Talk:Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier/Archive 2

Picture
Hey all, I added a actual picture of the aircraft carrier (I should know, I am on it), and I just wanted to say this is a decent job, even if it does have some inaccuracies. Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Features
In the Features section, there is a list of new features. One of them is "The ability to launch the F-35C Lightning II." The source cited does not list this as a new feature of the carrier, and lumps the F-35 with the F/A-18 E/F and the EA-18, both of which are already on the Nimitz class (and were on the Kitty Hawk too). The F-35 is designed to launch from existing aircraft carriers. It would be inane to have an initial ship trails date of 2013 for an a/c that would only launch from a carrier class that will first be commissioned in 2015, assuming no delays. Since the Ford will replace the Nimitz on a one-for-one attrition, and it's expected to stay afloat until the 2040s if not longer, that would mean that the Nimitz would be unable to carry the main fighter/bomber a/c for around 30 years. Suggest removing this "new feature". 130.76.96.157 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.157 (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, 130.76.96.157. I had this discssion in my talk awhile ago with another editor. The F-35C (when it becomes available in 2014) cannot launch off of a Nimitz carrier, period. *Maybe* the F-35B, but certainly not the F-35C, as the steam catapult system simply cannot generate enough energy. Also, the souce cited lists it on the first page as a feature. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We would need a reliable source (presented here) for the claim that the C can't be launched from the Nimitz class. Definitely seems counter-intuitive, as the IP has pointed out, especially since the USMC is to operate operate Cs from carriers, not Bs. - BilCat (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the item, as the given source for that item makes no claims to the F-35C being unique to the Ford class. - BilCat (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So... where does it say under Features "features unique and not found on Nimitz class carriers?" And, for that matter: I've cited that the F-35C will launch off the Fords. How about a citation that the F-35C will launch off of Nimitz class? Because I haven't seen an official one yet. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Carriers of the Ford class will incorporate fourteen new design features including." You've made a claim that the Nimit class can't launch F-35Cs for a specific reason. Please cite that claim to reliable sources. Btw, the F-35C is scheduled to begin carrier trials in 2013, so it will either be from the Enterprise right before she retires, or a Nimitz. - BilCat (talk) 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is a new feature... surely you're not claiming that the Nimitz class were designed specifically to launch the F-35C?
 * Also, you're asking me to prove a negative. Under wp:burden I've already shown a reliable source that states the F-35C can launch off of a Ford class carrier. If you are unwilling to find a source saying it can launch off of a Nimitz class one, it's new. I did a few cursory Google searches and cannot find any source stating that it can launch off of a Nimitz. Your own source states that it's undergoing steam trials as of last week. So at this point, it *cannot* launch off of a Nimitz carrier. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * - BilCat (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mark, you have made a very specific claim above: "The F-35C (when it becomes available in 2014) cannot launch off of a Nimitz carrier, period. *Maybe* the F-35B, but certainly not the F-35C, as the steam catapult system simply cannot generate enough energy." Do you have a reliable source for that claim or not? - BilCat (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes I do (again) : The total lack of evidence to the contrary. There is *nothing* on the F-35 page, the Nimitz page, nor anything I found in a routine 5-minute Google search. You are dealing in original research. Put up a citation that they can fly off a Nimitz, per burden. I've cited my source, where's yours? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So, no, you don't have a specific source that states that "the steam catapult system simply cannot generate enough energy." Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the F-35C is currently being successfully launched by steam catapults at Pax River, I think saying that it can't be launched from Nimitz-class carriers on account of their catapults smells fishy at best. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome Bilcat, I'm always happy to oblige. You may want to also note that you can't fly the B-2 off of a Nimitz carrier either. Yes, that's sarcasm. However, as you're unable to put up a citation, here's one to back my point that while not authortiative, is at least in existance. Unlike... your arguement. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mark, I assume you meant this statement: "Emals will deliver energy more flexibly than Nimitz-class steam catapults. The F-35C Joint Strike Fighter demands more launch energy than the F/A-18E/F, and Emals will allow the Ford to launch the JSF at maximum weight with less wind-over-deck." That does not say that steam catapults can't launch F-35Cs at all, just that they can't launch them at maximum weight. That just means the Nimitzs would launch the F-35Cs with at less than maximum weight without more wind-over-deck. That's not the same as not launching them at all. - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, this provides some insight; see the quoted articles in the second post there, especially For example, the CV variant [of F-35] is designed to withstand the tow loads imposed by the C-13 Mod I and Mod 2 catapults [which are used on the Nimitz class] . It's also worth pointing out that the F-14 Tomcat was heavier than Dave-C. EMALS is only mentioned explicitly in the press as being able becasue it's a New Thing and was doubted as being as good as steam. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Bilcat: It's the best I could do to prove a negative. It must suffice since there is as yet no reliable source stating that an F-35C can launch off of a Nimitz. Don't you think it a little odd that the Navy hasn't said it will? Do we know that the newer (Lincoln(?) through Reagan) Nimitz carriers aren't going to get the new Emals catapult system the next time they're overhauled? Or that their current catapult systems will get some other upgrade to be able to lauch the F-35C? Or will they be forced to only use F-35B's off the Nimitz class? Or only be able to launch under certain conditions? That's a lot of questions, and I feel it is very premature to say this documented feature should be removed from the article. Clearly the Nimitz class was not designed to launch the F-35C, so it is a new design feature in any event. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an older source (Feb 2002), but it does clearly state on page 2, under "USN OPERATIONAL NEEDS", that "

"The CV variant will be designed for compatibility with NIMITZ-class aircraft carriers (CVN-68 through -77). The evolution of the USN's Next Generation Aircraft Carrier (CVNX) program will be integrated closely with that of JSF to maximize compatibility between the weapon systems." (bolding mine)

If that had changed between now and then, it would surely be noteworthey that the F-35C could not be launched, period, from the the USN's 10 Nimitz class carriers. It would be far bigger news than the F-35 engine not fitting in the C-2 without first being dismantled! I found plenty of stories on that issue today, and I suspect you did too. :)

Futher, this story about the USMC usng the F-35C for carrier-based squadrons has no mention of a carrier-incompatibility problem witht he Nimitz class, making no mention of carrier classes at all, leaving the reader to assume that the USN intends to operate the F-35C from all of its CVN carriers. Note that the article does make mention of the F-35B being intended for USMC squadrons, both land-based and for the amphibous (LHA/LHD) ships. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it's odd that we can't find any specific mention of the Nimitz being able to "launch" F-35Cs. I do find the lack of stories to the contrary quite odd, however. It that sense, it's not proving a negative at all. The media would be all ove this issue, were it true. It's just not. - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Markvs, the Nimitz class wasn't designed to launch the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, either. Should we add that to the Ford article? And you're starting to sound like you're saying "I didn't hear that" - please read the links I provided in my post before your last. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bushranger: Actually, it already is under the "Aircraft" section, but I get your meaning. Here's the question back at you: have you read wp:burden? You're both *for* the removal of a cited point without a source to back it up. Also, please note that on Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier, there are citations for the F/A-18. Just like there is in the Ford article... and as the Nimitz article lacks for the F-35C. (PS: I did look at the links you provided above, but was unaware we now accept forums and blogs as valid sources. But despite that, I'll play along: none of them show an F-35C *landing on a Nimitz*. It's still in trials.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that dtic.mil was a forum or blog. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * BilCat: I see "will be designed for compatibility", not "is compatible". You might as well source this for the Space Shuttle taking off every week. As for the "U.S. Navy Details JSF Buy", that's your assumption. Watch this... "I take this article to mean that the US, since it needs to save money on defense, will buy new several newly made Chinese Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carriers and launch the F-35C off of those". -- Just as valid (though admittably far more silly) of an assumption. Look up and see all of those questions I posted above? The "what ifs"? Any *one* of them means that the F-35C can't launch from a Nimitz today. As I mention above to Bushranger, the Ford is cited as flying X aircraft. The Nimitz is cited as flying Y aircraft. (Where both X & Y have some of the same planes). However, there is still that deafening silence regarding sources stating that the Nimitz is able to launch the F-35C. The last time I checked, the bar on Wikipedia is verifiability. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONSENSE. The F-35C is designed to operate using C-13 catapults. The Nimitz class is equipped with C-13 catapults. The Ford class is not. Therefore the F-35C is designed to be operated from Nimitz class carriers. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * BR, Concur with IDHT. It's probably best to have an RFC here for more input, and reach a consensus that way. - BilCat (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

These aren't RS, but I think they get the point across. Honestly, if the F-35C couldn't work on the Nimitz class, what was the point of designing a carrier-based variant? This house testimony (see page 10) that talks about integrating F-35C into Nimitz. No one says it because it's so blatantly obvious. I could understand problems with Enterprise, given that that ship is slated to be removed from service in the near future, but having the F-35C not work with the Nimitz class, someone would have said something by now about a colossal waste of money, I think... SDY (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the US's penchant for colossal wastes of money, I take nothing for granted. However, I want to thank SDY for *finally* putting up a source of value. And I would like you to note this from pages 10-11: "Several separate ship alterations have been identified as requirements to integrate F-35C into NIMITZ- and FORD-class aircraft carriers. Aircraft Electrical Servicing Station (AESS) modifications, Ready Room and Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Department (AIMD) upgrades, and ALIS and DMRT installations continue to mature, and are programmed for installation to meet F-35C IOC. The cost and schedule to incorporate the additional shipalts, which include Lithium-Ion Battery storage and Below Decks sound attenuation, will be delivered with CVN- 78, and addressed in future budget submittals for NIMITZ-class carriers. One shipalt still in development concerns Flight Deck Jet Blast Deflectors (JBD). The Navy expects aircraft carrier JBDs will require some level of modification to accommodate F-35C heat plume concentration on the JBD."
 * So... the Nimitz class must be modified to fly the F-35C. Which I mentioned as a possibilty in my post of 19:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC). Ergo, the Ford-class is designed to fly the F-35C... and it is a new design feature. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Some amount of modification was inevitable, I don't think anyone doubted that. The only reservation I have about using that link as a source is that it's undated and unsigned.  Given the nature of the host it's likely to be legitimate, but who and when are important details as to how useful it is as a reference.  SDY (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks SDY, I don't really know what BilCat or Bushranger doubt or don't, but I'm amazed that this debate has gone on for so long. If you manufacture a .22 caliber pistol, it shoots .22s by design. If you take your .45 and put a sleeve in it, you can shoot .22s... but it's not by design. That's what we have going on here.
 * Heck, here's a question for the gallery: when they start refitting (the newer) Nimitz class ships with ability to launch the F-35C (heat protection, etc as listed in the italicised text above), won't that be an upgrade? That is to say... won't it be a (new) ship's feature, akin to the flight deck ballistic protection on the Washington going forward or the Bulbous bow on the H.W. Bush? My point remains: the Ford class is designed to fly the F-35C, the Nimitz is not. Every source listed in this disucssion so far has borne that out. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to join the crowd now.  You're grasping at straws to try and defend an extraordinary claim that flies in the face of common sense and is so obvious that it's not even likely to be challenged.  Yes, some minor tweaks will probably be needed to use the F-35C efficiently on the Nimitz class.  This is a chicken and egg problem: the F-35C was designed for the Nimitz, the Nimitz was not designed for the F-35C.  Here's Another source that might be used, from the US Naval Academy, that talks about the JSF on the Nimitz.  You're demanding sources to counter your extraordinary claim, and honestly you're verging into just being disruptive.  That you haven't even bothered to try and find sources to support your extraordinary claim is really rather worrisome.  Please stop beating this dead horse.  SDY (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (I started writing this, but I've decided that it's pointless for us to keep going in circles. )
 * "If grasping at straws" = following wp:verifiabilty then sign me up!
 * I'm not sure what you mean by that: there's a dispute tag on the point on the main page, so clearly it's being challenged.
 * Yes, minor. Like not having it damage the runway or crash into the sea on takeoff.
 * Re: your new source. "For instance, fifth generation aircraft like the Joint Strike Fighter will be operational onboard Nimitz-class carriers in just a couple years". -- Wow, that's a real eye-opener. (BTW, 2009 is a was a couple of years ago...).
 * Um, excuse me? If you look on the article page, the point HAS a citation. This one. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's try something different
I've taken these points from everything that's been thrown before. Can we agree on these three points, and if not, why not? Now, let's look at the actual point of contention in the article-- "The ability to launch the F-35C Lightning II". Can some one please explain to me why this claim is so controversial? To me, it's clear that the Ford is being designed to field the F-35C. Where exactly is the problem? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The Ford class will be able to (is being designed to) fly the F-35C.
 * 2) The Nimitz class will be able to launch the F-35C after some modifications.
 * 3) The F-35C is not currently deployed on any Nimitz carrier, and cannot be so deployed without those modifications to the Nimitz class carrier itself.


 * The claims about the Nimitz class are where we're running into problems. Yes, there are some modifications.  No, they are probably not significant, and many are more likely about efficiency than capability.  That the F-35C will in any way, shape, or form be exclusive to the Ford-class is the claim that's making people scratch their heads in shock and amazement.  In the spirit of WP:BRD, I've thrown a possible change at the article that reflects that reality.  SDY (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you actually read what I post? AGAIN: The Ford is DESIGNED to fly the F-35C. The Nimitz is not, and therefore it is a new design feature being incorporated into the Ford class. That the design feature will be retroactively fitted onto the Nimitz class isnt the point. Yet another example, since no one took up the handgun one: a 2000 Chrysler 300M is designed with a tape deck and a CD player. A 2010 Chrysler 300C has all that but with the MP3 player built in. Just because I can add an MP3 player to the 300M does not mean that the 300C doesn't have it as a design feature. I find the use of the words "probably" and "exclusive" to be troubling. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sheesh. It's just a wikipedia article, no reason to have a hissy fit.  The reason why everyone who reads your comments doesn't agree with you is because this is a list of new features, and is an implicit comparison with the Nimitz class.  Stating that the Ford class is "different from" the Nimitz in this aspect is misleading, for reasons stated above, even if it's nominally accurate.  For what it's worth, major technical challenges to integrating the F-35C into the Nimitz class are as likely to change the plane as they are to change the ships.  SDY (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think that was a little shrill, you should read your stuff from my chair. Just sayin'. :-) I have no complaint with your two most recent edits on the article page as they are factual. Ah, but I'm not stating it's different... I'm merely stating it natively has a particular design characteristic that the Nimitz does not/could not have. That's of course possible, but is at this time unknowable. In any event, I am happy we seem to be moving past the shouting match. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that you'd already gone into WP:IDHT behavior long before I entered the conversation, I have no regrets. I completely disagree with your summary, but if you're fine with the article as it stands I'm willing to forget that I read it and move on; this has been a fairly dumb argument from start to finish.  SDY (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nah, I just dislike folks going all WP:ORIGINAL. I wholly agree, there was much ado about nothing... and I completely disagree with the idea that unverifable, nebulous claims could be used in a discussion, but that's neither here nor there since the current verbage is one we can (I hope!) all live with. Likewise, I have no hard feelings. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * SDY, thanks for chiming in. I've been laid up with a throat infection for the past two days, and it's not over yet. I may re-engage the conversation here later, or not. We'll see. - BilCat (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This subject has now been settled through the military press. Photographs clearly show F-35Cs prepared to launch off the bow of none other than the USS Nimitz (CVN-68) herself, and mention is made of over 100 carrier landings (which must have been preceded by a similar number of launches). Thus, the question of compatibility is resolved. Whatever small arrangements have to be made to accommodate the aircraft were clearly not enough to prevent the testing of the combination prior to F-35C IOC. Therefore the ability to operate the F-35C is not, repeat not, a new feature of the Ford-Class, but is, at best, a 'selling point.'72.183.155.139 (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Article title
Seems a bit inconsistent given the article on the Nimitz is title "Nimitz-class aircraft carrier". Why isn't this article titled "Ford-class aircraft carrier"? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 12:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about ships replacing other ships?
since the third ship in the Class is the USS Enterprise wouldn't she be replacing her namesake? 156.33.241.3 (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, ships are not replaced name for name. Enterprise CVN-65 was retired, so the next ship that comes online (Gerald R. Ford) replaces her. The Eisenhower will be retired in the mid 2020s, so new Enterprise CVN-80, scheduled to come online around that time, will replace her. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ship ready, launch and arresting gear not?
Just came across a news article, putting it here for reference. It suggests that the Advanced Arresting Gear and Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System are not for use yet. June 19, 2015. and same story at "Icebergs ahead for expensive US, UK aircraft carrier projects". I have also posted the source on those talk pages. - 220  of  Borg 07:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The launch system launched a test sled off the carrier on July 26, 2015.. And, inevitably, there was a GoPro on the sled and the video was uploaded to YouTube. John Nagle (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Bogus computer picture.
What's with the picture of IBM's Blue Gene II, labelled "An IBM supercomputer encased in shock-absorbing cabinet?": File:Blue Gene main.JPG That's not shipborne hardware, or a "shock absorbing cabinet", it's a land-based machine with an air duct for cooling sitting in a data center in Bulgaria. Just because the ship has some IBM computers doesn't mean that picture has anything to do with the ship. John Nagle (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sortie Generation Rate not in Citation
The Navy report only has the number for 120 sorties per 12 hour flying day and does not mention it whether this is a continuous SGR. -Mys_721tx (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130820182239/http://www.defense.gov//releases/release.aspx?releaseid=16035 to http://www.defense.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141212012332/http://www.navsea.navy.mil:80/nswc/dahlgren/Leading%20Edge/Sensors/03_Development.pdf to http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/dahlgren/Leading%20Edge/Sensors/03_Development.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722200937/http://nae.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/downloads/NAV2010_04_Future_carrier_CVW_amphib_ACE_sp.pdf to http://nae.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/downloads/NAV2010_04_Future_carrier_CVW_amphib_ACE_sp.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927163117/http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_23.php to http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_03_23.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/dahlgren/Leading%20Edge/Sensors/03_Development.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140813034340/http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS%20Carrier_Hendrix_FINAL.pdf to http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS%20Carrier_Hendrix_FINAL.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121207081701/http://brahmand.com/news/US-Navys-Ford-class-aircraft-carrier-to-be-named-Enterprise/10464/1/17.html to http://brahmand.com/news/US-Navys-Ford-class-aircraft-carrier-to-be-named-Enterprise/10464/1/17.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Active
I don't think that it is yet correct that 1 is "active". Gerald R Ford has been commissioned, but will not be active for some time.203.80.61.102 (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagreeHolland85 (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC).