Gerald R. Ford Class CVN

Firefinder said:
the Cats cause the Cats drain steam pressure like no ones business.
Click to expand...
This part right here can't be stressed enough. On the Essex class ships, their normal top speed post SCB-27C/125 overhauls, was 31 knots. During flight operations, that dropped to 19 knots because the cats used so much steam to deliver a full power cat shot. Same for the Midway class. They went from 31-33 knots all the way down to 23 knots during flight operations. Every class of carrier using steam cats that the Navy has losses speed during flight operations. Even the Nimitz class sees a drop in their top speed (though those exact figures are classified, I've read that they go from mid 30ish knots down to about 27 knots). Deleting things like EMALS to "de-risk" the ship is such a major change that you're basically starting the design over from scratch
 
And they wouldn't have removed the EM cats anyway. I've read the Congressional documents, the first ship was always supposed to get the EM cats.

Compared to the baseline Nimitz-class design, CVNX-1 was to require 300 to 500
fewer sailors to operate and would feature an entirely new and less expensive nuclear
reactor plant, a new electrical distribution system, and an electromagnetic (as opposed to
steam-powered) aircraft catapult system. In large part because of the reduction in crew
size, CVNX-1 was projected to have a lower life-cycle operation and support (O&S) cost
than the baseline Nimitz-class design. CVNX-1 was to cost $2.54 billion to develop and
$7.48 billion to procure, giving it a total acquisition cost of $10.02 billion.
Click to expand...
 
As a Brit stuck with two catapultless helicopter carriers this thread is fascinating.
We were told we had to stick with ski jump ships unless we followed France and built a nuke carrier or waited until EMALS could be fitted.
Judging by the saga of the Ford we might have been right to stick with the ski jumps.
 
The plan to transition to the new Carrier design was never finalized, there were two general options looked at. The first used two carriers, CVNX-1 and CVNX-2. CVNX-1 would have been a repeat of CVN-77 except for having EMALS and the new island design. CVNX-2 would introduce the new hull/new internal layout from the keel up. So X-1 would need changes from -77 to support EMALS, new reactors and the new island, but would leave the new elevators, etc to X-2. The second option would have taken 3 carriers to change. X-1 and X-2 would have the new reactor in the old hull, X-1 would have steam cats and X-2 would have EMALS along with the new island (so essentially X-1 from above), and X-3 would be the fully new design. There's arguments for and against both approaches, and there's a lot of details not covered by that little overview.

The best way to reduce the EMALS, elevator, and AAG problems was to have them in testing on land a lot sooner. Land testing can't match the shipboard environment well enough to eliminate issues, but it can help a lot if done properly. Land testing of EMALS didn't start until the first ship was already 18 months into construction, and it wasn't testing a configuration matching the shipboard hardware until after CVN-78 was already in the water. That's a great recipe for finding out how badly you messed up, rather than catching problems before they start.
 
uk 75 said:
As a Brit stuck with two catapultless helicopter carriers this thread is fascinating.
We were told we had to stick with ski jump ships unless we followed France and built a nuke carrier or waited until EMALS could be fitted.
Judging by the saga of the Ford we might have been right to stick with the ski jumps.
Click to expand...
yes, the QE class doesn't natively generate any steam, so you'd have to get very creative to make enough steam to power the cats.
 
Moose said:
The plan to transition to the new Carrier design was never finalized, there were two general options looked at. The first used two carriers, CVNX-1 and CVNX-2. CVNX-1 would have been a repeat of CVN-77 except for having EMALS and the new island design. CVNX-2 would introduce the new hull/new internal layout from the keel up. So X-1 would need changes from -77 to support EMALS, new reactors and the new island, but would leave the new elevators, etc to X-2. The second option would have taken 3 carriers to change. X-1 and X-2 would have the new reactor in the old hull, X-1 would have steam cats and X-2 would have EMALS along with the new island (so essentially X-1 from above), and X-3 would be the fully new design. There's arguments for and against both approaches, and there's a lot of details not covered by that little overview.

The best way to reduce the EMALS, elevator, and AAG problems was to have them in testing on land a lot sooner. Land testing can't match the shipboard environment well enough to eliminate issues, but it can help a lot if done properly. Land testing of EMALS didn't start until the first ship was already 18 months into construction, and it wasn't testing a configuration matching the shipboard hardware until after CVN-78 was already in the water. That's a great recipe for finding out how badly you messed up, rather than catching problems before they start.
Click to expand...
EMALS, AAG and AWE are maturing, it will be interesting to see sortie rates after CVN-78's latest deployment is completed. For new tech, begin land testing sooner at least for the systems integration aspects then get them out to sea.
 
Unfortunately, Ford deploying again with no F-35Cs. Must need to complete complete EMALS and AAGS certifications?
 
Hydroman said:
Unfortunately, Ford deploying again with no F-35Cs. Must need to complete complete EMALS and AAGS certifications?
Click to expand...

No, Ford hasn't got the mods needed to support the F-35 (meaning shops, secure workspaces for certain equipment, etc.). Would you prefer they stuck her back in a maintenance availability early?
 
Scott Kenny said:
yes, the QE class doesn't natively generate any steam, so you'd have to get very creative to make enough steam to power the cats.
Click to expand...

The QE are powered by gas turbine right ? The exhaust gases from it should be hot enough for a steam generator.
Just like in sas and steam power station , the exhaust gases of the gas turbine are used to drive steam turbines.
 
Anderman said:
The QE are powered by gas turbine right ? The exhaust gases from it should be hot enough for a steam generator.
Just like in sas and steam power station , the exhaust gases of the gas turbine are used to drive steam turbines.
Click to expand...

Heat recovery steam generators are very large compared to gas turbines. And they don't generate a ton of energy/steam (especially as the turbines themselves get more efficient). The general consensus was that the only way to power a steam cat on a GT ship is a separate boiler.
 
sferrin said:
If only it had nuclear escort to keep pace.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. It only doing bout 20 knots since she was bout 1600 miles from Isreal being around Sadrinia and took 3 days to get there. Which is an average speed of bouts 20 knots. Which is well within the endurance of the Burkes and Ticos following her.

That just how spread out task force formations are these days. The escorts are welll over 20 miles aways well outside of the Sat FOV.
 
On the fourth she was in the Ionian Sea on exercises with the Italians, then she headed west. On the 5th USNS Laramie sortied to UNREP the group. OSINT accounts clocked her averaging about 25 kts Sunday, and Tuesday she arrived on station. Not too bad, even with escorts powered by dino juice.
 
Forest Green said:
warontherocks.com

Carrier Strike Groups Should Be Ready to Go Dark in Conflict - War on the Rocks

The multiple “Taiwan war” games now being fought at think tanks and universities across the United States share something in common: A Chinese missile
warontherocks.com
Click to expand...
Not exactly new:

bsky.app

Zach (@thrustwr.bsky.social)

How do you hide a Carrier Battle Group? EMCON and speed.
bsky.app bsky.app

bsky.app

Zach (@thrustwr.bsky.social)

Some more ASW deception exercises, from HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT: The U.S. Navy and Dispersed Operations under EMCON, 1956-1972 https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1533&context=nwc-review
bsky.app bsky.app

 
Firefinder said:
No it doesn't. It only doing bout 20 knots since she was bout 1600 miles from Isreal being around Sadrinia and took 3 days to get there. Which is an average speed of bouts 20 knots. Which is well within the endurance of the Burkes and Ticos following her.

That just how spread out task force formations are these days. The escorts are welll over 20 miles aways well outside of the Sat FOV.
Click to expand...
Yep... in 1986-87 aboard CV-61 Ranger, outside of photo ops and UNREP the only other ships we saw on the high seas were the plane guard frigate and sometimes a glimpse of a merchant ship that we knew was a Soviet "snooper" ship.
 
sferrin said:
Complete propaganda. I don't get why they go through this kind of exercise. It's almost comical.
Click to expand...

It might make sense if the terminal homing sensors on their weapons are looking for a specific reflection or silhouette, but I agree it seems a bit much.
 
DOT&E's 2023 annual report

Ford IOT&E extended through FY-27, flight system reliability challenges persist

Ford IOT&E extended through FY-27, flight system reliability challenges persist | InsideDefense.com

Initial operational test and evaluation for the Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) aircraft carrier is expected to stretch through fiscal year 2027, according to an annual report from the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester, which points to persistent reliability challenges for the vessel’s flight operations...
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
Cordy said:
DOT&E's 2023 annual report

Ford IOT&E extended through FY-27, flight system reliability challenges persist

Ford IOT&E extended through FY-27, flight system reliability challenges persist | InsideDefense.com

Initial operational test and evaluation for the Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) aircraft carrier is expected to stretch through fiscal year 2027, according to an annual report from the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester, which points to persistent reliability challenges for the vessel’s flight operations...
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
Click to expand...
In other words, normal behavior for the first-in-class ship with a lot of new technologies in it.
 
What is the estimated 'maintenance' turn-around time on something like this Carrier? Years? Just wondering how fast it could be back in action, if needed pronto. Wait a second, it's going to be in test & evaluation thru 2027!
 
Flogger15 said:
What is the estimated 'maintenance' turn-around time on something like this Carrier? Years? Just wondering how fast it could be back in action, if needed pronto. Wait a second, it's going to be in test & evaluation thru 2027!
Click to expand...
Unless they have a need to put it into a yard, the material condition of the ship probably would support a fast turnaround on the order of several months. But the crew just finished a very extended deployment, it would take a real deal emergency for the Navy to send them out again without adequate time to rest and recover.
 
Flogger15 said:
What is the estimated 'maintenance' turn-around time on something like this Carrier? Years? Just wondering how fast it could be back in action, if needed pronto. Wait a second, it's going to be in test & evaluation thru 2027!
Click to expand...
The ship? It could be redeployed almost immediately if needed. That's the beauty of an essentially brand new ship. The crew, on the other hand? They're gonna need at least several months to rest and spend time with their families. And to integrate replacements as some of the crew that was onboard during the last deployment will have rotated off to attend various schools, got assigned to training billets, got out of the Navy, or simply moved on to other jobs within the Navy. So realistically, probably 6 months from the time she got in to be redeployed. In an absolutely dire emergency, they could probably get underway within a few weeks (basically just enough time to put anything that's been taken apart back together).
 
So, it would be fair game for deployment even while still in testing/evaluation phase? What an awesome structure, naval engineering on this scale. with today's wizardry of power, electronics and weaponry, is almost beyond imagination.
 
Flogger15 said:
So, it would be fair game for deployment even while still in testing/evaluation phase? What an awesome structure, naval engineering on this scale. with today's wizardry of power, electronics and weaponry, is almost beyond imagination.
Click to expand...
She literally just finished an 8 month long deployment to the Mediterranean and Red Sea. And before that deployed for 2 months as part of NATO exercises. The "Test and Evaluation" period is just because she's the first ship of an entirely new class (the first new class of Aircraft Carrier in the USN since the 1970s). The Navy is still learning what she does and does not do well. And the best way to do that is by deploying her. Her first two deployment were meant to be fairly easy "showing the flag" deployments. But her last one turned into a combat deployment, and according to her fact sheet, she performed damn near perfectly, launching in excess of 10,000 sorties from her fight deck
 
SSgtC said:
But her last one turned into a combat deployment, and according to her fact sheet, she performed damn near perfectly, launching in excess of 10,000 sorties from her fight deck
Click to expand...
And from what I can find?

All the gear that you can find comments lampbasting like the EMALS and Elevators worked better and more reliably then the older carriers steam and hydro ones.

Which isn't to shabby consider how much screeching there been on those.
 
But what would carrier deployments and maintenance schedules look like in a long, world war against a true peer opponent?

1. How long would a carrier stay deployed? What are things that would absolutely require at least a port call? How often?

2.when deployments ends, given it's a do or die world war, would the crew even rest more than a few weeks during some maintenance?

3. How many such wartime prolonged deployments would be made before a longer maintennace period is required. Would it rquire a dry dock? For how long?
 
Scott Kenny said:
In other words, normal behavior for the first-in-class ship with a lot of new technologies in it.
Click to expand...
A sad commentary on the performance of the Navy that it takes 10 years from Ford commissioning to completing its IOT&E, WWII war with Japan lasted less than 4 years.
 
totoro said:
But what would carrier deployments and maintenance schedules look like in a long, world war against a true peer opponent?

1. How long would a carrier stay deployed? What are things that would absolutely require at least a port call? How often?

2.when deployments ends, given it's a do or die world war, would the crew even rest more than a few weeks during some maintenance?

3. How many such wartime prolonged deployments would be made before a longer maintennace period is required. Would it rquire a dry dock? For how long?
Click to expand...

The only peer is China, and any full scale naval engagement probably gets resolved in a couple months or weeks militarily, even if the conflict doesn’t end politically. The CSIS wargame generally exhausted the PLAN and 7th fleet inside a three week interval.
 
Cordy said:
A sad commentary on the performance of the Navy that it takes 10 years from Ford commissioning to completing its IOT&E, WWII war with Japan lasted less than 4 years.
Click to expand...
No its not.

It generally took tge USN 10 years to work out all the kinks for modern surface vesssels dating back to the Maine.

When in peace the Navy general takes its time, triple checking everything on the first Ship of Class. Especially when its was to be paragram shifting design.

Only during wartime does the navy take short cuts and that often result in entire LINES of class suffering issues. Like how they did with the North Carolina class Battleship, didn't double check the Props, resulting in all 9 other fast battleships suffering from similar vibration issues at high speed. Which is fine in wartime, but resulted in two classes instantly being decom after the war with less then 6 years of service.

Which was a major snafu that tge Navy still trying to push off. Trashing 6, technically 9, brand new capital ships due to avoid able reason is not a good look.


So when the navy has time to triple check everything.

They Triple check everything with a fine tooth high magnificent comb/magnifying hlass combo.

Like the USS Nimitzs? Was in IOTE till the damn 90s, the Forestall til the 70s and tge Kitty Hawks til the late 80s.

Hell the Burke got out of it in the early 2000s

This been par for course.


And results in a superior longer lasting product
 
Firefinder said:
No its not.

It generally took tge USN 10 years to work out all the kinks for modern surface vesssels dating back to the Maine.

When in peace the Navy general takes its time, triple checking everything on the first Ship of Class. Especially when its was to be paragram shifting design.

Only during wartime does the navy take short cuts and that often result in entire LINES of class suffering issues. Like how they did with the North Carolina class Battleship, didn't double check the Props, resulting in all 9 other fast battleships suffering from similar vibration issues at high speed. Which is fine in wartime, but resulted in two classes instantly being decom after the war with less then 6 years of service.

Which was a major snafu that tge Navy still trying to push off. Trashing 6, technically 9, brand new capital ships due to avoid able reason is not a good look.


So when the navy has time to triple check everything.

They Triple check everything with a fine tooth high magnificent comb/magnifying hlass combo.

Like the USS Nimitzs? Was in IOTE till the damn 90s, the Forestall til the 70s and tge Kitty Hawks til the late 80s.

Hell the Burke got out of it in the early 2000s

This been par for course.


And results in a superior longer lasting product
Click to expand...
Honestly, I've given up trying to argue with @Cordy about the Ford class. The guy has such a hate boner for them, it's just pointless to even try anymore
 
totoro said:
But what would carrier deployments and maintenance schedules look like in a long, world war against a true peer opponent?

1. How long would a carrier stay deployed? What are things that would absolutely require at least a port call? How often?

2.when deployments ends, given it's a do or die world war, would the crew even rest more than a few weeks during some maintenance?

3. How many such wartime prolonged deployments would be made before a longer maintennace period is required. Would it rquire a dry dock? For how long?
Click to expand...
Even in WW2, carriers got a port call about every 3-6 weeks. Mostly to refill their food stores, though also ammunition. Yes, you can UNREP food and ammo, but you don't want to if you can avoid it.

Crew would likely get at least 1wk completely off before going back to work on refit. The submarines actually got almost a full month off on return to port, and were basically on a 6 weeks at sea, 6 weeks in port rotation for the entire war.

I don't believe any active shooting period would last more than 6 months, then there'd be a long period of rearming and relatively low intensity conflict before another period of very intense shooting.

Let's talk schedules and cycles for a second. The US has 11 carriers right now, maybe 12 when CVN79 hits the water. 4 are underway at any given time. 4 more are in work-ups getting ready to go underway, and are the easy surge capability. The last 4 are in shipyards for work after coming back from their last underway. These cycles are normally staggered out so that any one base that homeports more than one carrier usually doesn't have both/all carriers home. (If you live in San Diego when two carriers are in at 32nd St, my condolences)
 
CVN-65 (my old ship) was built, quick into service, first nuke carrier, had right reactors and served the US for 51 years. The Big E was built to shock the Soviet Union (which it did). We left PSNS in Mar 1982 for NAS Alameda, completed all work-ups and qualifications then a nearly nine month West Pac setting sail on 9/1/1982, pretty damn good.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom