US Navy Ford Class nuclear carriers

bd popeye said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The Navy’s next-generation aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, is a monument to the Navy’s and defense industry’s ability to justify spending billions on unproven technologies that often deliver worse performance at a higher cost.

The Ford program also provides yet another example of the dangers of the Navy and industry end-running the rigorous combat testing that is essential to ensuring we go to war with equipment that works.

The Navy had expected to have the ship delivered in 2014 at a cost of $10.5 billion.

Instead, because the Navy tried to develop more than a dozen new and risky technologies at the same time it was building the ship, the schedule has slipped by more than three years.

The problems with the ship’s systems, including the catapult, are well-known.

But President Donald Trump still caught virtually every Pentagon watcher off guard when he told Time magazine in May that he had directed the Navy to abandon the new “digital” aircraft catapult on future Ford-class carriers.

Instead he wants the Navy to revert to the proven steam catapults, which have been in use for decades.

The president is correct when he says there are significant problems with the Ford’s “digital” catapult, but abandoning it in future ships will pose significant problems.
The Ford’s “digital” catapult is, in fact, the Electromagnetic Launch System, or EMALS.

In the long run, it is intended to be lighter, more reliable, and less expensive than the steam system. Unfortunately, EMALS is immature technology. So far, the program has not lived up to the promises made.

Steam-powered catapults, though said to be maintenance-intensive, are proven technology. They have been in service with continuous upgrades and satisfactory reliability for more than half a century.

The new EMALS stores an enormous electrical charge -- enough to power 12,000 homes for three seconds -- and then quickly releases the current into massive electromagnets that push the shuttle down the track.

Testing has already revealed that the Navy underestimated the workload and the number of people necessary to operate the system. As a result, the Navy has to redesign some berthing areas to accommodate more people.

It was also supposed to increase the lifespan of aircraft by putting less stress on their airframes. Unfortunately, recent tests of land-based prototypes showed that the system actually overstressed F-18 airframes during launch.

Perhaps even more serious is that the design makes it impossible for the crew to repair a catapult while the ship is launching planes with other catapults. This is done as a matter of routine on current carriers as each catapult operates independently of the other.

The Navy has found there is no way to electrically isolate each EMALS catapult from the others during flight operations.

This means that repairing the failed catapult must wait until all flight operations have been completed, or, in the event that multiple launchers fail, all flights may have to be suspended to allow repairs.

This problem is particularly acute because the EMALS has a poor reliability track record. The system thus far fails about once every 400 launches.

That’s 10 times worse than the 4,166 launches between failures the system is supposed to achieve by contract.

At least four days of rapid-fire combat flights are to be expected at the beginning of any major conflict. At the current failure rate, there is only a 7 percent chance that the USS Ford could complete a four-day flight surge without a launch failure.

The decision to pursue immature EMALS technology has been a boon to contractors, particularly San Diego-based General Atomics.

With only a nuclear fusion magnetics background and no previous experience in carrier catapults, the company won the EMALS System development and demonstration contract in 2004. At the time, the contract was valued at $145 million.

This figure has predictably ballooned over the years as risky, not-yet-realized technology programs tend to do. The most recent figures show that the Navy will have spent approximately $958.9 million simply to develop this one component -- and more may be required to correct deficiencies.

The cost to build and install is another thing entirely. In January, the Navy awarded General Atomics another $532 million contract to install the system on the third-in-class Ford-class carrier, the USS Enterprise.

And although EMALS is problem-ridden and enormously expensive, replacing it with the proven steam catapult substitute would likely be more.

It would require a complete redesign of the nuclear reactor plant’s steam generating system. Because the Navy planned the Ford to be an electric ship, the reactor was not designed to produce service steam for major ship systems.

Furthermore, installing four new steam-powered catapult tracks would require a complete redesign of the supporting deck structure. The cost of both would be staggering and the delay may be upwards of two to three years.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

This picture shows from the aft, some of the obvious differences in the Ford class and the Nimitz. Wide aft end to accommodate the new maintenance areas. The island set further back. She is a big@$$ lady!

View attachment 38998

Click to expand...

kwaigonegin said:

slight correction

Click to expand...

bd popeye said:

I wonder how much truth there is in this article and how much anti-military hate? This is about half the article. follow the link for the full Monty which goes on to tell about the arresting gear;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

You have worked on the Nimitz class and others I believe, I know Popeye has.

I have been on them.

There is a HECK of a lot of extra room in those areas where they have widened the aft end of the vessel. You KNOW they are putting it to good use,

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

Few m in more than Nimitz about 3 but with island further back give the impression it is longer

According last Flottes de Combat carry more ammos Nimitz 3000 tons maybe 5 - 10 % in more in this case new magazines also and they mention 10 decks Nimitz have how many ?

Click to expand...

Ford Aircraft Carriers Designed with Midlife Refuelings Planned

The Navy’s new class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers will need midlife refuelings and overhauls much like those performed on the older Nimitz-class carriers, a senior Navy admiral said.

“The Ford class is designed for midlife refueling as well,” Vice Adm. Thomas Moore, commander, Naval Sea Systems Command, said in an answer to a question from Seapower.

Moore said that while designing a nuclear reactor to last the entire 50-year life of the ship was “technically feasible, it didn’t make sense from a cost standpoint. When you keep a ship 50 years you’ve got to bring it in to a midlife overhaul anyway. The refueling portion is only about 10 percent [of the refueling and comprehensive overhaul].”

Gerald R. Ford, delivered to the Navy on May 31, is designed for a service life of 50 years, and can expect to receive a three-year-long midlife refueling and comprehensive overhaul (RCOH) at the midpoint of that life, in the early 2040s.

The 10-ship Nimitz class is halfway through its RCOH cycle. Five carriers have completed RCOH and the sixth, USS George Washington, commissioned in 1993, is scheduled to begin its RCOH in August. The last Nimitz-class RCOH is expected to be completed in the early 2030s.

“It will be an eight-year gap,” Moore said of the period between the end of the RCOH for the last Nimitz-class ship and the beginning of the RCOH for Gerald R. Ford.

Moore noted that inactivations of Nimitz-class carriers beginning in the mid-2020s should counter-balance the gap in RCOH work as far as the workforce of Newport News Shipbuilding is concerned.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

dtulsa said:

On most of your post I tend to agree I simply cannot fathom a 13 billion dollar warship which from all I've been reading is having a lot if teething troubles to say the least 2. The 35 though I really don't have much faith in it I'll leave it alone 3. The Zumwalt same as the 35 4. AS to my favorite whipping child the much vaunted and feared LCS let me begin 1) Any ship that is designed not to be survivable has got to be a joke especially from a warship what the world were they thinking 2) the weapons that it has are pretty much useless against near peer or totally useless against peer ships 3) these engineer casualties ie. failures are extremely troubling 4) the crew size to small was an issue before the design was finalized and was proven pretty quickly 5) Although it remains to be seen the LCS looks to fading from the picture just as fast as it's max. speed can take it and I for one say good riddance 5) Now for the follow up frigate I hope they don't mess it up as badly as all these other projects have become but I for one have my doubts

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

At first glance, except The Kitty Hawk was the First of her class, She is the oldest of the Conventional carriers not yet a Museum over 50 years old.
If the Goal is 12 Carriers as stated by President Trump the best way to get that is to get the most from the Nimitz ( IE not allow her to be retired early but push to 2027-2028 ) and get Ford In service Kennedy to Commissioning and start The Enterprise.
Kitty Hawk has served well don't get me wrong but she has served long. She is just as old as the Clemenceau. Despite Jura's rant the Fact is the Ford Class ships are not a Revolution gone wrong but an evolution. Ford is the product of the sucess of the eight Super carrier classes Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, Enterprise, John F Kennedy, Nimitz,Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan and advances in technology.
No one ever said that that was not to come without a price tag.
Little known Fact well on the Subject the John F Kennedy CV 67 and America CV 66 were originally to be Enterprise Class CVN's but someone argued that the Nuclear powered carrier was a risk, To expensive, Immature, Unnecessary.
The reason they are Kitty Hawk CV and not Enterprise CVN is because the Enterprise Suffered cost overruns and delays (sound familiar?) The DOD moved back to the Kitty hawk class carriers. it took another 10 years until 1975 when the Nimitz class returned the Carriers to Nuclear.

The Issues brought up are teething troubles, New systems have those. sometimes they are the result of Failure to image issues for changes in threats, Sometimes they are the Result of people imagining problems that don't exist and many are issues that crop up along the way. I mean how many people rant and Rave today about Abrams Tanks and M4 Carbines being fundamentally flawed? Even though they have excellent combat records.
The USN was pushed to cut costs and imagine new ideas for Naval shiping after the OHP classes were more or less rendered Obsolete, They were told to design a new ship that would replace many ships in a world without a need for conventional naval battles. Where the Peace dividend meant that Seawolf class boats and SC21 were not needed and the NAvy would be more for launching over the Horizon Cruise missile strikes against terrorists in the desert or chasing Pirates. So they designed ships that were suited for doing that. Things changed so now they have to go back and redesign.

Well now I am ranting.
Here the interview.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

Ford to 13 bill $ (the first possible others 1 bill in less ) last Nimitz 9 but Ford more cheaper to maintain with no RCOH but now appear she need ... in Sea Power relaible site but curious i have always read she don' t need ?
So with finaly a RCOH Ford must remains cheaper to maintain but less still inferior crew but the 3 - 4 billions recovered ...

For power with new cats and have a little more ammos undoubtely especialy for sorties rate max 200 vs 160 for Nimitz in general 160 /120 she is more capable, also new radars better for use ESSMs.

Click to expand...