The Ford was delivered and commissioned without functioning
weapon elevators. How do you accept delivery
and commission a carrier that can’t move weapons from its magazines to the
flight deck? But, I digress …
Secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer took responsibility
for getting the elevators working, telling President Trump he could fire him if
they weren’t ready by the end of summer when Ford is scheduled to complete its
post-shakedown availability (PSA).
Spencer
said this morning at an event hosted by the Center for a New American Security
that he spoke to Trump at length last month at the Army-Navy football game in
Philadelphia.
“I
asked him to stick his hand out; he stuck his hand out. I said, let’s do this
like corporate America. I shook his hand and said, the elevators will be ready
to go when she pulls out or you can fire me,” Spencer said, adding that someone
had to take accountability over the ongoing elevator challenges. “We’re going to get it done. I know I’m going
to get it done. I haven’t been fired yet by anyone; being fired by the
president really isn’t on the top of my list.” (1)
Well, it now appears that SecNav Spencer is in line to be
fired. The Navy has announced that Ford’s
PSA completion date will be delayed an additional three months, pushing it into
October. That’s beyond the original
summer PSA deadline. Time to send your resume
out, Mr. Spencer. You failed. You’re fired.
If you have any integrity, you’ll submit your resignation and save the
President the trouble of firing you.
 |
| SecNav Spencer |
As of this writing, only two of the ship’s 11 elevators have
been delivered. Ford commissioned in
July 2017 and now, 20 months later, the ship has only two functional
elevators. Wow! Still, I remain confident that most of the
elevators will be working by the time Ford retires in 2067.
It’s also interesting to note that the Ford’s PSA has been delayed
more than once.
In
July 2018, when Ford entered PSA, the Navy said the maintenance availability
had been extended from a planned eight months to a full year, to accommodate
both the typical work that arises in PSA but also deferred work such as the
construction and installation of weapons elevators and an upgrade to the AAG,
whose technical challenges greatly contributed to the delayed delivery and
commissioning of the ship. (1)
So, the original 8 month PSA was extended to 12 months and
now is being extended to 15 months.
 |
| Ford - Delayed Again |
Elevators are not the only problem the Ford is
experiencing. In addition to the well
known EMALS and AAG issues, Ford has severe problems with the propulsion
system.
Problems
with the propulsion system are less understood publicly. The problem isn’t
resident in the two nuclear reactors aboard but rather the ship’s main turbines
generators that are driven by the steam the reactors produce.
Sources
familiar with the extent of the repairs have told USNI News two of the main turbine
generators needed unanticipated and extensive overhauls. As Geurts told
Congress, the ship’s company discovered the problem during sea trials. (2)
So, brand new turbine generators need ‘extensive
overhauls’? What kind of quality control
is the Navy practicing? None,
apparently? Nice job, inspecting and
accepting the Ford, NAVSEA. NAVSEA is a
joke. They’re absolutely worthless and
need to be abolished.
SecNav Spencer, I know you didn’t design the flawed
elevators and you aren’t, personally, attempting the repairs but you accepted
responsibility and you freely offered your conditional resignation last
fall. Well, you failed to deliver. Accountability is what’s been missing from
the Navy for quite some time. Show us
you have a sense of integrity. Show the Navy you have a sense of accountability. Set an example for the Navy. Resign and take CNO Richardson with you.
Failing that, you’re fired.
Failing that, you’re fired.
(1)USNI News website, “SECNAV to Trump: Ford Carrier Weapons
Elevators Will be Fixed by Summer, or ‘Fire Me’”, Megan Eckstein, 8-Jan-2019,
https://news.usni.org/2019/01/08/secnav-to-trump-aircraft-carrier-weapons-elevators-to-be-fixed-by-summer-or-fire-me
(2)USNI News website, “USS Gerald Ford Delivery Delayed Due
to Extensive Nuclear Propulsion, Weapons Elevator Repairs; Carrier Won’t be
Ready Until October”, Sam LaGrone, 26-Mar-2019,
https://news.usni.org/2019/03/26/uss-gerald-ford-delivery-delayed-due-extensive-nuclear-propulsion-weapons-elevator-repairs-carrier-wont-ready-October
I wonder if Vegas has any odds on whether it will have any operational cruises before they scrap her?
ReplyDeleteAhh concurrurency dont ya just love it I mean f35 only 10 years plus late Zummies no working gun LCS late and way over budget with really no role can anyone actually name something that has gone right since concurrency started oh Yes the Contractors have gotten a lot richer
ReplyDeleteHow can you accept A BRAND NEW SHIP, it's just been sitting doing nothing and engines need an OVERHAUL?!? Forget everything else like EMALS, arrestor gear, elevators, etcc.. ok, I can almost accept that since so much of it is brand new tech... but what is so brand new tech about the turbines????
ReplyDeleteHow can ANYONE survive all these incredibly poor designs, poor decisions, poor leadership inside USN and no one gets FIRED?!?!?
All of the systems should have be ready before the ship was laid down. I understand wanting to have the most current technology in your ships. But building and hoping the technology will be ready is stupid. They should study how Tesla or SpaceX do incremental improvements to products.
ReplyDeleteThey don't have to THEY KNOW HOW. Thats the point we used to do these things. The point of the ford, zumwalt, f-35, LCS all of those was they decided to ignore the old adage of build a little test alot improvement for something "Revolutionary and leaps beyond" What they had.
DeleteLook at the Abrams, Apache, F-15X, hell even the latest Bug and such. We know how to do it. This was people who had no business running a hotdog stand deciding they know better than those who did because they had fancy titles and knew people.
I see these same people everywhere every day...they are the sign of a dying nation corrupted to the core.
The President smacks the Ford. hahahaha
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8-ycoMlo1c
1:12:15 mark.... enjoy
I guess the turbines system had saltwater ingress at some point.
ReplyDeleteThe Ford class powered by two new A1B (Bechtel) nuclear reactors that are said to be 25% more powerful than the A4W (Westinghouse) reactors used in Nimitz class, presumption the 25% uplift in power used for additional electrical power generation needed for EMALS, radar etc and hotel load. One difference the new A1B nuclear reactors were specifically designed not to be able to produce steam for catapults, so looks like no possibility replacing Ford's EMALS with steam catapults.
ReplyDeleteAssumption that Ford power output system same as Nimitz with two 'engine rooms'. Each 1x nuclear reactor producing the high pressure steam. Propulsion mechanical, no electric motors fitted, 2x steam turbines driving two shafts thru reduction gears. Electric power 2x main turbine generators (MTGs) .
The new more powerful 4x 12t MTGs have been problematical since June 2016 when an electrical explosion took place on the No. 2 MTG during testing, due to a serious voltage regulator problem. Navy officials decided on a partial fix and a permanent fix later, No. 2 MTG rotors removed while repairs are made to No. 1, and full repairs to No. 2 would wait for the current Post Shakedown Availability/Phase 2 build. The 12 month Ford PSA/Phase 2 build program was made with the knowledge of both MTG and AWS issues, expect 'issues' more difficult/expensive/ time consuming to correct than planned, now news that's it a 15 month program.
There have been the additional casualties, Ford was forced back into port May 8, 2018 with the second failure in less than a year with a main thrust bearing, Naval Sea Systems Command said the Ford experienced “an out of specification condition” with a propulsion system component. HI determined it was due to a “manufacturing defect,” the command said, and “not improper operation” by sailors. The defect “affects the same component” located in other parts of the propulsion system, the Navy added.
The Ford could still have steam catapults, as well as, the EMALS. A back up electric steam boiler and steam accumulator could be installed next to the EMALS. When the EMALS goes down divert the electricity to the boiler and use the Steam catapults.
ReplyDeleteICCALS - https://www.launch-systems.com/
DeleteThis is what should have been fitted to the RN QE class. Point to note - there was no money in it for BAe.
"ICCALS"
DeleteThat sounds great. Of course, so did EMALS when it was proposed. The obvious point being that everything sounds great on paper.
Is it in service anywhere so that we have a track record on it? Has a full scale prototype been built?
I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that claims are easy, performance is not.
FireCat is the better mousetrap if it works as advertised! Ignore my ramblings about steam catapults.
DeleteA technology demonstrator could be developed for the spare change in the sofa, compared to the EMALS development cost.
This could be a boon for the Nimitz class carriers. They could take the steam service that was meant for the catapults and install a turbine generator to increase the electrical supply for the aircraft carrier, which could allow some upgrades that could not be done without the increase in electrical capacity.
The back up electric steam boilers/accumulators/catapults should be four independent systems, so a problem with one catapult does not limit the use of the others, unlike the EMALS system.
ReplyDeleteThe backup system could be unitized, so that it could be replaced as a unit from the deck surface. I don't know what the mean time before failure is for a steam catapult, but if you could pull the unit and replace it with a new/refurbished unit while in port before expected failure, the catapults should provide for a high level of availability while reducing needed repairs at sea.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing inherently wrong with your idea, conceptually. However, the practical aspects of mounting a removable, essentially self-contained steam system directly under deck are significant. A catapult steam system requires a large amount of volume: boiler, steam 'capacitor' tank, launch valve, piping, etc. Further, as I understand the designs, the two systems are not interchangeable in the launch mechanism. It's not like the same launch 'trolley' is used but in one case is powered by steam and in the other by electricity. The two are completely different. You'd have to have side by side, duplicate units or something. I don't even know how you'd do that.
DeleteAlso, the impact on ship's space below the catapults would be huge and most of that space would come from existing hangar space, already at a premium.
You might want to read up on EMALS and steam catapults to see the incompatibility.
The back up system would only need a few connections, a water line and electric line for the boiler and whatever is needed to trigger the release of the catapult.
ReplyDelete"So the reactor now can’t deliver the 4,050 pounds per minute of high pressure steam required by a steam-powered four-catapult installation."
ReplyDeletehttps://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/these-are-all-ways-not-build-aircraft-carrier-26661?page=0%2C1
The back up steam generator could also be JP-5/JP-8 fueled since it is also available on the carrier.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese had their proxies lobby for us to buy more Fords because they know that the Fords just suck up Navy money without delivering any capability for the foreseeable future.
ReplyDeleteYou could just put a ski-ramp on it and use F-35Bs instead thus creating commonality with the Marines and the Brits! ��
ReplyDeleteIf they could get the arrester gear to work they could use the F35C and F18 to some degree.
DeleteI’ll bet the bomb load on the STOL F-35B is about half that of the catapult launched F-35C…..
DeleteI’ll bet the bomb load of the STOL F35B is half that of the electromagically catapult-launched F35C.
DeleteI think there are still some misconceptions about nuclear power, steam, electrical generation, etc. Let me address this in very simple terms. Fission processes in the reactors produce heat. That heat is used to boil water into steam. The high pressure and temperature of steam has a lot of energy to be used. Majority of steam is piped to the ship's propulsion turbines where the steam's energy is converted into rotational work to turn the ships propellers and drive the ship through the water. Some steam goes to the ship's generators: convert the steam's energy into rotational work which is converted into electrical energy then distributed throughout the ship. Steam can be used to power propulsion plant equipment. And finally, steam can be distributed for uses outside the propulsion plants: catapults, space heaters, water heaters, cooking equipment, laundry machines, etc. A significant design change on the Ford class is no more steam outside the propulsion plants; everything is electrical. Larger electrical generators are needed, requiring more steam, but no steam is being distributed throughout the ship, so on the balance total energy output is about the same. In many respects that was a good idea; electrical equipment is often simpler to operate and less maintenance intensive than steam powered. If electric cats, traps, and elevators worked correctly, well great, but when they don't work we have a really big expensive ship, not a real aircraft carrier.
ReplyDeleteI can see why emals sounded like an amazing and revolutionary concept worth pursuing....
ReplyDeleteBut the weapons elevators? Any reason at all why the weapons elevators needed to be state-of-the-art? We're they supposed to be safer? Faster? Require less mainx? No?
Innovation for point of innovation is folly. Solve a real problem/inadequacy or GTFO.
Hey let’s just use the Ford for F-35B only. It doesn’t need EMALs and it’s only available 7% of the time so only two elevators is fine. We can then have it only escorted by LCS and Zumwalt class ships. That way we have a fleet made entirely of broken promises.
ReplyDeleteA theme fleet. I like it!
DeleteThe fleet of broken dreams. We can paint it white and parade it around the world...I mean it won't make it past Europe at most till it breaks down but hey....keeps with the overall theme.
Delete"Fleet of Misfit Toys"
Delete