CVN-78 Gerald W Ford

[blidgepump]

Super cool....

Hwr upper bow has been put in place: Newport New Shipbuilding video.

The :31 second spot where the bow is dollied across is cool. The envy to have a "sky hook" such as that here on the farm is thought provoking.... ;)

[surfgun]

New aircraft carrier Ford's flight deck completed | Navy Times | navytimes.com
From the AP, but not totally accurate, the forward edge of the angled deck is not complete.
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — Another milestone has been marked in the construction of the Navy's newest aircraft carrier.

Huntington Ingalls Industries says construction of the Gerald R. Ford's flight deck is complete. Workers added the Ford's upper bow section last week.

Construction of the Ford began in November 2009 at Newport News Shipbuilding. Huntington Ingalls says in a news release that structural work is 96 percent complete.

The Ford is the lead ship in a new class of carriers. It features a new nuclear power plant, a redesigned island, electromagnetic catapults, improved weapons movement and an enhanced flight deck.

The Ford will replace the Enterprise, which was inactivated last year.

[blidgepump]

trolley.....

Trolley.... not dolly.... sorry

[dundonrl]

The envy to have a "sky hook" such as that here on the farm is thought provoking.... ;)

that would be an incredibly small farm, 1200 ft long and about 350 ft wide :D

[blidgepump]

think inside the barn.....

that would be an incredibly small farm, 1200 ft long and about 350 ft wide :D

Sorry, I wasn't referencing the tillable ground

Think, Football field wide and 1/4 mile long barn with a skyhook, that would make a heck of a place to get out of the weather

[surfgun]

Launch of Navy's newest aircraft carrier delayed | Navy Times | navytimes.com

WASHINGTON — The launch of the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford has been moved back from July to November, a consequence of production delays identified two years ago.

The move comes weeks after the Navy and shipbuilder Newport News Shipbuilding moved the ship’s delivery from September 2015 — which has been the contracted date for some years — to early 2016.

“We’ve known this would probably happen for about two years,” Chris Johnson, a spokesman for Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) said Monday. “Certainly it’s not ideal, but in this case it is very much a first-of-class issue. And those ships have challenges.”

The Ford is the first of the CVN 78-class carriers, the first new U.S. carrier design since the mid-1960s. The 100,000-ton ships — the largest warships in the world — are also the first to be entirely designed using computer-aided design technologies.

Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, is the only shipbuilder in the world capable of building full-sized nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

The shipbuilder, in a statement released Monday, acknowledged its problems in making up the schedule delays. HII’s statement in full:

“Working closely with the Navy, we have revised the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) launch date from July 2013 to November 2013. Although actions to resolve first-of-class issues have retired significant schedule risks, the revised launch date allows increased outfitting and ship construction that are most economically done prior to ship launch.

“As the first new design carrier beginning construction in more than 40 years, CVN 78 is designed to provide increased capability and reduced total ownership cost by about $4 billion compared to Nimitz-class carriers. For this first-of-class ship, construction commenced in parallel with design completion based on earlier decisions at [the] Department of Defense. Ongoing design during the construction process caused delay and inefficiencies in procurement, manufacturing, and assembly.

“We have demonstrated that delaying launch (and therefore delivery) to allow for increased outfitting and construction prior to launch is the most economical path forward to deliver the tremendous capability and affordability improvements resident in Ford. “

NAVSEA also released a statement on the shift in launch date:

“The CVN 78 launch date will be revised from July 2013 to November 2013, and delivery will be shifted to second quarter FY 2016. Although shipbuilder actions to resolve first-of-class issues have retired significant schedule risks to launch and stabilized schedule performance, they have not been able to overcome the 17 weeks of schedule pressure identified two years ago.

“The Navy and the shipbuilder concluded last month that a delay in the launch would allow the shipbuilder to complete the remaining critical path work and allow for increased outfitting to most economically complete the ship. The ship is expected to be 70 percent complete at launch, well prepared for subsequent shipboard testing.

