Jump to content

USS Jerry Ford Stumbling


Recommended Posts

On 1/12/2014 at 4:19 PM, parche said:

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...

My brother in law, now deceased, was an engineer for a major defense contractor and a retired commander in the sea navy. He was working on the Zummie when he passed. He said the Littoral ships were junk. He despised them and thought they were just targets. He wasn't fond of aluminum ships. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
1 hour ago, cag_200 said:

CVN-80 is planned USS ENTERPRISE, with F-35C.  I wonder how a future airwing looks like. No E-2..mayby a F-35 Growler?

 

 

Nothing beats the early decades..

New E-2D's are coming of the assembly line right now.  So yes, a future for E-2s.


Don't forget the MQ-25.

Edited by Jonathan S
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Now it comes out that the Ford won't be able to launch / recover the F-35 for many years to come.    In addition to this and all its other problems, the Navy seems unable to get something as basic as the ship's munitions elevators to work properly.   It's at the point where they are now spending millions building a land-based elevator testing site to work the bugs out (for future ships, it's too late for the Ford). 

 

https://news.usni.org/2019/05/31/navy-building-a-land-based-test-site-for-ford-class-weapons-elevators-but-timing-wont-help-cvn-78

 

Were the weapons elevators used on all the Nimitz-class boats really so inefficient that they needed to be replaced?

 

Maybe the Navy needs to create a "Useless Fleet"?   Assign the Ford, the Zumwalt-class destroyers and all the Littoral Combat Ships.  Since these vessels are pretty much worthless in combat, the Navy could sail this fleet to ports around the country and generate badly needed revenue by renting the ships out for kid's birthday parties, holding concerts on the Ford's flight deck, hosting Boy Scout sleep-overs, etc.  

 

At a time when most of the Navy's tactical jet squadrons are suffering major readiness problems due to worn out jets and lack of spare parts, the billions being wasted by the Navy due issues like the above is tough to watch.   

 

Remember when America used to be able to design and build functional combat ships?  

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what happens when you get a bunch of wiz-kids together who think a piece of paper makes them smarter than those who have actually been there done that, I see it just about everyday at work.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a sad state of affairs.  Too much new tech at once in the Ford class, I think.  And the Truman thing - ?????   Just wow.  Never been a fan of the nuclear-powered carrier (subs, yes, but that's an entirely different animal).  The last pic I saw of the Kitty Hawk, she was sitting in brown water up at Bremerton next to the Connie and Indy.  I know it would cost a lot, but relative to what they're shelling out for these new CVNs, seems to me that reworking and updating one or two of these would plug the gap(s) currently appearing in the carrier fleet with proven weapons systems until they get the Ford class straightened out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SBDguy said:

What a sad state of affairs.  Too much new tech at once in the Ford class, I think.  And the Truman thing - ?????   Just wow.  Never been a fan of the nuclear-powered carrier (subs, yes, but that's an entirely different animal).  The last pic I saw of the Kitty Hawk, she was sitting in brown water up at Bremerton next to the Connie and Indy.  I know it would cost a lot, but relative to what they're shelling out for these new CVNs, seems to me that reworking and updating one or two of these would plug the gap(s) currently appearing in the carrier fleet with proven weapons systems until they get the Ford class straightened out.

There is a huge difference between conventional and nuclear powered aircraft carriers, nuclear powered carriers have more operational capabilities and more comfortable for the crew. Nukes have more room, can launch aircraft faster and more often and have a lower risk of cold cats, among other things.

 

I've done cruises on both and the only time we ever went to water hours on a nuke is when we were stuck in port at Perth due to a storm and could dump our waste water, on a conventional, we were on water hours 12 hours after we pulled out of home port. Basically, conventional carriers suck and nukes are like a cruise ship compared to conventional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, GW8345 said:

There is a huge difference between conventional and nuclear powered aircraft carriers, nuclear powered carriers have more operational capabilities and more comfortable for the crew. Nukes have more room, can launch aircraft faster and more often and have a lower risk of cold cats, among other things.

 

I've done cruises on both and the only time we ever went to water hours on a nuke is when we were stuck in port at Perth due to a storm and could dump our waste water, on a conventional, we were on water hours 12 hours after we pulled out of home port. Basically, conventional carriers suck and nukes are like a cruise ship compared to conventional. 

Well, you're one -up on me;  I never served on a CVN, thus cannot imagine the cushy aspects.  So, I'll take your word for it.  I did spend many, many long hours on a CVA flight deck, however, most of them on combat ops (Tonkin Gulf).   After 16 hours straight on  flight ops, I don't remember ever being unable to shower.  I also don't remember any cold cats, but I wasn't on the cat crew and maybe just missed all the hooplah (don't think so, but that was 50 years ago, so who knows?).  Those things said, I will share my main concern about CVNs:

 

In WW2, the Yorktown took devastating hits three distinct times in two battles a month apart.  Two of those times, she was able to get back underway and  continue the fight, and she darn-near survived the third.  Happened to other CVs during WW2 also.  How many hits to the reactor of a CVN will it take before she can no longer be fought?  I suspect the answer is one.  I'll change my mind if anyone can convince me otherwise.

