Gerald R. Ford Class CVN

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
94
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Huntington Ingalls video of U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) build sequence:

The first-in-class aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford is the Navy's first aircraft carrier to be completely designed using a 3-dimensional product model.
http://youtu.be/q4F_JcFZSU4
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,466
Reaction score
21
Sorry, couldn't resist, but does the Jiangnan Shipyard near Shanghai has this sequence too ??? ;D
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,970
Reaction score
60
Judging the public opinion about China, you just have to revise the beginning and end date, and
maybe play the video at a higher speed ! ;D
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
8
Deino said:
Sorry, couldn't resist, but does the Jiangnan Shipyard near Shanghai has this sequence too ??? ;D
Have they ever built a carrier? Huntingdon (Newport News) has.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,466
Reaction score
21
Abraham Gubler said:
Deino said:
Sorry, couldn't resist, but does the Jiangnan Shipyard near Shanghai has this sequence too ??? ;D
Have they ever built a carrier? Huntingdon (Newport News) has.
Definitively not .... but reportedly at that shipyard the first two indigenous - also allegedly a modified Varyag-design - will be build.

Deino
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
Abraham Gubler said:
Deino said:
Sorry, couldn't resist, but does the Jiangnan Shipyard near Shanghai has this sequence too ??? ;D
Have they ever built a carrier? Huntingdon (Newport News) has.
Newport News has built essentially the same design for the last 40 years on an essentially cost plus basis. The Chinese now have a much larger and more diverse ship building industry than the US, with more recent experience using modern techniques to build a larger variety of different types ships. This in some degree probably offset Newport New's specific experience and expertise.
 

Creative

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
241
Reaction score
1
The island comes aboard.

http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2013/01/topping-off-a-carrier-gerald-r-ford-cvn-78-island-landing/
 

Creative

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
241
Reaction score
1
4 EMALS launchers tested.

http://www.avionics-intelligence.com/news/2013/03/20/navy-tests-new-carrier-launch-system.html

The U.S. Navy's new launch system for carrier-based aircraft has demonstrated its generator-sharing capabilities for multiple catapults.
The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, replacing the steam catapult system on aircraft carriers, has six subsystems that work together and share components to power the four catapults on the ship but earlier tests only involved the use of one launcher.
The latest demonstration at Joint Base McGuire-Dix at Lakehurst, N.J., involved four launchers
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,440
Reaction score
39
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?231235-Launch-of-CVN-78-USS-Gerald-R-Ford
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,440
Reaction score
39
http://gcaptain.com/ship-photos-of-the-day-gerald-r-ford-launch/
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
94
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Navy’s new $12b aircraft carrier beset with performance problems
Review raises doubts about launch capacity, other vital systems in new vessel"
by Bryan Bender | Globe Staff
January 10, 2014

Source:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/01/09/reliability-problems-emerge-crucial-components-billion-aircraft-carrier-modern-catapult-for-planes-falls-short-initial-tests-uss-gerald-ford/ZZVA1cN9W40iITvN9uK6yJ/story.html

WASHINGTON — The US Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, a multibillion-dollar behemoth that is the first in a next generation of carriers, is beset with a number of performance problems, even failing tests of its ability to launch and recover combat jets, according to an internal assessment by the Pentagon.

The early tests are raising worries that the USS Gerald R. Ford, christened in honor of the 38th president in November, may not meet the Navy’s goal of significantly increasing the number of warplanes it can quickly launch — and could even be less effective than older vessels. The carrier is undergoing testing at a Virginia shipyard and is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in 2016, with a price tag estimated at more than $12 billion.

At least four crucial components, which are still being installed on the ship, are at risk because of their poor or unknown reliability, states the 30-page testing assessment, which was delivered last month to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and other top Pentagon leaders.

In addition to the ship’s launching and landing systems for jet fighters, officials are also concerned about its advanced radar system, which is being produced by Waltham-based Raytheon Company. It also remains unclear if a key weapons elevator will work as promised.

“Poor reliability of these critical systems could cause a cascading series of delays during flight operations that would affect [the ship’s] ability to generate sorties, make the ship more vulnerable to attack, or create limitations during routine operations,” according to the report, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe.

A number of other systems, such as communications gear, meanwhile, are performing at less than acceptable standards, according to the assessment by J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation. Gilmore concluded that the Navy has little choice but to redesign key components of the ship.

Rear Admiral Thomas J. Moore, the program executive officer for aircraft carriers, defended the progress of the ship in an interview and expressed confidence that, in the two years before delivery, the Navy and its contractors will overcome what he acknowledged are multiple hurdles.

“With these new technologies comes a lot of developmental challenges,” said Moore, an MIT-trained nuclear engineer. “We disagree with the characterizations of the risks. The ship . . . is going to be a fantastic ship that will provide capabilities [the current fleet] doesn’t have.”

But the Navy declined to discuss specifics of the assessment, saying it was an internal document and has not been made public. It also could not say how the problems might affect the delivery schedule, cost, or combat effectiveness. The ship’s primary contractor, Newport News Shipbuilding, also declined to discuss the findings of the report.

“We are going to defer to the Navy on the report,” said Christie R. Miller, a spokesperson for its parent, Huntington Ingalls Shipbuilding.

The ship has had its share of critics in the past. The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, found last year that the cost of producing the ship had risen 22 percent from original predictions.

The Accountability Office recommended delaying construction of the second ship in the class, the USS John F. Kennedy, until the Navy and its contractors have a better handle on a series of untried technologies.

A third vessel in the new ship class, the USS Enterprise, is in the works, and the Navy could buy up to eight more vessels.

At 1,106 feet, the Gerald Ford class ships are the first newly designed carriers in more than 30 years. The prototype has 25 decks and is 250 feet high. The carriers are intended to replace some of the 11 Nimitz class aircraft carriers that debuted in the 1980s.

Most new Pentagon weapons systems encounter development and engineering problems. In this case, the Navy still has two years before scheduled delivery to work on solutions.

But Gilmore’s assessment, which was based on a yearlong evaluation of the Gerald Ford ending in September 2013, is the strongest indication yet that the Navy may be falling short of its goal of increasing the number of combat flights that can be flown from an individual ship.

About 60 percent of the ship, which like its predecessors will be nuclear powered, is based on the Nimitz design, while the remaining 40 percent consists of entirely new components — including a larger flight deck and high-tech systems. It is many of those new technologies that are encountering serious problems, Pentagon leaders have been told.

Primary among them is the so-called electromagnetic aircraft launch system, which is replacing the steam-powered catapult system long used to launch jets off the deck. The new system features a 100,000-horsepower linear electric motor, with a slide that accelerates along a giant rail. It has the ability launch multiple planes, one after the other, at a rapid pace.

Land-based tests of the system in New Jersey have demonstrated a reliability rate of only 240 launches without a failure, when it should be above 1,250 launches without failure at this stage of the Gerald Ford’s development.

Meanwhile, a companion system, known as the advanced arresting gear, which is designed to safely snare landing aircraft with cables stretched across the deck, is similarly unreliable, according to the report. In the tests, the system of cables has averaged 20 successful landings without failure. That is far less than the 4,950 successful landings it should be achieving without failure. The ultimate goal is for the system to work 16,500 times without failure.

Unless the various problems are resolved, the Pentagon weapons testers warned, the Gerald Ford will not be able to fly the number of wartime sorties envisioned by Navy planners, and two carriers might be needed to achieve the same effect of one.

The launch and landing systems are both being built by California-based General Atomics. Gary Hopper, vice president at the company, declined to respond to questions.

“I would defer your questions to our customer,’’ he said. “It is not our policy not to speak for the Navy on this program or others.”

Ronald O’Rourke, a naval analyst at the Congressional Research Service and an expert on shipbuilding programs, said the first ship in a new class traditionally faces significant technological challenges and cost growth.

“Lead ships tend to be difficult,” he said. Still, he added, “the number of new technologies on this ship is not extraordinary.”

Admiral Moore did not address directly the Pentagon’s concerns about the new launch and recovery systems but said the technology was not so futuristic that problems cannot be solved.

“This isn’t like a laser or a proton torpedo,” he said, noting that similar power systems are used to run roller coasters at amusement parks.

But he acknowledged the amount of electric power the Navy needs to generate to launch and recover hundreds of planes each day on the deck of an aircraft carrier at sea is unique.

“On the scale we are talking about, we haven’t done this before,” he said.

The assessment also raised concerns about the progress of the so-called dual band radar that Raytheon’s Integrated Defense Systems and Advanced Technology division in Rhode Island is helping design.

