Well, it appears that the Navy declared Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for the USS Ford on 22-Dec-2021, last year, without telling anyone.
The Navy in December quietly determined the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) had achieved initial operational capability, the program manager for the ship revealed today.
The milestone was officially reached on Dec. 22, 2021, when the last advanced weapons elevator was turned over … [1]
Apparently, they also declared the elevators all functional at the same time, again without telling anyone. Unless they’ve miraculously solved the EMALS and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) reliability problems, which have been atrocious, without telling anyone, then the IOC declaration is a meaningless event since the ship is not operational because of the total lack of reliability that’s been demonstrated.
Initial operational capability is an important acquisition milestone that indicates the ship’s capabilities have reached the minimum thresholds required to be operationally useful.[1]
Again, given the EMALS and AAG reliability issues (see, “Ford Reliability”), the ship has not reached any minimum thresholds to be operationally useful. This is a farce right up there with the Marine’s declaring IOC for the F-35 except on a massively larger scale.
There’s a real secrecy trend, here, that’s been growing for quite some time. It began when the Navy classified INSURV inspection results to hide the increasing number of failures and continued to the more recent restricting of program test results by DOT&E using the ‘controlled unclassified’ category to prevent public viewing of generalized program test results, and now we’re seeing stealth pronouncements of IOC. This is not healthy and will, eventually, come back to bite the Navy in the butt. Keeping the taxpayer out of the loop is all kinds of wrong. The Navy doesn’t own the Ford, the taxpayers do and they have the right to be kept abreast of developments. There is nothing about declaring IOC that threatens national security so that it needs to be kept secret.
I assume the Navy’s reason for not publicly announcing what they were doing is that it would be embarrassing given the horrendous reliability problems were learned about in January of this year. It’s clear this is just some kind of paperwork, pencil-whipping stunt and they should be embarrassed by it. The Ford is not even remotely ready for operations and the Navy knows it. Heck, the won’t even allow the Ford to do a real deployment; instead, they’re doing an ‘employment’ with a partial air wing and staying close to land (see, “Ford Deployment Farce”).
________________________________
[1]Breaking Defense website, “Navy quietly declares aircraft carrier Ford operational”, Justin Katz, 5-Apr-2022,
....and still no word about results of shock testing.....wonder when we will here about some "issue" on maintenence that will require couple 100 millions to "fix" that USN will deny is about shock testing.
ReplyDeleteFord required a six-month "availability" in the NNS shipyard following full-ship shock trails.
DeleteThere was clearly damage from the shock trials, however, that is not an unexpected result. Shock trails generally do cause damage. The question is what specific damage? Was it things you expect to break or was it things that should be shock hardened and shouldn't break? We don't know and with DOT&E restricting its reports, we'll likely never know.
DeleteI have heard through the unofficial shipyard channels, Ford took a severe beating during the shock trials. There was a lot of equipment failures and the elevators were inop for a long time.
DeleteI am not an engineer, I work on ships not design them, but who in gods name makes a critical part like a weapons elevator to have clearances to within thousandths of an inch? Naval designers have lost the idea that these are warships are susceptible to battle damage and must still work to complete mission.
Weapons or aircraft elevators were inop??? The nutty EM elevators wouldnt be a surprise but...
Delete"I have heard through the unofficial shipyard channels, Ford took a severe beating during the shock trials."
DeleteI have heard the same but cannot get any kind of official confirmation. However, the Ford did undergo an extended repair availability after the trials which suggests that the whispers are true.
"clearances to within thousandths of an inch?"
We've seen this issue of unrealistic tolerances before. The Port Royal Aegis cruiser, which very gently drifted aground, had its VLS and radars knocked out of alignment. I've heard that the radars turned out not to be fixable which is why the Navy tried so hard to retire the Port Royal despite it being the newest cruiser. I've been unable to verify this so I haven't officially posted on it.
I also suspect, but cannot confirm, that the McCain and Fitzgerald collisions rendered put the radar arrays out of alignment.
As you point out, we have forgotten that we are building WARships, not technology demonstrators, and that they will take damage in combat. We have forgotten the K.I.S.S. principle of design.
"The Port Royal Aegis cruiser, which very gently drifted aground, had its VLS and radars knocked out of alignment."
DeleteMaybe that would indicate on ships smaller than a carrier we might want start doing grounding trials. We have had several ships in the last decade or so ground and collide with other ships. So starting to design for it might not be a bad idea.
"but who in gods name makes a critical part like a weapons elevator to have clearances to within thousandths of an inch?"
