Author Topic: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"  (Read 23059 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,530
I wonder if this ship will be completed before both of the RN's new CVFs slated to be built?

Quote
Keel Laid for Newest U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier
By DEFENSE NEWS STAFF
Published: 13 Nov 2009 17:44

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding and the U.S. Navy marked the keel-laying of the newest aircraft carrier Nov. 14 in ceremonies at Newport News, Va.

The ship is named after Gerald R. Ford, the 38th U.S. president. Ford's daughter, Susan Ford Bales, is the ship's sponsor and authenticated the keel when her initials were welded onto a metal plate.

The carrier, numbered CVN 78, represents the first new U.S. carrier design since the 1960s. The ship will have a smaller crew than previous flattops and incorporate new technologies, including an Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launching System, advanced arresting gear and dual-band radar.

The new ship should join the fleet in 2015.

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 Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,010
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Next USN Carrier to Built will be the JFK(2)
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2011, 15:23:20 »
Nice to see the name coming back.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/05/navy-next-carrier-to-be-named-for-president-kennedy-052911w/

Next carrier to be named for President Kennedy
Staff report
Posted : Sunday May 29, 2011 13:55:49 EDT
BOSTON — Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced Sunday the next Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier will be named in honor of President Kennedy.

The selection, designated CVN 79, pays tribute to his service in the Navy, in the government and to the nation.

“President John F. Kennedy exemplified the meaning of service, not just to country, but service to all humanity,” Mabus said in a Navy news release. “I am honored to have the opportunity to name the next aircraft carrier after this great sailor and inspirational leader, and to keep the rich tradition and history of USS John F. Kennedy sailing in the U.S. Fleet.”

Born in Brookline, Mass., May 29, 1917, Kennedy graduated from Harvard in 1940, and entered the Navy in October 1941.

During World War II, Kennedy took command of PT 109 at Tulagi Island in the Solomons, with a mission to intercept Japanese ships attempting to resupply their barges in New Georgia. On the morning of Aug. 2, 1943, Kennedy’s ship was struck by an enemy ship and split in half. Over the next six days, Kennedy led his crew members to safety and an eventual rescue. Kennedy received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for the rescue of his crew and a Purple Heart for injuries he sustained when his ship was struck.

After his military service, Kennedy became a congressman representing the Boston area, was elected to the Senate in 1953 and in 1961 became the youngest person to be elected president.

One previous aircraft carrier, CV 67, was named in Kennedy’s honor. It was decommissioned in 2007 after nearly 40 years of service, including Operation Desert Storm.

The ship will be constructed at Newport News Shipbuilding, Va.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,530
USS Gerald R. Ford (updates)
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2013, 11:23:20 »
An update of the ship's construction so far:

Quote

USS GERALD R. FORD: Check Out The Construction Of The Most Expensive Ship Ever

See images of USS Gerald R. Ford...


Business Insider link




Plus info on the other ships of the class:

Quote

Current Named Ships of the Gerald Ford class are:

CVN78- USS Gerald Ford
CVN79- USS John F. Kennedy
and
CVN-80- USS Enterprise

Source link
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 S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,530
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2013, 10:39:32 »
The Ford's hull meets water for the first time...



Defense News blog

Quote

It was a rainy Oct. 11 at Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Va., but spirits remained high as the future USS GERALD R. FORD (CVN 78) was floated for the very first time. Four years after construction began in a huge graving dock, ship’s sponsor Susan Ford Bales, daughter of the late president,  pushed a series of buttons to start the flow of more than 100 million gallons of water into the dry dock.

The flooding of the dock takes place in phases during which various tests are conducted. Initially, the dock is flooded about 4 feet high to its keel blocks, wood-capped concrete pads on which the ship has been supported during construction. Once the dock is fully flooded and initial afloat testing is complete, water will be partially pumped out and the ship returned to her keel blocks in anticipation of the ship’s christening on Nov. 9. The FORD will float again about a week later when it will be moved to a pier for outfitting.

(...)


(More pics and text at the link)
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 tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 112,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,948
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2013, 20:50:45 »
A few more images.



NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (Oct. 11, 2013) Newport News Shipbuilding begins flooding Dry Dock 12 to float the first in class aircraft carrier, Pre-Commissioning Unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Joshua J. Wahl/Released)




Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,093
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,937
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2013, 20:57:25 »
Beautiful lines on her hull
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,530
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2013, 09:38:05 »
More on the USS Gerald R. Ford's upcoming launch:

Military.com

Quote
The USS Gerald R. Ford, the nation's first Ford Class aircraft carrier, is readying for christening on Nov. 9 and a rigorous set of tests and evaluations after that.

The 77-ton, next-generation carrier is slated for 27 months of assessments before it's commissioned for service in 2016, service officials said.  "This is going to the most challenging and integrated test program the Navy has ever faced," said Rear Adm. Tom Moore, Program Executive Officer, Carriers. "Ford has a level of integration that no other ship has ever had. Because the ship is all electric, almost every system on that ship is integrated in some way."

(...)

« Last Edit: November 07, 2013, 09:43:21 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 Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,694
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2013, 09:49:54 »
I think somebody goofed: The ORCA's are more than 77 tons.

Last time I checked, the FORD was to be larger than 110,000 tons.

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,730
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2013, 21:15:56 »
I think somebody goofed: The ORCA's are more than 77 tons.

Last time I checked, the FORD was to be larger than 110,000 tons.

Hell, the crew alone would be in the range of 375 tons.

(500 Officers + 3800 Enlisted) * 175 lb (avg) = 376 tons
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline AJFitzpatrick

  • Distracted by shiny things
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 12,888
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 510
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2013, 21:38:02 »
77 meters is the flight deck length beam according to Wikipedia ...
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 12:29:43 by AJFitzpatrick »

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,694
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2013, 22:19:57 »
Again, that must be a typo: I would hope that 77 meters would be the flight deck's width, not length, which should be closer to 315 meters.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 112,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,948
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2013, 08:44:31 »
The flight deck is 335m and the flight deck width is 78m. The Ford will be the first carrier to not use steam for the catapults,rather the catapults will be driven by electricity. Four linear motors will create magnetic waves that propel the catapult.The ship will require 700 fewer crew.

http://www.military-today.com/navy/ford_class.htm

Offline AJFitzpatrick

  • Distracted by shiny things
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 12,888
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 510
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2013, 12:25:11 »
I'll own the flight deck length vs beam typo ...

Curious to know how the sensitive electronics both onboard and enplane are going to be protected from the magnetic waves rolling across the flight deck but I'm not expecting any kind of a detailed answer other than "shielding".
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 12:29:07 by AJFitzpatrick »

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 466,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,870
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #13 on: November 08, 2013, 12:43:38 »
Hell, the crew alone would be in the range of 375 tons.

(500 Officers + 3800 Enlisted) * 175 lb (avg) = 376 tons

I'd be hard pressed to find many sailors at or below 175 lbs...

This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,730
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #14 on: November 08, 2013, 19:11:30 »
The Ford will be the first carrier to not use steam for the catapults,rather the catapults will be driven by electricity. Four linear motors will create magnetic waves that propel the catapult.

I wonder if the designers ever watched "The Philadelphia Experiment"  ;D
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,730
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2013, 19:12:39 »
I'd be hard pressed to find many sailors at or below 175 lbs...

Especially in the US Navy. :nod:

It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 33,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 906
  • Jackwagon
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2013, 07:52:37 »
I'd be hard pressed to find many sailors at or below 175 lbs...
Hey, hey!...I was that...on my first ship...when I was 19!
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Offline Yrys

  • α-γνωστικισμός
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 31,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,195
  • You can deprive the body but the soul needs choco!
US Navy christens first Ford-class aircraft carrier - BBC News
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2013, 14:02:07 »
US Navy christens first Ford-class aircraft carrier



The US Navy has christened the first of its new Ford-class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

The new super-carrier, which is only 70% complete, is named after late US President Gerald Ford.
It is the first of 10 carriers designed to get more fighter planes into the sky more quickly, but
with 1,000 fewer crew members. The USS Gerald R Ford is reportedly about 22% over budget,
at a cost of almost $13bn (£8.1bn, 9.7bn euros). It comes at a time of growing budget
pressures for the US.

