Well, the 2021 DOT&E weapon systems annual report is out and it’s everything I was afraid it would be: watered down to the point of being nearly useless (see, “The Demise of DOT&E”). I’ve read the entire Navy section and the only actual data was about the Ford EMALS, AAG, and elevator reliability. Other than that, across all the remaining systems and programs, there was no data. Beyond that, there was almost no qualitative information, either; no indications of what problems exist and why. The most common phrase in the report – which appears verbatim in every individual section, generally multiple times, is, ‘Not enough data are currently available … ‘.
The report is not worth the time it took to write and is certainly not worth anyone’s time to read.
This is a major disappointment. For many years, DOT&E was the sole voice of reality and sanity in the military development and testing world and now that voice has been silenced. I don’t know why DOT&E decided to do this. They proffered a vague excuse about security but, having read all the previous DOT&E reports, I can assure you there was never anything remotely classified in any report and there was nothing that would have given an enemy any insight or advantage.
What there was, was an honest, test-based assessment of our systems as opposed to the Navy’s outright lies. We have lost that voice and the Navy has shaken off the last vestige of accountability. Yes, DOT&E is issuing an informative report for Congress that has been deemed to be a ‘controlled unclassified information’ document but that will not be available to the public.
The country has lost the only reliable oversight reporting available about the military development efforts and this can only bode ill for informed oversight. We, the people, will be the worse for this loss.
Nickolas Guertin, Director Operational Test and Evaluation, has failed the country and his duty.
The gap with China keeps narrowing.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that it must be either
Delete1) Intentional, or
2) Gross negligence
They assume there's not going to be a peer war anytime soon (I agree), thus none of this stuff is going to matter (I disagree).
DeleteOr maybe the news is just so bad that somebody decided that it had to be classified for national security reasons.
ReplyDeleteOkay, okay, I get it. I was just trying to find some rationale.
It was revealed that the $14 billion USS Ford and her three sister ships under construction will not be able to reliably launch and recover aircraft, something I warned about four years ago. http://www.g2mil.com/EMALS.htm
ReplyDeleteThey've been trying to make systems work for a decade. Having read a great deal about this issue, the problem seems to be rail alignment. The tolerances for EM systems are tight. They work well ashore and in calm seas, but even in moderate seas the carrier begins to flex unpredictably and the rails misalign constantly by just a few millimeters. The software is unable to properly manage the launch power and the results are unpredictable. This affects the Ford's elevators too.
This was just released from the Pentagon testing office, but not reported on by our major media:
"It also said that during 8,157 takeoffs and recoveries through last year, the carrier’s new electromagnetic catapult system made by General Atomics demonstrated a reliability of 272 launches “between operational mission failure,” or “well below” its required 4,166. Similarly, its system to snag landing aircraft demonstrated a 41-landing reliability rate “well below the requirement of 16,500,” the testing office said."
Other problems are noted there too, like four elevators still not certified for use, shock tests caused issues, defensive systems problematic. Our Navy is so corrupt, I predict nothing will be done. She was launched in 2013, commissioned in 2017, and has yet to deploy. The Ford will still deploy in September (four years late). It will be limited to a couple light launches a day. Admirals will explain this is normal for a new class during its first deployment. Or they can admit to a mistake and scrap all four carriers, but will just keep kicking the can down the road and wasting billions more dollars each year.
I'll have a post on this shortly.
DeleteDo the toilets work now?
DeleteThat's classified.
DeleteThe full DOT&E report his here.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dote.osd.mil/Publications/Annual-Reports/2021-Annual-Report/
Were the EMALS and AAG tested on shore before they slapped them into actual ship? Don't they do that with systems like AEGIS? Will the Ford still get underway as scheduled with these issues? Prince of Wales (WWII-Bismarck) anyone? $14 Billion is almost the entire annual budget for the USCG.I don't think this ends well.
ReplyDeleteNo, they were not tested; at least, not in time to matter. There was a land based EMALS built but it was done concurrently with the construction of the Ford. By the time there was any EMALS data/experience from the (non-representative configuration) land system in 2011, the Ford had been under construction for two years. The land system was then rebuilt to represent the Ford's system and further land testing commenced until 2014; the Ford having been launched in 2013 so the data could not inform the Ford's system design.
DeleteA similar story for the AAG.
"Will the Ford still get underway as scheduled"
LOL! The Ford is already years behind every schedule it ever had. The Ford has been underway many times for short testing periods. If you're asking about an actual deployment, no one knows when that will actually happen but it would seem to be years down the road yet unless the Navy opts to do a public relations deployment, as they did for the LCS, where they 'deploy' but are not really functional.
"I don't think this ends well."
Ford was commissioned in 2017 and now, going on five years later, they're still struggling with EMALS, AAG, elevators, Dual Band Radar, self defense system, electromagnetic interferences, and a host of other problems. We're five years into the ship's 45-50 year life span and the ship is still non-functional.
"Were the EMALS and AAG tested on shore before they slapped them into actual ship?"
DeleteMy understanding is that they were tested extensively ashore but not at sea. The problem with EMALS seems to be that normal movement by a ship at sea causes the rails to become misaligned and that makes the system kaput.
Thank you for the clarification on some of this stuff. My background was Naval Aviation where we worried about TFOA (Things Falling Off Aircraft). Is there a similar term for a ship?
Delete