DeleteBut how else are they going to get that pleasing modern sounding automatic door closing swoosh sound if not by having thousands of an inch clearances.
Ties in with your recent post "Unspecified Ship Construction Costs" and the current duplictious culture of Admirals and DoD plus the failure of Congress to control the military.
ReplyDeleteWondering if the return of BuShips headed by Admiral with same rank as CNO might help.
Ford IOC? Is this an extended April Fool's joke? The purpose of Shock Trials is simulate effects from potential weapon impacts on a surface combatant, correct? Do they conduct tests to determine what damage may occur with a ship grounding or any other form of non-combat "accident"? This subject area is very vague for me.
ReplyDelete@TomcatTweaker. Not much info about shock testing or about foreign tests. Would be interesting to have someone write an article about it but not sure how much info and history is out there...
DeleteThank you for your response. How do we fix it? Can it even be fixed? and by whom?
DeleteShock testing is just what the name implies. It's a test of the ability of a ship to absorb explosive (shock) damage and resulting vibrations. EVERY shock trial results in damage to the test ship. The Perry (FFG) reportedly had severe shock damage that plagued the ship throughout its service life.
DeleteShip components were, once upon a time, required to be shock and EMP hardened and well as EMCON-capable. Those requirements have been dropped, whether formally or informally, I don't know. We're now, belatedly, trying to re-introduce those standards but the reality is that the bulk of the ships in the fleet no longer meet those standards and it will be decades before we can build ships back to the standard, if we're even trying to.
Appreciate the explanation(s). Do they still do the Degaussing of ships? Or did that go by the wayside too? I had to do that detail on the Iwo Jima (LHD-7) back in 2001.
DeleteHere's a link to an article talking about a new degaussing system being installed on a San Antonio ship: "Degauss"
DeleteThank you. I believe the Dutch or the Norwegian's have something similar built into their warships.This is what I found after looking at the link you provided me:
Deletehttps://ethw.org/Degaussing
Take the Fords under construction (looks like Enterprise and Miller) and redesign them with conventional steam cats, arresting gear, and weapons lifts--and toilets. Expensive? Hell yes, but we converted the first JFK from nuke to conventional steam after construction started, and this cannot be harder than that. Then build the fifth one as an updated Nimitz or maybe a RAND CVN-XL.
ReplyDeleteThat leaves only two (Ford and new JFK) as worthless, and those could be laid up if we follow g2mil's suggestion. ComNavOps, I wouldn't go that way. I think we need more carriers, not fewer, like your proposed fleet design. You would build 27, I would build 24 and operate them in 12 two-carrier CVBGs, convertible to 6 four-carrier CTFs. But the trick is that half of them need to be smaller and cheaper.
Two-carrier groups are of no use or value in peacetime and are not effective in war. So, what's the point of a two-carrier group?
DeleteCan we turn the Fords without working EMALS into UAV carriers and add a ski jump to operate F18s with lower loads?
DeleteOr maybe Marine F35B can operate from them since there are many F35Bs and not enough amphibs.
"Two-carrier groups are of no use or value in peacetime and are not effective in war. So, what's the point of a two-carrier group?"
DeleteI know you favor four-carrier CTFs. The two-carrier groups combine to form those four-carrier CTFs, as noted. Since we haven't operated even two-carrier groups much since WWII, the idea is that we had better learn how to operate two before we start trying to operate four.
And I believe the "are of no use or value in peacetime and are not effective in war" is more opinion, to which you are entitled, than fact. At very least, I think two operating together is more effective than one operating singly, and I don't think (opinion) that a peacetime budget is going to accept operating four carrier groups all the time.
" I think two operating together is more effective than one operating singly"
DeleteYou keep speaking in generalities. What, specifically, is a two-carrier group 'more effective' at during peacetime?
Train like you fight, fight like you train. A two-carrier group would be completely different than a four-carrier group in arrangement, numbers of escorts, assignment of duties, co-ordination and tasking of aircraft, etc. That being the case, two-carrier groups would NOT be giving us any useful training so, again, what's the purpose?
Those are matters of opinion, not fact, and you have a right to your opinion.
Delete"I believe the "are of no use or value in peacetime and are not effective in war" is more opinion"
DeleteNo, it's fact based on the reality that we don't use carriers for anything other occasionally dropping bombs on goat herders or terrorists, neither of which require two-carrier groups.
Can you offer a single example of a peacetime carrier operation that would have been more effective with two carriers instead of one? If not, then my position is fact, not opinion.
"At very least, I think two operating together is more effective than one operating singly"
Again, you're repeating a generic statement. Whether you believe it to be fact or opinion, offer an example if you want to convince anyone.
"I don't think (opinion) that a peacetime budget is going to accept operating four carrier groups all the time."
Of course not. That's not even needed. We bring the fleet home and just do training and maintenance. When we exercise (a few days or few weeks at a time) then, and only then, do we form 4-carrier groups. It is an established fact, acknowledged by the Navy, and demonstrated by the deployment history, that our carrier deployments are devastating our carrier maintenance and readiness.
For Desert Storm, we had 2 carriers (Saratoga and JFK) operating in the Red Sea and 4 carriers (Midway, Ranger, America, and Teddy Roosevelt) operating in the Arabian Gulf/Sea. Not sure what the strategic/tactical considerations were, but that is what we did.
Delete"Desert Storm"
DeleteThat was war, not peacetime and the carriers were unopposed so the grouping, if any, didn't matter.
Still waiting for a peacetime example of two carriers being needed for something one couldn't do alone.
"Train like you fight, fight like you train."
DeleteMitscher's comment about the ideal carrier group (4 carriers) made perfect sense for the Navy we had in the last couple of years of WW2. Going into 1944, the Navy fielded 19 fleet carriers, 35 escort carriers, and nearly 600 cruisers, destroyers, and other escorts.
Today, we have a fraction of that. I can't see any circumstance where we could muster 4 carriers and 30-something escorts and support ships. Indeed, the first battles in the Pacific were fought with one or two-carrier task forces until we built up our forces.
" I can't see any circumstance where we could muster 4 carriers and 30-something escorts and support ships."
Delete???? Unlike the start of WWII where we had a grand total of 5 fleet carriers and a couple oddballs, today we have 11 fleet carriers. We also have 70 Burkes and 22 Tico cruisers, at the moment. So, we could easily muster 4 carriers and 30 some odd escorts for a sufficiently worthy mission. You know this, so, what point were you really trying to make?
At the start of the next war, we're going to need ships and carriers to protect the coasts, Hawaii, and our bases in the Middle East and the Western Pacific. What "suffiently worthy mission" would require deploying about half of Pacific Fleet in a single formation?
DeleteAt the same, how many logistic ships would be required to support such a force? We have two Supply-class Fast Transports left. How do you propose we support such a force with fuel, ammo, and other supplies?
"What "suffiently worthy mission" would require deploying about half of Pacific Fleet in a single formation?"
DeleteWho knows? The next Battle of Midway that could turn the tide of war, perhaps, or the protection of Taiwan, or the invasion and liberation of Philippines after a Chinese seizure, or any number of possible scenarios.
"protect the coasts, Hawaii"
??? You need to come up to speed on how to fight a war. You don't cower back in a defensive posture. You defend by attacking. China has no capability to threaten our coasts and the best defense for Hawaii is to attack any sources of threats. We also have a large Air Force whose responsibility, among others, is to protect bases.
"How do you propose we support such a force with fuel, ammo, and other supplies?"
Logistics are a weakness, without a doubt. However, you again need to come up to speed on how a naval war is fought. You don't put to sea on day one and stay there until the war is over. You assemble, execute a mission over the course of a few days or weeks and then return to base to repair and replenish. That's your logistics to a very large extent, especially early in a war.
"We have two Supply-class Fast Transports left"
You need to come up to speed on our current force structure. We currently have 61 logistic support vessels of various types. For example, we have 15 fleet oilers with 20 John Lewis combination replenishment oilers in production or planned. And so on. Check the Naval Vessel Register for up to date exact numbers and types.
"given the EMALS and AAG reliability issues"
ReplyDeleteWatch China's type 003 carrier which is to be launched this year. A couple years later, it should be completed. We should then see if EMAL works on its 003 or not.
If it works, then, what shall we say to military industry complex? If not, then, we know this is a wrong way.
As best I could determine, EMALS flaw was because the flexing of a moving ship causes the rails to constantly misalign by just a few millimeters making proper power management impossible. This also affects the elevators. More recently, I've read comments from insiders blaming the flywheel energy storage system. First, this from 2017.
ReplyDeleteAnimats on June 7, 2017 | parent | context | favorite | on: How not to build a ship: the USS Ford
The EMALS system's big problems seem to be with the motor-generator-flywheel system used to power them. The ship doesn't generate enough power to drive the catapults directly from ship power. They have to wind up a flywheel, and then dump that energy using a generator when launching aircraft. The hardware for that weighs 12 tons. Whatever problem they're having has resulted in damage to the motor/generator windings, requiring pulling out the rotating component. This is apparently a difficult repair.
That has to create huge stresses on the windings. You wind up the flywheel, and then suddenly apply field current to activate the generator. They may be trying to ramp up field current slowly to reduce the stress. Some articles mention problems with a voltage regulator causing machine damage. Maybe the rotating machinery can't take a full-power turn-on.
Details on the system seem rather vague. Some published articles say there are four motor-generator-flywheel sets; others say only two. Isolating failed units electrically for maintenance is apparently difficult. Unclear why.
This unit "passed factory acceptance testing" in 2008.[1] These problems should have been discovered and fixed years ago. The manufacturer is Kato Engineering, part of Emerson Electric, acting as a subcontractor to General Atomic. They make a range of generators for various applications. So this is coming from a company with a long history of making generators. But generators are usually continuous-duty, not something that experiences shock loads like this flywheel rig. Apparently nobody insisted on some serious testing like running this thing through 50,000 cycles into a dummy load
Albertkallal
Delete5 months ago (edited)
@keir farnum >>I’m no expert or anything Well, then let’s get you up to speed so at least you have a idea of how this system works, shall we? EMALS weighs more, and takes up MORE space below decks. While they state the rails take less space, they choose their words very careful!!! - and you did actually touch on the weight and balance issue for the ship. EMALS weighs more, and takes up more room below decks. And there are ALSO MORE moving parts for EMALS below decks.
To use the electric launch system? They can’t draw power directly from the ships generators. Several reasons exist. First, you can’t draw enough power at the rates required to run the rails. So you have to “store up” the power. More important, the amount of power available for a launch MUST be known beforehand. So, if someone turns on a lift, air conditioners, an oven or what not? Then the total power available is changing. And even a circuit breaker flip or any other system – you can see the lights dim – and power available changes. So you need CLEAN power, uninterrupted power for a catapult launch. You can’t have power change half way during a launch – or you wind up with a jet in the sea.
So, what they do is STORE UP THE power for a catapult launch. They use big motor flywheels to do this. An EMALS motor generator weighs over 80,000 pounds, and is 13.5 feet long, almost 11 feet wide and almost 7 feet tall. So, there is 4 of these for EACH catapult. A total of 16 of these beast of burden mechanical monsters. In addition to the huge flywheels they spin up, you have the generator control room (for each catapult). So, to launch a fighter? They spin 4 of these mechanical monsters to 5000 RPM. Then for a launch, they spin them up to 6000 RPM. (It takes about 50 seconds to spin them up from 5000 RPM to 6000 RPM). And that 50 seconds time is when you are running ONE rails. If you running 4 of them, then LONGER - in fact just as long as steam. Once they are up to 6000 RPM, then the catapult (the electric rails) are ready to be fired.
At the end of a single launch, the huge flywheels will be back to 5000 RPM. During a launch, the huge mechanical flywheel feeds into a complex energy converter (called a cyclotron). Now, take all of the above systems? What does a steam catapult use for ALL OF the above? Why, it uses a tank of air, with a valve. That is it!!! I should also point out that you can’t isolate the huge flywheel generators from each other. In other words, if any switch or ability to turn off one of these mechanical beast of burden flywheels exists? Then that is considered a possible failure point.
So, if some small problem occurs, and you have to service them? Well, they take 1 hour to spin down. And worse, they really can’t be serviced or repaired at sea anyway. If one goes down, they ARE ALL TAKEN down!!! And as noted, you can’t isolate the systems from each other. So all catapults are down. If you introduce a switch or breaker, then perhaps someone comes along and turns that breaker off for working on the air conditioner, or lift? And now over the years that switch becomes bad or corroded? Each such "thing" is a new failure point in the system.
With steam? If one catapult has an issue? Well, they just go below deck, turn some steam valves, and isolate one catapult, and operate other 3. No big deal to keep a catapult off line until you finished fighting the enemy. With EMALS, you shut them all down, and sent out another carrier while the current one returns home. So, steam, is cheap, easy, simple, but MOST important such systems are not only simple and reliable, but can be serviced and maintained at sea. The EMALS system is massively complex, has MORE AND LARGER mechanically parts and bits it replaces, and worst of all, can’t be serviced at sea, and even if you try, you have to wait 1 hour to spin down the system before you can touch anything anyway. And worse yet? Supposed these huge elephant size mechanical flywheels are supposed to save room!!! –
"Why, it uses a tank of air, with a valve. That is it!!! "
DeleteGood grief, no! That's a gross simplification equivalent to saying that EMALs uses a motor and that's it. Take a look at any schematic of a steam catapult system and you'll see many dozens of tanks of all sorts (accumulators, separators, fluid collectors, air tanks, etc.) as well as miles of pipes, huge numbers of pumps and valves, and so on. In addition, there are the enormous steam generating equipment and additional miles of steam piping.