“Ongoing design and new technology development during the construction process caused delays in material procurement, manufacturing and assembly.

“First-of-class producibility issues [that impacted the schedule included] the use of thinner steels which caused difficulties with structural erection; new processes for advanced coating systems; and qualification of new material components. The shipbuilder recommended a delay in launch in order to accomplish greater completion levels prior to launch and thereby enable the lead ship to be completed most economically. The Navy agreed.

“As reported by the Navy previously in its December 2011 CVN 78 Selected Acquisition Report, the Navy projects a most likely total ship end cost of $12.887 billion. This includes the cost of construction, government furnished equipment, and design funding of $3.3 billion for non-recurring engineering which is the investment in the 11 ship class design (not just the lead ship of the class, CVN 78). Current shipyard construction cost estimates are consistent with this Navy estimate from 2 years ago.”

[TopHatter]

As the man said, not really a surprise. In fact, compared to the LPD-17 class fiascos, I'm rather surprised things have gone this smoothly.

Of course, Newport News is hardly Ingalls or Avondale.

[bonehead]

As the man said, not really a surprise. In fact, compared to the LPD-17 class fiascos, I'm rather surprised things have gone this smoothly.

Of course, Newport News is hardly Ingalls or Avondale.

I don't know what all has been changed or added during the construction, but if those CAD guys are even half way on the ball they saved months of labor.

[surfgun]

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (WAVY) - A construction milestone was reached at Newport News Shipbuilding Tuesday.

Shipbuilders lifted the forward end of a catapult onto Aircraft Carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). The lift was the last of 162 superlifts hosted on Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) and marks the end of more than three years of structural erection work.

"We've been working more than three years since we laid the keel in November of 2009 and this superlift represents the last unit to complete the hull," vice president of construction Rolf Bartschi said.

Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is the first of the next-generation class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

The keel was laid November 14, 2009.

The ship will be christened this fall and it is scheduled to be delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2016.Major milestone reached on new carrier | WAVY.com | Newport news

[TopHatter]

Navy Should Delay Next Carrier Amid Troubles, GAO Says
By Tony Capaccio - Jun 27, 2013
The U.S. Navy should delay the award of a multibillion-dollar contract to Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. (HII) to build the second aircraft carrier in a new class as the first one faces failings from its radar to the gear that launches planes, congressional investigators said.

“Technical, design and construction challenges” with the first carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, have caused “significant cost increases and reduce the likelihood that a fully functional ship will be delivered on time,” the Government Accountability Office said in a draft report obtained by Bloomberg News.

The Ford, already the most expensive warship ever built, is projected to cost $12.8 billion, 22 percent more than estimated five years ago. The report raises questions about the future of U.S. seapower in a time of reduced defense budgets and about whether new carriers are affordable as they assume greater importance in the Pentagon’s strategy to project U.S. power in the Asia-Pacific region.

Delays and “reliability deficiencies” with the flattop’s new dual-mission radar, electromagnetic launch system and arresting gear for aircraft mean that the Ford “will likely face operational limitations that extend past commissioning” in March 2016 and “into initial deployments,” the agency said.

The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, said that’s reason enough to delay the contract that’s scheduled to be issued this year for the second ship, the USS John F. Kennedy.

‘Repeating Mistakes’

“It will be important to avoid repeating mistakes” in the contract for the Kennedy, the GAO said. “Staying within budget” will require the Navy to reduce “significant risk mainly by completing land-based testing for critical technologies before negotiating a contract” with Newport News, Virginia-based Huntington Ingalls.

Beci Brenton, a company spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview that “it would not be appropriate to comment on a draft report.”

Naval Sea Systems Command spokeswoman Colleen O’Rourke said in a statement that “as the Navy is currently working with the GAO on this report, it would be inappropriate to comment on any draft findings at this time. When the report is finalized, it will include Navy comments.”

