US US Navy tests aircraft carrier with huge explosion - A US navy aircraft carrier has undergone its first "shock trial," after being subjected to a detonation of 20 metric tons of explosives that registered as a 3.9 magnitude earthquake

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The USS Gerald R. Ford was subjected to a shock trial on Friday to test whether it was ready to be deployed. The aircraft carrier has a $13 billion price tag.
A US navy aircraft carrier has undergone its first "shock trial," after being subjected to a detonation of 20 metric tons of explosives that registered as a 3.9 magnitude earthquake.
The US Navy was trying to find out if the USS Gerald R. Ford, which cost $13 billion (€11 billion) to build, could withstand combat conditions and is ready to go to war.
The Navy announced the test in a statement , also releasing video footage of the blast on Sunday, two days after trials took place in the Atlantic Ocean.
It showed water shoot from the ocean in what US media described as a 40,000-pound (18,144-kilogram) explosion.

The explosives were detonated just a few meters away from the USS Gerald R. Ford, one of the largest and newest aircraft carriers in the world, off the coast of Florida.

The United States Geological Survey recorded the explosion as a 3.9 magnitude earthquake on Friday.

The testing was carried out underwater, with a Navy ship being above water; the last such test carried out by the US Navy took place in 2016.

"The US Navy conducts shock trials of new ship designs using live explosives to confirm that our warships can continue to meet demanding mission requirements under harsh conditions they might encounter in battle," the Navy said in its statement. "The first-in-class aircraft carrier was designed using advanced computer modeling methods, testing, and analysis to ensure the ship is hardened to withstand battle conditions, and these shock trials provide data used in validating the shock hardness of the ship."

Upon completion of the explosive tests, the ship will face "six months of modernization, maintenance, and repairs" before being deployed for operations, the Navy added.

Links:
Article
Military post
Twitter 1, 2, 3



 
Click to expand...
🦴 instead of informative. The announcer skipped over 5 in her countdown, so we know just how good at math they are.
 
I was lowkey hoping it caused some sort of major issue, just because watching the USN shit itself over yet another problem with it's overpriced meme carrier would be glorious tbh.

Drag-on Knight 91873 said:
The announcer skipped over 5 in her countdown, so we know just how good at math they are.
Click to expand...
If you notice she still left the appropriate gap for five. I wonder if it's a deliberate thing to avoid a misunderstanding given five and fire sound similar.
 
Can we please stop spending ludicrous amounts of money on ships. We're going to have WW1 navies all over again where the British and Germans were paranoid about even possibly lettings their navies get scratched.
 
Corpun said:
Can we please stop spending ludicrous amounts of money on ships. We're going to have WW1 navies all over again where the British and Germans were paranoid about even possibly lettings their navies get scratched.
Click to expand...
No.

We aren't spending nearly ludicrous enough amounts of money on warships.
 
Useful_Mistake said:
It survived though. In need of some repairs if I understood correctly, but it tanked that explosion like a pro.
Click to expand...
And hilariously, modernization, despite the fact she's the most modern carrier in the world. Oh wait, she was assembled practically piecemeal in so-called iterative development, meaning she's full of slapped-together components based on whatever the Navy felt like installing based on budget and/or what the brass divined as necessary for its mission from their post-lunch shits. Its literally the "Lol we'll patch it later" mindset of video game developers, just applied to a warship that costs more than the entire net worth of several countries combined.

Thanks, Obama!
 
My gut feeling tells me this Aircraft carrier is probably no more secure against a low yielded ultra-sonic nuclear missile than any other.
 
Menotaur said:
My gut feeling tells me this Aircraft carrier is probably no more secure against a low yielded ultra-sonic nuclear missile than any other.
Click to expand...
Operation Crossroads proved that large warships are kinda hard to sink with a nuke unless it's pretty much a direct hit

Wouldn't matter though the whole crew would die of radiation leaving the ship a derelict drifting on the seas
 
draggs said:
Operation Crossroads proved that large warships are kinda hard to sink with a nuke unless it's pretty much a direct hit

Wouldn't matter though the whole crew would die of radiation leaving the ship a derelict drifting on the seas
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm gonna take a study from the 40's with a grain of salt given they knew kind shit about making large weapons at that point. There are almost no weapons today in a nuclear arsenal that aren't 100 times bigger than those.

