US Navy Launches Massive Ford-Class Carrier Test

The U.S. Navy is starting a 26-month test and technology integration phase for the recently christened USS Gerald R. Ford, the first in a series of next-generation Ford-class aircraft carriers slated for commissioning in 2016.

 

 

The testing plans for the 77,000-ton USS Ford are prolonged and more labor intensive because the first-in-class ship includes a wide range of new systems and technologies, said Rear Adm. Tom Moore, Program Executive Officer, Carriers.

 

 

"We're in the infancy stages of the 26-month test program. The test program is a little bit longer than it was for Nimitz-class carriers because of the number of new developmental systems on board. The early returns are that the program is going well," Moore said.

 

 

The Ford program has been the subject of scrutiny and criticism by lawmakers, analysts and watchdog groups for cost growth and reliability issues of some of its technologies. Navy officials point out that at least $3.3 billion of the Ford's $12.8 billion cost are part of what's called non-recurring engineering costs to design and produce a first-in-class ship with new technologies.

 

 

The Ford-class carriers are slated to replace the existing Nimitz-class carriers on a one-for-one basis in coming years as the Nimitz carriers come to the end of their service life. Since carriers have a life span of up to 50-years of service, Ford-class carriers are slated to remain in service until the year 2110, Moore said.  

 

 

With this future in mind, the Ford-class carriers are being built with three times the electrical power generating capacity compared to Nimitz-class carriers, Moore said. The USS Ford will have four 26-megawatt generators bringing a total of 104 megawatts to the ship. This helps support the ship's developing systems such as its Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, and provides power for future systems such as lasers, and rail-guns, Moore added.

 

 

The ships are engineered with a redesigned island, slightly larger deck space and new weapons elevators in order to achieve a 33-percent increase in sortie-generation rate. The new platforms are built to launch more aircraft and more seamlessly support a high-op tempo.

 

 

The new weapons elevators allow for a much more efficient path to move and re-arm weapons systems for aircraft. The elevators can take weapons directly from their magazines to just below the flight deck, therefore greatly improving the sortie-generation rate by making it easier and faster to re-arm planes, Moore said.

 

 

He added that a decision was made to delay the launch by about four months in order to allow the shipbuilders -- Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries -- extra time to get more integration work done on the dry dock before putting the ship into the water.

 

 

"We've got four of the nine 1,100-ton air conditioning plants. We have 29 of 33 fire pumps up and running and we have tested the electric plant. We're doing diesel engine testing. We've turned over about 100 compartments to the ship's force who is now working on board the ship," Moore explained.

 

 

The USS Ford's EMALS, or electro-magnetic catapult system is being tested and built for the ship. Unlike previous Nimitiz-class carriers which use a steam-catapult, EMALS uses an electro-magnetic field and a series of cascading magnets to propel and then launch aircraft, Moore explained.

 

 

"By having this electrical pulse come down, you are pulling the aircraft down to the catapult to launch it. You can dial in the precise weight of the aircraft. As you accelerate the aircraft down the catapult, you can accelerate it to the precise speed it needs to launch," Moore said.

 

 

Unlike steam catapults which use pressurized steam, a launch valve and a piston to catapult aircraft, EMALS uses a precisely determined amount of electrical energy. As a result, EMALS is designed to more smoothly launch aircraft while reducing stress and wear and tear on the airframes themselves, he added.

 

 

"By the time the aircraft gets to the catapult it is at the right speed. Minimizing stress on the airframe, over time, reduces maintenance," Moore added.

 

 

On the ship, EMALS will be engineered such that any of the ship's four catapults will be able to draw power from any one of three energy storage groups on the ship, he said.

 

 

Although the catapult troughs for the USS Ford's EMALS system are now being built and integrated with the overall system, the technology has been in the process of extensive testing at a Naval Air Warfare Center facility in Lakehurst, N.J. 
 

The EMALS catapults there have launched 200 aircraft flights from their system, including launches of an F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-35.  In addition, the catapults there have launched more than 1,500 dead loads where they put a weight on a sled and shoot that off with the system.

 

 

Meanwhile, on the ship, the below-deck EMALS equipment has been installed. This consists of a series of transformers and rectifiers designed to convert and store electrical power through a series of motor generators before brining power to the launch motors on the catapults, Moore explained.

The USS Ford is able to generate 13,800 volts of electrical power, more than three times the 4,160 volts that a Nimitz-class carrier generates, Moore said.

 

 

The EMALS system is also engineered to work in tandem with the USS Ford's new Advanced Arresting Gear, or AAG. Unlike the existing hydraulic system used on current aircraft carriers, AAG is a mechanical electrical system with a cable that spins a water twister, Moore explained.

 

 

Similar to EMALS, the AAG is also designed to reduce stress on the airframe during the landing process.

 

 

"The idea is to provide a smoother run out and slow down in a more constant manner. What AAG will do is allow you to have a reduction in the force on the airframe as you arrest the plane," Moore said.

 

 

Once this 26-month test phase is complete, the USS Ford is scheduled to go through what's called builder trials and acceptance trials designed to make sure everything works before the ship enters service. The acceptance trials involve an independent inspection and survey of the ship, Moore said.

 

 

Once that takes place, the Navy will take the ship for a six to eight month post-shakedown period and certify the flight deck.

