Author Topic: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"  (Read 15550 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 365
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2016, 08:57:45 »
Usually a ship is named after someone who is deceased,not one who is still living.

Umm... USS George H.W. Bush



Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 69,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,373
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2016, 09:08:25 »
USS Barack Obama: What's the point? No aircraft will be able to land or takeoff as the deck will all be solar panels needed to move the ship for 15 day deployments. No weapons will be carried but there will be a line gun for red lines to be shot across the waves.

A small crew will be augmented by thousands of Regulators with EPA and IRS being predominant. The threat of the USS Barack Obama as a projection of American military power will be its ability to end "wars" by Presidential Decree.

Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Editor, The Devils' Blast, the Annual Chronicle of The Royal Winnipeg Rifles

http://www.royalwinnipegrifles.com/regimental-association/the-devils-blast/

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 176,207
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,539
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2016, 10:27:37 »
The onboard health care system would likely suck as well.

I'd rather see one named after Jimmy Carter than Obama or Clinton. At least his intentions were pure, and he helped get that nice Mr Reagan elected.

Offline S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,515
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2016, 13:44:49 »
Precision Aircraft Landing System (PALS) Tested on Ford-class Aircraft Carrier at HII Shipyard

Source: navy recognition - 19 August 2016


A special instrumented F-18 Super Hornet flew within about 500 feet of Gerald R. Ford 10 times during the testing, which verifies the proper functionality, alignment and operation of the PALS equipment and its subsystems. Photo by HII
« Last Edit: August 22, 2016, 13:52:51 by S.M.A. »
Our Country
--------------------------------
"A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: We did it ourselves."   - Lao Zi (老子)
-------------------------------------------
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm."
- Winston Churchill

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 469,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,850
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2017, 09:52:12 »
Updated assessment

A lengthy article, from the Project on Government Oversight.*

My edited highlights:
Quote
How Not to Build a Ship: The USS Ford
By: Dan Grazier & Pierre Sprey | May 30, 2017

The Navy had expected to have the ship delivered in 2014 at a cost of $10.5 billion. The inevitable problems resulting from the concurrently bulding a ship and  developing new & unproven technologies -- more than a dozen in all -- caused the schedule to slip by more than three years and the cost to increase to $12.9 billion—nearly 25 percent over budget. (That's without aircraft; assuming a complement of at least 50 F-35Cs, with each aircraft having a conservative real cost of $185 million…for a total of $9.25 billion worth of strike aircraft concentrated on one ship. That means this one ship when underway will be worth at least $22.25 billion, to say nothing of the 4,297 sailors on board. That is putting a great deal of proverbial eggs in a single basket).

The Electromagnetic Launch System (EMALS) has a poor reliability track record, failing about once every 400 launches (ten times worse than the 4,166 launches between failures the system is contracted to achieve). At least four days of surge combat sortie rates are to be expected at the beginning of any major conflict. At the current failure rate, there is only a 7 percent chance that a four-day flight surge could be completed without failure.  There are four EMALS, but no maintenance can be conducted if any one is operating (unlike the current steam catapults).  Oh, they also overstress F/A-18 airframes.

Replacing hydraulic arresting gear system with the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG).... the original 2005 $172M estimate for AAG development is now well over $1.3 billion -- a 656 percent increase. For that, the latest reliability results show only 25 landings between operational mission failures of the AAG, 660 times fewer than the Navy’s requirement of 16,500. Also, exactly like the EMALS, it is impossible to repair AAG failures without shutting down flight operations: the AAG power supply can’t be disconnected from the high-voltage supply while flights continue.

General Atomics, the company contracted to design and build both the EMALS and AAG.... has never built catapult launch systems or carrier arresting gear.

To feed these massive electrical demands and the ship’s expanded electronics, the Ford’s four generators were designed to provide triple the total electrical power provided by the eight generators on the Nimitz class—13,800 versus 4,160 volts. Along with increased electrical arcing and failure rates, particularly in humid salt atmospheres, they are much more fragile than legacy systems, making the ship easier to cripple in battle. Repairing damage to these systems often requires them to be powered down, impacting other systems that didn’t sustain damage.

There's much more in the article, including a consideration of CVNs vs anti-ship missiles and/or SSKs.


And for more face-palm, have a look at the US Govt Accountability Office's "FORD-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIER: Congress Should Consider Revising Cost Cap Legislation to Include All Construction Costs, (2014)" to see how development & construction costs are being hidden. The $ numbers above are likely underreported.  Link

* The Project on Government Oversight expands on the work of the Center for Defense Information (CDI) in advancing military reform in the Pentagon and Congress. CDI was founded in 1971 by a group of retired military officers to analyze military matters, inform decision-makers and the public, and influence policy. It takes no money from defense contractors or the government, and it publishes fact-based research and policy advice that attempted to put basic national security needs front and center. It is led by conscientious military officers—retired generals, admirals, colonels, majors, captains— challenging ill-informed conventional wisdom and self-interested defense contractor disinformation rather than promoting either.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 176,207
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,539
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #30 on: June 06, 2017, 10:42:40 »
There's at least one Irving joke in there somewhere.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,812
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #31 on: June 15, 2017, 17:32:37 »
And more of the same....

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-15/new-u-s-carrier-hobbled-by-flaws-in-launching-landing-planes

"The $13 Billion Aircraft Carrier That Has Trouble With Planes"

What would it take to haul the Nimitz drawings out and put a pause on the Fords for a decade or so?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 53,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,505
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2017, 11:39:15 »
Carriers' increasing vulnerability? Strike aircraft range problems:

Quote
How America’s Aircraft Carriers Could Become Obsolete
Modern missiles make them vulnerable. A $13 billion price tag makes them expensive. New technology may make them unnecessary.

President Donald Trump has been consistent in his argument that the U.S. Navy has shrunk to a woefully inadequate size. The Republican has repeatedly said he wants the service to expand, including a fleet of a dozen aircraft carriers. That plan isn’t in the Pentagon’s current budget, but on July 22 the Navy will formally commission CVN-78, the USS Gerald R. Ford, its newest, most sophisticated nuclear-powered carrier.

The Ford, hit with delays and technical glitches, is expected to become operational in 2020. One question about its formal readiness, however, rests on whether the Navy will perform “full-ship shock trials,” a test in which the service detonates explosives nearby to demonstrate its fitness. Some in Congress—which has mandated a carrier fleet no smaller than 11—want to move the Ford into duty more quickly to reduce strain on the rest of the carrier fleet.

These massive mobile airports, which can cart as many as 90 aircraft simultaneously, are designed to project U.S. military and diplomatic power around the world. Earlier this month, for example, the Navy posted two carriers, the USS Carl Vinson and the USS Ronald Reagan, and their strike groups in the Sea of Japan for joint exercises with Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force as a precautionary signal to North Korean aggression.

The USS Gerald Ford is the first of four planned Ford-class carriers, the Navy’s first new carrier design in 42 years, although only three of them have names and funding. A shock trial would be deferred until the second carrier, CVN-79, the USS John F. Kennedy, arrives in 2020, according to defense funding language being pushed in the House seapower and projection forces subcommittee.

... Is the aircraft carrier defensible, both physically and in budgetary terms? For the Navy, the future role of its carrier fleet is a critical issue. Do these vessels retain their central role in U.S. foreign power, or will Congress and military leaders find more appealing ways to deploy the immense budgets a carrier group requires?..

When it comes to carrier deployments, the most immediate concern is the security of the more than 7,000 crew members who travel with a carrier strike group, an armada formulated to protect the ship and its aircraft as well as to serve as “a principal element of U.S. power projection capability,” as the Navy terms it.

But this formation is likely to face greater risks due to new missile technology in the coming years. China and Russia are both perfecting more sophisticated missile designs, and both are believed to be developing hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs), weapons that travel faster than Mach 5, according to a Pentagon report obtained by Bloomberg News.

China already fields a ballistic missile, the Dong Feng-21D, which has been dubbed a “carrier killer” due to its 900-mile range and lethality. Over time, these types of weapons are likely to keep U.S. carriers farther from shore, which will require greater refueling capabilities for their aircraft complements.

For several years, the Pentagon has “admired the problem” of how long-range enemy missiles affect its carrier fleet but has avoided tough decisions about how to increase the fleets’ aircraft range and provide for more unmanned aircraft, said Paul Scharre, senior fellow and director of the technology and national security program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a nonprofit think tank. Meanwhile, the Navy’s strike range from its carrier wings has actually dipped by 50 percent, below 500 miles [emphasis added], according to Jerry Hendrix, another CNAS analyst...

More spending for unmanned platforms, from electronics jamming to surveillance and reconnaissance, would give pilots in F/A-18s as well as the newer F-35Cs more range and effectiveness. But because the Pentagon hasn’t developed unmanned platforms, “naval aviators ... are accepting a world where the carrier has less relevance in higher-end fights, against high-end adversaries,” Scharre said.

One example of the Navy’s muddled view on range, says Scharre, is the MQ-25 Stingray, an unmanned aerial refueling tanker, that’s considered a critical aspect of future carrier operations. The Stingray may be deployed as early as 2019 on two carriers. Yet the Navy hasn’t specified whether the MQ-25’s precise role would be as a mission tanker to accompany fighters on combat strikes, or merely as a recovery tanker loitering near carriers for pilots who miss approaches and are low on fuel, Scharre said...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/how-america-s-aircraft-carriers-could-become-obsolete

Mark
Ottawa

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 176,207
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,539
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #33 on: June 29, 2017, 12:54:44 »
Carriers' increasing vulnerability? Strike aircraft range problems:

"Modern missiles make them everything vulnerable", nyet?

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 53,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,505
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #34 on: June 29, 2017, 13:56:56 »
True, USN losing a carrier (loss of lives?) would be a disaster like none other since WW II.  Even disabling one out of combat would be huge operational and prestige blow.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 176,207
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,539
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #35 on: June 29, 2017, 17:06:31 »
There being far more nuclear warheads on each side than airfields, ICBM silos, submarine bases, and political centres, etcetera, what difference does a carrier or a dozen make?

Superiority and inferiority of various weapons and systems ebb and flow - measure, counter-measure, counter-counter-measure...

Carriers are big, with massive electrical generating capacity. They'll be the first to mount laser weapons.