My squadron was part of the 2019 Thanksgiving phone call, I was very proud of the Captains response supporting electromagnetic launching systems. He was cordial, accurate and professional
You may be very proud of your Captain's illbegotten opinion on the issue but that just makes two obvious idiots opining over it. Change for change's sake is the hallmark of those who have the luxury of deciding to make it but neither carry the burden of paying its cost or paying for it's failure to deliver anything of significant value to either the boys in harm"s way that have to actually use it, or the hardworking taxpayers who provide it.
@@WAGNERMJW change isn't easy, ask those who favored the battleship over the aircraft carriers in ww2. The kinks certainly need working out but we all know trump was never an expert in this arena. In such a technologically advanced society we need to surround ourselves with subject matter experts, the president most of all.
Last Nov I did a CQ detachment on the Ford. The EMALS system wasn’t great nor horrible. Some maintenance was conducted on CAT 2 for a bit but that was it. Just have to get the bugs worked out. Without all the steam lines running through the ship, there was so much room on the ship! Our work center went from a tiny broom closet to a actual work center with enough space to run efficiently.
I imagine that removing the risk of a superheated steam explosion due to combat damage or overlooked maintenance items probably makes the crew on board function better and more efficiently too. Sure, they are trained to put themselves in harm's way, but any reduction in such risks can only be a good thing.
Good to hear. I know little to nothing about the system. I served in Reactor department when I was in the Navy. I'm curious how their reactors are performing, but I know I'd never be privy to that information. I haven't been in the Navy in quite a few years.
Thanks for the rundown. As an ex (CVN-65) Nuke it is relieving to hear someone who actually understands what they are talking about. I wanted to clarify a technical detail - that a lot of people seem to miss, and I'm not sure everyone will have followed your explanation. The ship's Electrical Generating capacity is over 3 times more powerful than the Nimitz class - which will allow, as you stated, the use of much more electrically demanding systems (especially in the future) The A1B Reactor Plants themselves are more powerful, but more on a scale of 125% compared to an A4W (Nimitz class). This will increase the reliability and flexibility of the propulsion / electrical plant. The removal of all of the high pressure steam piping required for the steam catapults in and of itself, is a huge maintenance savings - as well as removing a damage control concern. People have no idea just how big an engineering issue blowing fresh water over the side with every catapult shot is - when you have to generate every single drop of water - which uses power and costs money.
@@kurtpena5462 Here's the confusion - almost everybody keeps quoting power for the A1B as 300 MW... but most say 300 MW of Electrical Power - which makes sense - the electrical plant has been greatly enlarged - but the numbers that make the most sense to me - for actual reactor power, quote ~700 MW of Thermal capacity for the A1B vs 550MW for A4W, a roughly 125+% power increase - because Electrical Capacity leaves out the power requirements of the propulsion plant. Because we can logically see that they didn't go from a total capacity of 550mw x 2 (1100MW) to 300mw x 2 (600MW - a decrease of almost 50%) and add electrical generating capacity to the plant and maintain vessel performance.
@@theblackbear211 The A1B is a 300MW reactor. Try not to forget that steam cats are very inefficient. EMALS requires 500MW less power. Steam cats are only about 4% efficient. Ships with steam cats require larger power plants to make up for the losses associated with steam, water, and heat leaking out everywhere. There are no such problems with charge-based systems.
@@kurtpena5462 Can I assume that you are a current nuke - or can you tell me what your info source is? There are a lot of numbers floating around out there.
As an old school Navy vet (Vietnam era) I appreciate this comprehensive explanation of what's going on with the new aircraft carriers. I follow Navy developments the best I can, but the information available to the public through most media channels is always suspect. This is a source that I can trust to be accurate. Thanks!
Fake news media ruins everything it touches how many drops of shit do you need in a bar of Cadbury's chocolate before you give up eating sweets entirely?
@Shark tooth Trump was a layman with no familiarity with the Ford's systems. All he was going by is what he had been told by a professional naval officer, that a multi billion dollar system was not working. That, and the media at the time was teeming with stories of the Ford's shortcomings. Kudos to then Captain Hannifin for soothing the President's concerns.
@@RogueWraith909 Only the Lockheed-built Freedom class have that issue. Austal's Independence class are doing much better. I think that the entire notion of a lightly-armed, multimission platform like the LCS sits badly with many people, who insist on comparing them to AEGIS destroyers. To that I would say, go read Hughes' "Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations", particularly the chapters on littoral operations, and then we can talk. The aviation facilities and UAV/USV/UUV capacities of those ships (particularly the Independence-class) give them a _lot_ of capability that isn't obvious to the naked eye. My biggest gripe with the USN LCSs is that they're too big/expensive to be truly expendable as is necessary in the littorals. Something the size of a Sa'ar 5 might be a better tradeoff.
I was involved with the engineer testing on the electro-mechanical actuators used on the valves for the reactors. We ran them 24/7 for more than a year and they did great. I even did the medium (3000 lb hammer) shock test on one.
Love hearing about how the tech evolves, and never get tired of carrier stuff. In total awe of the size, scale, engineering, and handling of the greatest war ships ever created.
EMALS and AAG will considerably widen the range of aircraft that can be handled. Stick a tailhook on the F-22 and EMALS and AAG could likely handle it.
@@georgemijatovic4060 Just listen to what Ward says. He's pretty clear, if you listen. There is no steam launchers on the Ford class. The launch system is smoother (more linear) and results in less damage to the plane during launch. As he remarked a plane can lose enough systems on a steam launch to be effectively blind in the air.
I was on the pre-commissioning/commissioning crew on USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The catapults they installed on her during construction were zero-zero (zero wind/zero speed) and had new valves that opened more gradually to reduce the jolt at the beginning of the cat shot. Basically, she could launch planes while parked and the shots wouldn't be as jarring as the older cats. Now, these were steam cats, "just like they've used for sixty-five years or so", but they were new technology and there were issues. We spent a lot of time in the yard and at Pier 12 with sheds over the cats while they worked on them to get the bugs out.
It sounds more like a control issue than steam vs. electric. If you have to make a lot of steam than surely you have to make a lot of electricity with steam generators.
Hey shipmate. I was precomm, plank owner aboard TR as well. I remember those sheds. I think they also had them up while over in Portsmouth. We had “new technology “ issues with the JP5 fueling stations as well they replaced the old mag amp grounding control with solid state. Finally SIMA came aboard and installed a reliable solid state board and the control issues went away. Maybe you remember the hoses charging and spraying JP5 on the deck? Happened a lot at first.
@@rogersmith7396 not an engineer I can gather.....SGs purpose is a HEAT exchanger to move heat from one source to another and CREATE steam....that created steam can THEN be used for multiple purposes one of which is in GENERATORS attached to turbines to create electricity.....the ones for main ships power are often called SSTG or Ships Service Turbo Generators and are smaller steam engines all in their own compact package......you can have multiple SSTGs in a main space along with all the electrical switching gear to sync and connect it into the ships grid
@@rogersmith7396 same on a modern Nuke....only difference is the original heat source to create the steam....our steam was created in a Babcock & Wilcox class D boiler (we had 4) w/ superheaters....main steam was 1275 psig with reducers dropped it down for various uses all the way to 50 psig
Every piece of new technology goes through a teething process, you can only do so much in a testing lab. Actually doing the job out in the fleet will bring out any faults that may still be hidden.
My father (Now 88 years old) was a member of the first crew of the USS Saratoga, CV-60. He told me that they had to check high pressure steam lines for leaks continually, and that they would use a broom handle to look for them. He said a pinhole leak in a high pressure steam line would eject enough super heated steam to cut the broom handle like a saw. I had forgotten this story until now, watching this video. At the time he told me about steam line leaks, I was probably 12 years old (1972), and I could not connect his story to the operation of the steam catapults.
@@funkenstien1155 Yeah that's also cause that steam isn't like the steam you get from boiling water, this is super heated steam, hot enough to turn a human into a soup.
Thanks for the explanation of the Ford Class and the benefits of the MCATS replacing the Steam CATS. The elimination of all the steam pipes and the amount of maintenance they require, plus the amount of energy required to make the steam seems to be substantial. Very informative.
The energy of any major system aboard a nuke ship comes from the power of steam. Directed energy weapons are becoming a thing. Much more electrical power will be needed. Electric catapults can take advantage of that coming change. Their needs become incremental rather than fundamental in terms of required power generation.
@@michaelkendall662 Yes, nuclear fission reactors generate crap toons of heat, which is then transfered to water, creating steam. The steam is fed through a turbine, which is also connected to a generator. But that's all in the reactor room and associated electrical areas nearby, but steam catapults require you to install large, thick, heavy pipes that have to feed said steam all around the deck. That works so freaking much, not including all the steam and heat you lose just by heating the pipes or the many leaks that will appear. By removing that it allows you to both shrink the reactors themselves, but also dedicate the steam generated towards electrical generation.
@@michaelkendall662 Of course, modern fusion (not fission, different thing) research designs are figuring out ways to completely eliminate the need for steam, and thus the massive amounts of water needed to make it.
@@MommyKhaos LOL...you are "schooling me?".....not only did I get the Nuke Training in the USN I also have high-level Physics from college....along with that I operated high-pressure steam propulsion in the USN for 5 years so I am well aware of power generation and the difference between fusion and fission
Well, that assumes the system can be maintained at sea. You can shut off a few values - weld a pipe and you back up in business. With EMAILS, one cat goes down - they are all down, and can't be serviced at sea.
And where did you get that idea? EMALS per past reports require the entire system be shut down to fix one. The steam units could be isolated and operations continued. There are real questions on the stability of the design and if it can take damage and still operate.
@@jamesb4789 Is it possible they only shut them all down at once because it’s a new system and they didn’t want to take any chances? The whole idea is that there aren’t vulnerable steam lines running all over the place. An electrical system should be designed so that as long as there’s power, each one should run independently and be isolatable. I’m no expert or anything, but that would seem to be an obvious way to design such a system to work; otherwise you’re negating one of the most important features. Just my thought. 🤷🏻♂️
@@keirfarnum6811 >>I’m no expert or anything Well, then let’s get you up to speed so at least you have a idea of how this system works, shall we? EMAILS weighs more, and takes up MORE space below decks. While they state the rails take less space, they choose their words very careful!!! - and you did actually touch on the weight and balance issue for the ship. EMAILS weighs more, and takes up more room below decks. And there are ALSO MORE moving parts for EMAILS below decks. To use the electric launch system? They can’t draw power directly from the ships generators. Several reasons exist. First, you can’t draw enough power at the rates required to run the rails. So you have to “store up” the power. More important, the amount of power available for a launch MUST be known beforehand. So, if someone turns on a lift, air conditioners, an oven or what not? Then the total power available is changing. And even a circit breaker flip or any other system - you can see the lights dim - and power avaible changes. So you need CLEAN power, uninterrupted power for a catapult launch. You can’t have power change half way during a launch - or you wind up with a jet in the sea. So, what they do is STORE UP THE power for a catapult launch. They use big motor flywheels to do this. An EMALS motor generator weighs over 80,000 pounds, and is 13.5 feet long, almost 11 feet wide and almost 7 feet tall. So, there is 4 of these for EACH catapult. A total of 16 of these beast of burden mechanical monsters. In addition to the huge flywheels they spin up, you have the generator control room (for each catapult). So, to launch a fighter? They spin 4 of these mechanical monsters to 5000 RPM. Then for a launch, they spin them up to 6000 RPM. (It takes about 50 seconds to spin them up from 5000 RPM to 6000 RPM). And that 50 seconds time is when you are running ONE rails. If you running 4 of them, then LONGER - in fact just as long as steam. Once they are up to 6000 RPM, then the catapult (the electric rails) are ready to be fired. At the end of a single launch, the huge flywheels will be back to 5000 RPM. During a launch, the huge mechanical flywheel feeds into a complex energy converter (called a cyclotron). Now, take all of the above systems? What does a steam catapult use for ALL OF the above? Why, it uses a tank of air, with a valve. That is it!!! I should also point out that you can’t isolate the huge flywheel generators from each other. In other words, if any switch or ability to turn off one of these mechanical beast of burden flywheels exists? Then that is considered a possible failure point. So, if some small problem occurs, and you have to service them? Well, they take 1 hour to spin down. And worse, they really can’t be serviced or repaired at sea anyway. If one goes down, they ARE ALL TAKEN down!!! And as noted, you can’t isolate the systems from each other. So all catapults are down. If you introduce a switch or breaker, then perhaps someone comes along and turns that breaker off for working on the air conditioner, or lift? And now over the years that switch becomes bad or corroded? Each such "thing" is a new failure point in the system. With steam? If one catapult has an issue? Well, they just go below deck, turn some steam valves, and isolate one catapult, and operate other 3. No big deal to keep a catapult off line until you finished fighting the enemy. With EMAILS, you shut them all down, and sent out another carrier while the current one returns home. So, steam, is cheap, easy, simple, but MOST important such systems are not only simple and reliable, but can be serviced and maintained at sea. The EMAILS system is massively complex, has MORE AND LARGER mechanically parts and bits it replaces, and worst of all, can’t be serviced at sea, and even if you try, you have to wait 1 hour to spin down the system before you can touch anything anyway. And worse yet? Supposed these huge elephant size mechanical flywheels are supposed to save room!!! - Oh wait!!! The electric rails save room, and no need for steam generators (attached to the nuclear reactor). However, over all the EMAILS system is NOT saving room at all. I mean, sure if you JUST compare the rails, then YES. But to leave out the huge massive mechanical beast of burden flywheels, then you NOT reduced parts at all here. To be fair the catapult rails for steam do have more maintains then the steam rails. So the rubberized seal that goes around the hook that travels down the track for steam is a “pain”. However, such maintains can once again be done at sea. So, while the rails on EMAILS require less maintenance? Well, that remains to be seen, but while the rails has less maintains, the large number of huge mechanical flywheels to store energy during a launch are NOT a reduction in mechanical bits and parts. So, the tanks of air have been replaced with a VERY large number of those flywheels, and it remains to be seen how reliable these things will be. And as noted, these huge mechanical flywheels don’t save room compared to the simple “air tank” that will last for the whole 50+ years of the carrier. The other big promise of EMAILS? Well, it was supposed to cause less stress on fighter airframes and thus increase the lifespan of the fighters. However, right now? Well, EMAILS is overstressing F18’s with external wing tanks. (The solution right now is to thus not fly F18’s with external fuel tanks). They do claim a software fix is available right now (to be deployed on the Ford next year). The issue is that steam has a “natural” kind of give. Try moving or stopping a cordless electric drill - they will rip your hand off. But, they still use air guns at tire shops for tire bolts. So the overstress issue is complex. The catapult hook and rails when they start to pull the JET are connected VERY strong together (can’t have the hook come off!!!). But, vibrations from the EMAILS launcher are making its way into the fighter’s airframe. This is NOT JUST an issue of less force, or more force. It is how the rails produce the force that is the issue here. I mean, if too much force was causing stress on wing tanks, then just turn the force down, right? (wrong!!! - they can't do that - else not enough force exists to launch the jet correctly). So, they are in fact seeing MORE airframe stress on jets from EMAILS - that is 100% opposite of what they promise. They “think” they can minimize the increased wear and tear on the fighter’s airframe with tweaking the software for the electric rails. But it far more difficult, since as noted, steam has that natural “compress” and “give” that absorbs these vibrations and huge forces that a catapult places on the fighter. So, they are now having to try and “simulate” the give and take of steam with an electric rail system that designed to be VERY strong, and NOT have any play or “give” when they fire the catapult. (it is the difference between towing car with a rope, or belt vs that of a chain - ever seen how the chain goes tight and transfers HUGE forces to the other car???). As a result, vibrations and forces are making their way into the airframe. And we all know metal fatigue is the number one killer of fighter jets longevity. So the WHOLE idea behind EMAILS was the promise and sell of reducing wear and tear on the fighter’s jets. This would thus increase the life span of airframes. Right now, they are experiencing the reverse of what they promised. They now have stated that a software update seems to have fixed this issue - but it was never really the force, less force or even more constant force that was causing too much stress on the F18's with external fuel tanks. This is why President Trump suggested that EMAILS is a bad idea, and is multiple times over budget, and STILL not producing a launch rate and reliability that we see with steam catapults. So now that EMAILS is working, they are finding about 10 times or more failure rates compared to steam. So, even if they fix the failure rates, they still have to address the increased stress issue. And they still have no solution for doing working on or fixing EMAIL issues at sea. And, even worse yet? Well, they are not seeing increased sortie rates with EMAILS (again another failed promise). Right now? Well, they just going to deploy the Ford class with reduced sortie rates, and ignore the failure of launch rates, and ignore the issue of non-repair at sea. Since they can't service EMAILS at sea, then they will simple go back to port, and have a spare aircraft carrier on call. However, some launch failures will result in the jet going into the sea. I would REALLY be a huge fan of this system if they could have used super-capacitors for the energy storage, but they went with huge mechanical beast of burden flywheels connected to generators. These things are large, heavy, and very mechanical in nature. (All to replace a simple steam tank). So they traded reduced rails maintain for increased flywheels and generators maintains. It will be interesting to see when this choice starts to win over steam systems, or if it ever will. And as noted, while steam does take more manpower, they can be worked on at sea. Even just shutting steam down to one of the catapults can be done. With EMAILS that is not a option, since power draw is inter-connected between the systems for reasons of redundancy. The Ford and the JFK can’t be retro-fitted with steam, as they will have to rip up too much of the ship to go back to steam. So, likely what will occur is we use the Ford and the JFK for training, and build two more carriers after that and use steam. This is about the only viable option if they can’t fix the serious issues they are facing with EMAILS.
A single missile near-miss interception could shatter enough steam lines to disable the cat, and broken steam lines in combat would be a nightmare. A lot easier and more compact to have multiple power lines, which are harder to hit, are less dangerous even if hit, and faster/easier to replace/repair than steam lines.
SEE THIS! Each new cat is a self-contained entity, not dependent on anything but a main power feed. Much smaller, easier, yada, to feed a power line to a cat location than steam pipes, and repair. Steam down?--all cats down. One main line feeder cut?--ONE cat down out of three. CAG sips his coffee and keep launching. You see it in the last 40 years already when a steam cat breaks (they do often enough).
Great overview and explanations. When President Trump was talking about the "reliability" of steam vs electric, the first thought that popped in my mind was someone needed to tell him that steam lines can be cut....and then you have no steam.....
The noise from the arresting gear was so distinct for each aircraft, I could tell what trapped just from the noise without looking at the TV monitor, and that was from the 2nd deck in the Mardet. The A-3 Whale was very distinctive for the sheer volume and screech of the gear. Great discussion of the systems Ward!
the old breed will always defend what they know, the kids who know nothing but EMALS will look at the old steam monkeys like they are nuts to want anything that isnt electric.
Thanks for the update Ward. There was a LOT I didn't know about the new carrier and this helped clarify some of the issues and the major advantages you discussed.
That goes for every military project that advances the capabilities of military hardware. While there are those who complain about cost overruns (I am not saying that they are good mind you), without realizing that the technology that is being implemented is not cheap, or easy to get to work. A perfect example of this is with the F-22 and F-35 fighters. Those 2 5th generation fighters cost billions more than the 4th generation fighters they are supposed to replace. 6th generation fighters will cost even more than the F-22 or F-35. This applies to all military hardware be it a vehicle such as the hummer that replaced the jeep to the submarines carrying Trident missiles and of course, an aircraft carrier.
@Grand Master Come talk to me after you have lived on or near any military base, or been enlisted in any branch of the military for a lifetime. With rare exception, I have lived either on, or within 5 miles of a military base. I earned my aircrew wings while in the Marines. Did you? I have followed military developments since I was knee high to a pissant. I can remember seeing the USS Nimitz tower above the downtown Newport News skyline for years before it was launched. I have followed the funding and building of many carriers after that. I have also lived where Lockheed Martin was out my backdoor where the F-22, C-130J and the C-4M was either being built or modified. Can you say the same? When the production of F-22s was cut, I stated then it was a mistake. As a student of history and seeing what happened prior to and during WWII and seeing that very thing playing out now, I completely understand the threats we face. When you can tell everyone here that you enlisted, let us all know.
"You have to be Albert Einstein to work on an electric catapult."- trump. 'Well sir you also have to be Einstein to work on our nuclear reactor." -officer Einstein 🤣😂🤣😂
Not true, you have to be an "Electrical Engineer" over just, being a , Electrician Mate, "Vocational training", as you are now using, 35k, High Voltage, over 480 Volts.
Great video Ward very informative. It made me think of this. Military contractor "OK we're about 30 days from being done with what you requested". Military "wait can you also add this, this, and this?" Military contractor "yes we can add those requirements. Your request will be finished 3 years from now at an increased cost of millions of dollars". This happens so often that it should now be considered as SOP.
Outstanding review. As a research engineer I'm pleased that you represent a forward looking, logical step by step approach to new technologies with the necessary level of objective criticism of existing problems. Great content. Best wishes
@T.J. Kong thanks for the valuable feedback, I completely agree with you. I think when a client wants results quickly suppliers have the tendency of being over optimistic, especially if the decision making process excludes the actual workers- engineers in this case. Still I don't understand if the interface and bounding box of the EMALS is taken into account how it was never spotted that it wouldn't fit in the ship. I think at this point this becomes a speculation, so I'd like to stop. I just would like to add that screw ups happen, like the newest Spanish submarine that was too heavy to float. I personally saved a big part of a 2 million EUR project. The lack of a technical person in the upper management almost wrecked the project. I later resigned.
@T.J. Kong the major systems were provided by other Participating Resource Managers (except the new weapons elevators) from different SYSCOMs and therefore different OPNAV and ASNRDA sponsors. Everyone managed their risk and were in many ways competing for resources from ultimately the same pot. There was a congressional cap on the delivery price so when multiple PARMs had risks realized, there was not a lot of resources to throw at the solutions. Of all the major technologies, all were from different Major Program Managers except 2. In the end, the problems you see here are the ones that did not get to the finish line with the FORD in lock step. So yes, several critical parallel developmental programs were expected to be matured by their installation dates, and the rest is history.
@@AtomicBabel Ergo Congress needed to be persuaded to maintain Nimitz production until one complete Ford became proven. This has gotten to the point where the public and Congress need to be clearly shown that the path forward is fully understood, dates certain for steps on the path were established and have been or can be kept, and a date certain for full operation to full requirements can therefore be met. Otherwise, the pause between new carriers starting their first deployment has been too long, and the grievous decision to resume Nimitz production, life extension, reconstruction and recommission, or reduction in authorized strength must be made and the balance of the naval forces reconfigured to the new facts. The evidence points to the learning process being still underway and the outcome uncertain. That's what this looks like.
@@timtrewyn453 sorry and I don't mean to be mean. I believe you mean well and are providing your best and honest assessment of the situation. However, most of what you wrote are technically inaccurate and does not track with strategic technology management, defense budgeting, and management of the national industrial base. There is only one yard that has the capacity to build a CVN and it takes 7-8 years to build one. I've been in the design and acquisition team of CVNs since CVN76 (was enroute to 76 to survey progress and effect engineering changes 20 years ago this day (9/11/2001)). The challenge to complete and commission Ford was the biggest stressor in all my life. The integration of lessons learned from Ford to Kennedy, Enterprise, Miller and for Nimitz Class modernization were the most rewarding. The first of Class are always going to take much longer to iron out the kinks, and they always look like a mistake. To introduce one major technology change per ship will require 40 years before you get 5 major changes to CVNs. Except for AAG, which was backfitable to Nimitz, other technology (EMALS, DBR, weapons elevators) required upfront redesign of the internals of the ship. Thus, you had to go all in from the beginning of ship design. People tend to look at what are tech challenges that are not complete but progressing but do not spend time with the less mundane but transformative efficiency changes everywhere on the ship. The Ford Class are great ships, and the Kennedy will prove that upon delivery.
@@AtomicBabel Thank you. What you say makes sense. It would have been extravagant to build an entirely new and separate shipbuilding facility for the Ford class, and leave the Nimitz class construction facility in place. But if that had been done, Ford development could have been more deliberate than risky, and Congress would have more flexibility to respond to the growth and capabilities of the Chinese Navy. Carrier authorized strength has crept downward, and I think that needs to change. In a less contentious world environment, there was plenty of cushion for Ford to take the place of USS Nimitz in 2025. It may still work out, but we are not impacting Chinese calculations as we might have, and that can go badly. As an electrical engineer, I see the attractiveness of EMALS and its integration with the Ford power plant. I do get the sense that the demands upon EMALS are unprecedented for a linear motor. I can believe lessons have been learned, and there are items being researched. I can believe a new edition will do better yet may reveal further difficulties. I can believe all this can be persisted through and requirements met and hopefully exceeded. But I am very concerned about doing all this in a context of escalating strategic tension in the Pacific. I do think the American public can be brought to the view that Congress needs to fund the project more aggressively, as now, in my view, time is of the essence. This whole discussion has me writing my representatives to express great concern. I think you have made a very valuable contribution to the discussion, and urge you to spread the word as best as you are free to do so.
As an engineer I loved this video, the phonecall conversation was concise and to the point, brilliant. It only makes sense to change to electric not only because of the power savings but you then have one fewer different type of system being used on the ship which also has a knock on wrt training required to use an extra system-steam pneumatic. All new tech has teething problems, it's the price you pay for new tech but the advantages will pay for itself in the long run.
Much appreciate the no-BS info on the Ford series- Love the channel and a big fan. I'm glad that President Trump asked the question and knew to ask the person at the Helm that knew the whole story. The crew on the Carrier was well-intentioned in preferring Steam, and it takes a while to let learning to take place and release the resistance to change. I'm a Vet and a Navy Brat of 14 years, thanks Ward for what you do! In closing this comment - Remember out there those reading this - that we have more in common - than that which separates us. Choose to do what is right and you can't go wrong!
I think the crew should vote on all important decisions: How to power cats; do we deploy or not; should officers get fed cafeteria style like the enlisted; etc
I am so glad that the American Electorate saw through the buffoonery of America's con-man President. Thank you America for your faith in the Constitution, your respect for the dignity of the office, and most importantly, for your vote against an enemy within who still cannot comprehend his heinous crime of raising an armed mob to commit mayhem against their elected representatives, in order to deny a majority of Americans our unalienable right to choose our own destiny, for reasons we have yet to understand. May God continue to bless America in our triumphs, and strengthen us in her trials.
@LTrain45 45 I believe that it's less than half. Trump lost most independents and conservative Dems that pushed him over the top in 2016. With the continued obstructionist Republican strategy, the Big Lie and the denial of Jan 6, probable contempt of Congress charges coming, and probable criminal charges being made in the NY Federal Court for tax evasion by Trump, Inc., I believe that they'll lose another 25 to 40% of their support. And there's midterms coming. Things are looking grim in Palm Beach, and the further Murdock et. al. goes into Afghanistan, the worse Trump's handling of the Taliban looks to intelligent conservatives. They're back to name calling again, and whether or not the President remembers whether he visited a synagog 3 years ago. Not very key issues.