The carrier, which will weigh 100,000 tonnes, is reportedly due to be finished in 2016 when
sea trials are likely to begin.

'Courage'
The ship is said to be the most technologically advanced aircraft carrier the US has built.
"She is truly a technological marvel," Chief of Naval Operations Adm Jonathan Greenert
said. Mr Ford's daughter, Susan Ford Bales, smashed the traditional bottle of champagne
into the ship at a ceremony in Virginia on Saturday. Former US Vice-President Dick Cheney
and former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were among those leading tributes to the
38th US president.

"He was a man of courage and solid values... and I know the men and women who sail
this ship will bring those same qualities in their service to our nation," Mr Rumsfeld told
the audience.

President of Newport News Shipbuilding, Matt Mulherin, left, watches as Susan Ford Bales,
daughter of former President Gerald R. Ford, right, christens the Navy's newest nuclear
powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford at Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport
News, Va., Saturday, Nov. 9, 2013

Susan Ford Bales, daughter of President Gerald Ford, christens the carrier

Delays with the ship's completion mean the US Navy will be reduced to a 10-carrier fleet,
following the USS Enterprise's deactivation last year. Fewer crew members mean the
Ford-class carrier is expected to save $4bn (£2.5bn, 3bn euros) over the ship's 50-year
life span, according to the ship's website.


It is designed to increase its ability to launch fighter jets and helicopters by 25%,
generate more electrical power and allow the use of unmanned drones.

Mr Ford, who took office after Richard Nixon quit over the Watergate scandal in 1974,
died in December 2006 at the age of 93.
Louvre website

"Happiness is beneficial for the body, but it is grief that develops the powers of the mind."  Marcel Proust

Offline S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,530
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2014, 13:31:06 »
Quote
Ford Carriers Sport New Radars To Deflect Threats
U.S. Navy says it can thwart Chinese ASBM threat

Michael Fabey - Aviation Week & Space Technology
May 29, 2014


When the next-generation aircraft carrier CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford takes to the seas later this decade, it will face one of the most dangerous threats to the U.S. maritime military behemoth - the Chinese DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM).

But U.S. Navy officials remain confident that the technological improvements to the Ford as well as the other ships shielding the carrier from attack should be able to protect the vessel.

But zeroing in on a carrier with such a missile is more difficult than it seems, says Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, director of air warfare.


"People think this is a big target. But they have to get to the carrier and then discern that it is a carrier. It's a series of systems. We want to attack it on the left side of the kill chain. The ship will have the kind of electrical power margins to make it possible to incorporate lasers or other energy weapons aboard the vessels. The Ford's electric power distribution grid kicks up about 13,800 volts. The Ford was designed with a 60 percent increase in capacity."

- Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, USN

The ship also will be sporting the Navy's new dual-band radar (DBR), another major technology improvement for the Ford-class carrier that should help provide missile defense.



Aviation Week

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 S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,530
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2015, 21:10:19 »
Similar to the shock tests in the picture at the link below:

Defense News

Quote
Pentagon Directs Shock Tests on Carrier Ford

By Christopher P. Cavas4:43 p.m. EDT August 11, 2015
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon rejected a US Navy plan to carry out shock and survivability tests on the second ship of its new aircraft carrier design, and instead directed the service to test the first ship — even though doing so may delay the ship's first deployment by at least half a year.

In an Aug. 7 memo to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's top acquisition official, ordered the "full ship shock trial" (FSST) to be carried out on the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), first of a new class of carriers and expected to enter service in 2016.

The ship is in the final stages of construction at Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia.

(...SNIPPED)

Plus a belated update from last year:

US Navy's Next-Generation Aircraft Carrier Begins Testing Phase

(Yahoo! News)
Quote
The U.S. Navy's newest aircraft carrier — a massive warship outfitted with the latest radar technology and sophisticated systems to accommodate unmanned, carrier-launched drones — is set to undergo more than two years of rigorous testing.
<snipped>
The USS Ford was christened during a special ceremony in November in Newport News, Va. The massive warship is slated to officially enter service in the Navy in 2016. But first, shipbuilders will spend 26 months meticulously testing the aircraft carrier's various systems.


