Gerald R. Ford Class CVN

brownt62 said:
I honestly feel if the Navy says ..."we changed it to Steam" after a decent interval he would never know the difference...of course that would involve a lot of people in the deception.
Click to expand...
To switch to steam means, quite literally, tearing the carrier apart to put in all the piping, steam bottles, and other stuff for steam catapults. You'd damn near be better off just building a whole new carrier.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The fact that the Ford has been deployed for 250+ consecutive days without a port suggests that the EMALS works quite well.
Click to expand...
You mean deployed in a low threat Caribbean environment, within continuous range of the COD? Why so many days at sea without a port of call? It’s a bit like camping out in your own backyard for 250 continuous days. All within continuous range of the COD. General Atomics could fly out technicians on a weekly basis to work on the EMALS and their proprietary arrestor gear, if it was required. Perhaps both systems are mature and there wasn’t a single GA contractor aboard for the entire 250 days at sea? Anything is possible, I suppose. I don’t know, I’m not asking, not guessing, it’s none of my business.

Key decision makers in the DOD have access to all of the data in the world regarding the uptime and MTBF of EMALS. General Atomics has enough lobbyists to protect their own interests in Congress without requiring any assistance from the peanut gallery. And in the end, Congress controls appropriations and procurement, not the executive branch. And Congress is controlled by lobbyists, to the extent that legislation is often written line by line by lobbyists.

I personally don’t have an opinion as to EMALS, electric elevators, electric arrestor gear or the placement of an aircraft carrier’s island. Considering that just about every aspect of the design was essentially decided on by a study initiated 30 years, it’s as silly as the Taft Administration deciding on key aspect aircraft carrier design for the Battle of Midway. Too much time has elapsed between fundamental decision making and the actual operational fielding of long delayed systems. The men behind the selection EMALS are all retired, or died of old age like Rumsfeld, so there’s no accountability one way or another. This is what happens when you allow procurement to run on a longer timescale than any normal human being’s working life.
 
He are being treated almost like a bizarre president (regardless of whether that is actually the case),
but isn't the crux of the problem a structural issue where the Navy is unable to offer appropriate recommendations to the government?
We must change the system in which the significance of features like catapults and the island superstructure fails to reach or be understood by those at the top.
 
brownt62 said:
I honestly feel if the Navy says ..."we changed it to Steam" after a decent interval he would never know the difference...of course that would involve a lot of people in the deception.
Click to expand...
You say that like that wouldn't be the case with 99% of the people on the planet, Presidents included.
 
ayatsuji said:
He are being treated almost like a bizarre president (regardless of whether that is actually the case),
but isn't the crux of the problem a structural issue where the Navy is unable to offer appropriate recommendations to the government?
We must change the system in which the significance of features like catapults and the island superstructure fails to reach or be understood by those at the top.
Click to expand...

There are limits to what an organization can do to educate its bosses. And Trump in partucular has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not interested in understanding reality but rather forcing reality to confirm to his irrational beliefs.
 
TomS said:
There are limits to what an organization can do to educate its bosses. And Trump in partucular has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not interested in understanding reality but rather forcing reality to confirm to his irrational beliefs.
Click to expand...
"Irrational"? So the EM catapults weren't having problems being talked about all over the news then?
 
Sferrin said:
"Irrational"? So the EM catapults weren't having problems being talked about all over the news then?
Click to expand...
Rational would be to understand that systems can break, that novel systems that offer better performance break easier than the old school stuff. Unfortunately rationality has not been the norm for a long time.
 
Hydroman said:
Any new tech has issues from the first cars. computers, etc. Steam catapults had their issues also in the beginnings and really have not changed much. EMALS is new tech and has to mature. You focus on the US industrial base but say nothing of China which is using EMALS on it's Type 003 and France which is planning on an EMALS system for their new carrier, so EMALS must be a good thing, if not, no one else would be using or considering it. I know first hand from friends of mine which were AB's and worked in V2 on the cats on CVN-65, constant maintenance and a pain to work on.

If EMALS turns out to be a complete failure then maybe newer tech steam cats or high-capacity pneumatics could be a solution. With high pressure pneumatics, there are safety concerns (along with high-temp, high pressure steam) like if there is a breach, chance fragging and potentially killing personnel due to instantaneous release of air pressure, not to mention the size of the compressors (including electrical power to drive the compressors) in order create the volume of compressed air required.

It will be interesting if we hear of any issues with China's EMALS, probably not due to way China tweaks info but you never know or maybe they solved the issues, have to wait and see.

