Military Review

New US Navy Supercarrier Cannot Cope with Simple Tasks

60
The command of the US Navy sent a request to the Pentagon with a request to cancel aircraft carrier shock tests before 2024, when the second ship of the series, the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy, will be handed in, reports Task and Puprose specialized portal.


As the newspaper notes, the Office of the adviser to the head of the US Defense Department for testing and diagnosing weapons in his report pointed out the unreliability of the electromagnetic catapults of the new development, the arrestor, the lifts weapons and radar.

New US Navy Supercarrier Cannot Cope with Simple Tasks


These systems are not high-tech, but if their work is not established, the ability of the courts to perform basic functions will be jeopardized.

This may affect the ability of the aircraft carrier to provide the necessary frequency of flights of aircraft, make the ship vulnerable and impose certain restrictions on routine operations. Poor or underestimated reliability of these critical subsystems is the biggest challenge for CVN-78
- it is spoken in the conclusion of experts.

Almost all new types of ships of the US Navy are subjected to impact tests; tests make it possible to assess the stability of ship systems to extreme combat loads.

The latest CVN-78 aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford cost the United States a record $ 12,9 billion. The ship was laid in 2009 and delivered the fleet in 2017, RIA reports News
Photos used:
2nd Class Ridge Leoni US Navy / Mass Communication Specialist
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Don
    Don 14 February 2018 12: 29
    +8
    It will begin now: a big target, a weapon of imperialism, a budget cut, is needed - but expensive, not needed - Russia is a land power, etc.
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 14 February 2018 12: 53
      +15
      And which of the following do you disagree with?
      1. Lock36
        Lock36 14 February 2018 13: 16
        +3
        Well then! Well, this is another victory for America - and many here are stupid and do not stick! laughing
      2. Nikolai Grek
        Nikolai Grek 14 February 2018 17: 55
        +2
        Quote: Chertt
        And which of the following do you disagree with?

        recourse recourse so that it will not be said towards Russia !!! what wink yes laughing laughing laughing
    2. vlad66
      vlad66 14 February 2018 13: 20
      +9
      Quote: Donskoy
      It will begin now: a big target, a weapon of imperialism, a budget cut, is needed - but expensive, not needed - Russia is a land power, etc.

      In addition to this iron, they have 10 more such irons yes so don't be upset hi
    3. Mih1974
      Mih1974 14 February 2018 15: 30
      +3
      laughing Once again for the “stupid” ones: without radar, without catapults, without aerofinishers, without an elevator for weapons What will he do? Well, it’s clear that you can play football on an empty deck, sunbathe, that is, such a big “cruise” boat. tongue
      1. Metallurg_2
        Metallurg_2 14 February 2018 16: 46
        0
        Typical representative of the doctrine of "Fleet in being."
    4. seacap
      seacap 15 February 2018 00: 31
      +2
      Yes, no, a good steamer, like any new one has “childhood” illnesses, Americans are stubborn, will be brought to normal, they will learn quickly and will quickly fix it. But we really have such money, without urgent need, there’s no extra money, to give to amers, and it’s time to update the yachts to our ghouls, not all villas have been bought up yet.
    5. 73bor
      73bor 15 February 2018 01: 40
      0
      And you see for yourself, after the Second World War the aircraft grew four times in size and hundreds of times in price and the carrier ship increased by 40000 tons and I even understand why this is the maximum that the Panama Canal can miss, with such a displacement of the carrier ship value in principle tends to zero!
    6. batiscaf1
      batiscaf1 15 February 2018 02: 03
      +1
      And what's wrong with that? It has long been clear to everyone that an aircraft carrier is a good thing for attacking a country, say, of Honduras’s level, with insignificant air defense being overcome by airplanes on May 2 - May 3 — it flew in, slammed the president or field commander, and the war is over. To break through the air defense of a country already at the level of Iran or India, not to mention Russia or China, a massive attack of at least 25-30 units is needed, moreover, unexpectedly for the enemy. What kind of massive air attack from an aircraft carrier can we talk about, especially about the unexpected? It is capable of releasing the 1st aircraft in about 6-7 minutes - when the 10th takes off, the first will already run out of fuel. But as a target for the enemy - an aircraft carrier - is simply magnificent. And terribly expensive. Conclusion: an aircraft carrier is a terribly expensive narrowly specialized stray to intimidate Papuans and small militia units. In the modern world, the same goals can be achieved with the help of other, much cheaper and more effective means.
      1. Don
        Don 15 February 2018 21: 03
        0
        Quote: batiscaf1
        What kind of massive air attack from an aircraft carrier can we talk about, especially about the unexpected? It is capable of releasing on the 1 plane in about 6-7 minutes - when the 10 takes off, the first one will already run out of fuel.

        wassat Americans themselves are probably not in the know, everyone is building and building aircraft carriers. I don’t know how the road will be in the future, but the second problem cannot be solved for sure, it lives and thrives laughing
  2. Egorovich
    Egorovich 14 February 2018 12: 32
    +10
    What, again, another "ironing" for sinking done !? Seven shallows under the keel !!! am
    1. Mih1974
      Mih1974 14 February 2018 15: 31
      +2
      not under the keel, but over the claw good
  3. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 14 February 2018 12: 33
    +9
    12,9 billion dollars
    Spend 13 billion to later find out what
    unreliability of new-design electromagnetic catapults, aerofinisher, weapon lifts and radar
    . This is of course on a grand scale, but somehow not capitalistically.
    1. yehat
      yehat 14 February 2018 12: 37
      +2
      Americans are trying on one ship to test new solutions for a new series of Aviks and thereby make a leap forward. I am not confused by its gigantic price, but it is surprising - the radar and catapult could already be brought to mind even before construction.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 14 February 2018 12: 55
        +5
        Quote: yehat
        radar and catapult could already be brought to mind even before construction.

        what I’m here as a gynecologist of the 5 discharge for one whole year already one question torments me, how will the electromagnetic field of the ship affect the electromagnetic catapult ???
        1. yehat
          yehat 14 February 2018 13: 22
          0
          the ship is not a source of radiation. it cannot have its own e-field, and there are not many powerful devices with previously known parameters.
          Moreover, the field voltage of the devices of the catapult itself is so great that there is no difference what is around.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 14 February 2018 13: 28
            +8
            Quote: yehat
            the ship is not a source of radiation

            what Maybe I’m old, but as I remember about the radiation, I did not say!
            Quote: yehat
            he cannot have his own e-field,

            belay Come on!!!! Wow!!! Is that ... and can he have static electricity? Well, at least purely hypothetically?
            1. yehat
              yehat 14 February 2018 13: 51
              0
              What is the point of considering statics when it comes to the effect on AC devices?
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 14 February 2018 14: 11
                +7
                Quote: yehat
                what is the point of considering statics

                So this same static generates the very electromagnetic field of the ship that you are trying to ignore! I hope you heard about the demagnetization of ships?
                Quote: yehat
                are we talking about the effect on ac devices?

                it's not about the device, but about its EM field! How will the own field affect the field of the catapult? Do you have an answer?
              2. Genry
                Genry 14 February 2018 15: 24
                +3
                Quote: yehat
                What is the point of considering statics when it comes to the effect on AC devices?

                Ahhh ... that's where the problem is.
                Alternating current alternately accelerates the aircraft forward and backward. Here it takes off and cannot ... wassat
        2. avt
          avt 14 February 2018 15: 25
          +1
          Quote: Serg65
          how the electromagnetic field of the ship will affect the electromagnetic catapult ???

          I don’t know, but it’s like they are already towing him — the Russian hackers broke the steering. bully
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 14 February 2018 19: 05
            +6
            laughing Welcome hi
            Quote: avt
            broke Russian hackers steering

            bully Well this is a classic, they are Russian, they will either lose or break!
            drinks
        3. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 15 February 2018 01: 08
          0
          Quote: Serg65
          how the electromagnetic field of the ship will affect the electromagnetic catapult

          approximately the same as the electromagnetic field of a power plant (ship’s electric generators) on an electric motor (the catapult is a linear electric motor). What bothers you so much? Do electric motors in the power plant not work?
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 14 February 2018 13: 07
        +7
        Quote: yehat
        I am not confused by its gigantic price, but it is surprising - the radar and catapult could already be brought to mind even before construction.

        They can afford all these "dances," since they have 10 aircraft carriers that are quite functional for themselves.
        1. Lock36
          Lock36 14 February 2018 13: 18
          +4
          I do not agree: even they cannot afford to completely restore the current grouping on the basis of such ships. They don’t have money for 10 pieces (as now), they won’t pull it.
          1. 73bor
            73bor 15 February 2018 01: 44
            0
            By the way, I absolutely support you, they now have only four active air groups on four ships, despite the fact that they are forced to load planes onto aircraft carriers for cannibalism!
            1. Lock36
              Lock36 15 February 2018 14: 01
              +1
              Ugh, well, at least someone here does not believe in the "omnipotence of the printing press", comrade! drinks
        2. yehat
          yehat 14 February 2018 14: 36
          +3
          no. operable at a maximum of 8. usually 4-5 is under repair and 5-6 are ready.
          10 were never combat-ready at the same time.
          nevertheless, avik is a colossal structure and there are many things that require maintenance and repair.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 14 February 2018 14: 41
            +6
            Quote: yehat
            no. operable at a maximum of 8. usually 4-5 is under repair and 5-6 are ready.
            10 were never combat-ready at the same time.
            nevertheless, avik is a colossal structure and there are many things that require maintenance and repair.

            I’m talking about the fact that the mattresses have a group of working aircraft carriers and they have nowhere to rush. Yes, taking into account repairs and modernization, they are not all 10 combat-ready, but the very fact that they have aircraft carriers is in full order and allows them to rush nowhere.
            1. yehat
              yehat 14 February 2018 14: 42
              +3
              let's say, the United States in combat readiness has 4-5 fleets with an attack aircraft carrier at the head.
              1. Mih1974
                Mih1974 14 February 2018 15: 34
                +1
                And we have to put a bolt on it, we from our "forests", even through the intermission, can "blow" so that there will already be nothing to occupy. tongue
                1. yehat
                  yehat 14 February 2018 16: 07
                  0
                  much more useful is not the ability to hit, but the ability to drop an inspection team onto a ship and arrest a cargo if the captain looks askance.
                  that’s why the Amer fleet.
                  1. Mih1974
                    Mih1974 14 February 2018 16: 23
                    +1
                    tongue HIGHLIGHTS well let them try to land on our trains on Transib tongue Or we have something to watch on SevMorPuti bully It was not for nothing that Putin said that along the Northern Sea Route oil and gas will be carried ONLY by Russian ships tongue .
                    And the construction of a transport system in Eurasia + the Northern Sea Route - they throw America over the side of World Trade. In fact, anything that has been worn out in recent years
                    Remember the saying "if you spit on the Collective, then the collective will rub off, and if the Collective spits on you - you will drown", the same thing is true - if America "self-excludes" from world trade, the World will survive, and if the World kicks the USA out of its trade - the United States simply slid into its place as an ordinary regional power. good The little village of Korea showed "where the cowboy goes" if you have a thermonuclear bomb (they are much smaller and more powerful) and its delivery vehicle to the United States.
                    1. yehat
                      yehat 14 February 2018 16: 30
                      0
                      compare the volume of traffic by train and sea
                      Americans do not make any sense to meddle on land.
                      1. Mih1974
                        Mih1974 14 February 2018 16: 40
                        +1
                        I know very well both volumes and prices. But we are not talking about the price of the issue, but about Security. Now count how much the crackdown on pirates cost belay about which we only heard from books and films? And how much will his fleet cost China? YES and there was no normal land communication by land in Eurasia, the constant war was to blame for everything that everyone was ruining here, but now there is such an opportunity - to arrange everything. Look, even kyays talk about high-speed trains not for people but for goods. belay recourse
                        By the way, remember how the Merikases stuttered that they would “inspect” ships calling in the village of Korea, so that they wouldn’t carry anything there and even not seem to be encroaching on the Russians? You yourself think it over - then we generally ON SLEEP on American ships, we have a direct border with S. Korea fool . That is, all this American importance and sanction is insolence in its purest form, often not backed up by force.
            2. 73bor
              73bor 15 February 2018 01: 45
              0
              They have no aviation for the rest of the air groups, that’s the whole damn thing!
        3. eugraphus
          eugraphus 15 February 2018 02: 17
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          They don’t have money for 10 pieces (as now), they won’t pull it.

          The most profitable business is the ability to print the main reserve currency.
          For example, Europe also has such an opportunity and this allows them to make an alignment program and give decades (no, not loans, but just for free, that is, for nothing), to countries like Poland, tens of billions of euros per year. Others, like Russia, have to sell their natural resources at their own expense. And for those who have nothing to trade, they get into bonded loans and then they sell themselves and their independence.
      3. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 15 February 2018 01: 02
        0
        Quote: yehat
        but it is surprising - the radar and catapult could already be brought to mind even before construction.

        Perhaps the media again greatly embellish (as in the case of the “Queen” - “almost drowned” due to some miserable leak). They flew already from the deck of the Ford, the Hornets catapult throws.

        Perhaps the point is the little things. In any case, they do not have a return stroke, no one will redo the ship, it remains only to finish.
        Here is what they wrote about this: https://vz.ru/world/2017/6/16/874828.html
        1. 73bor
          73bor 15 February 2018 01: 53
          0
          The catapult can throw out the Hornets, I have no doubt, but how do you throw a bunch of "Hornets" with a full load at a certain time? The flight limit is not even for the catapult, but the places for preparing the aircraft on the ship are only two, maybe three, at the ground airfield at the place where the aircraft were parked!
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 15 February 2018 07: 15
            0
            Quote: 73bor
            The flight limit is not even for the catapult, but the places for preparing the aircraft on the ship are only two, maybe three, at the ground airfield at the place where the aircraft were parked!

            1. The lifting speed of modern AB aircraft is limited only by the performance of catapults. Aircraft are prepared, of course, in advance. Those who design such ships are not worse than us.
            2. How do you say it relates to alleged alleged shortcomings of catapults?
    2. SlavaS
      SlavaS 14 February 2018 12: 40
      +1
      https://defence.ru/article/bdk-ivan-gren-sdadut-n
      e-ranshe-marta-2018-goda-iz-za-problem-s-zadnim-k
      hodom /
      http://www.fontanka.ru/2018/02/13/080/

      and in Russia something like that
    3. win
      win 14 February 2018 12: 56
      +2
      unreliability of new-design electromagnetic catapults, aerofinisher, weapon lifts and radar.

      We'll have to switch to old stuff! ..
      What can I say! GAS STATION...
  4. seregatara1969
    seregatara1969 14 February 2018 12: 35
    +1
    a new ship and minor systems junk - and there is no one to punish!
    1. 73bor
      73bor 15 February 2018 01: 56
      0
      This is not a secondary system, it is an essential element of an aircraft carrier’s functioning, without a catapult, not one aircraft will take off from the deck, and the value of such a combat unit is “0”!
  5. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 14 February 2018 12: 36
    +5
    The U.S. Navy command sent a request to the Pentagon asking them to cancel the shock tests of the aircraft carrier until 2024,
    So far, they’ll have to modernize .. The costs of excessive innovation and the lack of development of the implemented developments at the stands ... To the question of our long-term construction projects too ..
  6. Leshy174
    Leshy174 14 February 2018 12: 57
    +1
    No country can do anything on time))))
  7. NEXUS
    NEXUS 14 February 2018 13: 05
    +5
    in its report, it pointed out the unreliability of new-design electromagnetic catapults, an aerofinisher, weapon lifts and radar.

    The question is, what is reliable there?
  8. Piramidon
    Piramidon 14 February 2018 13: 34
    +2
    The U.S. Department of Defense's weapons testing and diagnostics report pointed to the unreliability of a new development of electromagnetic catapults, an aerofinisher, weapon lifts and radar.

    And the rest, a beautiful marquise ...
  9. Non liberoid Russian
    Non liberoid Russian 14 February 2018 13: 59
    +1
    hurry people to make fun ... this aircraft carrier, f-35, stealth destroyer ... something is often presented as raw materials by our "partners" ... I’m afraid to know how their new strategist will fly or a cruise missile .... and I’m silent about atomic bombs ... I see the gastarbeiters engineers completely relaxed from the big salaries
    1. Mih1974
      Mih1974 14 February 2018 15: 54
      +1
      But actually what did they have differently? We recall the vaunted “abrams,” as if they were trying to “break in” them against ours in our East. It ended up that our "not understanding the grades of American shit" burned them to hell good . And the mattresses "left to think" and only then they finished up to the classical form. lol
      And if you recall their "ravings" about which they even shot the film themselves laughing fool . It seems that the "small things" that small firms can clearly do, they do well and often the right ones, the "big" projects - they have them through the "one place". And they hide problems by a war against a knowingly weak enemy.
  10. Fudo
    Fudo 14 February 2018 16: 54
    0
    for which they called him a vessel
    1. Non liberoid Russian
      Non liberoid Russian 14 February 2018 18: 22
      0
      they didn’t call, but designated an anthology with a hospital accessory bedside
  11. Collective farm
    Collective farm 14 February 2018 21: 17
    +2
    Hi everyone i'm a new connection check
    1. eugraphus
      eugraphus 15 February 2018 01: 53
      0
      What, even a pure epaulette was not given?
  12. weddu
    weddu 14 February 2018 22: 19
    0
    I look at the look and layout of the aircraft carrier, and I understand that a promising Russian aircraft carrier was stuck in the last century. It’s better to build a couple of clones of Admiral Kuznetsov’s icebreaking class ...
  13. mult-65
    mult-65 14 February 2018 22: 23
    0
    Great country, modern technology, a lot of dough, a high standard of living, etc. Catch up, and even more overtake - we, so far, does not work. sad
    1. 73bor
      73bor 15 February 2018 02: 03
      0
      You or a provocateur, we have a hundred times less military budget, and in Syria the Americans are not able to do anything with us, their tanks burn like candles in Yemen and Iraq, Iraq buys tanks from us, even putting a gun for his army is already ten years can not! And only 10% of the population have a high standard of living! We don’t need to distill anyone, we need our rockets to hit the target!
  14. eugraphus
    eugraphus 15 February 2018 01: 51
    0
    Quote: rotmistr60
    Spend 13 billion

    For Russia, in order to build something, you first need to earn currency. For Americans, everything is much simpler. 3 billion, 13 billion, or even 33 billion, as needed, so much will be printed. But in fact, their expenses will be paid by countries that use their dollars and invest in the US economy.
  15. Victor_B
    Victor_B 15 February 2018 08: 57
    0
    They’ll finish it anyway ...
    Just a year later will go into operation.
    And greens will print as much as necessary.
    This is our "independent" from anyone (except the Fed) the Central Bank has the right to issue rubles ONLY in the amount of received foreign currency (at the rate). Central Bank Law!