• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Catapult problems?

CAVU

CAVU

just livin' the dream...
None
Difficult question to answer because there are so many variables.

What is the author (Tony Capaccio) and his sources definition of the configuration of the FORD, KENNEDY and ENTERPRISE in the context of the $40B? What year inflation adjusted dollars are being used? Is it sail away cost, acquisition cost, life cycle cost or total ownership cost...or a hybrid? There are multiple contracts let by the three major DON SYSCOMS to outfit a carrier. Are there any substantially new technologies involved (I'd say yes with a plural)? Where are they on the learning curve (technique to explain why building more than one of something costs less each iteration, all other things being equal).

What is the author's reputation, background and "beat"?

Who is being quoted and what might their motivations be, and what are their yard sticks?

Who is not being quoted and why?

What are some of the most notable technology developments to learn from:
- We have gone from straight decks to angle decks
- No catapults to hydraulic cats, to steam cats and now EMALS
- Cable launch to tow bar launch
- petroleum burners to nuclear reactors for propulsion
- 8 reactors (it was an experiment one time) to 2 reactors per carrier

All of the above and many more advancements required significant one time R&D expenditures to mature the technologies to a high enough level for deployment, and yes there are trades done.

America's carrier aviation capability represents a significant contribution to America's total combat effectiveness when you compare it total combat effectiveness without carrier aviation. Even small increases in combat effectiveness can translate to billions of dollars in GDP and reductions in casualties. Carrier aviation is more than a small increase.

So to answer your first question (about the cats and drop tanks). DOT&E has no filter. Their world is black and white. It either passes or it doesn't against either the CDD or testing in an an operational environment. They will sit in the room with decision makers and state "not suitable". God bless the acquisition process because in the end, theirs is only an opinion that the Milestone Decision Authority (The one that says keep going, stop or need a new plan) will consider. I firmly believe that the program office responsible for EMALS, General Atomics, NAVAIR engineers (and probably NAVSEA) will solve this problem.

The answer to your second question is, "No, it's not $40B". It is going to be a different number for all of the aforementioned opinions offered and more. There are a lot of folks involved watching the cost, performance and schedule and I am confident that in the end the right decisions will be made and there will be happy people and unhappy people and reporters love to tell the stories of the unhappy because people like to read unhappy stories which increase readership which increases what the news media can charge for advertising which......sorry, I was digressing!

It will cost what it needs to cost so that we continue to maintain carrier aviation's critical contribution to total combat effectiveness.
 
Last edited:
P

Pags

N/A
pilot
Sounds like a DT find. There's a reason for flight test so issues like this can be identified and corrected.
 
Brett327

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
My thought was that the story made for good headline material, but at the end of the day, won't amount to anything more than an engineering tweak.
 
NUFO06

NUFO06

Well-Known Member
None
The first in class is going to be more expensive then the follow ons. With all the cost overruns the FORD is 12.8 billon and the KENNEDY is expected to be around 10 billion. 40 billion sounds like way too much.

EMALS big selling point is less stress on the A/C frame because it provides more precision and a smoother launch while allowing the carrier to launch more platforms. The excess that causes additional stress on the steam cats will be lessened so I don't understand.

The Airforce Honey Badger? Why are they not quoting the engineers or navy reps? The whole premise sounds wrong, EMALS puts less stress on aircrafts unless you add tanks to them? Why are they quoting San Diego when the testing is in Lakehurst?

This all sounds way overblown. The way I read this is that they just didn't run the test at Lakehurst with the fuel takes and they need to figure out the proper energy settings when launching a Rhino with external fuel tanks. So figure it out and download the update.
 
Uncle Fester

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I find it really hard to believe that they never tested five-wet Rhinos at the Lakehurst EMALS. They've been sending planes up there for launch tests for years.

My guess is there was a DT report which really came down to "the software needs adjustment to avoid over stressing the pylons" but was misread - deliberately or innocently - as "another expensive DoD program doesn't work!"

The whole point of testing is to identify problems. I'd be more nervous if the end report was "no issues, works 4.0!"

I think it's worth debating whether too many new technologies are being folded into the Ford-class at once. I think the Evolutionary approach that's being used on the new flight DDGs is probably a lower-risk way to go. But that train has sailed.
 
AFUAW

AFUAW

Active Member
pilot
Here (pdf) is DOT&E's 2014 annual report on CVN-78. The highlights are essentially
  1. testing at Lakehurst "discovered an excessive EMALS holdback release dynamics during F/A-18E/F and EA-18G catapult launches with wing-mounted 480-gallon external fuel tanks (EFTs)"
  2. The Navy has no plan to fix it currently
 
707guy

707guy

"You can't make this shit up..."
I thought this was interesting... (bold is my highlight not the original)

"The Navy is redesigning the cooling system in the CVN 78’s Jet Blast Deflectors (JBDs). The JBDs deflect engine exhaust during catapult launches.
The redesign is needed to handle F-35 engine exhaust and will include improvements in cooling flow and eventual addition of side-cooling panels. Until side-cooling panels
are installed, the F-35 will be thrust and weight limited for take-off, with associated penalties in payload and/or range. Side cooling panels are expected to be installed on CVNs in
the early 2020’s"

"CVN-78 will receive the new Heavy UNREP system. To use the Heavy UNREP capability, both the carrier and the resupply ship must be equipped with the system. This new Heavy UNREP system, along with heavy vertical lift aircraft not embarked on carriers, are the only systems currently capable of resupplying the F-35 containerized engine while the carrier is underway."
 
Recovering LSO

Recovering LSO

Suck Less
pilot
Contributor
Those are all great explanations (really, no sarcasm there), but at the end of the day who's the asshole? The team developing new cutting edge technologies, or the customer accepting the "product" behind schedule, incomplete, and WAAAY over budget? This all comes at time when Sailors are being nickeled and dimed on the backside of ten month deployments. Yeah, that's more emotion than reason - I get it.
 
Brett327

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I don't pretend to understand the nuances of the defense acquisition process, but at some point a decision was made to incorporate these new (yet immature) technologies on the first hull of the Ford Class. Presumably, the reasoning was to eat the up front costs of doing the DT/OT process during production so that Ford wouldn't IOC later than it already is (or face a costly retrofit down the road). Same kind of process/growing pains can be seen in JSF. Certainly a suboptimal situation for both platforms, but various trade-offs are in play - most of which I can't even fathom. It's a messy process, but I'm not sure what the alternative would be, or whether they would be any better than the status quo.
 
Randy Daytona

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
707guy said:
I thought this was interesting... (bold is my highlight not the original)

"CVN-78 will receive the new Heavy UNREP system. To use the Heavy UNREP capability, both the carrier and the resupply ship must be equipped with the system. This new Heavy UNREP system, along with heavy vertical lift aircraft not embarked on carriers, are the only systems currently capable of resupplying the F-35 containerized engine while the carrier is underway."
Click to expand...

Heavy vertrep capable of moving JSF engines? I believe those are 9,000 lbs+? The only helicopter in the Navy inventory that can lift it is the MH-53 and those are too big (and too expensive) to stay on USNS ships. Can the V-22 external it?

If not, that leaves heavy civilian vertrep which means either:

the SuperPuma
Gallery_Helicopter_08.jpg


or the Phrog

vertol-107.jpg
 
SynixMan

SynixMan

HKG Based Artificial Excrement Pilot
pilot
Contributor
I thought it was more in the 6k range. A super hornet motor is about 4.4 in the can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top