When implementing new tech, there is no free lunch and most does not work 100% out of the box.
Click to expand...
Comparing the MSA and PESA radars under the F‑X radar program is inappropriate; that was an error on my part. The F100‑PW‑100 might serve as a better example. Severe reliability issues with the F100‑PW‑100 significantly degraded F‑15 readiness. Mutual recriminations between the USAF and Pratt & Whitney ultimately led the USAF to instigate the "Great Engine War".

Nearly ten years have elapsed since 2017. It is worth pondering whether EMALS, AAG, and AWE are re‑enacting the F100‑PW‑100 episode. At the very least, when compared to the iteration pace of the C13‑1 catapult under the former NAEC, I hold that EMALS, AAG, and AWE have iterated at a comparatively sluggish rate.

China’s first large‑size CVN is under construction. Working from a conservative threat assessment and factoring in China’s present world‑leading industrial capabilities, it is my assessment that its EMALS most likely contains no fatal flaws.
 
Jacky said:
Comparing the MSA and PESA radars under the F‑X radar program is inappropriate; that was an error on my part. The F100‑PW‑100 might serve as a better example. Severe reliability issues with the F100‑PW‑100 significantly degraded F‑15 readiness. Mutual recriminations between the USAF and Pratt & Whitney ultimately led the USAF to instigate the "Great Engine War".

Nearly ten years have elapsed since 2017. It is worth pondering whether EMALS, AAG, and AWE are re‑enacting the F100‑PW‑100 episode. At the very least, when compared to the iteration pace of the C13‑1 catapult under the former NAEC, I hold that EMALS, AAG, and AWE have iterated at a comparatively sluggish rate.

China’s first large‑size CVN is under construction. Working from a conservative threat assessment and factoring in China’s present world‑leading industrial capabilities, it is my assessment that its EMALS most likely contains no fatal flaws.
Click to expand...
I don't know how well China's EMALS is working or not unless you have insider information, from your assessment of course? The Type 003 already has an EMALS system, anybody know if it working well or not?
 
Hydroman said:
I don't know how well China's EMALS is working or not unless you have insider information, from your assessment of course? The Type 003 already has an EMALS system, anybody know if it working well or not?
Click to expand...
Specific internal details can only be expected from the CIA. I am merely making judgments based on publicly available information.

  1. Between 2015 and 2016, comparative trials were conducted between steam cat and electromagnetic cat at the land‑based facility in Xingcheng, Liaoning Province. It was ultimately decided to revise the design and replace the steam cats originally planned for the Type 003 aircraft carrier with electromagnetic ones. A PLA Navy rear admiral publicly noted in Chinese media that more than a thousand land‑based catapult launches had been completed.
  2. Electromagnetic cats are slated for not only the Type 003 aircraft carrier, but also the Type 076 amphibious assault ship. There even exists a land‑mobile variant intended for launching UAVs.
  3. Judging from the PLAN’s experience with the Type 039 submarine—where the lead boat failed to meet performance requirements and only one was produced, with formal series production switching to the improved Type 039G—if the electromagnetic cats on the Type 003 had serious problems, the PLAN wouldn't have been so quick to adopt the same system on the Type 076 , nor would it have immediately proceeded with construction of a larger CVN.
As an aside: both the PLAN’s electromagnetic cat system and IEP system were developed under the leadership of Academician Ma Weiming at the PLA Naval University of Engineering.
 
https://news.usni.org/2026/08/24/us...eded-nimitz-class-performance-says-cno-caudle

A February stress test of the electromagnetic launch system, EMALS, and the advanced arresting gear installed aboard Ford showed the carrier could generate 120 to 130 percent more sorties than the existing systems aboard the Nimitz-class, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said during a roundtable at the Tailhook Symposium in Reno, Nevada. The test occurred while Ford was in the Caribbean Sea before sailing to U.S. European Command and the Red Sea.
Click to expand...
 
Observations made at Newport News Shipbuilding between August 2 and August 27 indicate a significant increase in the number of keel blocks positioned on the starboard side; conservatively estimated, the arrangement of keel blocks for CVN-81 should be completed in the second half of this year, with the actual keel-laying process commencing at year's end.


Additionally, can anyone provide more detailed satellite imagery or on-site photographs?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20260829_232703.jpg
    IMG_20260829_232703.jpg
    283 KB · Views: 47
wtna7 said:
Observations made at Newport News Shipbuilding between August 2 and August 27 indicate a significant increase in the number of keel blocks positioned on the starboard side; conservatively estimated, the arrangement of keel blocks for CVN-81 should be completed in the second half of this year, with the actual keel-laying process commencing at year's end.
Click to expand...

