• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Gerald R. Ford Class CVN

fredymac

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,158
Reaction score
709
A lot of info except the one we are all talking about. What is the expected build cost once the design is fixed and the build process is stable and repetitive. This is the $2 Billion B-2 cost bogey (back when a billion meant something).
 

fredymac

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,158
Reaction score
709
Projected cost of CVN 80 is $12.3Billion in 2028 dollars which probably means $9.7Billion today. I assume the build process will still have some improvements after unit 3.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,806
Reaction score
677
So who do YOU trust? Where do YOU go to find your gun camera footage?
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
231
A feature which surprises me; given the efforts to reduce manning, and keep maintenance to a minimum, is that the ESSM are in a conventional Mk29 launcher and not quad packed into a Mk41 VLS. From what I can see there is more than enough room of the port side sponson can't find a photo showing the starboard side, but I assume it's similar. Could it be a weight issue?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762
A feature which surprises me; given the efforts to reduce manning, and keep maintenance to a minimum, is that the ESSM are in a conventional Mk29 launcher and not quad packed into a Mk41 VLS. From what I can see there is more than enough room of the port side sponson can't find a photo showing the starboard side, but I assume it's similar. Could it be a weight issue?
The explanation I have received many years ago is that they rejected VLS because of concerns that the discarded TVC booster cans from ESSM could end up landing on the flight deck and potentially damaging parked aircraft and/or starting a flight deck fire (like Forrestal). Hence the occasional interest in Cocoon/Adaptive Deck Launcher. I'm genuinely surprised it hasn't happened yet.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
231
Couldn't that be avoided by a cold launch system as fitted to CAMM.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
385
There's still potential to foul the deck if a CL fails, and it has the same issues about clearing aircraft parked on the deck edge that a hot V launch has. Plus, development of a CL variant for ESSM, and a CL-compatible point-defense-missile-size launcher, is money the Navy just isn't interested in spending.
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
331

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
623
Reaction score
924
Seeing as Esper just got fired yesterday, I doubt his ideas will see much traction. Not to mention this entire administration is about to be out on its rear in a couple months
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,726
Reaction score
1,801
 

ReprobateJoeshmoe

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
32
Reaction score
10
Seeing as Esper just got fired yesterday, I doubt his ideas will see much traction. Not to mention this entire administration is about to be out on its rear in a couple months
That has yet to be seen with the lawsuits and all. If current one does leave, it really depends on what the lawmakers do and who has the control so would assume.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
623
Reaction score
924
Seeing as Esper just got fired yesterday, I doubt his ideas will see much traction. Not to mention this entire administration is about to be out on its rear in a couple months
That has yet to be seen with the lawsuits and all. If current one does leave, it really depends on what the lawmakers do and who has the control so would assume.
Yeah, no. He lost.
 

ReprobateJoeshmoe

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
32
Reaction score
10
Seeing as Esper just got fired yesterday, I doubt his ideas will see much traction. Not to mention this entire administration is about to be out on its rear in a couple months
That has yet to be seen with the lawsuits and all. If current one does leave, it really depends on what the lawmakers do and who has the control so would assume.
Yeah, no. He lost.
Again you may be right but the process is playing out. Remember algore took 37 days for a single state.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
623
Reaction score
924
Seeing as Esper just got fired yesterday, I doubt his ideas will see much traction. Not to mention this entire administration is about to be out on its rear in a couple months
That has yet to be seen with the lawsuits and all. If current one does leave, it really depends on what the lawmakers do and who has the control so would assume.
Yeah, no. He lost.
Again you may be right but the process is playing out. Remember algore took 37 days for a single state.
The GSA has already authorized the transition to President-Elect Biden
 

ReprobateJoeshmoe

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
32
Reaction score
10
Seeing as Esper just got fired yesterday, I doubt his ideas will see much traction. Not to mention this entire administration is about to be out on its rear in a couple months
That has yet to be seen with the lawsuits and all. If current one does leave, it really depends on what the lawmakers do and who has the control so would assume.
Yeah, no. He lost.
Again you may be right but the process is playing out. Remember algore took 37 days for a single state.
The GSA has already authorized the transition to President-Elect Biden
Ya so what the current president has not conceded. Again what’s the rush. If the shoe was on the other foot I think many would want to afford that person the ability to take legal action. You very well may be right. Hope this doesn’t turn in to the space force thread we’re the posts were removed.
 

ReprobateJoeshmoe

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
32
Reaction score
10
Seeing as Esper just got fired yesterday, I doubt his ideas will see much traction. Not to mention this entire administration is about to be out on its rear in a couple months
That has yet to be seen with the lawsuits and all. If current one does leave, it really depends on what the lawmakers do and who has the control so would assume.
Yeah, no. He lost.
Again you may be right but the process is playing out. Remember algore took 37 days for a single state.
The GSA has already authorized the transition to President-Elect Biden
Is there really any possibility to grow the navy? I think who ever is next in line should continue the process of improving are military.
 

ReprobateJoeshmoe

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
32
Reaction score
10
Seeing as Esper just got fired yesterday, I doubt his ideas will see much traction. Not to mention this entire administration is about to be out on its rear in a couple months
That has yet to be seen with the lawsuits and all. If current one does leave, it really depends on what the lawmakers do and who has the control so would assume.
Yeah, no. He lost.
Again you may be right but the process is playing out. Remember algore took 37 days for a single state.
The GSA has already authorized the transition to President-Elect Biden
I was wondering if you could answer my question? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Fighter_(FSF-1)
I know the navy has the spearhead class. Is there any possibility of the navy pursuing something similar for that’s in the same vein as a frigate?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762
No, the USN isn't interested in a catamaran hull frigate or anything like FSF-1. They tried something akin to a seaframe concept with LCS and it was a fiasco. The USN is now very much committed to a conventional design for FFG(X).
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
The Ford class isn’t going anywhere. Smaller carriers aren’t less vulnerable, just cheaper targets with less capacity and flexibility. Practically aside, institutional inertia and pork barrel politics will ensure that production continues.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
72
The Ford class isn’t going anywhere. Smaller carriers aren’t less vulnerable, just cheaper targets with less capacity and flexibility. Practically aside, institutional inertia and pork barrel politics will ensure that production continues.
Pentagon had some harsh words on EMALS and AAG


Bloomberg report on the yet to be released 2020 report by the DoD DOT&E, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, on CVN-78 /Ford EMALS and AAG, Behler is the Director of DOT&E. When full DOT&E report released Fords other problematic systems will be highlighted. In 2019 Congresswoman Elaine Luria, ex navy commander said "We’ve invested $13 billion in a nuclear-powered berthing barge"

Aircraft takeoff and landing systems on the USS Gerald R. Ford remain unreliable and break down too often more than three years after the $13.2 billion carrier was delivered, according to the Pentagon’s top tester.

The Ford’s new systems -- which propel planes off the deck and into the sky and then snag them on landing -- are crucial to justifying the expense of what’s now a four-vessel, $57 billion program intended to replace the current Nimitz class of aircraft carriers.

Behler’s assessment covered 3,975 launches and landing operations on the Ford during 11 at-sea, post-delivery trials from November 2019 through September 2020. The electromagnetic-powered catapult system is supposed to operate 4,166 “cycles,” or launches, between operational mission failures. Instead, it went 181 cycles between failures, or “well below the requirement,” Behler wrote. He didn’t detail the scope or severity of the problems.

Two separate failures last year caused the catapults to go down for three days, Behler wrote. The Navy acknowledged one in June. The system’s reliability concerns “are exacerbated” by a design that precludes some maintenance during flight operations, according to Behler.

The latest performance of the Ford’s new “Advanced Arresting Gear” to stop planes on landing, a system projected to cost almost $1 billion, also raised “reliability concerns,” Behler wrote. It’s supposed to operate landings, or recoveries, between operational mission failures. Instead, it averaged only 48 recoveries, also “well below the requirement,” Behler wrote.

A capacitor also failed during maintenance trouble-shooting in port that took the crew seven days to fix. “The reliability concerns are magnified” by the current design that limits “corrective maintenance on below-deck equipment during flight operations, “ Behler wrote.

PS The first set of EMALS components were delivered by GA to CVN-78 in 2011 and the $13 billion quoted by the Congresswomen as cost of the Ford is 2008$, CBO states that's $16.2 billion in 2019$.

