OT: USS Gerald R. Ford EMALS Electromagnetic Aircraft Catapult Demo
I know we've had a couple of posts on the commission and building of the USS Gerald R. Ford but now we have video of the catapult system testing (embed below).
I know less than nothing about this launch system but the video description is pretty informative and the video brings out my inner twelve year old.
Pre-commissioing Unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) conducts dead-load testing of the The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) .
The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) is a complete carrier-based launch system designed for CVN 78 and all future Gerald R. Ford-class carriers. The launching system is designed to expand the operational capability of the Navy’s future carriers. The mission and function of EMALS remains the same as traditional steam catapult; however, it employs entirely different technologies. EMALS uses stored kinetic energy and solid-state electrical power conversion. This technology permits a high degree of computer control, monitoring and automation. The system will also provide the capability for launching all current and future carrier air wing platforms – lightweight unmanned to heavy strike fighters.EMALS delivers:
• Necessary higher launch energy capacity.
• Substantial improvements in system weight, volume and maintenance.
• Increased reliability and efficiency.
• More accurate end-speed control.EMALS is funded by the CVN 21 program and will be forward fit only for U.S. Ford-class carriers, beginning with Gerald R Ford (CVN 78).
Courtesy Video | Navy Media Content Services | Date: 06.16.2015
AiirSource℠ covers military events and missions from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.
February 7th, 2017 at 1:12 AM ^
Have a friend who is a pilot who said the electromagnetic arrest system, while awesome when it works, still has major issues. 1 in 1000 fail. With the number of planes taking off and landing, that kind of reliability just isn't going to work.
February 7th, 2017 at 3:19 AM ^
what is the acceptable fail rate. If it isn't zero I mean.
February 7th, 2017 at 9:02 AM ^
February 7th, 2017 at 2:57 AM ^
Deminerlized for cooling or thrust. Seperate water used for showering. Not saying there isn't water rationing on ships or subs, but different in most cases.
February 7th, 2017 at 9:14 AM ^
February 7th, 2017 at 7:12 AM ^
February 7th, 2017 at 8:19 AM ^
Also similar to the launch technology on hypercoasters such as Cedar Point's "Top Thrill Dragster."
February 7th, 2017 at 9:25 AM ^
So what you're saying then, and I am using my experiences on the Top Thrill Dragster as a guide here, is that eating just before you get launched off the deck of the Gerald R. Ford might also not be the best idea, correct?
February 7th, 2017 at 12:40 PM ^
concurs. Top Thrill Dragster and chili dogs don't mix.
February 7th, 2017 at 8:06 AM ^
Was reading the reason they were all in port a month ago was to be refrofitted with fiber optics because the Russians have flown over a couple of ships and disabled them with some sort of electro magnetic device
February 7th, 2017 at 8:43 AM ^
Pretty much anything is vulnerable to a hypersonic missile, on account of they're really fast. Fortunately they're also pretty hard to develop, and to aim.
The rest of your paragraph is just downright wacky. Sorry, not trying to be rude, but that's gibberish.
February 7th, 2017 at 8:52 AM ^
but Paul Craig Roberts may be.
February 7th, 2017 at 9:20 AM ^
Yeah, this is loony stuff. He claims that "all of our carriers" are lined up in a row in a photograph, so they can replace the copper wiring with fiber optics, because the russians disabled them.
Problems:
1. Looking at the picture in question, it is not "ten of our eleven carriers". It's a couple aircraft carriers, a couple amphibious assualt ships (mini carriers, of which we operate many), and a couple other misc ships. Even if you were going to dock all of our carriers at once, they wouldn't be together because they have different home bases.
2. As 1VaBlue1 points out, replacing all the wiring on one carrier, let alone all of them, would take months or years. It wouldn't be something you bang out over a three day weekend.
3. You could concievably build some kind of weapon that could knock out a ship's electrical systems. Nuclear weapons emit an electromagnetic pulse that might do the job, although military items that might concievably be subject to such an attack tend to be hardened against it. The article makes it seem like it's just some kind of magic button in a Russian fighter, which is simply not possible.
4. Disabling an American carrier though some sort of energy attack would be considered a declaration of war, and you can bet the response would be immediate and devastating.
February 7th, 2017 at 10:07 AM ^
4)
I kind of doubt it. Responding to a temporary disabling with any major physical attack wouldn't be worth it.
Response should make the aggression a net loss for them. Counter EW would just disclose our capability as a "punishment". Physical attack would be looked at as starting WW3 out of spite.
Thats why economic sanctions are generally used. It's a clear net loss for the aggressor, even though a lot of hawks look at them as a weak response.
February 7th, 2017 at 10:08 AM ^
February 7th, 2017 at 10:14 AM ^
talkin' some smack! why you old commie dictator, you. we're on to you now.
February 7th, 2017 at 10:55 AM ^
I kind of doubt it. Responding to a temporary disabling with any major physical attack wouldn't be worth it.
If another country were to purposely wreak some kind of electronic attack on our ships, it would be considered probably the biggest act of war in decades. The simple act of locking a fire control radar on another ship is an act of war under international law, let alone a purposeful electronic strike. It wouldn't be much different from mining international waters, for which the Iranians paid at the business end of Standard missiles.
The reason economic sanctions are a weak response is that they're an appropriate response for a breach of international law, not a direct act of war.
February 7th, 2017 at 12:10 PM ^
February 7th, 2017 at 2:29 PM ^
If they launched such an attack, you can bet it wouldn't be just a prank with no follow-up planned.
February 7th, 2017 at 2:45 PM ^
February 7th, 2017 at 8:44 AM ^
Doubt it... That retro would take a virtual complete rebuild - months for the smaller ships, years for something like a carrier. There are literally thousands of miles of wiring on those things, and most of it is copper.
February 7th, 2017 at 8:50 AM ^
February 7th, 2017 at 9:02 AM ^
I love the technology of the USS Ford, its awesome! Unfortunately, she'll be flinging the F-35 into the air, which is a catastrophy. The F-35 is an overpriced, under-performing, jack of all trades piece of shit as a 5th generation fighter aircraft. The F-22 Raptor is much better, far cheaper, and already flying combat missions around the world. The F-35, in contrast, cannot pass test events unless the criteria is watered down - something the Pentagon has done several times to achieve mission 'milestones' that keep funding flowing.
But aside from its air wing, the Ford, along with other carriers, will become a reef not long after a real shooting war starts. Well, at least one against a credible Navy (China, Russia), anyway. I know this from first hand experience against surface forces (even back in the 80's...) - they don't stand a chance against a submarine.
That Chinese carrier someone mentioned earlier? It won't make it 100 miles from home if we start shooting at them...
February 7th, 2017 at 10:25 AM ^
stealing some more of our technology to use? just a matter of time.
February 7th, 2017 at 12:36 PM ^
February 7th, 2017 at 4:18 PM ^
It wasn't supposed to be. The F-35 was supposed to be a cost-saver, adapting technologies on the top-of-the-line F-22 for more efficient, wider production.
It hasn't worked out that way. Part of the calamity that is the F-35 is that a major point of the program was cost effectiveness.
February 7th, 2017 at 9:00 PM ^
I know the F35 is expensive, but I'm pretty sure the F22 is more expensive, no matter if we're talking about procurement, flight hour or lifecycle cost .....
February 7th, 2017 at 2:50 PM ^
Submariners are rightfully boastful about their ability to hide, and a really good submarine is for all intents and purposes invisible to a surface ship. One thing those guys always conveniently forget, though: subs are slowpokes. Chinese ones especially. Can't touch a surface ship at flank speed. If a CAG got wind of a sub nearby or any such intel, they'd start racing around the ocean like gangbusters. And subs, of course, have a top speed below their actual top speed, above which they stop being so invisible.
In a real shooting war (assuming it doesn't go nuclear), what would probably actually happen is our brass would send our subs into what China thinks are Chinese waters and let them have a field day. Virginia boats are expensive as fuck but there's a reason for that, and they'll have no problem with the Chinese. Then our CAGs can roll in after a couple months and do as they like.
February 7th, 2017 at 9:15 AM ^
I am following this with great interest. I really hope they get it right. IIRC, CVN Gerald Ford is way behind schedule on trials. There have been significant problems with the cat, the arrest, and also with elevator reliability (getting planes from the hangar bays up to the deck). Reading from the press release, the things I really wonder about:
- Substantial improvements in . . . maintenance
- Increased reliability and efficiency
I can't help but think of "Enforcement Droid Series 209" from Robocop. You can promise the world, but how does it really work?
CVN Ford isn't the only new ship with problems. There were at least 3 engine failures in the new littoral combat ships in 2016. These breakdowns were both mechanical (rust problems? In a new ship? Causing leaking seawater to corrupt the engine?) and maintenance related (sailor error in what needed to be done before getting underway.) You can't have engines failing like that. In true war and combat conditions, that would be complete disaster. It would be better to have a conventional power system that was reliable than a high tech system that failed.
The newest class of Destroyer, the Zumwalt, is an even worse disaster. The ship is a 4 billion dollar debacle. It had several engineering failures, again with saltwater. "The crew discovered the casualty after detecting a seawater leak in the propulsion motor drive lube oil auxiliary system for one of the ship's shafts."
The Zumwalt also has a very high tech weapon system. Which isn't going to be used. Why? A single LRLAP (long range land attack projectile) costs $800,000. Thats 800k for a single bullet. So they have this high tech weapon system which ends up being so costly it is useless.
My daughter is on the USS Mason, one of the many Arleigh Burke class destroyers in the fleet. Because of all the problems with the Zumwalt, the Navy decided to put the Arleigh Burke back into production. There are 14 new Burkes in the process of being built. (Two separate shipyards construct them, and can only make one or two ships each per year.) The cost of one Arleigh Burke is not quite $700 mil. In other words, the Navy can build 6 of these for the cost of one Zumwalt class destroyer.
It is scary knowing what is really happening. The Mason came under a number of ballistic missile attacks last October (first time in 25 years for a US Navy ship.) Because of OPSEC, I can't say what really happened. Let's just say I hope the Navy is learning and improving from what they learned.
Coming back to the OP, all these bells and whistles and shiny new toys are nice, but do they work reliably and consistently, and can they be maintained? Are they (somewhat) affordable? Those are the hard questions that need to be answered.
February 7th, 2017 at 4:36 PM ^
We bought his "funeral suit" even though he's in great health for 90 it was something he wanted taken care of. I brought this up to him since he's retired Navy.
Instead of commenting I heard how the destroyers he was on had a trough with seawater flowing through it and adjustable seats above it. Their sewage would flow directly out to sea. Being young men they were prone to pranks and they would wad up toilet paper, light it, and send it down the trough. Everyone downstream got a surprise.
It's amazing how much the technology of warfare changed during his Navy career and his lifetime.