Gerald R. Ford Class CVN

Finally...

Navy quietly declares aircraft carrier Ford operational​

It's a major event for the Navy's high-profile warship, and it happened silently in December.​


SEA AIR SPACE 2022: The Navy in December quietly determined the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) had achieved initial operational capability, the program manager for the ship revealed today.
Click to expand...
The ship is scheduled to deploy in the early fall.
Click to expand...
breakingdefense.com

Navy quietly declares aircraft carrier Ford operational - Breaking Defense

It's a major event for the Navy's high-profile warship, and it happened silently in December.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
X-39 said:
Finally...

Navy quietly declares aircraft carrier Ford operational​

It's a major event for the Navy's high-profile warship, and it happened silently in December.​


SEA AIR SPACE 2022: The Navy in December quietly determined the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) had achieved initial operational capability, the program manager for the ship revealed today.
Click to expand...
The ship is scheduled to deploy in the early fall.
Click to expand...
breakingdefense.com

Navy quietly declares aircraft carrier Ford operational - Breaking Defense

It's a major event for the Navy's high-profile warship, and it happened silently in December.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Of course the Navy kept declaration Ford operational quiet as think its a dubious claim to be fully operational.

The GAO in their April 2022 report GAO-22-104655 showed that the CNO had to approve 15 waivers for the acceptance trials (including a waiver for the advanced arresting gear that excluded the system from inspection during the trials) and it was 36 waivers on ship delivery. Question is how many those 36 waivers still current and what they are they, Navy is not disclosing.

To be noted the Burkes DDG-116 and 119 that GAO also looked at had no waivers required for acceptance trials and on delivery so fully operational.
 
Cordy said:
To be noted the Burkes DDG-116 and 119 that GAO also looked at had no waivers required for acceptance trials and on delivery so fully operational
Click to expand...
Also should be noted that the DDGS are a design that been in service longer then I have been alive.

While the Ford is basically a clean sheet design, first of them in nearly 50 years.

Like hell tge NIMITZ, you know the oldest carrier in the fleet, apparently still has a Waver for her list that they never fix.

Its common for the first of the class to have all the damn issues, especially when it has so much new stuff.

The Burke had it, the Ticonderoga had it, the Perry had it, Nimitz still has it, the Enterprise did, as did the Seaworf and Virginia...

Its basically a law of nature.

Water wet, sky blue, the first of a class has all the issues so why is this one a surprise too?
 
Burkes to this day are deficient in endurance. The class was required to meet 6,000 nmi @ 18 knots, demonstrated performance for DDG-51 was 4,500 nmi. Why? Because the RACER steam turbine failed to mature and was removed from the design, significantly increasing fuel burn. This problem was never fully fixed, despite several attempts including stern mods and the failed Hybrid Electric Drive program. Flight III almost certainly has worse endurance due to the significantly higher power draw.

The class also had almost a year of delays and significant cost overruns due to concurrency problems. It wasn't the worse development of a class, for late Cold War ships that dishonor probably goes to the OHP, but they did have issues.
 
totallyaverage said:
Burkes to this day are deficient in endurance. The class was required to meet 6,000 nmi @ 18 knots, demonstrated performance for DDG-51 was 4,500 nmi. Why? Because the RACER steam turbine failed to mature and was removed from the design, significantly increasing fuel burn. This problem was never fully fixed, despite several attempts including stern mods and the failed Hybrid Electric Drive program. Flight III almost certainly has worse endurance due to the significantly higher power draw.

The class also had almost a year of delays and significant cost overruns due to concurrency problems. It wasn't the worse development of a class, for late Cold War ships that dishonor probably goes to the OHP, but they did have issues.
Click to expand...
It's the age old budget saga: either you accept that a new class will be overbudget, delayed, and the first ship (or several) will have some issues in order to get quality new design that incorporates a lot of new technology and provides a huge leap in capability. Or you design an evolutionary ship that builds off of your existing designs, then deal with know-it-alls in Congress demanding answers for why the Navy is "wasting" money designing a new ship that doesn't offer much of an increase in capability over their existing design. And wouldn't the money be better spent building more of those instead?
 
