With more than 20,000 attendees, President John F. Kennedy’s daughter Caroline Bouvier Kennedy officially christened the new carrier John F. Kennedy.

“I’m so proud to be the sponsor of this ship and bring her to life,” said Kennedy.

“The CVN 79 crew is fortunate to have such distinguished leaders, this is your day, and our chance to say thank you.”

Kennedy reflected on the first ship to bear her father’s name and how the second Ford-class aircraft carrier will continue to represent her father proudly.


“Having a chance to get to know the people who served on the USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67), really gave me insight into who he was, and what kind of leader he was in a way that I wouldn’t have had any other way. And, I know that’s going to be just as true now with a whole new generation,” said Kennedy.

The John F. Kennedy is the second Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier being built for the United States Navy. The ship is under construction and planned to be commissioned in 2022.

On the 1st of October 2019, the ship’s crew was activated for the first time as Pre-Commissioning Unit John F. Kennedy at a ceremony aboard the vessel at Newport News Shipbuilding.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

65 COMMENTS

  1. I know that we are having to rebuild a capability almost from scratch whereas the USA is well-versed in this game so it’s not really comparable but, out of interest, what sort of timelines do the US carriers work to in terms of builder’s trials, commissioning, operational work-up etc?

  2. Given that this is the 2nd ship to be named after JKF, one can only assume that the USA has/ is running out of former Presidents deemed worthy enough to have a ship named after them.

    • Is there a ship already named after John McCain? I’m sure Obama and Clinton will get one named after them eventually. I can’t see Trump ever making the list unless he insists on it during his own presidency.

      • DDG56 (Arleigh Burke) named after his father & grandfather. Can’t have one named after a POW, after all, which will make the future USS Trump an interesting choice. It will probably take advantage of stealth technology so it’s invisible.

      • I dont think anybody would want to ever serve on a ship named obama or clinton. Obama was anti military and clinton did most of his work under the desk.

      • Obama, Clinton, and Trump are all unlikely to get Carriers named for them as they never served in the military. The only exceptions to that rule have been Carl Vinson and John C. Stennis. Vinson was the author of naval expansion on the eve of WWII and Stennis was the man who rammed the nuclear Navy through the Senate as chair of Armed Services.

    • The next carrier (CVN-80) is Enterprise, so hopefully the US Navy will return to classic battle names like Yorktown, Saratoga, Lexington, etc. after that.

    • Hardly.

      James Madison
      Andrew Jackson
      Wm Henry Harrison
      Zachary Taylor
      Franklin Pierce
      Ulysses S Grant
      James A Garfield
      Wm McKinley

  3. Apologies but an off topic question for aviation types.

    When operating on land, would the Osprey take off vertically or in a short run then lift, and with the rotors at the forward angle?

    I assume this enables more take off weight?

    And is this the standard take off procedure? I have looked on YouTube and seen both.

    • I’m pretty sure the rotars can operate at 45 degrees at least to taxi along a run way. I don’t think they can rotate horizontally or the propellers would touch the run way.

      • Hi BB.

        Yes. I saw that on YouTube, at the 45 degree angle and lift after a short run.

        Is this a standard take off, that is my question.

      • When operating in Bastion it was standard for them to do the short hop before going airborne with the rotors angled forwards. Once in the air they are quite smooth, especially when compared to a Wokka. The main advantage though is speed. It would take about an hour to get from Bastion to Kajacki by Wokka, with the V22 it would be about 20ish minutes. However, when taking off or landing vertically the amount of down-wash generated is huge and guarantees a brown out more so than a Wokka!

    • My observations only: On landing at the local airport here they use a very short run to land, and the same to lift off. It’s more like a helicopter style arrival and departure. The noise is awful as they have no sound suppression like civilian aircraft and also as they usually arrive in threes, landing and taking off very tightly. Additionally, when watching them you can see the perspective of how massive the rotors are compared to the wing and fuselage. It’s an impressive and noisy sight. I understand they are expensive to purchase and maintain.

