Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVN-78 Gerald W Ford

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Wow... That chain looks like it could have cut someone in half without slowing down in the slightest.
    Two things can kill a young deck seaman quicker than hell, and one is what you saw demonstrated in those two examples, and the other is nylon line snap back. When a nylon mooring line parts, you better hope you aren't anywhere nearby because loss of limbs will be the least of your worries . . . and it happens more often than people realize. Well hell, watch and learn:

    Comment


    • Ok, someone tell me why it seems all the officers in the video have these dinky scraggly moustaches. Reminds me of the CHP motorcycle officers who all wear one.

      Oh, I see someone changed their avatar back again. Never mind...

      Comment


      • For some reason I was under the impression that hemp lines were still in use aboard ships, although I can see how they would deteriorate quickly. That comes from reading too much C.S. Forester I expect.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
          Ok, someone tell me why it seems all the officers in the video have these dinky scraggly moustaches. Reminds me of the CHP motorcycle officers who all wear one.

          Oh, I see someone changed their avatar back again. Never mind...
          That avatar makes me feel like I am at MAST!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
            For some reason I was under the impression that hemp lines were still in use aboard ships, although I can see how they would deteriorate quickly. That comes from reading too much C.S. Forester I expect.
            Nope, although we do use like a four foot length of hemp that is affixed to a three foot section of the synthetic mooring line. It looks like a loop of extra line just sort of connected at each of its ends to the mooring line itself. It's used as a "tattletale" in that when it is stretched flat and no longer that loop, you know you are nearing a dangerous level of strain on that mooring line.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
              Ok, someone tell me why it seems all the officers in the video have these dinky scraggly moustaches. Reminds me of the CHP motorcycle officers who all wear one.

              Oh, I see someone changed their avatar back again. Never mind...


              Weeeeeellllllllllllllllll, I first got commissioned when we could still wear beards . . . like so.



              That's me in 1980 with my nephew aboard Constellation in Pearl Harbor. He flew over to ride the ship home with me on a "Tiger Cruise." His father was an RA-5C Vigilante driver, but retired before he could take Matt on one of his own Tiger Cruises, so I did him a favor. That was either an E-2C or C-2 behind us with the nice palm print; I just can't remember.

              Anyway, the CNO a couple of years later decided that beards obviously were related to drug use, so we all had to shave.

              Then I just wore the Freddy Mercury "butt nuzzler," you know, like all your friends up there in the City, that was always non-regulation.



              That was me when I was on the Propulsion Examining Board in 1990, with my first born, Meghan, and my Dachshund "Otis My Man."

              Originally posted by SlaterDoc View Post
              That avatar makes me feel like I am at MAST!
              No, the full Captain's Mast Great White Shark dead eyes effect was more like this.



              And now, I'm just an aging former college professor and member of the counter-culture, circa 2009. That was after a haircut. I didn't cut my hair for four or five years after I retired . . . because I could. ;)

              Attached Files
              Last edited by desertswo; 10 Jul 14,, 15:09.

              Comment


              • The road marks of life. Gotta love them...

                Comment


                • Mmmmmm, somewhere along the line, I remember that training movie. Now, whether it was the merchant marine or navy, I do not recall.

                  As it was, in my naval service, I have seen both, snap back and anchor chain. First, the lesser.

                  I was with the brake man at an anchoring on an open deck. The BM1 could hear the bridge but the brake man and I could not. Shot after shot went out till the BM1 ran to us and stopped the brake. It gets that loud.

                  And the major? At the time, as I recall, it was a line of increasing thickness of natural hemp for towing applications. During an exercise, the other ship used improper procedure, such as using synthetic line, and it snapped under strain.

                  The line, perhaps a quarter inch, sizzed passed by my legs. At the time, i was an over stressed junior officer to appreciate what just had happened......

                  .......but be grateful when the Gods smile with you regardless of the situation.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tamara View Post
                    Mmmmmm, somewhere along the line, I remember that training movie. Now, whether it was the merchant marine or navy, I do not recall.

                    As it was, in my naval service, I have seen both, snap back and anchor chain. First, the lesser.

                    I was with the brake man at an anchoring on an open deck. The BM1 could hear the bridge but the brake man and I could not. Shot after shot went out till the BM1 ran to us and stopped the brake. It gets that loud.

                    And the major? At the time, as I recall, it was a line of increasing thickness of natural hemp for towing applications. During an exercise, the other ship used improper procedure, such as using synthetic line, and it snapped under strain.

                    The line, perhaps a quarter inch, sizzed passed by my legs. At the time, i was an over stressed junior officer to appreciate what just had happened......