Firefinder said:
Cordy said:
To be noted the Burkes DDG-116 and 119 that GAO also looked at had no waivers required for acceptance trials and on delivery so fully operational
Click to expand...
Also should be noted that the DDGS are a design that been in service longer then I have been alive.

While the Ford is basically a clean sheet design, first of them in nearly 50 years.

Like hell tge NIMITZ, you know the oldest carrier in the fleet, apparently still has a Waver for her list that they never fix.

Its common for the first of the class to have all the damn issues, especially when it has so much new stuff.

The Burke had it, the Ticonderoga had it, the Perry had it, Nimitz still has it, the Enterprise did, as did the Seaworf and Virginia...

Its basically a law of nature.

Water wet, sky blue, the first of a class has all the issues so why is this one a surprise too?
Click to expand...
Ford is basically a Nimitz with for some idiotic reason fitted with unproven prototype kit eg the AAG, AWE, EMALS, with the claim that this kit would allow it to launch more flight missions than the Nimitz class, which to date it has failed to do so. The R&D cost $6 billion.

PS Did see a claim Ford is fitted with its the third model of its AAG, at one time it had to have the flight deck cut out to enable original version to be taken out, scrapped and replaced. If the AAG still suspect as implied as it had to have a waiver to be excluded from trials probably means Ford's aircraft can only fly when near alternative land airfields or other carrier?

The last of eleven AWE only completed installation Dec 2021 "completing" build years late with 200 shipyard workers onboard until then.

Oct 2019 CBO reported actual build cost at that time had hit $16.2 billion, expect by "completion" Dec 2021 easily $17 billion, with all waivers if ever sorted $18 billion?, the $13.1 billion Navy quote is in "nominal" dollars (have seen estimate Nimitz quoted at $9.7 billion in 2020$, could have built two for the cost of the Ford).
 
Cordy said:
Firefinder said:
Cordy said:
To be noted the Burkes DDG-116 and 119 that GAO also looked at had no waivers required for acceptance trials and on delivery so fully operational
Click to expand...
Also should be noted that the DDGS are a design that been in service longer then I have been alive.

While the Ford is basically a clean sheet design, first of them in nearly 50 years.

Like hell tge NIMITZ, you know the oldest carrier in the fleet, apparently still has a Waver for her list that they never fix.

Its common for the first of the class to have all the damn issues, especially when it has so much new stuff.

The Burke had it, the Ticonderoga had it, the Perry had it, Nimitz still has it, the Enterprise did, as did the Seaworf and Virginia...

Its basically a law of nature.

Water wet, sky blue, the first of a class has all the issues so why is this one a surprise too?
Click to expand...
Ford is basically a Nimitz with for some idiotic reason fitted with unproven prototype kit eg the AAG, AWE, EMALS, with the claim that this kit would allow it to launch more flight missions than the Nimitz class, which to date it has failed to do so. The R&D cost $6 billion.

PS Did see a claim Ford is fitted with its the third model of its AAG, at one time it had to have the flight deck cut out to enable original version to be taken out, scrapped and replaced. If the AAG still suspect as implied as it had to have a waiver to be excluded from trials probably means Ford's aircraft can only fly when near alternative land airfields or other carrier?

The last of eleven AWE only completed installation Dec 2021 "completing" build years late with 200 shipyard workers onboard until then.

Oct 2019 CBO reported actual build cost at that time had hit $16.2 billion, expect by "completion" Dec 2021 easily $17 billion, with all waivers if ever sorted $18 billion?, the $13.1 billion Navy quote is in "nominal" dollars (have seen estimate Nimitz quoted at $9.7 billion in 2020$, could have built two for the cost of the Ford).
Click to expand...
And the Money will still have disappeared and it still be over budget.

Cause congress would cut the budget to fit the lesser ship. Especially since the Navy not allowed to hoard money like that.

And even if the Ford still only has the Same launch capability...


It still a far better ship then the Nimitzs.


For one it lacks the Permanent List the Nimitz class. Said list force the Nimitz Class to keep over 5000 tons of fuel in one side. And that issue became worse on the newer vessels like the Reagan.

Ford class fix that problem since its got a new hull.

2) Actually has room for assembly of weapons. In the Nimitz you had to use the mess deck to assembly weapon if you were using more the 4 planes worth of weapons.

Anither inherent issue with the hull the Ford fix.

3] New Reactor that has both more power, easier to maintain, and simpler to work. Which allows the ships to Actually make their FULL LISTED SPEED. That is an issue you needed a new hull to fix anyways.

4) More Comfortable ship. The Nimitz class is a fucking 1960s design built for an all male navy for when we gave barely a shit about their comfort. It fucking suchs to live and work on.

Ford is design for duel gender with the lowest enlisted having more room then some officers do on the Nimitz.

Which leads to five.

Ford requires outright less crew. Allowing the Navy to give everyone more space. Also helps during lean times like now when the Navy is having recruitment issues.

That is five things that the Ford Catogotory does massively better than the Nimitz does that NEEEDED to be done if the Navy is to survive the next 25 years.

If you try to use the Nimitz hull, the problems the Ford is having will be multipled.

Cause you be using a worse design set up.

To get anywhere near the upgrades I mentioned?

You need s massive redesign that basically nets you a new class anyways.
 
The Fords also replace a vast amount of auxillery steam systems for electricity. The EMALs and AAR systems allow for a greater range of aircraft weights and take off speeds, which will particularly relevant for UAVs. The new weapons elevators, though problematic, address a key vulnerability that all CVs have had from the beginning - large shafts that penetrate directly to the magazines that can't be closed off if the elevator is in the down position due to the cabling. Additionally some of elevators now go clear to the flight deck instead of ending in the hanger deck, which is a big advantage in prepping aircraft.

The problem with the Ford program IMO was that these new technologies were not properly de-risked on land before being installed on the first ship. But they are needed advances for a ship type that operates for a half a century life cycle. In particular, the newer launch/recover systems and reactors were must haves to allow for flexibility of the air wing and installation of future defensive systems.
 
Last edited:
Cordy said:
Ford is basically a Nimitz with for some idiotic reason fitted with unproven prototype kit
Click to expand...

It really isn't. The hull is similar but it has a refined design with improved survivability, new reactors, a new flight deck layout, relocated island, etc. And, yes, new cats and traps, weapon elevators, etc. For any practical purpose it is a new design.

I agree with Josh that they did a bad job of de-risking the technology. Some of that came down to timing -- they had an opportunity to add the tech in this iteration or they would have had to wait 5 years for the next opportunity. In hindsight, that time would have helped, but I'm not sure there was any way to take a true half-step. You can't have just AAG without EMALS, for example, because both depend on an electrified ship.
 
Josh_TN said:
The Fords also replace a vast amount of auxillery steam systems for electricity. The EMALs and AAR systems allow for a greater range of aircraft weights and take off speeds, which will particularly relevant for UAVs. The new weapons elevators, though problematic, address a key vulnerability that all CVs have had from the beginning - large shafts that penetrate directly due the magazines that can't be closed off if the elevator is in the down position due to the cabling. Additionally some of elevators now go clear to the flight deck instead of ending in the hanger deck, which is a big advantage in prepping aircraft.

The problem with the Ford program IMO was that these new technologies were not properly de-risked on land before being installed on the first ship. But they are needed advances for a ship type that operates for a half a century life cycle. In particular, the newer launch/recover systems and reactors were must haves to allow for flexibility of the air wing and installation of future defensive systems.
Click to expand...
Through it needs to be point out that alot of the issues the Fords had with its new stuff.

Like the Elevators, Cats, and Arrestors.


Would still be there even if they land test them.

Cause ships are not immobile structures like their land counterparts.

They Flex and Twist and do all type of strange shit that you can not repliticate on land.

Or even between ships.

Each hull is a little different causing more flexing and tge like on one but not the other.

So JFK will have some issue with her Elevators cause she will flex different from Ford, making tge Fixs on Ford useless on JFK. Just how that is.
 
Cordy said:
X-39 said:
Finally...

Navy quietly declares aircraft carrier Ford operational​

It's a major event for the Navy's high-profile warship, and it happened silently in December.​


SEA AIR SPACE 2022: The Navy in December quietly determined the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) had achieved initial operational capability, the program manager for the ship revealed today.
Click to expand...
The ship is scheduled to deploy in the early fall.
Click to expand...
breakingdefense.com

Navy quietly declares aircraft carrier Ford operational - Breaking Defense

It's a major event for the Navy's high-profile warship, and it happened silently in December.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Of course the Navy kept declaration Ford operational quiet as think its a dubious claim to be fully operational.

The GAO in their April 2022 report GAO-22-104655 showed that the CNO had to approve 15 waivers for the acceptance trials (including a waiver for the advanced arresting gear that excluded the system from inspection during the trials) and it was 36 waivers on ship delivery. Question is how many those 36 waivers still current and what they are they, Navy is not disclosing.

To be noted the Burkes DDG-116 and 119 that GAO also looked at had no waivers required for acceptance trials and on delivery so fully operational.
Click to expand...
Ford, first of class and a major redesign over previous carriers which have been an evolution of the Nimitz for decades, verses the latest DDGs built to an evolved design built since the late 80s. New designs encounter issues that established designs don't because they are new. Ships differ from vehicles and aircraft because their size and expense dictates that you can't build prototypes and pilot examples of the finished product, the first of class will be the defacto prototype.
 
Volkodav said:
Cordy said:
X-39 said:
Finally...

Navy quietly declares aircraft carrier Ford operational​

It's a major event for the Navy's high-profile warship, and it happened silently in December.​


SEA AIR SPACE 2022: The Navy in December quietly determined the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) had achieved initial operational capability, the program manager for the ship revealed today.
Click to expand...
The ship is scheduled to deploy in the early fall.
Click to expand...
breakingdefense.com

Navy quietly declares aircraft carrier Ford operational - Breaking Defense

It's a major event for the Navy's high-profile warship, and it happened silently in December.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Of course the Navy kept declaration Ford operational quiet as think its a dubious claim to be fully operational.

The GAO in their April 2022 report GAO-22-104655 showed that the CNO had to approve 15 waivers for the acceptance trials (including a waiver for the advanced arresting gear that excluded the system from inspection during the trials) and it was 36 waivers on ship delivery. Question is how many those 36 waivers still current and what they are they, Navy is not disclosing.

To be noted the Burkes DDG-116 and 119 that GAO also looked at had no waivers required for acceptance trials and on delivery so fully operational.
Click to expand...
Ford, first of class and a major redesign over previous carriers which have been an evolution of the Nimitz for decades, verses the latest DDGs built to an evolved design built since the late 80s. New designs encounter issues that established designs don't because they are new. Ships differ from vehicles and aircraft because their size and expense dictates that you can't build prototypes and pilot examples of the finished product, the first of class will be the defacto prototype.
Click to expand...
The Ford Class will evolve (SLEP process) just like the Nimitz Class, just like block upgrades to aircraft just at a much greater scale. The Ford also has teething pains due to the new tech implemented (EMALS, AAGS, EM Weapons Elevators, etc). As an example, I have seen the complexity first hand of the steam catapult systems on CVN-65, EMALS makes sense plus you don't need all that fresh water and reduced maintenance. Gotta work the bugs out.
 
