Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVN-78 Gerald W Ford

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

  • All steam turbine ships these days have "Reduction Gears" so this is not a new technology. Thrust bearings have been around a long time.

    Comment


    • Agreed, reduction gearing is not new, but the model on the FORD is new and they're having issues with them. Normal teething issues to be expected with new kit, but the Navy is blaming the shipyards for poor pre-acceptance inspections as this is not the first problem found with the FORD gearing.

      Comment


      • Beyond the numerous other leading edge technologies incorporated in Ford, I believe most of the engineering changes (below Deck) versus the Nimitz were in Electrical Generation and the Reactor. I wonder how many changes were really made with the propulsion plant ie main engines? Don't think I have seen a horsepower number (propulsion) compared to the Nimitz class.

        Comment


        • I'm not sure, but I'd bet they used the opportunity to get all new designs.

          Comment


          • Change in the program manager for the Ford Carrier Program announced.

            Capt. Ron Rutan has been moved from the program office to the Naval Sea Systems (NAVSEA) staff, and Capt. Brian Metcalf has taken over the program office.

            Metcalf took command of the program office on July 1.

            "...... there was no specific incident or causal factor that led to the decision to remove Rutan from the office and bring Metcalf in, but rather it was reflective of the program’s performance over time."



            Link to article.

            https://news.usni.org/2020/07/02/nav...ance-over-time

            Navy Removes Ford Carrier Program Manager, Citing Performance Over Time
            By: Megan Eckstein
            July 2, 2020 5:19 PM

            USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) Transits the Atlantic Ocean on June 4, 2020. US Navy Photo

            The Navy removed its program manager for the first-in-class USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), as Navy acquisition chief James Geurts looks to boost performance in the new carrier program.

            Capt. Ron Rutan has been moved from the program office to the Naval Sea Systems (NAVSEA) staff, and Capt. Brian Metcalf has taken over the program office. Metcalf previously served as the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock (LPD-17) program manager and was working as the executive assistant to the commander of NAVSEA prior to his reassignment to the CVN-78 program office (PMS 378).

            “Readiness of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is the Navy’s top priority, and the progress the team made during the Post Shakedown Availability (PSA) met requirements while the subsequent eight months of CVN 78’s post-delivery test and trials (PDT&T) period has been impressively ahead of plan. Even in the face of a global pandemic, the team has kept a lightning pace, and we will continue to do so, for our Navy and our nation, until USS Gerald R. Ford completes her post-delivery obligations and is fully available and ready for tasking by the Fleet,” NAVSEA spokesman Rory O’Connor told USNI News.

            Still, he said, “with 10 months left in PDT&T, followed by full-ship shock trials in [Fiscal Year 2021], we must ensure that the team takes the opportunity to recharge and allow for fresh eyes on upcoming challenges as required. While there is no perfect time for leadership transitions, it is prudent to bring in renewed energy now to lead the CVN 78 team through the challenges ahead. Capt. Metcalf’s proven program management acumen and extensive waterfront experience will be a tremendous asset to the CVN 78 team in the months ahead.”

            Metcalf took command of the program office on July 1.

            O’Connor reiterated that there was no specific incident or causal factor that led to Geurts’ decision to remove Rutan from the office and bring Metcalf in, but rather it was reflective of the program’s performance over time.

            Though the carrier program has made good progress during the post-delivery test and trial period that started last fall, the program has also faced its share of difficulty. It caught the eye of lawmakers last year when, two years after commissioning as a warship, the carrier still didn’t have working weapons elevators and was facing ongoing challenges with the propulsion system.

            In January, former Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly held a leadership summit as part of his “Make Ford Ready” initiative, bringing together Navy and industry leaders to discuss how to quick the ship’s transition from testing to fleet operations.

            “While this is an ‘all hands on deck’ priority that can only be accomplished through the dedicated efforts of the Ford team, it will also require broad, department-wide encouragement, enthusiasm, and support for our shipmates and industry partners who will be heads down on the tasks at hand,” Modly said in a news release.
            “We all have a stake in the success of this effort–for the future of our Navy, our national security, and security of the world.”

            Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said in the January news release that “I’m extremely bullish on Ford – and our Navy should be too. The Ford-class carrier is the future. It is a phenomenal ship designed to deliver increased capability for the carrier air wing of tomorrow. While good progress has been made over the past several months, together we must keep Ford headed in the right direction – and get her where she needs to be – operating forward at sea to reassure allies, deter adversaries, and protect our national interests around the world.”

            Geurts has told reporters recently that the team from Newport News Shipbuilding and the Navy are working ahead of schedule, accomplishing maintenance activities now that had previously been scheduled to take place after PDT&T and the full-ship shock trials – meaning the maintenance period after shock trials would be shorter and the carrier could join the fleet faster.

            Still, O’Connor said the change in leadership at the CVN-78 program office would provide “a fresh set of eyes and the energy and focus on the program to get it over the finish line, out of PSA, out of testing, out of shock trials and into the hands of warfighters, where it belongs.”

            Comment


            • The newest US aircraft carrier is heading for deployment after a decade of hard lessons the Navy says it should 'never' do again


              USS Gerald R. Ford in the Atlantic Ocean on March 19.
              • USS Gerald R. Ford, the US Navy's newest aircraft carrier, will deploy in early May.
              • USS Ford is the first carrier of its class and has an array of new and advanced technology.
              • That technology has also been a headache, contributing to years of delays and cost overruns.
              The US Navy's newest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, will deploy in early May, sailing with its escorts for the first time as a fully certified carrier strike group, a major milestone after years of problems that have delayed the ship and frustrated officials.

              Ford has "fully transitioned to an in-service ship," Capt. Brian Metcalf, program manager for Ford-class carriers, said at the Sea, Air, Space exhibition in National Harbor, Maryland on April 4.

              The carrier finished an "early deployment" in fall 2022, during which it conducted "very successful" training with aircraft carriers and other ships from NATO navies, and in early April, it completed a composite training unit exercise, which was the carrier's "final graduation exercise to deploy," Metcalf said.

              The exercise, known as a COMPTUEX, was "several weeks of working with the air wing and the battlegroup ships that she will go on deployment with. She earned all of her certifications and met all the requirements to deploy. She's destined to deploy the first week of May," Metcalf said, adding that it will be at least a six-month deployment.

              The Navy has not said where the carrier strike group is headed, but completing the COMPTUEX means the carrier and its escorts are "prepared to provide military commanders a wide range of flexible capabilities in support of allies and partners worldwide," including for maritime security, power projection, or strike operations, said Lt. Cmdr. Kristi Johnson, deputy public affairs officer for the Navy's Norfolk-based 2nd Fleet.

              'We should never do that again'


              An aviation boatswain's mate (handling) directs an F/A-18E aboard USS Gerald R. Ford in October.

              The Ford will deploy a few months shy of the 10-year anniversary of its launch in fall 2013. Heralded as the first new class of carrier since USS Nimitz arrived in 1975, the Ford-class program has been marred over the past decade by a series of problems with the ship's new technology that caused years of delays and pushed the cost to several billion dollars more than the Navy's original estimate.

              Among the most troublesome of its new technologies are the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, Advanced Arresting Gear, and Advanced Weapons Elevators — all of which are supposed to do their jobs faster and more efficiently that similar systems on older carriers. Instead, years of struggles with them and other components prompted public sparring between the shipbuilder, Navy officials, lawmakers, and even President Donald Trump, who frequently criticized the carrier's new design and hardware.

              Navy officials have acknowledged missteps in how the carrier was designed and built. Adm. Michael Gilday, the chief of naval operations, said in 2021 that putting 23 new technologies aboard the ship "increased the risk" of delays and cost overruns "right from the get-go."

              Metcalf noted this month that the carrier was "delivered incomplete" and that the timeline for post-delivery work "was excessive, because not only did it include learning the lessons from operators but it included completing the initial construction."

              "There were a handful of new technologies that, frankly, took longer than we estimated, and this will not be the norm," Metcalf added. "You will not see another six-year interval between the delivery of [the next Ford-class carrier] and its deployment, and we should never do that again."

              'Dependable systems'


              USS Gerald R. Ford in the Atlantic Ocean on March 19.

              While USS Gerald R. Ford is now heading out on its first fully operational deployment, there are still questions about its hardware.

              In its 2022 annual report, the Pentagon's top weapons tester cited the "low or unproven reliability" of five systems — including the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, the Advanced Arresting Gear, and the Advanced Weapons Elevators — as "the most significant challenge to flight operations." The report also cited a lack of data to determine Ford's ability to defend itself against anti-ship cruise missiles, which are seen as a growing threat to carriers.

              Nonetheless, the Navy has touted the ship's progress. The final weapons elevator was completed in December 2021, with Rear Adm. James Downey, program executive officer for aircraft carriers, calling it "a significant milestone."

              The carrier deployed for the first time in September 2022, remaining under the command of the Navy rather than being assigned to a combatant commander as it would on a normal deployment. During the COMPTUEX this spring, the carrier got underway with its full air wing for the first time. As of that exercise, Ford has launched and recovered aircraft more than 14,000 times, Metcalf said.

              The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and Advanced Arresting Gear "are operating fine" and are "leveling out to be dependable systems that we can rely on," Metcalf added.

              Other assessments remain, including a week-long test event after the upcoming deployment to determine how quickly the carrier can launch and recover aircraft and further testing of the carrier's self-defense capabilities.

              "Ford has earned her combat systems qualification," Metcalf said. "She's earned every certification she needs to deploy, and I fully believe that the aircraft carrier, her air wing, and her battlegroup are capable of defending themselves."
              __________
              “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


              • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

                defend itself against anti-ship cruise missiles
                Have to admit I'm a bit confused about this. The ship has the same weapons fit of the latest Nimitz, and is still stuck with old-fashioned ESSM launchers. The french De Gaulle has had short range VLS SAMs since design, and every CV built since then has short range VLS (except for the RN's, that has none...). And I'd bet the new chinese has them... so what gives? Both launcher positions seem to have plenty of room for ESSM VLS cells...

                Edit: and the rear CIWS... it's just... why is it there?! It can barely elevate!
                Last edited by jlvfr; 11 Apr 23,, 15:12.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post

                  Have to admit I'm a bit confused about this. The ship has the same weapons fit of the latest Nimitz, and is still stuck with old-fashioned ESSM launchers. The french De Gaulle has had short range VLS SAMs since design, and every CV built since then has short range VLS (except for the RN's, that has none...). And I'd bet the new chinese has them... so what gives? Both launcher positions seem to have plenty of room for ESSM VLS cells...

                  Edit: and the rear CIWS... it's just... why is it there?! It can barely elevate!
                  The real antiair defenses are the Aegis cruisers and destroyers.

                  The ESSM, RAM and CIWS launchers are point-defense "oh shit" weapons. They take up very little real estate and are relatively "cheap".

                  The aft CIWS is for sea-skimming AShMs
                  “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


                  • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

                    The real antiair defenses are the Aegis cruisers and destroyers.

                    The ESSM, RAM and CIWS launchers are point-defense "oh shit" weapons. They take up very little real estate and are relatively "cheap".

