Gerald R. Ford Class CVN

Last edited:
https://news.usni.org/2025/07/21/uss-gerald-r-ford-now-operating-in-the-mediterranean
Ford, the flagship of the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, transited the Gibraltar Strait on Saturday, a defense official told USNI News.

Ford is on a regularly scheduled deployment to U.S. European Command area of responsibility, USNI News previously reported. It’s unclear if the ship and its escorts will remain in the Mediterranean or head to the Red Sea. The last few East Coast-based carrier strike groups all deployed to the region before transiting the Suez and into the Red Sea in U.S. Central Command.

However, it’s been several months since the Navy has had a carrier strike group in the Red Sea. The last was the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, which left the Red Sea and entered the Mediterranean in May on its way home.

The Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group, now in the South China Sea, was in the North Arabian Sea in early July. The Nimitz Carrier Strike Group, another West Coast-based CSG, remains in the North Arabian Sea.
Click to expand...
 
EmoBirb said:
I dunno if laughing or crying is the adequate response at this point.

Edit: so, if I understand correctly, it will take until 2027 in order to have F-35Cs operate from a Ford-Class CVN? That is certainly...just wow.

Luckily there is no naval arms race going on anywhere, what a relief...
Click to expand...
I think that you forget PLAN, China is building her Navy at a rate far exceeding that of other countries
 
Construction of the John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) began after the award of contract in 2009 with the initial delivery date planned for 2018, since then Congress insisted Navy build it to operate the F-35 from inception and in a single phase build contract, the earlier Gerald F Ford (CVN-78) unable to operate the F-35s and built under a two Phase contracts with the warfighting systems added under separate Phase 2 contract. Now reported CVN-79 latest delivery delay pushing it back to March 2027. The latest setback is blamed on persistent developmental issues with the 'new' Advanced Arresting Gear and Advanced Weapons Elevators, compounded by workforce and supply chain problems. Makes you wonder how the same AAG and AWE are operating in the earlier Gerald F Ford (CVN-78).


https://nationalsecurityjournal.org... and Summary – The,its arrival to March 2027.
 
Cordy said:
latest setback is blamed on persistent developmental issues with the 'new' Advanced Arresting Gear and Advanced Weapons Elevators, compounded by workforce and supply chain problems. Makes you wonder how the same AAG and AWE are operating in the earlier Gerald F Ford (CVN-78).
Click to expand...
Because they keep stealing Kennedy’s AWE and AAG parts for Ford. It’s not a technical issue, just component availability.
 
that_person said:
Because they keep stealing Kennedy’s AWE and AAG parts for Ford. It’s not a technical issue, just component availability.
Click to expand...
As blammed on persistent 'development' issues with the AWE and AAG that says to me its technical issues, though no doubt component availability will also be an issue.
 
Cordy said:
As blammed on persistent 'development' issues with the AWE and AAG that says to me its technical issues, though no doubt component availability will also be an issue.
Click to expand...
"Development" doesn't just mean the parts themselves. The systems are "developed" enough to be in service, after all. What they're likely referring to is the ability of the AWE and AAG manufacturer to scale production to meet the Navy's demand for both spare parts for in service systems, and complete new systems for new construction.
 
It wouldn't be a crippling change, aside from being technically difficult and thus leading to heavy delays, but the simple question would be: why?

The Ford program has been kinda stinky, surely, but I wouldn't say that the big problem are the cats. More so the entire navy and the shipyards around them tbh.

The US Navy ruined the US Navy *shakes fist at sky*
 
EmoBirb said:
It wouldn't be a crippling change, aside from being technically difficult and thus leading to heavy delays, but the simple question would be: why?

The Ford program has been kinda stinky, surely, but I wouldn't say that the big problem are the cats. More so the entire navy and the shipyards around them tbh.

The US Navy ruined the US Navy *shakes fist at sky*
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be a crippling change. The Ford class was designed with non of the streamlines you find in a Nimitz both for flight ops and auxiliary equipment. You would have to cut it open end to end.

Mr science does not think magnets work when wet and can be safely ignored.
 
Who designed the current EMALS? Documents indicate that the Navy began developing the next-generation catapult in 1981 and partnered with Kaman Electromagnetics in the 1990s to develop EMALS. Why did the NAVY ultimately choose NG and GA as the EMALS contractor? As far as I know, the Navy designed and produced all previous catapults in-house.
 
