Gerald R. Ford Class CVN

EmoBirb said:
It's amusing how people seem to think budgets can just increase, increase, increase, increase without consequences and that everyone, including in the government, just nods and goes along.
Click to expand...

There is a very simple way to get that extra funding, permanently cancel the undeserved and unwarranted tax-cuts the Top One-Percent (The Donor-class) and the mega-corporations have got in the last ten years.
 
Sferrin said:
How is adding a second class going to speed up the production of the first? If you don't have the money to build CVNs fast enough, where are you going to get the extra money for another class of carriers? Just dump whatever resources you would use for this imaginary class into the CVNs. THAT would speed up the process.
Click to expand...
It hasn't sped it up. But CVV woyld have to be built at a different yard for it to work, since USN isn't allowed to use overseas ship builders.
 
H_K said:
Focusing on carrier size is probably not the right lens. IMHO the biggest issue with Ford is the technological choices which drive up cost & complexity.

I'd love to see a cost vs. capability analysis between a modern Kitty Hawk-sized conventional carrier (~85,000t full load) and a Ford. Take out the most expensive and sophisticated pieces of kit which account for over 30% of Ford's cost (nuclear propulsion, electromagnetic weapons elevators, EMALS, AAG etc). Bring back steam cats (powered by auxiliary steam boilers) and hydraulic arrestor gear. Install the same manpower and cost-saving technologies already in CVF (manpower reduction, gas turbine/diesel propulsion etc). Perhaps expand fuel bunkerage a little to reduce concerns about replenishment (also serves as a torpedo protection belt)... if cheaper use the Ford hull, flight deck and combat system as a starting point, changing propulsion & internal arrangements only.

How much cost could you shave without significantly impacting capability? How much could the build rate be accelerated by adopting a modular build leveraging non-nuclear yards (further reducing costs)? How many extra CVs could you then afford? What would be the capability and vulnerability benefit of having more decks (e.g. more dual carrier ops vs. single carrier ops today)?

IMHO it's unlikely that Ford would come out as the right choice.
Click to expand...

Penny wise and pound foolish. A ship, if anything, is a reflection of the constraints and dependencies an economy has imposed upon itself.

Why didn't the UK build a steam catapult equipped PA2 and buy E-2s? The world wonders.

NMaude said:
There is a very simple way to get that extra funding, permanently cancel the undeserved and unwarranted tax-cuts the Top One-Percent (The Donor-class) and the mega-corporations have got in the last ten years.
Click to expand...

This wouldn't work for the simple reason that most money in Western economies is fictitious. The rich are not that rich, individually, but collectively. Their wealth is tied up in land, investments, and other intangible things that cannot be coerced for money. You cannot ask a house or a property to pay its fair share. You also cannot ask the collective interpretation and belief of capital markets to pay its fair share, because its an abstract representation of individuals engaged in herd mentality and sending their money to modern blue chips.

It's also entirely dependent on banks loaning out money printed by mints and treasuries on the basis of stock valuation, which fluctuates, and driving away from tax cuts is a great way to reduce valuation. You ultimately cut off your nose to spite your face.

Taxes haven't paid for anything, since at least the 1930s when the Chartalists figured out prototypical MMT (modern monetary theory), and its main purpose is to destroy the amount of money in an economy. This is good when you have too much money in the economy, such as during an inflationary period, and the opposite of taxes creates money. Subsidies/government spending, and lowered interest rates (as well as corporate and cohort tax cuts), create new money. These are the two levers by which monetary (i.e. central bank) and fiscal (i.e. legislature) policy is enacted.

The very simple way to get extra funding...is to get extra funding.

Monetary sovereigns, that is things that can print their own money (governments nowadays but historically this could also include businesses), can actually just...print money. The simplest (and most effective) way to get money is to increase the stock market valuations, generate new money using these increased valuations, and subsidize industrial labor.

The problem is that industrial labor is generally not profitable relative to sitting on your money, due to the immense amount of power interest has, thanks to the post-WW2 economic boom. Combine that with a post-COVID malaise and resulting industrial backlogs and you see the present problem apparent in shipbuilding. Nobody wants to really invest unless the people with nothing to lose, the government, actually invest. But, they also need to manage the amount of money in the economy because we are sitting at 3-5% annual inflation rate, so they can't just dump money without further raising interest rates and this would make investments into AI data centers extremely hard. Considering that seems to be the technology of the decade that would not be too great if the Chinese made some sort of cyber god that could manage their whole economy more effectively.

