Help support TMP

"USN New CVN USS Ford Unable to Launch a Strike" Topic

10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board

Areas of Interest


820 hits since 10 Feb 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Daniel10 Feb 2018 9:43 a.m. PST

Well this isn't good. A $20 USDBn new carrier isn't able to operate aircraft at even a routine tempo – forget a war.


Snip: "At the current reliability, AAG has less than a 0.001 percent chance of completing the 4-day surge and less than a 0.200 percent chance of completing a day of sustained operations as defined in the design reference mission. For routine operations, AAG would only have a 53 percent chance of completing a single 12 aircraft recovery cycle and a 1 percent chance of completing a typical 84 aircraft recovery day." – Are you kidding me?! A zero percent chance of conducting war operations and only a fifty/fifty chance of recovering 12 aircraft???? Who let this abomination get this far? This, alone, renders the Ford non-operational even for routine operations."

LtJBSz Supporting Member of TMP10 Feb 2018 10:37 a.m. PST

Old news, this is from Jane's this week:
Facing continued development questions over its next-generation aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78), the US Navy (USN) has been able to prove the Ford class can maintain sustained flight operations with its mainstay carrier combat aircraft.

"We continue to see progress in the testing of new systems aboard CVN 78," USN spokesman Captain Danny Hernandez told Jane's .

"The carrier has completed six under way events and conducted over 700 catapult launches and arrestments with navy jets [F/A-18E/F aircraft], including over 100 launches and recoveries in one day on two separate occasions," Capt Hernandez said.

The under way testing started in July and during the latest round of testing on 19 January the carrier recorded more than 100 launches and recoveries, or sorties.

Daniel10 Feb 2018 11:45 a.m. PST

Progress for sure

Personal logo Andrew Walters Supporting Member of TMP10 Feb 2018 12:28 p.m. PST

Two things happen with a regularity that makes death and taxes seem like mere possibilities: new weapons systems have teething problems and people criticize new weapons problems.

Someone had some evidence that a lot of the bad mouthing of the F-22 came from Russia. That would be funny if true, but I haven't bothered to dig into it.

So I pretty much ignore criticism of new aircraft, ships, ground vehicles, etc. There are always hiccups. There are always people who say the sky is falling. If you're interested you need to dig to the bottom, because the surface is always the same.

jdginaz10 Feb 2018 2:46 p.m. PST

I believe is was the F-35 that was the target of the covert Russian mad mothing.

hocklermp510 Feb 2018 2:59 p.m. PST

The USN has postponed "Shock Testing" of the "Ford" for "years". (You can look it up). That means no large explosion near the ship to see if systems are disrupted or damaged by shock waves. Obviously someone is worried about the ship's systems. So much for all the "feel good" reports.

coopman10 Feb 2018 6:51 p.m. PST

Another fine example of wasting our tax dollars.

mandt2 Inactive Member11 Feb 2018 11:05 a.m. PST

If you have ever played chess, then this has happened to you too. It's Early in the game and you have a momentary lack of reason, and BAM! He takes your Queen with a pawn. We know how that feels, don't we? Imagine the shock that would come with the loss of a CVN.

Remember the "Stark incident"?


We've seen time and again how easy it seems to be for Navy ships to be seriously damaged by either attack or misfortune.

I think the days of the super carrier are numbered if not already over. They are simply to expensive (in dollars, prestige, and national psyche) to risk in combat. Most nations that we would consider potential enemies have missiles with enough legs to hit a CVN long before its air-wing can be brought into range.

Personal logo Ironwolf Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member11 Feb 2018 11:43 p.m. PST

I have no training or education on how a Carrier defends itself other than watching ww-II movies.

With that said, I feel something as big as the Carriers we have today. If you throw enough ordnance at it, somethings bound to hit it. So the question becomes how effective is the damage control on super carriers? Clearly from past accidents its pretty darn good.

So short of a nuke going off near it, I think they could take a lot of damage and survive.

Look at the post on the Stark incident, it took two hits and still made it into port on its own power.

Lion in the Stars15 Feb 2018 8:51 p.m. PST

Look at the USS America SinkEx, too. Took a massive amount of firepower, including 4x Mk48 torpedoes (known to blow smaller warships in half with a single strike), and still had to be deliberately sunk with scuttling charges.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.