                    The aft CIWS is for sea-skimming AShMs
                    I know they are "oh shit" weapons, but they still seem a bit... weak, in terms of coverage and redundancy. And if you do get to the "oh shit" time, you want everything you can get your hands on. The 2 ESSM can only fire properly to their respective sides, or force the missiles to do a long, wide turn (could they even?) around the CV, and are subject to mallfunction. The aft CIWS covers only a small area, giving no redundancy to the others, and it's poor elevation will, I think, be a problem vs any missile that tries a pop-up manouver.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post

                      I know they are "oh shit" weapons, but they still seem a bit... weak, in terms of coverage and redundancy. And if you do get to the "oh shit" time, you want everything you can get your hands on. The 2 ESSM can only fire properly to their respective sides, or force the missiles to do a long, wide turn (could they even?) around the CV, and are subject to mallfunction. The aft CIWS covers only a small area, giving no redundancy to the others, and it's poor elevation will, I think, be a problem vs any missile that tries a pop-up manouver.
                      It has to do with U.S. carrier design philosophy. They want to maximize "air power" in all aspects and that means minimizing pretty much everything else, even air defense.

                      The philosophy is that a carrier's best defense is her air wing and her escorts, so organic AA firepower isn't a really high priority.

                      Along those lines, you'll note how carrier islands on both CVNs and LHD/LPDs have shrunk considerably over the years, and their placement on CVNs keeps getting moved further and further aft. Same reason: Maximize flight deck efficiency for more air power.

                      Same thing with the US Army and its comparatively pathetic mobile AA defense systems. While this is changing these days, thanks to drones, the Army's philosophy has been "We only have such much money to go around and we already have the best anti-air defense system in the world: The USAF and USN airpower."

                      Having said all that, I'm positive that space on carriers has been reserved for future DEW systems.

                      As for the firing arcs, I'll admit to complete ignorance as to their placement. I can only assume someone(s) has done a metric ton of research and simulations to determine their placement.
                      “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


                      • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

                        It has to do with U.S. carrier design philosophy. They want to maximize "air power" in all aspects and that means minimizing pretty much everything else, even air defense.

                        The philosophy is that a carrier's best defense is her air wing and her escorts, so organic AA firepower isn't a really high priority.

                        Along those lines, you'll note how carrier islands on both CVNs and LHD/LPDs have shrunk considerably over the years, and their placement on CVNs keeps getting moved further and further aft. Same reason: Maximize flight deck efficiency for more air power.

                        Same thing with the US Army and its comparatively pathetic mobile AA defense systems. While this is changing these days, thanks to drones, the Army's philosophy has been "We only have such much money to go around and we already have the best anti-air defense system in the world: The USAF and USN airpower."

                        Having said all that, I'm positive that space on carriers has been reserved for future DEW systems.

                        As for the firing arcs, I'll admit to complete ignorance as to their placement. I can only assume someone(s) has done a metric ton of research and simulations to determine their placement.
                        Considering the way there has been a brutal and almost self-damning research & testing the Navy has gone through for this class of ship I am fully comfortable with the weapons suite on the CVNs. As always, I'd love more weapons and sensors but think we have maxxed out for what the Navy requirements are. Materiel developers are authorized to provide more capability than what is required by the key performance parameters as listed in their Capabilities Production Documentation as written by the capabilities developer but are not allowed to fall short. As TH says US doctrine is for others to fight for the carriers safety while it provides coverage for all.

                        And the delay of 10 years...the Fords have really pushed the envelope on employing emerging technologies. As with much of these newer weapon systems the service has to accept a higher risk to timelines, especially where software is concerned. And that is much of what the issues have been...integrating software which is ruinously difficult. One thing can be sure...those systems have been tested and tweaked to the nth degree because of all of the issues. The Navy did the right thing by being methodical and working through this to a completion standard and not a time standard. The same approach was adopted by the revamped F-35 program office which has resulted in a highly capable combat aircraft reaching the force. The USMC is now operating the F-35C from several Navy flight decks in squadron service.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • What really bugs me is not so much the number of weapons but the type & location. A modern ship still using old-school launchers feels very odd, and cuts down their engagment speed & efectiveness. The Phalanx bellow the flight deck has a very narrow arc, and the RAM starboard aft also seems to have a poor arc; it would struggle to support redundancy for the weapons forward startboard.

                          As for the delays... well, with so many new techs in the ship, specially the catapult, it was to be expected, even if maybe not so long. I'm particullary stunned by the progress on the cat, tbh. In a handfull of years, a large scale EM rail system went from concept to test to reliable working equipment? A well done job.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                            .

                            As for the delays... well, with so many new techs in the ship, specially the catapult, it was to be expected, even if maybe not so long. I'm particullary stunned by the progress on the cat, tbh. In a handfull of years, a large scale EM rail system went from concept to test to reliable working equipment? A well done job.
                            As an engineering feat it would rank behind the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program which had far more resources thrown at it. A cat system which has evolved from cables flinging the planes off (USS Hornet), to steam, to EM. It isn't a system of rubber bands like some think.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post

                              Have to admit I'm a bit confused about this. The ship has the same weapons fit of the latest Nimitz, and is still stuck with old-fashioned ESSM launchers. The french De Gaulle has had short range VLS SAMs since design, and every CV built since then has short range VLS (except for the RN's, that has none...). And I'd bet the new chinese has them... so what gives? Both launcher positions seem to have plenty of room for ESSM VLS cells...

                              Edit: and the rear CIWS... it's just... why is it there?! It can barely elevate!
                              The old launchers point the missile at the on coming target.

                              If shot from a VLS launcher the missile has to climb to altitude , turn and look for the guidance signal from the ships radar, then follow the beam till its own radar guides it in for a kill.

                              Time is money

                              (edit)

                              Also the Mk 29 launcher can be reloaded while underway

                              The Chinese use knockoffs of RAM and SeaRam
                              Last edited by Gun Grape; 16 Apr 23,, 05:49.

                              Comment


                              • USS Gerald R. Ford leaving today on 1st warfighting deployment

                                The USS Gerald R. Ford and the strike group bearing its name will depart later today from Naval Station Norfolk on the carrier’s first warfighting deployment.

                                In early April, the Ford completed a month-long training exercise off the East Coast, making the Ford a certified combat-deployable warship. The Navy wasted no time deploying its newest and most technologically advanced aircraft carrier.

                                “The sailors of Gerald R. Ford are ready and able to perform because of the strenuous training they have put in to get this ship ready to deploy and also, in large part, because of the support of their families and friends,” said Capt. Rick Burgess, Ford’s commanding officer. “This ship and crew are actively reshaping the face of our Navy’s capabilities and strengthening the future of naval aviation.”

                                The 1,106-foot carrier’s new electromagnetic-powered aircraft launch system (EMALS) and the advanced arresting gear are two of the much-touted technologies unique to Ford-class carriers. EMALS uses stored kinetic energy and solid-state electrical power conversion to propel an aircraft along a track and off the carrier, while the arresting gear is a turbo-electric system designed for more controlled deceleration of aircraft. The technology, the Navy said, means the air-wing can get into the air — and return to the battle after rearming and refueling — faster than with the traditional steam-and-hydraulics systems that have been the mainstay for decades.

                                In total, the strike group will deploy with more than 6,000 sailors across all platforms.

                                The strike group includes Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 12 staff, Gerald R. Ford, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 8, Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 2 staff and units, Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG 60) and an information warfare commander.

                                The ships of DESRON 2 are the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Ramage, USS McFaul and USS Thomas Hudner, which are scheduled to depart their homeports of Naval Station Norfolk and Naval Station Mayport respectively, Tuesday.

                                The squadrons of CVW-8 embarked aboard Gerald R. Ford are the “Tridents” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 9, the “Bear Aces” of Airborne Command and Control Squadron (VAW) 124, the “Rawhides” of Fleet Logistics Support Squadron (VRC) 40 located in Norfolk.

                                The “Ragin’ Bulls” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 37, the “Blacklions” a of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 213, the “Golden Warriors” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 87, the “Tomcatters” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 31, all of Virginia Beach, will deploy with the airwing, as well as the “Gray Wolves” of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 142 located in Whidbey Island, Wash., and the “Spartans” of Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 70 located in Mayport, Fla.
                                _________
                                “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

                                Working...
                                X