From gCaptain: “The U.S. Navy’s newest aircraft carrier isn’t ready for warfare. The $12.9 billion USS Gerald R. Ford — the most expensive warship ever built — may struggle to launch and recover aircraft, mount a defense and move munitions, according to the Pentagon’s top weapons tester.”
Where is C.Cap when you need him. I hope his parole hearing comes up soon.
After the LCS debacle this is probably the worst news the Navy could get. I wonder if it’s the magnetic catapults or the other “cutting edge” tech they’ve been sold. Can someone explain to me why steam catapults, a time tested technology, were replaced on a ship with limitless amounts of steam generation from it’s nuclear reactors? When this much money is laid out by the U.S. taxpayers it would be nice if the shiny new weapons system worked right out of the box.
The EMALS system is expected to be more adjustable then steam. It is expected to be able to launch with less pull and more pull at faster and slower speeds. This is expected to enable the launching of lighter and heavier aircrafts. IIRC the new ‘gee-wiz’ JSF can’t launch fully armed from a carrier with steam because the forces required would damage the aircraft.
So the fancy new aircraft carrier needs the fancy new launch and arrest system to catapult the fancy new strike fighters. Lucky for us all the three systems work equally well together.
You could buy quite a few De Havilland Otters for that price. Tape a few redeyes on the flanks. Off to the races, boys! Who needs a ship that can launch and land jets, when you can have a fleet of planes that are also boats?
[QUOTE=Emrobu;187553]You could buy quite a few De Havilland Otters for that price. Tape a few redeyes on the flanks. Off to the races, boys! Who needs a ship that can launch and land jets, when you can have a fleet of planes that are also boats?[/QUOTE]
Obviously your comment is tongue in cheek since Otters can’t land in open ocean. They are perfectly suited to setting down in Victoria or Vancouver harbors (harbours to you proud Canucks), but they can’t land at night (since setting up lights for landing at night would be harmful to some British Columbian concept or other), nor can they land in rough surface conditions. Navy jets and helicopters can land on an aircraft carriers pretty much whenever they damn well please and fill up with the magic stuff so they can go up and do it all over again.
[QUOTE=DeckApe;187551]The EMALS system is expected to be more adjustable then steam. It is expected to be able to launch with less pull and more pull at faster and slower speeds. This is expected to enable the launching of lighter and heavier aircrafts. IIRC the new ‘gee-wiz’ JSF can’t launch fully armed from a carrier with steam because the forces required would damage the aircraft.
So the fancy new aircraft carrier needs the fancy new launch and arrest system to catapult the fancy new strike fighters. Lucky for us all the three systems work equally well together.[/QUOTE]
You sir are well informed. Thank you
[QUOTE=Lee Shore;187556]Obviously your comment is tongue in cheek since Otters can’t land in open ocean.[/QUOTE]
Sad right? We use this instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax-class_frigate
I got to visit one with my class earlier this year. The amazing thing was, the night previous to visiting the frigate, there was an old man buying me drinks and chatting me up at an unrelated function. He claimed to be the engineer who designed the helo-capture system on these things that allow the helicopters to land even when the deck is pitching. I would have given him my number, if he’d asked.
On a related note: did you know the Japanese had an attack float-plane that was launched from their submarines? They wanted to screw-up the panama canal with them. There’s a brand new one, right off the assembly line, in the air and space museum in DC. It’s bizzare. I don’t love warfare, but the technology is hypnotically cool.
Don’t forget the popcorn its 17 minutes long. 
Just a heads up. The last half of the video is basically boring as it is the ceremony.
The Ford is still at the shipyard, it’s not completed yet. The navy has not taken delivery of it yet.
[QUOTE=Bayrunner;187569]The Ford is still at the shipyard, it’s not completed yet. The navy has not taken delivery of it yet.[/QUOTE]
There very good reasons no other nation on earth has anywhere near the number of aircraft carriers the USA has.
[QUOTE=tengineer1;187579]There very good reasons no other nation on earth has anywhere near the number of aircraft carriers the USA has.
Not to mention with the stomach of the average american, all an supposed enemy would have to do it sink on carrier to bring us to the peace tables. They are an assist that is simply too expensive, in loss of life as well as dollars, to loose. The unwashed masses of america seem to be quite up for a gun fight when its F-18’s off of one of these flight decks bombing some goat herders, not to much if its going toe to toe with an actual opponent.
[QUOTE=Lee Shore;187528]“The U.S. Navy’s newest aircraft carrier isn’t ready for warfare. The $12.9 billion USS Gerald R. Ford — the most expensive warship ever built — may struggle to launch and recover aircraft, mount a defense and move munitions, according to the Pentagon’s top weapons tester.”[/QUOTE]
That’s what you get with the lowest bidder on a government contract.
Should’ve stuck with Northrop Grumman
The first carrier to use impulse magnetic rails to launch catapults. Instead of good old steam and hydraulics… getting way too cute for themselves…
Hopefully, when it is finally ready, it will work in hot and cold water unlike the new frigates in The UK that don’t like the heat. LOL
Just like Obamacare - hastily dreamed up, poorly thought through, and still not working. With government, the bigger it is- the harder it fails!
Should have subcontracted it to China, they would have knocked out something that didn’t work in half the time. And at half the cost!