From <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...arrier-ever-struggles-to-get-jets-on-off-deck>
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
Sad thing is as bad as the Ford is doing now...

She is still doing better then the USS Nimitz did when she was first in 1975, and at least the Ford doesn't list only took the navy almost 50 years to fix that problem. And they needed a new class to do so...

Remember the Nimitz shake down was bad enough that her line nearly end with her and we nearly got CVVs instead.

The only difference between the Nimitz having all the issues in the 1970 to 80s and the Ford having issues now is the fact that EVERYONE can get the information of the teething issues thanks to the magic of the internet. Compare to barely a few thousand that got the paper subscribion to the few books in the 70s.

Doesn't help that for all intents purposes that Ford is very much a clean sheet design, new hull, new radar, new reactors, Etc... And its been over 50 years since the Nimitz was design. There was going to be issues no matter what was put in it so long as it wasn't another copy.

Give her a few more years. We been spoiled by the near routine of a Nimitz class christion for the last 40 years and being basically on time that people forgot that a new design means new issues to iron out. Which means it needs more time and money to do.

It would have helped to do better testing and mock ups for the EMALs though..

But i bet anything that in five years all of us will be talking about how greet the EMAL is and poking fun at those who said to tear it out.
 

Hydroman

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
10
Reaction score
12
Nothing that complex with new or cutting edge technology works right out of the box, this is reason why we test and evaluate. Modeling, simulation and other analytical tools have really evolved but you have to test. I worked the B-2, YF-23 and was former Navy, again, test and evaluate, you gotta work the bugs out, very simple formula.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,814
Reaction score
2,042
Nothing that complex with new or cutting edge technology works right out of the box, this is reason why we test and evaluate. Modeling, simulation and other analytical tools have really evolved but you have to test. I worked the B-2, YF-23 and was former Navy, again, test and evaluate, you gotta work the bugs out, very simple formula.
Which is why SpaceX is making so much progress on Starship compared to SLS.
 

Hydroman

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
10
Reaction score
12
Nothing that complex with new or cutting edge technology works right out of the box, this is reason why we test and evaluate. Modeling, simulation and other analytical tools have really evolved but you have to test. I worked the B-2, YF-23 and was former Navy, again, test and evaluate, you gotta work the bugs out, very simple formula.
Which is why SpaceX is making so much progress on Starship compared to SLS.
sferrin, I agree, this is why SpaceX is progressing nicely, they are doing a lot testing including sacrificial testing as well, NASA has they're own issues to deal with which is always a universal constant unfortunately.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
484
Reaction score
635
random question. but has the F-35B ever been tested for take offs, landings, or other operational stuff on the Ford? (Or any other CTOL carriers?0
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
418
No. Since the Marines also operate the F-35C there is little point (not to mention that a vertical landing would entail a significant change to how aircraft are positioned on the deck).
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,046
Reaction score
3,854
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
No. Since the Marines also operate the F-35C there is little point (not to mention that a vertical landing would entail a significant change to how aircraft are positioned on the deck).
The Wasp class needed significant changes to its deck coating to be able to take the hot downward exhaust of the STOVL landing; I'm willing to bet not only would F-35B totally screw up the deck layout and landing cycle but also damage the flight deck top coat. My understanding is even transitioning to helo ops from fixing wing ops is a pain in the ass.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,046
Reaction score
3,854
Though it seems to have ultimately backfired on the Navy, especially with regards as to the Ford-class, though I think they never really did get the hoped for savings on those Nimitz-class CVNs they first tried it out on, due in part to much increased wear and tear on equipment. (There appears to have been at least some wishful thinking in play when they then decided to go ahead and incorporate the three wire system into the Ford design.) Not to mention there are still ongoing concerns about reduced safety margins, especially in regards to things like landing in rough weather conditions and trying to recover damaged aircraft. The continuing problems with the new Advanced Arresting Gear system on the Fords (which has turned out to have quite a few cut corners and other design defects) has only amplified these concerns.

I think a major factor in the adoption of the three wires system by the USN was the assumption that, along with the IFLOLS landing light system introduced in the late 1990s, new lower cost automated landing systems that were under development (ultimately resulting in the MAGIC CARPET/PLM of the late 2010s) would cover for any shortcomings in the move to a three wire system. Things haven't quite worked out that way however.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top