Who knows, maybe the U.S. Congress will actually approve a $1.1-1.2 trillion defense budget next (i.e. this) year and $1.3-1.4 trillion next year though. That would be really nice.
 
Last edited:
Its the borrowing that actually creates money, in a way. If there is more borrowing in the economy without more supply and services competing for all that money then prices go up for whatever can soak it up. If there is still excess money in the economy, you will see it in the forex rates. So interest rates can mediate the amount of borrowing, but tax is more of a leakage that filters money through a less productive/efficient hole called government spending.
 
DJB said:
It hasn't sped it up. But CVV woyld have to be built at a different yard for it to work, since USN isn't allowed to use overseas ship builders.
Click to expand...
Which yard would that be?
 
Sferrin said:
It's amusing how people seem to think budgets can't change. Compare the Carter years to the Reagan years.
Click to expand...
EmoBirb said:
It's amusing how people seem to think budgets can just increase, increase, increase, increase without consequences and that everyone, including in the government, just nods and goes along.
Click to expand...

The (Reagan (and Thatcher) years were great for the military, not so great for many working-class folks.
And later the 'Peace Dividend years' were awful to the military, but most folks in Western countries were able to obtain a better life then back in the 80´s.
It´s not easy to find a good balance, certainly not in times of geopolitical earthquakes.
Problem is in peaceful times influential people are screaming to abolish the military (almost) completely (forgetting human history proves peaceful times never last), and in times of (potential) conflict influential people are screaming to weaponize even babies and people living in nursing-homes (forgetting those cannot be armed to the teeth).
 
Dreamflyer said:
The (Reagan (and Thatcher) years were great for the military, not so great for many working-class folks.
And later the 'Peace Dividend years' were awful to the military, but most folks in Western countries were able to obtain a better life then back in the 80´s.
It´s not easy to find a good balance, certainly not in times of geopolitical earthquakes.
Problem is in peaceful times influential people are screaming to abolish the military (almost) completely (forgetting human history proves peaceful times never last), and in times of (potential) conflict influential people are screaming to weaponize even babies and people living in nursing-homes (forgetting those cannot be armed to the teeth).
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, there are always going to be conflicts, wars, etc, history has shown us this, us humans just cannot resist screwing things up. As AI evolves, you may get the robots doing the same things to one another. I would love to see a couple who work with AI name their first child if a girl, Ann Droid, just could happen.
 
EmoBirb said:
Could this be linked to ongoing delays with the Ford carriers? Seems like a desperate move to keep carriers in the water for the Moment.

www.stripes.com

USS Nimitz not finished yet, deploys to Southern Command

The Navy’s oldest aircraft carrier, which is scheduled to begin the retirement process this year, is back at sea.
www.stripes.com www.stripes.com
Click to expand...
Unlikely it's tied to the delay to JFK specifically. More to the generalized delays to the carrier program overall. Plus, it's pretty much on the way for her to do this. Since Nimitz can't take the Panama Canal, she's going around the Horn anyway, and passing right through that area. So it makes sense to use her for those exercises instead of tying up another carrier that could be used in the Middle East instead.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That can be addressed, and in fact is in process. Chasing out a thousand places where there's a billion dollars in fraud, waste, and abuse happening in the government finances means there's a trillion dollars "more" than can be spent on the required infrastructure and personnel.
Click to expand...
Or finding a million places each with a million dollars in FW&A. A trillion dollars that we already spend, but are able to redirect to building ships and otherwise fixing the defense industrial base. (No matter how much I'd prefer to not spend it at all... /politics)



Scott Kenny said:
If we can reduce the time needed for construction from 8 years to 7 starting with Doris Miller on top of reducing the time between launching and laying down by a year, we'd be looking at 2034, 2038, and 2042-43. If we can reduce the time for construction starting with Enterprise (there's still ~half the ship to build) we'd bring those deliveries forward another year and get ahead of the shrinking carrier fleet. A new carrier delivered every ~4 years.
Click to expand...
If I'm doing the math right, even with this aggressive construction schedule and with stretching the lifespans of Nimitz class another couple of years we might be able to avoid dipping to 10 active carriers but won't reach 15 carriers until 2058 and the end of the Ford-class production! [much profanity about build times deleted]
​
Miller commission in 2033 (up to 12)​
Clinton commission in 2037 (up to 13)​
Dubya commission in 2041-42 (stays at 13)​
84 commission in 2046 (up to 14)​
85 commission in 2050 (stays at 14)​
86 commission in 2054 (stays at 14)​
87 commission in 2058 (up to 15)​
 
Given the recent news that USS Gerald R. Ford will depart the Red Sea and sail back to Crete for replenishment and an Investigation into the fire one thing is rather odd. According to several media outlets the fire raged for around 30 hours and left 600 sailors without bunks.