My physics tells me a 100 kiloton warhead anywhere near anything is going to wipe it out.
 
Menotaur said:
Yeah I'm gonna take a study from the 40's with a grain of salt given they knew kind shit about making large weapons at that point. There are almost no weapons today in a nuclear arsenal that aren't 100 times bigger than those.

My physics tells me a 100 kiloton warhead anywhere near anything is going to wipe it out.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads
Yeah, no. If a 23 kiloton underwater detonation couldn't break a warship in two, you're not blowing up a carrier unless you feel like using saturation attacks to get past its screens, at which point you're better off just using conventional warheads. That is of course assuming you're stupid enough to nuke the United States of America, and judging by your avatar you're a fan of Dr. Strangelove so you should know how unimaginably dumb that is. Unless of course you think we were stupid enough to discard all of our nukes after the Cold War ended, in which case you're even dumber than someone who would think the President wouldn't be giving the go codes for the total nuclear annihilation of whoever did that.
 
Snekposter said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads
Yeah, no. If a 23 kiloton underwater detonation couldn't break a warship in two, you're not blowing up a carrier unless you feel like using saturation attacks to get past its screens, at which point you're better off just using conventional warheads. That is of course assuming you're stupid enough to nuke the United States of America, and judging by your avatar you're a fan of Dr. Strangelove so you should know how unimaginably dumb that is. Unless of course you think we were stupid enough to discard all of our nukes after the Cold War ended, in which case you're even dumber than someone who would think the President wouldn't be giving the go codes for the total nuclear annihilation of whoever did that.
Click to expand...
Your information is incorrect. a 23 Kiloton weapon detonated within quarter a mile will most certainly destroy a ship and if it is within a distance of half a mile disable it. Remember that video just released shows a 20 ton TNT bomb, we are talking about a 23,000 Ton bomb at 23 KT.

You should listen to the absurdity of your proposition that an aircraft carrier should be worried about a torpedo, but not a nuclear detonation. It should have guns on its top section to protect itself from cruise missiles but be unconcerned with an air blast of a nuclear weapon.

The detonations were done in the tests at particular distances and were not that close as you may think. They just weren't because there was no point doing them so close as to be enveloped by the fireball or gas bubble as the results would have been obvious. The test was done to see the effects on a flotilla, not a single vessel.

The purpose of concussion blasts is not to destroy ships (submarines, surface vessels) but to disable them. Now if a 100 Kiloton blast happens within half a mile of an aircraft carrier an air blast some of the effects will be:

A. Entire con tower obliterated and it will resemble an abstract sculpture as it enjoys nearly 2 seconds of millions degrees heat before the shockwave arrives.
B. Deck super-heated to the point where expansion will blow joints apart.
C. Saturation of radiation and absorption of the entire ship with most crew dead from concussion and latter radiation.
D. The Ship will remain radioactive for longer that KF will exist.
E. Distortion and snapping of bulkheads.
F. The ship will be rendered entirely useless permanently and beyond repair.

As an underwater explosion it will be even worse at half a mile. Any 100 Kiloton weapon within half a mile and this conversation is moot - the ship will literally be hit with millions of tons of pressure as the water will act as an extension of the shockwave and it will bow the ship like a twig and it will be even worse as the gas bubble contracts and the ship will with gravity literally fall on itself with force and be snapped. Radiation will not be a problem, but the ship will be utterly destroyed. The gas bubble will instantly displace 40 billion tons of water and send this out at hypersonic speed. There will be refraction effects if the water is shallow. there will be refraction in any event. If the explosion is deep and below the boat one will literally get to watch the aircraft carrier jump up in the air. If it is at a 45 degree angle the ship will be jolted instantly almost 50-100 yards in the blink of an eye and it's own internal forces will wreck it. Most of the crew will be putty.

Once we start at megaton levels - i,e, 1 Megaton as an airburst or underwater detonation the distances for severe damage increase dramatically.

The only place where in theory a nuclear exchange could happen is in a naval capacity as it would involve only military personnel and not involve the radiation or death of civilians or land soiling, so it must be considered as possible because in theory it is the only theater in which a nuclear exchange is possible without an all-out nuclear war following.

This is why there is tension with the Sth China sea on these exercises as in theory a confrontation is possible without an all-out war following. Of all the scenarios of serious conflict, the one that concerns the Generals the most is in the naval theater as both sides would be willing to lose a few dozen ships and some generally expendable naval forces to make a point. A nuclear attack on a ship would not warrant a nuclear war to follow. It would however warrant a naval battle.
 
I don't get the need for the Ford class. The only real threat to the US in a naval capacity is what, the chinese? Hell, just recomission the museum ships like the Essex class would be enough to deal with the chinks and their oversized canoes. Everyone else with a sizable fleet is an ally.

Sure, the Nimitz and her sisters is reaching the end of their expected service life, but replace the reactors along with a refit must be enough, not to mention alot cheaper.

But that is just my amateur armchair analysis of it and I might be wrong. Maybe Britannia decides to rule the waves again in the near future and will come for it's old colonies.

Still, I do like that we are getting another Enterprise.
 
Drifting Panzer said:
I don't get the need for the Ford class. The only real threat to the US in a naval capacity is what, the chinese? Hell, just recomission the museum ships like the Essex class would be enough to deal with the chinks and their oversized canoes. Everyone else with a sizable fleet is an ally.

Sure, the Nimitz and her sisters is reaching the end of their expected service life, but replace the reactors along with a refit must be enough, not to mention alot cheaper.

But that is just my amateur armchair analysis of it and I might be wrong. Maybe Britannia decides to rule the waves again in the near future and will come for it's old colonies.

Still, I do like that we are getting another Enterprise.
Click to expand...

Ships wear out. I don't mean they get outdated or little things need fixing, I mean the whole structure wears out. Sea states become violent enough that hulls will crack. The hull of a ship that transits the sea that often becomes thinner by dint of being scrubbed by sea water constantly. Components designed to fit inside the hull that are technically replaceable often are not made any more, or the ship itself has changed shape enough that they don't fit any longer.

As far as dealing with the Chinese, this isn't about parity, it's about overwhelming advantage. Yes, the Chinese only have one barely functional and one building carrier right now. We (as a nation) aren't interested in playing fair, we're interested in showing up with 7 carrier battle groups and putting those chicom rust buckets on the bottom of the ocean if push comes to shove. And as shown during Korea and Vietnam, there's plenty of things carriers can do even if there are no enemy carriers (or even ships of any appreciable capability) to deal with. The "admin" utility of carriers cannot be denied. Thailand doesn't operate the AV8S Harrier any more, her compliment of 24 is long sold off, but they keep their carrier in service. There's a reason superpowers want carriers again, and it's not just as a dick-waving contest. They've seen the admin projection ability of the US, and want something similar. They're airbases, hospitals, personnel and cargo transports if need be, the list goes on and on.

Regarding the patchwork construction of the Ford class, when it comes to naval engineering, right now, in the 21st century, the worst we build is still better than the best anyone else builds. The Kuznetzov is one of the most awful ships afloat, I mean it's notional WW1 design bad. The Russians have never, ever understood naval engineering; they're NOT a naval power, it's trial and error for them, just a case of "Well, if we put enough ships to sea some of them will stay afloat, right?" Go look at the arm-length list of naval disasters they've had since around 1950, up until today. I mean bona-fide disasters, not just operational shit that can happen to anyone. And that punitive duty rustbucket they keep around so they can tell themselves they have a carrier while they cry and drink vodka nearly sank while at the dock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom