Jump to content

USS Jerry Ford Stumbling


Recommended Posts

An internal Navy document was released that details multiple issues with the new USS Ford aircraft carrier.

Issues include the EMALS electro-magnetic launch system:

Land-based tests of the system in New Jersey have demonstrated a reliability rate of only 240 launches without a failure, when it should be above 1,250 launches without failure at this stage of the Gerald Ford’s development.

and the new-design arrestor system:

Meanwhile, a companion system, known as the advanced arresting gear, which is designed to safely snare landing aircraft with cables stretched across the deck, is similarly unreliable, according to the report. In the tests, the system of cables has averaged 20 successful landings without failure. That is far less than the 4,950 successful landings it should be achieving without failure. The ultimate goal is for the system to work 16,500 times without failure.

Also on the list of problems is the ship's advanced radar system.

The report summarizes:

Unless the various problems are resolved, the Pentagon weapons testers warned, the Gerald Ford will not be able to fly the number of wartime sorties envisioned by Navy planners, and two carriers might be needed to achieve the same effect of one. and,

A number of other systems, such as communications gear, meanwhile, are performing at less than acceptable standards, according to the assessment by J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation. Gilmore concluded that the Navy has little choice but to redesign key components of the ship.

Granted the Ford is still a couple of years away from commissioning but given that it's nearly 22% overbudget, it appears certain that it will suck even more billions out of the taxpayers before it meets it's specifications.

Glad to see that the Navy is continuing it's recent tradition of quality shipbuilding. Other noteworthy over-budget and under-performing achievements include the San Antonio class amphibious assault ships and the awe-inspiring Littoral Combat Ship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brand new technology. I'd be shocked if it worked as advertised at this stage.

Granted that new technology will not be perfect right out of the starting gate, but for the amount $$$$, time and effort invested, I would certainly hope for better performance that the dismal failure demonstrated so far.

Darwin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brand new technology. I'd be shocked if it worked as advertised at this stage.

Yup.

Awesome headline though, John :worship:/>

...Its almost like the Navy is going to have fewer, more expensive carriers in the future or something. I wonder what will end up filling a lot of the gaps?

1-image-01.jpg

:sunrevolves:

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... I wonder what will end up filling a lot of the gaps?

Not a problem. We are making friends so fast around the world that in a few years, everyone will be our friend and we won't need carriers or any other military hardware. :monkeydance::monkeydance:

Grandma L

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brand new technology. I'd be shocked if it worked as advertised at this stage.

So this is considered an acceptable condition? My bad.

I guess we are so conditioned to mediocrity that no one has a problem with any of this or (gasp) actually demands that someone be held accountable.

Just throw a few more billion at the problem and we'll (hopefully) get it right at some point. Thank goodness we don't have any budget problems and can afford all these cost overruns.

I get that this is brand new technology but still....

Link to post
Share on other sites
So this is considered an acceptable condition? My bad.

No one is saying that. We're just saying unexpected problems are part of any new technology and need time to be ironed out. If this was the end result, then certainly would not be acceptable. But it's still a WIP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Land-based tests of the system in New Jersey have demonstrated a reliability rate of only 240 launches without a failure, when it should be above 1,250 launches without failure at this stage of the Gerald Ford’s development.

............

Meanwhile, a companion system, known as the advanced arresting gear, which is designed to safely snare landing aircraft with cables stretched across the deck, is similarly unreliable, according to the report. In the tests, the system of cables has averaged 20 successful landings without failure. That is far less than the 4,950 successful landings it should be achieving without failure. The ultimate goal is for the system to work 16,500 times without failure.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Use the money on submarines instead smile.gif

You ARE joking, right? An SSN is a sea denial weapon that really does not compare to a carrier.

Although I will not argue against building more subs. The more toys we have, the better I like it.

For our "global 24/7 maritime strategy" to work, with four carriers deployed, we need 12 carriers in service. At an absolute peacetime minimum, with one constantly in the Med, one in the IO, and one in the Pacific, we need 9.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You ARE joking, right? An SSN is a sea denial weapon that really does not compare to a carrier.

Although I will not argue against building more subs. The more toys we have, the better I like it.

For our "global 24/7 maritime strategy" to work, with four carriers deployed, we need 12 carriers in service. At an absolute peacetime minimum, with one constantly in the Med, one in the IO, and one in the Pacific, we need 9.

Oh, I was most certainly joking. I completely understand the need for carriers and I would like to see more. I will however take the opportunity to point out that a submarine is much more than a sea denial asset...clandestine ISR being a critical peacetime and wartime function. As a conservative naval architect, I would point out that it is never a good idea to shove together a bunch of untested systems into a design at once.

Random commentary complete...

Cheers,

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

To this day, probably the ultimate presidential parody. Maybe SNL's George H Bush being a close second.

I always enjoyed Bill Clinton skits on SNL too. But Dana Carvey's George H was over the top funny in a blizzare way. "wouldn't be prudent" :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is considered an acceptable condition? My bad.

I guess we are so conditioned to mediocrity that no one has a problem with any of this or (gasp) actually demands that someone be held accountable.

Just throw a few more billion at the problem and we'll (hopefully) get it right at some point. Thank goodness we don't have any budget problems and can afford all these cost overruns.

I get that this is brand new technology but still....

That is why the minimum standards are set, so designers can work to achieve them.

Results below the standards are common with new technology. It's called trial and error until the correct match is achieved. You want to get it right the first time but that isn't always the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only been in a DoD acquisition job for 3 years and I could already write a book about everything that is wrong with the process. Near the top of this list is all major defense contractors have an extreme monopoly. They have absolutely no punishment for failure. If they dont deliver they still get paid and there are no other companies that can complete the contract. The only options are to A) cut the program (and get nothing, thus leaving a capability gap) B.) mod the contract and pay more money/ delay the program, or C) rebaseline the program and deliver a system that doesnt deliver the desired capability.

If im a contractor, just promise the moon, low ball the bid and then go over budget and under perform. Most contracts are cost plus, so where is the incentive to save money? Its not like the government can choose another contractor next go around: your the only game in town. Plus even if there is a viable competitor, the contractor often "owns" the designs and technical packages so the government cannot take their business down the road to the next guy.

The notion that defense techology is often cutting edge and unique is true, but that is suppose to be built into the process. The program is not suppose to progress past certain milestones without demonstrating sufficient technology maturity. I can't speak directly to CVN78, but most failed (over cost and behind schedule) programs can be attributed to insufficient technology maturity.

Edited by graves_09
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only been in a DoD acquisition job for 3 years and I could already write a book about everything that is wrong with the process. Near the top of this list is all major defense contractors have an extreme monopoly. They have absolutely no punishment for failure. If they dont deliver they still get paid and there are no other companies that can complete the contract. The only options are to A) cut the program (and get nothing, thus leaving a capability gap) B.) mod the contract and pay more money/ delay the program, or C) rebaseline the program and deliver a system that doesnt deliver the desired capability.

If im a contractor, just promise the moon, low ball the bid and then go over budget and under perform. Most contracts are cost plus, so where is the incentive to save money? Its not like the government can choose another contractor next go around: your the only game in town. Plus even if there is a viable competitor, the contractor often "owns" the designs and technical packages so the government cannot take their business down the road to the next guy.

The notion that defense techology is often cutting edge and unique is true, but that is already built into the process. The program is not suppose to progress past certain milestones without demonstrating sufficient technology maturity. I can't speak directly to CVN78, but most failed (over cost and behind schedule) programs can be attributed to insufficient technology maturity.

Speaking as someone IN THE SYSTEM! I appreciate your words. Maybe the best thing for an example on JSF would be to have both Boeing and Lockheed Martin win contracts. The one who can better deliver a suitable platform and on budget would get the larger order. This would more likely create COMPETITION for sales. It would give incentives for the manufactures to deliver platforms meeting requirements and on budget or closer to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as someone IN THE SYSTEM! I appreciate your words. Maybe the best thing for an example on JSF would be to have both Boeing and Lockheed Martin win contracts. The one who can better deliver a suitable platform and on budget would get the larger order. This would more likely create COMPETITION for sales. It would give incentives for the manufactures to deliver platforms meeting requirements and on budget or closer to it.

Three words...Littoral Combat Ship...three more...major money suck. Tried that and now we have 2 classes of ships that are incapable of doing their job that are massively over budget. And the Navy can't pick one because they are both so bad and we are maintaining supply infrastructure for both...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple solution is, anything over budget, the contractor is responsible for ... Cost overruns, delays, etc ... I believe that's how the KC-46 contract is essentially structured ...

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are parts of the Virginia contract that are cost plus, but there are other parts where EB and NNS are penalized for delays and cost overruns.

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I was most certainly joking. I completely understand the need for carriers and I would like to see more. I will however take the opportunity to point out that a submarine is much more than a sea denial asset...clandestine ISR being a critical peacetime and wartime function. As a conservative naval architect, I would point out that it is never a good idea to shove together a bunch of untested systems into a design at once.

Random commentary complete...

Cheers,

Dave

I should have said "primarily" a sea denial weapon.

Judging by your ID, I am going to guess that you are one of those guys who says, "Give me Heaven or a 637."

I think subs are cool as can be. I learned all about them in AW A school and through a lot of personal study. Had I not been primarily a carrier guy I would have gone subs for sure. I once got to spend nine days on the GATO working with the BQQ-5 during the Independence CVBG work ups in 1985..got to look through the periscope and see an S-3 overhead MAD trapping. Great fun. Man, those were the days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...