Photo by Chris Oxley/Newport News Shipbuilding
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 S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,530
Senator McCain: "We can't afford Ford class aircraft carriers!"
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2015, 10:41:50 »
Senator McCain eyeing getting rid of the Ford class carriers before they even get completed?

Washington Post

Quote
Why John McCain called this $13 billion aircraft carrier a “spectacular” debacle

As the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier enters the annals of troubled acquisition programs—billions over budget, years behind schedule—it follows a familiar script, becoming yet another example of how the Pentagon struggles with buying major weapons systems.

The Navy’s program has become “one of the most spectacular acquisition debacles in recent memory. And that is saying something,” McCain (R-Ariz.) said during a Senate hearing on the troubled program Thursday.

But one thing stands out about the Ford-class carrier program that separates it from other flawed Pentagon acquisitions: the fact that Congress’ watchdog predicted many of the exact failures now plaguing the program almost a decade ago.

(...SNIPPED)




Reuters

Quote
Senators blast cost increases on U.S. Navy aircraft carrier
Reuters By Idrees Ali
13 hours ago

Washington (Reuters) - Senator John McCain on Thursday said huge cost overruns on a new class of aircraft carriers built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc made it "one of the most spectacular acquisition debacles" in recent years, and the Navy needed different options for the future.

The USS Gerald R. Ford, the first of three new nuclear-powered, city-sized aircraft carriers, is expected to cost $12.9 billion, or $2.4 billion more than originally expected, McCain told a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee he chairs. The second ship, the USS John F. Kennedy, is $2.5 billion over budget at $11.5 billion, and five years behind schedule.

(...SNIPPED)

« Last Edit: October 02, 2015, 10:47:14 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 S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,530
USS Gerald Ford to commission in summer 2016
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2016, 00:43:57 »
Update: commissioning of the first ship in the class will be this summer!

Market Watch

Quote
Opinion: The U.S. Navy’s new $13 billion aircraft carrier will dominate the seas

Published: Mar 12, 2016 11:00 a.m. ET

By Jurica Dujmovic
Columnist

(Updates story to say the ship will be commissioned in summer.)

A $13 billion U.S. aircraft carrier is about to hit the open seas.

It’s the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the most expensive and most advanced warship ever built. The ship was christened in November 2013 and is scheduled to be commissioned this summer, said Lieutenant Jesus Uranga of the Navy Office of Information. It had been slated to be commissioned this month.

The Naval behemoth can house more than 4,500 people and weighs 90,000 tons. The CVN-78 is the lead ship in the Ford class of aircraft carriers, replacing some of the U.S. Navy’s existing Nimitz-class carriers. At first glance, both classes have a similar-looking hull, but the Ford class introduces a series of technical innovations designed to improve carrier’s operating efficiency, and reduce operating costs and crew requirements.

(...SNIPPED)
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 S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,530
USS Barack Obama considered as name for future CVN-81
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2016, 23:23:56 »
Some members of Congress will not be happy at this:

National Interest

Quote
USS Barack Obama: Building a Future Aircraft Carrier


Should the U.S. Navy name a future Ford-class carrier after President Barack Obama?

Since the 1990s, most of America’s aircraft carriers have been named after U.S. presidents, save for the USS Nimitz (CVN-68), USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74). Thus far, out of the planned ten-carrier Ford-class, the Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) and the John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) are named after presidents, but CVN-80 will follow the long tradition of using the name Enterprise. The next carrier after Enterprise, CVN-81, will likely be revert to the convention of naming carriers after presidents. Indeed, there is a case to be made for naming the ship USS Barack Obama.

(...SNIPPED)

Ultimately, there are a variety of factors that go into ship names—but politics clearly play a prominent role. Given the current trend line—three Republican-named carriers in a row, then one Democrat-named carrier—perhaps the U.S. Navy can look forward to not only a USS Barack Obama but also a USS William Jefferson Clinton.

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 tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 112,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,948
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2016, 08:39:00 »
Usually a ship is named after someone who is deceased,not one who is still living.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 564,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,265
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2016, 08:54:36 »
Usually a ship is named after someone who is deceased, not one who is still living.
If that's what it takes....   :clubinhand:

      ;D

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 545
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
  • *
  • 98,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,157
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

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 218,962
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,490
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
  • *****
  • 132,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,530
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
  • *
  • 564,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,265
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
  • *
  • 218,962
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,490
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
  • *
  • 209,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,788
  • 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"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,654
  • Two birthdays
    • The 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
  • *
  • 218,962
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,490
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?

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,654
  • Two birthdays
    • The 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
  • *
  • 218,962
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,490
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.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,654
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #36 on: July 01, 2019, 12:17:23 »
Trump has some justification for his frustration with these carriers:

Quote
Concerned Over Delays, Navy Dispatches Commercial Industry Team To Fix Ford Carrier
The Navy's new $13 billion carrier has run into trouble, and the Navy has called in some outside help.

Increasingly concerned over technological problems plaguing its new $13 billion nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Navy has dispatched a unique team of civilian and government experts to the USS Gerald R. Ford in a new attempt to understand what is happening.

The experts, pulled from outside the defense industry in order to provide a fresh perspective, were selected for their expertise in working with complex electromagnetic systems, a technology that has proved daunting for the Navy and shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls at its Newport News Shipbuilding facilities in Virginia.

The team, which Navy officials have declined to identify, started work last month on getting the ship’s 11 electromagnetic weapons elevators up and running, a task that the Secretary of the Navy has already staked his job on, telling President Trump he can fire him if they’re not in working order.

Currently, only two of the ship’s new weapons elevators are operational, meaning sailors are unable to quickly move munitions from belowdecks to aircraft ready to take off.

“We have a full court press on the advanced weapons elevators,” said James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for acquisition in a statement. “We’ve gathered a team of experts on the carrier right now, which will work with the shipbuilder to get Ford’s weapons elevators completed in the most efficient timeline possible.” Significantly, Geurts said, the team “will also recommend new design changes that can improve elevator activities for the rest of the Ford class.” The group, the Navy said, has worked in electromagnetic systems, fabrication and production control, software, systems integration, and electrical engineering in the commercial sector.

The admission of serious design flaws with one of the carrier’s most vaunted new technologies is another acquisition and maintenance-related black eye for the Navy, which is struggling to get ships through routine repair availabilities, and has seen critical flaws pop up in the missile tubes aboard its next-generation Columbia-class nuclear submarines...

Earlier this year, the Navy announced it was pushing back the schedule for getting the Ford to sea for its next round of trials, moving the tests from July to October, due to a number of issues, including the elevators.

The schedule slip has put Navy Secretary Richard Spencer in an awkward position, as he previously related he told President Trump, “I asked him to stick his hand out; he stuck his hand out. I said, let’s do this like corporate America. I shook his hand and said, the elevators will be ready to go when she pulls out or you can fire me
[emphasis added].”..


https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/concerned-over-delays-navy-dispatches-commercial-industry-team-to-fix-ford-carrier/

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 12:20:22 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,654
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #37 on: July 31, 2019, 15:03:33 »
Nominee for new US Navy CNO (a three-star jumped over several four-stars) gets heat from Senators at confirmation hearing--note mention of Arctic, North Atlantic, relevant for RCN/CCG):

Quote
Inhofe: Navy ‘Arrogance’ On USS Ford ‘Oughta Be Criminal’
Presumptive CNO Vice Adm. Mike Gilday is forced to answer for years of Navy problems.

The head of the Senate Armed Service Committee today charged Navy leadership with “a level of arrogance” in dealing with the failures of its new $13 billion USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, saying the lack of planning for key new technologies that have struggled to perform “oughta be criminal.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe’s comments came during the nomination hearing for the next Chief of Naval Operations, Vice Adm. Mike Gilday, who was on the spot to answer for years of maintenance delays, modernization stumbles, and the struggle to grow to a 355-ship fleet in a two-hour hearing.

The hearing — generally friendlier than that might make it seem at first glance  — presented the image of a service struggling to modernize at a critical time as commitments mount in the Pacific, Arctic [emphasis added], and North Atlantic [Russkie subs with SLCMs], as China churns out new warships at a rate unmatched anywhere else on the globe.

Inhofe assured Gilday he realized the admiral isn’t responsible for any of these issues, but kicked off the proceedings with pointed questions about the Ford, along with a litany of issues plaguing the Navy.

The Navy is both under-manned and its hulls under-maintained, with close to 70 percent of ships unable to get through maintenance availabilities on time, Inhofe said, noting there’s $1.8 billion in outstanding maintenance needs still unfunded. “Overall,” the senator added, “it seems to me that the Navy is having trouble maintaining today’s fleet of 291 ships, and the challenges will only grow as the fleet surpasses 300 ships in 2020 and 310 ships in 2022, on the way to 355 ships in the 2030s.”

The chief concern on the Ford is the fact that only two of 11 weapons elevators work, and there is no timeframe for getting the rest online. The elevators, which pull munitions from below deck topside for aircraft on the deck, are a new electromagnetic design that has bedeviled Navy planners. The service has called in a team of experts from commercial industry to help out...

Gilday confirmed to the committee that the Columbia-class nuclear submarine remains the Navy’s top priority, and that he is making sure the industrial base is prepared for continued builds of the boat that will be a key part of the United State’s nuclear triad in the coming decades. That will be no small task as the submarine industrial base will be asked in short order to double production rates from two submarines a year to at least four, which include the upgraded Virginia-class subs.

The admiral said work is pushing forward on the Columbia, and it’s on track to have 80 percent of the design work done by next year. In a nod to the Ford’s failures, he said that “any new technologies we introduce to those submarines are tested” well before being installed on the boat...

Gilday’s nomination was somewhat of a surprise, as the former commander of 10th Fleet and the Navy’s cyber arm, was outranked by seven sitting four-star admirals [emphasis added]. Such a move hasn’t happened since 1970 when then-Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt was nominated to be CNO, leapfrogging over a clutch of four-stars. It may be a sign that the Trump administration wants the Navy shaken up.
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/inhofe-navy-arrogance-on-uss-ford-oughta-be-criminal/

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

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 112,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,948
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #38 on: August 02, 2019, 11:46:48 »
The latest problem is getting ammunition from one deck to another. If I find a link I will share.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/navy-13-billion-carrier-t-222636871.html
« Last Edit: August 02, 2019, 12:07:41 by tomahawk6 »

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 468
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #39 on: August 02, 2019, 14:45:54 »
The elevator problem is cover for the EMALS.  (this is the conjecture on the Cdr Salamader site)  The Ford has not launched a plane is over a year. 

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,654
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #40 on: August 06, 2019, 11:26:51 »
How survivable will USN carriers be vs Russian, Chinese hypersonics (not to mention various other types of missiles)?

Quote
With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers

The new chief of naval operations, Adm. Michael Gilday, was confirmed quickly by the Senate last week, but lawmakers made clear that the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers to ever-faster and evasive missiles will be among the issues he’s expected to tackle when he officially takes the reins.

The Navy’s main force projection tool, the carrier, became a punching bag for several lawmakers at Gilday’s confirmation hearing, as they alternately raised the threat posed by Chinese and Russian hypersonic missiles and berated the Navy’s future top admiral for the significant delays and cost overruns associated with the new carrier Gerald R. Ford.

At one point during the July 31 hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., told Gilday the Navy’s arrogance on the carrier “ought to be criminal.” Later on, longtime friend of the Navy Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, warned that hypersonic missiles were a “nightmare weapon” that threatened to make carriers obsolete.

And while the lawmakers differed on the future of aircraft carriers and their long-term viability, the hearing left no doubt that Gilday, a career surface warfare officer, has his work cut out for him in proving he can guide the service toward a more stable future for the Navy’s most expensive and strategically invaluable assets.

To be clear, Inhofe does not oppose carriers, and he has publicly reminded multiple Trump administration officials of the Navy’s legal requirement to maintain 11 of them. Inhofe was in the bipartisan chorus of lawmakers who opposed Pentagon plans to cut costs by decommissioning the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman before the administration scuttled those plans this year.

When it comes to the Ford program, Inhofe plans to keep the Navy on a short leash and pressed Gilday to commit that he would work to prevent the kind of widespread “first-in-class” issues that have plagued the Ford. It’s an issue with some urgency behind it, as the Navy prepares to tackle the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine for nuclear deterrent patrols, as well as a next-generation frigate, new classes of unmanned warships and a new large surface combatant.

“The Navy entered into this contract in 2008, which, combined with other contracts, have ballooned the cost of the ship more than $13 billion without understanding the technical risks, the costs or the schedules, and you know this ought to be criminal,” Inhofe said.

The Navy had taken a gamble integrating immature dual-band radar, catapult, arresting gear and weapons elevators, and Inhofe expressed displeasure with the result...

‘Sitting ducks’

As for rising threats to the carrier, King believes hypersonic missiles are an existential threat to the Navy and urged Gilday to take the issue head on.

“Every aircraft carrier that we own can disappear in a coordinated attack,” King said. “And it is a matter of minutes. Murmansk, [Russia], to the Norwegian Sea is 12 minutes at 6,000 miles an hour.

“So I hope you will take back a sense of urgency to the Navy and to the research capacity and to the private sector that this has to be an urgent priority because otherwise we are creating a vulnerability that could in itself lead to instability.”

In an interview with Defense News, King said the speed at which the Russians and Chinese are fielding the capability worries him.

“My concern is that we are a number of years away from having that capacity, and our adversaries are within a year of deployment
[emphasis added],” he said. “And that creates a dangerous gap, in my view. This represents a qualitative gap in offensive warfare that history tells we better figure out how to deal with, or it will mitigate our ... advantage.”

King, who represents the state where half the Navy’s destroyers are produced, also said he’s concerned about the long-term viability of aircraft carriers in a world with hypersonic missiles.

“I think it does raise a question of the role of the aircraft carrier if we cannot figure a way to counter this capability,” he said. “I don’t want indefensible, $12 billion sitting ducks out there. I’m not prepared to say the carrier is obsolete, but I say that this weapon undermines the viability of the carrier [emphasis added].”..
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/08/06/with-mounting-questions-about-cost-and-survivability-a-shifting-political-landscape-for-us-aircraft-carriers/

Post from 2016 (pre-hypersonic)--links at start no longer work but do if copy title and paste in "Search" box at top right:

Quote
US Navy: Carriers or Subs, with the Dragon in Mind
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/mark-collins-us-navy-carriers-or-subs-with-the-dragon-in-mind/

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

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,788
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #41 on: August 06, 2019, 16:48:36 »
Step 1:  Reliably launch a 10 kg projectile using electromagnetic force

https://thediplomat.com/2019/06/us-navys-railgun-entering-new-testing-phases/

Step 2: Reliably lift a 1000 kg pallet between decks using electromagnetic force

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-30/flawed-elevators-on-13-billion-carrier-miss-another-deadline

Step 3:  Reliably launch a 31,800 kg F35C using electromagnetic force

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/no-f-35s-navys-new-aircraft-carriers-has-long-list-big-problems-61647

Glad it's not my project.


PS Related thought

Where are all the Maglev trains of the 1980s?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/29/maglev-magnetic-levitation-domestic-travel
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 16:57:13 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,261
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,788
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #43 on: August 06, 2019, 17:24:49 »
China? ???

Shanghai Maglev Train

Quote
Operating costs   

A 2007 statement by Transrapid USA said with 4 million passengers in 2006 the system was able to cover its operating costs. The ratio of costs were given as: 64%-energy, 19%-maintenance & 17%-operations/support services; no amount was given. The high proportion of energy costs was attributed to the short trip time and high operating speed.[16] However, according to Chinese media's report, due to the huge costs of operating and the lack of the passenger flow, Shanghai Maglev Transportation Company would lose 500 million to 700 million RMB every year.[17]

Efficiency appears to need work.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,261
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The US Navy's Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (updates)"
« Reply #44 on: August 06, 2019, 20:57:31 »
Efficiency appears to need work.

In a purely ‘transactional’ sense, perhaps.

Then again, $70M USD isn’t a bad sunk cost for having the prestige of operating a 460km/h maglev train, while ‘greater’ countries futz around with second-thought technology that takes a back seat to chugging freight trains... :dunno:

Regards
G2G