Jacky said:
Who designed the current EMALS? Documents indicate that the Navy began developing the next-generation catapult in 1981 and partnered with Kaman Electromagnetics in the 1990s to develop EMALS. Why did the NAVY ultimately choose NG and GA as the EMALS contractor? As far as I know, the Navy designed and produced all previous catapults in-house.
Click to expand...
We all know GA was the contractor for EMALS and AAGS. The other factor is how were both systems specified, gotta have USN spec requirements. I had a couple of friends on CVN-65 who were ABEs (Aviation Boatswains Mates - Equipment) and worked the catapults. The steam catapults require constant maintenance, even though the cats used fresh water and not sea water. EMALS is new and Ford is the first US carrier implementing the new tech. But as we all know, if you spec crap you may get crap, especially if the USN did or does not listen to the contractor, GA has been developing other EM-type systems for a long time.
 
Hydroman said:
We all know GA was the contractor for EMALS and AAGS. The other factor is how were both systems specified, gotta have USN spec requirements. I had a couple of friends on CVN-65 who were ABEs (Aviation Boatswains Mates - Equipment) and worked the catapults. The steam catapults require constant maintenance, even though the cats used fresh water and not sea water. EMALS is new and Ford is the first US carrier implementing the new tech. But as we all know, if you spec crap you may get crap, especially if the USN did or does not listen to the contractor, GA has been developing other EM-type systems for a long time.
Click to expand...
My question is why the Navy abandoned producing EMALS themselves.

As the information that I got, all steam catapults were produced by Navy itself. And before 1999, Navy cooperated with Kaman Electromagnetics on the development of EMALS. Traditionally, EMALS should be manufactured by the Navy itself, with Kaman acting as a subcontractor to supply components. Then the Navy tested， improved and maintained EMALS itself. However, in 1999, when EMALS entered the engineering demonstration phase, the Navy selected NG and GA to compete for the contract by building prototypes.

Although no matter who produces catapults, NAVAIR will supervise them. However, according to the published TC13-1/C13-1 data, perhaps the navy's own responsibility for the entire EMALS system will be more conducive to improving the reliability of EMALS?
 
EwenS said:
The original steam catapult design, the C-11, first fitted in the Essex class SCB-27C conversions was produced under licence from a British company MacTaggart Scott, which also supplied the cats for two of the earliest ships, Hancock & Ticonderoga.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/nava...ember/armaments-innovations-steam-powered-cat
Click to expand...
Yes Sir, I know that. I just want to emphasize that every step of the previous catapult system was controlled by the Navy itself. Furthermore, historical records show that the Navy's direct involvement in the entire catapult system was more conducive to its development. The modifications to the CVN-65 catapult system and the development of the C13-1 catapult system both demonstrate this point.
 
Jacky said:
My question is why the Navy abandoned producing EMALS themselves.

As the information that I got, all steam catapults were produced by Navy itself. And before 1999, Navy cooperated with Kaman Electromagnetics on the development of EMALS. Traditionally, EMALS should be manufactured by the Navy itself, with Kaman acting as a subcontractor to supply components. Then the Navy tested， improved and maintained EMALS itself. However, in 1999, when EMALS entered the engineering demonstration phase, the Navy selected NG and GA to compete for the contract by building prototypes.

Although no matter who produces catapults, NAVAIR will supervise them. However, according to the published TC13-1/C13-1 data, perhaps the navy's own responsibility for the entire EMALS system will be more conducive to improving the reliability of EMALS?
Click to expand...
The US Military has moved away from in-house development and production in general. It's not just EMALS, it's most everything. As far as I can tell it's part of the general trend towards privatization throughout the economy and government at the end of the 20th century. And yes, lack of government control has caused issues on other projects. Most notably on the F-35 where Lockheed control over so much of the program has lead to major headaches, delays, and cost overruns. As a result more recent programs such as NGAD or B-21 have moved towards more government control and ownership of the program with better results (so far).
 
The branches have also started developing some of their own designs in house as a result of issues with vendor lock (F-35 being perhaps the poster child for such). AFRl has done some interesting work; I believe they designed and own the quicksink seeker.

But yes there was the general feeling/movement that government is slow and inefficient compared to commercial venues, and government based development was essentially abandoned.
 
NCQ said:
The US Military has moved away from in-house development and production in general. It's not just EMALS, it's most everything. As far as I can tell it's part of the general trend towards privatization throughout the economy and government at the end of the 20th century. And yes, lack of government control has caused issues on other projects. Most notably on the F-35 where Lockheed control over so much of the program has lead to major headaches, delays, and cost overruns. As a result more recent programs such as NGAD or B-21 have moved towards more government control and ownership of the program with better results (so far).
Click to expand...

Aircraft and missiles (except Redstone, Jupiter, Corporal snd Sergeant) were never designed or built by the government.
And the gaps between procurements even invalidates this since there still isn't enough work to keep designers steadily busy.

Case in point (even though it is not a development project) but reactivating the Iowa class battleships is a non starter. The Navy no longer has oil fired/steam driven ships in the inventory. There are no schools or active personnel with this experience. Same with manning the guns.
 
Josh_TN said:
The branches have also started developing some of their own designs in house as a result of issues with vendor lock (F-35 being perhaps the poster child for such). AFRl has done some interesting work; I believe they designed and own the quicksink seeker.

But yes there was the general feeling/movement that government is slow and inefficient compared to commercial venues, and government based development was essentially abandoned.
Click to expand...
This assertion is completely wrong when compared to China. Moreover, relying solely on commercial venues has resulted in a severe shortage of shipbuilding capacity for the navy.

The conditions for relying on commercial venues, I think, depend on whether the market is large enough to generate sufficient profits. However, it's clear that the military field currently lacks these conditions.
 
Jacky said:
This assertion is completely wrong when compared to China. Moreover, relying solely on commercial venues has resulted in a severe shortage of shipbuilding capacity for the navy.

The conditions for relying on commercial venues, I think, depend on whether the market is large enough to generate sufficient profits. However, it's clear that the military field currently lacks these conditions.
Click to expand...
The government can own shipyards and aircraft factories and have contractors operate them. The issue is not just production rate but also development rate. Don't need a many numbers of certain classes and development cycles between models may be decades
 
Sferrin said:
lancer21 said:
I literally thought this must be some kind of late or early April 1, but this seems it's actually seriously considered?
https://www.twz.com/sea/executive-o...tapults-on-new-aircraft-carriers-coming-trump
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
Unless that refers to April 1...
TWZ:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1983078802441003388
View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1983078802441003388

“I’m putting out an order, I’m going to sign an executive order, when we build aircraft carriers, it’s steam for the catapults and it’s hydraulic for the elevators,” Trump said after suggesting, without elaborating, that water could disable Ford‘s electromagnetic systems. “We’ll never have a problem.”
Click to expand...
CNN:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/29/politics/trump-military-speech-japan-hegseth-analysis
Trump made a spectacular entrance Tuesday before hundreds of sailors and service personnel, descending on a huge elevator with military jets as a backdrop. His speech on the USS George Washington was a classic weave. He claimed to have dreamed of being an admiral and indulged his obsession about the best way to power catapults that carriers use to launch their warplanes into the sky.
Click to expand...
Yes? The jury is out.
 
Last edited:
:cool:
Ward Carroll said:
Everything You Didn't Know About Building a FORD Class Supercarrier
Ward "Mooch" Carroll goes aboard the USS John F Kennedy (CVN 79) in the final phases of construction at Huntington Ingalls Industries shipyard in Newport News, Virginia for an in-depth discussion with Derek "Murph" Murphy, HII's Vice President of New Carrier Construction, about how these amazing and powerful warships are built. [...]
Click to expand...
Video:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzJEbhcWnK4

Link:
Code: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzJEbhcWnK4
 
To revert back to steam cats would be a big mistake. I saw the catapult system for CVN-65 when was aboard in my USN days, very complicated and maintenance intensive even though the cats use fresh water. Now I cannot speak to the Nimitz-class ships in regards to changes in the cat system, I would assume lessons learned from older ships in general to simplify and reduce maintenance time, steam propelled systems require a lot of maintenance. EMALS and AAGS are two new technologies for carriers and there are going to be issues to contend with. Look at China, they have gone to an EMALS system for Type 004 and the new French carrier, going to use an EMALS system as well, so these two countries definitely see the benefits.

When I was flown over to CV-41 and CV-43 to help with some aircraft maintenance, there was a couple of times on each ship we went on Water Hours, that means cold saltwater showers and soap does not lather in saltwater but you end up with a nice soap film on you. On the conventional, old boiler ships, the cats get the fresh water priority, not the crew.

EMALS and AAGS will become routine then when directed-energy weapons start to be integrated on naval vessels, this will give all of us something new to bitch about, ha, ha.
 
If someone clever drafts the order (since T doesn't actually read what's put in front of him), it will read 'investigate proposals for steam...'
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom