Aircraft Carriers III

..., and the Navy needs to be smart,
actually it seems the USN gets real:
Navy Wants to Buy 80 More Super Hornets for $7.1B Over the Next Five Years
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Navy intends to buy at least 80 more Boeing F/A-18E-F Super Hornets over the next five years to address its fighter shortfall, a change from its previous on-the-books plan to zero out the aircraft program beginning next year, service officials said in congressional testimony today.

The Navy’s written testimony to the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee notes the “Fiscal Year 2018 President’s Budget requests $1.25 billion in [the Navy’s aircraft procurement account] for 14 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft” and that, “with the support of Congress, we will also procure a minimum of 80 additional Super Hornets across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and continue modernization plans to address continuing warfighter demand for advanced tactical aircraft. These additional procurements begin to mitigate the decline in [the Department of the Navy’s] strike fighter inventory and enable older aircraft to be pulled from service for mid-life upgrades and rework to extend their service life.”

Though the services typically include in their budget requests a five-year projection of spending plans, this year Pentagon officials told reporters during the budget rollout that any out-year numbers were speculative and in many cases simply maintained current program levels. They said an ongoing defense strategy review would inform future year needs and render any current projections moot – and the Navy, as a result, took the FYDP projections out of its budget highlights book but not from its more detailed justification documents.

“The (defense) secretary has not spent any time at all looking at anything beyond FY ’18,” John Roth, performing the duties of under secretary of defense, comptroller, told reporters during the budget rollout.
“You will not see a growth in force structure. You will not see a growth in the shipbuilding plan. You will not see a robust modernization program in the so-called current FYDP. And so therefore I caution anybody from trying to make any comparisons. And I’m actually of the school that it really doesn’t provide anything that’s particularly insightful.”

However, the Navy’s testimony today confirms the plans within its aviation procurement justification documents – that the service wants to buy 14 in 2018 for $1.25 billion , 23 in 2019 for $1.95 billion, 14 in 2020 for $1.35 billion and 14 in 2021 for $1.27 billion and 15 in 2022 for $1.28 billion.

In contrast, the FY 2017 budget request included 14 aircraft in 2018, as was requested last month, and then zero for the rest of the years of the FYDP.

Many have speculated that future F/A-18 procurement would be a signal of the Navy moving away from the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lighting II carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter. President Donald Trump’s December 2016 tweet pitting the two airframes against one another only increased speculation – as did
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the ability to add improvements to the Super Hornet to make it comparable to the Joint Strike Fighter.

At the SASC hearing today, Navy Director of Air Warfare (OPNAV N98) Rear Adm. DeWolfe Miller made clear that the Navy would not be choosing between the two.

“I get the question a lot, tell me about this F-35 versus F-18. And I say, it’s not a versus. The complementary nature of both these aircraft in the future for our Navy, our aircraft carrier Navy, is very exciting.”

At the hearing, Miller, Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, and Naval Air Systems Command commander Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags agreed the F-35C and B development and fielding were going along well.

For the Marine Corps, which is already operating its short takeoff and landing variant overseas, the cost of operating the aircraft has proven to be less than predicted. Davis said the Marines still hired an outside firm to work with the service, airplane manufacturer Lockheed Martin and engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney to identify even more cost savings in operating and maintaining the F-35Bs.

“Right now it’s costing me a heck of a lot of money to fly the legacy airplanes and get readiness out of them,” Davis said, but “the F-35 has got a high readiness rate for us right now; also too we’re working at driving cost per flight hour down and the [operations and sustainment] costs out.”

“We have a winner on our hands,” he said and added that the Marine Corps would share lessons learned with the Navy and Air Force to help reduce costs for operating the F-35A and C models as well.

The F-35C is still awaiting the 3F software upgrade before beginning final test and evaluation and working towards reaching initial operational capability. Grosklags said at the hearing that “in terms of the (software) development process, we’re on very solid ground.”

“As we want to get to the final 3F software configuration before we introduce the aircraft in the Navy, we’re very closely watching the stability. And we have seen over the last year to 18 months the in-flight stability go from where they were having to system-reset or having to do something with the system in-flight from about every five hours, to the most recent software release is about every 40 hours, which is more than acceptable for us right now,” he said.

Miller said that early shipboard testing of the F-35C with previous software increments already looked promising. After about 150 carrier landings, the F-35C has seen a 100-percent rate of successfully landing on the carrier, with none of them catching the first of four arresting wires, which is typically the most dangerous of the four to catch.

“It was a dream to bring aboard,” Miller said. On the plane’s capability, he said “the fact that we’re getting super-sonic stealth, data fusion, the sensor-netting that this airplane is going to be able to provide, it adds capability, lethality and survivability, not just to the air wing but to the entire carrier strike group – the way we integrate it with our Aegis ships and our Baseline 9 configuration, the way we fight it alongside our .. E-2D [Advnaced Hawkeyes] and with the capability of a [EA-18G] Growler.”

but they need to be buying more F-35Cs in order to get themselves back in the ball game.

...
well it doesn't matter what I'm saying but why not to repeat Jan 28, 2017

...
from what I figured, the theory should be
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(in the context of this discussion it would mean sending F-35C + EA-18G + F/A-18F against some high-profile target of the type you mentioned), but the reality = constrained budgets AND numerous other requirements AND the need to be ready NOW ('Where Is The Nearest Aircraft Carrier?'), so the USN tries to fill in the Hornets numbers, obviously

(Navy says it is plagued by shortfall in available fighter jets

Read more:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

since the Growler+Hornet combination has been war-gamed etc., while F-35C true capabilities (and limitations: not a popular topic here hahaha) are unknown

...
 
I beg you pardon

"... Instead of learning from the mistakes of CVN 78, the Navy developed an estimate for CVN 79 that assumes a reduction in labor hours needed to construct the ship that is unprecedented in the past 50 years of aircraft carrier construction.”

such a cheap gimmick? I wouldn't be surprised if the TOTAL cost of such a 'technology marvel' (which won't be able to launch aircraft when commissioned) turned out to be twenty bil ... and in the meantime
US Navy underestimating cost of second Ford-class carrier: GAO
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The U.S. Navy should develop a more accurate cost estimate for its second Ford-class carrier, the future USS John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), if it wants to avoid the mistakes made on the lead ship, an independent watchdog has warned.

The recently delivered USS Gerald R. Ford cost the navy over $2 billion more than initially expected.

Following a review of the navy’s current estimates for CVN 79, the Government Accountability Office has found that the navy is at risk of repeating the mistakes at the potential cost of of hundreds of millions of dollars.

“The cost estimate for the second Ford-Class aircraft carrier, CVN 79, is not reliable and does not address lessons learned from the performance of the lead ship, CVN 78,” GAO said.

“As a result, the estimate does not demonstrate that the program can meet its $11.4 billion cost cap. Cost growth for the lead ship was driven by challenges with technology development, design, and construction, compounded by an optimistic budget estimate. Instead of learning from the mistakes of CVN 78, the Navy developed an estimate for CVN 79 that assumes a reduction in labor hours needed to construct the ship that is unprecedented in the past 50 years of aircraft carrier construction.”

The Navy should develop a new, reliable cost estimate for CVN 79 validated by cost reviews and obtain an independent cost estimate before requesting funding for future ships, GAO recommended.

If the independent cost estimate for CVN 79 should exceed the cost cap, the Navy should submit to Congress a request to revise the cost cap.
 
Jun 9, 2017
... the USN accepts and commissions obviously unfinished ships, and I of course wouldn't talk about anything minor, I talk about for example the aircraft carrier unable to launch aircraft for years!

...
as in The $13 Billion Aircraft Carrier That Has Trouble With Planes
June 15, 2017
  • Landing system costs soared to fix flaws during development
  • Carrier still can’t launch jets with full extra fuel tanks
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The newest and costliest U.S. aircraft carrier, praised by President Donald Trump and delivered to the Navy on May 31 with fanfare, has been dogged by trouble with fundamentals: launching jets from its deck and catching them when they land.

Now, it turns out that the system used to capture jets landing on the USS Gerald R. Ford ballooned in cost, tripling to $961 million from $301 million, according to Navy documents obtained by Bloomberg News.

While the Navy says the landing system has been fixed, the next-generation carrier built by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. still hasn’t been cleared to launch F/A-18 jets carrying a full complement of fuel tanks under their wings, a handicap that could limit their effectiveness in combat.


The twin issues underscore the technical and cost challenges for the planned three-ship, $42 billion Ford class of carriers that is drawing increased congressional scrutiny. The Navy and Trump want to increase the carrier fleet from 11 authorized by law to 12.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain has long criticized the Navy’s management of the Ford program and joined a congressional effort that capped funding for the first carrier at $12.9 billion and for a second ship under construction, the John F. Kennedy, at $11.4 billion. He grilled Navy officials on the carrier’s costs at a hearing of the committee on Thursday.

While it’s encouraging to see the Ford “finally delivered to the Navy,” the Arizona Republican said, the service’s funding request for it exceeds the congressional budget cap by $20 million. Now, McCain said, the Navy wants to award a construction contract for the third ship that’s $1.6 billion more than the previous one.

“This is unacceptable for a ship certified to be a repeat design that will deliver just three years later,” he said.

General Atomics
The surge in costs for the development phase of the advanced arresting gear -- built by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to catch planes landing -- was borne by the Navy under terms of that contract. In addition, the program acquisition costs of the three systems built so far more than doubled to $532 million each from $226 million, an increase which must be paid by closely held General Atomics.


General Atomics spokeswoman Meghan Ehlke referred all questions to the Navy “per our contract.” Captain Thurraya Kent, a Navy spokeswoman, said the contractor forfeited all bonus fees it could have made during the 2009-2016 development phase and the service is reviewing the company’s master schedule for the John F. Kennedy weekly. The Navy also has placed personnel at the company’s facility in Rancho Bernardo, California, to monitor progress.

Most of the cost increase was driven by an underfunded technology phase that didn’t allow enough time for the discovery and correction of problems and for the technology to mature before the start of the development phase, Kent said. It’s “a lesson the Navy will ensure is applied to all future programs,” Kent said.

The Navy reported the cost increase to Congress last month because it breached thresholds established under a 1982 law for major weapons systems. It’s separate from the 22 percent increase since 2010 for construction of the carrier, which resulted in Congress imposing the $12.9 billion cost cap.

Trump, who has repeatedly complained about the high cost of major weapons systems -- and then taken credit for reining them in -- did that in a Coast Guard commencement address on May 17. The Ford “had a little bit of an overrun problem before I got here, you know that. Still going to have an overrun problem; we came in when it was finished, but we’re going to save some good money.”

‘It’s No Good’
Trump said “when we build the new aircraft carriers, they’re going to be built under budget and ahead of schedule, just remember that.” Still, the Government Accountability Office said in a new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Tuesday that the John F. Kennedy’s cost estimate “is not reliable and does not address lessons learned” from the Ford’s performance.

Trump scoffed at the carrier’s troubled electromagnetic launch system in a Time magazine
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, saying it doesn’t work and “you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.” Saying the Navy should stick with an old-fashioned steam-driven catapult, he added, “The digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.”

Until the catapult problem, which was discovered in 2014, is resolved it limits how much combat fuel can be carried in planes being launched from the carrier’s deck.

That “would preclude normal employment” of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the radar-jamming Growler version because “the aircraft are limited in the types of missions that they can accomplish” without added under-wing fuel tanks, Army Lieutenant Colonel Roger Cabiness, spokesman for the Pentagon’s testing office, said in an email. He said the Navy asserts that testing on the ground has solved a software flaw that caused excessive vibrations of those fuel tanks.

Acting Navy Secretary Sean Stackley told the Senate committee Thursday that fixing the vibrations was simply part of a “systems tuning effort” for each plane that will launch from the carrier.

“The Navy estimates the software problem will be resolved and software updates incorporated” on the carrier for testing at sea during the vessel’s post-shakedown phase between May and November of 2018, Michael Land, spokesman for the Naval Air Systems Command, said in an email. He said actual launches of jets with wing tanks will follow in 2019.

The Navy still has time to fix the catapult issue. Though the Ford has been delivered, the ship is not scheduled to be declared ready for operations until 2020, with first actual deployment planned for about 2022, according to spokeswoman Kent.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Jun 9, 2017

as in The $13 Billion Aircraft Carrier That Has Trouble With Planes
June 15, 2017



    • Landing system costs soared to fix flaws during development
    • Carrier still can’t launch jets with full extra fuel tanks
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
They say, right in there that the landing system is fixed. So scratch that one.

They also say that the only issue is F/A-18Fs with full external fuel tanks.

That does not mean they cannot launch any aircraft...it just means they are having some kind of issue with that singular event...and they will fix it.

We know EMALS is capable of it, because they have launched about every configuration imaginable from land.

So let's wait and see what the Navy does.

The US Press, particularly certain outlets, blows things up into bombastic headline saying that no aircraft can be launched...but then you read the print and it says nothing of the sort.

"He said the Navy asserts that testing on the ground has solved a software flaw that caused excessive vibrations of those fuel tanks.

Acting Navy Secretary Sean Stackley told the Senate committee Thursday that fixing the vibrations was simply part of a “systems tuning effort” for each plane that will launch from the carrier."

So, they have to fine tune the software.

This is all new stuff for carriers at sea. As I have said MANY times, they are learning this new...because it is cutting edge and cutting edge is expensive. Folks here on SD should know this.

It does not mean there is anything fatal. It does not mean it will not work...it simply means they are learning how to employ their new technology.

The US builds cutting edge stuff to stay out in front...that expense comes with the territory.

Some times they nail it and do better than exected. The Virginia class leans that way.

Sometimes it is harder than they thought and costs more...the ford class has some of those issues as does the Zumwalt. But they are all new designs too with a LOT of new things being employed all at once.

Lets watch and see what happens. Let's read exactly what is said, rather than repeating a misleading press document.
 
Wednesday at 7:59 AM
actually it seems the USN gets real:
Navy Wants to Buy 80 More Super Hornets for $7.1B Over the Next Five Years
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




well it doesn't matter what I'm saying but why not to repeat Jan 28, 2017
related:
Navy’s Planned 80 Super Hornet Buy Could Grow After New Pentagon Strategy Review
The total of 80 Super Hornets the Navy is set to buy over the next five years could grow based on the findings of the Pentagon’s ongoing and overarching national defense strategy review, acting Secretary of the Navy Sean Stackley and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson told USNI News on Thursday following a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, naval aviation leaders confirmed that the service was set to buy 80 of the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as part of a five-year $7.1 billion outlay.

This time last year the Department of the Navy was set to zero out the F/A-18E/F line as the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter was coming online and the service pursues the Next Generation Air Dominance replacement for the Super Hornets.

However, a combination of the intense operational use of current aircraft and unpleasant discoveries during the Navy’s service life extension program (SLEP)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
pushed the new buy, Stackley said.

“What we discovered was that they’re in worse shape than we had planned and estimated so we’re turning them faster was more of a challenge than we forecasted. We were discovering a lot more weren’t going to make it to the fleet. Some of these were just going to be attrited,” he said.
“So when we look ahead to the Super Hornet, we’re packing that planning up front and better so that we’re better positioned for the throughput but when you do the math in terms of how many Super Hornets will be out of reporting in the depots then we have to have some mitigator in terms of additional aircraft to meet our fleet replacement… If you do that math and all of the modeling assumptions and you add from what you learned off of the legacy F-18 SLEP program, we concluded that we needed about 80 additional aircraft to insure that we get through this period of time in better shape than what we’re experiencing now with the legacies.”

Richardson said the decision to plan for the additional aircraft instead of zeroing out the line was made also in part due to the ongoing demand for the aircraft in operational theaters — particular over Syria and Iraq as part of Operation Inherent Resolve.

“It’s a very dynamic environment. Stuff happens and the world gets a vote and right now the Super Hornet is a very capable strike fighter aircraft and is doing great work for us right now,” Richardson said.
“We’re working with industry to see if we can modernize it some and make it even more capable so it can be the plane that mitigates these emerging types of world situations.”

The modernization effort, dubbed Block III, is set to be funded starting in FY 2018 as part of a $264.9 million over the next five years to improve the characteristics of the Super Hornet.

While Boeing has offered a variety of options for the Block III effort, USNI News understands the bulk of the money will be used to fund additional conformal fuel tanks. The tanks fit along the fuselage and can extend the range of a Super Hornet by 120 nautical miles,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

That total of 80 Super Hornet fighters could grow yet again following the Secretary of Defense James Mattis led review of the national defense strategy that will inform the Fiscal Year 2019 budget and set the agenda for a Trump Administration Pentagon.

Earlier this week, when asked by SASC Chairman Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) the status of the strategy Mattis told McCain, “We’re working it.”
source is USNI News
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
just not to forget Apr 2, 2015
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/aircraft-carriers-ii-closed-to-posting.t3125/page-534#post-334315
a = v*v/(2*S)
so for v=145 knots (number from AFB's post) and S=90 m (the deck length) a is 2.94g

the assertion (not mine, but it doesn't matter) was the Fords had too short deck in the sense
aircraft would be so heavy (assuming enough ordnance/fuel) they would need rather high takeoff speed, and the shorter the deck, the higher acceleration to achieve that takeoff speed
(the argument was related to suggesting either too low ordnance/fuel, or too high force needed, with obvious drawbacks)
 
Top