Pages

Tuesday, January 24, 2023

EMALS and AAG Reliability Data

Here is the only data to appear in the entire 2022 DOT&E annual report:  It’s for the Ford EMALS and AAG.

 

EMALS

 

During testing from March through June 2022 (after the PIA), EMALS achieved a reliability of 614 mean cycles between operational mission failures (MCBOMF) during 1,841 catapult launches (where a cycle is the launch of one aircraft). While this reliability is well below the requirement of 4,166 MCBOMF, EMALS showed slight improvement in reliability from FY21 (460 MCBOMF throughout 1,758 catapults). However, during the fi rst underway of IOT&E in September 2022, EMALS reliability appeared to regress …

 

Thus, the most recent reliability is only 15% of the requirement.

 

 

AAG

 

During testing from March through June 2022 (after the PIA), AAG achieved a reliability of 460 MCBOMF during 1,841 aircraft recoveries (where a cycle is the recovery of a single aircraft). While this reliability is well below the requirement of 16,500 MCBOMF, AAG showed slight improvement in reliability from FY21 (115 MCBOMF throughout 1,758 catapults).  However, during the first underway of IOT&E in September 2022, AAG reliability appeared to regress …

 

Thus, the most recent reliability is only 3% of the requirement.


40 comments:

  1. Unreal.... Now to hear how long those failures took to fix... Minutes, hours, days??? Seems as if air ops should only be done within range of land, or another carrier!!! To say that those numbers are woefully inadequate or pathetic is being polite. Thanks for posting them CNO. Required reading for any Ford fanboys out there...!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Will they tell us how long it takes to fix these systems when they go down? An expert reported last year that the flywheels begin to break down after just a couple weeks of heavy use. There are 12 of them, but after half fail they can't really operate EMALS nor repair the flywheels at sea.

    So the Ford will not deploy overseas this year, or next! It did a 7-week mini-deployment last year and rushed home a week early after the captain said there were still problems. Yet the Navy is spending billions of dollars to finish the second in the class and halfway done with the 3rd and 4th.

    Wouldn't an ethical and sane organization order a halt to this spending? This is the best example of how corrupt our Navy and Pentagon have become. No one has been fired, no one has resigned, no one in Congress expresses outrage, and our corrupt corporate media ignore this story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Investigate, indict, prosecute, imprison.

      Delete
    2. Sounds like it time to take a hard look at mini-RCOHs, or whatever itll take to keep Nimitz, and at least her two oldest sisters active for another 5-8years, if not more. And I dont really care how expensive it is, because we need ships that are actually functional.
      This whole Ford mess is an epic sized disaster. Everyone thats been a part of the program since inception should be fired at the least, or even charged with... somthing...SecNav on down!!! And anyone connected with the future force plans, well, lets just say that the day they decommission the Nimitz, if the Fords arent 100% functional, then its probably time to pull out the hangin' rope...

      Delete
    3. "mini-RCOHs, or whatever itll take to keep Nimitz, and at least her two oldest sisters active for another 5-8years"

      One thing might be to simply put speed limits on them, except of course for tactical necessity. The energy that has to come from the reactor to go a certain distance (like across the Pacific) increases rapidly with transit speed. Crudely, I believe that it goes like the SQUARE of the transit speed. Which means (again crudely) that it would take FOUR times the energy to transit the Pacific at 30 knots than at 15 knots. So slowing the ships down NOW might gain one or two additional deployments.

      Delete
    4. "This whole Ford mess is an epic sized disaster. Everyone thats been a part of the program since inception should be fired at the least, or even charged with... somthing..."

      This not only wasted an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars, it also has a measurable effect on navy readiness and national security.

      It's truly infuriating.

      The fact that heads are not rolling is an indicator of how corrupt the navy/DOD/defense contractors/congress have become.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
  3. I just googled to see any new info on the flywheels.
    A new article just appeared today, claiming the Navy knows they don't really work and plans to replaces them with supercapacitors, which may not work either. There is no author name, but he provides details. Also says the elevators barely work too.

    https://min.news/en/military/00a35e526045d41a3e0c7b32c8a3c3a8.html#:~:text=Each%20Ford%20electromagnetic%20catapult%20is%20equipped%20with%20three,kinetic%20energy%20has%20resulted%20in%20considerable%20energy%20loss.

    ReplyDelete
  4. DO we know how serious these "operational mission failures" are? I assume they don't all result in an airplane in the ocean. Do most of them result in the electronics catching a problem before the launch and aborting?

    ReplyDelete
  5. On EMALS, I would like to look China's type 003 carrier which will start sea tests soon. If China gets EMALS right, then, it is a gravy shame to Navy. If its EMALS also performs poorly, then, we would know EMALS is not practical.

    Don't just look its official news announcement but on how many launches it can perform.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pretty sure that China isn't going to provide any public data on its EMALS performance ... at least, none that we can believe.

      Delete
    2. Watch what they do, not what they say. If they deliver quickly after sea test, if they deploy in contested missions (such as South China Sea), then, it likely works (or would be in trouble if a conflict arises). If they keep "testing", then, you know that they have troubles.

      Delete
    3. Even if the Chinese have problems too, I wouldnt say that makes EMALS impractical. I mean it works. The problem is that its been installed on ships and the bugs havent been sorted out yet. EMALS and AAG should still be in the test lab, and Ford, JFK, and probably at least Enterprise, if not D.Miller also, should have been conventional steam cat ships. The tech just isn't ready yet. I believe itll work someday. But until it outperforms steam and meets all its failure criteria, it has no business on a warship. This is a mess of our own making...

      Delete
    4. This is exactly what President Trump said all those years ago, but the current crop of Pentagon crooks ignored him. He should have just fired them "for cause" all when they refused to follow his lawful orders.

      Delete
    5. If you find his comments related to his opinion a coherent strategy, where was his follow through? https://news.usni.org/2017/05/11/president-trump-wants-ford-carriers-use-goddamned-steam-catapults-instead-no-good-electromagnetic-launchers

      Delete
    6. " when they refused to follow his lawful orders."

      I followed that closely. As best I was able to discern, he made public statements of disapproval but never actually issued an order to stop the installation of EMALS.

      Delete
    7. China's type 076 Amphibious Assault Ship will also include two EMALS, according to its published bidding request documents. Since it has not yet been launched, there is no further information. Common speculation is that they will use EMALS to launch heavy drones.

      Since type 003 has not yet started sea trials, building another ship with EMALS shows that China is confident on its EMALS would work.

      Let's see if their EMALS on type 003 work or not.

      Delete
    8. "Since type 003 has not yet started sea trials, building another ship with EMALS shows that China is confident on its EMALS would work."

      I would point out that the US not only committed to three additional Fords before the first was finished but we did so with PROOF that the EMALS DID NOT WORK! Thus, the mere fact that China is building another ship with EMALS does not mean they'll have a successful EMALS.

      Delete
  6. Well, what did you expect from CV named Ford ????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should have named it Enterprise from the beginning. Would have made people think harder about the risks.

      Delete
    2. I wonder if the sailors have nicknamed it the 'Edsel' yet?

      Lutefisk

      Delete
  7. Ahh Yeppers Admiral sign that DD250 and welcome to your cushy post retirement job.

    Think of how much time and money was spent generating those requirements? The time and money to review the designs at PDR and CDR? Reviewing the Reliability analysis that should have (was it??) been generated during design. Then the time and money to witness testing and seeing that the actual MTBF was not even CLOSE to the computed MTBF. Then the really expensive part of finding cover and excuses for these not ready for prime time programs.

    Is the Navy now run like GE was under Welch and Immelt? Just keep the money flowing? Those are rhetorical questions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And what were the reliability numbers for detection of the electromagnetic signature of the EMALS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 100%, meaning it will be detected for sure.
      Except for the fact that Ford won't see an actual war until she's fixed, so never, so it won't matter.

      Delete
  9. What is the MCBOMF on the steam catapult and arresting wire system on Nimitz?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never seen a figure on that.

      Delete
    2. The only thing I could find is a figure of "99.5% success rate" for steam catapults.

      Delete
  10. I think we need to know what the physical faults are and times to repair vs those that are software. It will be very hard to make apples to oranges comparisons except in the aggregate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. For me, the number are meaningless if we don't know what exactly constitutes the numbers? Are we talking 5 min reset? An hour reset? Physical or software? Completely stopped? Are there work around or limitations but still somewhat works??

      Delete
    2. We're never going to get that kind of detailed data. However, it's sufficient to recall that the objective was set with whatever kind of failings were considered significant and to achieve only 3%-15% of the objective says that the system has serious, SYSTEMIC problems.

      The phrase ' operational mission failure' tells me these aren't minor annoyances, they're failures significant enough to cause a mission failure, whatever that might be. In combat, even an hour reset - if there were such a thing - is potentially catastrophic.

      Delete
    3. If the Navy is not specifying the MTBF and MTTR then they have no idea what the inherent and operational availability of the system is. Unfortunately, I can believe the Navy didn't specify this as it would require them to understand basic reliability concepts and all of the services seem to have gone into the forgot it tank (the nicest thing I can say). If the Contractor did not provide a reliability plan and perform reliability analyses on the design then same on them, if the Navy didn't ask for or understand what they were looking at, then a bigger shame on them. Does anyone here think that Tesla and SpaceX (the latest build something that works fast stories) don't consider reliability in their products?

      Delete
    4. "If the Navy is not specifying the MTBF"

      Yes, the Navy is specifying these criteria. DOT&E has either stated explicitly or referenced the existence of MTBF's for various aircraft and pieces of equipment as evidenced by the specs cited in this post and during discussions of aircraft readiness. The items in question are simply not meeting their requirements and the Navy is accepting that instead of holding the manufacturer accountable.

      Delete
    5. If the Navy specifies requirements but doesn't enforce them, are they really specifying requirements? I didn't see a mention of MTTR, do you know if that requirement has been published?

      Delete
    6. "MTTR"

      I'm guessing you're referring to Mean Time To Repair? If so, I've never heard of such a spec and it would be meaningless since it would depend on what the repair is.

      Delete
  11. DOT&E abstract on Ford - "Reliability challenges with systems critical for flight operations, including catapults, arresting gear, jet blast deflectors, and radar continue to pose the most risk to CVN 78 demonstrating operational effectiveness and suitability in IOT&E, which is scheduled to last through 4QFY24 (September 30, 2024)"

    If Ford by a minor miracle joins fleet as fully functional ship in October 2024 that will be 17 years 2 months from start of construction August 11, 2005 and 6 years 2 months from commissioning July 22, 2017, the build time and entry into fleet most be all time records for any US Navy ship.

    Note - OT&E (Operational Test and Evaluation) mandated by Congressional 10 USC Code § 4171, is a fielded test, under realistic combat conditions, for a Major Defense Program (MDP) and conducted on production, or production representative articles, to determine whether systems are operationally effective and suitable for intended use by representative users to support the decision to proceed beyond Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP).

    As Ford has yet to demonstrate its capability to meet its OTE don't think you could classify build of the three follow-on ships, CVN-79,80 and 81 as LRIP, but it appears standard practise for Congress to ignore its own laws these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " but it appears standard practise for Congress to ignore its own laws these days."

      Yes. You might recall the laughable cost cap that Congress placed on the Ford? The Navy ignored it and kept blowing right past it and Congress responded by increasing the cap each time. What a joke.

      It's not just Congress that ignores its own laws. The Navy routinely ignores Congressional mandates. Congress has several times passed legislation requiring the Navy to submit various reports on force structure to support Congressional decision making and the Navy has simply ignored them. Congress needs to include criminal penalties for failing to meet the requirements so that CNOs can be arrested and criminally charged. Currently, there is no penalty except for Congress to fire the offender and they seem unwilling to do so.

      Delete
    2. "The Navy routinely ignores Congressional mandates."

      So true!!! I was stunned to see the amount of blatant insubordination to congressional authority I found when I was researching somthing a while back about the Foster, the Spruance ex-DD used for various tests...

      Delete
  12. What the (MCBOMF) for other aircraft carriers
    Nimitz class ?
    French Carrier Charles de Gaulle ?
    QE class aircraft carriers ?

    what was the (MCBOMF) (speculated ?) of WW2 aircraft carriers ?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Briefly, are the Chinese carriers a legitimate threat in the near term? Even if their EMALS work reliably, they lack the institutional knowledge to generate sorties. The U.S. has learned and retained quite a bit of knowledge in having flung aviators & aircraft from warships and successfully recovered them for over a century. I think operationally the Chinese carriers are going to be as threatening as Russia’s single carrier. They will linger near the Chinese coast within range of PLAN land based aircraft. Still, They will be mobile and the equivalent of airbases that you won’t be able to target with a map.

    ACES & EIGHTS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "are the Chinese carriers a legitimate threat in the near term?"

      Threat to what? Their current carriers are not full fledged carriers. They're mini-carriers, at most. So, no, they're not a threat to the US carriers roaming the Pacific ocean.

      However, that's not their intended purpose. They're purpose is to provide operational experience for the forthcoming full size carriers and to support a Taiwan invasion, close to home. They would be highly useful in this role so, yes, they're a threat.

      They're also intended to intimidate regional countries that have no naval aviation capability and little land based aviation so, yes, they're a threat in that role.

      As always, the answer is CONOPS. What is the asset intended to do? In this case, the carriers are a threat within their CONOPS.

      Note that what makes a carrier fully effective is the support aircraft: EW, tankers, and AEW. The Chinese have those aircraft, to an extent, but they lack the operational experience using them. For example, just because you have an AEW aircraft doesn't mean you can effectively control an aerial battlefield (which is the true function of the E-2 Hawkeye AEW). That's a skill/art learned over decades of real world operational experience. The Chinese have started down that path but they're only on their first, tentative steps.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.