                    .......but be grateful when the Gods smile with you regardless of the situation.
                    I always had a deep respect for ground tackle. My father, being a Warrant Boatswain, used to educate me whenever we were out fishing in San Diego Bay. I vividly remember him telling me a story about when he was a young BM3 aboard USS Wasp (CV 7) when they had some sort of line handling accident, and the line, even though hemp in those days, hit a guy square in the face. It killed him eventually, but my Dad told me that he would take that kid's "death rattle" with him to his grave. It was one of those stories where the teller would sort of "wake up" and realize he'd just released some inner thoughts he hadn't intended to voice. I mean, this is a guy who had Wasp torpedoed out from underneath him at Guadalcanal, and then had to deal with the Battle Off Samar and Kamikazes at both Iwo and Okinawa, and that's the "one" that affected him the most. I've always found that sort of interesting, and I don't know why.

                    BTW, that video was still being used at SWOS when I was Director of Engineering and Damage Control Training nearly 20 years after I first saw it as an Ensign in the SWOS Basic Course. Some lessons never get too outdated to learn. I think hearing from Commander Booth is one of the best "lessons learned" a young officer could receive.
                    Last edited by desertswo; 10 Jul 14,, 18:56.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                      ..........BTW, that video was still being used at SWOS when I was Director of Engineering and Damage Control Training nearly 20 years after I first saw it as an Ensign in the SWOS Basic Course. Some lessons never get too outdated to learn. I think hearing from Commander Booth is one of the best "lessons learned" a young officer could receive.
                      I may have seen it first at SWOS......but I was introduced to snapback in the merchant marine and we were

                      then...............

                      .....................so it might have been then. I just don't recall.
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • Aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford taking shape
                        September 13, 2014|By Hugh Lessig

                        NEWPORT NEWS — As of last week, America's newest aircraft carrier was 81 percent complete, its sleek tower rising above Pier 3 at Newport News Shipbuilding.

                        To motorists driving along Huntington Avenue, the Gerald R. Ford might seem no different than the aircraft carriers moored at Naval Station Norfolk a few miles to the south.
                        But make no mistake, this ship, the first of a new class, is different from the bridge to the bathrooms.

                        New technology is crammed into all corners of the Ford, and it will change everything from the launch of combat jets to how sailors line up for lunch. More sailors are coming onboard every day — the 1,000th crew member arrived Aug. 5, and the eventual complement will be around 2,600, not including the air wing.

                        Even though much of the ship looks like a construction zone, the Navy is slowly and surely taking ownership in preparation for a 2016 commissioning. For now, work is continuing at the shipyard, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries.

                        When it goes to sea, the Ford will rely more on automation than ever before. Compared to those Nimitz-class carriers in Norfolk, the Ford will sail into combat with 1,100 fewer sailors and airmen, but a 250-percent increase in electrical capacity. The Navy says the advanced technology will allow the Ford to pack a bigger wallop with a smaller crew.

                        In fact, the ship is so new that the Navy hasn't quite caught up to it.

                        Capt. John Meier, the commanding officer, described it this way back in April when he met with a small group of new crew members:

                        "The schools aren't really going to teach us a lot about Gerald R. Ford," he said. "Our construction and our design and our technology is well out in front of most of the schools. That's one of the great challenges — how we get training for people on these new systems and new technologies."

                        Machinist Mate Third Class Benjamin Meredith shook his head and smiled.

                        "Crazy," he said.

                        "It is," Meier agreed."It's going to be hard. It's going to be different, but I guarantee you it will be sufficient training."

                        More than that, what's happening right now at Pier 3 will allow the Navy to write a new chapter in maintaining security on the high seas.

                        "These principles will allow us, I believe, to change the way we do carrier operations," he said. "That kind of approach will change us."

                        All new

                        What's changed?

                        The design of the nuclear reactors. Radar systems. Flight deck. Aircraft catapults. Weapons elevators. Living spaces. Galley.

                        And a lot of little things.

                        Consider the locker room that contains firefighting equipment and other emergency gear. Nimitz-class carriers have one doorway to get in and out. The rooms on Ford have separate entrances and exits to eliminate bottlenecks.

                        "I've been on three carriers and this is totally new," said Petty Officer 1st Class Marcus Steed. "So when the firefighters come in and grab their gear, it's not a giant cluster at one entrance. Whoever designed it, kudos to them."

                        Big spaces have been redesigned as well. The island rising from the flight deck has been moved back 140 feet and has a smaller footprint to free up more space on the flight deck. Shipbuilders have been working on fitting new components into the reconfigured island house.

                        "It is a challenge," said Garrett Blanchette, a Newport News construction superintendent. "We've got a lot more stuff in a smaller box."

                        Nonemergency systems have also been reconfigured with an eye toward efficiency and standardization. In fact, the world's most advanced warship will sail into combat minus an amenity that has been standard on Navy vessels for generations

                        This ship has no urinals. The gender-neutral toilets are a first for a U.S. aircraft carrier.

                        These moves and others will save taxpayers' money in the long run, Navy leaders have said. The Ford will cost less to maintain over its 50-year life than Nimitz-class ships, thanks largely to increased automation and less reliance on hoses and valves that can leak, corrode or break. But that hasn't stopped questions about its price tag.

                        The Ford will cost nearly $13 billion, a 22 percent increase since its construction was authorized in 2008, according to the Government Accountability Office. The Navy said it faced a number of challenges because the Ford is the first ship of a new class. What happened with valves during construction illustrates what shipbuilders faced.

                        Because of the Ford's uniqueness, the ship's valves had to meet new qualifications. When the vendor got behind, workers installed temporary spool pieces where the valves were supposed to go and continued working. When the valves finally arrived, they went back and replaced the spools — a process repeated thousands of times.

                        That won't happen with the next Ford-class carrier, the John F. Kennedy, because valves will be in stock.

                        There also has been criticism of how some components have been installed on the Ford. One year ago, a GAO report said the ship would continue to experience problems after it joins the fleet in 2016 because certain systems lack reliability. The Navy, while conceding that the program needed improvement, said GAO went too far when it said the carrier would face "significant operational limitations."

                        Same job, fewer people

                        So how does the Navy plan to run a more advanced ship with fewer people? Consider these examples:

                        The Ford's new dual-band radar system will replace the twirling antennas and dishes seen on the older Nimitz-class ships. Those antennas require grease, oil and maintenance. In just one area, four sailors will do the work of 26, according to Cmdr. Robert Kurz, combat systems officer.

                        A Machinery Control and Monitoring System, or MCMS, will control more than 5,600 devices from a central computer system. Sailors will no longer turn on air conditioners via individual controls or drop weighted tape measures into tanks to measure fluid levels. MCMS will monitor and control these systems.

                        Another system known as CANES — Consolidated Afloat Network and Enterprise Services — essentially combines computer systems for different departments into one. That's another manpower reduction because it means fewer computer services.

                        "All that automation means less sailors pressing buttons, less sailors turning valves, less sailors needed to fix equipment," Kurz said.

                        Below deck, the Ford has two conglomerate galleys instead of the five galleys on the Nimitz-class carriers.

                        "Cooking is centralized, and now you just farm it out to wherever the respective line is," said Cmdr. Kristin Aquavella, the ship's supply officer.

                        Another important change for her sailors: supply elevators are located close to storage rooms, cutting down on the time it takes to off-load supplies.

                        Overall, her supply department will be reduced by 127 people, or 35 percent.

                        Ford sailors will sleep in berthing areas clustered around showers and the aforementioned gender-neutral toilets. No longer will sailors have to wrap a towel around themselves and navigate a passageway in the morning – or the middle of the night – to take a shower or use the toilet.

                        "It's more like a dorm now," said Petty Officer 1st Class Chris Tyson, who last month was working to finalize one of the berthing areas.

                        As he led a tour of the rooms in 90-plus degree heat, cold air pumped out through a flexible hose than ran along the ceiling. Tyson said the flexible "sock" eliminates dead zones in air flow.

                        "You can keep it cleaner. You can wash it and reattach it," he said.

                        School in session

                        The learning on the fly approach that Capt. Meier described extends to some of the ship's most critical systems.

                        The steam-powered catapults used to launch combat jets off the flight deck will be replaced by EMALs, which stands for Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. The basic technology is similar to the propulsion on an amusement park ride, but the workload and strict tolerances — not to mention the stakes — are much higher.

                        Sailors are learning EMALS by traveling back and forth to Lakehurst, N.J., where a prototype system is already up and running. On the Ford flight deck, the system is shielded from view as work continues.

                        Petty Officer 1st Class Daniel Cornell said the learning curve has been manageable.

                        "It's new stuff and a lot to learn, but that's why we're starting the sailors now — early instead of later," he said. "It's a step-by-step process."

                        Lt. Cmdr. Rick Johnston, the Ford's training officer, said sailors who are currently learning new systems such as EMALs will end up teaching crew members who follow them.

                        "We're having to do that with every new or heavily modified system on the ship," he said. "It's going to be unique training for sure. The Navy will not have a set-in-stone schoolhouse until 2018 or 2019. We're going to be on deployment at that point. So we are identifying, with the manufacturers of this equipment, what our sailors actually need to learn." Link
                        I can't wait to see some finished interior pictures of the ship
                        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                        Comment


                        • Interesting to note when looking at a CBO report that CVN 80 is to cost more than CVN 78!

                          'CVN-78, which was named for President Gerald R. Ford in 2007,5 was procured in FY2008. The Navy’s proposed FY2015 budget estimates the ship’s procurement cost at $12,887.2 million (i.e., about $12.9 billion) in then-year dollars. Of the ship’s total procurement cost, about $3.3 billion is for detailed design/non-recurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the class, and about $9.6 billion is for construction of the ship itself.
                          CVN-78 received advance procurement funding in FY2001-FY2007 and was fully funded in FY2008-FY2011 using congressionally authorized four-year incremental funding. The Navy did not request any procurement funding for the ship in FY2012 and FY2013. To help cover cost growth on the ship, the ship received an additional $588.1 million in procurement funding in FY2014, and the Navy is requesting another $663.0 million in procurement funding for FY2015.

                          CVN-79, which was named for President John F. Kennedy on May 29, 2011,6 was procured in FY2013. The ship received advance procurement funding in FY2007-FY2012, and the Navy plans to fully fund the ship in FY2013-FY2018 using congressionally authorized six-year incremental funding. The Navy’s proposed FY2015 budget estimates CVN-79’s procurement cost at $11,498.0 million (i.e., about $11.5 billion) in then-year dollars, and requests $1,300 million in procurement funding for the ship.

                          CVN-80, which was named Enterprise on December 1, 2012,7 is scheduled to be procured in FY2018. The Navy’s proposed FY2014 budget estimates the ship’s procurement cost at $13,874.2 million (i.e., about $13.9 billion) in then-year dollars. Under the Navy’s proposed FY2015 budget, the ship is to receive advance procurement funding in FY2016-FY2017 and be fully funded in FY2018-FY2023 using congressionally authorized six-year incremental funding'.
                          http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf
                          Last edited by surfgun; 13 Oct 14,, 17:10.

                          Comment


                          • That is interesting! A $2.4 billion increase from CVN 79 to CVN 80 seems to indicate that the Enterprise is going to incorporate some pretty significant changes from it's immediate predecessors. I haven't the foggiest idea as to what those might be. Somehow I doubt the Enterprise is going to be a railgun armed aircraft carrier.

                            Comment


                            • First new super aircraft carrier will not launch aircraft at the desired frequency and will need til 2020s to sort out problems
                              March 05, 2015

                              The Congressional report makes it clear that the cost overruns are still a problem. There are critical technological problems that will likely not get sorted out til 2020. The first two may be delivered in March 2016 and June 2022 but they will still be working on achieving the reliability and performance that was desired. The US is looking to overhaul and modify the USS George Washington as a backup.

                              The Congressional Research services has a new report, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

                              The report provides background information and potential oversight issues for Congress on the Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier program. The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget requests a total of $2,633.1 million in procurement and advance procurement (AP) funding for CVN-78, CVN-79, and CVN-80, the first three ships in the program. Congress’s decisions on the
                              CVN-78 program could substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements and the shipbuilding industrial base.

                              The Navy’s current aircraft carrier force consists of 10 nuclear-powered Nimitz-class ships (CVNs 68 through 77). Until December 2012, the Navy’s aircraft carrier force included an 11th aircraft carrier—the one-of-a-kind nuclear-powered Enterprise (CVN-65), which entered service in 1961.

                              The Ford-class design uses the basic Nimitz-class hull form but incorporates several improvements, including features permitting the ship to generate about 25% more aircraft sorties per day, more electrical power for supporting ship systems, and features permitting the ship to be operated by several hundred fewer sailors than a Nimitz-class ship, significantly reducing lifecycle operating and support (O and S) costs.

                              The Navy 2016 budget yields to Congress’s strong opposition to the service’s previous efforts to cut the active fleet to save money. It funds nuclear refueling and overhaul of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington –that it had tried to retire — and modifies its plan to put 11 cruisers and an amphibious ship into a deferred modernization program. Those changes would preserve the 11-carrier fleet and increase the operational fleet from the current 279 ships to 304 in 2020

                              CVN-78, which was named for President Gerald R. Ford in 2007. The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget estimates the ship’s procurement cost at $12,887.0 million (i.e.,about $12.9 billion) in then-year dollars. Of the ship’s total procurement cost, about $3.3 billion isfor detailed design/non-recurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the class, and about $9.6 billion is for construction of the ship itself. The ship received an additional $588.1 million in FY2014 and $663.0 million in FY2015 in so-called cost-to-complete procurement funding. As a final planned increment of cost-to-complete procurement funding, the Navy is requesting $123.8 million for the ship in FY2016. The ship is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in March 2016.