The radar, which is currently being tested along the Virginia coast, is supposed to be able to multitask: conduct air traffic control, scan the skies and the horizon for potential threats, and gather target data that can be fed into the computers of weapons systems.

“There is little information on reliability,” the assessment concludes about the new radar, even though an estimated 86 percent of the system’s components have already been delivered to the Navy. Raytheon did not respond to requests for comment.

Moore, however, said the Navy remains confident in the new radar, although he acknowledged that testing has been limited with the ship in port, where its full power cannot be utilized “unless you want to shut down everybody’s TV station in Norfolk.”

Moore predicted that the ship will overcome its hurdles before it enters the fleet.

“We expect to wring out the rest of the problems,” Moore said. “We have 26 months to go.”
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
94
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Navy Alerted to Ford-class Carrier Reliability Issues"
by Kris Osborn Friday, January 31st, 2014 3:14 pm

Source:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/01/31/navy-alerted-to-ford-class-carrier-reliability-issues/

A Pentagon weapons report says technologies being developed for the Navy’s new next-generation aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, are not reliable.

In particular, the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, or DOT&E, annual report said the ship’s new catapult, the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch Systems, or EMALS, Advanced Arresting Gear, Dual Band Radar and weapons elevators all need more testing and reliability improvement.

The USS Ford, or CVN 78, is slated to complete Initial Operational Test & Evaluation in 2017, a key step before formally deploying in service with the Navy. The DOT&E report finds that key testing and reliability improvements are necessary for this to take place successfully.

“DOT&E assesses that the poor or unknown reliability of these critical systems will pose the most significant risk to CVN-78’s successful completion of IOT&E,” the report says.

“The current reliability estimates for the catapult and arresting gear systems are a small fraction of their projected target for the shipboard configuration, and an even smaller fraction of the required reliability. Reliability test data are not available for the radar and the weapons elevators,” the report states.

Unlike steam catapults, which power airplanes on existing carriers, the EMALS system uses an electromagnetic charge. The EMALS system has been undergoing testing at a site in Lakehurst, New Jersey. The report says 201 launch failures have occurred out of a total of 1,967 launches.

“Based on available data, the program estimates that EMALS has approximately 240 mean cycles between critical failure in the shipboard configuration, where a cycle represents the launch of one aircraft,” the report says.

The report also highlights the Advanced Arresting Gear, or AAG, a technologically improved method of helping aircraft land on the flight deck of the carrier. The AAG is also being tested in Lakehusrt, N.J., and the report says that this system also experiences high rates of failure. There were nine arresting failures out of 71 attempts, the report claims.

“The Program Office estimates that AAG has approximately 20 mean cycles between operational mission failure in the shipboard configuration, where a cycle represents the recovery of one aircraft. Based on expected reliability growth, the failure rate is presently 248 times higher than should be expected,” the report says.

Navy officials say they will continue to work with DOT&E to complete the testing programs and transition the ship to service, however they remain confident in the development of the technologies slated to go on the USS Ford.

“Developmental systems such as EMALS, AAG and DBR are undergoing land based testing to build confidence in system reliability. The Navy remains confident they will exhibit sufficient operational availability to enable full performance,” said Chris Johnson, spokesman for Naval Sea Systems Command.

The USS Ford also has a larger deck space compared to its Nimitz-class predecessor carriers, an effort designed in part to increase the sortie generation rate of aircraft on the ship. The design of the deck space and the island are intended to create a circumstance wherein commanders can get 30-percent more sorties from a Ford-class carrier compared to a Nimitz-class carriers.

The DOT&E report, however, questions this, claiming the Ford-class’ sortie-generation rate numbers are overly optimistic.

“The target threshold (sortie rate) is based on unrealistic assumptions including fair weather and unlimited visibility, and that aircraft emergencies, failures of shipboard equipment, ship maneuvers (e.g., to avoid land), and manning shortfalls will not affect flight operations,” the report states.

Navy officials expressed confidence in the Ford’s expected sortie generation rate.

“Sortie generation rate estimates have been developed through robust modeling and simulation, which the Navy will continue to mature through Initial Operational Test and Evaluation. Model results will be validated by an at-sea test after CVN 78 delivery,” Johnson added. “The Navy is confident that CVN 78 will meet threshold requirements and that the Ford Class will exceed the combat capability of the Nimitz Class.”
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
94
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Published on Sep 13, 2013

Capt. John F. Meier, the CO of Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the first-in-class aircraft carrier under construction at Newport News Shipbuilding, details the differences and improvements of the Ford class compared to Nimitz class.

http://youtu.be/C2sOTBN4s-Y
 

MrT

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
One mighty fine ship. Oh and re the China can build a greater range of ships. Yes they probably can. But let's face it, would you rather have the Ford on your side or whatever the Chinese are coming up with? Think, nearly a hundred years of carrier expertise and practice v well next to nothing?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
4
MrT said:
One mighty fine ship. Oh and re the China can build a greater range of ships. Yes they probably can. But let's face it, would you rather have the Ford on your side or whatever the Chinese are coming up with? Think, nearly a hundred years of carrier expertise and practice v well next to nothing?
True, but our problems will be twofold.

1st any carrier is only as good as the aircraft on it.

2nd, at the rate the current Administration wants to build them, they may becvome unaffordable and our fleet may continue to shrink.

The rate China will start building carriers will also be a factor. They probably won't be as good as ours for a while, but a mediocre carrier beats a supercarrier that's not there every time.
 

m1lkman

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
MrT said:
One mighty fine ship. Oh and re the China can build a greater range of ships. Yes they probably can. But let's face it, would you rather have the Ford on your side or whatever the Chinese are coming up with? Think, nearly a hundred years of carrier expertise and practice v well next to nothing?

Well, in WW2 the Germans' superior tank designs ultimately lost out to the numerical advantage of tanks that the Soviets could muster.


With that analogy in mind even today several Kitty Hawk class carriers might be just as effective as a couple of Ford class carriers.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
94
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Ford Carriers Sport New Radars To Deflect Threats"
U.S. Navy says it can thwart Chinese ASBM threat
by Michael Fabey

May 29, 2014

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/ford-carriers-sport-new-radars-deflect-threats

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.

The Chinese missile is based on the DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) and gives China the capability to attack large ships—including aircraft carriers—in the western Pacific Ocean, with a range exceeding 1,500 km, or 810 nm.

“The DF-21D is a theater-range ballistic missile equipped with a maneuverable reentry vehicle (Marv) designed to hit moving ships at sea,” the Congressional Research Service (CRS) notes in a recent report.

“Observers have expressed strong concern about the DF‑21D, because such missiles, in combination with broad-area maritime surveillance and targeting systems, would permit China to attack aircraft carriers, other U.S. Navy ships, or ships of allied or partner navies operating in the Western Pacific,” CRS reports.

“The U.S. Navy has not previously faced a threat from highly accurate ballistic missiles capable of hitting moving ships at sea. For this reason, some observers have referred to the DF-21 as a game-changing weapon.”

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.
Related

Eyeing the Ford from the ship’s flight deck, he notes: “People think this is a big target. But they have to get to the carrier and then discern that it is a carrier.”

In addition, the U.S. Navy has a layered network of defensive systems.

“It’s a series of systems,” Manazir explains during a recent exclusive tour of the Ford at the Newport News Shipbuilding yard in the Tidewater part of Virginia. “We want to attack it on the left side of the kill chain.”

Getting to the Ford and its escort ships means also penetrating the carrier strike group, he says. “We use the air defense systems of the cruisers and destroyers to protect the carrier.”

The Ford also has some of its own protection, he points out, including the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), a close-in weapons system, as well as the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (Sewip) and MK 57 NATO Sea Sparrow missile.

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.

The admiral, though, acknowledges the Navy is reviewing whether it will continue using DBR for carriers after the Ford or use technological advances to develop a radar more appropriate for the ships.

“The DBR was initially designed for the [DDG-1000] Zumwalt [destroyer],” he notes. “The Zumwalt is a combatant.”

The question, he says, is whether the Navy and industry can use some of the scalable technology employed in the DBR to develop another dual-band suite of S- and X-band coverage that will be more suitable for operations aboard a carrier or amphibious ship.

The Navy has to consider all of the radar and defense capability available in a carrier strike group, he says. “What does a carrier strike group bring? What does a carrier bring? We’re really sharpening our pencils over this. We have to look at all of the technology out there.”

Other technological advancements for the Ford-class ships provide the potential for more shields and weaponry.

For example, Manazir notes, 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, compared to about 4,160 for Nimitz-class carriers. Of course the ship needs more juice to power its DBR, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (Emals) and other systems, but the design allows for even greater capacity.

“If you go to a more electric-centric ship, you have to have big electrical potential,” Manazir says. “The Ford was designed with a 60 percent increase in capacity.”

For Nimitz-class ships, he says, any new technological improvements that require more electricity would mean power-supply redesigns to accommodate the upgrades.

“With Ford,” he says, “it’s already designed into the ship.”
 

Attachments

ouroboros

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
Didn't land trials for EMALS also recently finish? Next step is flinging static test loads off the shipboard fitted EMALS at dock in 2015 I believe...
 

VH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
205
Reaction score
0
Triton said:
"Ford Carriers Sport New Radars To Deflect Threats"
U.S. Navy says it can thwart Chinese ASBM threat
by Michael Fabey

May 29, 2014

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/ford-carriers-sport-new-radars-deflect-threats



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.
Related

Eyeing the Ford from the ship’s flight deck, he notes: “People think this is a big target. But they have to get to the carrier and then discern that it is a carrier.”

Even the slightest interruption of the complex kill chain of the DF-21D system will render the missile useless.


And since the DF-21D has still not been tested at sea I wonder how the world and China can place such stock in the capabilities of the weapon?


Call me when the DF-21D is tested.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,532
Reaction score
10
http://www.navytimes.com/interactive/article/20141013/NEWS04/310130026/Crew-s-ship-Sailors-comfort-centerpiece-new-supercarrier-Ford
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,440
Reaction score
39
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/feds-navy-engineer-tried-to-steal-schematics-for-new-carrier-class-1.317674
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
94
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Document: Report to Congress on New Ford-Class Carriers"
March 9, 2015 7:00 AM Updated: March 8, 2015 10:59 PM

The following is the March 3, 2015 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

http://news.usni.org/2015/03/09/document-report-to-congress-on-new-ford-class-carriers
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,536
Reaction score
72
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/feds-navy-engineer-tried-to-steal-schematics-for-new-carrier-class-1.317674
"Mostafa Ahmed Awwad, 35, a York County, Va., resident who worked at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia" I guess selling our new carrier design to China would be one way of sticking it to the infidels.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
29
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
"Mostafa Ahmed Awwad, 35, a York County, Va., resident who worked at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia" I guess selling our new carrier design to China would be one way of sticking it to the infidels.
Did you even read the story? The bit where the FBI agent who contacted Awwad pretended to work for Egyptian intelligence.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,536
Reaction score
72
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
"Mostafa Ahmed Awwad, 35, a York County, Va., resident who worked at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia" I guess selling our new carrier design to China would be one way of sticking it to the infidels.
Did you even read the story? The bit where the FBI agent who contacted Awwad pretended to work for Egyptian intelligence.
I think it would be a while before Egypt could ever be in the nuclear carrier business. You?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
29
sferrin said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
"Mostafa Ahmed Awwad, 35, a York County, Va., resident who worked at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia" I guess selling our new carrier design to China would be one way of sticking it to the infidels.
Did you even read the story? The bit where the FBI agent who contacted Awwad pretended to work for Egyptian intelligence.
I think it would be a while before Egypt could ever be in the nuclear carrier business. You?
Again, the story was pretty clear -- they pretended that they wanted to gain vulnerability data, not the ability to manufacture one.

It's not at all clear what triggered the initial investigation, but there's nothing saying he tried to sell construction plans to China. If he had, the FBI approach would have mirrored that, not run the Egyptian intel angle.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,536
Reaction score
72
TomS said:
It's not at all clear what triggered the initial investigation, but there's nothing saying he tried to sell construction plans to China. If he had, the FBI approach would have mirrored that, not run the Egyptian intel angle.
Fair enough. Pretty in such a hypothetical situation the final customers would still be the same. (Russia and China.)
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
94
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
sferrin said:
TomS said:
It's not at all clear what triggered the initial investigation, but there's nothing saying he tried to sell construction plans to China. If he had, the FBI approach would have mirrored that, not run the Egyptian intel angle.
Fair enough. Pretty in such a hypothetical situation the final customers would still be the same. (Russia and China.)
How much you want to bet that once this case gets to trial in June that the court will rule the case as entrapment?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
29
Very unlikely. Assuming they had some reason to believe he was already predisposed to leak information (and why else make a run at him in the first place?) they're pretty much in the clear. As long as they simply gave him an opportunity to leak, that's not entrapment. Tey would have to have pushed very hard to cross that line under US law.The FBI routinely gets terrorism convictions in cases with much less tangible action taken by the accused.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
94
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"NAVSEA: Advanced Arresting Gear Design Flaw Delayed Testing Schedule Two Years, Adds Risk to On Time Ford Carrier Delivery"
by Sam LaGrone
March 19, 2015 6:46 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/03/19/navsea-advanced-arresting-gear-design-flaw-delayed-testing-schedule-two-years-adds-risk-to-ford-carrier-on-time-delivery