          • If we’re playing the mind game of trying to fit stuff within a Ford Class cost rather than within the MoD budgets then how much would be left over from your setup for V-22 Osprey with AAR and AEW kits I wonder. Adding that to the mix would go some way to closing the capability gap in terms of AEW surveillance range (altitude) and F-35B combat radius from the carrier vs what a Ford can do.

          • I think you could possibly just about fit/squeeze all the RAF’s Typhoon Euro Fighters front line jets into one ford class carrier….

          • I’m not sure we are trying to compete. Sure yes we want the carrier to be as capable as possible I’m just not positive the extra bells and whistles are worth the candle.

          • You forget that one Ford-class can carry up to 90 aircraft of all types (not just SVTOL and helicopters) and have unlimited range. Nuclear is great, it’s just pricey. You get what you pay for.

          • QE is what.. 50 – 60 aircraft of all types and while ford doesnt need fuel… Its aircraft and escorts do.

            The ford itself still needs replenishmentc at sea.

            The ford task group still needs replenishment at sea.

            Add osprey to QE and some form of air to air refuuling and the concept becomes a compelling argument for the taxpayer

            Would have to sit down and work out purchase costs of QE and an oiler plus running costs of QE and an oiler and match that to the Ford and i suspect the QE concept would still come out at half $ over a 20 year period. (i think new Tide was @$0.5billion all up build and fitted out)

            Put another way… Compare geographical coverage and redundancy from 20 x QE packages to 10 x fords.

            Fords are great… But there is some argument for the QE concept.

          • The QE is limited to helicopters and STVOL aircraft only. And yes, though the Ford needs replenishment at sea, it does not need to spend extended time in port refueling, meaning it can be out at see cruising around the globe for up to 25 years doing what it needs to, while related ships and replenishment can come to it. It’s about readiness, and clearly 90+ aircraft on a ship with unlimited range is appealing enough to a Navy that has owned 13 of them in the last 60 years.

          • Cats and traps could be added to QE and bump the price up £1bn. Maybe less if it was built that way from day 1. Overall I think you couldyl get 3 fully loaded QE class plus tabkers for the price of 1 Ford class. That’s 3 seperate targets, and flexibility to have 2 at sea while 1 is in refit.

          • How long can two QEs be at sea for before they have to return to port and refuel? Nuclear carriers can be out at sea indefinitely with munitions, supplies, fuels and personnel brought to them. If you want to be a legitimate global superpower, you need to be able to be anywhere around the globe, for as long as-is necessary. The QE’s are cheaper, but their conventional fuel is a restraint.

          • I am actually scratching my head at this response. Part of the recent trials with QNLZ has been replenishment at sea, including refuelling. So technically, conventionally powered ships can stay at sea as long as any nuclear powered ships. Or has it slipped your mind that all the escorting vessels for the nuclear powered carriers (with the exception of the SSNs) are all conventionally powered and are refuelled at sea as well?

            As someone else has said, the limiting factor is the Human factor. Then there is also maintenance that can only be done at port. Like it or not, all things mechanical eventually breakdown and will need repairs. Some maintenance can be put off, but eventually it will need to be taken care of in port.

          • This is really fantasy fleet because it is the US that has the greatest capability with the nuclear strike carriers. Besides, the US also have the USS America just arrived in its new homeport in Japan and the brand new USS Tripoli which will be homeported in San Diego plus the other amphibious ships for F35B operations.

          • People are the limiting factor, not fuel. Sure, you can feed them at sea, but after 9 months of that they’ll all be going clinical, especially on the very crowded US carriers. Nimitz class has 180 man mess decks and the showers/heads are not even adjoining! And these are triple stacked like submarine racks, so you can’t even sit up in your berth and can barely roll over. Ford has a slight improvement: 40 man berths, but still in triples. Would you want to? Imagind trying to get any sleep at all, off watch. QE has 8 berth cabins all limited to doubles so there is comfortable sitting headroom in each, and all close by their showers/heads, and none disturbed by the foot traffic of other watches coming and going.

            There are many reasons why the suicide rate in the USN is going up: in-service cultural problems, command attitudes, lack of career prospects, long deployments with no relief… and basic standards of accomodation have got to be a factor in the quality of life of the average enlisted sailor.

          • The accommodations on US Navy ships have only improved in the last 50 years, and the recent spike in sailor suicides is a recent phenomenon. There are many factors as to why that is, most of them are young: 18-22 years old, so it could simply be a generational difference in terms of what kids today can handle.

          • Does anyone know why the man power requirement is so much higher on the Ford’s? The QE is 1,600 at full capacity but the Ford’s will be 2,600. That cannot be to support an additional 40 aircraft.

          • The higher crew compliment for the Nimitz and Ford-class carriers is absolutely because of the additional aircraft. It’s not just 90 planes, but 90 planes worth of pilots, co-pilots, mechanics, handlers, weapons specialists and all of the support staff needed to feed and serve their needs.

          • CATOBAR is inherently more manpower intensive as a mode of operation than STOVL. You basically need a lot more people to do a lot more jobs that don’t exist on a STOVL carrier, like manage and operate the arrestor gear both on deck and its machinery below deck. Same for the catapults. Then you need more people to get an aircraft hooked on to the cats (on STOVL, you just drive up to the start line). You need people to get a plane unhooked from the arrestor wires, and you need qualified engineers standing by on deck to inspect the cats and wires in between launches to check for signs of material fatigue. A STOVL carrier needs none of this. And that’s before you increase the number of aircraft onboard which, in itself, increases the manpower needed.

          • The United States has been fielding aircraft carriers with a 90+ aircraft capacity for nearly 60 years, if it wasn’t working? I’m sure they would have gone a different path 13 supercarriers ago.

          • Did I say it wasn’t working?

            I know exactly what I said. It’s up there, on the screen, above this comment.

          • But carriers get fuel out at sea from a replenishment ship along with other essentials so no hassle geting running fuel and jet fuel at the same time.

          • And the Ford can’t handle STOVL as it’s deck isn’t thermally insulated like a QE. So if either the cat or trap fails the Ford can only launch helicopters.
            The QE has more redundancy when it comes to launching and recovering its jets. Even if the ramp was damaged the F35Bs could still launch, just with reduced payload.

          • The carriers use the F-35C, so they have no need to handle the -B model. Besides, they have 10 “amphibious assault ships” that can handle them if need be.

          • Exactly. Which means if EMALS fails (yet again) or is taken out out by the enemy all its aircraft are grounded.
            The QE doesn’t have that vulnerability.

          • The EMALS will eventually be worked out and up to full speed, as is any brand new system that has never been used before. Yes, a ski jump will never break down, but the trade off is a limitation in what kinds of aircraft you can deploy and how heavy they can be. The QE suits the UK perfectly, but let’s not mince words here – it is not cat-trap or nuclear purely to save money. They would be both if the UK had the funds to spend.

          • Hopefully the EMALS will be worked out, though not all technological innovations prove to be practicable.
            Not having a cat and traps does limit the aircraft that can be used currently. But the number of aircraft that can be cat launched is also limited due to the strengthening required to withstand launch acceleration and the increased stresses.
            With more tilt-rotor aircraft being developed and the growth in drones which are lighter, I believe there will be lots of options available to enhance the air capabilities of the QE class.
            Nuclear power simply eliminates the need for tankers, carriers still need supplying with stores and munitions, so it’s a moot saving. Being nuclear powered would also see a ship banned from various nations waters and ports. The only vessels nuclear makes sense for is submarines.

          • Well I suppose it also depends on when we are due to run out of fossil fuel. Nuclear doesn’t require fossil fuel to generate power/electricity, however the aircraft do. I don’t see any viable alternative to fossil fuels as a fuel source for military aircraft. So in 50 years or so I guess we’re screwed and the old adage of FFBNW aircraft on the carriers will be true – lol.

          • We’ll be fine for fossil fuels for the military. Long before then all non-military vehicles; cars, buses, trains, etc will be 100% electric. Nor will fossil fuels be used for generating electricity etc. Which leaves the remaining fossil fuels, of which there is still decades worth, for prioritisation for the military.

            The successors to the QE class will need a different power system, fingers crossed we may have fusion reactors by then. The successor to the F35Bs would probably be battery powered, assuming battery advances, but they won’t be piloted by humans so that will save weight.

    • Any cost comparison needs to consider that £1+Bn must be deducted from the QE costs because a decision was made to slow production and a further £100m was wasted on the abortive cats and traps proposal in 2010. So actual cost of a single QE is in the region of £2.5Bn.
      Whilst you must factor into the cost of a nuclear powered carrier at least $1.5Bn to decommission the ship. You can therefore get 4 QE class ships for 1 Ford class vessel.
      So the US face a bill of $1.5Bn every five years as they scrap the Nimitz class ships before they buy any replacement ship. That is not sustainable even for them.

      • You seem to be quite the expert as to what is sustainable for the United States military. If you did any research on fiscal budgets, procurement strategies and the Department of the Navy as a whole, you would know that the cost to decommission retired nuclear vessels is always considered when planning out the purchase of new ones. That is why lately, the US Navy has ordered multiple new carriers at one time, to get a package deal that can be spread out more evenly over numerous fiscal years.

        • How can the cost of decommissioning be factored into the cost of construction with any degree of accuracy when they havent undertaken the first. Unfortunately the cost always goes up so is likely to be $2bn+. Let’s see if they can afford to replace the Nimitz class 1 for 1 with the Ford class because I doubt it even with batch ordering as you quite rightly pointed out. 10 is also still not quite enough to meet USN taskings whilst a political change will happen at some time which may well scupper later orders. The USN are obviously aware of all this and hence quite rightly they are trying to spread the load on others. This is where the QE class are a real help and why I would not be surprised with more America class vessels being ordered or a non nuclear large flat top being proposed. This could incorporate some of the QE class innovations such as automated weapons handling to reduce manning requirements. Anyway we will see. All the best

          • Why can the US afford to replace Carriers 1 for 1 because of the size of the economy for one and the industrial base for the second.
            No non nuclear flat-tops will be ordered. The USN has to deal with the Pacific and any reduction in need for tankers outweighs the cost of more expensive power plants.

          • the first Nimitz class carrier (USS Nimitz CVN-68) costs about 5 billion…succeeding carriers were a bargain at about 2.5 to 3 billion each because of commonality of design..Washington, Vinson, Lincoln, IKE, Truman, Roosevelt. did i miss any?

          • The U.S. Budget deficit is over $900bn for 2019 and is on an upward trajectory, and as with other gold plated projects including Zumalt Seawolf and the F22 there is a limit. It will be interesting to see what happens in a few years time when further orders are due.

          • Yes sjb1968, the US military is doomed. It’s amazing they afford anything and clearly no one there knows what they are doing. We are so far superior to them and our budget and procurement processes make theirs look like childsplay. Good on us for being smarter, better and just all around more effective. I don’t know how the US military hasn’t just collapsed completely by now. What terrible bloody amateurs they are.

  5. Having just read a report on the problems plaguing the Ford, I’m glad we did not go down the same route of EMALS and AAG.

    Congress have tasked the DoD to investigate the feasibility of installing steam catapults and the traditional MK7 hydraulic arrestor system. On top of that there are major design flaws in how the EMALS is powered. For instance in one catapult fails you can’t work on it whilst the other three are still being used as they are hardwired in to the power system i.e. no switches to isolate individual catapults. On a recent test on land, the EMALS ripped off the nose undercarriage, even though it was set to the weight of the F18. The system is doing is failing once every 400 launches where it should be over 4000.

    The Advanced Arrestor Gear initial development was planned for $172 million, by 2009 it was $364 million, it’s now approach $1.3 billion. I don’t know how the US Navy can justify ploughing money in to a system and design that clearly does not work. Especially when currently even after years of modification fails after 25 landings?

  6. This entire discussion is literally permeated by angry naysayers who simultaneously criticize the yanks and make excuses for our RN. It’s really kind of sad to read. I’m happy for the USN, good luck to them.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here