 

 

Moore said he expects the USS Ford to be ready to deploy as part of a battle group by late 2018 or early 2019.

 

GAO: $12.8B Navy Carrier Project Weighed Down With Problems

The U.S. Navy should delay the award of a multibillion-dollar contract to Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. to build the second aircraft carrier in a new class as the first one faces failings from its radar to the gear that launches planes, congressional investigators said.

“Technical, design and construction challenges” with the first carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, have caused “significant cost increases and reduce the likelihood that a fully functional ship will be delivered on time,” the Government Accountability Office said in a draft report obtained by Bloomberg News.

The Ford, already the most expensive warship ever built, is projected to cost $12.8 billion, 22 percent more than estimated five years ago. The report raises questions about the future of U.S. seapower in a time of reduced defense budgets and about whether new carriers are affordable as they assume greater importance in the Pentagon’s strategy to project U.S. power in the Asia-Pacific region.

Delays and “reliability deficiencies” with the flattop’s new dual-mission radar, electromagnetic launch system and arresting gear for aircraft mean that the Ford “will likely face operational limitations that extend past commissioning” in March 2016 and “into initial deployments,” the agency said.

The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, said that’s reason enough to delay the contract that’s scheduled to be issued this year for the second ship, the USS John F. Kennedy.

‘Repeating Mistakes’

“It will be important to avoid repeating mistakes” in the contract for the Kennedy, the GAO said. “Staying within budget” will require the Navy to reduce “significant risk mainly by completing land-based testing for critical technologies before negotiating a contract” with Newport News, Virginia-based Huntington Ingalls.

Beci Brenton, a company spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview that “it would not be appropriate to comment on a draft report.”

Naval Sea Systems Command spokeswoman Colleen O’Rourke said the command also wouldn’t comment.

“As the Navy is currently working with the GAO on this report, it would be inappropriate to comment on any draft findings at this time,” she said in an e-mail. “When the report is finalized, it will include Navy comments.”

Huntington Ingalls rose 2.4 percent to $56.64 in New York at 3:20 p.m. after rising 31 percent this year.

The Navy is grappling with how to pay for a shipbuilding plan that anticipates $43 billion for three carriers in the Ford class, as well as $34 billion for 52 Littoral Combat Ships and a 12-vessel nuclear submarine fleet to replace the Ohio-class submarine.

Estimate ‘Optimistic’

While the GAO said that the Navy and Huntington Ingalls are taking steps to control costs for the Ford, most increases occur after a vessel is 60 percent complete and key systems are installed and integrated. The Ford is now 56 percent complete.

Even the current $12.8 billion estimate is “optimistic because it assumes the shipbuilder will maintain its current level of performance throughout the remainder of construction,” the GAO said.

The Pentagon’s independent cost-estimating office, the Congressional Budget Office and a Navy-commissioned panel project final costs as high as $14.2 billion, the GAO said.

The draft report also raises questions about how many aircraft carriers the nation will have ready this decade. Congress has given the service temporary relief from the requirement to have 11 fully capable aircraft carriers. There are now 10 after deactivation of the USS Enterprise, and the Ford is supposed to bring that back to 11 by March 2016.

‘Reliability Shortfalls’

“As it now stands, the Navy will not be positioned to deliver a fully capable ship at the time,” the GAO said.

“Reliability shortfalls facing key Ford-class systems cloud the Navy’s ability to forecast when, or if” the carrier will meet the aircraft sortie rates and reduced manning requirements that distinguish it from the older Nimitz class, the GAO said.

O’Rourke, the Naval Sea Systems Command spokeswoman, wouldn’t comment on the specific value of the potential detailed design and construction contract to Huntington Ingalls for the Kennedy that the GAO said is due in September.

Cost Breakdown

The largest share of the cost increase for the Ford, 38 percent, stemmed from technologies delivered by the Navy, including the radar, launch system and arresting gear, according to the GAO.

The electromagentic launch system made by San Diego-based General Atomics has increased to $742.6 million, up 134 percent since 2008, the GAO said. The cost of arresting gear also made by the company increased 125 percent to $169 million.

Raytheon Co.’s dual-band radar has increased 140 percent to $484 million, according to data cited by the GAO. Twenty-seven percent of the cost growth was pegged to shipbuilder design issues and another 27 percent to construction, both attributed to Huntington Ingalls.

Huntington Ingalls is building the Ford under a $4.9 billion detailed design contract that covers the shipbuilder’s portion of constructing the vessel. It doesn’t cover other costs, such as the nuclear reactor to power the ship and other government-furnished equipment.

The GAO said its analysis indicates that Huntington Ingalls “was forecasting an overrun at contract completion of over $913 million” that it said stemmed from “the shipbuilder not accomplishing work as planned.”

Huntington’s Brenton said in an e-mail in May that, “as the first new design carrier beginning construction in more than 40 years,” the Ford “is designed to provide increased capability and reduced total ownership cost by about $4 billion compared to Nimitz-class carriers.”

“For this first-of-class ship, construction commenced in parallel with design completion based on earlier decisions at Department of Defense,” she said. “Ongoing design during the construction process caused delay and inefficiencies in procurement, manufacturing, and assembly.”