SSgtC said:
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1579534976797708289
View: https://twitter.com/CavasShips/status/1579534976797708289
Click to expand...
Just one of the reasons that Ford can generate such an ungodly high number of sorties compared to older carriers
Click to expand...
Which seems to be one of those deals were one goes.

How the fuck did we not think of this before?

Just seems like one of those simple thjngs that is easy to do but no one thought of...

Kinda like how many materials sciencests like quiet for the day when we found out that Roman cemant used volcano ash to get its properties.
 
SSgtC said:
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1579534976797708289
View: https://twitter.com/CavasShips/status/1579534976797708289
Click to expand...
Just one of the reasons that Ford can generate such an ungodly high number of sorties compared to older carriers
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a proven capability yet, but that is the intent. If you can rearm and refuel a four plane flight on deck right between the elevators I'd have thought that a huge advantage, but there have been some criticisms that the Ford hasn't been able to reach its designed sortie rate.
 
Firefinder said:
SSgtC said:
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1579534976797708289
View: https://twitter.com/CavasShips/status/1579534976797708289
Click to expand...
Just one of the reasons that Ford can generate such an ungodly high number of sorties compared to older carriers
Click to expand...
Which seems to be one of those deals were one goes.

How the fuck did we not think of this before?

Just seems like one of those simple thjngs that is easy to do but no one thought of...

Kinda like how many materials sciencests like quiet for the day when we found out that Roman cemant used volcano ash to get its properties.
Click to expand...

In this case I think part of the problem wasn't just fuel but also weapons - the advanced weapons elevators allow not just a refueling point on that position on the deck but also weapons elevators that go clear through the deck to the magazine. The advantage of the new elevators is that they are purely electromagnetic and have no hydraulics or cables, thus 1) they can bring a platform clear to the deck with no support structure over the flight deck and 2) blast proof doors can open and close above and behind the elevators as they rise, limiting the liability of the elevator shaft being a path of entry to the main magazines for fire or a lucky munition hit. I suspect that without this step of being able to rearm at the position as well as refuel, having the refueling point there made less sense - it by itself wouldn't complete the turn around process (there are also probably some additional fire hazards associated with this placement I would guess). The combination of through deck weapons elevators and the refueling point means aircraft can be recovered, moved to this position, and relaunched without a trip to the hanger or a lot of hoses or weapons carts being moved around.
 
Josh_TN said:
SSgtC said:
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1579534976797708289
View: https://twitter.com/CavasShips/status/1579534976797708289
Click to expand...
Just one of the reasons that Ford can generate such an ungodly high number of sorties compared to older carriers
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a proven capability yet, but that is the intent. If you can rearm and refuel a four plane flight on deck right between the elevators I'd have thought that a huge advantage, but there have been some criticisms that the Ford hasn't been able to reach its designed sortie rate.
Click to expand...
Surprisingly, the Navy says it's already exceeded the designed sortie generation rate. With only half of an air wing on board. And they weren't even trying to exceed it. The consolidated fueling and arming points drastically speed up flight deck operations over the Nimitz class. While we'll have to wait and see if they can do that in a real operational capacity, it does look like that rate is well within the capability of the Ford.
 
The CVA-01 had consolidated refuelling and rearming points on its 'Alaskan Highway' for 3 aircraft - so it's not a new concept but I guess the USN's design architecture of a small island and much space taken up by multiple lifts and catapult clearance zones hampered the provision of dedicated spaces before.
 
Wow, I can't believe I never noticed before that Ford goes back to four wires.
 
Josh_TN said:
Wow, I can't believe I never noticed before that Ford goes back to four wires.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. Here's an overhead of her flight deck. 3 wires only

Screenshot-20221021-092435-Chrome.jpg
 
They're outsourcing to companies in other regions of the US. The practice is not new, what's newsworthy is the scale of the work being shopped around.
 
Forest Green said:
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Pictured: US Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford anchors in the Solent

The newly designed ship is almost 300m long and can carry up to 72 aircraft
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
I can spot two mistakes in the first line.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 330 meters is a bit more than "almost 300"

Up to 72 aircraft is probably more or less accurate. The current deployment is bringing "about 60" aircraft, which is "about 80 percent" of the planned airwing, which by that math is 72 aircraft. Yes, Wiki has 75+ but it depends quite a bit on the specific types of aircraft being embarked. I haven't found a precise complement for the current airwings.

Foo Fighter said:
Only two in the first line, they RAE getting better a tit.
Click to expand...

Hey, it's the Torygraph, not the Garudian. ;)
 
TomS said:
Up to 72 aircraft is probably more or less accurate. The current deployment is bringing "about 60" aircraft, which is "about 80 percent" of the planned airwing, which by that math is 72 aircraft. Yes, Wiki has 75+ but it depends quite a bit on the specific types of aircraft being embarked. I haven't found a precise complement for the current airwings.
Click to expand...
I was going by the fact that the Nimitz was 85-90 and it's the same size.
 
Forest Green said:
TomS said:
Up to 72 aircraft is probably more or less accurate. The current deployment is bringing "about 60" aircraft, which is "about 80 percent" of the planned airwing, which by that math is 72 aircraft. Yes, Wiki has 75+ but it depends quite a bit on the specific types of aircraft being embarked. I haven't found a precise complement for the current airwings.
Click to expand...
I was going by the fact that the Nimitz was 85-90 and it's the same size.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the carriers are the same size, but the planes keep getting bigger. That 85-90 aircraft wing for the Nimitz is based on an airwing with A-7s (and a willingness to deck park more aircraft and spend more time shuffling planes around for launch events). By the mid 1990s, the standard airwing was down to about 75 aircraft, and that was still with C/D Hornets. The E/F/G Super Hornets are bigger and so is the F-35.
 
The F-14 and A-6s were hardly small, and I believe the Nimitz class did swap F-18A/Cs for A-7s before the CVWs were downsized. Plus the KA-3s were around in early 80s. I think it comes down to how much do you want to have to rearrange the deck park and cycle the aircraft elevators to operate your planes. You can definitely squeeze more than 72 planes on a Ford if you want to; if anything it has more flightdeck space than a Nimitz, but you'll probably pay a sortie rate penalty for doing so. At some point adding aircraft decreases combat power, though I think the current air wings could easily absorb another fighter squadron and additional specialty aircraft.
 
TomS said:
Forest Green said:
TomS said:
Up to 72 aircraft is probably more or less accurate. The current deployment is bringing "about 60" aircraft, which is "about 80 percent" of the planned airwing, which by that math is 72 aircraft. Yes, Wiki has 75+ but it depends quite a bit on the specific types of aircraft being embarked. I haven't found a precise complement for the current airwings.
Click to expand...
I was going by the fact that the Nimitz was 85-90 and it's the same size.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the carriers are the same size, but the planes keep getting bigger. That 85-90 aircraft wing for the Nimitz is based on an airwing with A-7s (and a willingness to deck park more aircraft and spend more time shuffling planes around for launch events). By the mid 1990s, the standard airwing was down to about 75 aircraft, and that was still with C/D Hornets. The E/F/G Super Hornets are bigger and so is the F-35.
Click to expand...
But the Tomcat was bigger than both and they routinely carried 24 of those in addition to S-3s, A-6Es, EA-6Bs, etc., none of which are exactly small.
 
sferrin said:
But the Tomcat was bigger than both and they routinely carried 24 of those in addition to S-3s, A-6Es, EA-6Bs, etc., none of which are exactly small.
Click to expand...

Look at the spotting factors -- IIRC, the Super Bug is as big as an F-14 on the flight deck.

And note the comment about moving planes. They figured out that stuffing the hangar full didn't make for more operational effectiveness once you take into account the time and effort to respot planes all the time.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom