Considering the findings of the DOT&E FY2023 report consider my criticism of Ford mild as 7 years post commissioning, still relying on civilian contractor support reflecting the very high risk Navy strategy of installing untested systems (concurrency), a few highlights with some quotes taken from the report.
Advanced Arresting Gear - AAG.
The specified requirement is 16,500 mean cycles between operational mission failures (MCBOMF). During FY23, DOT&E observed AAG reliability similar to recent developmental testing (115 MCBOMF in FY21 and 460 MCBOMF in FY22). The fourth engine (so Ford already on 3rd generation installed, having had to cut out the flight deck to install new engines) would improve the reliability and availability of AAG, improve pilot boarding rate, and restore barricade redundancy. The fourth AAG engine was not installed as a cost savings measure. Additional details on AAG suitability can be found in DOT&E’s classified EFR.
Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System -EMALS
Specified requirement is 4,166 MCBOMF. During FY23, DOT&E observed EMALS reliability remained consistent with recent developmental test (460 MCBOMF in FY21 and 614 MCBOMF in FY22). Despite engineering upgrades to hardware and software, reliability has not appreciably changed from prior years and reliance on off-ship technical support remains a challenge.
Advanced Weapons Elevators -AWEs
The AWEs met operational mission needs during these underway periods, but preliminary data suggest AWE is unlikely to meet its operational availability requirement of 99.7 percent. Of note, the crew is reliant on off-ship technical support for correction of hardware and software failures. The Navy has yet to build and transfer ordnance to the flight deck at combat-representative rates
Dual Band Radar - DBR
Availability was observed to be lower than that during developmental testing. This is in part due to the operational expectation of continuous radar coverage. Reliability concerns are amplified due to the one-of-a kind nature of the DBR. The radar relies on embarked contractor support and there is uncertainty on sourcing replacement parts as the system ages. The Navy should ensure replacement parts are manufactured and available for the life of the system or develop a timeline and strategy for replacing DBR with EASR on CVN 78 to bring it in line with CVN 79’s radar configuration. Additional details on DBR suitability can be found in DOT&E’s classified EFR
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24400278/2023annual-report.pdf p.175
