quoted: Former Abe Lincoln CMO here. Steam generators generate steam. The **** kW generators referred to are steam driven electric generators. I don't remember if the main engines output is classified or not.  I wouldn't be running my mouth so much though. With all due respect, Sir.

I don't know if you're talking to me or SWO_Daddy. However, I pulled all my information from www.fas.org.

X-45/47's
Superbugs
EM launch, ect.

and still the old E-2 Hawkeye, maybe its an E or F model.