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A design flaw in the system the Navy plans to help safely recover aircraft onboard its next generation Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) aircraft carrier has set testing for the program back two years and risks extending the delivery of the ship past its March 31, 2016 deadline, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) officials told reporters on Thursday.
The General Atomics built Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) was found to have a design flaw that set testing at Naval Air Station Lakehurst, N.J. back two years, according to the head of Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers Rear Adm. Tom Moore said.

“We are about two years behind where we should be up at Lakehurst in terms of having the systems installed and testing it with real aircraft,” he said.
“Right now my major concern on Ford is AAG. I have to get equipment installed. It’s now all arrived at the shipyard. The shipyard is installing the equipment now and concurrently with that I have to get Lakehurst to start testing the upgraded system.”

The flaw was found in the AAG’s water twister — a complex paddle wheel that is designed to absorb 70 percent of the force when the tailhook of a landing aircraft pulls against an arresting wire to come to a stop.

“Doing a detailed engineering assessment we recognized the water twister was under designed,” Moore said.
“GA was responsible for the design — remember they’re on a firm fixed price contract — so the vendor was responsible for the fix.”

Now a newly repaired AAG is under going jet sled tests in Lakehurst while at the same time a separate upgraded version is being installed on Ford.

“We’re a lot more confident the system as it’s currently built will work but it’s important that Lakehurst gets through the jet car test site and we go to a second phase called runway assisted landing system — that’s where they land real aircraft.
Those two event at Lakehurst I’ll be watching very carefully,” Moore said.
“If Lakehurst uncovers something on the system that has to be fixed, the risk I’m taking is I’m installing it and then I have to go back and fix something that’s all ready installed, it’s more challenging. Really at this point, I don’t have a choice. “

On the other end of the carrier, the GA built Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) is doing comparatively better.

“Two of the four catapults are completely built and the other two are almost built and we started below deck testing on what we call the energy storage group in August and we met every key event date for testing on EMALS,” Moore said.
“I’m confident EMALS is progressing on track. The next big event is in the June timeframe when we’ll start shooting dead-load sleds into the James River.”
Absent hang-ups, the $12.9 billion Ford is set to deliver on March 31, 2016. The next ship in the class — John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) — will deliver on June 22, 2022.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,532
Reaction score
10
http://defensetech.org/2015/03/19/navy-prepares-to-fire-an-electromagnetic-aircraft-catapult-on-new-carrier/
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,532
Reaction score
10
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-jets-with-extra-fuel-can-t-be-launched-off-new-us-carrier-1.336792
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,387
Reaction score
24
bobbymike said:
An opposing/alternative news source (see paragraph 4):
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/03/27/emals-external-fuel-tanks-jets-ford-cvn/70508062/

Just applying basic thinking to the subject, how would a steam catapult provide finer resolution and faster feedback response than electricity. The fundamental working principles of EMALS would suggest much higher levels of tuning precision and range.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,532
Reaction score
10
http://defensetech.org/2015/03/30/navy-fixes-carrier-catapult-to-launch-jets-with-external-fuel-tanks/
 

Creative

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
241
Reaction score
1
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (May 12, 2015) Lt. Jared McCaleb, assigned to Pre-commissioning Unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) Air Department, gives the launch signal during a full-speed "no load" test of the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS). The test marked a significant milestone in Ford's history as the ship prepares for commissioning in 2016. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Cory Rose/Released).
 

Attachments

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
40
Future USS Gerald R. Ford completes 22 no-load test of EMALS
Video:
https://www.facebook.com/USSGeraldRFord/videos/846607288761078/
 

Creative

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
241
Reaction score
1
Published on Jun 5, 2015NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (June 5, 2015) U.S. Navy Sailors, civilian employees and contractors observed a "dead-load" test of the new electromagnetic aircraft launching system (EMALS) aboard Pre-Commissioning Unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). The weighted sled was launched into the James River where it was recovered for additional test launches. (U.S. Navy video/Released)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3FnbNByFmY
 
Top