I suppose that the proper positioning of the keel-blocks is a slow, painstaking process as they will have to support a warship that's over 100,000 tons in weight before it's floated out?
 
NMaude said:
I suppose that the proper positioning of the keel-blocks is a slow, painstaking process as they will have to support a warship that's over 100,000 tons in weight before it's floated out?
Click to expand...
Yes. They are placed using lasers and GPS survey equipment to ensure they are exactly where they need to be. You don't fudge it with a 100,000t nuclear carrier.
 
https://www.armyrecognition.com/new...d-aircraft-carrier-to-boost-flight-operations

The U.S. Navy is preparing a major reliability upgrade for the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) aboard USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), with newly released acquisition data detailing a planned fourth-engine solution and additional hardware and software improvements intended to strengthen aircraft recovery during sustained high-tempo flight operations. The modernization effort is expected to reach the carrier in fiscal year 2029.


The new details come from a U.S. Navy Modernized Selected Acquisition Report dated April 21, 2026 and subsequently released by the Pentagon. The report also provides fresh insight into AAG performance during Gerald R. Ford's second operational deployment, when the system reached an instantaneous operational availability rate of 0.987 during the first six months.
Click to expand...
 
My understanding is that errors/failures are more frequent with EMALS and AAG than the old systems but that those failures are much faster to resolve than with the old steam systems as the failures are more minor. So despite the more frequent failures they still have pretty good uptime.
 
CNO Caudle on EMALS/steam: "The Navy is going into this study with eyes wide open with the goal of assuaging the President's concern." —as quoted in Aviation Week's Check 6 Podcast, Sept. 1 2026.
 
I wonder if those long-lead items include components for its' EMALS catapult?

Now for those of us who're not familiar with naval-construction what typically are these long-lead items for a CVN?
 
NMaude said:
I wonder if those long-lead items include components for its' EMALS catapult?

Now for those of us who're not familiar with naval-construction what typically are these long-lead items for a CVN?
Click to expand...

Reduction gearing, reactors, catapults, and some forgings.
 
NMaude said:
I suppose that would also include propellors and propellor-shafts?
Click to expand...
Likely. Takes a long time for the hundreds of tons of bronze to cool once cast and then you need to machine it. The shafts need long pieces of steel, but are basically machined on site on some of the longest lathes in the world.

Also, are we still using reduction gears with the electric drive?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Likely. Takes a long time for the hundreds of tons of bronze to cool once cast and then you need to machine it. The shafts need long pieces of steel, but are basically machined on site on some of the longest lathes in the world.

Also, are we still using reduction gears with the electric drive?
Click to expand...
I think the electric drives are working fine, have not heard any thing negative about the drives, could be wrong.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Likely. Takes a long time for the hundreds of tons of bronze to cool once cast and then you need to machine it. The shafts need long pieces of steel, but are basically machined on site on some of the longest lathes in the world.

Also, are we still using reduction gears with the electric drive?
Click to expand...

The Fords don't use electric drive. They have greatly increased electrical generation capacity to drive EMALS/AAG and other systems, but no one was quite crazy enough to switch them to full electric propulsion. So there are still steam turbo-generators for electricity and steam turbines and reduction gearing for the propulsion chain.
 
TomS said:
The Fords don't use electric drive. They have greatly increased electrical generation capacity to drive EMALS/AAG and other systems, but no one was quite crazy enough to switch them to full electric propulsion. So there are still steam turbo-generators for electricity and steam turbines and reduction gearing for the propulsion chain.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay.

Edit: I had thought they were turbo-electric, it's not like the USN hasn't done that on carriers before.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
The Fords don't use electric drive. They have greatly increased electrical generation capacity to drive EMALS/AAG and other systems, but no one was quite crazy enough to switch them to full electric propulsion. So there are still steam turbo-generators for electricity and steam turbines and reduction gearing for the propulsion chain.
Click to expand...
Thanks, wasn't sure. I was thinking Zumwalt class which uses electric drives.
 
The three keel sections of CVN-81 are currently being laid; if the overall assembly proceeds smoothly, the keel-laying ceremony could take place sometime between September and mid-November—or possibly even earlier.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1789830167681.jpg
    IMG_1789830167681.jpg
    46.5 KB · Views: 20
  • Screenshot_2026_0919_230601.png
    Screenshot_2026_0919_230601.png
    374.2 KB · Views: 20

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom