These new technologies are supposed to save $4 billion per carrier over each carrier's 50 year life span. Not sure how the math works if each carrier costs $5 billion more than planned. My $5 billion is made up but considering the first carrier is already $3 billion over budget and doesn't work yet...

I've also read the 4 EMALS catapults and the AAG (Advanced Arresting Gear) cannot be isolated from each other. If one catapult goes down, no planes can be launched or recovered until repairs are made.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
In a real, honest to God, shooting war against an adversary with similar technology to us, how many hours do you think an aircraft carrier will survive ? Especially if the "adversary" is the aggressor.

That question has been asked and argued for the past 50 years. It has yet to be conclusively decided.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

I've also read the 4 EMALS catapults and the AAG (Advanced Arresting Gear) cannot be isolated from each other. If one catapult goes down, no planes can be launched or recovered until repairs are made.

Great. A single point of failure. On a WARSHIP.

What could go wrong?


During the Solomons campaign, the battleships USS South Dakota and Washington encountered a Japanese force of destroyers and the battleship Kirishima. Early in the battle, SDak's electrical system went completely down (due to somebody hard-wiring the circuit breakers). She was essentially helpless. Only the presence of Washington prevented her from being sunk by Kirishima. Has the Navy learned nothing from their past?

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
You know it will never happen, but I kinda like the idea of, “You think you have the best new idea since sliced bread? Great! Develop it, debug it, bring us a finished product and we’ll buy and deploy it.” No more blank check to figure it out on the taxpayer’s dime.

Ergo, why the Royal Navy during the design process of their aircraft carrier went with the ski-jump design.
How's that new catapult idea working...?
Still tinkering on it...
Right, thanks. Gentleman, we're going with the ski-jump design.

USN put the cart before the horse.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
In a real, honest to God, shooting war against an adversary with similar technology to us, how many hours do you think an aircraft carrier will survive ? Especially if the "adversary" is the aggressor.

Quite awhile.
Don't know. The USS America (CV-66) was used as a target vessel and everything I've heard is she took a tremendous beating and absorbed a ton of ordinance before sinking; of course this is without any cook-offs or, active DC teams working. Carriers aren't used like tanks, to be sailed into the worst areas to slug it out, they work on the borders in order to push the lines. They sail in a battle group, any offensive operation is going to have 2-3 carriers, which means 20-30 escorts, not the anemic sailing parties we see on deployments, that's a lot of defense...then there's the airwing. Which brings us back to NAVAIR and the catapults, the arresting gear, the lack of legs of the airwing...

The cost-savings would largely come from The reduced crew size (700 fewer) and eliminating mid-life refueling costs, It is estimated that the new carrier technologies will lead to a 30% reduction in maintenance requirements and a further crew workload reduction will be achieved through higher levels of automation.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
These new technologies are supposed to save $4 billion per carrier over each carrier's 50 year life span. Not sure how the math works if each carrier costs $5 billion more than planned. My $5 billion is made up but considering the first carrier is already $3 billion over budget and doesn't work yet...

I've also read the 4 EMALS catapults and the AAG (Advanced Arresting Gear) cannot be isolated from each other. If one catapult goes down, no planes can be launched or recovered until repairs are made.

^^^^Understood, but my point is it's currently so far over budget, the future projected savings will be wiped out.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
^^^^Understood, but my point is it's currently so far over budget, the future projected savings will be wiped out.

Yeah, but...

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
^^^^Understood, but my point is it's currently so far over budget, the future projected savings will be wiped out.

For this ship, you are more than likely correct. But the cost savings add up over time with follow-on CVNs using this technology.

I pass by USS Ford every day just sitting at Newport News Shipbuilding. It's been complete for a couple of years now. I wondered why it never seems to make it across the river to Norfolk.

Because of John Lennon.LOL

2 of the 4 main turbine generators that provide power for propulsion, the EMALS catapults and the AAG are being rebuilt. They are probably also working on the 9 of 11 weapons elevators that don't meet naval specs.

To free up funding for the new Ford Class carriers, the Navy is proposing to retire two Nimitz carriers early rather than refuel them. Refueling would give them an additional 25 years of life.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

To free up funding for the new Ford Class carriers, the Navy is proposing to retire two Nimitz carriers early rather than refuel them. Refueling would give them an additional 25 years of life.

Great, throw away 2 perfectly good ones (that work) for some more that haven't demonstrated the ability to actually be able to function. . .

^^Yeah, I'm really sorry I started reading about this. Also, Trump called for returning to steam powered catapults two years ago: Link.

My hope is that he can straighten this out.

Usually the lead ship costs more with cost reductions passed on through building efficiencies but I get your point.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
^^^^Understood, but my point is it's currently so far over budget, the future projected savings will be wiped out.

Retiring the Truman 20 years early will Nix the Ships midlife refueling overhaul & save the Navy about $6.5 billion. This is an ill conceived notion & could bite us in the rear over the long haul.

The USS Gerald Ford also has elevator problems:

https://www.navytimes.com/news...s-elevator-failures/

The Navy’s new plan to fix Ford’s elevator failures

By: Mark D. Faram   23 hours ago

The Navy is vowing a “full court press” to overcome delays and finally field all the Advanced Weapons Elevators needed by the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford.

“We have a full court press on the advanced weapons elevators,” said Jim Geurts, the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition in a Monday press release.

With only two of Ford’s 11 elevators operating — and no firm schedule for delivering the remaining nine — the Navy brought a “team of experts” from both the government and private industry on board the Ford to fix the snafus, according to Geurts.

The sea service also announced Monday that officials will build a pair of testing facilities to help engineers fix problems and prep sailors to operate and maintain the elevator technology.

Navy spokesman Capt. Danny Hernandez told Navy Times on Monday that the ongoing bugs include “construction challenges” caused partly by “very tight tolerances, physical structural adjustments and software refinement” needed to make “weapons movement sustainable and reliable."

“Getting the doors and hatches installed was not enough. There has been learning on the sequence of building them,” Hernandez said.

He said that operations must be checked and rechecked to ensure they’re “working according to specs,” as when the elevators need to maintain “holding water tightness” as they move through the decks.

“Doors and hatches have to be moving in the right sequence and as you’d expect. They have to be aligned,” Hernandez said. “Mr. Geurts feels once we get the uppers and lowers working, it’s just a matter of improving efficiency.”

Guerts told Congress in March that Ford’s expected yearlong post-shakedown maintenance availability would be extended three months. That will delay the carrier’s return to sea until October.

Officials wanted all the elevators operating before heading back to sea so the Navy could begin to fully test the $13 billion Ford’s flight deck capabilities.

On Monday, Geurts indicated that the team of experts, working with Huntington Ingalls Industries, will find “the most efficient timeline possible” for getting Ford’s elevators to work.

They will identify systemic problems and “recommend new design changes” for the installation of the elevators on board other Ford-class carriers, he added.

If the team can get the elevators to work in concert with Ford’s revolutionary arresting gear and electromagnetic catapults, officials hope to hike the number of aircraft sorties by 33 percent compared to the previous Nimitz class of warships.

Those elevators are expected to tote 24,000 pounds of ordnance at 150 feet-per-minute compared to a Nimitz carrier’s 10,500 pounds at 100 feet-per-minute.

Ford’s elevators rely on electromagnetic technology instead of cables and pulleys.

For testing and virtual technology training, officials want to replicate the Ford’s technology ashore at Naval Surface Warfare Center Division Philadelphia and a “digital twin” test site at the Newport News shipyard.

It sounds like they need to remain the lead ship in the class the USS Edsel.