America's Newest Carrier Is a Fiasco. The Navy Just Admitted Why.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
© U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Tatyana Freeman The head of the U.S. Navy admits the service added too much untested tech to its latest and greatest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford.
- The Chief of Naval Operations, Mike Gilday, says the U.S. Navy built the aircraft carrier USS Ford with too many new technologies.
- Now, the Ford is several years behind in its life cycle because of problems with many of those new technologies.
- The last of the Ford's four advanced weapon elevators, the most glaring example of the ship's tech gone wrong, should enter service later this year.
The head of the U.S. Navy admits the service added too much untested tech to its latest and greatest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford.
When the Navy first built the Ford, it incorporated nearly two dozen new technologies, some of which are still giving the service headaches 4 years after the ship entered the fleet.
© Getty ImagesEverything you need to know about aircraft carriers, all in one place.
In a presentation recorded for August's Sea Air Space exposition, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said adding 23 new features to the Ford was a "mistake" the Navy can't afford to repeat. Gilday said he needs to take "a much more deliberate approach with respect to introducing new technologies to any platform"—preferably one that only introduces up to two technologies per ship and thoroughly tests them on land first.
Load Error
The USS Ford is the inaugural ship in the Ford-class aircraft carriers, the first new class of aircraft carriers in 40 years. The Navy was eager to cram new tech into the Ford, including a new search radar, electromagnetically powered aircraft catapults to replace traditionally steam-powered catapults, a new aircraft recovery system, and 11 electromagnetically powered elevators designed to shuttle bombs and missiles from the ship's magazine to waiting aircraft.
But technical problems with the new features led to $2.8 billion in cost overruns and delays, resulting in a total ship cost of $13 billion—not including the actual planes on the carrier.
⚓️ You love bad*** ships. So do we. Let's nerd out over them together.
Those delays meant the Navy only commissioned the Ford in 2017, despite laying it down in 2009. Even then, problems lingered, especially with the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) and the advanced weapon elevators (AWEs).
The ship's first full deployment, originally scheduled for 2018, is now set for 2022.
As a result of the Ford fiasco, the Navy is building copies of new tech bound for its Constellation-class frigates on land to ensure they work properly, according to U.S. Naval Institute News. The Navy surprisingly didn't do this for several pieces of key tech that went into the Ford. Gilday also said the last of the 11 AWEs will be operational sometime this year.
The Ford is currently in shock trials, a series of tests off the coast of Florida designed to ensure the ship can withstand shock and battle damage in wartime. The ship will then enter a maintenance period before its first deployment next year. Hopefully.
Now Watch This:
Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours. Microsoft and partners may be compensated if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.
Tags
Who is online
84 visitors
NO POLITICS
2009 to 2022, that is some trial period. Seems that the Navy overloaded their asses with technology.
for something that's semi-useless in defending our nation, it was sure given the right name...
Should have been named either Clinton Class or Obama Class,
At least they have class.
It'd be perfect if it got caught on a reef or something.
What is this ship supposed to do? What is the expected strategic context in 2050? What missions are expected? What weapons systems are best adapted for those missions? ...
Has anyone here on NT seen the Navy's answers to these questions? (Or the answers of the Army or the Air Force?) (Or the Space Force
)
My guess is that gargantuan carriers will be completely obsolete by then.
It seems that the questions were never asked or if they were no one knew what the hell they were doing.
... and we continue to spend tens of billions every year...
Imagine if we were able to reallocate those funds towards infrastructure, health care, social services, ect.?
Seems to me that it's really important that the electromagnetic aircraft launch system works well.
Additionally, the automatic ass wiper malfunctioned on a regular basis. Serious stuff on a war ship.
But does it have a Gelato machine?
The Ford class is an impressive and technologically advanced vessel to be sure. But each ship in its class (currently 2 completed) costs approximately 13 billion dollars. By comparison, the Navy already has 10 Nimitz class carriers in service. They cost about 9.5 billion dollars each. Daily operation costs of a Ford class is 6.5 million per day.
Are aircraft carriers going the way of the battleship with the advances it missile technology?
I doubt it. As long as planes are needed to perform strikes or support roles, a carrier will be needed to carry them anywhere.
Lots of small carriers, or a few big ones?
Go big or go home
A few big carriers can project a sizeable force to trouble areas. But we certainly don't need the size (and expense) of the Navy's current carrier force.
The missile range of the Chinese DF 10 and DF 21 (carrier killers) is 4,000 km (DF21). The range of fighter aircraft of a US carrier is 400/500 miles that would put any carrier within 2,000 miles of China in a vulnerable situation.
That's why carriers are often part of a group, with protective escorts.
The strike force would have to get within 400 miles of the Chinese coast or their islands in the SCS. The Chinese only have to have one DF hit a carrier and the cost of a DF is around $10 million based on US estimates. The cost of the Ford the last figure was north of $11 billion and it still isn't ready to be deployed.
If the US had to get their carriers in that close to the mainland it would also open them up to more and a great variety of missiles.
If it was battle of carriers in the open sea then that is a different story, but one of the fastest-growing parts of the Chinese navy is their sub fleet.
IMO, if we got into a shooting war with the Chinese there are going to be a lot of casualties, both human and material. It would not be pretty for either side.
Again, that's why a carrier needs a task group to protect it. Navy destroyers and carrier planes and helicopters can perform anti-sub patrols.
This is true. Especially if it involved a ground war. We probably would not win that one.
A ground war in Asia (China) would be a total disaster for us, Gordy.
Hopefully, it will never come to a shooting war with China.
Absolutely. There are 3 countries which should never be invaded by ground: Russia (especially in winter), Afghanistan, and China.
Add Vietnam to that list.
Fair enough
If nothing works, it could be renamed the USS Sitting Duck.