President ford colorado Videos

+Last Chance Yes.....subs with nukes.

+Pho Q Putin has subs??

+Pho Q Too bad for you our Carriers have Helicopters made for killing subs and attack subs for defense.

+GEZZA1 lol....Putin will send his subs to sink it on its maiden voyage.

+Blr yes, the first negro President is to be honored with CVN82 USS BARACK OBAMA.

+Crescent Thinker He's done a lot. That's why he gets a ship christened in his honor.

+Pho Q Obama fixed America Economy.

+Blr Good question. I know President Gerald Ford was a Navy officer that fought in WWII. So I'm not sure the comparison here. Maybe in 35 years it will be the U.S.S Millard Fillmore?

+Blr A gold-plated, 500 foot yacht with all the amenities you can dream of........only super models will be allowed to serve as crew members.

+Pho Q what will USS Donald Trump be?

+Blr Yes........ but instead of a carrier it will be a garbage scow

+Barry Lell - But you wouldn't want to fly off of it. Not with all the cat failures they've had. You'd better wait a while on that one.

+hitssquadErrr ... we were developing EMCATS when we (Converteam UK) first came up with the idea and we were actually ahead of the USA in development. Converteam was eventually bought by GE Energy for $3.2 Billion. Someone saw something worth buying there ....In 1989 parts of the British General Electric Company plc merged with parts of Compagnie Générale d'Electricité forming CEGELEC, part of GEC Alsthom In the same year, a subsidiary of the German Allgemeine Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft (AEG) had merged with the American Westinghouse Drive Systems. In 1995, these two groupings merged to form CEGELEC Industrial Systems Group. In 1999, it changed its name to Alstom Power & Conversion 'Converteam' then on 10 November 2005 it became a separate company from Alstom.On 29 March 2011 it was announced that a 90% stake in Converteam was to be bought by GE Energy.Converteam were already supplying electric drive systems for our Type 45 Destroyers and these are also being fitted to the QE Class, French Mistral ships and Type 26 Frigates. They are also being fitted to US DDG and Zumwalt Destroyers by GE Energy along with Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbines (as used in the QE). So OK a British company now bought by you Yanks is supplying the QE. But it is also supplying all the power for your new ships. Oops.And who said we would buy EMALS? Now who is changing the future for the present when it suits you? Tut!Oh and all those fabulous US Navy aircraft you listed? The Ford is just about managing to throw wheelbarrows into the James River .... Oops! 

+1chish The Ford doesn't need to be immediately commissioned. The US has 10 commissioned Nimitz-class carriers, and 9 commissioned flattop amphibious assault ships. Meanwhile, The UK doesn't have any commissioned aircraft carriers, and so can't be said to have "two QE carriers [that] together deliver more aircraft quicker than a single Ford or Nimitiz", despite the fact that a war is going on.> But how many aircraft does the Ford have...Any of 543 Hornets, 342 Super Hornets, 12 F-35C's, 37 Global Hawks, 25 Prowlers, 35 Greyhounds, 68 Hawkeyes, 105 Growlers, 218 Goshawks, 127 Harrier II's, 222 Ospreys, and 38 F-35B's.>> It's strange that you are trying to force the United States not to spend this difference in cost when you also say you will gladly avail yourself of the technology resulting from these expenditures once the price is cheap enough for you.> you are feeding us Zilch...Not according to you. What happened to your 25-year EMALS CATOBAR retrofit "when it's cheaper"? If you want it cheaper in 25 years, why are you complaining about people spending the money to make it cheaper?> If there is one ship in the Royal Navy that has NO US equipment its the QE carrier....So, The QE is never going to have an EMALS retrofit?

+hitssquadCredit where its due you are getting even better at twisting words and altering positions than you were.... For example:"> Our two QE carriersFalse. The UK doesn't have any commissioned aircraft carriers."No shit sherlock! And neither is the Ford at the moment. What part of 'we are talking operationally' don't you quite understand? D'UH!"> together deliver more aircraft quickerThe UK has only 4 fixed-wing fighters "Well we have a lot more fixed wing fighters but just 4 F35s under test and development. But how many aircraft does the Ford have and how can it launch them? What part of 'we are talking operationally' don't you quite understand? ... D'UH!"> we are spending about 2/3 the cost of the FordThe $9 billion the UK is spending is 86% of the unit cost of the Ford class."Errrr ....£7 Billion = $10 Billion. So 2 X QE = $10 Billion (to date). 1 X Ford = $16 Billion (to date). Which is 62.5% Please note that is for TWO carriers.And finally that wonderful American arrogance: " You're biting the hand that feeds you."Hey you are feeding us Zilch. Nada. Nothing. If there is one ship in the Royal Navy that has NO US equipment its the QE carrier. One might point out the RR propulsion systems in the QE are the same as those fitted to the US Navy's latest DDG and Littoral ships.I will give credit for the way the US Navy has taken Royal Navy deck crews and kept them up to speed on deck operations and have been so very complimentary to those teams. It is also great to see USAF, USMC and US Navy pilots interchanging with RAF and FAA pilots even if some of our Leftie friends get all upset when British pilots in US Navy F18s bomb the shit out of ISIS.

+hitssquad- We could strap a couple of them to a rocket!  lol  No, I meant a Big War.  With a real adversary.  We don't need a huge carrier to deal with ISIS.

+Ima SuperPerson ISIS has no way of getting to space.

+hitssquad- I really believe the opening shots of the next war will be fought in space.  And who knows after that?  I hope we never find out.

+1chish>> 16 billion now> I cannot understand why a country [is] spending all this money on one ship. It isn't. It's spending it on 10 ships. The unit cost is estimated at $10.44 billion.> why a country that is in such debt and has such a huge annual deficitThe debt and annual deficits aren't materially affected by such a tiny difference in cost between what is being spent and what you have been trying to force the United States to spend. It's strange that you are trying to force the United States not to spend this difference in cost when you also say you will gladly avail yourself of the technology resulting from these expenditures once the price is cheap enough for you. If you want the technologies to be cheaper for you in the future, the why are you complaining about the US spending the money to make them cheaper? You're biting the hand that feeds you.> Our two QE carriersFalse. The UK doesn't have any commissioned aircraft carriers. Meanwhile, there's a war going on. that's a problem.> together deliver more aircraft quickerThe UK has only 4 fixed-wing fighter aircraft that could be launched from its not-yet-commissioned aircraft carriers. No matter how fast they are launched, they still number only 4.> we are spending about 2/3 the cost of the FordThe $9 billion the UK is spending is 86% of the unit cost of the Ford class.

Truth is, aircraft carriers are as obsolete as battleships were in WWII.  (Even before that.) BUT - it will take a real war with a real enemy to realize these things won't last 30 minutes.

+Ima SuperPersonI cannot understand why a country that is in such debt and has such a huge annual deficit considers spending all this money on one ship. And has already started the next one! I am sure that any Admiral going to war would rather have three smaller ships launching the same capability aircraft than one big ship. Our two QE carriers together deliver more aircraft quicker than a single Ford or Nimitiz and we are spending about 2/3 the cost of the Ford. And even the US Congress admitted in '93 it was costing them $39.1 Million ($70 Million now) a YEAR more to run a nuclear ship vs a fuelled ship.This article explains it better. And its American.  //foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-us-navy-should-build-smaller-aircraft-carriers-1600899834

+1chish - This carrier is all about waste and boondoggle spending. It's an ego piece. We can do much better than this, with far less money.

+aLittle(too)Hyper - It is too late to "save a ton of money". It's already cost too much to ever save any money. Not possible.

+1chish - 16 billion now, and it doesn't work. Failed the cat tests and arresting gear. So far, it is turning out to be much like the F-35. Very disappointing so far. The US Navy needs to get their act together.

+adamcrookedsmile Sadly nope, we aren't richer because the money gets literally given away to the EU and through our ridiculous 'foreign aid' budget. Combine the two and it's about £45 Billion per year...and counting... (that's about $68 billion)

+hitssquadIts a waste of time trying to have a discussion with you as you just keep repeating the same 'untruths' over and over again. You say the PoW won't go into service and I prove it will. You just repeat the crap. You say they don't have aircraft which is a bit dumb as they aren't completed yet. You say they won't have aircraft and I prove they will and you repeat the crap over again.This started off as a comment on the comparative costs of the two different types of ship. You turned it into a general abuse of everything we are doing despite the fact what YOU are doing is stupidly expensive. And then you insult the whole country with that childish comment about us 'having the protection of the US Navy'? We don't NEED your protection we never did. And if we did we would never trust you to do shit after years of being stabbed in the back. So no we look after ourselves.So you jog right on fellah because I am out. I have proved you wrong on every single point and you have proved how ignorant you are on our ships. God bless America and huge respect to your military from  an old Vet. but basically dick wavers like you can fuck right off ....

+1chish> at the moment the Ford has ZERO aircraft...And, at the moment, The UK has zero aircraft carriers, while the US has 10. What is your point?> say we had CATOBAR on the QE....Then you could put Super Hornets, Rafale M's, Super Étendards, E-2C Hawkeyes, SA365 Dauphins, EC725 Caracals, AS532 Cougars, etc. on it.> How many operationally capable F35C aircraft does the whole US Navy have right now? ZERO!...And the US Navy doesn't need any F-35C's, because it has CATOBAR on all its 10 carriers, and some 500 Super Hornets.> we built two carriersNo. The UK has zero carriers, while the US has 10.> We have fast reaction flexible forces.The UK has the protection of the US Navy, which affords the UK the luxury of not having any aircraft carriers.> By 2023Unfortunately, it's 2015, and the UK doesn't have any aircraft carriers, while the US has 10.> PoW was about 80% assembled...And won't enter active service, if ever, for at least another 5 years -- at which point it still won't have any planes. Meanwhile, the UK has zero carriers, while the US has 10.> We do things OUR way...Then stop complaining about the cost of the Ford.

+hitssquadQuote: "In 2016, when it is commissioned, it will have a full air-wing of Super Hornets. It can do that, because it has CATOBAR."So as I said at the moment the Ford has ZERO aircraft... OK thanks for confirming that.Quote: "...Then maybe you should have put CATOBAR on your aircraft carrier, too. Maybe the Ford class, with CATOBAR, wasn't such a bad deal. You have failed to prove your thesis that the Ford was "hugely and unnecessarily expensive"."Who was writing a bloody Thesis ..?? OK so say we had CATOBAR on the QE. How many operationally capable F35C aircraft does the whole US Navy have right now? ZERO! And so how many would we have now? ZERO! So what exactly IS your point? And given that we built two carriers for less than you paid for one any 'thesis' was proven ages ago. Difference is YOU Yanks see great big $ Bn projects as a good thing. We see it as stupidity...Quote: "...You mean 12: "The carriers, in peacetime, will usually deploy with 12 F-35B’s"Yes. And your point IS exactly? We will use F35Bs where, when and how we choose because unlike the USA we don't waste expensive resources onto one place or ship or wherever. We have fast reaction flexible forces. The number of aircraft per ship is not written in stone. But here is an update from today's SDSR15: "By 2023, we will be able to have 24 of these jets, some of the most powerful in the world, the F-35, on the decks of these carriers. Those will be the first tranche of a total order of 138 of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II jets, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said. Britain had not previously confirmed how many it planned to order or a time scale, but the spokesman said the 24 marked a "substantial acceleration".//uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/23/uk-britain-defence-idUKKBN0TB0AF20151123Delivery is the best LM can do from the USA.Quote: "> There IS no CVN-80 and won't be for another 10 years....Sort of  like the HMS Prince of Wales (R09)."Errr .. well not quite old son. I did actually say PoW was about 80% assembled in dry dock. Oh wait .. you missed that bit?https://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/22487418935/Quote: "> our second is about 80% complete...To be mothballed or sold as soon as completed -- and even if it weren't mothballed or sold, it still wouldn't have any planes!"Blimey how out of date are YOU? You really are getting desperate or just being a wind up prat. Or ignorant or whatever but this is all too bloody stupid.That is old news because PoW WILL be commissioned as soon as finished. Try this from over a year ago://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-hms-prince-of-wales-will-not-be-sold-9715507.htmlAnd from the above links we WILL have the aircraft ( if Lockheed can deliver on time).So you are talking crap like you have been all through this exchange. I mean 'you have no aircraft'.. What CRAP! You come across as just another arrogant Yank who only sees 'The American Way' as 'The Only Way'. Well it isn't. We do things OUR way OK? And here is a piece that shows many in the USA actually don't agree with you. And it uses very similar numbers to myself. So read and learn and maybe start THINKING instead of trying to score points in some pissing contest....//foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-us-navy-should-build-smaller-aircraft-carriers-1600899834

+1chish> And how many F35cs aircraft has the Ford got?In 2016, when it is commissioned, it will have a full air-wing of Super Hornets. It can do that, because it has CATOBAR.> the USA that is slow in delivering our F35s [...] we are waiting for Lockheed to deliver our orders...Then maybe you should have put CATOBAR on your aircraft carrier, too. Maybe the Ford class, with CATOBAR, wasn't such a bad deal. You have failed to prove your thesis that the Ford was "hugely and unnecessarily expensive".> Hopefully the USA will deliver the 48 we need for the ships in time...You mean 12: "The carriers, in peacetime, will usually deploy with 12 F-35B’s"https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/why-are-the-queen-elizabeth-class-carriers-so-big/> There IS no CVN-80 and won't be for another 10 years....Sort of  like the HMS Prince of Wales (R09). The US deliberately slowed down delivery because it already had 10 Nimitz-class carriers + 2 Ford-class in the pipeline before CVN-80. The UK doesn't have that luxury, and has zero working aircraft carriers right now -- in the midst of a hot war with ISIS, and cold and proxy wars with Putin!> You have an economic crystal ball there?.. Nah didn't think so. Better add a few $ Billion moreThe costs and future efficiency-potentials are known now that the FOAK has been mostly built -- so, yes, we do have a crystal ball.> But now you sort of quietly forgot that $4.5 Bn in R & DThat's $470 million per ship -- and you said you were happy to steal that R&D and use it to install EMALS on the cheap at the QE's mid-life, while complaining that the Ford costs too much.> So CVN-80 will cost $10.85 Bn at today's money but in 10 years that will be $14.85 Bn....Not in today's money, which is what matters. Inflation not only makes costs go up, it also makes income go up. That's why we account using constant dollars, not ever-changing dollars. Again, please take an accounting course. Also, income rises faster than inflation.> As I said we could build 3 QEs for thatYou were wrong then, and you're still wrong. Try again, using non-bogus figures this time -- and try to learn about future discounting....And the US has no use for an "aircraft carrier" that carries no airplanes, so I'm not sure why you insist the US should invest in a "fleet" of 12 QE's -- especially since the US still has some 500 Super Hornets that can operate from any Nimitz or Ford class carrier, and the French carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91).> our second is about 80% complete...To be mothballed or sold as soon as completed -- and even if it weren't mothballed or sold, it still wouldn't have any planes! You're not making your case that the Ford, commissioning in 2016 with a full air-wing of Super Hornets, was "hugely and unnecessarily expensive".

+hitssquadQuote: "...And no planes. Oop. That's a bit of an oversight."Oh how very childish. So where would they land? In a dry dock or fitting berth? And how many F35cs aircraft has the Ford got? ZEERROOO ... And you forget its the USA that is slow in delivering our F35s not us and is actually years behind original schedule. But we have today confirmed our order for 138 as originally intended. Hopefully the USA will deliver the 48 we need for the ships in time ... Now yours was an 'Ooops moment'..Quote: "The UK doesn't have any f-35B's, and it won't have enough for an airwing for a long time to come."Oops again...Well actually we do. We have a test and development Squadron (17 Reserve Squadron) operating totally independent of US regulations at Edwards Air Base with the first two development airframes. We also have the first two operational aircraft testing with British crews alongside their USMC counterparts at Beaufort. Again we are waiting for Lockheed to deliver our orders so paddle your shit elsewhere ...Quote: "The Enterprise (CVN-80) will cost $10.85 billion."Oops again .. we already did the Maths on this. CVN-78 cost $17.5 Billion with R & D. Its the only ship built and paid for (even if it still doesn't actually work). There IS no CVN-80 and won't be for another 10 years. And it won't have the same radar kit as Ford because it all got too expensive... Oops!You have an economic crystal ball there?.. Nah didn't think so. Better add a few $ Billion more://www.businessinsider.com/uss-gerald-r-ford-aircraft-carrier-cost-overruns-2012-01?IR=TQuote: "3 QE's would cost $14 billion. 1 Enterprise (CVN-80) will cost about $10.85 billion"OOps again fellah .. You know damn well I was referring to the $17.5 Bn 'cost to date' of the Ford. But now you sort of quietly forgot that $4.5 Bn in R & D although you said it would be spread over all carriers. So far there is ONE carrier but lets say over 3 or $1.5 Bn each. So CVN-80 will cost $10.85 Bn at today's money but in 10 years that will be $14.85 Bn. Add the R & D of $1.5 Bn = $16.35 Bn.As I said we could build 3 QEs for that. the big difference is our second is about 80% complete in dry dock and a third could be built starting next year for less per ship than the first two. Your third is 10 years away..... So YES! Oops!

+1chish > Ours have the most advanced Weapon Handling System on a carrier...And no planes. Oop. That's a bit of an oversight.> What we haven't done is go for hugely expensive nuclear power or the EMALS and AAG CATOBAR systems and bought F35BThe UK doesn't have any f-35B's, and it won't have enough for an airwing for a long time to come.> the Ford Class is hugely and unnecessarily expensiveThe Enterprise (CVN-80) will cost $10.85 billion. That's about $34 per American -- for an aircraft carrier that will last 50 years.> for ONE Ford Class we could build THREE QE Class carriers.3 QE's would cost $14 billion. 1 Enterprise (CVN-80) will cost about $10.85 billion://news.usni.org/2015/06/15/navy-cvn-79-contract-has-lowest-ceiling-price-ever-rd-investment-will-take-out-further-cost...So, no.

+adamcrookedsmileExhaust smoke corroding planes? Since when did diesel fumes do that? I think you confuse sea salt with fumes mate ...And I am not sure your theory of economics really works when a) no country can afford huge waste and b) especially when that country is adding $ Trillons a year to its debt.Nice cheap dig about Jersey and Bahamas so I'll give it the attention it deserves suffice to say we are a rich country but take care of business and manage our economy. We still are the 5th largest Defence Budget in the world and the only country in NATO to spend more than 2% GDP on defence apart from the USA. So no lectures from you old son ...The points I am making is that the Ford Class is hugely and unnecessarily expensive but if you want 'economies of scale' for ONE Ford Class we could build THREE QE Class carriers. And deliver a far bigger, more flexible punch over a far wider area in total. And spread the risk of attack of course....

+1chish nuclear propulsion means no exhaust from a smoke stack that will corrode the planes ... and hugely expensive isn't a big deal to a country with a much much bigger pile of cash. It's strange that the UK isn't richer considering the oil, maybe all that money goes to the Bahamas or Jersey.Economy of scale work in favour of the larger size for aircraft carriers. Last time I checked, for instance the Charles de Gaulle is 2/3 the size of a Nimitz but carries less than half the air group.

+aLittle(too)HyperI know all the supposed advantages of the technology of the Ford Class but we could build three equally innovative carriers for the same money. Ours have the most advanced Weapon Handling System on a carrier, we use Turbine power units from Rolls Royce (the same ones in the US destroyers) and have a crew size of 1600 all up. About a third of the Ford Class.What we haven't done is go for hugely expensive nuclear power or the EMALS and AAG CATOBAR systems and bought F35B rather than C aircraft and didn't spend $4.5 Billion designing what is basically a Nimitz Mk II carrier.The Ford will no doubt be an impressive carrier. But how can any country justify the cost?

+1chish It does seem like a large amount of money, but it is a completely new design. It uses electronics for more jobs instead of steam, it has a new layout. It even has a smaller crew than previous Nimitz class carriers. It is a big investment, but I sure believe it will save a ton of money.

OF COURSE Romney is a LIAR. He went into a MORmON temple & pledged his life to the MORmON corporation & sealed his pledge with the threat of having his throat cut. I know because I used to be MORmON. THen Mitt tells the public that LDS INC wont influence his decisions as US PRes. & he expects the public to believe it because the public is not supposed to know abou the secret LDS temple ceremony. THAT is 1 PHONY LYING MORmON POS ! LDS Inc wants to buy the US presidency.

This is a hard truth to face but Americans want to be entertained! They rather sensationalism over substance. Mitt Romney lied his ass off all night was rude and boorish to the debate rules and moderator, but somehow that equals winning in the minds of Americans? That is fucking crazy! All Romney did was shook his Etch-A-Sketch all night and people bought the bullshit he was selling. It was frustrating to watch him LIE like that and not get called out.

Within the first twenty minutes of the debates, Romney had already lied at least thirteen times. One of the times, he even had the nerve to say that gas prices doubled under Obama than under Bush. Who fucking believes that? Btw, 0:22 there is such a thing as clean coal, but corporations will never make clean coal because it costs more money. To dodge making clean coal, all the corporations use loopholes.

Using coal is seeking energy independence lol. We have hundreds of years worth of coal in this country. You idiots need to get your facts straight. Oh yea...and Obama won't let us drill offshore for oil....talk about preventing energy independence.

There is a such thing as clean coal technology, not clean coal. At this time, the technology only reduces harmful emissions, that is still not 100 percent clean. They are making strides to improve the technology. It's not a complete technology.

I work in a shipping dept...The US dollar is so far down in the toilet that we are shipping 16 containers a day to Japan, New Zealand, Australia and Pakistan...Why??? I repeat...the US dollar is so far down in the toilet!!!!

Finally a smart american Romney hates middle class people and lies to are faces i hate republicans war war war is what there good for like BUSH SR... AND STUPID BUSH JR AMERICA OPEN!!!!! UR FUCKING EYES U WHITE STUPID SHITS

up for grabs and who say that the debates will be extremely or quite important in their choice of a candidate Commission on Presidential Debates, which has organized the

Wanted to wish you and Roro a Happy New Year but saw your other channel went poof. Glad I had this one subscribed to!!!

Sorry crazy boy but your satanic master got his ass handed to him last night. Socialism doesn't work - LEARN IT !!!

That is the understatement of the century, Obama is an out and out criminal and the biggest liar in politics!

funny how many liberals are in denial about obama and his bad policies bankrupting this nation

DON'T WORRY. OBAMA HAS THE TOILET PLUNGER. ROMNEY'S JUST GONNA POOP AND FLUSH

yep oboma is using the plunger to send the money down the toilet even faster

The last time that Obama told the truth was about his birth certificate.

OBAMA'S NOT PERFECT, BUT ROMNEY'S A THIEF! SUB TO INTERACTIVEHEALING!

YES TRUE! OBAMA WON! YAY!! SUBSCRIBE TO INTERACTIVEHEALING CHANNEL!

Damn...........you should tell MSNBC about that! LOL! Fuckin idiot.

OBAMA WANTS TO PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT. EXCELLENT = OBAMA

I HOPE MSNBC HEARS ABOUT IT! SUB TO INTERACTIVEHEALING!

YEAH. OBAMA LOST 1ST DEBATE. SUB TO INTERACTIVEHEALING!

CLEAN COAL! SUBSCRIBE TO INTERACTIVEHEALING CHANNEL!

OBAMA = HONEST! SUB TO INTERACTIVEHEALING!

SUBSCRIBE TO INTERACTIVEHEALING CHANNEL!

OBAMA 2012! SUB TO INTERACTIVEHEALING!

I DO! SUB TO INTERACTIVEHEALING!

THANK YOU. ROMNEY = DELUSIONAL