Navys newest carrier has problems getting planes up

[jpak]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/uss-ford-is-ready-for-service-except-for-the-plane-launching-part/

The USS Gerald R. Ford, the $13 billion air craft carrier the Navy accepted in May, is not scheduled to be sent on its first full-fledged deployment for at least three years. And it's a good thing, because the Ford, now in testing, isn't ready to operate aircraft, largely because of problems with its new high-tech aircraft catapult system developed for the Navy by General Atomics (the company best known for its Predator and Reaper drones). And while it was finally completed, the new gear developed by General Atomics to capture aircraft landing on the ship's deck ended up costing three times its original price, soaring to $961 million all on its own and breaching program budgetary constraints.

The Navy has eaten those costs thanks to the "cost-plus" contract with General Atomics.

The issue with the catapult, officially called the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), was discovered in 2014. Currently, as Bloomberg's Anthony Capaccio reports, the catapult is incapable of launching aircraft loaded with external fuel tanks. As a result, the Ford would be unable to launch F/A-18 Super Hornet and E/A-18 Growler aircraft on long-range missions—in other words, it wouldn't be able to do the thing that aircraft carriers are intended most to do. It's not an issue of throwing weight; a software problem in EMALS caused "excessive vibration" in wing tanks aboard the aircraft in testing, the Navy found.

<snip>

There are reasons the Navy wants to use a "digital" system. The EMALS system is lighter than the steam catapult systems other carriers use, it puts less stress on aircraft as it accelerates them off the deck, and it's expected to be less costly to maintain in the long run. The force applied via EMALS can be more finely adjusted for launching lighter or (eventually) heavier aircraft. And it doesn't come with all the other baggage of steam, including the large amounts of fresh water that need to be created through seawater desalination to generate steam. All of these add up to lower costs in the long term.

<more>

[liberal N proud]

1. Maybe it needs some viagra

[forgotmylogin]

5. GERALD FORD HAS TROUBLE GETTING IT UP

[Aristus]

2. USS Ford: You have one job! Just one!

Putting planes in the air. You are an aircraft carrier. Maybe that's the problem. Apparently you're good at carrying the planes; not so good at putting them in the air. So maybe we call the next ship an aircraft launcher and see if things improve...

[HAB911]

3. Gerald R. Ford

stumbled a little too

[jpak]

7. Karma for pardoning Nixon

[jmg257]

4. trump was yapping on this a few weeks back...

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/trump-wants-goddamned-steam-not-digital-catapults-on-aircraft-carriers/526386/

"Navy officials were “blindsided” on Thursday, a spokesman told me, by President Donald Trump’s suggestion that he has convinced the Navy to abandon a long-planned digital launching system in favor of steam on its newest aircraft carrier.

In a wide-ranging interview with Time magazine, Trump described his disgust with the catapult system known as Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, nicknamed EMALS, aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford. (Time has published only excerpts from the interview, not a full transcript.) The president described wanting to scrap EMALS, a key technological upgrade at the center of the multibillion-dollar carrier project, and return to steam""

[CentralMass]

6. I hate it when that happens.

I

[brush]

8. They spent how many billions developing this thing and it can't do its primary mission?

And this is the model for the next class of carriers, meaning none of them will be able to launch jets with external tanks also.

Shouldn't some heads be rolling over this?

[Historic NY]

9. Why are the taxpayers on the hook when the manufacturer clearly can't

deliver on what they promised. We keep paying and they keep failing.

[Adrahil]

10. Don't read too much into this....

This article overstates the technical issues significantly. The cost issues are another thing.... there are systemic problems with how DoD does acquisitions.