30 hours to put out a fire on a CVN? Does the Ford Class lack any fire suppression systems? Or are they so ineffective that they couldn't sufficiently suppress the fire which then had to be put out by the crew for over 30 hours? Almost a year on deployment, trouble with plumbing and a fire that was seemingly unaffected by on-board fire suppression systems. The recent track record for USS 'Gerald R. Ford' is not inspiring confidence. While certain issues will surface with the first-in-class, the mounting mishaps recently are showing clear signs of either a troubled ship or a troubled crew, perhaps both. The fact that the Ford had to be deployed so long speaks volumes anyway about carrier availability within the USN, the reactivation of Nimitz being another sign.
 
No... although there isn't much evidence, this fire really shouldn't have happened... coupled with the earlier toilet blockage issue, the Ford's deployment time was too long, and it eventually participated in the strike against Iran, so the crew's mental state is definitely not good.

In short, it might be better for the Ford to go back and take some rest now...
 
EmoBirb said:
Given the recent news that USS Gerald R. Ford will depart the Red Sea and sail back to Crete for replenishment and an Investigation into the fire one thing is rather odd. According to several media outlets the fire raged for around 30 hours and left 600 sailors without bunks.

30 hours to put out a fire on a CVN? Does the Ford Class lack any fire suppression systems? Or are they so ineffective that they couldn't sufficiently suppress the fire which then had to be put out by the crew for over 30 hours? Almost a year on deployment, trouble with plumbing and a fire that was seemingly unaffected by on-board fire suppression systems. The recent track record for USS 'Gerald R. Ford' is not inspiring confidence. While certain issues will surface with the first-in-class, the mounting mishaps recently are showing clear signs of either a troubled ship or a troubled crew, perhaps both. The fact that the Ford had to be deployed so long speaks volumes anyway about carrier availability within the USN, the reactivation of Nimitz being another sign.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the design is fine (it's not like the USN doesn't have experience with carriers at sea and onboard fires). Personnel and training though? Probably a few heads need to roll. Not necessarily just those on the carrier either.
 
EmoBirb said:
30 hours to put out a fire on a CVN? Does the Ford Class lack any fire suppression systems? Or are they so ineffective that they couldn't sufficiently suppress the fire which then had to be put out by the crew for over 30 hours?
Click to expand...

A lot depends on what we mean by "fought" here. A laundry room/lint fire is the sort of thing that could smoulder and reignite periodically over a long period of time. So we might not be talking about 30 hours of active fire but 30 hours from ignition to when they were able to secure the reflash watch.
 
TomS said:
A lot depends on what we mean by "fought" here. A laundry room/lint fire is the sort of thing that could smoulder and reignite periodically over a long period of time. So we might not be talking about 30 hours of active fire but 30 hours from ignition to when they were able to secure the reflash watch.
Click to expand...
But shouldn't the fire suppression system prevent that?
 
SUPER=BUG said:
No... although there isn't much evidence, this fire really shouldn't have happened... coupled with the earlier toilet blockage issue, the Ford's deployment time was too long, and it eventually participated in the strike against Iran, so the crew's mental state is definitely not good.

In short, it might be better for the Ford to go back and take some rest now...
Click to expand...
It's a fire in the laundry.

They happen.



EmoBirb said:
But shouldn't the fire suppression system prevent that?
Click to expand...
The crew is the fire suppression system, a warship is not a building with automatic sprinklers.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's a fire in the laundry.

They happen.




The crew is the fire suppression system, a warship is not a building with automatic sprinklers.
Click to expand...

Though I think that was one of the systems added to the Zumwalts to reduce manning requirements.

Not like building sprinklers though; you have to have remote-controlled valves, not meltable plugs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's a fire in the laundry.

They happen.