The author of this piece has a bias that is leading him to make claims that are untrue.
What is true is that the electrical system was horribly designed as regards maintenance. It does, indeed, require that all the cats are downed to conduct repairs on one and that the up/down process is immensely time consuming. The design shouldn't have gotten past the napkin stage but since we eliminated BuShips, the Navy has no in-house engineering expertise and this is the result.
I encourage you to investigate the various schematics of both steam and EMALS rather than accept the author's descriptions at face value. globalsecurity.org has a good writeup about the electronics (much of it was over my head!).
There is much to criticize about the EMALS system but it must be done with objective facts.
"First, this from 2017."
DeleteDo you have a link for this? I'd love to investigate it further. I've not heard about rotor problems, per se.
The Ford experienced problems and an explosion with one or more of its main turbine generators (MTG) in ?2016? but those were not related to the EMALS system. Is it possible you're confusing the two systems?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14510655
DeleteThanks. Any idea what degree of credibility this person has?
DeleteI know nothing about either of these people. But both note repairing EMALS damage is complex and the latter says it cannot be done at sea. This explains the mini-deployment in the Atlantic where it can quietly swing by Norfolk or Newport News for repairs after problems develop. It will be fun to track this September deployment and see if it can remain deployed for three months.
DeleteThis Albertkallal did offer a solution.
DeleteThe best solution as noted would be super-capacitors. But, they don't have the power density right now. (actually, they are much better then 10 years ago when EMALS was chosen). So, they are stuck using 4 big beast of burden mechanical spinning flywheels. They have 4 such elephant sized flywheels that they spin up for each catapult. Each of these flywheels are 10 tons each. So, they have a total of 16 of these flywheels - 4 per catapult. So, that's a 160 tons of flywheels. it actually takes up MORE space below decks then do the steam catapults. And in fact, they had to re-balance the ship as a result. Would be really cool if the press, and posters here would not try and do a sales job as to how EMALS is some solid state type of system - and it not even close. There are large amounts of mechanical bits and parts to EMALS, but worse they can't as a general rule be serviced at sea. As late as July 2021, they were still having failures. That last shut down resulted in 3 days of not being able to launch fighters. (they headed back to port for repairs). This occurred in July of last year - far too late into the program to be having such huge interruptions in the ability to launch fighters. Previous to that July shutdown, the previous shut down occurred less then 12 months earlier, and it had EMALS off line for 5 days. Once again, the fix was to head back to port. Yes, some solid sate system, with mechanical spinning flywheels, right? I would not mind this medieval approach to spinning wheels to launch a jet, but it would be nice if the system was at least reliable. They of course now have classified anymore reports and test results. So, we been cut off from current test results - as usually, better to just put a lid on the problems and not let the public know, right? So, if you don't know about these issues? Then nothing to see or hear, right? So sad, so now we can't even find out how well EMALS is doing, right?
"can't as a general rule be serviced at sea."
DeleteI don't know this to be true or not. To be fair and objective, the crew may be making repairs every day on the system and it's just a case of every now and then a major problem crops up that requires shore support. This is potentially true of every large system on every ship. Occasionally there will be a problem that requires shore support.
As the author notes, actual reliability data has been cut off, including from DOT&E. Of course, even if DOT&E had up to date information, they've 'controlled' their reports so that we can't see it!
This author appears to have a mix of some basic, correct information and a lot of speculation some of which seems plausible and some does not. Treat it all with caution.
Continued.
ReplyDeleteOh wait!!! The electric rails save room, and no need for steam generators (attached to the nuclear reactor). However, over all the EMAILS system is NOT saving room at all. I mean, sure if you JUST compare the rails, then YES. But to leave out the huge massive mechanical beast of burden flywheels, then you NOT reduced parts at all here. To be fair the catapult rails for steam do have more maintains then the steam rails. So the rubberized seal that goes around the hook that travels down the track for steam is a “pain”. However, such maintains can once again be done at sea.
So, while the rails on EMALS require less maintenance? Well, that remains to be seen, but while the rails has less maintains, the large number of huge mechanical flywheels to store energy during a launch are NOT a reduction in mechanical bits and parts. So, the tanks of air have been replaced with a VERY large number of those flywheels, and it remains to be seen how reliable these things will be. And as noted, these huge mechanical flywheels don’t save room compared to the simple “air tank” that will last for the whole 50+ years of the carrier.
How secure are the flywheels, could one or more come loose from some combat damage? 10 tons of metal with the energy they would have could do a lot of damage internally
DeleteWe dont have any new numbers of "launches without failure" since CNO last posted about it, or do we(???)
ReplyDeleteNot that I know of.
DeleteRE: EMALS weight. One possibility is that, even if the total weight of EMALS is larger than a steam catapult, the weight distribution may be different. That is, all those heavy flywheels and motor generators may be low in the ship whereas the steam tanks are probably just under the flight deck. So the "high weight" may be higher for steam even if the total weight is less. And weight high in the ship can be a stability issue.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy needs to remember that its Customer's, the American People, can tolerate spending alot for things that are complex and work. They will NOT tolerate spending alot for things that do not work and finding out that the Navy hid the truth through classification or dead of night decisions announced 3 months later. Pretty soon now (hopefully) someone is going to start asking tough questions and demanding accountability.
ReplyDeleteThe massive amount of fraud, waste and abuse seems to be approaching (or surpassing) a criminal level of negligence.
DeleteI believe that this should be investigated in the most intrusive and disruptive way possible.
If criminal negligence is found....prosecute.
If not found it will still serve as a healthy shot across the bow to the DoD, the Navy, and industry.
Lutefisk
We don't need criminal investigations to put an end to this. SecNav or CNO, if they had an ounce of integrity, would fire people left and right for the LCS, Zumwalt, Ford, etc. fiascos and that would suffice to send the message to everyone else.
DeleteRemember SecNav Richard Spencer who told Trump to fire him if the Ford's elevators weren't working by the promised date? Of course, they weren't and instead of resigning, the guy blamed Congress and everyone else.
Until we get leaders with integrity, nothing will improve.
One good SecNav could change the entire Navy in a month.
"One good SecNav could change the entire Navy in a month."
DeleteYou're hired.
(But I still would like to see some heads roll.)
Lutefisk
If China's 003 works (also use EMALS), then, there is no excuse.
DeleteIt is to be launched this year, after a couple of years, it should be completed if its EMALS work well.
Let's see Chinese engineers' competency in a couple of years.
Has the CNO become a more politically driven position? (I used P-word, sorry). Do we push to create a naval shipbuilding oversight committee or advisory board of former admirals and captains? I don't think the Navy's streak of program failures is going to be an internal fix. I believe that if this trend continues, we're not going to have to worry about meeting the challenges that the PLAN may pose in the future, because the Navy is destroying itself from the inside out.
DeleteFormer SecNav Lehman, was probably one of the better, if not the best SecNav's, we've had. One word: ACCOUNTABILITY. Bring it back, hold them to that. Skippers get fired, why can't CNO? Grrrr!
Caveat: Make Elon Musk the new SecNav. He might be a little bit eccentric, but so was Howard Hughes.
Delete"Has the CNO become a more politically driven position?"
DeleteNo, because it was thoroughly political from the start. For example, the General Board was abolished because the CNO wanted more power and felt the General Board was too influential. CNO Forrest Sherman abolished the Board in 1951. This is one of the worst Navy decisions of all time - and there is some serious competition for that distinction!
The Ford has no more achieved IOC as an aircraft carrier than my left foot has.
ReplyDeleteHow's the right foot coming along? Is it on deployment yet?
DeleteRight foot deployment has been postponed to 2029.
DeleteSo, with just a questionable left foot deployed, he'll only be able to walk in circle until 2029?
DeleteYes, but he has been declared Full Walk Capable so that's okay.
DeleteWhat about electromagnetic emissions from EMALS? I've seen everything from it's no problem to it's a major issue. Does anybody have any definitive information?
ReplyDeleteI've addressed this before. Then CNO Greenert stated publicly that EMALS was not shielded and that it was a giant electromagnetic beacon. I documented the statement in a post although I can't recall which one, off the top of my head.
Delete"I've seen everything from it's no problem to it's a major issue."
DeleteIt's actually both.
It would be a major issue, but Fords aren't going to actually see combat anytime soon, so nobody cares.
When you do something so late in the year there is some legal reason you want it to be done in this year. Do you have any guess about what reason could it be?
ReplyDelete