Military Review

The first problems of the aircraft carrier "Gerald R. Ford"

28
The newest aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-9) was launched in a solemn ceremony on November 10, at the American shipyard Newport News Shipbuilding. At present, the installation of various systems and equipment is continuing, as well as the verification of the equipment already installed. The ship is scheduled to enter the naval forces in 78 year.




Just two months after the “Gerald R. Ford” left the dry dock of the shipbuilding plant, the first reports appeared in the Western press about his problems. According to the blog BMPD, a few days ago, the journalists of the American edition of The Boston Globe published some of the details of the report that fell into their hands. In this document, the authors of the Pentagon have noted some of the flaws in the new ship that cause the military’s concerns. At least four ship systems are a cause for particular concern: for a number of reasons, specialists lack data on their reliability.

The main concerns of representatives of the military department are associated with the latest electromagnetic catapults and aerofinishers. The available test results of these systems do not allow us to confidently talk about the fulfillment of all requirements for the number of takeoffs and landings. Another system, whose work did not suit the Pentagon’s commission, is aircraft lifters. In their work, some problems were found that could adversely affect the entire combat work of the ship. Finally, the report mentioned problems with promising radar stations designed specifically for the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier.

Malfunctions in the work of the above systems can lead to delays in the combat work of the aircraft carrier and corresponding problems with the fulfillment of the assigned task. As follows from the published information, existing problems with catapults, arresting gears, air lifts and radar stations can lead, at least, to a noticeable decrease in the intensity of flights. In addition, we cannot exclude other scenarios in which the prospective aircraft carrier will not be able to effectively protect itself and the ships of the strike group.

From the published information it also follows that problems with catapults or radars are not the most serious in the project. So, according to J. Michael Gilmore, who is in charge of testing and evaluating efficiency at the US Department of Defense, a number of systems installed on an aircraft carrier do not meet current standards. In particular, problems of this kind exist in the field of communications. Some ship systems may need to be redesigned.

Despite the mass of negative facts described in the Pentagon report, Rear Admiral T. Moore, head of the aircraft carrier construction program, remains optimistic. He believes that shipbuilders still have enough time to eliminate the existing shortcomings. In addition, Rear Admiral Moore recalls that the use of new technologies is always associated with a host of complex tasks that appear already at the stage of developing a preliminary project.

Publication of excerpts from the report of the US military caused an expected reaction in the community of specialists and those interested in naval issues. Once again, disputes resumed as the pros and cons of the ship USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-76), and the need for such ships. As before, the parties are in their positions and reinforce opinions with pertinent facts.

It is worth noting that the current disputes around the newest American aircraft carrier after the statements of Rear Admiral T. Moore become simply meaningless. He quite rightly noted that the construction of a new aircraft carrier, like other projects with a great foundation for the future, naturally and expectedly was not without problems. No less logical and fair look Moore's words about the future of the project. Indeed, in the remaining two years, the US Navy and shipbuilding can do a lot, first of all bring the aircraft carrier's problem systems to mind.

Already now, two years before the expected delivery of the ship the fleet, it is clear that the new aircraft carrier will be completed, tested and put into combat combat with the US Navy. The construction of aircraft carriers of the new project is too important a program to abandon it. In addition, a lot of money has already been spent on the development and construction of the lead ship of the type Gerald R. Ford and it will be inexpedient to refuse further work.

It is noteworthy that over the past years the financial side of the construction of a new ship has been the main reason for criticism. This is primarily due to the constant increase in the final cost of building the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford. Prior to construction, in 2008, the cost of the leading aircraft carrier was estimated at about 8 billion dollars. After two years, it increased to over 10 over billions. In 2012, the ship’s price has exceeded 12 billion. By now, the cost of building Gerald R. Ford is estimated at about 14 billion dollars.

The total cost of the ship significantly exceeded the estimated, which was the reason for the relevant statements and recommendations. For example, the Accounts Administration of the US Congress recommended that the naval forces and the shipbuilding industry reconsider the implementation of the new aircraft carrier construction program. The Pentagon was advised to wait until the industry mastered the new technologies and completed the fine-tuning of the problematic systems. Otherwise, a further increase in the cost of ships cannot be ruled out.

The Pentagon is planning to build an 10 aircraft carrier of a new project. The lead ship "Gerald R. Ford" is scheduled to be commissioned in the 2016 year. The first serial aircraft carrier "John F. Kennedy", according to current plans, will join the combat strength of the Navy at the end of this decade. The tenth ship will begin service in the late fifties.

Overall, the report, excerpts from which were published by The Boston Globe, only shows that the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft construction project (CVN-78) is not much different from previous similar programs. Construction of a ship with several previously unused systems was expectedly proved to be a long, expensive and difficult task. How successfully American shipbuilders cope with the problems identified can be found out in about a year or one and a half, when the deadlines for completing the construction are suitable and the tests of the lead ship of the new project start.

On the materials of the sites:
http://bostonglobe.com/
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
http://vz.ru/
http://globalsecurity.org/
Author:
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 31231
    31231 14 January 2014 09: 47
    +13
    Twice the cost of an aircraft carrier will increase. It’s like America, here Tolya Serdyukov is a small fish. This is a shark business.
    1. Igorboss16
      Igorboss16 14 January 2014 12: 20
      +8
      What good news, if that goes on, then he will spend most of the service in the dock for repairs and not induce crap in the Middle East
      1. 31231
        31231 14 January 2014 14: 23
        +2
        It’s hard for them now. Sequestration. If they still cut through the lobby at the defense industry, they have to cut back on operating expenses.
        1. sledgehammer102
          sledgehammer102 14 January 2014 16: 44
          +3
          Work on the creation of the ship has been carried out at the Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News since 2005 of the year.
          The commissioning is planned in the year 2016. In total, it takes 10 years to build an aircraft carrier - and this is for a country that has colossal experience in creating such ships.


          Do you still want a Russian aircraft carrier here and now?

          Prior to the start of construction, in 2008, the cost of the lead aircraft carrier was estimated at approximately 8 billion dollars ...... To date, the cost of construction of the Gerald R. Ford is estimated at approximately 14 billion dollars ...... The total cost of the ship is significantly exceeded the estimated, which was the reason for the relevant statements and recommendations.


          The situation with the Olympics in Sochi is one to one. Only for some reason, we are dismissed, start up business and reprimand, make noise on blogs, etc., and in the USA they "give recommendations" ...

          Still Believe in Transparency Ratings?
  2. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 14 January 2014 10: 08
    +8
    During battles on the site over the need for aircraft carriers, this ship was repeatedly cited as an example as an example of American super technologies. In turn, I repeatedly cited as an example precisely its absolute unpreparedness. Everything is sleek in the article, the reality is worse. The same catapult in real life does not exist at all, there is not even a working prototype and this is the situation with many systems. In general, it seems that the situation is worse than with f35 or Zamvolt. The case was riveted, and the rest will be completed on the go, and constantly remodeling and simplifying.
    1. Rustam
      Rustam 14 January 2014 10: 33
      +14
      author The first problems of the aircraft carrier "Gerald R. Ford"
      The construction of a ship with several previously unused systems was expected to be a long, expensive and complicated undertaking.


      And how did you want something, because there are the latest systems

      -Two new reactors designed for the USS Gerald R. Ford are capable of producing 250% more electricity than the power plant of a previous generation aircraft carrier

      -The add-on is equipped with the latest radar systems (fixed radars with phased array antennas and dual-band radars).

      -steam catapults replaced by electromagnetic, installed new turboelectric air finishers. This allowed not only to increase the maximum possible speed of launch and reception of aircraft by 25%, but also to make this process more manageable, reducing the load on aircraft and pilots. The aircraft carrier is adapted to work with both manned and unmanned aerial vehicles.




      We are such problems for us and such a ship with new technologies and systems, and they will solve any problems and fine-tuning of the ship and systems quite quickly. The main thing is that we have these new systems, unfortunately, we don’t have

      But for those who dream of a utopia in the form of a new aircraft carrier without catapults and drills and other systems that will finally bury the Navy’s budget, first you need to create all this and then dream about a new aircraft carrier, and first of all arrange the construction of ships of ordinary classes. on long-term construction near the wall of the NE the picture is clear, there’s no time for aircraft carriers

    2. iwind
      iwind 14 January 2014 10: 49
      +10
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Everything is sleek in the article, the reality is worse. The same catapult in real life does not exist at all, there is not even a working prototype and this is the situation with many systems.

      Does not exist since 2010 ...

      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      the situation is worse than with f35



      And the fact that the introduction of new systems is associated with risks, well, it doesn’t happen in another way. Even when we take brand new honey. technique, always something goes wrong.
      1. Rustam
        Rustam 14 January 2014 10: 55
        +5
        Even when we take brand new honey. technique, always something goes wrong.


        There’s a fresh example of the SU-35S — to finish all tests and refinements only in 2015
      2. Russ69
        Russ69 14 January 2014 12: 17
        +7
        Quote: iwind
        And the fact that the introduction of new systems is associated with risks, well, it doesn’t happen in another way.

        But any delay and running-in of new systems with us causes a flurry of criticism, with the obligatory mention of Serdyukov and GDP ...
        1. Evgeny_Lev
          Evgeny_Lev 14 January 2014 12: 24
          +5
          fellow

          Yes. Do not feed bread.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Rustam
          Rustam 14 January 2014 15: 53
          +4
          russ69 But any delay and running-in of new systems with us causes a flurry of criticism


          Here you need to look and separate the flies from cutlets. There are those who really offer new solutions, new products and they need a little time to run them in and finish (at their own expense or the money of export customers), and most importantly they have test samples, but this is rare us.

          Basically, gentlemen, in order to get money on the GOZ and niokra, they say A (knowing that B is not near to see in the near future) instead of working and making money, they scroll the loot in banks, put them on fake accounts, and then oh beckoning didn’t get it from me, let me cry and sob some they are poor, non-random, and the Moscow Region does not give money (enticing the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and State money)

          Examples

          the bad-concern Vega used to spend 5 billion rubles at the time, without creating anything revolutionary, all this time while he was spending state money the Tipchak complex was created on the basis of the outdated Bee complex - although the money was allocated to create the latest designs at the blah level of the USA and Israel .

          a good LENINGRAD SHIPBUILDING PLANT “PELLA generally lately has been rushing up like none of the shipbuilding enterprises of Russia. And without any OSK

          The Navy launched itself order from Pella since 2009, seeing how the guys are developing and working, receiving worldwide appreciation and orders from both our and Western customers) -For the Navy in 2013, about 9 units were produced (with imported filling) -other for export and our civil to customers

          Pelles slowly, polygon by their work received worldwide renown and that pleases the Navy places orders

          Yes, at their own expense (and not at the expense of the state) they are building a new shipyard near Peter the Navy has already placed a preliminary order for the future shipyard for the construction of 4 tugboats in the ocean zone - God forbid, they will start building more serious boats for the Navy :)

          PS- There are very few such companies in our country that want and can work, rather than whining and crying and begging for more money from the state

      3. rebel
        rebel April 8 2014 18: 33
        0
        Thanks for the vidyuhi! I wonder who is minus this post ?? The one who does not believe his eyes?) Paradox!
  3. Evgeny_Lev
    Evgeny_Lev 14 January 2014 10: 25
    +1
    Strange, the plane (F-35) has not been brought to mind for how many years, but with this "barge", like everything is clear and everything will be ok?
    What is called, "we'll see."
  4. moremansf
    moremansf 14 January 2014 11: 07
    +2
    Well, in the field of military shipbuilding we do not have only problems, as the great classic said: - "Not everything is calm in the Danish kingdom ...".
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 14 January 2014 11: 31
      +4
      Quote: moremansf
      Well, in the field of military shipbuilding, we do not have only problems

      These problems have been and will always be with everyone. Something I can’t hear here screams and indignation from opponents, in defense of the US Navy, And how did they make noise about our ships being launched. Where are you ??? The fact that the United States is a lover of bluffing and overstatement in terms of its performance characteristics is not a secret for anyone, but we have everything exactly the opposite and vice versa. So wait and see what this device is capable of.
  5. sergant89
    sergant89 14 January 2014 11: 36
    +10
    They have problems, but we have no problems at all, because there is no aircraft carrier either, I know that right now they are throwing a bunch of minuses, but we still don’t have anything like that on paper. request
  6. Nayhas
    Nayhas 14 January 2014 11: 43
    +1
    Of particular concern are at least four ship systems: specialists for some reasons do not have data on their reliability.

    Pentagon specialists have no data on the reliability of systems, which causes them concern. The lack of these data among specialists does not mean that the indicated ship systems are "pioneer crafts". There may be several reasons why the specialists did not receive them, but there are two main ones. For reasons of bureaucracy in the Pentagon (for anyone there is a problem with it), because of the unavailability of this data (the clerks did not have time to bring all the data into a single readable format understandable for the aforementioned specialists). Absolutely regardless of the state of the ship systems listed in the report, data on their reliability should have arrived at the disposal of the addressee making the request on time. There is a huge doubt about the option why these data were not provided (meaning of the article), which is due to the fact that they were unreliable and did not provide them. It is nonsense. The reliability of this or that system is determined by a calculation and empirical method, the result is reduced to a certain table in which many, many numbers are indicated, these numbers are needed by "Pentagon specialists" to assess the reliability of the system. Those. the data of the "tsifiri" is at the firm of the developer and manufacturer of the system, the deliberate concealment of this data is simply unthinkable, therefore, it is impossible to say that the catapult, aircraft lifts, aerofinishers and radar do not work as needed.
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 14 January 2014 12: 23
      +2
      Yes, we are tasteful, the barge is ready, the clerk Bill is to blame for everything, he sent it by regular mail, but you understand that they are on the verge of bankruptcy and therefore works very badly.


      F-35 for the same reason can’t finish it.
      1. Saboteur
        Saboteur 15 January 2014 11: 54
        +1
        Have already finished 100 pieces, but from the Russian Federation?
      2. Saboteur
        Saboteur 15 January 2014 11: 54
        0
        Have already finished 100 pieces, but from the Russian Federation?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  7. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 14 January 2014 12: 07
    +2
    some shortcomings of the new ship are noted, which cause military concern
    "Specialists" poked at the obvious thin places, and the journalists immediately raised a cry - "where it is thin there and can break, ugly, ugly, all the polymers have slept through". Immediately, the "experts" took up what they loved.
    The publication of excerpts ... provoked the expected reaction in the community of experts and interested in naval topics ... disputes resumed ... As before, the parties stand on their positions and reinforce their views with relevant facts.
    Everything in business is shorter. Only Rear Admiral T. Moore "remains optimistic." Although it was unlikely that he knew better on the spot. What a Rear Admiral can understand in the construction of aircraft carriers. There is the press and "experts and interested" all argue and do not agree, but here is some kind of aircraft carrier builder.
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 14 January 2014 12: 27
      0
      Those. by default, rear admiral is a super truthful dude who just can’t lie to cover his opera?
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 14 January 2014 12: 56
        +2
        Why should he lie to him?
        the current debate over the newest American aircraft carrier after the statements of Rear Admiral T. Moore becomes simply meaningless ... the construction of a new aircraft carrier, like other projects with a great reserve for the future, naturally and expectedly did not go without problems ... for the remaining two years, the American Navy and shipbuilding can have time ... bring to mind the problematic systems of an aircraft carrier
        That's all. Gorshkov, how many years has stood at the completion wall, everyone knows why. No one pulls hair from the priests, it makes no sense. When it is ready then it will be.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 14 January 2014 16: 02
          +1
          Yes, you sho? Not only they tear out, but also beat their heads against the wall in hysteria. Mace - one rocket did not fly - all prosralipomers. Amers AB without basic systems - all the rules, will bring.
  8. AVV
    AVV 14 January 2014 12: 25
    +1
    Quote: 1c-inform-city
    During battles on the site over the need for aircraft carriers, this ship was repeatedly cited as an example as an example of American super technologies. In turn, I repeatedly cited as an example precisely its absolute unpreparedness. Everything is sleek in the article, the reality is worse. The same catapult in real life does not exist at all, there is not even a working prototype and this is the situation with many systems. In general, it seems that the situation is worse than with f35 or Zamvolt. The case was riveted, and the rest will be completed on the go, and constantly remodeling and simplifying.

    What America brought the crisis to, the Pentagon’s budget has declined, and now it’s becoming difficult to steal there, but because everything comes in raw, this is the result !!!
  9. Alikovo
    Alikovo 14 January 2014 13: 03
    0
    it would be great if on one good day a ship worth several billion goes under water.
  10. spirit
    spirit 14 January 2014 13: 04
    +1
    Continuous problems)) !! and the Chinese lads probably work hard to steal at least half of these problems, do not spare no effort not means smile
  11. pRofF
    pRofF 14 January 2014 13: 08
    0
    What can I say - expected. When developing everything new, there are always a bunch of problems. Recall our first atomarines - the same K-19.
    However, this in no way removes the question of the cost of such a ship from the agenda. What I mean is: if the Yankees with a budget would have everything in openwork - that is, at the level of the 90s, when there was money for everything, then the construction of such a monster would still be understandable. But now, when the money is squeezed and it is clear that the serial construction of "Fords" is extremely unlikely - why fence a vegetable garden? Just for the sake of developing new technologies? Against the background of aggravated relations with China, this is somehow wasteful. It's easier to invest in Zumwalty (although there are too many questions here too ...), or - which is quite simple - to set up an atomarin for this money.
    Maybe I'm wrong in something, so I'm waiting for the opinions of experts.

    Sincerely, Egor.
  12. bvi1965
    bvi1965 14 January 2014 13: 14
    0
    Quote: Igorboss16
    What good news, if that goes on, then he will spend most of the service in the dock for repairs and not induce crap in the Middle East


    And they (aircraft carriers), and without current problems, spent most of their time there. Or am I mistaken?
  13. Technologist
    Technologist 14 January 2014 17: 04
    +1
    My opinion is normal, everything new requires improvements and improvements.
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 14 January 2014 21: 35
    +4
    In the photo in the article - the French "Charles de Gaulle", however ... winked
    1. rebel
      rebel April 8 2014 18: 34
      0
      Really de Gaulle) Just wanted to write
  16. engineer74
    engineer74 14 January 2014 23: 26
    +4
    Freedom Casey Fury !!! angry and employment ...
    (Casey Fury - painter, burned the Miami nuclear submarine on 23.05.2012)
  17. skif33
    skif33 26 January 2014 09: 32
    0
    Quote: Rurikovich
    In the photo in the article - the French "Charles de Gaulle", however ...

    Who cares??? This article is being published for the third time with minor changes. repeat