Aircraft Carriers III

Friday at 5:00 PM
exactly!
I haven't seen, and won't see, the USN to admit anything, anything at all, might be wrong ... LOL if something in fact was wrong, it'd be 'tremendous amount of data gathered', 'exciting challenge', 'great opportunity to learn' ...

I've posted about dozen of rants like this:
Sep 1, 2016
and you know what, I got fed up myself
LOL!
maybe I should pull those quotes now?

“Instead of something that will deliver in 15 or 20 years, we do something that will deliver in five years, and then we do five years after that, and we sort of take smaller steps to arrive at the technology and capability curve and deliver with more confidence and on budget, on schedule.”

says who?! Jura ranting again? no, this is what the CNO is quoted to say inside:
Newly Commissioned Carrier Ford’s Leap-Ahead Technology Approach May Be a Thing of the Past
tough title, but it's USNI News
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Saturday’s commissioning of aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was a celebration of the end of a long and at-times hard road to bring the warship and its many new technologies to the fleet – a path the Navy may not choose to take again.

Ford was designed under President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as the Pentagon sought transformational new technologies. The carrier, then, was packed with major cutting-edge technologies: a steam-free Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System, an Advanced Arresting Gear, a powerful Dual-Band Radar, a new nuclear propulsion and power distribution system, and advanced weapons elevators. In all,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

“This is a herculean task, I don’t think people understand the monumental quantum leaps in technology, whether it’s the electromagnetic launch system, the advanced arresting gear, the new systems onboard,” House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee chairman Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) told USNI News before the commissioning ceremony.
“It’s really an amazing testament to the Navy, to the shipbuilders in being able to put that together, to test it, to get it to work. If you look at the progress in technology like EMALS originally that hiccupped a little bit and how it is today with it being onboard, it’s really a testament to the Navy and to the shipbuilders as to how they did that. We don’t always expect that new technology, but if we don’t push the envelope on what we can do then we never learn and we never get to deploy those technologies.”

Despite the congressman’s praise for those involved in overcoming the technical challenges that have arisen over the past several years of construction and testing, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson told USNI News before the ceremony that the Navy may avoid massive capability leaps like Ford in the future, to cut down on risk, cost and schedule.

“When we look back, the Ford took on some major goals for ourselves, some real reach goals in terms of technology. And so as we look forward to designing and building ships of the future, particularly given how quickly technology is advancing, maybe we take smaller steps,” he said.
“Instead of something that will deliver in 15 or 20 years, we do something that will deliver in five years, and then we do five years after that, and we sort of take smaller steps to arrive at the technology and capability curve and deliver with more confidence and on budget, on schedule.”

Richardson made that same point a day earlier,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Speaking to industry about the MQ-25 unmanned aerial vehicle specifically, the CNO said, “show us the trade space here. what is the technological landscape, so we can find the knee in the curve, come up with the solution that has appropriate technical maturity, and put together a program that is about right on the risk curve, so that there’s not too much uncertainty, too many unknowns as we go forward. Now that will likely, that knee in the curve is not an exquisite solution that will last for the next 20 years, but that’s not the model. The model is, we’re going to do a lot better than what we’ve got right now, and we’re going to do that with a lot more certainty and confidence than we would if we’re trying to project forward decades. And then we’re going to build in a much faster iterative process – so this will be step one, and we’ll sort of design in modernization from the start. So I don’t have to worry about lasting 20 years, being that good. You tell me when it’s time to take the next step and we’ll iterate forward another step, so it’s almost this spiral development process, even for major programs.”

Richardson added in the Friday speech that upcoming ship classes like the frigate would follow this same model, leveraging mature technologies today and building in space, weight and power margins to add new technologies later on.

For Wittman, his focus was fielding these new technologies quickly – and in the case of Ford, that means getting the ship through its post-delivery tasks quickly and getting the ship to the operational fleet, without first putting the carrier through shock trials. The House Armed Services Committee debated this issue earlier this spring, with the committee ultimately expressing its desire to postpone shock trials until the second-in-class John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), which is what the Navy had hoped to do but the Pentagon under former Secretary Ash Carter would not allow.

“We’re having the Navy come in and brief us on the regime for shock trials, what they’ve done to, through modeling and simulation shock systems on the boat, to figure out how they would respond,” Wittman told USNI News about his work to convince the Pentagon to reverse its previous position.
“I think that is a very effective way to go about doing it. The key for us is, we don’t want to delay the Ford coming to the fleet, we believe that she will do fine in shock trials. If you look at other ships, the Navy doesn’t normally shock the first ship in the class, so I don’t think that there’s an issue waiting to shock the next ship knowing that we have already done the modeling and simulation shock trials for systems onboard. So I think the Navy has it right, but we want to hear from them, ask questions about how they’ve come to this decision.”

There is also a sense of urgency to field the ship quickly, as the Navy is legally obligated to maintain an 11-carrier fleet but has been working with 10 since the ex-USS Enterprise (CVN-65) decommissioned in December 2012.

“We take all the responsibilities we have – where we have to be and when we have to be there – and then we sort of take the Navy that we’ve got and divide it up. When you have fewer ships, fewer carrier strike groups, that means the ones you have are out there a little bit longer,” Richardson told USNI News.
“So the addition of the Gerald R. Ford and her intended carrier strike group and air wing, that’s another huge addition which will sort of alleviate the stress on the rest of the fleet.”

“I know as I strolled in the back and spoke to the sailors and their families, they are really really excited,” Wittman told USNI News.
“I spoke to one young sailor who said he’s ready to go to sea. They’ve got a busy schedule, they’re going to be at sea for 110 of the next 180 days, so really really busy times. But it’s great. What makes these ships great is not just the technology onboard, but we have the best sailors anywhere in the world. They know their jobs, they’re experts, they’re willing to serve this nation and make that sacrifice to spend those numbers of days at sea and make sure Ford does what she needs to do.”
goes on below due to size limit
 
Last edited:
continuation of the above post (info about AAG, followed by what the Congressman involved "believes"):
Sailors aboard the ship told USNI News during a post-ceremony tour that the ship will be headed back to sea soon and hopefully start air operations within the next couple weeks, potentially as soon as next week. The ship has so far conducted helicopter operations on the flight deck but has not landed or launched any fixed-wing aircraft. The Advanced Arresting Gear is still in the final stages of installation, the sailors said,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Earlier this month the Navy and contractors worked to finish running cables and installing other components of AAG, so it could be finalized in time to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

“This is a monumental day to now have the first of the Ford-class in the fleet, now undergoing her testing so we can get her deployed. A lot of attention about construction, about new technology being employed onboard. As we see, everything has worked out. It’s taken a little bit longer than what I think people expected, a few more dollars than what people expected, but I do believe the efficiencies we’ll see will show up on the John F. Kennedy and subsequent aircraft carriers. So today is a really important day. The amount of new technology on this ship is amazing – the sorties it can generate, the things it can do, especially in today’s environment when we’re concerned about anti-ship capabilities from other nations, this is a key. So this is a really important day, a really exciting day,” Wittman said.
“Especially as we hear almost on a daily basis about the anti-access/area-denial, the capacities of our adversaries, the anti-ship capabilities there, we have to do those things. So Ford’s capability gives us the opportunity to counter what our adversaries may bring to the line, and that to me is key. So today’s a really exciting day to see that come to realization.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
a quarter of a trillion question What should the Navy's future carrier fleet look like?
The aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford — the most expensive warship in history — was commissioned on July 22, entering the fleet amid renewed debate and questions about the role of “super carriers” in 21st century maritime warfare.

Does the sea service need more Goliaths like the Ford, or would smaller, cheaper “light carriers” be better able respond to the geopolitical realities of today?

On the light carrier side of the debate is the amphibious assault ship America, a new class of warship currently steaming across the Pacific on its first regularly scheduled deployment. While the big-deck amphib is not long enough to embark a full carrier air wing, it can deploy with a tilt-rotor V-22 Ospreys and will soon be able to carry F-35B Joint Strike Fighters.

Questions about future platforms for carrier aviation were rekindled earlier this year by Sen. John McCain who called for the Navy to pursue a new “high/low mix” in its carrier fleet. The Arizona Republican and Senate Armed Services Committee chairman called for the Navy to transition from “super carriers” like the Ford to smaller aircraft carriers — similar to the America-class ships — with the goal of delivering them to the fleet by the mid-2030s.

“Traditional nuclear-powered supercarriers remain necessary to deter and defeat near-peer competitors,” McCain wrote in January in his formal recommendations for the defense budget. “But other day-to-day missions, such as power projection, sea lane control, close air support, or counter-terrorism, can be achieved with a smaller, lower cost, conventionally powered aircraft carrier.”

Beyond the size of the ships, the cost of production is a key discussion.

The Ford, which for the first time will feature an electromagnetic launch system instead of the traditional steam-powered variety, carries a $13 billion price tag. The America-class ships, on the other hand, cost about $4 billion each.

“Is there savings you could harvest if you built a smaller version of that ship, but you had essentially the same technologies in it?” said Bryan Clark, a retired submariner who co-authored a report on future fleet architecture this year for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“There’s not an easy answer to it.”

The push for light carriers tracks with a broader effort to expand the sheer size of the fleet. Many Navy officials are hoping to grow the fleet to upwards of 350 ships, far more than today’s 276. A larger fleet of smaller ships, many advocates say, will better position the Navy to maintain persistent presence and project power around the globe.

The debate is also fueled by changes in warfare. The need for advanced aircraft with exorbitant per-flight-hour costs are not necessary to destroy a pickup truck or mud hut linked to a militia like the Islamic State group.

Meanwhile, the near-peer rivals like Russia and China have vastly expanded the range of their anti-ship and anti-air missiles systems.

Proponents of a light carrier say a supercarrier’s service life is wasted when ISIS-bombing sorties are flown off its decks. Such a mission could be completed via a re-jiggered amphibious assault ship, Clark said.

“Is that worth building a $14 billion ship to go do?” he said. “You build a $14 billion ship to fight a big war, or at least deter a bigger war.”

Clark points to the America as the model for a potential future light carrier, a vessel that could handle “bombing mud huts in Syria” while supercarriers perform more conventional war duties.

Part of the Senate’s defense bill directs the Navy to conduct a multi-million dollar engineering study to explore what leaning toward a small carrier would entail.

CSBA’s fleet architecture study called for deploying large amphibious assault ships like the America as a light aircraft carrier.

While some are concerned about Marine amphibious assault capabilities, others note the limited utility of storming beaches with small landing crafts.

An amphib-turned-light carrier would better reflect how the Marines will operate along coastlines in the future by using aviation to rapidly land troops on the shore, Clark said. The V-22 Ospreys would transport troops in to secure a beachhead while F-35s could provide close-air support for those drops.

“They’ll probably do that hundreds of miles from the ship they came from,” Clark said. A traditional big-deck amphib “just isn’t doing much for them in the way they anticipate operating in the future.”

America’s successors — LHA-7 and LHA-8 — are in the process of being built. The Navy currently plans to build up to 11 of them. Yet McCain’s formal recommendation suggests the “small carrier” concept could get its own design and be produced in greater numbers.

Some Navy watchers urge caution about the thought that smaller is better.

The supercarriers’ unmatched sustainability, endurance and survivability should not be discounted, according to naval analyst Eric Wertheim, author of “Combat Fleets of the World.”

“Throughout history, very often, the warships that have proven the most useful and adaptable are those that are larger and have room for growth,” Wertheim said.

While light carriers could be well-suited for operations like the NATO mission in Libya in 2011, such ships won’t necessarily be more affordable when the Navy tries to cram more supercarrier technology into a smaller space, he said.

“The size of the ship is not necessarily proportionate to the cost,” Wertheim said, pointing to the littoral combat ship program’s notorious cost overruns as an example.

“I don’t have a problem with the smaller carriers, as long as we understand that they cannot do all of the same missions as the big carriers, and when you start adding more missions to them, there are limitations,” Wertheim said.

The future of America’s carriers need not be an either-or proposition, he said.

“We shouldn’t be having the big vs. small carrier debate,” Wertheim said. “We should have the big and small carrier debate, and what’s the right mix?”

Speaking from the new supercarrier, the Ford’s commanding officer, Capt. Richard McCormack, said the Navy and others should not underestimate the power of the Navy’s largest and most modern warship.

“It’s really about that capacity, that surge capacity, that endurance and persistence that a large carrier can provide you,” McCormack said.

While a carrier like the Ford can carry upwards of 30 aircraft, the smaller America-class warships can only carry about 15, and McCormack cautioned that real-world demands will render even fewer available for flight operations at any one time.

“Of those 15 airplanes, I got some that are in maintenance, I have different things I need to be doing with those airplanes, so they’re not available,” McCormack said.

“You can look at what the small carriers, the light carriers we had back in World War II and look at what they could and could not do — we were amazed at what the light carriers could do. I just want to make sure that were not short sighted, that we’re taking into account what a carrier this size can do.”
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
‘A GREAT DAY FOR BRITAIN’ Armchair critics should ‘shut up’, says Michael Fallon as he declares ‘big decks and fast jets are back’ on board new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

now I skimmed through it, noticed:
The minister also told the ship’s company it is time for the “armchair critics to shut up for a while”.

When pressed on what he would say to them Sir Michael said: “They should come and see this wonderful flagship of the Royal Navy, which will help keep this country safe for 50 years to come.

“In a modern world, we need a strong Navy, we need an aircraft carrier, and from an aircraft carrier you need to be able to fly the best jets.”


the official is Defence Secretary visits the nation’s future Flagship
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
a question:

how does the USN pay now for example for installing the AAG on the CVN-78 Yesterday at 4:24 PM
("The Advanced Arresting Gear is still in the final stages of installation, the sailors said ...")

in the situation when there's no funding of the CVN-78 in FY2017:
N0Age.jpg

(the table comes from
Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier
Program: Background and Issues for Congress
June 16, 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

document)

I mean are there some separate programs for the AAG, EMALS, DBR, AWEs ... to make them actually work on board?
 
Top