The crew is the fire suppression system, a warship is not a building with automatic sprinklers.
Click to expand...
So you're telling me a 100.000 ton nuclear powered super carrier relies on an exhausted, low morale crew on an extended deployment to fight fires?

No automatic fire suppression?

Was that thing designed in the 1960s?
 
EmoBirb said:
So you're telling me a 100.000 ton nuclear powered super carrier relies on an exhausted, low morale crew on an extended deployment to fight fires?

No automatic fire suppression?

Was that thing designed in the 1960s?
Click to expand...
I mean, there may be remote-controlled valves for things like the hangar.

But the last thing you want on a ship is for an unmanned system to trigger and flood some compartments with a couple thousand tons of seawater.
 
EmoBirb said:
So you're telling me a 100.000 ton nuclear powered super carrier relies on an exhausted, low morale crew on an extended deployment to fight fires?

No automatic fire suppression?

Was that thing designed in the 1960s?
Click to expand...
It was a fire in the laundry room, not one of the mission-critical areas like the hangars or magazines.
 
EmoBirb said:
So you're telling me a 100.000 ton nuclear powered super carrier relies on an exhausted, low morale crew on an extended deployment to fight fires?

No automatic fire suppression?

Was that thing designed in the 1960s?
Click to expand...

It absolutely has fixed fire suppression systems in many places -- probably high-pressure water mist since it's the preferred replacement for Halon these days. That sort of thing is widely installed on USN ships.

But you can't put stuff like that inside dryer vents or ventilation ducts and expect it to work reliably (it would clog with dust or lint, for instance). And fixed sprinklers/mist systems won't always knock down an established fire, so sometimes you still need to send in hose teams.
 
TomS said:
It absolutely has fixed fire suppression systems in many places -- probably high-pressure water mist since it's the preferred replacement for Halon these days. That sort of thing is widely installed on USN ships.

But you can't put stuff like that inside dryer vents or ventilation ducts and expect it to work reliably (it would clog with dust or lint, for instance). And fixed sprinklers/mist systems won't always knock down an established fire, so sometimes you still need to send in hose teams.
Click to expand...
You absolutely dont want an automatic deluge system on a ship, so a mist system makes sense. Halon is something you also dont want, any incapacitated crew that dont evacuate in time will be suffocated. There are other fire suppression gases commonly used in data centres and control rooms that suck the heat out of a fire but remain breathable so the humans can be rescued and fight the fire. That would be more suitable for a laundry or CIC, at least as an automatic component.
 
USNI News suggests that the damage control effort lasted 30 hours, not the fire itself.

The New York Times reported some details of the fire on Monday. One source told USNI News that the damage control efforts, like ensuring the fire had not spread, lasted for more than a day – not that the fire lasted for 30 hours, as reported in The Times​
​
It sounds like there may be some nuance/detail that has not been fully accounted for in the New York Times story.
 
Hmmm. Supposedly the ship was mission-fragged. I'd like to see corroboration if this report is true as the implications are so serious.

The NCIS is currently investigating whether the 30-hour fire and severe plumbing failures on the USS Ford were deliberate acts of sabotage, or simply the inappropriate use of systems by a severely exhausted crew.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5fsq1hvqo
 
As this isn't exclusively linked to Iran but the terribly long deployment as well, I think it's appropriate for this thread too.

USS 'Gerald R. Ford' could be out of action for over a year.

Under normal conditions, post-deployment maintenance for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier can take several months, even without major damage. Historical examples show that complex overhauls or major repair periods can extend well beyond a year, depending on scope and system upgrades.

In the case of Ford, several factors point to it being a longer timeline. First, the ship is a first-in-class platform with known challenges across multiple systems, meaning maintenance is already going to be more complex. Second, the extended deployment has created a backlog of deferred work that must now be addressed in a single maintenance period. Third, the fire itself caused structural and habitability damage that will require repair alongside the routine engineering work. Nothing about this is routine.

When these factors are combined, the possibility of a 12-14 month downtime seems perfectly plausible, even if it hasn ot been officially confirmed. Prolonged deployments come with a cost, and this could be it.
Click to expand...

www.19fortyfive.com

U.S. Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier USS Gerald R. Ford Might Be Out of Action for 14 Months

The USS Gerald R. Ford may be sidelined for 14 months after a March fire. Discover why deferred maintenance poses a major risk to the Navy.
www.19fortyfive.com www.19fortyfive.com
 
This has become a regular situation. Look at some of the other carriers to have undertaken longer deployments.

CVN-69 Eisenhower - Based at Norfolk. Completed its last combat deployment (9 months long) in July 2024. As a result of its long deployment repair & refit work is taking longer than expected (currently running 8 months late and counting).

CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt based San Diego. Completed her last operational deployment in Oct 2024 and began work up for the next in Jan 2026.

CVN-77 George H W Bush based Norfolk completed her last operational deployment in April 2023. Just completed pre deployment training at the beginning of March 2026.

CVN-76 Ronald Reagan. Returned from Japan in May 2024. Undergoing a 17 month Drydocking Planned Incremental Availibility at Bremerton which is expected to complete in Aug 2026.
 
DJK said:
You absolutely dont want an automatic deluge system on a ship, so a mist system makes sense. Halon is something you also dont want, any incapacitated crew that dont evacuate in time will be suffocated. There are other fire suppression gases commonly used in data centres and control rooms that suck the heat out of a fire but remain breathable so the humans can be rescued and fight the fire. That would be more suitable for a laundry or CIC, at least as an automatic component.
Click to expand...
Halon 1301 (the most commonly used form of Halon in these types of fixed systems) is incapable of suffocating people at normally used concentrations. It is one of the forms of clean agents that is considered ideal for use in areas that may be occupied when the fire suppression system is triggered.

Halon 1301 does have some medical side effects, but they are fairly mild. The two major potential side effects from exposure are minor CNS effects (which are proportional to the concentration in the air and length of exposure (usually only showing up at very high concentrations), and tend to be generally harmless), and mild cardiac sensitization (which can in very rare cases cause cardiac issues, usually in people with pre-existing heart problems, although at typical concentrations used for fire fighting the level of sensitization is pretty low).

Note that most clean agents intended for use in occupied spaces share the same side effects as Halon 1301 (cardiac sensitization and CNS effects). FM-200 for example (which is very widely used as a replacement for Halon 1301) is as bad or worse than halon with respect to its potential for cardiac sensitization, while being substantially inferior in aspects such as weight, volume, effectiveness, etc. The special fear around Halon 1301 is highly irrational and not grounded in actual evidence.

The single biggest issue with Halon is that while it is an exceptionally effective fire suppressant, it is also exceptionally effective at eating a hole into the ozone layer, and therefore new production of Halon has been banned for many years.

So far there is no one agent that has managed to offer sufficient performance and safety to be usable as a drop-in replacement for Halon 1301 (or for any of several other less commonly used forms of Halon), and indeed this issue is so severe in some sectors such as aviation that waivers have been issued to permit the continued use of Halon in newly built aircraft (although said Halon must be sourced from the slowly declining global stockpile of reclaimed Halon, which is becoming increasingly expensive compared to alternate clean agents, and has driven many other sectors to migrate to other agents simply to reduce the costs of recovering from an inadvertent system activation).
 
"The smoke damage extended to the berthing, requiring the Navy to take 1,000 mattresses off the future USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) in Newport News, Va., over the weekend to send to Ford, USNI News understands. The Navy has also collected almost 2,000 sweatsuits and other clothing items to distribute to the crew because many sailors are unable to clean their clothes with most of the laundry services out of commission, a source confirmed to USNI News.

“Due to the fire, several berthing spaces and subsequently, more than 100 racks (beds) were lost,” a Pentagon spokesperson told USNI News in a statement. “An immediate plan to acquire replacement cots has already been established. The resiliency and mental grit of our Sailors has enabled USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) to support ongoing operations.”

 
Sferrin said:
"The smoke damage extended to the berthing, requiring the Navy to take 1,000 mattresses off the future USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) in Newport News, Va., over the weekend to send to Ford, USNI News understands. The Navy has also collected almost 2,000 sweatsuits and other clothing items to distribute to the crew because many sailors are unable to clean their clothes with most of the laundry services out of commission, a source confirmed to USNI News.

“Due to the fire, several berthing spaces and subsequently, more than 100 racks (beds) were lost,” a Pentagon spokesperson told USNI News in a statement. “An immediate plan to acquire replacement cots has already been established. The resiliency and mental grit of our Sailors has enabled USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) to support ongoing operations.”

Click to expand...
Surprised that the USN doesn't have enough stores that they have to nick mattresses from the JFK to replace the Ford's ones?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom