CVN-78 Gerald W Ford

[S2]

And I thought land nav could present some unique challenges. Rare, though, would be the professional complications from a peacetime misfall. I'm sitting in amazed wonder at yet another example of the practiced excellence exhibited by our U.S. Navy. In the end, America's ability to project power comes down to daily professional execution across a whole range of demanding disciplines where margin is nil and consequences manifold.

That ship mishaps there and (likely) six months in dry dock along with a damaged deep water re-fuel point of profound strategic importance. Our strategic posture goes to sh!t in the blink of an eye.

"For want of a nail..."

[desertswo]

And I thought land nav could present some unique challenges.

You've just prompted another story. I was one of three USN officers in my Strategy and Policy seminar at the US Naval War College. The other two were both aviators who hadn't served in a command billet on a ship. They only knew how to fly. Everyone else in the seminar were Army, Marine Corps and Air Force officers. We were studying the Battle of Leyte with a view to command and control problems and their effects on operations. We had a large map of the Philippines on the wall and were looking at the positions of the contesting forces, and a couple of the Army guys remarked, in reference to the Battle Off Samar, "Well, why didn't Taffy 3 just move in that direction to escape . . ." or something along those lines. The two seminar instructors, one a civilian history professor and the other a Marine Corps artillery Colonel, didn't really have good answers, so as the one guy with significant experience navigating those waters, I held a little school call for the "ground pounders." I pointed out all of the known reefs and shoal water that were not otherwise apparent on the map (it wasn't a navigation chart, but a standard geographic presentation of the area), and how in combat situations in the littorals like that, we use the bottom and the shore the same way ground forces use terrain to channelize the opposition and put them in a position to receive enfilading fires. You could see the light bulbs going on over the other 14 heads in the room; maneuver warfare is maneuver warfare . . . it's just a little wetter at sea.

Rare, though, would be the professional complications from a peacetime misfall. I'm sitting in amazed wonder at yet another example of the practiced excellence exhibited by our U.S. Navy. In the end, America's ability to project power comes down to daily professional execution across a whole range of demanding disciplines where margin is nil and consequences manifold.

That ship mishaps there and (likely) six months in dry dock along with a damaged deep water re-fuel point of profound strategic importance. Our strategic posture goes to sh!t in the blink of an eye.

"For want of a nail..."

One can lose a career over a lot of heinous activity, but as strange as it may sound, there are two absolute worst things one can be a party to: a) having your ship touch the bottom, and; b) having it touch another ship. I've seen COs relieved for cause in both situations before they even got back into port.

[jlvfr]

There's one point on commanding a US CVN that has always surprised me, and I wish someone could explain the logic...

If I understand correctly, the captain of a CVN, a ship with 100k+ tons is a former pilot?! Why?... If the logic is that "pilot knows best about lots of planes", then by that logic the USN should put a missile officer in charge of an SSBN or a missile cruiser... shouldn't a "proper" naval officer, with actual experience and training on ship handling, be the CO, and let the CAG handle the planes?

[desertswo]

There's one point on commanding a US CVN that has always surprised me, and I wish someone could explain the logic...

If I understand correctly, the captain of a CVN, a ship with 100k+ tons is a former pilot?! Why?... If the logic is that "pilot knows best about lots of planes", then by that logic the USN should put a missile officer in charge of an SSBN or a missile cruiser... shouldn't a "proper" naval officer, with actual experience and training on ship handling, be the CO, and let the CAG handle the planes?

I always thought so.

No, seriously, the requirement that the CO of a CV/CVN be a naval aviator is enshrined in public law. Nothing to be done about that one. Congress was successfully lobbied near the beginning of the last century on that one and I don't see it changing. BTW, there is never anything "former" about their flight status. There is an airplane with their name on it in the air wing's assets, and it's their privilege to fly if they feel like it.

In fairness to them, they generally are not bad ship handlers. It's not like relative motion is something they are strangers to. They do it at closing rates better than 1000 knots. What they do sometimes forget is that we only operate in two dimensions, and that 100,000 tons of inertia is a bitch. If they've been penciled in for the command route, they get four opportunities to learn: a) as XO in a CV/CVN; b) as Chief of Staff of a CRUDESGRU; c) as CO of another deep draft ship (supply or amphib), and; d) lots and lots of time in the simulator. After all of that, they are generally safe. Still, it isn't the 12 years at sea driving ships that I had before getting a command, but it's better than nothing, and they have a lot of people like me backstopping them.

What I do have a bigger problem with is that the Navigator and A-Navigator are always Airedales too. That's one that could and should be changed. I once had one in Constellation lay a track over French Frigate Shoals west of Hawaii. All the other ships in the battle group were coming up hot on the red phone saying, "I don't think you want to do that." Hell, it's above water half of the damn day. Kind of hard to miss on a chart.

The battle we in the Surface Warfare world did win, and I lay it out in my essay on What The Battleships Really Meant, is the right to command a CVBG/CVSG. That used to be the exclusive right of the Airedales too; but we wrested that away from them in the 80s and have never looked back.

[jlvfr]

I once had one in Constellation lay a track over French Frigate Shoals west of Hawaii. All the other ships in the battle group were coming up hot on the red phone saying, "I don't think you want to do that." Hell, it's above water half of the damn day. Kind of hard to miss on a chart.

[desertswo]

Yeah, you got that one, right? For those unaware, French Frigate Shoals figures in the Battle of Midway. As the photo below shows, it even has a small airfield on the one part that is usually dry (but not always). It doesn't appear on a small scale navigation chart that is used for laying out a voyage track for getting from say, Pearl Harbor to Subic Bay, Philippines, but that's no excuse. Someone in the Navigator's cadre should have caught it before he ever promulgated the track to the rest of the group. To say we had egg on our faces would be an understatement, and is one reason why that gentleman's career topped out at O-5 vice something higher. There were others too, although he was a great guy as a human being. Just dumber than a box of rocks . . . wet ones at that.

[jlvfr]

Yeah, you got that one, right? For those unaware, French Frigate Shoals figures in the Battle of Midway.

Not to mention the fact that the name comemorates the frenchman who almost lost 2 frigates there!!

It's just that... puting someone who has never led any ship, in charge of a 100k ton nuclear-powered beast, just because he's top guy for the mission, not the job...

[desertswo]

Not to mention the fact that the name comemorates the frenchman who almost lost 2 frigates there!!

It's just that... puting someone who has never led any ship, in charge of a 100k ton nuclear-powered beast, just because he's top guy for the mission, not the job...

Re-read what I wrote previously. He had had command of another ship, plus experience working for an Admiral in command of a Cruiser-Destroyer Group. Plus his XO ride on a carrier. He's not clueless.

[jlvfr]

Re-read what I wrote previously. He had had command of another ship, plus experience working for an Admiral in command of a Cruiser-Destroyer Group. Plus his XO ride on a carrier. He's not clueless.

Oops stupid me, my bad... no coffee post lunch! (that's my story and I'm sticking to it...)

[blidgepump]

Stay in the box......

You've just prompted another story. ...........

One can lose a career over a lot of heinous activity, but as strange as it may sound, there are two absolute worst things one can be a party to: a) having your ship touch the bottom, and; b) having it touch another ship. I've seen COs relieved for cause in both situations before they even got back into port.

My contacts at CGSC included a former XO on a fast attack boat. Go figure, a retired sub driver assigned to an Army post on the Great Plains. I enjoyed hearing his tales of sub driving in the Atlantic & Med. One story related to your point Sir about staying in the box, i.e., so many feet below so many above so many to the sides and so forth.

On one journey the orders were to pass Gilbrator submerged. He recited in detail his efforts to avoid other traffic in the strait and keep the proper distance. He had been plotting and figuring for the first half of his watch and still could not keep the box and make passage. About this time the Captian checks in and my friend explains the issue.

The Captain advises that the orders as written by SubCom displayed a lack of judgment in understanding how busy the Strait is and how very little bottom exists, did I mention narrow, too? So the CO's fix was advising my friend to head west away from the strait to open water, find a place to surface and then enter the strait on the surface. Oh yeah, the CO placed his initials in the log as a good CYA. An example of a good relationship between the CO & XO.;)

[desertswo]

I'm sending this out to Rusty and/or Dreadnought (or hell, anyone else who might have a clue); I've been reading as much as I can about the Gerald R. Ford-class and even though I swore I would never serve on another CV/CVN, I still respect the ships and their mission (even if young Airedales heads are up their fundaments 3/4 of the time. When they hit the O-5 mark they seem to acquire a bit more humility when they realize that they don't know it all, and in truth their balls are no larger than anyone else's. ).

I can see how so much of the ship is a true Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) and that she will have electrical power to spare because of the new design in reactors and the big turbine-generators, etc. for EMALS and Advanced Arresting Gear. However, I haven't been able to learn anything about her actual propulsion plant. They talk about the new reactor design until the cows come home but not a peep about the means by which the screws are driven.

So my inquiry to those who may have contacts still within the industry is simple; will the Gerald R. Ford-class be driven by the traditional HP-LP steam turbine and reduction gear sets, or will she be like the new Queen Elizabeth-class in the respect that the Royal Navy will be using gas turbines and diesels to generate electricity that will then drive advanced AC motors (vice the DC motors of the old diesel-electric submarines, old battleships like California and Tennessee, and carriers like Saratoga and Lexington back in the day) for propulsion?

Part of me says that using turbo-electric drive would be far more efficient than steam propulsion turbines and reduction gear (quieter too if the reduction gear are dispensed with, and less sound propagated through the water is never a bad thing in any ship). On the other hand, there are plenty of nuclear qualified Machinist's Mates who are comfortable with "the way we've always done it Sir" (an answer that always caused me to gaze heaven-ward and say "Why me Lord?"; especially when I was inspecting engineering departments for a living). People are comfortable with what they know, and too much change can be problematic when wringing out the bugs. Then again, no balls, no blue chips.

Anyway, if anyone as any insights into this conundrum, I would be most appreciative of any info you can provide. It will allow me to remove one more item of those things that keep me up at night (because I so obviously don't have a life). ;)

[Stitch]

I can see how so much of the ship is a true Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) and that she will have electrical power to spare because of the new design in reactors and the big turbine-generators, etc. for EMALS and Advanced Arresting Gear. However, I haven't been able to learn anything about her actual propulsion plant. They talk about the new reactor design until the cows come home but not a peep about the means by which the screws are driven.
;)

I'm finding about as much information as you are; the most descriptive phrase I've found so far for the new propulsion system is "Northrop Grumman is developing the advanced nuclear propulsion system and a zonal electrical power distribution system for the CVN 21" on naval-technology.com. That's it.

[surfgun]

I suspect that she will be an electric, as the DDG 1000 is said to an electric ship and of similar vintage.
But on the other hand, I think that the Navy would advertise this as part of their Green initiatives that has been pushed by SecNav.

[surfgun]

LHA 6 and LHD 8, are both are hybrid electric drive vessels.

[TopHatter]

Gah! NNS and the Navy certainly aren't giving out any freebies on this one.

Found this little nugget of information "Current carriers use steam power throughout the ship but the Ford class has replaced all the steam lines with all electric power."