Gerald R. Ford Class CVN

[fredymac]

I'm placing this video here as the first segment deals with the AAG and the decision to incorporate it into Ford, Kennedy, and Enterprise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpNwpvslMig

 

[NeilChapman]

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/15/aircraft-carrier-ford-conduct-builders-trials-next-month

 

[fredymac]

Short blurb about JPALS. Apparently Raytheon is working on a $250M budget through the Navy to implement the system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNJyr0FBZ1k

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/carrier-ford-sails-this-week-future-destroyer-rfp-2020/

 

[sferrin]

New picture.

 

[seruriermarshal]

;D

 

[fredymac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0_IgnfE5O0

 

[sferrin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDx3llZxdTE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwbJ35qypM

 

[NeilChapman]

Builders sea trials highlights. Good stuff ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_AmTOak0mc

 

[fredymac]

Extended 15 minute review of sea trials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvWhAVnec20

 

[Arjen]

Spotted in Time Magazine's interview with President Donald J Trump:

On the future USS Ford-class carriers

You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air."

It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

Time to start cranking out those steam catapults again?
More here: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/trump-all-future-us-navy-carriers-will-use-goddamned-steam-20611

While the EMALS—which is brand-new technology base on a powerful linear induction motor (analogies to railguns are spurious)—has had some teething issues in the past, the Navy has fixed the problems with the new catapults. Indeed, Gerald R. Ford was out at sea this April during builder’s trials, which included tests on the EMALS system. The Navy has scheduled test launching Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets at sea onboard the giant vessel this year.

The EMALS will soon be operational onboard the future USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which is scheduled to be commissioned later this year. Moreover, the Navy has already started work on building EMALS catapults for follow-on vessels John F. Kennedy and Enterprise. The Ford-class design would have to be completely, extensively—not to mention expensively—redesigned to accommodate a steam catapult. Moreover, the Mk-13 steam catapults found onboard the Nimitz-class carriers are long out of production. Thus, the Navy would have to invest billions to develop a new steam catapult—especially if the president insists such a catapult utilize analog rather then digital technology.

Longer term, the EMALS and the Advanced Arresting Gear are necessary investments for the Navy. The carrier air wing of the future is likely to be more diverse in terms of aircraft sizes and the EMALS allows for much more precise control of launch weights. It should also significantly reduce the wear and tear on aircraft once the bugs are worked out.


The bottom line is that EMALS is the right technology for the future of the carrier.

 

[sferrin]

Spotted in Time Magazine's interview with President Donald J Trump:

On the future USS Ford-class carriers

You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air."

It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

Time to start cranking out those steam catapults again?
More here: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/trump-all-future-us-navy-carriers-will-use-goddamned-steam-20611

While the EMALS—which is brand-new technology base on a powerful linear induction motor (analogies to railguns are spurious)—has had some teething issues in the past, the Navy has fixed the problems with the new catapults. Indeed, Gerald R. Ford was out at sea this April during builder’s trials, which included tests on the EMALS system. The Navy has scheduled test launching Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets at sea onboard the giant vessel this year.

The EMALS will soon be operational onboard the future USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which is scheduled to be commissioned later this year. Moreover, the Navy has already started work on building EMALS catapults for follow-on vessels John F. Kennedy and Enterprise. The Ford-class design would have to be completely, extensively—not to mention expensively—redesigned to accommodate a steam catapult. Moreover, the Mk-13 steam catapults found onboard the Nimitz-class carriers are long out of production. Thus, the Navy would have to invest billions to develop a new steam catapult—especially if the president insists such a catapult utilize analog rather then digital technology.

Longer term, the EMALS and the Advanced Arresting Gear are necessary investments for the Navy. The carrier air wing of the future is likely to be more diverse in terms of aircraft sizes and the EMALS allows for much more precise control of launch weights. It should also significantly reduce the wear and tear on aircraft once the bugs are worked out.


The bottom line is that EMALS is the right technology for the future of the carrier.

Not sure why this is even getting coverage. Just Trump being Trump. As soon as anybody with half a clue brings him up to speed he'll be on the EMALS train, just like with the F-35.

 

[Jeb]

Oh, even better, it'll be working because he cracked the whip. : Just like how he forced cost reductions on the F-35.

 

[Moose]

Spotted in Time Magazine's interview with President Donald J Trump:

On the future USS Ford-class carriers

You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air."

It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

Time to start cranking out those steam catapults again?
More here: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/trump-all-future-us-navy-carriers-will-use-goddamned-steam-20611

While the EMALS—which is brand-new technology base on a powerful linear induction motor (analogies to railguns are spurious)—has had some teething issues in the past, the Navy has fixed the problems with the new catapults. Indeed, Gerald R. Ford was out at sea this April during builder’s trials, which included tests on the EMALS system. The Navy has scheduled test launching Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets at sea onboard the giant vessel this year.

The EMALS will soon be operational onboard the future USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which is scheduled to be commissioned later this year. Moreover, the Navy has already started work on building EMALS catapults for follow-on vessels John F. Kennedy and Enterprise. The Ford-class design would have to be completely, extensively—not to mention expensively—redesigned to accommodate a steam catapult. Moreover, the Mk-13 steam catapults found onboard the Nimitz-class carriers are long out of production. Thus, the Navy would have to invest billions to develop a new steam catapult—especially if the president insists such a catapult utilize analog rather then digital technology.

Longer term, the EMALS and the Advanced Arresting Gear are necessary investments for the Navy. The carrier air wing of the future is likely to be more diverse in terms of aircraft sizes and the EMALS allows for much more precise control of launch weights. It should also significantly reduce the wear and tear on aircraft once the bugs are worked out.


The bottom line is that EMALS is the right technology for the future of the carrier.

Not sure why this is even getting coverage. Just Trump being Trump. As soon as anybody with half a clue brings him up to speed he'll be on the EMALS train, just like with the F-35.

Oh, come on now.

 

[sferrin]

Oh, come on now.

Let me rephrase that. It shouldn't be getting coverage. Nobody's sticking steam catapults on the Fords. But because Trump said it it's news. Just like the "terrible" F-35 that he's now a promoter of.

 

[bring_it_on]

One can always hope that between his analysis of the EMALS vs Steam he has a bit of time left to find a decent SecNav

 

[Arjen]

In the meantime, ignore what the man says. Check.

 

[Moose]

In the meantime, ignore what the man says. Check.

Your lips to voter's ears.

 

[donnage99]

But because Trump said it it's news.

He's the president of the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. His words should make news. If anything, for the principle of democracy.

 

[sferrin]

But because Trump said it it's news.

He's the president of the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. His words should make news. If anything, for the principle of democracy.

I'm not saying a President's words shouldn't be listened to. I'm saying it's the only reason these particular words ARE being listened to. It won't change anything other than ruffling a lot of feathers (and maybe that was the ultimate intent - to once again serve notice that the President is watching).

 

[bobbymike]

But because Trump said it it's news.

He's the president of the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. His words should make news. If anything, for the principle of democracy.

I'm not saying a President's words shouldn't be listened to. I'm saying it's the only reason these particular words ARE being listened to. It won't change anything other than ruffling a lot of feathers (and maybe that was the ultimate intent - to once again serve notice that the President is watching).

And the media has turned everything to 11 so every utterance is analyzed in a hysterical "OMG no human being in the history of the world has ever said anything like this, its' Watergate, its' A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS".

 

[kaiserd]

But because Trump said it it's news.

He's the president of the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. His words should make news. If anything, for the principle of democracy.

I'm not saying a President's words shouldn't be listened to. I'm saying it's the only reason these particular words ARE being listened to. It won't change anything other than ruffling a lot of feathers (and maybe that was the ultimate intent - to once again serve notice that the President is watching).

And the media has turned everything to 11 so every utterance is analyzed in a hysterical "OMG no human being in the history of the world has ever said anything like this, its' Watergate, its' A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS".

Specifically re: this topic the media are not responsible for President Trumps ill informed (probably willfully ignorant) comments re: future catapult systems for US aircraft carriers.
Somehow I doubt he has a long involved interest in such catapult systems and the conversation he describes hardly rings true; more likely he saw a Fox News story or read an "alt-right" media article and absorbed it without critical analysis and then parrots it to try to sound sound like he's knowledgeable and engaged with the detail.
Suggestions that he has any remotely real interest or "strategy" re: these systems (trying to drive the price down?) sound more like desperate rationalisations by his natural supporters; "... he must have a plan, right?....". Any similar suggestions that any remotely recent US President had behaved in remotely a similar way (lets limit that to the context of military procurement to stay within the scope of this topic) similarly don't stand up to any rationale scrutiny.
It seems very very unlikely that the US Navy would seek to now return to traditional steam catapults and one doubts Trump will persue (or retain any interest in) this once he has been politely briefed by the US Navy.

 

[marauder2048]

The timing is too suspicious: the Navy has been negotiating for (and acquiring)
the technical data packages required to support a full and open competition for EMALS and AAG for future carriers.

The final negotiations + data package validation were due to conclude around now.

 

[fredymac]

So another thread hijacking. Oh well.

Specific to Obama and quotes on military matters:

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed."

(Obama lecturing Romney followed up by actual plans on cutting the number of aircraft carriers down to 8 or 9).

And about that:

"Defense News reported that, while no decisions had been made, the Pentagon is actively considering eliminating one of the eleven aircraft carriers the U.S. Navy currently fields as part of its 2015 fiscal year budget request. The report, which cited numerous unnamed sources “in the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill, [and] in the defense industry,” said that a carrier air wing could also be eliminated as part of the FY 2015 budget."

And

The new O-FRP (Optimized Fleet Response Plan) appears to be in keeping with one of the two strategic options U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the U.S. military had in absorbing defense cuts. Specifically, Hagel said that under option one, “we would trade away size for high-end capability … This strategic choice would result in a force that would be technologically dominant, but would be much smaller and able to go fewer places and do fewer things especially if crisis occurred at the same time in different regions of the world.” Under this plan, Hagel said the U.S. would reduce CSGs from 11 to eight or nine.

"Specifically re: this topic the media are not responsible for President Trumps ill informed (probably willfully ignorant) comments"

The media are distinctly responsible for how they treat a quote. They can either bury it when it suits their purpose (look up "corpse-man" or 57 states) or they can make it into a crisis. It reflects their internal bias. Until you prove you are capable of performing invasive telepathy from thousands of miles away, where do you get "willfully ignorant" without relying upon your personal politics?

"more likely he saw a Fox News story or read an "alt-right" media article and absorbed it without critical analysis and then parrots it to try to sound sound like he's knowledgeable and engaged with the detail."

Possible. My guess is that he talked to some crusty CPO during his visit to the Ford. As a real life builder (and not a politician), I would guess Trump has had numerous talks to site supervisors on various building projects and has an inherent bias to believing them.

"Any similar suggestions that any remotely recent US President had behaved in remotely a similar way (lets limit that to the context of military procurement to stay within the scope of this topic) similarly don't stand up to any rationale scrutiny."

If you start a fight, you can not proscribe the responses to fit your own needs. Moreover, you chose to inject "Oh no Fox News!" into your argument. As a general observation, you repeatedly invoke your projections of other people's motives into an attempt to discredit or delegitimize their arguments.

"It seems very very unlikely that the US Navy would seek to now return to traditional steam catapults and one doubts Trump will persue (or retain any interest in) this once he has been politely briefed by the US Navy"

Partially agree. I don't think he will lose interest but I would agree he will listen to opposing information.

The core of your argument is 100% political: Trump is unfit to be President. Got it. Trump isn't my ideal President but I have long given up belief in ideal men. Only those who can serve my greater interests and only as long as they continue to do so will receive my support (and this automatically means he will attract the very loathing we see from the usual people). I wish Trump had checked with project experts but I would rather deal with this kind of thing than a fait accompli cancellation of a major weapon system (eg, F-22) over the objections of service leadership.

 

[kaiserd]

So another thread hijacking. Oh well.

Specific to Obama and quotes on military matters:

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed."

(Obama lecturing Romney followed up by actual plans on cutting the number of aircraft carriers down to 8 or 9).

And about that:

"Defense News reported that, while no decisions had been made, the Pentagon is actively considering eliminating one of the eleven aircraft carriers the U.S. Navy currently fields as part of its 2015 fiscal year budget request. The report, which cited numerous unnamed sources “in the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill, [and] in the defense industry,” said that a carrier air wing could also be eliminated as part of the FY 2015 budget."

And

The new O-FRP (Optimized Fleet Response Plan) appears to be in keeping with one of the two strategic options U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the U.S. military had in absorbing defense cuts. Specifically, Hagel said that under option one, “we would trade away size for high-end capability … This strategic choice would result in a force that would be technologically dominant, but would be much smaller and able to go fewer places and do fewer things especially if crisis occurred at the same time in different regions of the world.” Under this plan, Hagel said the U.S. would reduce CSGs from 11 to eight or nine.

"Specifically re: this topic the media are not responsible for President Trumps ill informed (probably willfully ignorant) comments"

The media are distinctly responsible for how they treat a quote. They can either bury it when it suits their purpose (look up "corpse-man" or 57 states) or they can make it into a crisis. It reflects their internal bias. Until you prove you are capable of performing invasive telepathy from thousands of miles away, where do you get "willfully ignorant" without relying upon your personal politics?

"more likely he saw a Fox News story or read an "alt-right" media article and absorbed it without critical analysis and then parrots it to try to sound sound like he's knowledgeable and engaged with the detail."

Possible. My guess is that he talked to some crusty CPO during his visit to the Ford. As a real life builder (and not a politician), I would guess Trump has had numerous talks to site supervisors on various building projects and has an inherent bias to believing them.

"Any similar suggestions that any remotely recent US President had behaved in remotely a similar way (lets limit that to the context of military procurement to stay within the scope of this topic) similarly don't stand up to any rationale scrutiny."

If you start a fight, you can not proscribe the responses to fit your own needs. Moreover, you chose to inject "Oh no Fox News!" into your argument. As a general observation, you repeatedly invoke your projections of other people's motives into an attempt to discredit or delegitimize their arguments.

"It seems very very unlikely that the US Navy would seek to now return to traditional steam catapults and one doubts Trump will persue (or retain any interest in) this once he has been politely briefed by the US Navy"

Partially agree. I don't think he will lose interest but I would agree he will listen to opposing information.

The core of your argument is 100% political: Trump is unfit to be President. Got it. Trump isn't my ideal President but I have long given up belief in ideal men. Only those who can serve my greater interests and only as long as they continue to do so will receive my support (and this automatically means he will attract the very loathing we see from the usual people). I wish Trump had checked with project experts but I would rather deal with this kind of thing than a fait accompli cancellation of a major weapon system (eg, F-22) over the objections of service leadership.

I am not looking to hijack this trend or make it into a broader political discussion; as Trump commented on the subject matter it is reasonable to comment on those comments and I made sure to focus on the topic of the US carriers and there captapult system.
It appears that it is you who are looking to broaden this out to wider politics (quoting rather unrelated comments by Obama from a debate with Romney?).
I would just add that you don't know that the current president wouldn't make the type of decision that you are trying to characterise the decision to cut short the production of the F-22 to be.
Even just limited to the wider defense/ foreign policy area this president has been more erratic/ less predictable than other recent Presidents and he does not necessarily appear to consult widely or particularly value advice that may contradict his own pre-existing views (in fairness should be recognised that some of his more extreme policy positions such as re: NATO have been rolled back). Based on this pattern of decision making he could easily make such a decision that you disagree with.
And re: the F-22 decision it is worth remember that this was not an Obama campaign policy position but was proposed by his Republican Secretary of Defense (Gates) and was enthusiastically support by fellow senior Republicans like John McCain. For better or worse the decision to stop producing the F-22 was the consensus defense establishment view everywhere except at US airforce senior brass level and Obama backed his Defense Secretary.
In this context the consensus view of the defence establishment appears to be to stick with the new catapults; based on his decision making style President Trump appears more likely than previous Presidents to listen to and go with other voices (for better or worse).

 

[fredymac]

I am not looking to hijack this trend or make it into a broader political discussion; as Trump commented on the subject matter it is reasonable to comment on those comments and I made sure to focus on the topic of the US carriers and there captapult system. It appears that it is you who are looking to broaden this out to wider politics (quoting rather unrelated comments by Obama from a debate with Romney?).

Your "comments" consisted of pejorative attacks on Trump, his character, and his politics.

My response began on the topic of naval power as defined by carrier strike groups and Obama's desire to drastically curtail them as introduced through a quote. As I mentioned, you do not have the power to sanction the scope of your opposition's response in order to suit your needs.

I would just add that you don't know that the current president wouldn't make the type of decision that you are trying to characterise the decision to cut short the production of the F-22 to be.

You might say I don't know whether Trump might suddenly embark upon a worldwide apology tour. I am willing to take the risk.

Even just limited to the wider defense/ foreign policy area this president has been more erratic/ less predictable than other recent Presidents and he does not necessarily appear to consult widely or particularly value advice that may contradict his own pre-existing views (in fairness should be recognised that some of his more extreme policy positions such as re: NATO have been rolled back). Based on this pattern of decision making he could easily make such a decision that you disagree with.

Trans Pacific Partnership: dead. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: dead. NAFTA: renegotiation or dead. NATO: Merkel says:
"Chancellor Angela Merkel told her home northeastern constituents on Saturday that Germany was obligated to lift its defense spending from its current 1.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to the 2 percent agreed by NATO members at its summit in 2014. (DW)"
NATO adjustment to terrorism: "NATO moves closer to Trump priority of fighting terrorism (DW)"

I personally would like to see the US leave. I admit I might be in the minority here. I would extend bilateral defense treaties to individual European countries that asked for it contingent upon their full reciprocity in burden sharing. In the end, Europeans are certainly no longer taking the US for granted.

Border Wall: bids are coming in, surveying teams are on site.

In other words, I don't see the usual Republican stab in the back that I have come to expect from the likes of John McCain and the DC establishment. Indeed, it is the intensity of disdain and horror from the media that best informs me that Trump is still moving in the right direction.

And re: the F-22 decision it is worth remember that this was not an Obama campaign policy position but was proposed by his Republican Secretary of Defense (Gates) and was enthusiastically support by fellow senior Republicans like John McCain.

Indeed. Gates was held over precisely because Obama could see the benefits.

For better or worse the decision to stop producing the F-22 was the consensus defense establishment view everywhere except at US airforce senior brass level and Obama backed his Defense Secretary.
In this context the consensus view of the defence establishment appears to be to stick with the new catapults; based on his decision making style President Trump appears more likely than previous Presidents to listen to and go with other voices (for better or worse).

Obama naturally backed his SecDef doing what he wanted.
The way senior Air Force leadership were removed just prior to cancellation is interesting. The immediate pretext was convenient and their replacements were more than happy to go along.

 

[sferrin]

And. . .what should come as a surprise to absolutely nobody:

"General Atomics, San Diego, California, is being awarded $195,180,206 for modification 00013 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-14-C-0037) to exercise an option for the manufacture, assembly, inspection, test and checkout of the advanced arresting gear for the CVN 80 shipset, including installation and checkout spares, repairs, technical data, and drawing changes. "

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/183764/ga-wins-extra-%24195m-for-cvn_80-arresting-gear.html

 

[fredymac]

Acceptance trials underway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ux7C8veEY8

 

[VH]

She's a beauty!

 

[Archibald]

Yup, what an impressive ship. Kudos to America for building such an enormous marvel of engineering.

 

[bring_it_on]

Live Stream of the Commissioning Ceremony (also on CSPAN) - http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2017/07/21/uss-gerald-r-ford-cvn-78-commissioning-ceremony/

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://gcaptain.com/aircraft-carrier-trump-will-celebrate-still-needs-lots-of-work/

 

[Triton]

Published on Jul 22, 2017

Captain Richard McCormack weighs in after ship commissioning ceremony.

https://youtu.be/uL1aI0ykkCo

 

[Triton]

USS Gerald Ford: The latest warship to join the Navy’s fleet

Published on Jul 21, 2017

A look at some of the state-of-the-art features in the USS Gerald Ford, the latest warship to join the Navy’s impressive fleet.

https://youtu.be/8QhCK3eRgGo

 

[Triton]

USS Gerald Ford features new aircraft launch system

Published on Jul 22, 2017

Admiral John Richardson discusses ship's innovations, the Navy's readiness

https://youtu.be/6TmIGfs3zoU

 

[Triton]

Full Ceremony: USS Gerald R. Ford Commissioning

Full ceremony of the commissioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) at Naval Station Norfolk, July 22 2017. President Donald Trump was among those to speak at the event. More on the Ford aircraft carrier: http://on.wvec.com/GeraldRFord

https://youtu.be/YjwJvRChrHw

 

[Triton]

Touring the future USS Gerald R. Ford

Published on Jul 10, 2017

On Monday, members of the media got their first look at what will be the Navy's first new carrier to join the fleet since the USS George H. W. Bush in 2009.

https://youtu.be/B0bwaTv-fzo

 

[Triton]

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) Media Day at Naval Station Norfolk

Published on Jul 10, 2017

Local and National Media toured the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78 ). The Gerald R. Ford is the new line of aircraft carriers.

https://youtu.be/Ji5c0oK_xEg

 

[Triton]

CVN 78 Media Day

Published on Jul 16, 2017

Credit: Petty Officer 2nd Class Kristopher Ruiz | Date Taken: 07/10/2017
Capt Richard McCormack, commanding officer of the future USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), speaks to media outlets during Ford's media day. More than a dozen media outlets toured the ship in preparation for the ship's upcoming commissioning. (U.S. Navy video by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kristopher Ruiz)

https://youtu.be/N2Nqw2qO17k

 

[Sherman Tank]

But her EMALS