USS Ford in danger of delay due to AAG

The USS Gerald Ford is in danger of being delayed due to the Advanced Arresting Gear system. The ship was due to be delivered on March 31, 2016.

General Atomics discovered a design flaw during testing of the AAG system that has set development back two years. During an engineering assessment it was found that the water twister, which absorbs 70% of the force during landing, was under designed.

The new system is being tested at Lakehurst NJ, while an upgraded version is being installed on the Ford. The contract for development was a firm fixed price, so GA is responsible for all redevelopment costs.

news.usni.org... ry

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well, thank heaven we have the F-35 to swoop in, hover and safely land on the burning deck.
OK, just a tad over the top. I know they are ill-equipped to do anything for a few more years except go to air shows.

a reply to: Aliensun

All three are on track to meet IOC. The Ford won't be ready for service until after the F-35C meets its IOC.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Good grief. A two year setback?? Can GA survive that? Oh ... there's a bailout materializing in my crystal ball.

a reply to: Snarl

They still have EMALS, which is a LOT more expensive per unit, and going much better. As well as their UAV programs. Short term this hurts, long term, not so much.

In FY13 it was $713.7M for EMALS, and $169.4M for AAG for the Ford.

You mean - can it be?

There's a Ford in our future?


I hope Chevy Chase is still around so he can break the champagne bottle on its hull!

While this is a letdown, it's this sort of discovery that will ultimately give the finished system a real wartime advantage. I'd rather know now than later.

a reply to: TheBlackTiger

The good news is that by the time Kennedy is ready for installation it will be considered mature tech. And even more so for Enterprise.

Thats the problem with wunderwaffen.

Super expensive, too complex and over rated. Not enough in the end to magically win the many wars.

a reply to: intrptr

Wow. One problem during testing and it's suddenly crap.

a reply to: Zaphod58

An aircraft carrier is a dinosaur from a bygone era. Surely a wonderful tool. Thats what I meant.

An indispensable asset, the most vulnerable weapon system nowadays.

Cruise missiles will be their downfall. Ironic that, they are deployed by the US as first strike weapons in most conflicts. The opening salvos.

a reply to: intrptr

And yet, much like stealth aircraft that are supposedly obsolete, many other countries operate them and are building new ones.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Carriers you mean? Not that many. We depend on them in the west because its our main stay of 'foreign' policy.

a reply to: intrptr

Russia, China, and India are all building or planning large carriers, and something like 17 countries operate them in one form or another.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Like I said, not many Carriers. The ones they do are truly defensive, unless you can tell me where China, India and Russai for instance, are using them to bomb nations far from home?

The rest are mostly smaller transport for helicopter and VTOl operations, again mostly defensive, except maybe in NATO.

a reply to: intrptr

"Building". Which means that they don't think they're obsolete at all. So you're saying that their military planners don't have a clue?

The vast majority of them are capable of fixed wing operation.

Carriers are not defensive weapons platforms. They're designed for power projection, and offensive operations. That's like saying a strategic bomber is defensive.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Carriers are not defensive weapons platforms. They're designed for power projection, and offensive operations

.

According to US foreign policy, anyway.

Again not many. They are too vulnerable, except for picking on defenseless nations.

a reply to: intrptr

According to everyone. You don't defend with power projection.

So again, the countries building carriers have idiot military planners that can't see carriers are useless obsolete money pits.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So again, the countries building carriers have idiot military planners that can't see carriers are useless obsolete money pits.

Bingo!

a reply to: intrptr

So the collective military establishments of the US, Russia, India, China, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil, Italy, and Japan know less about military needs than you? Holy Halsey, I thought *my* ego was over-sized.

Personal commentary aside, since you seem convinced that only the US is using our carriers as offensive weapons, can you cite any historical case where carriers were used in a defensive role and were successful? That's not a 'snark' question, I'm honestly curious, because I can't think of a single one. As Zaphod points out, *all* aircraft carriers are offensive platforms...any 'defensive' strength they exercise is gained by virtue of counter-threat (for example, the USN's 'defense' of Midway).