Aircraft carrier "Harry Truman" returns to the US Navy after repair of electrical equipment


The US Navy announces the imminent return of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) aircraft carrier to the sea to fulfill the tasks assigned by the command. This is the 1998 aircraft carrier of the year of construction, for which about 4,5 billion dollars were spent from the US military budget.


One of the last operations of the aircraft carrier “Harry Truman” was to inflict attacks on Syrian territory by its air wing in April 2018.

After that, serious problems with electrical equipment were revealed on board the aircraft carrier. After a thorough study of the electrical equipment of the aircraft carrier of the U.S. Navy, it was concluded that a large repair would be required with multimillion-dollar costs. The US Navy began to consider the option of decommissioning USS Harry S. Truman, but in the spring of 2019, US President Donald Trump said that "we will not write off the aircraft carrier."

From the release of the United States Navy:

The Navy replaced the damaged components and completed the tests to avoid further problems. Engineering analysis, combined with tests on several aircraft carriers, shows that this was a local problem, not the problem of the entire class of warships. The success of this repair was due to the outstanding efforts of numerous naval organizations and industry partners, who quickly applied their experience and skills to solve this problem.

According to US Vice Admiral Thomas Moore, everything possible is being done so that the air wing and the aircraft carrier itself are ready for combat deployment in the near future.

The main phase of the repair work took about three months.

Earlier it was reported that the escort ships of the Harry Truman aircraft carrier, while it was undergoing repairs, performed a joint operation with another US Navy aircraft carrier, Abraham Lincoln. The operation took place in the Persian Gulf and was part of the “containment of Iran” campaign.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins 14 November 2019 08: 16 New
    • 14
    • 5
    +9
    As I understand it, now in the comments will begin the "song about hares"?
    ... But we do not care, do we have "calibers" and "zircon"? ...
    1. ZAV69 14 November 2019 08: 23 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      And then sing do not sing, but no one will pawn Ulyanovsk in the next 5 years. There is no such possibility yet.
      1. Greenwood 14 November 2019 08: 40 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: ZAV69
        There is no such possibility yet.
        And will not appear in the coming years. There is no place to build.
        1. Nasrat 14 November 2019 09: 00 New
          • 7
          • 3
          +4
          at our place Kuzya rotted idle near the coast, why do you need nuclear Ulyanovsk? Ask this question ...
          1. Greenwood 14 November 2019 09: 09 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Nasr
            Kuzya rotted idle near the coast
            Well, not rotted yet. True, what to do next - no one knows. request
          2. PROXOR 14 November 2019 10: 04 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Yes, here it’s not even Kuz. Even a promising Leader type destroyer is cheaper, inspires trepidation, and its combat effectiveness is no worse than an aircraft carrier. And he can do it alone. And avik without an escort is an easy target.
            1. Manas manas 14 November 2019 12: 33 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              The problem is that in Russia the Leader will be built twice as long as the Americans aircraft carrier! And secondly, why do you think that they go without an excursion? The leader will not be allowed to approach even a shot.
              1. PROXOR 14 November 2019 16: 01 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                The leader bears functions against ships, air defense and anti-aircraft defense. He will have an escort, but the Leader alone is not as toothless as Avik.
    2. Tusv 14 November 2019 08: 24 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      So far, no one has canceled the Soviet doctrine of deterrence of carrier groups
    3. PROXOR 14 November 2019 10: 02 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Forgive me, but hypothetically. What can even two AUGs off our coast and what are their chances against a powerful group of aviation based on the coast? Even in range, coastal aviation is superior to aviation from an aircraft carrier.
      This trough is suitable, only against poits without air defense.
      1. Eskobar 14 November 2019 10: 57 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Look for information about our "powerful" naval aviation group
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 November 2019 11: 18 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Destroy this group and continue to villain. In history, there is not a single case of successful opposition to ground aviation from a deck attack.
        In the USSR they created really powerful strike fists, for the air division of Tu-22 missile carriers into the fleet, for the 2 regiment in each minimum, not counting tactical aviation. And no one thought that was enough. And today there is no MPA at all, and you are talking about some kind of poits ...
        1. traper 14 November 2019 21: 02 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Yes, perhaps all for a turn. If in the war with Japan in the forties the contribution of American carrier-based aircraft to the victory can be tracked at least somehow, although it is not great, then from the fifties to the beginning of the 21st century their role was reduced to a media picture. If we compare the number of sorties and the tonnage of the bomb load, the Air Force and the decks, then we can see that the role of airplanes with AUGs is at the level of statistical error. And given that only 12 ... 3 can go out of 4 AUGs into the sea, then there’s no reason to talk about the threat to any objects in Russia.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 November 2019 06: 54 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Well, almost everything is true. In addition, it was carrier-based aviation that won the war in the Pacific Ocean, that during the Desert Storm, the share of carrier-based aircraft amounted to 25% in both number and number of sorties, while carrier-based aircraft provided for the operations of US strategic bombers entering the air the space of Iraq from the sea, bypassing the main areas of air defense, and which dropped EMNIP 30% of all ammunition used by aviation. Such a hundred error :)
            I'm not talking about the fact that the air group of only one aircraft carrier today in terms of combat aircraft and their support is superior to naval aviation of any fleet of the Russian Federation.
            But in the end, if you prefer to live in illusions, I dare not interfere
      3. ufpb 14 November 2019 13: 43 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        And who said that a probable enemy (Russia) will be attacked by AUG aircraft with live air defense and missile defense? And if we consider them as a tool to suppress disparate, small foci of resistance without air defense and fighter aircraft? We deliver a sudden, unprovoked strike on the strategic nuclear forces and in the air defense, missile defense, aviation, naval and ground forces in permanent deployment bases. And then we deal with the survivors. And here the F-35 will be a super plane and the AUG will be able to work quietly. How is this scenario? No, well, someone will object: but MANPADS? My answer is - and B52 with 10 km cluster and other bombs? I think you need to be aware of your weaknesses before a sudden blow, get ready for it. And then the enemy will get an analogue of 41-45 years.
        1. PROXOR 14 November 2019 16: 04 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          PAPER !!! And our strategic nuclear forces will stand and wait for a blow ?! No dear. After the first act of the scenario described by you, it will turn out in no way 41-45 years. So back for 10000 years.
          1. ufpb 14 November 2019 16: 31 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            A SUDDEN, UNSPECTED IMPACT ON ALL SYS CARRIERS. SPECIFICALLY, for example, AFTER 10 MINUTES HOW YOU READ THIS COMMENT. The reason is that US intelligence has given its sovereign 100% where all the carriers of the strategic nuclear forces are located. I'm not saying that intelligence infa will be genuine. This will be clarified after the impact. I ask you to consider the scenario when the enemy was able to take by surprise and destroy the overwhelming forces of the country.
            1. PROXOR 14 November 2019 20: 17 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I will tell you a little secret. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!! NPS, BOMBERS, and GRU / NEW complexes are moving. And the mines are protected in such a way that they can withstand almost completely.
    4. Private-K 14 November 2019 13: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      No, it’s about to begin ... the silence of the airborne adversaries. After all witnesses of invulnerability of aircraft carriers argue that the aircraft carrier is a very tenacious ship. That it must be thrown by dozens of heavy anti-ship missiles so that it deteriorates. And here - not even the penetration of anti-ship missiles with hundreds of kilograms of the most powerful explosives, but a glitch of electrical equipment. And then they were going to send almost for scrapping ...
      Conclusion to the Bosch sectarians-avionics: aircraft carrier, like all modern warships, extremely quickly incapacitated when, practically any, even a single, hit in it anti-ship ammunition.
      A modern warship, and an aircraft carrier, too, is menacing and dangerous while safe and sound, but if it was managed to reach it, then it weakly holds a strike and quickly fails.
  2. knn54 14 November 2019 08: 45 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    After the "second breath" usually comes artificial.
    You can understand trump - the 2nd fleet (North Atlantic) was left without aircraft cover - more than SOME.
    1. Nasrat 14 November 2019 08: 57 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Here ... exactly! Either the aircraft carrier is going to be decommissioned, then the expensive and arch-complicated repairs - and this is from the spring of 2019 .... And by the middle of November 2019 they are going to roll out this vessel into action ...
      Actually, something in the USA is spreading, although the margin of safety is great ...
      1. cniza 14 November 2019 09: 18 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Well, yes, Syria still has a lot of oil, and not only it has in this region.
    2. Private-K 14 November 2019 14: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The U.S. Navy out of 11 aircraft carriers is good if 3 are now ready for war. The rest are being repaired.
  3. OlezhkaKravchenko 14 November 2019 08: 45 New
    • 3
    • 9
    -6
    How many hypersonic missiles do we need to destroy all these pieces of metal? Pieces 11 in total?
    1. Rostislav Bely 14 November 2019 09: 10 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      can and "Poseidon" ...
      1. cniza 14 November 2019 09: 17 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        It’s easier to destroy the base where they are serviced and repaired, but we won’t start first.
        1. Rostislav Bely 14 November 2019 09: 37 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Newport News, south of Washington ... Dagger on an aircraft carrier - 2 thousand km or the good old Granites - from 500 km from Antey submarines (only 8 pcs.) Simultaneous launch of 24 pcs., And now compare the combat radius of the aircraft carrier to shore 1 thousand . km is already dangerous for them
          So aircraft carriers can be considered as a means of the second echelon - therefore Poseidon is quite realistic in terms of use against a sea warrant
        2. dirk182 14 November 2019 10: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          First, take care to find out how many of these databases. Think about commercial ones. Tales of one base will be left to the conscience of military experts
          1. Rostislav Bely 14 November 2019 11: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes, you’re talking about EXPERDS, from now on pop-fractional)))
      2. Eskobar 14 November 2019 10: 58 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        And then your grandchildren are ready to leave the bunker after old age, when will the radiation background on the surface decrease due to half-life?
        1. Rostislav Bely 14 November 2019 11: 11 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Pasha, your last name is by no means “Tunberg” about the “stolen childhood” of the Unuk, you can of course submit on Fridays and not go to school - you will go to a nudist beach for “downs”, there will be at least some kind of justice for child labor in third world countries - whom childhood really stole
  4. Atlant-1164 14 November 2019 09: 05 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    the beginning was fatal
    - "After that, serious problems were discovered with the electrical equipment on board the aircraft carrier. After a careful study of the electrical equipment of the US Navy aircraft carrier, it was concluded that a large overhaul would be required with a multimillion-dollar cost."
    -The US Navy began to consider the option of decommissioning USS Harry S. Truman.
    and in the end, as a mockery of our long-term construction projects.
    - "The main phase of the repair work took about three months."
    1. Greenwood 14 November 2019 09: 11 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Also the denouement surprised. Serious damage, due to which the ship was considered decommissioned, eventually required only a three-month repair. Um ... recourse That would be so.
      1. cniza 14 November 2019 09: 15 New
        • 6
        • 4
        +2
        I wanted to cut money, but did not give ... lol
      2. withoutreverse 14 November 2019 09: 16 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        it's like in the movie "Man from the Capuchin Boulevard"


        Americans learned to do "montage"
      3. Gray brother 14 November 2019 09: 27 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Greenwood
        Serious breakdowns, due to which the ship was considered decommissioned, eventually required only a three-month repair. Um ...

        Electrical equipment is different. Cheap and expensive.
        This article is about money, not about the amount of work.
        How you determine the volume and terms of the work by the "multi-million" amount of spent dough and all grieve here together))) - it is decidedly unclear to me.
        1. Greenwood 14 November 2019 09: 58 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: Gray Brother
          This article is about money, not about the amount of work.

          The article says so:
          After that, serious problems with electrical equipment were revealed on board the aircraft carrier.
          large repairs will be required with multi-million costs. The US Navy began to consider the option of decommissioning USS Harry S. Truman,
          From this phrase it could well be assumed that the volume of work performed will be large and require a lot of time. Moreover, we are talking about an aircraft carrier - a ship with a displacement of 100 tons. Moreover, the term "major repair" is applicable to Russian realities - it just means many months (many years) of a simple vessel.
          1. Gray brother 14 November 2019 10: 03 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Greenwood
            From this phrase, it could well be assumed that the volume of work performed will be large and require a lot of time.

            Or they just change some expensive unit.
            1. Greenwood 14 November 2019 15: 05 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              I’m embarrassed to assume - what kind of unit is so expensive and difficult to repair that they decided to almost decommission the ship ?!
              1. Gray brother 14 November 2019 16: 16 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Greenwood
                I’m embarrassed to assume - what kind of unit is so expensive and difficult to repair that they decided to almost decommission the ship ?!

                And there is nothing cheap there, this is not a store for beggars in some withered Michigan, where any product costs one bucks.
                How do I know what they were doing there? I’m not a clairvoyant, like some who write about "millions of dollars" enough to immediately knock their foreheads on the floor for the glory of Great America, with holy faith.
            2. Gray brother 14 November 2019 16: 22 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Or the repair will not be completed in full)))
  5. cniza 14 November 2019 09: 07 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    According to US Vice Admiral Thomas Moore, everything possible is being done so that the air wing and the aircraft carrier itself are ready for combat deployment in the near future.


    They are pulling up forces to continue the robbery of Syria and other states.
  6. Rostislav Bely 14 November 2019 09: 07 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    As far as I remember in the states there are only three slipways for aircraft carriers - two for repair and one for construction - out of 11 2,5 in combat readiness ...
    1. maden.usmanow 14 November 2019 09: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Not only in the States. And in the world.
      1. Rostislav Bely 14 November 2019 09: 45 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        For us, in connection with a more advanced air defense system, air force ground bases are preferable from the point of view of "accounting" - cost and risks
        1. maden.usmanow 14 November 2019 11: 29 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I put you a plus, but someone put two minuses on top
      2. Gray brother 14 November 2019 11: 50 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: maden.usmanow
        Not only in the States. And in the world.

        Is China on another planet? Together with the British and French, yeah.
        1. maden.usmanow 15 November 2019 00: 24 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, tell me where they do in China atomic aircraft carriers under 100 tons lol
          1. Gray brother 15 November 2019 13: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: maden.usmanow
            Well, tell me where they do in China atomic aircraft carriers under 100 tons lol

            A non-nuclear 70000 tons. Do not fit?
  7. maden.usmanow 14 November 2019 09: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Billions, millions, for each paragraph.
    Mmm yes.
  8. Lord of the Sith 14 November 2019 10: 56 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Wow, one combat operation, and the electrical equipment was covered, that even the question of writing off this monster was raised))
    Chinese probably?)) Therefore, sanctions))

    More ancient aircraft carriers were somehow more reliable.
    1. voyaka uh 14 November 2019 11: 20 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      I had a colleague in Israel who served as a mechanic at one of the Soviet BOD. He said that after firing the main caliber in the "automatic" mode, then the whole technical team then repaired the ship. From important ship control devices to light bulbs in the corridors, everything went out of order from vibrations.
      1. Serg65 14 November 2019 14: 29 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        He told

        This bike is generally about 68 bis!
        Quote: voyaka uh
        everything failed due to vibrations.

        laughing The mechanics are still those entertainers!
  9. Maks1995 14 November 2019 11: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    What did you want? Swam for 20 years, of course you need to change the wiring.
    That changed for 3 months.

    But our Kuznetsov certainly got ahead of him !!!