The Navy remains committed to the Ford-class carrier as a needed capability, said a Navy official who declined to be identified before the GAO releases its final report. The Navy is confident that the first vessel will be delivered on schedule and that lessons learned from building it will be applied to reduce the cost of the second ship, the official said.

Shipbuilding Plan

Huntington Ingalls rose 2.3 percent to $56.59 at the close in New York and has climbed 31 percent this year.

The Navy is grappling with how to pay for a shipbuilding plan that anticipates $43 billion for three carriers in the Ford class, as well as $34 billion for 52 Littoral Combat Ships and a 12-vessel nuclear submarine fleet to replace the Ohio-class submarine.

While the GAO said that the Navy and Huntington Ingalls are taking steps to control costs for the Ford, most increases occur after a vessel is 60 percent complete and key systems are installed and integrated. The Ford is now 56 percent complete.

Even the current $12.8 billion estimate is “optimistic because it assumes the shipbuilder will maintain its current level of performance throughout the remainder of construction,” the GAO said.

Carrier Numbers

The Pentagon’s independent cost-estimating office, the Congressional Budget Office and a Navy-commissioned panel project final costs as high as $14.2 billion, the GAO said.

The draft report also raises questions about how many aircraft carriers the nation will have ready this decade. Congress has given the service temporary relief from the requirement to have 11 fully capable aircraft carriers. There are now 10 after deactivation of the USS Enterprise, and the Ford is supposed to bring that back to 11 by March 2016.

“As it now stands, the Navy will not be positioned to deliver a fully capable ship at the time,” the GAO said.

“Reliability shortfalls facing key Ford-class systems cloud the Navy’s ability to forecast when, or if” the carrier will meet the aircraft sortie rates and reduced manning requirements that distinguish it from the older Nimitz class, the GAO said.

O’Rourke, the Naval Sea Systems Command spokeswoman, wouldn’t comment on the specific value of the potential detailed design and construction contract to Huntington Ingalls for the Kennedy that the GAO said is due in September.

General Atomics, Raytheon

The largest share of the cost increase for the Ford, 38 percent, stemmed from technologies delivered by the Navy, including the radar, launch system and arresting gear, according to the GAO.

The electromagnetic launch system made by San Diego-based General Atomics has increased to $742.6 million, up 134 percent since 2008, the GAO said. The cost of arresting gear also made by the company increased 125 percent to $169 million.

Raytheon Co. (RTN)’s dual-band radar has increased 140 percent to $484 million, according to data cited by the GAO. Twenty-seven percent of the cost growth was pegged to shipbuilder design issues and another 27 percent to construction, both attributed to Huntington Ingalls.

Huntington Ingalls is building the Ford under a $4.9 billion detailed design contract that covers the shipbuilder’s portion of constructing the vessel. It doesn’t cover other costs, such as the nuclear reactor to power the ship and other government-furnished equipment.

Forecasting Overrun

The GAO said its analysis indicates that Huntington Ingalls “was forecasting an overrun at contract completion of over $913 million” that it said stemmed from “the shipbuilder not accomplishing work as planned.”

Huntington’s Brenton said in an e-mail in May that, “as the first new design carrier beginning construction in more than 40 years,” the Ford “is designed to provide increased capability and reduced total ownership cost by about $4 billion compared to Nimitz-class carriers.”

“For this first-of-class ship, construction commenced in parallel with design completion based on earlier decisions at Department of Defense,” she said. “Ongoing design during the construction process caused delay and inefficiencies in procurement, manufacturing, and assembly.” Link

Well, that certainly does suck, although I believe the Nimitz was regarded as something of a FRED back in the day.

[surfgun]

Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), with the christening and launch of on Nov. 9, 2013. This will mark the beginning of a new class of aircraft carriers that will be in service for the next 94 years. With exception of the hull, virtually everything has been redesigned to make the Ford class more capable and more powerful than in the Nimitz class. This new class of carrier will build on the legendary performance of the Nimitz class carriers and will provide 25 percent more combat capability, increased service life margins throughout the ship to handle the aircraft and weapon systems of the future including unmanned aircraft and futuristic directed energy weapons, as well as driving down the total ownership cost of the ship by $4 billion over its 50 year service.

If you drive by Huntington Ingalls-Newport News today, you will see the ship being built in drydock number 12. The ship’s structure is 100 percent complete. We are finishing up underwater shafting work and painting the hull in preparation of the ship’s launch.

The first thing you’ll notice is that the ship’s island is smaller and moved farther aft than on the Nimitz class and that there are no rotating antennas on atop the island. This is because CVN 78 will be the first ship to get the new dual-band radar that operates with phased array radars similar to AEGIS.

The smaller island and its location farther aft also provides for more flight deck space that combined with new weapons elevators and a NASCAR pit stop refueling concept will allow us to rearm and refuel aircraft faster to turn them around for the next mission. The net result is a 25 percent increase in sortie generation rate as compared to a Nimitz class carrier.

We’ve also revolutionized the launching of aircraft with the electromagnetic aircraft launching system.



You’ve probably experienced the technology yourself if you’ve ridden a roller coaster lately. EMALS and advanced arresting gear expand the launch and recovery envelope of the traditional steam catapults and arresting wires.

This allows pilots to launch and land with heavier aircraft, enabling the launch of lighter unmanned aircraft in the future. A secondary benefit of the electromagnetic aircraft launching system and advanced arresting gear is the ability to apply launch and recovery forces more evenly, producing less stress on the airframe and potentially saving on aircraft maintenance.


The aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) is the second ship in the Gerald R. Ford class, the Navy’s newest class of nuclear aircraft carriers. The ship’s first steel was cut in Dec. 2010.
These are just a couple of the new technologies on CVN 78 that will lead the Navy and naval aviation with a true leap forward over the next century. CVN 78 construction is about 63 percent complete. We expect to commission the ship in the second quarter of 2016. At the same time that we are getting ready to christen CVN 78, we have begun advance construction on the John F. Kennedy (CVN 79). We are working directly with the shipyard to incorporate the lessons learned from the construction of CVN 78 along with new game changing build strategies that will significantly reduce the cost of CVN 79 and future ships of the class. CVN 78: A True Leap Ahead for the Navy and Naval Aviation

[surfgun]

Updated UNREP procedure:

Updated July 26, 2013 2:58 PM

New Underway Replenishment System Successfully Demonstrated at Sea

PORT HUENEME, Calif. – Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Port Hueneme Division successfully completed the in-port and at-sea technical evaluation of the new underway replenishment (UNREP) system aboard the fast combat support ship USNS Arctic (T-AOE 8) on June 13, the Navy said in a July 26 release. The in-port portion of the evaluation took place May 27-31 and the at-sea portion was conducted June 3-13.

The new UNREP system – known as the Heavy Electric Standard Replenishment Alongside Method (E-STREAM) – transferred approximately 4,400 tons of test loads from Arctic to dry cargo ships USNS Robert E. Peary (T-AKE 5) and USNS William McLean (T-AKE 12).

The new Heavy E-STREAM system is functionally and procedurally similar to the existing UNREP system, but it uses a modern electronic control system instead of hydraulics and active clutches that enhance controllability and increase reliability.

The new capabilities provided by the Heavy E-STREAM system will allow the Navy to transfer heavier loads at the speed of the current system and lighter loads at twice the speed as the current system. The ability to transfer heavier loads faster translates to fewer transfers and increased readiness for the fleet by decreasing UNREP times. The system was conceived to meet the UNREP requirements of the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) class of aircraft carriers.

While at sea, the new system successfully transferred loads between the two ships more than 1,200 times. This is, on average, equivalent to uploading or downloading an aircraft carrier between four and six times.

The system operated as designed in various operational environments, including 100 transfer cycles at night and 200 transfer cycles in Tropical Storm Andrea, with loads that varied between 3,500 pounds and 6,000 pounds.

"The system operated flawlessly during its first time at sea," Richard Salo, UNREP technical warrant holder for Naval Sea Systems Command, said in the release. "It's fast, stable, easy to operate and reliable, demonstrating that it met all of the requirements for heavy load transfers. The technology used for this system will benefit future underway replenishment systems and provides significant improvement opportunities for the existing systems in the fleet."
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

[desertswo]

I've been tracking the construction of both Ford and HMS Queen Elizabeth for the past four years, and while I'm appreciative of much of the technology going into both, there are a couple of items going into Ford that as a Surface Warfare Officer give me pause. Specifically, the position of the island. I punched my Officer Of The Deck (OOD - the guy running the ship while the CO is examining the back of his eyelids) in Constellation when I was an Ensign, so conning a CV/CVN is something I know a little bit about, and that island position frankly scares the hell out of me. Why? Well, you have blind spots created by your height of eye and position relative to center line. You literally cannot see the water a couple of hundred yards ahead, and nearly 100 to port, and that was on a conventional bird farm where the island was just aft of number two elevator. This thing is damn near on the round down.

Now, I know someone will say, "The bridge on a supertanker is all the way aft, so what's the big deal?" The big deal is that a supertanker doesn't maneuver in formation with other ships, cruise at 30 knots, stop and back down in less than a couple of ship's lengths, and have a reduced tactical diameter of less than 800 yards. This is how "small boys" in company get in trouble around a carrier because they don't understand that it isn't a supertanker that takes eight miles to turn or whatever. A carrier is a race car on steroids and commands respect for that reason.

You really have to walk a mile in a conning officer's shoes to understand the nature of the problem. Ships literally disappear under your bow, and even radar doesn't pick them up because the flight deck masks radar waves as easily as it does the Mark 1 Mod Zero Eyeball One Each. I am assuming that they may incorporate some sort of CCTV to give the folks on the bridge a hand, but I never ceased to be amazed at how the people who design these things never really ask those of us who have to drive them what WE would like.

[TopHatter]

I am assuming that they may incorporate some sort of CCTV to give the folks on the bridge a hand, but I never ceased to be amazed at how the people who design these things never really ask those of us who have to drive them what WE would like.

I would imagine they'll do exactly that. The LCS ships appear to have metric crap-tons of cameras to aid the tiny crew in seeing what's around them. Probably going to be exactly the case with the Ford-class.

Having said that, I (being a civvie) can only imagine the conning benefits accrued by a forward island like the Queen Elizabeths or the Charles de Gaulle. You certainly don't have to worry about cameras or displays going on the fritz.

[desertswo]

I would imagine they'll do exactly that. The LCS ships appear to have metric crap-tons of cameras to aid the tiny crew in seeing what's around them. Probably going to be exactly the case with the Ford-class.

Having said that, I (being a civvie) can only imagine the conning benefits accrued by a forward island like the Queen Elizabeths or the Charles de Gaulle. You certainly don't have to worry about cameras or displays going on the fritz.

Yeah, while two islands is a bit much, I appreciate the fact that the RN at least considered the problem, and the two island solution in QE is rather elegant in my view.

I'll give you an idea of the problem so you can get your head around it. I took this Google Earth shot below and put in the track that a carrier has to take to the fuel pier at NSPH because it's the only one that can handle a ship that size. The island to the left of the box I drew there is Ford Island. Now, when you are standing on the bridge of Constellation or any CV/CVN, you cannot see the water to port, nor Ford Island itself. You may see the tops of buildings, but you have no real idea how much good water you have on that side; and when you are drawing nearly forty feet of draft, you better be in the middle of the dredged part of that channel or else there's a long green table in your future, with no coffee cup at your seat . . . assuming they invite you to sit. You hope that you don't have a gyro-compass casualty at that point, because if you do, you are screwed, blued and tatoo'd. That's the kind of problem that island location on a CVN causes, and it can be really nerve racking to say the least.