View Full Version : US Navy's newest $12.9bn supercarrier doesn't work:
Whiskey_Bravo
07-21-16, 15:19
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3701727/Navy-s-12-9-billion-USS-Gerald-R-Ford-delayed-dogged-reliability-issues.html
That's a lot of money to have those kind of problems. It's an aircraft carrier that will struggle to land and launch planes, move munitions up to the deck, and defend it'self. Oh, and the dual band radar doesn't work.
The most expensive warship ever built has been delayed from hitting the front line because it is reportedly not ready for battle.
The $12.9 billion USS Gerald R. Ford Navy supercarrier - the first of three in its class with a total cost of $43 billion - could potentially struggle with planes landing and taking off, moving military weapons and being able to successfully defend itself, a memo obtained by Bloomberg News reads.
The memo allegedly states 'poor or unknown reliability issues' were identified in a letter dated June 28.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3701727/Navy-s-12-9-billion-USS-Gerald-R-Ford-delayed-dogged-reliability-issues.html#ixzz4F4oKPrgW
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
'The Navy’s announcement of another two-month delay in the delivery of CVN-78 further demonstrates that key systems still have not demonstrated expected performance,' McCain said in a statement.
'The advanced arresting gear (AAG) cannot recover airplanes. Advanced weapons elevators cannot lift munitions. The dual-band radar cannot integrate two radar bands. Even if everything goes according to the Navy’s plan, CVN-78 will be delivered with multiple systems unproven.
'This situation is unacceptable and was entirely preventable. After more than $2.3 billion in cost overruns have increased its cost to nearly $13 billion, the taxpayers deserve to know when CVN-78 will actually be delivered, how much developmental risk remains in the program, if cost overruns will continue, and who is being held accountable.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3701727/Navy-s-12-9-billion-USS-Gerald-R-Ford-delayed-dogged-reliability-issues.html#ixzz4F4oDPq3d
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
You think that's bad... wait until they try to make operable either the USS Jimmy Carter or the USS Bill Clinton.
The former will only sail in reverse.
The latter will always be in shore call at the local brothel.
Coal Dragger
07-21-16, 15:28
I guess they need an equally shitty carrier to match the craptastic F-35.
Averageman
07-21-16, 15:30
I'm pretty sure when you ask any Branch of the Military "What do you want this to do?" your answer usually comes to you with the engineering equivalent of packing forty pounds of crap in a five pound crap sack.
So now when it is completed and it has a few issues don't be surprised. Those issues will get fixed, it may take some time but it will get done.
What should concern you is when it is completed and it is finally working, what is the plan for repairing this stuff out at sea?
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-21-16, 15:31
So, you are saying the carrier named after Gerald R. Ford stumbles... suuuuuprise, suprise.
Can't load bombs, that's OK. The ads I see on TV make it seem like the Navy only delivers humanitarian supplies...
So, you are saying the carrier named after Gerald R. Ford stumbles... suuuuuprise, suprise.
Can't load bombs, that's OK. The ads I see on TV make it seem like the Navy only delivers humanitarian supplies...
A Global Force for Good.
That is so sad. Did we buy this carrier from China? What the hell happened to American quality goods?
A Global Force for Good.
That is so sad. Did we buy this carrier from China? What the hell happened to American quality goods?
No, their carriers seem to work pretty well.
Seems that in the US, you use billions of dollars to build something. Once built you learn what doesn't work, then you spend a few more billion dollars fixing it until it works like it was supposed to in the first place. It's the "trial and error" manufacturing method that we know so well lately.
You think that's bad... wait until they try to make operable either the USS Jimmy Carter or the USS Bill Clinton.
The former will only sail in reverse.
The latter will always be in shore call at the local brothel.
At least Carter was a Navy man. I guess when they make the Barack Hussein Obama (CVN-0) it will only have drones.
As to the new U.S.S. Ford, it's new, it is literally full of new, never before used, tech so of course it's going to have problems. There's nothing normal about landing an aircraft on what amounts to a football field that is pitching and rolling. Although the USN has been doing it with jet aircraft for over 60 years so if it ain't broke...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3701727/Navy-s-12-9-billion-USS-Gerald-R-Ford-delayed-dogged-reliability-issues.html
That's a lot of money to have those kind of problems. It's an aircraft carrier that will struggle to land and launch planes, move munitions up to the deck, and defend it'self. Oh, and the dual band radar doesn't work.
So it takes after its namesake? ;)
fallenromeo
07-21-16, 17:08
should still be under warranty. Send it back
gunrunner505
07-21-16, 17:53
At least Carter was a Navy man. I guess when they make the Barack Hussein Obama (CVN-0) it will only have drones.
As to the new U.S.S. Ford, it's new, it is literally full of new, never before used, tech so of course it's going to have problems. There's nothing normal about landing an aircraft on what amounts to a football field that is pitching and rolling. Although the USN has been doing it with jet aircraft for over 60 years so if it ain't broke...
I really hope that whoever is in charge of naming ships spares us anything named Obama. That would be pathetic. How'd you like to be a plank owner for that one? Shit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
07-21-16, 18:21
should still be under warranty. Send it back
Just my experience dealing with the Military lately;
Did you check the oil?, "No it's under Warranty."
Did you bring extra oil if you used some oil bringing it out here? "No, really it's under Warranty?"
Did you notice the Oil Pressure Light , gauge or audible warning? "No, because we knew it was under Warranty."
Did the smell or the smoke lead you to believe there may be an issue? "No, really Sir, it's under Warranty."
When the flames from the engine compartment came out of the exhaust ducts.......
And from the Maintenance Tech; "You guys are going to replace that engine right, isn't it still under Warranty?"
From the XO, "Can I see the contract on this Vehicle?"
From the LTC; "You guys Suck, there goes my OR Rate"
From the Colonel, "What do you mean they aren't checking the oil before the move out ?"
The Military doesn't do Maintenance anymore, for the most part you might find five mechanics trying to keep a Cavalry Troop up and running.
SomeOtherGuy
07-21-16, 19:22
So I read the article. I'm aware that news media stories on new military equipment tend to have megadoses of Chicken Little. Does anyone know from a better source (including firsthand) what the real problems are and how easy and quick the fixes are likely to be?
How do you screw up the arresting gear?
ThirdWatcher
07-21-16, 19:45
Most revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) weapons systems do have issues during their development (TFX, M1 Abrams, etc.).
So I read the article. I'm aware that news media stories on new military equipment tend to have megadoses of Chicken Little. Does anyone know from a better source (including firsthand) what the real problems are and how easy and quick the fixes are likely to be?
Several of my clients work for Huntington Ingalls in Newport News, so I asked... They aren't giving away the farm with info, but it has been said this is very overblown. New systems are usually tested, tweaked, and tested again, all multiple cycles before a ship can be delivered. The GRF isn't even supposed to be in service until 2019. The thing is a massive presence on the James River, and people probably think "floating boat, it must be ready to go." I've been down to see the ship and it really is an impressive beast just east of the bridge.
It's not an issue of "return it under warranty," it's an issue of "the thing hasn't been delivered yet."
Outlander Systems
07-21-16, 21:33
Don't worry.
The U.S.S. Trump will make carriers great again.
I really hope that whoever is in charge of naming ships spares us anything named Obama. That would be pathetic. How'd you like to be a plank owner for that one? Shit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Try this on for size:
U.S.S. Hilary Rodham Clinton.... :sick:
I really hope that whoever is in charge of naming ships spares us anything named Obama. That would be pathetic. How'd you like to be a plank owner for that one? Shit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://satireworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Obama-USS-Barack-Obama.jpg
Sadly the Enterprise (CVN-81) will likely be the next USS Barack Obama.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/uss-barack-obama-building-future-aircraft-carrier-15579
Moose-Knuckle
07-22-16, 03:43
I have that sneaky feeling that this might not be by accident . . .
We are owed a refund. The check is in the mail suckers!
Whiskey_Bravo
07-22-16, 07:03
Sadly the Enterprise (CVN-81) will likely be the next USS Barack Obama.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/uss-barack-obama-building-future-aircraft-carrier-15579
I feel sorry for the poor sailors that will have to call it home.
gunrunner505
07-22-16, 07:13
Try this on for size:
U.S.S. Hilary Rodham Clinton.... :sick:
Dude, I just threw up a little.
Let's hope not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Digital_Damage
07-22-16, 07:21
I Don't understand why people are surprised.
First in class always have issues.
F18 had issues
Seawolf had issues
F22 had and still has issues
F35 is still having issues.
Whiskey_Bravo
07-22-16, 07:41
I Don't understand why people are surprised.
First in class always have issues.
F18 had issues
Seawolf had issues
F22 had and still has issues
F35 is still having issues.
I guess the fact that it is already a few billion over budget. And having issues is one thing, but a carrier that can't take off or land planes is another. As someone else asked, how the hell did they eff up the arresting and catapult system?
Digital_Damage
07-22-16, 08:14
I guess the fact that it is already a few billion over budget. And having issues is one thing, but a carrier that can't take off or land planes is another. As someone else asked, how the hell did they eff up the arresting and catapult system?
F18 was way over budget, seawolf was way over budget, F22 way over budget, F35 way over budget.
The whole system is a first generation, The probability of first generation technology(regardless of what it is) being 100% is exceptionally rare.
As I understand the issue with the catapult has to do with older planes that use extra fuel tanks that are centrally located.
Not sure what is up with arrest system, not in the loop on that.
I guess the fact that it is already a few billion over budget. And having issues is one thing, but a carrier that can't take off or land planes is another. As someone else asked, how the hell did they eff up the arresting and catapult system?
Electrical problems. Long story short the ship uses electricity for everything instead of stream.
Digital_Damage
07-22-16, 08:18
Electrical problems. Long story short the ship uses electricity for everything instead of stream.
those issues were resolved almost a year ago.
Whiskey_Bravo
07-22-16, 09:23
those issues were resolved almost a year ago.
Good to hear. I have no doubt it is going to be a bad ass when it is done.
I see it from both sides. New technologies, etc., of course there are gonna be bugs and gremlins to exorcise. But, it's an aircraft carrier. C'mon, guys, it shouldn't be that hard to make a catapult/landing system work. I mean, it is what an AC does, right? Shoot and recover aircraft? It has a nuclear reactor for crying out loud...everything else should be easy....
SpeedRacer
07-22-16, 10:11
It has a nuclear reactor for crying out loud...everything else should be easy....
Lol. Excellent point.
Wait, something the government is in charge of isn't going right? I can hardly believe it...
Digital_Damage
07-22-16, 10:47
I see it from both sides. New technologies, etc., of course there are gonna be bugs and gremlins to exorcise. But, it's an aircraft carrier. C'mon, guys, it shouldn't be that hard to make a catapult/landing system work. I mean, it is what an AC does, right? Shoot and recover aircraft? It has a nuclear reactor for crying out loud...everything else should be easy....
The EMALS is far more complicated than a reactor. The cycloconverter needed for harmonics at the required megajoules is more complicated and that is not the most complicated part.
The EMALS is far more complicated than a reactor. The cycloconverter needed for harmonics at the required megajoules is more complicated and that is not the most complicated part.
Isn't that something from Ghostbusters? Why you don't cross streams?
SomeOtherGuy
07-22-16, 12:28
The EMALS is far more complicated than a reactor. The cycloconverter needed for harmonics at the required megajoules is more complicated and that is not the most complicated part.
more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System
It should be a major improvement on steam catapults. And the videos I was watching yesterday look like they show successful testing. You can see the difference in initial acceleration - less of it, which means not as much jolt and wear on the airframe and pilots.
I'm fine with there being a cvn with Obama's name. It just has to be the CVN-0 or CVN#2
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.