Is Ford really that cool?
No, it's clear that Ford is cooler today than Dodge and Chrysler, and it's quite capable of competing with Chevrolet. But we, in accordance with our orientation, naturally, are not talking about the Ford that is Mustang. That is, we have Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr. on the agenda.
Although, in general, Gerald R. Ford - he has nothing to do with those Fords, since he was born Leslie Lynch King, who took the last name and first name of his stepfather. But since in history Leslie L. King came in as Gerald R. Ford, we'll pass over this mess. And instead of Ford, the man and the car, we have Ford, the man and the ship.
The ship, it must be said, is first-rate in terms of size and grandeur. There is even some overkill, but no one in the world discusses the size and grandeur of American aircraft carriers; doubts mainly arise in the area of efficiency and cost. But there is something to talk about there.
But here's the thing: as if on cue, articles started pouring out on the topic of what a luxury ship the Ford is. How powerful, efficient, and most importantly, safe it is.
As for safety, here, undoubtedly, the Americans have pulled off a trick that no one had thought of before. In the medieval style, when the bridge builder stood under the bridge, and loaded carts drove on top. Or when the blacksmith put on chain mail, and the buyer took a dagger...
We reported on our pages how in the summer of 2021 the US Navy carried out a peculiar act: they anchored the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford off the East Coast and subjected it to a series of underwater explosions, culminating in the detonation of 40 pounds of TNT.
The tests were designed and conducted to ensure that the Ford could protect its crew of 5 sailors, since if the ship were to be completely damaged, there could be more casualties than at Pearl Harbor in December 000.
The tests were successful, the ship's hull withstood three explosions, the last of which was carried out 150 meters from the ship. And yes, 18 tons of TNT is not a toy, but...
Let me, of course, as usual, go back in history and recall how in July 1946 the American military department detonated two atomic charges on the Bikini Atoll: the airborne "Able" and the underwater "Baker", with a capacity of 23 kilotons each. That is, 23 tons of TNT.
This was the Test. And there were ships that passed it with honor.
The same German Prinz Eugen turned out to be such a tough nut to crack that it withstood both explosions and sank six months after the tests, since it had so much radiation that decontamination and further maintenance of the ship were impossible at that time. And as soon as the pumps stopped due to lack of diesel fuel, that's when Prinz Eugen said "that's it".
18 tons in 150 meters is, of course, not 23 tons in 000 meters (which is exactly the distance from the epicenter of the explosion that the Prinz Eugen was when the Baker exploded), so the impressions are strange - on the one hand, the bang was quite heartfelt, on the other - what was it simulating? And here the answers somehow do not come to mind.
Of course, someone might have calculated that 18 tons at 150 meters is like one Onyx in the side, but I would argue until I was hoarse. Any anti-ship missile that passes through the side (and what would it pass through, this is not a battleship from the Second World War) and explodes somewhere in the aviation compartments (yes, where the bombs are, missiles, oil barrels, fuel tanks) – this, excuse me, will be quite a firework. Would you like to check the accuracy of such calculations? Personally, I would, with pleasure. But being in the place from where the "Onyx" will fly. Or "Zircon".
Whatever you like, but something has been going wrong over the last few years overseas.
For more than 80 years, the US Navy has operated the world's largest and most powerful fleet aircraft carriers. Today, the fleet’s 11 ships carry more than 400 fighters and a combined crew of more than 55 sailors and aviation specialists. The backbone of the fleet is the 000 Nimitz-class carriers, built between the 10s and 1960s. By the 1990s, it was clear that the Nimitz’s 2000s design was holding back the adoption of modern technology.
The Nimitz used steam catapults to launch aircraft, a system that involved pumping steam through high-pressure pipes from the boilers to tanks located just below the flight deck. These ships used an older Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactor design, which took up more space inside the ship than the newer reactors and was unable to meet the growing electrical demands of aircraft carriers, especially since the computers, sensors, and systems EW required additional energy.
In 2008, the Navy ordered its first new class of aircraft carriers in 40 years. The Ford class was designed to complement and eventually replace the Nimitz carriers beginning in 2026.
The USS Gerald R. Ford is the first of a new class of aircraft carriers, and these ships are also designed for extremely long service lives: While the Nimitz carriers were designed to last 40 years, the Navy hopes its new ships will last more than 90 years because they will be easier to upgrade as new technologies emerge.
Here, right here, right here, it’s worth stopping and grinning heartily: about the “Seawulfs”, “Freedoms”, “Independences” and “Zumvolts” they said roughly the same thing.
The Ford-class carriers are roughly the same size as their predecessors, but are projected to weigh nearly 4 tons less. The weight savings come primarily from smaller reactors and more automated functions—more automation reduces crew size by 000 percent and eliminates some of the equipment and supplies needed to keep them alive. One significant visual difference is the location of the Ford’s “island,” from which flight operations are controlled. The ship’s designers moved it farther aft to make it easier for the crew to move aircraft and ordnance around the flight deck.
It's worth noting that this is a useful innovation, although not as advanced as separating the ship's control and flight services into different "islands," as the British did with their Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. True, the British ships have a lot of other shortcomings, but that's not what we're talking about here.
The ship's interior has little in common with the Nimitz class. The most important new technology is the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). The electromagnetic catapult works by using linear electromagnetic motors. These motors create an electromagnetic field that interacts with a special "driver" on the aircraft, providing acceleration.
Unlike steam systems, EMALS allows more precise control of the starting speed, which significantly increases safety and efficiency:
- the launch speed can be adjusted depending on the weight of the aircraft;
- the time required to prepare for the next launch is reduced;
- reduced maintenance costs compared to steam systems.
Plus, there is such a parameter as safety: higher launch accuracy reduces the risk of accidents, which saves the lives of pilots, deck crew and prevents damage to equipment.
According to 2024 data, the transition to electromagnetic catapults can reduce the cost of operating aircraft carriers by 15-20%, which is a significant savings for the budget of any state.
EMALS provides a smoother takeoff, reducing wear and tear on pilots and aircraft that are not subjected to the same initial takeoff stress. EMALS is also faster than the old Steam system, which launched aircraft every 45 seconds. In addition, the electromagnetic catapult is more adaptable, allowing it to be adjusted to aircraft or drones. A very useful option.
Other new equipment includes the AN/SPY-3 multi-function radar system, designed to detect incoming anti-ship cruise missiles at low altitude. A new advanced aircraft arrestor (AAG) system to slow aircraft down when landing on the deck. New lifts for transporting weapons from the holds of the ship to the aircraft.
Apart from the new nuclear reactors, it's a very impressive set. And with the new reactors, even more so.
Yes, aircraft carriers are big ships with runways. Their true firepower is concentrated in the ship’s air wing. The USS Ford’s air wing (CVW-8) consists of more than 70 fixed-wing aircraft, tiltrotor aircraft, and helicopters. A modern air wing like the one on the USS Gerald R. Ford consists of three squadrons of single-seat F/A-18E Super Hornets and one squadron of two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets. Each is equally effective against both land and air opponents. As the F-35C Lightning II joins the fleet, newer fifth-generation fighters are replacing the aging Super Hornets. About half of the fighter squadrons will eventually fly the F-35C.
The F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets are equipped with a wide range of air-to-air missiles to engage enemy aircraft, drones and rockets.
The AIM-9X Sidewinder short-range infrared-guided missile is ideal for counter-drone missions or in air-to-air combat with manned fighters.
The radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM missile can hit targets up to 145 miles away. The F/A-18E/F can carry up to nine air-to-air missiles at a time, more than any other U.S. fighter.
In 2024, the Navy officially named the Super Hornet, armed with four AIM-9X and five AIM-120 missiles, the Killer Hornet, after the giant hornet discovered in the Pacific Northwest in 2020. We wrote about this at the time. In general, the F/A-18 is truly one of the most versatile aircraft in the world.
But it’s worth taking a breath and looking around.
The Navy is currently testing its first new air-to-air missile in 40 years, the AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile, which will eventually replace AMRAAM. The AIM-2024B air-to-air missile, based on the SM-174 ship-based interceptor, was introduced in 6. It has a range of more than 200 miles, twice as long as previous missiles. Together, the two missiles will allow Navy fighters to match, if not outperform, Chinese and Russian aircraft armed with their own long-range missiles.
Threats from land and sea should be no big deal for the Ford-class carrier air wing. The Super Hornets can target ships with the older AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile and the new AGM-158C long-range anti-ship missile, which uses artificial intelligence to detect, classify, and evade enemy defenses while homeing in on targets like aircraft carriers or amphibious assault ships.
The carrier-based fighters can also lay minefields using the Quicksink system, which turns a 900-pound high-explosive bomb into a guided mine designed to destroy both surface ships and submarines. For land-attack missions, the F/A-18E/F can carry a variety of bombs and missiles, including unguided general-purpose high-explosive bombs, laser-guided Paveway bombs, satellite-guided JDAMs, AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon glide bombs, and SLAM-ER land-attack cruise missiles. Yes, the Super Hornet is super. It’s a very capable and effective aircraft.
But, as they say, not just the Hornet...
The air wing also typically includes a squadron of five EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft.
The Growler is designed to detect, identify and subsequently suppress enemy ground-based radar systems. Once a pilot has detected an enemy installation, the Growler can jam the radar, preventing it from detecting aircraft or guiding AARGM-ER anti-radar missiles based on its signal.
In addition, the air wing includes four E-2D Advanced Hawkeye - flying radars that can also help pilots in air combat at long distances. The Hawkeye has been serving in the Navy for a long time, and if we talk about it, then in a separate article.
Nineteen MH-60S and MH-60R Seahawk helicopters are assigned to the fleet of ships that escort Ford, called the carrier strike group.
Some fly directly from aircraft carriers, while others are assigned to cruisers, destroyers, and other warships. Sea Hawks can conduct surface strikes, ferry SEAL commandos, deliver supplies between ships, and hunt submarines.
Finally, a pair of CMV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft act as long-range ship-borne cargo carriers, ferrying people, supplies, and even mail from the nearest port to the ship.
Overall, everything looks very confident and powerful, roughly like a Ford ad, but not this one, but that one. With wheels. The same chic slogans about advanced innovations, confidence and power. Well, what can you do, "Ford" is what it is.
But what is behind all this? I would say, the one-button nature that is typical for America. Let me try to explain.
If someone tries to dig into the past, it is very easy to dig up the following things: as soon as the leader of the American Air Force F-22 had another adventure in the form of the failure of its electronic systems, damage from rain to the multi-million dollar coating, equipment failures - the propaganda machine immediately turned on at full power and stories began about how the Raptor is an advanced and powerful aircraft, how good it is, so much so that they will not sell it to anyone, only to themselves, and so on in that spirit.
Let me remind you of the most typical incident: in February 2007, twelve F-22s took off from Hawaii and went on an international flight to Okinawa. To show off to their allies, so to speak.
The distance is not small, 7 km. At first everything went well, but after a while the computers of all twelve fighters simultaneously gave an error equivalent to the "blue screen of death".
The pilots lost access to altitude and speed data, all navigation and communication devices, fuel levels, and much more. As a result, the world's most advanced fighter jets were reduced to a completely helpless $1,68 billion pile of metal flying across the ocean.
The situation was saved by the presence of a tanker plane, which played the role of a leader and brought the squadron back to the departure airfield. And the pilots turned out to be not weaklings, but rather fierce air wolves, managing to land the planes without instruments. Otherwise, it is quite possible that one and a half billion dollars would have gurgled into the ocean through which the guys were flying.
The reason was then given as improper washing of the aircraft. Allegedly, water got into the sensors, and they malfunctioned. Yes, I would never have thought that a modern combat aircraft needs to be wiped with wet wipes to avoid damage to the equipment, but the Americans have what they have. More precisely, the F-22 has their budget in spades.
But how they praised the Raptor back then...
Let's see what "Gerald Ford" had in this regard. We won't touch "Mondeo" and "Mustang".
Malfunctions of electromagnetic arresting gear. The developers claimed that they would be able to handle 1600 aircraft without failures, but in practice they only managed 25, after which the system was ceremoniously sent off for three months of repairs.
Of the 11 lifts, only two were in normal operation, the rest were in a state of permanent repair. Yes, the aircraft carrier concept assumed a large number of lifts so that it would be possible to independently deliver fuel, ammunition, aircraft and everything else to the deck, as they say, without crossing the road. 2 lifts out of 11 is simply a gorgeous level of combat readiness, isn't it?
Malfunctions in radar stations. During preliminary tests, absolutely all radar stations created specifically for the new aircraft carriers failed.
Power plant failures. In 2018, already during sea trials, difficulties arose with the turbines and the TZA, which led to problems with converting steam energy into torque for the propellers.
One day, it ended up in tugs because the Ford lost all power due to a broken propeller. The big fool was quietly cosplaying as an island, peacefully drifting across the Atlantic.
Failure of propeller shaft support bearings. The ship was returned to port, several months were spent to fix the problem, the support bearings were cannibalized from the Kennedy.
As a result, the cost of the Ford, taking into account numerous repairs and a decent number of parts and mechanisms borrowed from Kennedy (and they had to be re-produced), increased by 2,5 billion dollars.
In America today they joke: the only thing an aircraft carrier can do without problems is sink, but it has problems with everything else.
And yet, the articles telling us how serious the Ford-class carriers are continue. And there have been more of them lately.
This hype is useful only in two cases: either everything is very sad with the delivery of the Kennedy, and therefore it is necessary to hammer into the heads of ordinary people that the construction of such a complex ship is not an easy matter, and therefore it is necessary to be patient (well, like we had with the Superjet), everything will soon come to its senses, or...
Or the second option. Which is worse. So many articles could just be a barrage of noise due to the fact that something broke at Ford again.
In principle, nothing like that. And indeed, an aircraft carrier is a very complex mechanism, making it work like a clock is quite difficult. And you don’t have to go looking for examples, the floating nightmare “De Gaulle” has simply raped the Toulon base with its constant breakdowns, the case when it is better if the ship does not go anywhere at all. Italian aircraft carriers and their Spanish colleague are also not particularly noted for their movements. Brazil has officially decommissioned its ship, and Russia will obviously have to do the same soon.
Maintaining such a ship in combat readiness is a very difficult task, and introducing a new one is perhaps even more tricky. It is not for nothing that the founders of ship-based naval aviation, the United States and Great Britain, have been trying to debug their ships for years. But the more complex they are, the more time is needed for this.
Plus, new types of weapons impose certain tasks on weapons protection systems, and I would like to draw attention to this point once again: these underwater “bangs” that the fleet arranged supposedly to test its aircraft carrier suggest that all this was done more to calm the nerves of its own sailors than for real tests.
A mine or torpedo won't explode 150 meters away. Water, of course, will transmit the impact to the ship's hull, but ship hulls have withstood tougher tests. Although, of course, those were slightly different ships. Nevertheless, the huge explosion and assurances that the Ford is the most reliable ship in the world - all this is not for nothing.
We, of course, accepted the information, but we will keep an eye on it - what if something really did fall off? As we know, there is no smoke without fire...
Information