Senior Navy officials are responding to critics of the service’s
planned Ford-class of aircraft carriers claiming that substantial
technological leaps, manpower reducing efficiencies, and a long-term
strategic need for the carriers outweigh cost overruns and delays.
Scheduled to enter the water this fall and begin service in 2016, the
USS Ford is engineered with a suite of improved technologies compared
to its predecessor, the Nimitz-class carriers. Some of these
improvements include a larger flight-deck, dual-band radar, upgraded
nuclear power plants, increased automation and an electro-magnetic
propulsion system, said Rear Adm. William Moran, deputy director for the
Navy’s Air Warfare Division.
“The efficiency with which we can load and unload weapons and move
aircraft is vastly improved – just in the way it’s designed to be able
to move the aircraft. A bigger flight deck with more space to operate is
going to make a big difference,” Moran said. “It is hard to imagine
what we are going to do with the Ford years from now.”
The Navy’s Ford-class carriers are slated to replace as many as 10
Nimitz-class carriers as they reach their 50-year lifespan over the
coming decades.
“The big thing is there is increased capability and margin for future
growth and follow-on systems. You and I can’t imagine what in 30-years
people are going to want to integrate on an aircraft carrier. We have a
design in place that will allow those folks to be able to say ‘we have
the space, weight and electrical capacity,’” said Capt. Bob Cady,
aircraft carrier branch head for the Navy’s Air Warfare Division.
Navy leaders also emphasized the ever-increasing strategic value of
being able to project power and forward-position air assets with the
forthcoming Pacific pivot within the defense strategy.
“As we saw the beginning of the end of life for the first
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, [former Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld] challenged the Navy to put in as much new technology as
possible to really revolutionize the way we operate aircraft carriers in
the future. We put in a lot of technology,” Moran said.
Budget issues
Navy priorities in the FY 2014 budget request include $945 million to
finance design and construction of the John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), the
second planned carrier in the Ford-class, as well as $588 million to
build the Gerald. R. Ford (CVN 78).
Government watchdog agencies such as the Government Accountability
Office have cited cost concerns, delays and schedule slips regarding
construction of the USS Ford. A March GAO report cites valve shortages
and construction issues with the ships steel plating for the flight
deck.
The report also cites substantial cost-increases with the USS Ford
program construction since 2008. Navy developers describe the overall
$13-to $15 billion cost of the Ford in terms of a “first-in-class”
technology, meaning costs for the follow-on ships, such as the USS
Kennedy, will be much less.
“We want to demystify the myths of cost of first-in-class. The first
time you roll out a new technology it’s pretty expensive. Then, over
time, you are able to bring those costs down. We fully expect the costs
of the USS Kennedy and the next USS Enterprise( CVN 80) – these costs
will be significantly reduced as we learn from 78 {USS Gerald Ford},”
said Moran.
Navy developers said the USS Ford’s cost also include vital, one-time
developmental funds able to inform the entire fleet of Ford-class
ships.
“We’re always concerned about the impacts of budget cuts and budget
drills, but we’re working our way through them and we feel pretty good
about where Ford is today.”
New technology
Although the Ford’s flight deck was recently completed in Newport
News, Va., there is much more work to be done on construction before the
carrier can set sea. While many of the dimensions to the Ford-class are
similar to the Nimitz-class in terms of size, weapons and overall
length, the Navy officials refer to the Ford-class carriers as a
“complete redesign of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, in both ship
design and systems.”
The Ford-class carriers will fit at least 75 aircraft, compared to at
least 60 on the Nimitz, according to Navy statistics. This allows for
an increase in what the Navy calls the sortie generation rate, or
ability to fly missions from the ship. Also, the Ford-class carriers add
about four feet to the width of the flight deck, allowing for
additional space.
The configuration of the ship itself is engineered so that it is less
visible to adversaries, Moran said. He cited the Ford’s new,
more-capable nuclear reactor engineered to propel the ship. Ford-class
carriers will also use an Electro-magnetic Aircraft Launch System as
opposed to a steam catapult.
“In design it has fewer moving parts, less maintenance, and it’s more
automated,” Moran said. “You can dial up the amount of force that is
used to launch an aircraft off the front end of the ship. You can do
that with steam, but steam has got this shot to it. With a steam
catapult there is a lot of steam going into the launching of that
aircraft, so the aircraft is under a lot of stress. The EMALS system is
more of a controlled force. The hope is we will reduce the fatigue and
stress on the airplane so they will live longer.”
When it comes to catching or slowing down arriving aircraft, the
Ford-class carriers are equipped with advanced arresting gear consisting
of energy absorbers, power conditioning equipment and digital controls
designed to replace the existing Mk-7 arresting gear, according to Navy
officials.
The Ford-class carriers also have an advanced dual-band radar (DBR), a
flat panel array system built on a mast on the ship’s island, Moran
said. The DBR combines a range of different radar capabilities such as
air-search, surface-search and air-traffic control, he said.
“From our perspective on the aircraft carrier it buys you a cleaner
island, less big things up there rotating around and there’s about seven
systems is what this replaces. Those functions are now being covered by
dual-band radar,” Cady said.
Officials claim the new radar, EMALS and other next-generation
technologies will allow the Ford-class carriers to reduce the manpower
requirements for the ship by as many as 800 crew members compared to the
Nimitz-class.
“One of the biggest cost-drivers with all the services is manpower –
and it is all the tail that comes with it -- retirement, health care
benefits. We’re trying to make things more affordable by trying to
reduce the manpower requirements needed to support weapons systems –
this is a classic case of that,” said Cady.
No comments:
Post a Comment