 

Thank you for your service.

 

EDIT:  On deep and sober reflection, I do remember the plant being down to a trickle for a few days once, due to equipment problems, and missing a few showers all together as a result.  I was generally, however, used to water being available when it was most convenient and necessary for me personally.

Edited by SBDguy
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SBDguy said:

Well, you're one -up on me;  I never served on a CVN, thus cannot imagine the cushy aspects.  So, I'll take your word for it.  I did spend many, many long hours on a CVA flight deck, however, most of them on combat ops (Tonkin Gulf).   After 16 hours straight on  flight ops, I don't remember ever being unable to shower.  I also don't remember any cold cats, but I wasn't on the cat crew and maybe just missed all the hooplah (don't think so, but that was 50 years ago, so who knows?).  Those things said, I will share my main concern about CVNs:

 

In WW2, the Yorktown took devastating hits three distinct times in two battles a month apart.  Two of those times, she was able to get back underway and  continue the fight, and she darn-near survived the third.  Happened to other CVs during WW2 also.  How many hits to the reactor of a CVN will it take before she can no longer be fought?  I suspect the answer is one.  I'll change my mind if anyone can convince me otherwise.

 

Thank you for your service.

 

EDIT:  On deep and sober reflection, I do remember the plant being down to a trickle for a few days once, due to equipment problems, and missing a few showers all together as a result.  I was generally, however, used to water being available when it was most convenient and necessary for me personally.

If bombs get the reactors we would have bigger issues to worry about, carriers from the Forrestal Class and up have an armored hull inside the hull and an armored flight deck.

 

Also, think of the Forrestal, it had 7 to 8 500 and 750 pound bombs detonate on her flight deck and all the damage she sustained yet none of that damage ever came close to the engineering spaces.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, GW8345 said:

If bombs get the reactors we would have bigger issues to worry about, carriers from the Forrestal Class and up have an armored hull inside the hull and an armored flight deck.

 

Also, think of the Forrestal, it had 7 to 8 500 and 750 pound bombs detonate on her flight deck and all the damage she sustained yet none of that damage ever came close to the engineering spaces. 

 

Points taken.  However, bombs detonating while sitting on the flight deck, bad as they are, are far different critters than ones with delayed-fusing and steel nose plugs coming from the sky at hundreds of mph.  Worse to my mind - and this one really gives me the willies, probably because I don't know anything about them - are these hyper-sonic anti-ship missiles one hears about.  Can the old double-hull handle a fusillade of those?  I hope my fears are unfounded, and these monster CVNs we are buying are more survivable than I think they are.  Better still, I hope we never get into another conflict where they shoot back at the CVs like they did in '42.  But, if we do, we'll need ships that can stand up to it right then and there, not whenever the bugs get worked out.  Just sayin'.  :salute:

Edited by SBDguy
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SBDguy said:

 

Points taken.  However, bombs detonating while sitting on the flight deck, bad as they are, are far different critters than ones with delayed-fusing and steel nose plugs coming from the sky at hundreds of mph.  Worse to my mind - and this one really gives me the willies, probably because I don't know anything about them - are these hyper-sonic anti-ship missiles one hears about.  Can the old double-hull handle a fusillade of those?  I hope my fears are unfounded, and these monster CVNs we are buying are more survivable than I think they are.  Better still, I hope we never get into another conflict where they shoot back at the CVs like they did in '42.  But, if we do, we'll need ships that can stand up to it right then and there, not whenever the bugs get worked out.  Just sayin'.  :salute:

My fear is that against a peer threat, today’s CVN will be the equivalent of the USS Arizona. 

 

Too vulnerable to be risked in combat (can you imagine the political fallout if one of these was lost with heavy casualties?) and it’s mostly non-stealthy air wing unable to penetrate the bad guy’s integrated air defense systems, it will remain on the sidelines while most of the shooting is done by stealth assets and bombers / subs firing long range missiles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend was onboard Connie in the late 80s during the fire she sustained. According to him, the ship was never the same again, warped decks, lots of doors that would not shut properly, persistant mechanical and plumbing problems, etc. I doubt they'd ever drag her back into service.

 

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again...look at CV-3 USS Saratoga.  It took two nukes going off in close proximity to send her to the bottom.  I'm pretty certain we improved our ship building between the keel laying of CV-3 and CVN-78.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...

Have a friend in an East Coast SH squadron.   They went out on the Ford a couple of weeks ago with the entire air wing.   He spent most of the mini-cruise sleeping and playing video games because the catapults were broken again.  They finally got a couple working on the last day to fly the air wing off.   

 

Your tax dollars at work....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 11bee said:

Have a friend in an East Coast SH squadron.   They went out on the Ford a couple of weeks ago with the entire air wing.   He spent most of the mini-cruise sleeping and playing video games because the catapults were broken again.  They finally got a couple working on the last day to fly the air wing off.   

 

Your tax dollars at work....

 

Yeah, but be fair John, that's pretty much what the rest of us have been doing lately.... 😁

:cheers:

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...