USS Ford

[TheVTCGuy]

Here is a Bloomberg report stating the newest US Aircraft Carrier, the USS Ford, is not ready for combat.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/video...industry-video

This is a story that hits near and dear to my heart, as I spent a LOT of time on aircraft carriers, from the USS Saratoga, (oil powered launched in (I think) 1958, to the USS Carl Vinson, CVN-70, Nuclear powered. I also spent some time (and flying on and off) USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and USS Constellation. (CV-64).

I was following the Ford very closely, as I was interested in the next class and it’s improvements. For example, the replacement of steam catapults by the electro-magnetic system. The upgraded landing wire arrangement, even the new design of the island, providing a quarter mile more of flight deck.

The ship is fascinating to an ex Naval Aviator like myself, but it costs 13 BILLION dollars, and they are having all kinds of issues (according to Bloomberg). And to add to the argument, the increased capability of anti-Aircraft carrier weapons, like Chinas hypersonic “Carrier Killer.” Now, a CVN is heavily defended, and very hard to kill, but remember the USS Stark? And anti-ship missiles are cheap, you could fire about 1,000 of them for the price of a carrier, maybe more.

I would like to hear other Vets, especially Navy, on Carriers. Are they, as some contend, obsolete? Are they the Battleships of the 1930s, considered to be the main weapon of the Navy and quickly proven to be second-place to a newer weapon (the carrier).

I really have mixed feelings. I have over 200 traps, 2,500 flight hours and 60+ combat missions off of carriers, so feel a connection for sure, but wonder if we are mis-aiming our countries resources (again, like battleships of the 30s).

What do you guys think?

[breitlings]

I'm not sure I have any thoughts other then great post and thoughts.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by breitlings

I'm not sure I have any thoughts other then great post and thoughts.

Thank you sir.

[gmh1013]

I tried to join the Navy but was turned down because of eyesight is so bad if that counts.....i read up on it and find it highly debatable and full of pro's and cons but I think back on the Faulkland war and the eoxcet missle that cost the Brits dearly. Do we need so many? i dont think so and would be more for "space force" type weapons and if you will modern "battleships" and have 4-5 active carriers and maybe 2 in reserve. Its the dont put all your eggs into a few baskets situaton.....IMHO.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by gmh1013

I tried to join the Navy but was turned down because of eyesight is so bad if that counts.....i read up on it and find it highly debatable and full of pro's and cons but I think back on the Faulkland war and the eoxcet missle that cost the Brits dearly. Do we need so many? i dont think so and would be more for "space force" type weapons and if you will modern "battleships" and have 4-5 active carriers and maybe 2 in reserve. Its the dont put all your eggs into a few baskets situaton.....IMHO.

Many share your opinion Greg.

[GradyPhilpott]

I have the utmost confidence that the Department of the Navy will work out these problems in due course.

I'm not arguing for or against aircraft carriers, but I've read enough through the years to know that there are always those who claim that a given project will never work, only to see them successfully used in combat over the course of decades.

SF

[Beo3]

Paul - I think that you should have joined the Air Force. We do not have these worries.

Truthfully, you make a valid point. Maybe the carrier has gone the way of the battleship and is now obsolete. Being able to IFR and circumnavigate the globe, the need for mobile air power may be negligible.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Beo3

Paul - I think that you should have joined the Air Force. We do not have these worries.

Truthfully, you make a valid point. Maybe the carrier has gone the way of the battleship and is now obsolete. Being able to IFR and circumnavigate the globe, the need for mobile air power may be negligible.

Now Eddie, there is no need to insult me!!!!

Actually, I tried to become an Air Force Pilot... but I scored too high on the admittance test.... Oh, and I only needed one third of the 12,000 foot runways the Air Force guys need to take off and land. AND ANOTHER THING...

For the information of civilians, there is a huge rivalry between Navy and Air Force Pilots.... but everyone knows NAVY Pilots are FAR SUPERIOR.

[wantonebad]

It's an excellent question Paul and time will tell if your thoughts are prophetic or not. I assume that modern use of carriers would always be to be a first strike deployment weapon rather then a conventional war machine like they were in WWII. Not to mention their use for support of all kinds of endeavors, military and humanitarian all over the world. They are floating cities. But your point is well taken. If we were to go to war with a China god forbid, I don't see a carrier being able to sail close enough to China's coast to be effective.

[evsnow]

A2/AD with China is a very interesting problem. Hopefully it is something we never have to test possible solutions...

[Chewbacca]

A carrier is simply a force projection instrument today. Like the battleship was in the 20th.

Sinking a $13b boat named after a former political or national hero is the same as attacking sovereign territory, which is why nobody would ever attack or down one or risk full war. A sub or unmanned (UM), no problem. A sub loss is always an ‘accident’ and a UM air or land or marine asset can fail for any reason a nation would want to use as an excuse.

I think you’ll see new carrier numbers drop to half, and navy budgets will go to new tech, fixing the f35c program (total facepalm plane), subs, unmanned, and keeping the reserve fleet tiptop. The USA has enough floating metal, just everyone wants the newest and blow their budgets if the other branches get new toys.


Thanks for flying off boats, Paul!

[Fleetlord]

In a large scale conflict against Soviet Union / Russia / China...the Aircraft Carrier HAS unfortunately been obsolete for decades...


Soviet Adm. Sergei Gorchakov reportedly held the view that the U.S. had made a strategic miscalculation by relying on large and increasingly vulnerable aircraft carriers. The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war.

Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...carriers-52937

The new British Carriers that are coming online....are already defenseless against current Russian ASM...and they know it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7651781.html

It seems as if the warsaw pact mentality of small, fast ships that bristle with anti-ship missiles along with packs of quiet subs armed with fast torpedoes combined with shore / bomber based long range cruise missiles is the way to go instead of building huge ships that are sitting ducks.

Aircraft Carriers are awesome at projecting power against countries that have no answer for them...and there is a national pride in having them like battleships used to be, but in reality they aren't worth the trouble..

Imagine if the Iran conflict escalates and the Iranian "Navy" were to inflict serious damage or even sink the Abraham Lincoln with swarms of little boats with some missiles on them....the sad thing is that could actually happen. If anything modern naval combat has taught us that incoming anti-ship missiles are VERY hard for capitol ships to deal with.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

In a large scale conflict against Soviet Union / Russia / China...the Aircraft Carrier HAS unfortunately been obsolete for decades...


Soviet Adm. Sergei Gorchakov reportedly held the view that the U.S. had made a strategic miscalculation by relying on large and increasingly vulnerable aircraft carriers. The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war.

Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...carriers-52937

The new British Carriers that are coming online....are already defenseless against current Russian ASM...and they know it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7651781.html

It seems as if the warsaw pact mentality of small, fast ships that bristle with anti-ship missiles along with packs of quiet subs armed with fast torpedoes combined with shore / bomber based long range cruise missiles is the way to go instead of building huge ships that are sitting ducks.

Aircraft Carriers are awesome at projecting power against countries that have no answer for them...and there is a national pride in having them like battleships used to be, but in reality they aren't worth the trouble..

Imagine if the Iran conflict escalates and the Iranian "Navy" were to inflict serious damage or even sink the Abraham Lincoln with swarms of little boats with some missiles on them....the sad thing is that could actually happen. If anything modern naval combat has taught us that incoming anti-ship missiles are VERY hard for capitol ships to deal with.

Excellent post, in my opinion, sums it up perfectly.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

In a large scale conflict against Soviet Union / Russia / China...the Aircraft Carrier HAS unfortunately been obsolete for decades...


Soviet Adm. Sergei Gorchakov reportedly held the view that the U.S. had made a strategic miscalculation by relying on large and increasingly vulnerable aircraft carriers. The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war.

Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...carriers-52937

The new British Carriers that are coming online....are already defenseless against current Russian ASM...and they know it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7651781.html

It seems as if the warsaw pact mentality of small, fast ships that bristle with anti-ship missiles along with packs of quiet subs armed with fast torpedoes combined with shore / bomber based long range cruise missiles is the way to go instead of building huge ships that are sitting ducks.

Aircraft Carriers are awesome at projecting power against countries that have no answer for them...and there is a national pride in having them like battleships used to be, but in reality they aren't worth the trouble..

Imagine if the Iran conflict escalates and the Iranian "Navy" were to inflict serious damage or even sink the Abraham Lincoln with swarms of little boats with some missiles on them....the sad thing is that could actually happen. If anything modern naval combat has taught us that incoming anti-ship missiles are VERY hard for capitol ships to deal with.

Excellent post and exactly what I was referring to. The only thing I disagree with is that the Iranians could sink a CVN, in my experience I just don’t think that would happen. In Desert Storm, Sadam would have LOVED to sink a carrier, and did try, but for many reasons could not come even close. Iran does have ACMs, and probably more potential for breaking through a screen and causing damage then Iraq back in the 90s, but I just don’t think would succeed.

Now, in an all out war against, say China? That is a completely different story and really is my question. Look at the Falklands. Argentina had an aircraft carrier, an older yet completely capable Ex-US one (I think of the Independence class), but after the cruiser was sunk by a British Nuclear submarine they kept the carrier in port the entire war. Against China, or Russia, both with very capable submarine fleets and thousands of ASMs, I really wonder the points you made. The US Navy is the best supplied and trained in the world (IMHO), but against a hoard of nuclear submarines and ASMs, I honestly question how long the carriers would survive and how capable they would be.

[Abdullah71601]

It takes a lot to sink a US carrier. They are very hard targets. They tend to stay out of range of nuisance weapons, are very well screened, very well defended, and well armored in critical areas. Damage control parties are very effective and will sort casualties very quickly. No non-nuclear power will have any success taking a fleet carrier out of action.

In nuclear combat, a carrier will be out of service in minutes. But so will well defended air bases, tank divisions, and every other conventional force.

Carriers are required as long as politicians desire to meddle in other countries' business. You can't run full combat operations from 10 hours and 8 refueling pauses away, so you need a base up close. We can't get forward bases everywhere we need them, when we need them. Even if we could get a runway on a rock somewhere, the logistics level of effort to stand up an airbase takes weeks to months. Just the fuel, bombs, and defense systems to conduct air combat operations are thousands of truck loads of material. This can't be done on a temporary basis. It's a maximum effort. Whereas a carrier can simply sail over to where you need the air support.

The Ford is a problem because the Navy thought they could complete the R&D while the ship was under construction. Then they found out some critical systems were much farther in the future than they thought. Design changes, change orders, cost escalations on a geometric scale,... It suddenly became too expensive to finish her as designed, and the solutions they found to kluge together a ship that could be commissioned created a ship that doesn't work. They would have been better off scrapping her instead of commissioning her.

The lesson here is that major weapon systems like the USS Ford and the F-35 need to have fully vetted designs before billions of dollars are allocated for the project. The $13B for the Ford is nothing compared to the trillion dollars spent on the F-35 so far, and nobody is certain it will fare any better in combat against conventional aircraft than the existing platforms..

[Pix]

My two sons served on attack carriers (LHD-6) the other on a attack sub, by the time the budget gets approved most of the design is old tech. And for you guy's that served you know about paper work and incompetence! Before my son on the sub deployed they were loading up supplies when the side of one of the crates was marked F-15 canopy? not very useful on a submarine!

[Beo3]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Now Eddie, there is no need to insult me!!!!

Actually, I tried to become an Air Force Pilot... but I scored too high on the admittance test.... Oh, and I only needed one third of the 12,000 foot runways the Air Force guys need to take off and land. AND ANOTHER THING...

For the information of civilians, there is a huge rivalry between Navy and Air Force Pilots.... but everyone knows NAVY Pilots are FAR SUPERIOR.

LOL!

I was a crew chief on a C-141B. If you could land that behemoth on a carrier deck you are by far a superior pilot!!

[masterserg]

There is some awesome people around here. Respect!

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Beo3

LOL!

I was a crew chief on a C-141B. If you could land that behemoth on a carrier deck you are by far a superior pilot!!

In my sleep!

[Beo3]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

In my sleep!

LOL! You win

[77T]

I’ll steer clear of the military/industrial complex political questions about resources - but that video is largely based on an article from January, right?

I know Bloomberg repurposed the details into a July slant and then summarized it into a dramatic slideshow.

A more current story from the USNI News stated the Ford is expected to be ready for deployment in 2022.

Currently it’s at Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News Shipbuilding for a planned year-long maintenance and upgrade period. Plus a fix for a propulsion design fix found during shakedown.

Here’s a print update from 3 weeks ago:
https://news.usni.org/2018/07/16/35142


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by 77T

I’ll steer clear of the military/industrial complex political questions about resources - but that video is largely based on an article from January, right?

I know Bloomberg repurposed the details into a July slant and then summarized it into a dramatic slideshow.

A more current story from the USNI News stated the Ford is expected to be ready for deployment in 2022.

Currently it’s at Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News Shipbuilding for a planned year-long maintenance and upgrade period. Plus a fix for a propulsion design fix found during shakedown.

Here’s a print update from 3 weeks ago:
https://news.usni.org/2018/07/16/35142


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

From your article, some of the original design elements essential to meet the operational need haven't been installed yet.

"Originally intended to last about eight months, the PSA was extended to 12 months to also accommodate deferred work such as constructing an advanced weapons elevator and upgrading the advanced arresting gear."

Hopefully, they figured out how to make that stuff work.

[77T]

True Abdullah - the Navy wanted to get the shakedown done and chose to forego complete finishing of some elements.

For example, only 2 bomb elevators were finished. The sea trials showed a design problem in them. The good news is only 2 now need to be fixed. The other 9 will be installed when the reworked elevators are tested again. Saved the cost of repairing 11 elevators.

Nobody like delays, but other programs have the same issues when new technologies are tried. In today’s environment everybody wants it now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Abdullah71601]

I worked in DOD contracting for 12 years. This is a classic boondoggle. It has nothing to do with shaking out new technologies and everything to do with rushing the project before the money dried up.

The Navy pushed this out during the height of the war funding surge knowing that once they got the keel laid there would be no turning back. Much of the so called new technology was actually nonexistent technology. There was no reliability data and no reasonable basis to include it in the design of a combat system that has to work as designed every single time.

This isn't a a new cell phone. It's a combat vessel. There isn't room for experimenting with the latest technological pipe dream. That's why the Navy's own IG recommended scrapping the Ford. It's more trouble than it's worth.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

For the information of civilians, there is a huge rivalry between Navy and Air Force Pilots.... but everyone knows NAVY Pilots are FAR SUPERIOR.

I have to agree and that includes Marine pilots, or perhaps especially Marine pilots.

If you've never seen Marine and Navy pilots fly close air support, you haven't seen close air support.

No offense to the Air Force, but I've seen it first-hand.

I have a friend who was a Navy pilot during the Vietnam war, who tells me that the Marine pilots aboard his carrier had a saying among themselves: "Better dead than look bad."

[77T]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

This isn't a a new cell phone. It's a combat vessel. There isn't room for experimenting with the latest technological pipe dream. That's why the Navy's own IG recommended scrapping the Ford. It's more trouble than it's worth.

I get your frustration...but can you cite the report where the IG made that recommendation? I can’t find it.

As for new tech - the CVN process is so much longer than the airframes that fly on it that some tech will still be vaporware when the keel is laid. For example, the F35 deployments in 2021 are going to play havoc with some CVN’s

The Ford is a class of carrier as well as the namesake for the first of 4 carriers that are the next generation for the Navy.

The underlying congressional report which Bloomberg cherry-picked doesn’t make a “scrap it” recommendation.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf


CVN-78 (USS Gerald R Ford), CVN-79 (John F Kennedy), CVN-80 (Enterprise), and CVN-81 (not named yet) are the first four ships in the Navy’s new Gerald R Ford class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs).

It’s been a long program from procurement to in-service operation.

The Ford was procured in 2008. But it received advance procurement funding as far back as 2001. The ship was commissioned into service on July 22, 2017. The Navy is currently working to complete construction, testing, and certification of the 11 weapons elevators. But the rest of it passed sea trials. It’ll go online in 2022.

The John F. Kennedy was procured 5 years after the Ford in 2013. It is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in September 2024.

The Enterprise was procured in 2018 and is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in March 2028.

As you can see, the build program is more than a 10-year program for each one.

CVN-81 (not yet named) will be procured under a “block buy” contract for Fiscal Year 2019. In other words, tagged onto the Enterprise’s contract.

As far as I can tell, the Navy IG signed off on that. That last ship is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in February 2032. I may be long gone by then, but as it’s still unnamed- I propose the USS Dragos...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by 77T

That last ship is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in February 2032. I may be long gone by then, but as it’s still unnamed- I propose the USS Dragos...

Paul, I WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I have to agree and that includes Marine pilots, or perhaps especially Marine pilots.

If you've never seen Marine and Navy pilots fly close air support, you haven't seen close air support.

No offense to the Air Force, but I've seen it first-hand.

I have a friend who was a Navy pilot during the Vietnam war, who tells me that the Marine pilots aboard his carrier had a saying among themselves: "Better dead than look bad."

Excellent point Grady, much respect to my USMC brethren.

[jag32]

Anyone who has studied the Falklands knows aircraft carriers are a thing of the past.

[Runnin' Rebel]

Aircraft Carrier Group won’t Just mossy in to parllel park in any enemy country, to may things to go wrong during a conflict. Easy target. Unless the capitulation is certain.

The Carrier Strike Group (CSG), composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a flotilla of six to 10 destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft.

A carrier strike group is the protected by primary offensive firepower. The Carrier Strike Group (CSG), composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a flotilla of six to 10 destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 F-35B/C aircraft, plus stealth submarines trolling. A carrier strike group is the largest operational unit of the United States Navy and comprises a principal element of U.S. power projection capability.provide defense and support. These roles are not exclusive, however. Other ships in the strike group sometimes undertake offensive operations (launching cruise missiles, for instance) and the carrier's air wing contributes to the strike group's defense (through combat air patrols and airborne anti-submarine efforts). 200 miles off coast of the problem. No way that get get close to land

F35 has a range of approximately 1000 miles depending on ordinance at least 50k ceiling. The advanced avionics can pick up incoming planes or missiles of over 150 miles out without the 35 being detected. It can go into beast mode and have many more offense options in including STOVL, 35B won’t even need a catapult. Add the GAU-22 25mm gun pod underneath or built in above the left upper wing attached... they’re already in testing

Build a few more of these ships and F35’s they can troll from 1000 miles out, add a refueling option and on target for a long time.

f22 raptor will be the the next Air Force Thunderbird demonstration aircraft. IMO that’s a beast