                              CVN-79, which was named for President John F. Kennedy on May 29, 2011, was procured in FY2013. The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget estimates the ship’s procurement cost at $11,347.6 million (i.e., about $11.3 billion) in then-year dollars. The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget requests $1,634.7 million in procurement funding for the ship. The ship is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in June 2022.

                              CVN-80, which was named Enterprise on December 1, 2012, is scheduled to be procured in FY2018. The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget estimates the ship’s procurement cost at $13,472.0 million (i.e., about $13.5 billion) in then-year dollars. The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget requests $874.7 million in AP funding for the ship.

                              Issues Raised in January 2015 Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Report

                              EMALS - Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System

                              EMALS is one of the four systems critical to flight operations. While testing to date has demonstrated that EMALS should be able to launch aircraft planned for CVN- 78’s air wing, present limitations on F/A-18E/F and EA-18G configurations as well as the system’s reliability remains uncertain. As of December 2013, at the Lakehurst, New Jersey, test site, over 1,967 launches had been conducted with 201 chargeable failures. At that time, the program estimates that EMALS has approximately 240 Mean Cycles Between Critical Failure in the shipboard configuration, where a cycle represents the launch of one aircraft. Based on expected reliability growth, the failure rate for the last reported Mean Cycles Between Critical Failure was five times higher than should have been expected.

                              AAG - Advanced Arresting Gear
                              AAG is another system critical to flight operations. Testing to date has demonstrated that AAG should be able to recover aircraft planned for the CVN-78 air wing, but as with EMALS, AAG’s reliability is uncertain. At the Lakehurst test site, 71 arrestments were conducted early in 2013 and 9 chargeable failures occurred. The Program Office last provided reliability data in December 2013 and estimated that AAG had approximately 20 Mean Cycles Between Operational Mission Failure in the shipboard configuration, where a cycle represents the recovery of one aircraft. Following these tests, the Navy modified the
                              system and has yet to score reliability of AAG. Based on expected reliability growth as of 2013, the failure rate was 248 times higher than should have been expected.

                              DBR - Dual Band Radar

                              Previous testing of Navy combat systems similar to CVN-78’s revealed numerous integration problems that degrade the performance of the combat system. Many of these problems are expected to exist on CVN-78. The previous results emphasize the necessity of maintaining a DBR/CVN-78 combat system asset at Wallops Island. The Navy is considering long-term plans (i.e., beyond FY15) for testing DBR at Wallops Island, but it is not clear if resources and funding will be available. Such plans are critical to delivering a fully-capable combat system and ensuring life-cycle support after CVN-78 delivery in 2016.

                              SGR - Sortie Generation Rate

                              It is unlikely that CVN-78 will achieve its SGR requirement. The target threshold is based on unrealistic assumptions including fair weather and unlimited visibility, and that aircraft emergencies, failures of shipboard equipment, ship maneuvers, and manning shortfalls will not affect flight operations.

                              F-35
                              The arresting hook system remains an integration risk as the F-35 development schedule leaves no time for discovering new problems. The redesigned tail hook has an increased downward force as well as sharper design that may induce greater than anticipated wear on the flight deck.

                              F-35 noise levels remain moderate to high risk in F-35 integration and will require modified carrier flight deck procedures.

                              Flight operations normally locate some flight deck personnel in areas where double hearing protection would be insufficient during F-35 operations. To partially mitigate noise concerns, the Navy will procure new hearing protection with active noise reduction for flight deck personnel.

                              -- Projected noise levels one level below the flight deck (03 level), which includes mission planning spaces, will require at least single hearing protection that will make mission planning difficult. The Navy is working to mitigate the effects of the increased noise levels adjacent to the flight deck.

                              Storage of the F-35 engine is limited to the hangar bay, which will affect hangar bay operations. The impact on the F-35 logistics footprint is not yet known.

                              Lightning protection of F-35 aircraft while on the flight deck will require the Navy to modify nitrogen carts to increase their capacity. Nitrogen is filled in fuel tank cavities while aircraft are on the flight deck or hangar bay.

                              F-35 remains unable to share battle damage assessment and non-traditional Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance information captured on the aircraft portable memory device or cockpit voice recorder in real- time. In addition, the CVN-78 remains unable to receive and display imagery transmitted through Link 16 because of bandwidth limitations; this problem is not unique to F-35. Link
                              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                              Comment


                              • Wow!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X