On 14th November the US Navy’s new aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford arrived in UK waters for her first visit to Europe. The 100,000-ton ship is the largest, most expensive and arguably the most powerful warship ever built. Here we report from onboard about her first operational deployment and now this vessel represents a step change in carrier aviation.
Transformational design
Although externally similar, the Ford-class aircraft carriers are not just an iterative development of the proceeding Nimitz class but a transformational design. 23 separate systems incorporating new technologies have been brought together to create a vessel that will ensure the US Navy maintains its already vast lead in carrier development over any of its global competitors. The decisions made by President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to go for such a cutting-edge option came with enormous technical and financial risk which was perhaps underestimated at the time. The price tag for the vessel (not including aircraft) has risen to around $13.3bn with another $5bn spent on supporting research and development.
The new ship is the culmination of a twenty-year project, and although formally commissioned in July 2017, she did not achieve initial operating capability until December 2021. The first of class of any warship is also a prototype and many of its systems can only be fully tested when installed on the ship or at sea. Nearly 5 years were spent on fixing emerging issues with the new systems but as a project too big to fail, expenditure and hard work has finally paid off. The USN now has a platform that is by far the best on the planet, with a large margin of reserve space and power generation to absorb future ship and aircraft technologies. Broadly speaking the new design also enables Ford to generate higher sustained aircraft sortie rates, making for a safer, more survivable combat vessel with reduced crewing and maintenance requirements.
With a similar painful experience developing the Zumwalt class destroyers, the USN has subsequently said it will never again attempt to bring together so many new technologies together in one new warship design. Three further ships of the class are now under construction, the USS John F. Kennedy, USS Enterprise and USS Doris Miller, with a 5th planned. The Ford is the first new carrier design in 40 years and a statement of the USN’s continued commitment to tailhook aviation. Whether the USN will be able to maintain a balanced fleet while simultaneously replacing all 11 of its carriers on a one-for-one basis is open to debate. There are some that argue the USN should consider a smaller, affordable design to maintain numbers. The USN could probably build a CATOBAR carrier based on the Queen Elizabeth-Class design for around $4Bn.


Maiden deployment
The Ford sailed from Norfolk on the 4th October, the aim of the deployment is to test the ship in full carrier strike group operations and to test deep interoperability with NATO partners. She conducted her first overseas visit to Halifax in Canada before crossing the Atlantic in challenging weather conditions. Interviewed on board in the Solent, CO, Captain Paul Lanziolotta, said: “This ship is badass, a great system of systems, high technology is everywhere” but added that his crew have been working especially hard in the last year, still with a learning mindset about the new technology. He noted that the ship has generally performed well so far and by deploying further from the States for the first time, it offers a chance to test the logistic support for the new vessel.
A broadsheet journalist challenged the Captain about the threat to his ship from “cheap drones like we’ve seen in Ukraine” but Lanzilotta responded robustly: “One of the things about nuclear-powered warships, and this one in particular, is that manoeuvre is to our advantage. We’re not static. We tend to move the ship fairly aggressively and move large distances in small periods of time. I think that makes it pretty challenging for an inexpensive drone to be a challenge for me”.
Asked if she was “battle ready” the CO said: “There is a spectrum but we are at a high level of readiness, we are still working our way up to the very top level and have some workups still to do. If we were tasked to fight tomorrow we absolutely could”. The deployment represents a commitment to US allies and to maintain peace and stability in the European region. Commenting on his hosts he said: “The Royal Navy and Portsmouth command have really rolled out the red carpet for us and my sailors and I really appreciate that partnership and the welcome we’ve had here”.

The electric ship
Of the 23 new innovations, the main theme is the move towards electrification. The two nuclear reactors are of a new and more powerful design enabling the steam alternators to deliver almost 3 times the generation capacity of the Nimitz and a peak voltage of up to 13,800v. Besides providing energy for the majority of the ship’s systems, this leaves a large reserve to fit directed energy weapons or more powerful sensors in the future.
The most high-profile innovation has been the adoption of the Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), replacing the steam-powered catapults pioneered by the Royal Navy in the 1950s. The main advantage of this system is reduced wear on the aircraft as launch power can be finely calculated. A typical steam cat launch provides 50 knots above what is actually required but the EMALS operator can select the exact thrust needed for the individual aircraft type, fuel/weapon load and wind conditions. This precision will be especially important in future, allowing the catapulting force to be reduced for smaller uncrewed aircraft types. The Captain, who launched from his ship in an E-2 Hawkeye aircraft recently, said EMALS “gives you a strong cat shot with no question in your mind you are going flying”. Assistant Air Officer, Cdr Richard Rosenbusch said that most aviators report that both catapulted take-off and arrested landings are slightly smoother on the Ford than the Nimitz class. EMALS also saves space, avoiding the need to pipe steam from the nuclear reactors as well as condensers and water purification plants.

Maturing EMALS from a land-based demonstrator into a reliable ship-board system has proven to be a long and expensive process but the USN is now reaping the rewards. The Chinese are known to be developing EMALS for their carriers, although how far away from an operationally deployable system they may be is hard to say. General Atomics will supply two EMALS sets to the French for their future carrier (PANG) at a total cost of around $1.321 billion (including the arrestor gear). Those still advocating the QEC carriers are converted to full CATOBAR configuration should note the price tag.
The Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) developed for the Ford allows the recovery of a greater range of aircraft and also reduces stress loadings on the airframe. The rotary engines comprise simple energy-absorbing water turbines coupled to an induction motor for fine control of the arresting forces. The two ends of the arrestor cables are attached to independent engines and computers rapidly calculate the tension to be applied to each in order to keep the aircraft centred and decelerating as smoothly as possible.

AWE are another critical part of Ford’s new capabilities. The magazines and systems that bring munitions to the flight deck are a foundational part of aircraft carrier design and their importance is often overlooked. The Ford has eleven AWEs and issues with them were one of the long-running technical problems that delayed her entry into service. Cdr Jim Fish, the ship’s weapons officer said the lifts were now “working like a champ” and there had been no problems his technicians could not solve themselves on this deployment. The lifts are moved by electromagnetic induction without the need for hydraulics and cables. This greatly reduces maintenance and simplifies the design of heavy doors that seal off the elevator shafts between decks to make them blast, fire and flood proof.
The AWEs are rated for loads of 24,000lb ammunition and can travel at 150 ft per minute. Compared to the cable lifts of the Nimitz which are rated to 10,000 lbs and 100 feet per minute, this delivers a significant increase in sortie generation rate as aircraft can be armed faster and more safely. The Ford can sustain around 160 sorties per day compared with 140 for the Nimitz.

7 lower-stage AWEs bring weapons from the deep magazine up to the assembly areas and a further 4 small upper-stage AWEs bring ready weapons to the flight deck through hatches designed to fit under the wing of an aircraft when open. The Nimitz ammunition staging area is next to the island whereas all munitions are prepared under cover on the Ford which is much safer and frees up space for aircraft movements. Despite the major investment in the AWEs, ordnance on the Ford is still predominantly manually handled by personnel using transportation carts in the deep magazines. This philosophy is an interesting contrast to the automated systems of the QEC magazine that use a series of moles that move on rails to transport munitions loads from storage areas to the lifts. The USN has a much wider variety of ammunition types and does not suffer from the same manpower shortage as the RN.


There are some improvements to accommodation standards on the Ford and sailors reported the food was better than on other ships they had served on. However many junior enlisted personnel still sleep in 40-man berthing areas with 3-tier bunks and accommodation is noticeably more utilitarian than Royal Navy vessels. Junior rates on HMS Queen Elizabeth have twin bunks in 6-berth cabins and comfortable mess areas with carpet and soft furnishings.
Ford’s core ships company numbers around 2,600, a reduction of about 25% on the 3,500 required by the Nimitz. (The air wing adds another 2,400 people when embarked). The costs of sailors’ pay, benefits and pensions over their time in service are increasing and from a through-life perspective cost, the high initial outlay on automated systems may be justified. Just how resilient lean-manned warships like the QEC would be over a sustained period of combat operations or able to cope with a major damage control scenario is more debatable.

-
The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet remains the backbone of US naval aviation. Surprisingly the Ford will not receive the modifications to operate F-35C until 2025. The US carriers based in the Pacific are being prioritised for F-35. The second Ford-class ship, CVN-79 will be delivered F-35-capable from the outset (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
The E-2D Hawkeye of the VAW-124 ‘Bear Aces’ Squadron. The eye in the sky provides radar coverage for the Carrier Strike Group operating in the airborne early warning and fighter direction role (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
C-2A(R) Greyhound carrier-onboard delivery (COD) aircraft of VRC-40 ‘Rawhides’ Squadron. An ungainly aircraft but a key enabler of carrier operations, delivering passengers, spares and supplies to the ship over long distances (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
MH-60R Seahawk of HSM-70 ‘Spartans’ squadron – primarily an anti-submarine platform but can be used in a wide range of other roles (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
(Photo: Navy Lookout) -
The Ford has just three aircraft lifts, the 4th lift of the Nimitz astern of the island has been deleted enabling the island to be sited 140 feet further aft. The additional deck space ahead of the island facilitate easier aircraft movements (Photo: Navy Lookout).
This article only skims the surface of the many engineering developments and capabilities of this mighty ship. For NATO nations, the sight of a US carrier is always reassuring as the ultimate power projection platform with combat aviation capability surpassing that of many entire air forces.

I hope those people that dismissed EMALS can take it back now.
Didn’t dismiss it , but just was too expensive. I do wish we had developed our own EMCAT, even if now we would only use it for drone launches. Too many research project in our MOD and no realisation: https://thinkdefence.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/whatever-happened-emcat/
Did you note the price-tag for the 2 sets the French are buying? Way too expensive for the Royal Navy!
Same price as the T31 project
Thats just the equipment cost for 2 EMALs systems for ONE carrier
UK has two carriers and would have required expensive changes to the carriers under construction, as well.
The cost of EMALS and AAG are bad enough, but then you get to all the ancillary costs…
And there’s lots more beyond this…all of which cost serious money…
And for what?
All so we could operate E-2D Hawkeye (and potentially MQ-25). A very good platform for sure. But it costs over $250m per example. To maintain 24/7 coverage over a CSG you need 5, like the USN use. (The French only carry 2 x E-2C onboard CdG and only have 3 of their replacement, the E-2D on order, 1 of which will be ashore…so they cannot maintain reliable 24/7 coverage for any reasonable length of time). If the RN was to buy E-2D, and to train on it, we’d need to purchase a minimum of 7, which would only provide AEW cover for 1 carrier at a time. More realistically we’d need 12 if we were serious around coverage of 2 carriers at sea at once (in extremis). So a cost of $1.75bn to $3bn alone just for the airframes, again excluding maintenance, support, personnel, basing, upgrades etc etc…similar story for MQ-25 except it is likely to have a smaller price tag of around $100m per example.
Basically to get CATOBAR…and to make the entire exercise worthwhile would cost well in excess of $10bn over the lifetime of the carriers, I suspect in reality it would be more than $15bn.
The entire carrier programme for 2 ships, dockyard and basing improvements, facilities elsewhere, additional tugs etc. cost £7.9bn…i.e. less than $10bn (and even then included £1.6bn of costs as a result of Treasury and Ministerial meddling)….
I cannot believe after many times of explaing this that people still say…’should have been CATOBAR from the start’….
I still would like a review on fitting AAG to QE/PoW, to make them STOBAR.
The French only have one carrier, so when it’s in refit, they have a whole bunch of carrier capable aircraft without a carrier. UK has two carriers, but can’t (currently) outfit even one with a full aircraft load out. STOBAR has its limitations, but is usually viable when the aircraft is loaded for air to air. Most carrier fighter aircraft can operate STOBAR off a ramp equipped carrier.
I wasn’t suggesting it for the RN. I was just referring to the “Grrrr, so useless, our carriers are WAY better!” crowd. The new USN carriers are good for the USN, and the new RN carriers are good for the RN. No more, no less.
Quite.
RN/RAF couldn’t afford the pilot training for catapult launch.
Enough problems with F35B pilot training without another whole specialisation.
Why? Is EMALS meeting its reliability requirements?
Most people did not dismissed just said that it was an unproved technology for deployment in a major asset. This ship spend already a significant percentage of its life not being in operational status.
The jury is still out.
Exactly this.
The Captain isn’t even claiming that she is fully worked up to max tempo.
Can you imagine the blame games if QEC had those issues?? It would be a monumental distraction to other naval project budget lines being trusted.
RN did the right thing and bought what the nation could afford. A big platform that is relatively simple but with bags of room for upgrades.
The new carriers are amazing. The RN only had 57 sea harriers and 48 phantoms (operating off a single carrier), we have 26 F35s and will get to 47.
The British military has loads of gaps, but you have to say these carriers are one of the few bright spots in the car crash of MOD procurement and government defence strategy of the last 20 years.
the RN only had 28 F-4 in service, the other 20 to make 48 were diverted to the RAF when delivered
Appreciate the correction!
No problem. The UK version of the F-4 is a special interest of mine. Much of the later commentary later performance and engines was wrong , and is contradicted by the specialist and reputable aviation press at the time ( I bought a collection of late 60s and 70s UK magazines which covered this plane in depth)
Ford is very impressive but QE and PoW are better looking! Hopefully one day soon we’ll see them packed with aircraft on the deck too!
It’s a different philosophy, forget the fact we dont have the numbers yet. We don’t overload with aircraft so that we can move aircraft around quicker therefore generate more sorties
The Ford and Nimitz classes aren’t even close to “overloaded” with aircraft. Nimitz classes regularly deployed with close to 90 aircraft during the Cold War and now only deploy with around 70. In fact, the theoretical number of Legacy Hornet equivalents the Nimitz class was designed to operate without degrading flight operations is around 100 (equivalent to around 90 Super Hornets or F-35Cs). Around 130 Legacy Hornet equivalents is the absolute maximum a Nimitz class can take and still theoretically conduct flight operations, albeit at a much degraded rate. I haven’t found these same hard numbers for the Ford class but it is almost certainly at least as much, if not higher. American carriers are actually underloaded at the moment, not overloaded. Accounting for the various aircraft sizes (for example, Hawkeyes take up much more space than a Legacy Hornet equivalent, helicopters much less space) a Nimitz or Ford class’s optimal airwing size is probably at least a dozen aircraft larger than they currently are.
Source for maximum aircraft numbers (see chart on page 23, page 64 for explanation for what maximum density means): https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-98-1.pdf
Hawkeyes are the same airframe as they had in the early 60s, engines radars and onboard electronics all different.
Having a single type for strike and fighter escort and air defence means the numbers on board can be reduced. Once they had two types of strike aircraft and two types of fighter including the F14 . Another factor is ordinance is more accurate than the days of dumb bombs. For these and other reasons USN isn’t going back to the cold war big wings
Still doesn’t change my main point, that current US Carrier Air Wings aren’t overloaded, as the person I was replying to was saying they were.
But in some respects reducing loadings increases generatable capability.
There is a balance.
Crew safety requirements are also a lot stricter than they were in the 1970’s when it was a ‘we are virtually at war so you will do what it takes son’ attitude that ruled.
I think the QE carriers can hold more of their compliment inside the hanger deck (24 aircraft) whereas the US carriers keep more aircraft on deck. I believe this practice actually dates back to WW2, but makes sense if you’re operating in the North Atlantic with jets with very expensive stealth coatings on them.
THIS ^^^^^^^^^^
As an aside the broad rule of thumb is 1000 tonnes of displacement for every plane carried. There is spare capacity in these CVN’s.
Plenty of room for MQ-25 tanker/drones and loyal wingman type AC
When it comes to looks, we disagree, the QE class are sadly one of the ugliest carriers built, with two islands and a short stumpy foredeck with big rounded ski jump…….
It is the ramp that makes them look off for me too. Good reasons I suppose why it isn’t more blended in like Russia designs or the Navantia LHD’s. I like the ‘twin islands’.
Reducing forward weight so the bows don’t drop into troughs in rough seas?
Take a lot of hogging stress off the hull?
Just a guess.
They are too big for that to be an issue. I think this goes all the way back to the idea that could be converted to CTOL if needed at some time in the future. So the ramp is just ‘plonked’ (!) on top. In the Juan Carlos class the ramp (its sweep) is structura and same for the Russian ships.
Hogging stress is a factor of mass distribution (at the ends), buoyant length and the distribution of buoyancy.
So the bigger the ship: the bigger the lever arm moment – the more taking weight away from the extreme ends reduces hogging stresses.
Carriers and similar have a structure from keel to the flight deck as a ‘structural deep beam’ which gives it great strength. Much much deeper than say a destroyer and they are beamier as well.
What makes the QE particularly ugly is the way the sky ramp is done and finished. The other ship part are just functional tech design not pretty but also not ugly.
I am aware that this is a negative comment. But as a World War Two veteran I hate war for lives needlessly lost and the utter waste of trillions of dollars. This mighty ship cost billions to build and in her lifetime will cost billions more. In contrast I see that the richest country on the planet has 134 million people struggling to make ends meet. Many thousands living in cars and vans are in tents because rents are too high. The ironic part is that she may go through her life without any real war action. A complete waste of money. I put my own country , England, in the same category. Why is it that aggression plays such a big part in human culture?
Hopefully only for the purpose of deterrence.
No one actively wants war… although Ceasar only went to war if it was going to be profitable (e.g. a land/resource/labour grab). You have to ask why Putin is really invading Ukraine, I doubt it is truly to liberate.
There are some that argue the USN should consider a smaller, affordable design to maintain numbers. The USN could probably build a CATOBAR carrier based on the Queen Elizabeth-Class design for around $4Bn.
The USN were very impressed with the build of QE’s. If the balloon ever does go up I think that the QE’s will become essentially USMC assets carrying Bravos freeing hangar space in the LHx for MV22. I think the RN will have to give up ‘carrier strike’ fantasy for reality and needs of actual war. A wave of Bravo’s in stealth mode (what 4 missiles a piece) would be quite an asset in carrie battle……….
I believe that there is a side along feature that can now make F-35s carry up to 6 missiles depending on size. Don’t know what variant however. also debate about whether the bolt on gun pod is stealthy
I can see a wave of stealthy Bravos carrying BVR as a reserve or an opening gambit just to take pressure off the fleet carrier. Of course that will be dependent on E2 or other US assets in range. 120 missiles or so launched into an enemy attack from nowhere would give opfor pause.
And I think that is where we will come unstuck eventually is lack of an organic E2 equivalent for BVR engagements. We will be constantly be beholden to the US for targeting.
Hmm.. Interesting conversation I found about combining aircraft ski-ramp and catapult.
thoughts?
Also, it us likely that 5th gen fighters with long range missiles against 4th gen, when with no guns, that they will very quickly have nothing to do. so my question is how quickly could a lightning land on HMS Q E , just re-equip with missiles then takeoff again? or will they just fly around in circles until the fight is won or they are destroyed?
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-no-aircraft-carriers-with-a-catapult-plus-a-ski-jump-together-Can-a-heavier-aircraft-be-launched-if-it-is-catapulted-off-an-inclined-flight-deck-vs-a-flat-deck
There are planes that can take off using catapults or ramps, such as Mig-29, Rafale or F/A-18. I’m pretty sure Gripens, Su-33s and F-35Cs fall into this category too. These planes will also be able to use combo auxiliary cats and ramps. The advantage over STOBAR will be higher payloads on shorter runways (so easier to divide fore and aft operations) although more expensively.
But the biggest advantage of CATOBAR over STOBAR/VSTOL is that it can launch slower planes that can’t make use of a runway/ramp combination such as the E-2D. Whether auxiliary cats and ramps (CRATOBAR?) can launch any planes that couldn’t be launched using runways and ramps alone is an open question, but the large Storm design uses this mechanism for all four launch points, so either the Russians think they can, or they expect to be be using a different type of AEW plane in the future. I’d love to see the figures on a ramp-launched Yak-44.
STO launches are limited by entry speed to the ramp, which tends to be a function of nose gear load. That’s a hard limit, which means you’re not going to get a payload benefit.
You should get one for short runways. Russian STOBAR carriers have two forward points they use for flying CAP, and one further back on the angled flight deck they use for launching with heavier payloads. They can’t reach the ramp takeoff speed on the forward runways with heavier payloads, but with short auxiliary catapults, they should get up to speed anyway.
Straight winged propeller aircraft , with a decent run, can get airborne from a carrier deck without catapult. Landing requires a tailhook and the wires of course.
This is a P-2 Neptune, and on a ‘small carrier’ USS Franklin Roosevelt but its been done with a Hercules too
Not “unassisted” though, is it?
In both cases, Neptune and Herky-bird (and U-2 for that matter, since you’re asking), there’s also another implication, which dramatically reduces operational effectiveness of the carrier.
Yes. It wasnt a really useful concept as the plane had to be craned on board. . Doolitle raid during WW2 was the only time similar was used in war.
It was used to illustrate the propeller- straight wing combination for its lifting ability is short runs.
The Herc could land with its heavy duty undercarriage and take off without Jato
‘Over the next couple of days, Flatley and his crew made twenty-nine touch-and-go landings, and twenty-one full-stop landings and unassisted takeoffs from the Forrestal’s deck.
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/c-130-carrier-landing/
The USN chose the C-2 Greyhound version of the E-3 instead.
An AN2 had a stall speed lower than the QE’s max speed. I wonder if biplane configuration could be used to loft the likes of Crowsnest?
AEW aircraft have power-hungry radars, and power requires weight. Is it any surprise they picked a rotary with three engines rather than a modern acrobatics or agricultural biplane?
That’s not to say biplanes have to be single engined. The largest biplane ever built had four engines and weighed only a bit less than the MTOW of a Merlin, it was nevertheless quite a bit slower. I doubt the Curtiss NC-4 could take off from a carrier because apart from anything else, it was a flying boat with three times the wingspan of an F-35B. That was in 1918. I imagine they could do better now. Time to dust off the Vickers Vimy?
Very impressive on a maiden deployment. A mighty vessel indeed. Interestingly she already appears to have a fully fitted self defence system. Unlike our “fitted for but probably never with” vessels of all types.
But it is strange the missile launchers are old octo launcher rotating and not VLS.
Those old ‘octo launcher’s can be reloaded at sea, the VLS cannot.
Yes they can. They tried it with some of the earliest sytems with a crane that folded into one of the VL silos. For various reasons it wasn’t continued. I suppose they thought a more peaceful world was here to stay
The reason it wasn’t continued is that it was impossible to do safely. Which is why all the cranes were removed gaining three cells back for missiles. I don’t believe it was ever done – beyond an initial trial – at sea.
You only have to think about a nigh-on 8m long, nearly 3 tonne load full of propellant and explosives, subject to both ship motion and wind loads, dangling off a single point, over a launcher with lots of other missiles to realise it was “a bit risky”.
That’s before you think about the space needed to deal with the empty canisters and how you move them to/from RAS points.
The clever folk at Port Hueneme came up with an idea to do it with a transportable loader, but it was always a long shot and still subject to the constraints of weight, space and complexity. Binned in mid-noughties.
The box launchers are used for two reasons. Firstly, the likely VLS would be Mk48 which isn’t widely fitted and takes up depth in sponsons which isn’t really available. Secondly, if the threat has got through the area screen, it’s close, which means you probably want a direct LoS shot rather than a pop up and tipover trajectory.
This is the close in missile defence, which is reloadable as well.
The ESSM, in the octo launcher, these days can reach out a lot further.
The USN really loves multi layer defence for its carriers , 2 x 8 box ESSM launcher, 2 x RAM launcher, 3 x Phalanx and 4x Mk38 25mm automated gun system
I think a slight increased in size QE (and with defensive weapons) with Catobar for USN would be the best choice for them regarding asset dispersion and availability.
But it will nix the nuke propulsion system.
I am afraid Ford is too expensive and will imply a reduction in carrier numbers available.
The French carrier is smaller than the UK ones and its nuclear powered. No reason for US not to have a smaller reactors for a smaller ship, not that they show any inclination of doing so.
Maybe use some of their submarine reactors?
It’s good to see an aircraft carrier in British waters with actual aircraft on its deck, not and open deck with a lot of promises of what will be, come the 2030’s
Interesting that the carrier could enter the harbour at Halifax , Canada but can’t enter Portsmouth harbour itself
Halifax harbour is much much bigger and deeper with a wider entrance. The ship did however have to anchor inside as there was nowhere to come along side.
Someone have been talking to newspapers ;o)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/how-the-royal-navy-e2-80-99s-new-warships-ended-up-delayed-and-over-budget-e2-80-93-again/ar-AA14kKcI
Ford construction began on 11 August 2005, when shipyard held a ceremonial steel cut for a 15 ton plate that forms part of a side shell unit of the carrier.Commissioned in July 2017 by Trump, but build was only completed when11th and final AWE completed 24th December 2021,16 years and 4 months later.
October 2019 CBO reported build cost $16.2 billion in 2019 dollars plus the additional $6 billion in R&D reported by the GAO
Unbelievably the new Ford cannot operate the F-35C, it would seem the necessary kit was not cheap and as ship was over budget USN just deleted the requirement, Congress found out and have insisted the necessary kit be installed on the 2nd ship of the class,USS Kennedy, which USN had not planned, current rumour is that the AAG reliability so low that is why ship has not officially joined fleet?
Obviously the planes can land and takeoff, its the F35 complicated digital maintenance systems and because the the very high thrust single engine compared to the twins the US Navy uses that require changes – like they do for all the existing Nimitz class
Rumsfeld and Bush were a catastrophe for US foreign and defence policy.
Two wars started and neither won with a contributing factor being insufficient boots on the ground thanks to too much faith in technology.
Ford looks like she may mature into a decent platform but the Zumwalt and LCS classes are absolute lemons in terms of the capability offered compared to their costs. The main driver for that was Rumsfeld’s insistence that new platforms had to be a technology leap from existing ones leading to high cost, high risk programmes.
I don’t think that there’s been a worse combination in office than Rumsfeld and Bush in recent history. A smug know all working for an arrogant know nothing.
It is very hard to follow the logic behind either classes. If anything they are both exercises in what not to do. Yes partly it was down to politics.
Agreed mate. They were solutions looking for problems that didn’t exist
LCS classes — real world exercise in build economics.
Introduce competition and the costs start to tumble.
The ships are secondary to the process.
Not a good look for the US MIC
Pebble in the pond time — why has old “nae helmet” got his name on a carrier?
Three years in a job that he inherited without a democratic mandate and then goes on to lose his only presidential election and he gets a gig that many others have missed out on.
Strange but telling regarding the USA of today.
Ford did serve on active duty in WW2- on the the carrier USS Monterey, but he wasnt a pilot
George HW Bush , a former WW2 navy pilot also wasnt re-elected and he also has a carrier named after him.
At least “HW” managed to win an election …
Even if it needed the reptilian skills of Lee Atwater to make it happen.
From memory “HW” was a bit of a bullet magnet — he survived but some of his crew didn’t. Not quite the war record that a carrier should hope to emulate.
“Nae Helmet” — he never even managed to win a presidential election. Spiro Agnew was seemingly a better choice for VP in 68 and “Nae Helmet” had to wait until Tricky Dicky needed a new running mate although he was so far out of the loop that Watergate never touched him.
Anyway — “Nae Helmet” and “HW” are not really fit to grace the signature ships of the USN.
Soft furnishings …
At times you have to wonder — going into battle with a police escort?
Are Habitat / IKEA on the supplier list for gruesome twosome?