This channel is a breath of fresh air. Where most would put out a 20 min video filled with explosions and exciting “combat” reels. All I want is concise and accurate information. Not pretty pictures meant to distract me from the fact that nothing relevant is actually being conveyed.
Very informative, enjoyed the discussion electromagnetic versus steam catapults . The tried and tested versus new innovation. Reminds me of a historical shift from a tried and tested transport system of 100 years from Steam locomotion and the transition world wide to Diesel electric and full electric locomotive power. The benefits were vastly improved cleanliness, fuel efficient , more powerful, faster ,less hazardous, driver and maintenance crew friendly , cheaper running costs etc etc. Yes it was costly and complicated initially but there’s no going back. Unless it’s an enjoyable heritage museums exhibit. Time stands still for no man . Science and innovation leads the way .
I have seen 5 videos of this channel in the last couple of days. All of them were great, but this one was the one that got me to sub. Thank you for an excellent description of the new tech coming with Ford.
Interesting video Ward. I enjoy your perspective. There are 3 generations of my family that served in the USN. My dad flew Crusaders (2,000+ hrs) and commanded VF-211 during their final deployment with the F-8. Some of this new tech hitting the fleet gets him quite excited. He also recorded 102 night traps in the F-8 and the plane was still usable after each one! That's a hell of a stat if you know Crusaders. Thank you for your service Ward, love your taste in music too. Keep 'em rolling!
As ever amazing explanation which can be interpreted by laymen and folks with existing knowledge of current and future carrier ops. Well done as always Ward, thanks!
Just noticed I have now been retired longer than I served, Im sure you remember the V22 debacle where many wanted to cancel the program. Like anything I ever saw in my career if its new it takes time to work the bugs out. The V22 is now a stellar aircraft and will eventually give birth to a entire new way of thinking as far as vertical lift. Its the same with the new electro catapults and other things on our carriers. Like anything worthwhile it just takes time to work out the bugs..And like anything there will always be naysayers sitting in the wings running their mouth and wringing their hands.
My father in law worked for Boeing on that project. They did not do more than small production runs to test solutions until the plane was right. In truth it was a far bigger jump than the Ford and it stumbled, but they did not go into mass production with a bad design. The bad crash of the prototype was the result of the Pentagon pushing it against Boeings advice. After that , the effort was slowed to get it right.
It is reasonable to be optimistic, but it is a unique system that may have an innate issue not easily overcome given the constraints it must work within. It was a big decision to continue designing the Ford class, much less building the first, without that system being proven and to scale.
As an Air Force vet (enlisted), at least half of what you said about systems was a bit confusing. But, I definitely understood the advantages of the EMALS system. Hopefully they get the bugs worked out before it has to be real world combat tested. Thanks for another great video.
Thank you Ward for you whole series on Naval Aviation, the have been incredibly informative. Any chance that going forward you could do an episode on the role of the aircraft carrier in a near- peer conflict?
Truly enjoy your videos. Intelligent commentary on the true cost of these technologies. No leap forward comes without some pain and while we don't like the sound of "more time and money" it is often inevitable in order to move forward. Thanks Ward for breaking it down...
What concerns many of us is that by all reports, EMALS still isn't very reliable yet. Higher failure rates and lower capability rates are not reassuring.
@@Aaron-wq3jz but do we have 30 or 40 years to debug them, not to mention the cost? The Cold War is over, and we are facing more austere budgets, whether we like it or not. CDR Salamander has been beating the drum of warning for years about more restrictive budgets, and now they're here. We literally can't afford to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to debug a system on serving ships. As one officer put it in the video, we should be adding maybe one new system at a time, not several. If it's beginning to look as if the Navy breast still doesn't understand that the flush budgets have the 60s to the 80s no longer exist (4 years of Jimmy Carter excepted). We can no longer point to the Soviet Colossus as justification for insanely expensive projects, and opposing China will require us to budget smarter, and not throw money all over the place. Don't complain about social programs; they aren't going anywhere. The 'Phib has been pushing the mantra of "Ford, not Ferrari" for quite a long time now. It's time our budgets reflect that reality.
@B L The innards of a carrier are in something of a Faraday cage with a massive salt water ground. EMLS might be sufficiently protected from EMP by its location in the ship.
Great video Ward, very efficient explanations of the new Ford class CVNs. I'd love to see you do a video on the new COD replacement V22s, and cover the pros and cons in a similar way to this video. I finished your first book this weekend as well Ward, you're an exceptional writer, it's no surprise to me the direction your career took after you retired from the USN, the various websites and publications you worked with were very well served by your skills in this regard. This channel is fantastic, and watching its rapid growth has been satisfying, as I was among the fortunate to have found this channel when you only had a few thousand subscribers, and everyone in my aviation/simulation communities I've recommended this channel to has raved about how much they enjoy your content here.
My first ship in the Navy was USS ENTERPRISE (CVN-65). I was assigned to V-1 Division (flight deck) as a plane handler. Division berthing was just under the flight deck, first compartment forward of the forward most arresting gear engine. Basically when a plane landed and its main gear made contact with the flight deck that was happening directly on top of our berthing. You ever try sleeping through that? You get to hear the impact as the plane makes contact with the flight deck, the noise of the arresting gear engine in operation, and the sound made as the arresting gear wire was dragged back and forth across the deck. It got to the point that you could sleep through literally anything, because you had to get that way if you were to get any sleep at all.
I know exactly what you mean. After coming back from a deployment and sleeping in my own bed at home I found it too quiet and hard to get to sleep because I was use to all kinds of shipboard noise going on. Every time it got quiet on a ship you knew something was wrong and usually it was an electrical fire or the ventilation being secured for maintenance. It's easy to sleep through an alarm clock going off but when it gets totally silent, it will bring me out of a deep sleep like a bomb going off. 👍✨
I was on the big E for Westpac 76-77. I was air wing, and our berthing was directly beneath the #3 arresting wire. I was center bunk, which put me about 6 feet below the flight deck. The A-3 Sky Warriors were the absolute worst. 40,000 lbs slamming down directly over your head. I never got used to that airplane. Fortunately for us, the A-3 flew primarily on daytime flight ops. Good times though, I wouldn’t have traded them for anything.
@@olentangy74 We still had an A-3 as part of the air wing when I was onboard the Big E August of '84 to Thanksgiving of '85. It had the legend, "On loan from the Smithsonian Institution" painted on it.
also on the Big E. Our temporary berthing coming out of refit/refuel in the 90's was on the O3 level. Yeah it's pretty noisy up there. We eventually moved down into reactor berthing later on. It's quite a bit quieter down there, but then you have the cavitation of the bent screw (propeller/screw shaft bent when running aground in SF) during high speeds you have to sleep through. And flight operations does require those high speeds of course. I'll take the screw noise over the arresting gear any day though, at least it's consistent.
Wow, lots of Enterprise guys on this thread. I was also on the Enterprise, 1976 - 1979, as a Nuc. Our berthing compartment was the very aft of the ship. We were just below the jet engine test stand. Since they couldn't test jet engines during flight ops, they would test them all night. If you thought the arresting gears were loud, imagine trying to sleep under a jet engine.
Interesting to see the pic of the high impact shock test on the Ford. When I was working for the Navy one of my jobs included vibration, shock and impact testing (at much lower magnitudes) on individual systems or parts of systems. Very interesting work, testing all kinds of stuff per MIL-STD-810.
Thank God Trump was Prez when the decision had to be made. Decades of being a successful CEO means listening to your people to make the right call. Politicians wouldn’t do that. Today’s class of senior officer wouldn’t either. Too busy saving their own ass.
I was assigned to the USS Ranger CV-61. When we were sent to the coast of Nicaragua, we could not make enough cold water to cool the catapults to launch aircraft. Warm oceans stopped us from being fully operational. An electric catapult system would have been much better and operational in warm waters.
@@jacksonjohnson9674 On MULTIPLE occasions he was asked this and continued to declare that, in fact, stealth meant planes were INVISIBLE - not just to radar...to everything. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually understood when his aides told him to stop saying that that it wasn't true, but he continued to say it because he thought "invisible" sounded cooler to his core group of idiot supporters who he knew would have no clue what "stealth" meant. Trump is bad at most things, but he was and is a marketer that knows his brand.
Ward, one of the best videos you have done! And that's a long, long list my TH-cam friend! LOL But this one was so well laid out, and presented so well. The bottom line: The Navy needed to change. Their future stated plans, operational edict, and support scenarios all wrap around small, fast, un-manned attack craft. "Planes" if you will. Shooting from a steam cat, and recovering is a nightmare because of low weight and precision factors in recovery. The new way is expensive because it's new. It's having issues because it's new. It's listed as a major "problem" in the new class, well, because it's new. But that's why they make irons. It will get resolved and perform well for the life of the ships. Thank you once again for an excellent treatise of this "change" the Navy undertook. I've shared it and your channel with as many as I can since I think you consistently present the facts well.
I recall someone writing about the fact that the Nimitz-class carriers would cost $4BUSD apiece. Now, the price of a new carrier will be (is) $13BUSD. Here's hoping we get our money's worth.
@@neues3691 Yes, the Nimitz was commissioned in 1975. (I think construction began about 1969 or 1970.) There were ten or eleven more after that. The Bush was commissioned in 2009. So, $4BUSD per ship spread over a forty-year period. Let's pick a point in the middle and calculate from there. About 1989 would be about right. Inflation from 1989 to 2021 would take $4BUSD up to a scosh over $8.8BUSD in 2021. Inflation alone cannot account for the price increase. Shipbuilding techniques and technologies have improved dramatically since the (roughly) half-century since 1969. Given the stakes (life, death, national security, and so on), I say again: I really hope we get our money's worth.
@@warboyrb Yes, I think they started about 1969 and commissioned her in 1975. However, we continued to build Nimitz-class carriers until the last one was commissioned in early 2009. The mid-point, roughly 1989, would seem to be a fair point from which to calculate inflation.
@@warboyrb Yes, we would reasonably expect that a "new" Nimitz-class carrier built today should cost about $8.9BUSD. We should have at least a faint glimmer of hope that the additional $4BUSD will prove to have been well-spent. I am certain that the Ford-class carriers will be full-to-bursting with new, vastly superior technology.
Very informative! In principle, an electric launch system should be all-around better than steam: more flexible, safer, more reliable, and more maintainable, as long as you have the spares and industrial infrastructure to support it. A system that's planned in before development is complete, on the other hand... well, it's a management failure, not a basic problem with the technology, but it looks like teething problems that should have been caught long ago are putting some people off the whole idea.
The Obama White House overruled the Navy's choice and gave the contract to General Atomic who had designed a single roller coaster EM launcher at the time. Politics over qualifications will always do this.
One thing was really interesting when watching the land-based cat shots was realizing that carrier aircraft don’t rotate. Which is interesting watching the hornet aggressively give elevator input during the launch despite being glued to the deck (and then strangely goes neutral at the end of the cat)
I'm interested in things military. Even if I weren't I would likely subscribe here. Information from an intelligent, educated, informed, experienced narrator is a blessing. Especially if it comes from a gentleman.
Awesome video. Coming from the UK who are playing massively to come anywhere near to catching you guys, this is hugely comforting. The UK political kindergarten in their ineptitude dropped our true carriers decades ago. Thanks to a bit of foresight and digging behind sofa cushions for stair change to afford the we now have two. Thanks to America your guys trained our new guys on how things should be done on one of the most dangerous strips of land on the planet, namely the carrier deck. Thankyou 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇬🇧
Great episode! Would love to see an episode with your thoughts on the Fords being able to defend themselves and fight an enemy such as the Chinese. With only a handful of Fords being able to be on station at any one location at a time, the shorter range of current Navy aircraft, the threat of supersonic long range missiles, the offshore island defenses, etc. could they survive long enough to deliver punishment to China. Would smaller but more numerous carriers be more survivable? Etc. Thanks.
Throughout my Marine Corps aviation maintenance career, all the boats I've been on have been Nimitz Class of various ages and levels of modernization, the George Washington, Stennis, Carl Vinson, Lincoln, and others. I wonder what shipboard life is like aboard Ford Class carriers that is different and would totally surprise me. I remember one of the ships having an actual escalator down to the mess decks, and another where there was no practical way of getting up to the ready room during man overboard drills using the standard starboard up and forward or port aft and down SOP. Also there were differences between where LSO emergency nets were located, the number of aircraft elevators, the length of the LA and other areas of the deck, and even the layout and accessibility of berthing areas, officers quarters, and blue-tile sections of the boat. Even the Chief's Mess varied from ship to ship. One of my last squadrons, the truly excellent VMFA(AW)-121 ( which flew the FA-18D and had a couple of the modified ATARS reconnaissance birds), became the first Marine Corps squadron to convert to the F-35B VSTOL version, moved to MCAS Yuma, CA, and became the training Cadre for all future Marine aviators that were now slated to fly the F-35B. Ah, good times! Want a funny but not really acceptable story? One time aboard a ship with an escalator, we changed a main landing gear assembly (Tire and wheel) up on the flight deck in the middle of the night. After we were done, we took the old tire assembly down to the hangar deck level which is where we had been assigned a shop space for the Powerline shop. The escalator down to the mess decks was not running since it was in the middle of the night, so we being Marines we thought it would be easy to just roll the tire down the escalator to save us some work. As soon as we let it go, this heavy tire and wheel assembly started bouncing with increasing speed and violence to the point that it even hit the overhead on its way down, three decks worth, got to the bottom, made a lateral bounce and disappeared sideways out the hatch into the hangar deck! We were all scared but had to immediately 'fess up to it because Hangar Deck Control had the tire assembly on shipboard camera shooting across the hangar deck and lodging itself between a tug and the bulkhead under an A-6E down for maintenance. Needless to say, our first port of call in Cannes, France, I stayed onboard standing watch in the Ready Room while everybody else not involved in this incident got some seriously good libo ashore. But that's OK, I eventually came back and got to experience that port. The highlight of that Med Float, however, was Haifa, Israel, after coming back from Dubai. What a beautiful country Israel was!
I'm a former Aviation Marine with only 81 Med Cruise and its Qual cruise on CV-59 under my belt ! But wait a minute I did a Carrier Qual with our New Pilots April 83 on USS JFK anyhow our Hyd Shop went thru personel changes and we went aboard with wrong size Lower Chambers shock strut F-4 J's axles were breaking so we magna fluxed and found some cracking nothing too major so we got the OK [Maintance Control and QA] for flight during the cruise but like clockwork on our last port visit to Naples we recieved 15 pallets with 36 struts which we changed in the North Atlantic on the way home 2 crews 24/7 damn cosmoline was the worst part VMFA-115
@@edwardgoering1237 ha ha! Yes, I remember the prez grease on strut assemblies. Worked Depot at NAS North Island after I retired from the Corps, and I can't count how many nose and main strut assemblies we rebuilt, preped, rigged and tested, we worked on the entire aircraft. I've learned so much about the F/A-18 and worked on just about everything, I could probably design and build one myself with a little help from a machinist and an electrician.
@@davidcruz8667 That 81 cruise US2 Libya0 was just a weekend of Gen Quarters but changing them strutts as we went thru North Atlantic Jacks stayed seated but them chains kept poping had me a nervous wreck F-4 's alittle heavier than f-18's
Mr. Carroll, Sir. The explanations and comparisons you provided here were outstanding. Although I am an Army Aviation guy, the Navy Carrier has always been a perception of total power and control for our nation. Your explanation of Steam vs. Electrical was so informative. Thank you. Your comments in this video as well as last videos are awesome. Mentioning and recognition of Crew members issues of maintenance and importance is much appreciated. As in the Army… and all military forces for that matter. The real ‘hero’s’ are the pilots. I must admit I never understood what the REO..??..function is. It all centered around the pilot. So recognizing the facts that none of the pilot ‘things’ could happen, without the Officers above and the men and women ‘below’ the officer grade of Pilot is so important. Thank you, for the broad perspectives you provide in these videos. You are very good at what you do in communications.
I have to admit, steam is picturesque in low angle morning light for Hollywood film scenes as deck crews launch the jets. Electro-magnetic isn't going to be as sexy but it is the future.
I was a cat man, Cat #2 USS Nimitz 84-88, we launched a plane every 30 seconds, hardly had to wait for steam in between shots. We had several types of birds, A-7,A-6,E-2,F-14 EA-6Bs and the A-3 Sky Warrior also called the Whale. The only plane that took longer to shoot was the Whale, it was a bridle bird and we shot her last. Each plane had its own hold back bar too. Today they have F-18s and E-2s and CODs sometimes? F-35s on 1 ship only. I was the Panel operator on my last cruise in 87, hated it when they took me of the flight deck, lost my hazard duty pay. We never did a water brake job in port either always at sea after so many cat shots, can't remember the number.
I have major respect for you guys! All of us “Ordies” would always talk about how you guys were always working, covered in grease and always seemed to miss portcall due to some maintenance issue. We joked about the crash&smash guys (always seemed to be sitting/standing around) I know though when stuff got out of control they WERE the guys you needed. Even during steel beach picnics you Cat guys seemed to be working! Much respect to all who endured the grind!
It's really impressive how much pushback innovative new systems, like the electric catapult and the F-35 for example, generally get. Thought we'd be wiser by now, but truth is, it's a lot easier, safer and often more convincing to stand with your arms crossed and say 'I don't think it'll work' than risk your neck and try and improve something, especially with these really expensive and advanced systems. The president is - as you point out - latching on to a vibe here and not even going in one of those controversial directions he's known for. Someone's gotta push the envelope once in a while if things have to move forward or just stopping things from falling behind. In the end everyone was also really happy with Teslas electricity over Edisons.
Hey Ward. For my two cents, magnetic cat systems are still problematic, yet isn't it worth the perseverance in developing it? If we kept the attitude of "keep it because it works" we would still rely on bi planes and zepplins.
I'm sure everyone agrees with the idea of advancing the technology but it wasn't perfected before being designed into a ship, despite it's on shore testing, it is currently achieving 200 shots between failures, 4000 shots is required to make it an improvement over steam.
@@jacksonjohnson9674 there have been plenty of examples of bad expensive rushed idea pushed into combat that never matured, so far, like the railgun there is no evidence this can be made reliable enough, with that in mind it should have been retrofitted once reliable or just fitted to the following ships.
@@jacksonjohnson9674 I was merely using an illustration to explain my argument. My argument was to keep improving, innovating and developing the idea rather than giving up on it.
@@jacksonjohnson9674 Reflect on the Vought Corsair. It initially didn't suit carrier operations......until the Royal Navy spent time and effort to achieve a way for it to land safely on a carrier. It went on to be the longest serving piston engine fighter of WW2 with a kill ratio of 11:1. Just think of the Corsair's fate if the RN didn't innovate and develop.
The big problem was the number of new items being introduced...and I suspect that NAVSEA skimped on shoreside test rigs. Both hardware and software (NEVER underestimate the software) need to be checked out thoroughly before being stuffed into a hull.
@@keepitklean9365 I remember the EMALS shoreside being done preliminary in ‘09-‘10 when I was in my freshman year of high school. I’m always scratching my head when people say it was tested too little.
@@tyvernoverlord5363 @Keep It Klean - I'm an R&D S/W engineer, with the type of problems, especially reliability - the results demonstrated that the shoreside testing was insufficient. Testing has its own science in terms of when it's ready for release - and for each of these new technology-based systems, you have to factor in "Murphy". I have a lot of systems on the Ford (and across the fleet) dating back to '75 (and today they are still considered black magic). These systems have to operate flawlessly first time, last time and every time.....
@@ioio5993 You are right. EMLS was a system that needed to be proven, at scale, in conditions as similar to final as reasonably possible before designing it into the class. That USS Ford has not yet done a full deployment this many years after commissioning is telling. A new class that takes what works on Ford and what works on Nimitz should be seriously considered. Ford class could just end up being laboratories.
Greetings from the UK my friend and another outstanding discussion , The electromagnetic catapult was originally planned to be fitted to the two HMS Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers in the Royal Navy, apparently when they go for there first refit it's going to fitted.
Hey Ward, love your content. Would you happen to have plans to do a similar video as this on the F-35 program? I'd like to know what your thoughts are as a carrier aviator on the B (STOVL) and C (Carrier) variants, in terms of the capability we are buying for the cost.
Excellent, well-presented overview - thank you. Bugs and problems with new technology are inevitable, but it is totally inexcusable to have problems of items not physically fitting as they are supposed to when installation is attempted. That has nothing to do with "new tech" problems, but is due purely to incompetent program/contract management for not catching those issues well before delivery. Could you provide a quick and dirty explanation of what causes a "cold cat", and why the system is not instrumented to detect those conditions prior to attempting to launch the aircraft?
I wonder how many of these 23 new techs can be retrofitted into the older carriers once the bugs are sorted out? The extra electrical power and directed energy weapons might mean the carrier has the highest self defence capabilities. Very nicely presented Ward, like always I am impressed.
Unfortunately not much if any. The problem is the electrical power required for the new technologies and the older carries just don't have enough power generation capability.
Mr Carroll, sorry but I'm not quite sure what to call you.... every show that I watch I cannot begin to tell you how much I learn from listening to your programs. Thank you for your efforts, thank you for serving our great nation and thank you for your patriotism. No, more than ever, we need Patriots in this nation
Great video Ward! I’d love to see you do something on the F-35. There’s a lot of biased info floating around out there about it and your take would be invaluable. Keep up the good work and let’s here some Zeppelin, eh?
It's good to hear something about the Ford Class that isn't just doom and gloom. I've always had faith that in the end everything would work as planned. I just worried that the politicians would get cold feet first. The USN however won't feel complete until you have a USS Enterprise sailing the high seas. Must be a Star Trek thing.
Love Ward’s grounded and well experienced perspective. It’s one thing follow a president because he is our commander in chief and it’s still our responsibility to be informed and educated on things so we don’t blindly follow an ignorant politician.
Thanks for this comprehensive review of the new air craft carrier ships and their various systems. It's really great to hear from an actual air craft carrier pilot explaining the details.
Good strategic-level analysis, Ward - thanks much. The higher priority reqs should drive the big decisions. For our military, that's Mission Readiness and Capability. Deterrence is the first goal, until the goal becomes killing the enemy. When I worked in aerospace, contracting at JPL, I found it interesting that cutting-edge technology was not used in all applications. Materials selection and hardware design for multi-year interplanetary missions demanded Hi-Rel - and that was usually not the newest tech on the shelf. Conversely, development resources were not spared in support of major mission objectives, and a comfortable balance was struck between reliability and capability. Push the envelope in dev and test - not at sea, or in combat.
Or in the aether above the dome, er, ...I mean space. Flat earth joke. Couldn’t help it. I’m in a snarky, make fun of flat earthers type mood tonight. 😁
@@ashokiimc Khumbani - is this you? It would be like you to ask that stupid friggin' question, Salvi! LOL No Sir - over 10 yrs before that - worked on UARS, Galileo, and Pathfinder (not the Mars one). I was there during the Uranus encounter - a fantastic time to be on the Lab; and when Challenger was lost - not so fantastic. Saw 30-year careerists weeping at their desks that day. Galileo was scheduled to fly on the next Shuttle launch.
@@edfederoff2679 no sir i am not who you think i am. I'm just a 17 y/o kid from india. I had a lil question for ya. If i recall correctly galileo was originally intended to be launched on the centaur carried by the shuttle. So what modifications were made to the shuttle to allow it to carry the centaur. i think Atlantis and challenger were the orbiters selected for that task. Also why was it cancelled after challenger? Didn’t managers before challenger realise how dangerous it was or did something like an accident happen which "opened their eyes"? If you don't mind me asking can you tell me what challenger was like for you? where were you at that time? Did you know anyone related to that mission? maybe in mission control or the creew? or the people who made the spartan halley spacecraft for the mission? What did you personally think went wrong initially like before it was clear what had happened? Also do you remember columbia? Again what did you think caused the accident before the report came out. Did you know anyone involved in the mission?
I actually think it's great that he happened to be talking to someone who knew what they were talking about, and asked their opinion and honestly listened to them even though it wasn't what he wanted to hear. He made some small talk and gets an idea of different peoples opinions even though he may disagree with them. It shows how he became a very effective manager in real ilfe.
Yeah... Fat Donny seemed to have experienced a brief moment of reason and lucidity! The fact that you think it's "great" that a president😏 relied on experts, instead of spitballing about something he knows nothing about, is a little scary! It's a shame he didn't do the same with the medical experts regarding Covid! I can hear the response now... Whadya mean, he pushed for the rapid development of the vaccine didn't he?!! True. However, in the meantime he was in outright denial, downplayed the use of masks and played with voodoo cures, including bleach, costing thousands of lives. Some governors continue in his footsteps to this day!
@@jmiegs80 If you honestly don't think that Biden is much smarter than Trump, you're not very bright yourself! Biden certainly wasn't my first choice, but there's no comparison! Hell ... I'd even go so far to say that "W" is smarter than Trump, and that isn't saying much!
@@carlwilliams6977 Every president of my lifetime has done things I disagree with, and none of them are perfect, but for whatever reason as I’ve gotten older, the people in this country tend to accentuate the negative and make their opponents out to be total evil and outright ignore the faults in the people they like. I found Trumps no bs attitude and acting quickly and decisively to correct issues to be really refreshing and the strength of his presidency. Like instead of getting us involved in a forever war with Iran, he wiped their top general off the earth and moved on. He did a lot of great things as president. That’s not so say he didn’t have weaknesses like being really impolite and his communication style often left much to be desired, but he should get credit for being so decisive and a strong leader, while still listening to people like this behind the scenes.
What do you think about light fleet carriers? Not as replacements for the biggies but as an addition cause 12 carriers may not be enough in wartime due to periods of maintenance, repairs, training etc. - so in the end there may be about 4 carriers ready for action at any given point of time.
Once upon a time stem cats were new. Angled flight deck were new. Landing lights were new. Arrestor gear was new. Nuclear power was new. Even steel ships were new once. Great channel Shipmate! (Nimitz Plank Owner)
Insightful look at the Gerald R Ford, the CVN-78 carrier. 1 - the Navy should look long and hard at the GRF procurement procedures and improve that part of the equation. 2 - Electric is the way to go. It will get better as time goes on. To go back to steam is to go back to the _grease monkey_ days of mechanics. It's less maintenance & has greater capability. 3 - it's exciting to see the capability that the new reactors bring with more power. Rail guns, electromagnetic energy weapons and lasers are a leap beyond what we have now, especially defensive weapons.
My squadron was part of the 2019 Thanksgiving phone call, I was very proud of the Captains response supporting electromagnetic launching systems. He was cordial, accurate and professional
So much character displayed in that moment
Agreed Ben. It was a fine moment for USN.
He knew in that moment he had a chance of ruining his career by answering.
You may be very proud of your Captain's illbegotten opinion on the issue but that just makes two obvious idiots opining over it. Change for change's sake is the hallmark of those who have the luxury of deciding to make it but neither carry the burden of paying its cost or paying for it's failure to deliver anything of significant value to either the boys in harm"s way that have to actually use it, or the hardworking taxpayers who provide it.
@@WAGNERMJW change isn't easy, ask those who favored the battleship over the aircraft carriers in ww2. The kinks certainly need working out but we all know trump was never an expert in this arena. In such a technologically advanced society we need to surround ourselves with subject matter experts, the president most of all.
Last Nov I did a CQ detachment on the Ford. The EMALS system wasn’t great nor horrible. Some maintenance was conducted on CAT 2 for a bit but that was it. Just have to get the bugs worked out. Without all the steam lines running through the ship, there was so much room on the ship! Our work center went from a tiny broom closet to a actual work center with enough space to run efficiently.
You are welcome
It is my understanding per reports I have read a damaged EMAL requires the entire EMAL system goes down. Is that correct?
I imagine that removing the risk of a superheated steam explosion due to combat damage or overlooked maintenance items probably makes the crew on board function better and more efficiently too. Sure, they are trained to put themselves in harm's way, but any reduction in such risks can only be a good thing.
@@sixstringedthing not a factor at all.
Good to hear. I know little to nothing about the system. I served in Reactor department when I was in the Navy. I'm curious how their reactors are performing, but I know I'd never be privy to that information. I haven't been in the Navy in quite a few years.
Thanks for the rundown.
As an ex (CVN-65) Nuke it is relieving to hear someone who actually understands what they are talking about.
I wanted to clarify a technical detail - that a lot of people seem to miss, and I'm not sure everyone will have followed
your explanation.
The ship's Electrical Generating capacity is over 3 times more powerful than the Nimitz class -
which will allow, as you stated, the use of much more electrically demanding systems (especially in the future)
The A1B Reactor Plants themselves are more powerful, but more on a scale of 125% compared to an A4W (Nimitz class).
This will increase the reliability and flexibility of the propulsion / electrical plant.
The removal of all of the high pressure steam piping required for the steam catapults in and of itself,
is a huge maintenance savings - as well as removing a damage control concern.
People have no idea just how big an engineering issue blowing fresh water over the side with every catapult shot is -
when you have to generate every single drop of water - which uses power and costs money.
those were my first thoughts when i heard him say that.
Shippie:
* A1B = 300MW
* A4W = 550MW
Right?
Cheers, former MM2 (4 main)
@@kurtpena5462 Here's the confusion - almost everybody keeps quoting power for the A1B as 300 MW... but most say 300 MW of Electrical Power - which makes sense - the electrical plant has been greatly enlarged - but the numbers that make the most sense to me - for actual reactor power, quote ~700 MW of Thermal capacity for the A1B vs 550MW for A4W, a roughly 125+% power increase - because Electrical Capacity leaves out the power requirements of the propulsion plant. Because we can logically see that they didn't go from a total capacity of 550mw x 2 (1100MW) to 300mw x 2 (600MW - a decrease of almost 50%) and add electrical generating capacity to the plant and maintain vessel performance.
@@theblackbear211 The A1B is a 300MW reactor.
Try not to forget that steam cats are very inefficient. EMALS requires 500MW less power. Steam cats are only about 4% efficient.
Ships with steam cats require larger power plants to make up for the losses associated with steam, water, and heat leaking out everywhere. There are no such problems with charge-based systems.
@@kurtpena5462 Can I assume that you are a current nuke - or can you tell me what your info source is? There are a lot of numbers floating around out there.
As an old school Navy vet (Vietnam era) I appreciate this comprehensive explanation of what's going on with the new aircraft carriers. I follow Navy developments the best I can, but the information available to the public through most media channels is always suspect. This is a source that I can trust to be accurate. Thanks!
Fake news media ruins everything it touches how many drops of shit do you need in a bar of Cadbury's chocolate before you give up eating sweets entirely?
Lots of respect for RADM Hannifin for speaking his well-informed mind on that phone call.
Yeah,that took some courage.
Absolutely! My thoughts exactly!
His words were amazing!
Ahem, it was CAPTAIN Hannifin on the phone call. He was promoted after that.
@Shark tooth Trump was a layman with no familiarity with the Ford's systems. All he was going by is what he had been told by a professional naval officer, that a multi billion dollar system was not working. That, and the media at the time was teeming with stories of the Ford's shortcomings. Kudos to then Captain Hannifin for soothing the President's concerns.
McCain: Magnetic catapults are the biggest debacle in Navy history.
Littoral Combat Ships: Hold my beer ...
I'll see your LCS ships, and raise you the Zumwalt-class destroyers.
are Littorals useless?
What's the issue with the LCS? I haven't heard about them in ages.
@@neues3691 oh bloody hell, that's a pretty serious issue for a combat ship.
@@RogueWraith909 Only the Lockheed-built Freedom class have that issue. Austal's Independence class are doing much better.
I think that the entire notion of a lightly-armed, multimission platform like the LCS sits badly with many people, who insist on comparing them to AEGIS destroyers. To that I would say, go read Hughes' "Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations", particularly the chapters on littoral operations, and then we can talk.
The aviation facilities and UAV/USV/UUV capacities of those ships (particularly the Independence-class) give them a _lot_ of capability that isn't obvious to the naked eye. My biggest gripe with the USN LCSs is that they're too big/expensive to be truly expendable as is necessary in the littorals. Something the size of a Sa'ar 5 might be a better tradeoff.
I was involved with the engineer testing on the electro-mechanical actuators used on the valves for the reactors. We ran them 24/7 for more than a year and they did great. I even did the medium (3000 lb hammer) shock test on one.
@Grand Master goddamn this has got to be the funniest idiotic thing I've read in a while
@@bb-6359 I want to know what he said! My curiosity is piqued.
What's the maximum shock test numbers ?
And they require less maintenance I'm assuming
Just curious, what was the valve diameter and what type of fluid was it for? Air, steam, SW, FW?
Love hearing about how the tech evolves, and never get tired of carrier stuff. In total awe of the size, scale, engineering, and handling of the greatest war ships ever created.
EMALS and AAG will considerably widen the range of aircraft that can be handled. Stick a tailhook on the F-22 and EMALS and AAG could likely handle it.
What do we do about the stress from the steam system to the planes....I understand the wear is " Considerable" $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I mean.....I like the newer system....but.....
@@georgemijatovic4060 Just listen to what Ward says. He's pretty clear, if you listen. There is no steam launchers on the Ford class. The launch system is smoother (more linear) and results in less damage to the plane during launch. As he remarked a plane can lose enough systems on a steam launch to be effectively blind in the air.
And can be taken out by some hypersonlic missile costing 600k renminbi?!
I was on the pre-commissioning/commissioning crew on USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The catapults they installed on her during construction were zero-zero (zero wind/zero speed) and had new valves that opened more gradually to reduce the jolt at the beginning of the cat shot. Basically, she could launch planes while parked and the shots wouldn't be as jarring as the older cats. Now, these were steam cats, "just like they've used for sixty-five years or so", but they were new technology and there were issues. We spent a lot of time in the yard and at Pier 12 with sheds over the cats while they worked on them to get the bugs out.
It sounds more like a control issue than steam vs. electric. If you have to make a lot of steam than surely you have to make a lot of electricity with steam generators.
Hey shipmate. I was precomm, plank owner aboard TR as well. I remember those sheds. I think they also had them up while over in Portsmouth. We had “new technology “ issues with the JP5 fueling stations as well they replaced the old mag amp grounding control with solid state. Finally SIMA came aboard and installed a reliable solid state board and the control issues went away. Maybe you remember the hoses charging and spraying JP5 on the deck? Happened a lot at first.
@@rogersmith7396 not an engineer I can gather.....SGs purpose is a HEAT exchanger to move heat from one source to another and CREATE steam....that created steam can THEN be used for multiple purposes one of which is in GENERATORS attached to turbines to create electricity.....the ones for main ships power are often called SSTG or Ships Service Turbo Generators and are smaller steam engines all in their own compact package......you can have multiple SSTGs in a main space along with all the electrical switching gear to sync and connect it into the ships grid
@@michaelkendall662 Too old for me to remember what any of this was about.
@@rogersmith7396 same on a modern Nuke....only difference is the original heat source to create the steam....our steam was created in a Babcock & Wilcox class D boiler (we had 4) w/ superheaters....main steam was 1275 psig with reducers dropped it down for various uses all the way to 50 psig
Every piece of new technology goes through a teething process, you can only do so much in a testing lab. Actually doing the job out in the fleet will bring out any faults that may still be hidden.
I think that happened with the F-18, I heard it's really fucking slow so it's air to air suffers because of its lack of mach.
@@saucejohnson9862 Which configuration, loaded with bombs and rockets or just stuff for air to air, big difference in drag.
Exactly. I’d bet the steam catapults had some problems at the beginning as well.
You're a Man who Knows what He's-Talking-About. (like Ward)
Steam catapults still have "cold shots" the technology just needs development
My father (Now 88 years old) was a member of the first crew of the USS Saratoga, CV-60. He told me that they had to check high pressure steam lines for leaks continually, and that they would use a broom handle to look for them. He said a pinhole leak in a high pressure steam line would eject enough super heated steam to cut the broom handle like a saw. I had forgotten this story until now, watching this video. At the time he told me about steam line leaks, I was probably 12 years old (1972), and I could not connect his story to the operation of the steam catapults.
😅😊
My brother was a machinest mate on the Eisenhower and he said steam leaks were one of his biggest fears.
Yeah steam works fine when it works, but a leak and it's a really bad time for anyone involved.
@@funkenstien1155 Yeah that's also cause that steam isn't like the steam you get from boiling water, this is super heated steam, hot enough to turn a human into a soup.
Thanks for the explanation of the Ford Class and the benefits of the MCATS replacing the Steam CATS. The elimination of all the steam pipes and the amount of maintenance they require, plus the amount of energy required to make the steam seems to be substantial. Very informative.
The energy of any major system aboard a nuke ship comes from the power of steam. Directed energy weapons are becoming a thing. Much more electrical power will be needed. Electric catapults can take advantage of that coming change. Their needs become incremental rather than fundamental in terms of required power generation.
@@msimon6808 LOL....where do you think the electricity on a ship comes from?...it is generated from STEAM
@@michaelkendall662 Yes, nuclear fission reactors generate crap toons of heat, which is then transfered to water, creating steam. The steam is fed through a turbine, which is also connected to a generator.
But that's all in the reactor room and associated electrical areas nearby, but steam catapults require you to install large, thick, heavy pipes that have to feed said steam all around the deck. That works so freaking much, not including all the steam and heat you lose just by heating the pipes or the many leaks that will appear.
By removing that it allows you to both shrink the reactors themselves, but also dedicate the steam generated towards electrical generation.
@@michaelkendall662 Of course, modern fusion (not fission, different thing) research designs are figuring out ways to completely eliminate the need for steam, and thus the massive amounts of water needed to make it.
@@MommyKhaos LOL...you are "schooling me?".....not only did I get the Nuke Training in the USN I also have high-level Physics from college....along with that I operated high-pressure steam propulsion in the USN for 5 years so I am well aware of power generation and the difference between fusion and fission
The #1 advantage of EMALS is survivability in combat. Steam fittings are easy to put out of commission, while electrical mains are a lot more robust.
Well, that assumes the system can be maintained at sea. You can shut off a few values - weld a pipe and you back up in business. With EMAILS, one cat goes down - they are all down, and can't be serviced at sea.
And where did you get that idea? EMALS per past reports require the entire system be shut down to fix one. The steam units could be isolated and operations continued. There are real questions on the stability of the design and if it can take damage and still operate.
@@Albertkallal
Only if the entire electrical system goes down.
@@jamesb4789
Is it possible they only shut them all down at once because it’s a new system and they didn’t want to take any chances? The whole idea is that there aren’t vulnerable steam lines running all over the place. An electrical system should be designed so that as long as there’s power, each one should run independently and be isolatable. I’m no expert or anything, but that would seem to be an obvious way to design such a system to work; otherwise you’re negating one of the most important features. Just my thought. 🤷🏻♂️
@@keirfarnum6811
>>I’m no expert or anything
Well, then let’s get you up to speed so at least you have a idea of how this system works, shall we?
EMAILS weighs more, and takes up MORE space below decks. While they state the rails take less space, they choose their words very careful!!! - and you did actually touch on the weight and balance issue for the ship. EMAILS weighs more, and takes up more room below decks. And there are ALSO MORE moving parts for EMAILS below decks.
To use the electric launch system? They can’t draw power directly from the ships generators.
Several reasons exist. First, you can’t draw enough power at the rates required to run the rails. So you have to “store up” the power.
More important, the amount of power available for a launch MUST be known beforehand. So, if someone turns on a lift, air conditioners, an oven or what not? Then the total power available is changing. And even a circit breaker flip or any other system - you can see the lights dim - and power avaible changes. So you need CLEAN power, uninterrupted power for a catapult launch. You can’t have power change half way during a launch - or you wind up with a jet in the sea.
So, what they do is STORE UP THE power for a catapult launch. They use big motor flywheels to do this.
An EMALS motor generator weighs over 80,000 pounds, and is 13.5 feet long, almost 11 feet wide and almost 7 feet tall.
So, there is 4 of these for EACH catapult. A total of 16 of these beast of burden mechanical monsters.
In addition to the huge flywheels they spin up, you have the generator control room (for each catapult).
So, to launch a fighter?
They spin 4 of these mechanical monsters to 5000 RPM. Then for a launch, they spin them up to 6000 RPM. (It takes about 50 seconds to spin them up from 5000 RPM to 6000 RPM). And that 50 seconds time is when you are running ONE rails. If you running 4 of them, then LONGER - in fact just as long as steam.
Once they are up to 6000 RPM, then the catapult (the electric rails) are ready to be fired.
At the end of a single launch, the huge flywheels will be back to 5000 RPM.
During a launch, the huge mechanical flywheel feeds into a complex energy converter (called a cyclotron).
Now, take all of the above systems? What does a steam catapult use for ALL OF the above?
Why, it uses a tank of air, with a valve.
That is it!!!
I should also point out that you can’t isolate the huge flywheel generators from each other. In other words, if any switch or ability to turn off one of these mechanical beast of burden flywheels exists? Then that is considered a possible failure point.
So, if some small problem occurs, and you have to service them? Well, they take 1 hour to spin down. And worse, they really can’t be serviced or repaired at sea anyway. If one goes down, they ARE ALL TAKEN down!!!
And as noted, you can’t isolate the systems from each other. So all catapults are down. If you introduce a switch or breaker, then perhaps someone comes along and turns that breaker off for working on the air conditioner, or lift? And now over the years that switch becomes bad or corroded? Each such "thing" is a new failure point in the system.
With steam? If one catapult has an issue? Well, they just go below deck, turn some steam valves, and isolate one catapult, and operate other 3. No big deal to keep a catapult off line until you finished fighting the enemy. With EMAILS, you shut them all down, and sent out another carrier while the current one returns home.
So, steam, is cheap, easy, simple, but MOST important such systems are not only simple and reliable, but can be serviced and maintained at sea.
The EMAILS system is massively complex, has MORE AND LARGER mechanically parts and bits it replaces, and worst of all, can’t be serviced at sea, and even if you try, you have to wait 1 hour to spin down the system before you can touch anything anyway.
And worse yet? Supposed these huge elephant size mechanical flywheels are supposed to save room!!! - Oh wait!!! The electric rails save room, and no need for steam generators (attached to the nuclear reactor).
However, over all the EMAILS system is NOT saving room at all.
I mean, sure if you JUST compare the rails, then YES. But to leave out the huge massive mechanical beast of burden flywheels, then you NOT reduced parts at all here.
To be fair the catapult rails for steam do have more maintains then the steam rails. So the rubberized seal that goes around the hook that travels down the track for steam is a “pain”. However, such maintains can once again be done at sea.
So, while the rails on EMAILS require less maintenance? Well, that remains to be seen, but while the rails has less maintains, the large number of huge mechanical flywheels to store energy during a launch are NOT a reduction in mechanical bits and parts.
So, the tanks of air have been replaced with a VERY large number of those flywheels, and it remains to be seen how reliable these things will be.
And as noted, these huge mechanical flywheels don’t save room compared to the simple “air tank” that will last for the whole 50+ years of the carrier.
The other big promise of EMAILS?
Well, it was supposed to cause less stress on fighter airframes and thus increase the lifespan of the fighters.
However, right now? Well, EMAILS is overstressing F18’s with external wing tanks. (The solution right now is to thus not fly F18’s with external fuel tanks).
They do claim a software fix is available right now (to be deployed on the Ford next year).
The issue is that steam has a “natural” kind of give. Try moving or stopping a cordless electric drill - they will rip your hand off. But, they still use air guns at tire shops for tire bolts.
So the overstress issue is complex. The catapult hook and rails when they start to pull the JET are connected VERY strong together (can’t have the hook come off!!!). But, vibrations from the EMAILS launcher are making its way into the fighter’s airframe. This is NOT JUST an issue of less force, or more force. It is how the rails produce the force that is the issue here. I mean, if too much force was causing stress on wing tanks, then just turn the force down, right? (wrong!!! - they can't do that - else not enough force exists to launch the jet correctly). So, they are in fact seeing MORE airframe stress on jets from EMAILS - that is 100% opposite of what they promise.
They “think” they can minimize the increased wear and tear on the fighter’s airframe with tweaking the software for the electric rails. But it far more difficult, since as noted, steam has that natural “compress” and “give” that absorbs these vibrations and huge forces that a catapult places on the fighter.
So, they are now having to try and “simulate” the give and take of steam with an electric rail system that designed to be VERY strong, and NOT have any play or “give” when they fire the catapult. (it is the difference between towing car with a rope, or belt vs that of a chain - ever seen how the chain goes tight and transfers HUGE forces to the other car???).
As a result, vibrations and forces are making their way into the airframe. And we all know metal fatigue is the number one killer of fighter jets longevity.
So the WHOLE idea behind EMAILS was the promise and sell of reducing wear and tear on the fighter’s jets. This would thus increase the life span of airframes. Right now, they are experiencing the reverse of what they promised. They now have stated that a software update seems to have fixed this issue - but it was never really the force, less force or even more constant force that was causing too much stress on the F18's with external fuel tanks.
This is why President Trump suggested that EMAILS is a bad idea, and is multiple times over budget, and STILL not producing a launch rate and reliability that we see with steam catapults.
So now that EMAILS is working, they are finding about 10 times or more failure rates compared to steam. So, even if they fix the failure rates, they still have to address the increased stress issue. And they still have no solution for doing working on or fixing EMAIL issues at sea.
And, even worse yet? Well, they are not seeing increased sortie rates with EMAILS (again another failed promise).
Right now? Well, they just going to deploy the Ford class with reduced sortie rates, and ignore the failure of launch rates, and ignore the issue of non-repair at sea. Since they can't service EMAILS at sea, then they will simple go back to port, and have a spare aircraft carrier on call.
However, some launch failures will result in the jet going into the sea.
I would REALLY be a huge fan of this system if they could have used super-capacitors for the energy storage, but they went with huge mechanical beast of burden flywheels connected to generators. These things are large, heavy, and very mechanical in nature. (All to replace a simple steam tank). So they traded reduced rails maintain for increased flywheels and generators maintains. It will be interesting to see when this choice starts to win over steam systems, or if it ever will. And as noted, while steam does take more manpower, they can be worked on at sea. Even just shutting steam down to one of the catapults can be done. With EMAILS that is not a option, since power draw is inter-connected between the systems for reasons of redundancy.
The Ford and the JFK can’t be retro-fitted with steam, as they will have to rip up too much of the ship to go back to steam. So, likely what will occur is we use the Ford and the JFK for training, and build two more carriers after that and use steam. This is about the only viable option if they can’t fix the serious issues they are facing with EMAILS.
A single missile near-miss interception could shatter enough steam lines to disable the cat, and broken steam lines in combat would be a nightmare. A lot easier and more compact to have multiple power lines, which are harder to hit, are less dangerous even if hit, and faster/easier to replace/repair than steam lines.
SEE THIS! Each new cat is a self-contained entity, not dependent on anything but a main power feed. Much smaller, easier, yada, to feed a power line to a cat location than steam pipes, and repair. Steam down?--all cats down. One main line feeder cut?--ONE cat down out of three. CAG sips his coffee and keep launching. You see it in the last 40 years already when a steam cat breaks (they do often enough).
Only if it functions
Great overview and explanations.
When President Trump was talking about the "reliability" of steam vs electric, the first thought that popped in my mind was someone needed to tell him that steam lines can be cut....and then you have no steam.....
The noise from the arresting gear was so distinct for each aircraft, I could tell what trapped just from the noise without looking at the TV monitor, and that was from the 2nd deck in the Mardet. The A-3 Whale was very distinctive for the sheer volume and screech of the gear. Great discussion of the systems Ward!
I'm curious to see how this plays out in terms of the ford-chevy debate.
Are they going to have Chevy design the next one?
Given his history with Gerald Ford, I'm also interested to see how the USS Chevy Chase stacks up.
Spoiler Alert : Toyota wins
the old breed will always defend what they know, the kids who know nothing but EMALS will look at the old steam monkeys like they are nuts to want anything that isnt electric.
Damn Chevy Chase beefin’ again..
Thanks for the update Ward. There was a LOT I didn't know about the new carrier and this helped clarify some of the issues and the major advantages you discussed.
That goes for every military project that advances the capabilities of military hardware. While there are those who complain about cost overruns (I am not saying that they are good mind you), without realizing that the technology that is being implemented is not cheap, or easy to get to work. A perfect example of this is with the F-22 and F-35 fighters. Those 2 5th generation fighters cost billions more than the 4th generation fighters they are supposed to replace. 6th generation fighters will cost even more than the F-22 or F-35.
This applies to all military hardware be it a vehicle such as the hummer that replaced the jeep to the submarines carrying Trident missiles and of course, an aircraft carrier.
Same for us Air Force guys.
@Grand Master There is nothing fake about what anyone above you, or related to in the video, that was fake.
@Grand Master Come talk to me after you have lived on or near any military base, or been enlisted in any branch of the military for a lifetime. With rare exception, I have lived either on, or within 5 miles of a military base. I earned my aircrew wings while in the Marines. Did you? I have followed military developments since I was knee high to a pissant. I can remember seeing the USS Nimitz tower above the downtown Newport News skyline for years before it was launched. I have followed the funding and building of many carriers after that.
I have also lived where Lockheed Martin was out my backdoor where the F-22, C-130J and the C-4M was either being built or modified. Can you say the same? When the production of F-22s was cut, I stated then it was a mistake. As a student of history and seeing what happened prior to and during WWII and seeing that very thing playing out now, I completely understand the threats we face.
When you can tell everyone here that you enlisted, let us all know.
"You have to be Albert Einstein to work on an electric catapult."- trump. 'Well sir you also have to be Einstein to work on our nuclear reactor." -officer Einstein 🤣😂🤣😂
Not true, you have to be an "Electrical Engineer" over just, being a , Electrician Mate, "Vocational training", as you are now using, 35k, High Voltage, over 480 Volts.
Trump was as far from Einstein as you can get .
ColonelKlinck ; you just came up with a new relativity theorem there! 🙃
@@ColonelKlinck Joe Biden read your comment and just said "hold my sniffing child."
@@ColonelKlinck Good one, Sgt Schultz.....
Great video Ward very informative. It made me think of this.
Military contractor "OK we're about 30 days from being done with what you requested". Military "wait can you also add this, this, and this?" Military contractor "yes we can add those requirements. Your request will be finished 3 years from now at an increased cost of millions of dollars". This happens so often that it should now be considered as SOP.
Outstanding review. As a research engineer I'm pleased that you represent a forward looking, logical step by step approach to new technologies with the necessary level of objective criticism of existing problems. Great content. Best wishes
@T.J. Kong thanks for the valuable feedback, I completely agree with you.
I think when a client wants results quickly suppliers have the tendency of being over optimistic, especially if the decision making process excludes the actual workers- engineers in this case.
Still I don't understand if the interface and bounding box of the EMALS is taken into account how it was never spotted that it wouldn't fit in the ship. I think at this point this becomes a speculation, so I'd like to stop. I just would like to add that screw ups happen, like the newest Spanish submarine that was too heavy to float. I personally saved a big part of a 2 million EUR project. The lack of a technical person in the upper management almost wrecked the project. I later resigned.
@T.J. Kong the major systems were provided by other Participating Resource Managers (except the new weapons elevators) from different SYSCOMs and therefore different OPNAV and ASNRDA sponsors. Everyone managed their risk and were in many ways competing for resources from ultimately the same pot. There was a congressional cap on the delivery price so when multiple PARMs had risks realized, there was not a lot of resources to throw at the solutions. Of all the major technologies, all were from different Major Program Managers except 2. In the end, the problems you see here are the ones that did not get to the finish line with the FORD in lock step. So yes, several critical parallel developmental programs were expected to be matured by their installation dates, and the rest is history.
@@AtomicBabel Ergo Congress needed to be persuaded to maintain Nimitz production until one complete Ford became proven. This has gotten to the point where the public and Congress need to be clearly shown that the path forward is fully understood, dates certain for steps on the path were established and have been or can be kept, and a date certain for full operation to full requirements can therefore be met. Otherwise, the pause between new carriers starting their first deployment has been too long, and the grievous decision to resume Nimitz production, life extension, reconstruction and recommission, or reduction in authorized strength must be made and the balance of the naval forces reconfigured to the new facts. The evidence points to the learning process being still underway and the outcome uncertain. That's what this looks like.
@@timtrewyn453 sorry and I don't mean to be mean. I believe you mean well and are providing your best and honest assessment of the situation. However, most of what you wrote are technically inaccurate and does not track with strategic technology management, defense budgeting, and management of the national industrial base.
There is only one yard that has the capacity to build a CVN and it takes 7-8 years to build one. I've been in the design and acquisition team of CVNs since CVN76 (was enroute to 76 to survey progress and effect engineering changes 20 years ago this day (9/11/2001)). The challenge to complete and commission Ford was the biggest stressor in all my life. The integration of lessons learned from Ford to Kennedy, Enterprise, Miller and for Nimitz Class modernization were the most rewarding. The first of Class are always going to take much longer to iron out the kinks, and they always look like a mistake. To introduce one major technology change per ship will require 40 years before you get 5 major changes to CVNs. Except for AAG, which was backfitable to Nimitz, other technology (EMALS, DBR, weapons elevators) required upfront redesign of the internals of the ship. Thus, you had to go all in from the beginning of ship design.
People tend to look at what are tech challenges that are not complete but progressing but do not spend time with the less mundane but transformative efficiency changes everywhere on the ship. The Ford Class are great ships, and the Kennedy will prove that upon delivery.
@@AtomicBabel Thank you. What you say makes sense. It would have been extravagant to build an entirely new and separate shipbuilding facility for the Ford class, and leave the Nimitz class construction facility in place. But if that had been done, Ford development could have been more deliberate than risky, and Congress would have more flexibility to respond to the growth and capabilities of the Chinese Navy. Carrier authorized strength has crept downward, and I think that needs to change. In a less contentious world environment, there was plenty of cushion for Ford to take the place of USS Nimitz in 2025. It may still work out, but we are not impacting Chinese calculations as we might have, and that can go badly.
As an electrical engineer, I see the attractiveness of EMALS and its integration with the Ford power plant. I do get the sense that the demands upon EMALS are unprecedented for a linear motor. I can believe lessons have been learned, and there are items being researched. I can believe a new edition will do better yet may reveal further difficulties. I can believe all this can be persisted through and requirements met and hopefully exceeded. But I am very concerned about doing all this in a context of escalating strategic tension in the Pacific. I do think the American public can be brought to the view that Congress needs to fund the project more aggressively, as now, in my view, time is of the essence. This whole discussion has me writing my representatives to express great concern. I think you have made a very valuable contribution to the discussion, and urge you to spread the word as best as you are free to do so.
Thanks Ward for all the up to date information on carriers.
As an engineer I loved this video, the phonecall conversation was concise and to the point, brilliant.
It only makes sense to change to electric not only because of the power savings but you then have one fewer different type of system being used on the ship which also has a knock on wrt training required to use an extra system-steam pneumatic.
All new tech has teething problems, it's the price you pay for new tech but the advantages will pay for itself in the long run.
Ive been on youtube 16 years.
This is one of thee best,
True Patriots.
This was a great, simplified overview of the Ford class. Many thanks and BZ.
You have quickly become my favorite channel. Thank you so much for taking the time to make such excellent videos.
Much appreciate the no-BS info on the Ford series- Love the channel and a big fan. I'm glad that President Trump asked the question and knew to ask the person at the Helm that knew the whole story. The crew on the Carrier was well-intentioned in preferring Steam, and it takes a while to let learning to take place and release the resistance to change. I'm a Vet and a Navy Brat of 14 years, thanks Ward for what you do! In closing this comment - Remember out there those reading this - that we have more in common - than that which separates us. Choose to do what is right and you can't go wrong!
Right on, Ross! Good sentiment!
I think the crew should vote on all important decisions: How to power cats; do we deploy or not; should officers get fed cafeteria style like the enlisted; etc
I am so glad that the American Electorate saw through the buffoonery of America's con-man President. Thank you America for your faith in the Constitution, your respect for the dignity of the office, and most importantly, for your vote against an enemy within who still cannot comprehend his heinous crime of raising an armed mob to commit mayhem against their elected representatives, in order to deny a majority of Americans our unalienable right to choose our own destiny, for reasons we have yet to understand. May God continue to bless America in our triumphs, and strengthen us in her trials.
Ward does an outstanding job staying objective, even though I'm sure he has strongly-held opinions too.
@LTrain45 45 I believe that it's less than half. Trump lost most independents and conservative Dems that pushed him over the top in 2016. With the continued obstructionist Republican strategy, the Big Lie and the denial of Jan 6, probable contempt of Congress charges coming, and probable criminal charges being made in the NY Federal Court for tax evasion by Trump, Inc., I believe that they'll lose another 25 to 40% of their support. And there's midterms coming. Things are looking grim in Palm Beach, and the further Murdock et. al. goes into Afghanistan, the worse Trump's handling of the Taliban looks to intelligent conservatives. They're back to name calling again, and whether or not the President remembers whether he visited a synagog 3 years ago. Not very key issues.
This channel is a breath of fresh air. Where most would put out a 20 min video filled with explosions and exciting “combat” reels. All I want is concise and accurate information. Not pretty pictures meant to distract me from the fact that nothing relevant is actually being conveyed.
Proud part of the manufacturing process for EMALS/AAG. Great information to explain the process to the masses!
Thank you for a reasoned, informative discussion of these issues.
"THANK GOD HE DID"
Very informative, enjoyed the discussion electromagnetic versus steam catapults . The tried and tested versus new innovation. Reminds me of a historical shift from a tried and tested transport system of 100 years from Steam locomotion and the transition world wide to Diesel electric and full electric locomotive power. The benefits were vastly improved cleanliness, fuel efficient , more powerful, faster ,less hazardous, driver and maintenance crew friendly , cheaper running costs etc etc. Yes it was costly and complicated initially but there’s no going back. Unless it’s an enjoyable heritage museums exhibit. Time stands still for no man . Science and innovation leads the way .
Ward, thank you for the thoughtful, in-depth episode! I learned a lot! :)
I have seen 5 videos of this channel in the last couple of days. All of them were great, but this one was the one that got me to sub. Thank you for an excellent description of the new tech coming with Ford.
Interesting video Ward. I enjoy your perspective. There are 3 generations of my family that served in the USN. My dad flew Crusaders (2,000+ hrs) and commanded VF-211 during their final deployment with the F-8. Some of this new tech hitting the fleet gets him quite excited. He also recorded 102 night traps in the F-8 and the plane was still usable after each one! That's a hell of a stat if you know Crusaders. Thank you for your service Ward, love your taste in music too. Keep 'em rolling!
As ever amazing explanation which can be interpreted by laymen and folks with existing knowledge of current and future carrier ops. Well done as always Ward, thanks!
Thanks Ward. Interesting, well organized and clearly spoken as usual.
Thanks for laying several issues out in a straightforward matter-of-fact way.Keep up the good work!
Wow, it's so refreshing to have intelligent, accurate, and detailed reporting! Thank you!
Great to hear from people who actually know what they are talking about like long term Uniform personnel.
Just noticed I have now been retired longer than I served, Im sure you remember the V22 debacle where many wanted to cancel the program. Like anything I ever saw in my career if its new it takes time to work the bugs out. The V22 is now a stellar aircraft and will eventually give birth to a entire new way of thinking as far as vertical lift. Its the same with the new electro catapults and other things on our carriers. Like anything worthwhile it just takes time to work out the bugs..And like anything there will always be naysayers sitting in the wings running their mouth and wringing their hands.
Ruff start Lee with the V22. One crashed in front of my hangar in AZ.
My father in law worked for Boeing on that project. They did not do more than small production runs to test solutions until the plane was right. In truth it was a far bigger jump than the Ford and it stumbled, but they did not go into mass production with a bad design. The bad crash of the prototype was the result of the Pentagon pushing it against Boeings advice. After that , the effort was slowed to get it right.
It is reasonable to be optimistic, but it is a unique system that may have an innate issue not easily overcome given the constraints it must work within. It was a big decision to continue designing the Ford class, much less building the first, without that system being proven and to scale.
REALLY informative, Ward. As always... worth the wait.
As an Air Force vet (enlisted), at least half of what you said about systems was a bit confusing. But, I definitely understood the advantages of the EMALS system. Hopefully they get the bugs worked out before it has to be real world combat tested. Thanks for another great video.
Great video ward. Footage of the call speaks for itself. Thank you for your service.
Thank you Ward for you whole series on Naval Aviation, the have been incredibly informative. Any chance that going forward you could do an episode on the role of the aircraft carrier in a near- peer conflict?
@@paulbarclay4114 click on his name and you will see nothing, no content, no likes and no vid just a ghost acc.
Truly enjoy your videos. Intelligent commentary on the true cost of these technologies. No leap forward comes without some pain and while we don't like the sound of "more time and money" it is often inevitable in order to move forward. Thanks Ward for breaking it down...
Ward, tell the story about the Kitty Hawk running over the Russian sub in 1984. I was there.
What concerns many of us is that by all reports, EMALS still isn't very reliable yet.
Higher failure rates and lower capability rates are not reassuring.
But the Higher Up’s have to have shiny new toys or we won’t be a SuperPower!
Neither were AAMs in Vietnam but look at them now
@@Aaron-wq3jz but do we have 30 or 40 years to debug them, not to mention the cost? The Cold War is over, and we are facing more austere budgets, whether we like it or not.
CDR Salamander has been beating the drum of warning for years about more restrictive budgets, and now they're here. We literally can't afford to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to debug a system on serving ships. As one officer put it in the video, we should be adding maybe one new system at a time, not several.
If it's beginning to look as if the Navy breast still doesn't understand that the flush budgets have the 60s to the 80s no longer exist (4 years of Jimmy Carter excepted). We can no longer point to the Soviet Colossus as justification for insanely expensive projects, and opposing China will require us to budget smarter, and not throw money all over the place.
Don't complain about social programs; they aren't going anywhere.
The 'Phib has been pushing the mantra of "Ford, not Ferrari" for quite a long time now. It's time our budgets reflect that reality.
@@Caseytify it didn’t take 30 to 40 years for missles and it won’t with this I expect all the bugs to be worked out within a few years
@B L The innards of a carrier are in something of a Faraday cage with a massive salt water ground. EMLS might be sufficiently protected from EMP by its location in the ship.
Great video Ward, very efficient explanations of the new Ford class CVNs. I'd love to see you do a video on the new COD replacement V22s, and cover the pros and cons in a similar way to this video. I finished your first book this weekend as well Ward, you're an exceptional writer, it's no surprise to me the direction your career took after you retired from the USN, the various websites and publications you worked with were very well served by your skills in this regard. This channel is fantastic, and watching its rapid growth has been satisfying, as I was among the fortunate to have found this channel when you only had a few thousand subscribers, and everyone in my aviation/simulation communities I've recommended this channel to has raved about how much they enjoy your content here.
My first ship in the Navy was USS ENTERPRISE (CVN-65). I was assigned to V-1 Division (flight deck) as a plane handler. Division berthing was just under the flight deck, first compartment forward of the forward most arresting gear engine. Basically when a plane landed and its main gear made contact with the flight deck that was happening directly on top of our berthing. You ever try sleeping through that? You get to hear the impact as the plane makes contact with the flight deck, the noise of the arresting gear engine in operation, and the sound made as the arresting gear wire was dragged back and forth across the deck. It got to the point that you could sleep through literally anything, because you had to get that way if you were to get any sleep at all.
I know exactly what you mean. After coming back from a deployment and sleeping in my own bed at home I found it too quiet and hard to get to sleep because I was use to all kinds of shipboard noise going on. Every time it got quiet on a ship you knew something was wrong and usually it was an electrical fire or the ventilation being secured for maintenance. It's easy to sleep through an alarm clock going off but when it gets totally silent, it will bring me out of a deep sleep like a bomb going off. 👍✨
I was on the big E for Westpac 76-77. I was air wing, and our berthing was directly beneath the #3 arresting wire. I was center bunk, which put me about 6 feet below the flight deck. The A-3 Sky Warriors were the absolute worst. 40,000 lbs slamming down directly over your head. I never got used to that airplane. Fortunately for us, the A-3 flew primarily on daytime flight ops. Good times though, I wouldn’t have traded them for anything.
@@olentangy74 We still had an A-3 as part of the air wing when I was onboard the Big E August of '84 to Thanksgiving of '85. It had the legend, "On loan from the Smithsonian Institution" painted on it.
also on the Big E. Our temporary berthing coming out of refit/refuel in the 90's was on the O3 level. Yeah it's pretty noisy up there. We eventually moved down into reactor berthing later on. It's quite a bit quieter down there, but then you have the cavitation of the bent screw (propeller/screw shaft bent when running aground in SF) during high speeds you have to sleep through. And flight operations does require those high speeds of course. I'll take the screw noise over the arresting gear any day though, at least it's consistent.
Wow, lots of Enterprise guys on this thread. I was also on the Enterprise, 1976 - 1979, as a Nuc. Our berthing compartment was the very aft of the ship. We were just below the jet engine test stand. Since they couldn't test jet engines during flight ops, they would test them all night. If you thought the arresting gears were loud, imagine trying to sleep under a jet engine.
Whoa!! The Ford Class was NOT designed to handle the F-35C?!?! That's a major F Up.
Uhhh... Wouldn't that be an F-out?😎
That is concerning.
Interesting to see the pic of the high impact shock test on the Ford. When I was working for the Navy one of my jobs included vibration, shock and impact testing (at much lower magnitudes) on individual systems or parts of systems. Very interesting work, testing all kinds of stuff per MIL-STD-810.
That phone call to the carrier commander was one of the funniest conversations I’ve ever heard lmao
Yeah. Trump was trying to lead it his way. The CO, being an Admiral-class politician, steered it to reality... at least as he saw it.
BZ to 'Pat!"
The disgraced ex-president did not sound as though he knew what was going on. (That is not to say that the current president is any better.)
Thank God Trump was Prez when the decision had to be made. Decades of being a successful CEO means listening to your people to make the right call. Politicians wouldn’t do that. Today’s class of senior officer wouldn’t either. Too busy saving their own ass.
@@RamadiTaxiDriver60M well said
@@RamadiTaxiDriver60M Successful? He couldn't even keep a casino in business
Thanks!
Who needs the Military Channel when we have this guy?😊
I was assigned to the USS Ranger CV-61. When we were sent to the coast of Nicaragua, we could not make enough cold water to cool the catapults to launch aircraft. Warm oceans stopped us from being fully operational. An electric catapult system would have been much better and operational in warm waters.
Which catapult system launches the invisible planes and which ones were used to launch the Revolutionary War fighters?
They gave him a box of crayons and let him color the new version of Air Force 1.
@@jacksonjohnson9674 Never saw the clips of Trump saying the F-35 is "invisible! you can't see it!"?
@@joelodjick230 Or saying that the Revolutionary War was won with air forces? lol
Ask Fredrick Douglas, he's doing a terrific job.
@@jacksonjohnson9674 On MULTIPLE occasions he was asked this and continued to declare that, in fact, stealth meant planes were INVISIBLE - not just to radar...to everything. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually understood when his aides told him to stop saying that that it wasn't true, but he continued to say it because he thought "invisible" sounded cooler to his core group of idiot supporters who he knew would have no clue what "stealth" meant. Trump is bad at most things, but he was and is a marketer that knows his brand.
Thank you Ward for this video, EVERYthing you mention connected for me personally.
Ward, one of the best videos you have done! And that's a long, long list my TH-cam friend! LOL But this one was so well laid out, and presented so well. The bottom line: The Navy needed to change. Their future stated plans, operational edict, and support scenarios all wrap around small, fast, un-manned attack craft. "Planes" if you will. Shooting from a steam cat, and recovering is a nightmare because of low weight and precision factors in recovery. The new way is expensive because it's new. It's having issues because it's new. It's listed as a major "problem" in the new class, well, because it's new. But that's why they make irons. It will get resolved and perform well for the life of the ships.
Thank you once again for an excellent treatise of this "change" the Navy undertook. I've shared it and your channel with as many as I can since I think you consistently present the facts well.
Outstanding Episode!
Bravo Zulu!
Thank You Comander
I recall someone writing about the fact that the Nimitz-class carriers would cost $4BUSD apiece.
Now, the price of a new carrier will be (is) $13BUSD.
Here's hoping we get our money's worth.
Its called inflation. Wasn't Nimitz built in the mid 70s.
@@neues3691 Yes, the Nimitz was commissioned in 1975. (I think construction began about 1969 or 1970.) There were ten or eleven more after that. The Bush was commissioned in 2009. So, $4BUSD per ship spread over a forty-year period.
Let's pick a point in the middle and calculate from there. About 1989 would be about right.
Inflation from 1989 to 2021 would take $4BUSD up to a scosh over $8.8BUSD in 2021.
Inflation alone cannot account for the price increase.
Shipbuilding techniques and technologies have improved dramatically since the (roughly) half-century since 1969.
Given the stakes (life, death, national security, and so on), I say again: I really hope we get our money's worth.
@@BBQDad463 account for new tech then, new tech = new money.
@@warboyrb Yes, I think they started about 1969 and commissioned her in 1975. However, we continued to build Nimitz-class carriers until the last one was commissioned in early 2009. The mid-point, roughly 1989, would seem to be a fair point from which to calculate inflation.
@@warboyrb Yes, we would reasonably expect that a "new" Nimitz-class carrier built today should cost about $8.9BUSD.
We should have at least a faint glimmer of hope that the additional $4BUSD will prove to have been well-spent.
I am certain that the Ford-class carriers will be full-to-bursting with new, vastly superior technology.
Very informative!
In principle, an electric launch system should be all-around better than steam: more flexible, safer, more reliable, and more maintainable, as long as you have the spares and industrial infrastructure to support it.
A system that's planned in before development is complete, on the other hand... well, it's a management failure, not a basic problem with the technology, but it looks like teething problems that should have been caught long ago are putting some people off the whole idea.
The Obama White House overruled the Navy's choice and gave the contract to General Atomic who had designed a single roller coaster EM launcher at the time. Politics over qualifications will always do this.
"Concurrant Developement".
One thing was really interesting when watching the land-based cat shots was realizing that carrier aircraft don’t rotate. Which is interesting watching the hornet aggressively give elevator input during the launch despite being glued to the deck (and then strangely goes neutral at the end of the cat)
I'm interested in things military. Even if I weren't I would likely subscribe here. Information from an intelligent, educated, informed, experienced narrator is a blessing. Especially if it comes from a gentleman.
Awesome video. Coming from the UK who are playing massively to come anywhere near to catching you guys, this is hugely comforting. The UK political kindergarten in their ineptitude dropped our true carriers decades ago. Thanks to a bit of foresight and digging behind sofa cushions for stair change to afford the we now have two. Thanks to America your guys trained our new guys on how things should be done on one of the most dangerous strips of land on the planet, namely the carrier deck. Thankyou 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇬🇧
Thank you for your input and knowledge of the subject matter. Very interesting and informative.
Great episode! Would love to see an episode with your thoughts on the Fords being able to defend themselves and fight an enemy such as the Chinese. With only a handful of Fords being able to be on station at any one location at a time, the shorter range of current Navy aircraft, the threat of supersonic long range missiles, the offshore island defenses, etc. could they survive long enough to deliver punishment to China. Would smaller but more numerous carriers be more survivable? Etc. Thanks.
Layered defense is the key to survivability.
Throughout my Marine Corps aviation maintenance career, all the boats I've been on have been Nimitz Class of various ages and levels of modernization, the George Washington, Stennis, Carl Vinson, Lincoln, and others. I wonder what shipboard life is like aboard Ford Class carriers that is different and would totally surprise me. I remember one of the ships having an actual escalator down to the mess decks, and another where there was no practical way of getting up to the ready room during man overboard drills using the standard starboard up and forward or port aft and down SOP. Also there were differences between where LSO emergency nets were located, the number of aircraft elevators, the length of the LA and other areas of the deck, and even the layout and accessibility of berthing areas, officers quarters, and blue-tile sections of the boat. Even the Chief's Mess varied from ship to ship. One of my last squadrons, the truly excellent VMFA(AW)-121 ( which flew the FA-18D and had a couple of the modified ATARS reconnaissance birds), became the first Marine Corps squadron to convert to the F-35B VSTOL version, moved to MCAS Yuma, CA, and became the training Cadre for all future Marine aviators that were now slated to fly the F-35B. Ah, good times!
Want a funny but not really acceptable story? One time aboard a ship with an escalator, we changed a main landing gear assembly (Tire and wheel) up on the flight deck in the middle of the night. After we were done, we took the old tire assembly down to the hangar deck level which is where we had been assigned a shop space for the Powerline shop. The escalator down to the mess decks was not running since it was in the middle of the night, so we being Marines we thought it would be easy to just roll the tire down the escalator to save us some work. As soon as we let it go, this heavy tire and wheel assembly started bouncing with increasing speed and violence to the point that it even hit the overhead on its way down, three decks worth, got to the bottom, made a lateral bounce and disappeared sideways out the hatch into the hangar deck! We were all scared but had to immediately 'fess up to it because Hangar Deck Control had the tire assembly on shipboard camera shooting across the hangar deck and lodging itself between a tug and the bulkhead under an A-6E down for maintenance.
Needless to say, our first port of call in Cannes, France, I stayed onboard standing watch in the Ready Room while everybody else not involved in this incident got some seriously good libo ashore. But that's OK, I eventually came back and got to experience that port. The highlight of that Med Float, however, was Haifa, Israel, after coming back from Dubai. What a beautiful country Israel was!
Neat! Did you get to donkey ride in Jerusalem? Hopefully you got to go to Mallorca, that was the shiat in 94.
@@just_one_opinion didn't go to Jerusalem, just Haifa.
And didn't get to see Mayorca, but I did go to Malta. Another fun place.
I'm a former Aviation Marine with only 81 Med Cruise and its Qual cruise on CV-59 under my belt ! But wait a minute I did a Carrier Qual with our New Pilots April 83 on USS JFK anyhow our Hyd Shop went thru personel changes and we went aboard with wrong size Lower Chambers shock strut F-4 J's axles were breaking so we magna fluxed and found some cracking nothing too major so we got the OK [Maintance Control and QA] for flight during the cruise but like clockwork on our last port visit to Naples we recieved 15 pallets with 36 struts which we changed in the North Atlantic on the way home 2 crews 24/7 damn cosmoline was the worst part VMFA-115
@@edwardgoering1237 ha ha! Yes, I remember the prez grease on strut assemblies. Worked Depot at NAS North Island after I retired from the Corps, and I can't count how many nose and main strut assemblies we rebuilt, preped, rigged and tested, we worked on the entire aircraft.
I've learned so much about the F/A-18 and worked on just about everything, I could probably design and build one myself with a little help from a machinist and an electrician.
@@davidcruz8667 That 81 cruise US2 Libya0 was just a weekend of Gen Quarters but changing them strutts as we went thru North Atlantic Jacks stayed seated but them chains kept poping had me a nervous wreck F-4 's alittle heavier than f-18's
Mr. Carroll, Sir. The explanations and comparisons you provided here were outstanding. Although I am an Army Aviation guy, the Navy Carrier has always been a perception of total power and control for our nation. Your explanation of Steam vs. Electrical was so informative. Thank you.
Your comments in this video as well as last videos are awesome. Mentioning and recognition of Crew members issues of maintenance and importance is much appreciated. As in the Army… and all military forces for that matter. The real ‘hero’s’ are the pilots. I must admit I never understood what the REO..??..function is. It all centered around the pilot. So recognizing the facts that none of the pilot ‘things’ could happen, without the Officers above and the men and women ‘below’ the officer grade of Pilot is so important.
Thank you, for the broad perspectives you provide in these videos. You are very good at what you do in communications.
What a great vid, and most of the comments were respectful and informative. This was the most informative military programs I’ve seen on TH-cam
I don’t understand why politicians are always so afraid of new technology. It’s literally the future.
Conservatives
Certain politicians can have their minds changed based on who last talked to them.
I have to admit, steam is picturesque in low angle morning light for Hollywood film scenes as deck crews launch the jets. Electro-magnetic isn't going to be as sexy but it is the future.
DAMN RIGHT! It is the maritime equivalent of slapping an HK MP5 charging handle. You know it is the prelude to something sinister.
@@DowntownDeuce2 or the ping of an ejected clip out of a M1 Garand.
It's just not the same without a brown filter across the top of your glasses, either
@scritty I like how you think
I was a cat man, Cat #2 USS Nimitz 84-88, we launched a plane every 30 seconds, hardly had to wait for steam in between shots. We had several types of birds, A-7,A-6,E-2,F-14 EA-6Bs and the A-3 Sky Warrior also called the Whale. The only plane that took longer to shoot was the Whale, it was a bridle bird and we shot her last. Each plane had its own hold back bar too. Today they have F-18s and E-2s and CODs sometimes? F-35s on 1 ship only. I was the Panel operator on my last cruise in 87, hated it when they took me of the flight deck, lost my hazard duty pay. We never did a water brake job in port either always at sea after so many cat shots, can't remember the number.
Yup, the "wet" accumulators took care of providing constant steam pressure.
thank you for your service sir. By the way if you have some good sea stories i would love to hear them.
I do believe the “Old Navy” or pre-millennial would run circles around the CRT woke Navy.
@Grand Master Well… it’s how they FEEL that matters, NOT whether they win or lose! Hah ha ha
I have major respect for you guys! All of us “Ordies” would always talk about how you guys were always working, covered in grease and always seemed to miss portcall due to some maintenance issue. We joked about the crash&smash guys (always seemed to be sitting/standing around) I know though when stuff got out of control they WERE the guys you needed. Even during steel beach picnics you Cat guys seemed to be working! Much respect to all who endured the grind!
Ward this is a network show. Unbelievable info and data - one visit
and I became an addict.
Great info again. Thanks for your hard work.
It's really impressive how much pushback innovative new systems, like the electric catapult and the F-35 for example, generally get.
Thought we'd be wiser by now, but truth is, it's a lot easier, safer and often more convincing to stand with your arms crossed and say 'I don't think it'll work' than risk your neck and try and improve something, especially with these really expensive and advanced systems. The president is - as you point out - latching on to a vibe here and not even going in one of those controversial directions he's known for.
Someone's gotta push the envelope once in a while if things have to move forward or just stopping things from falling behind. In the end everyone was also really happy with Teslas electricity over Edisons.
I like that Marshall stack and the les Paul . And your cut away acoustic
Hey Ward. For my two cents, magnetic cat systems are still problematic, yet isn't it worth the perseverance in developing it? If we kept the attitude of "keep it because it works" we would still rely on bi planes and zepplins.
I'm sure everyone agrees with the idea of advancing the technology but it wasn't perfected before being designed into a ship, despite it's on shore testing, it is currently achieving 200 shots between failures, 4000 shots is required to make it an improvement over steam.
@@jacksonjohnson9674 there have been plenty of examples of bad expensive rushed idea pushed into combat that never matured, so far, like the railgun there is no evidence this can be made reliable enough, with that in mind it should have been retrofitted once reliable or just fitted to the following ships.
@@jacksonjohnson9674 I was merely using an illustration to explain my argument. My argument was to keep improving, innovating and developing the idea rather than giving up on it.
@@zopEnglandzip Agreed.
@@jacksonjohnson9674 Reflect on the Vought Corsair. It initially didn't suit carrier operations......until the Royal Navy spent time and effort to achieve a way for it to land safely on a carrier. It went on to be the longest serving piston engine fighter of WW2 with a kill ratio of 11:1. Just think of the Corsair's fate if the RN didn't innovate and develop.
At this point, Ward is a national treasure to help the rest of us understand the better future of naval aviation.
3:50 "Generally speaking, we get it right. But when we make mistakes, we have to corrupt them."
SOMETIMES A CIGAR IS JUST A CIGAR, EH MR. PRESIDENT?
Thank you, once again Ward! Great insight and explanation of the technology that goes into maintaining and advancing our military strength.
The big problem was the number of new items being introduced...and I suspect that NAVSEA skimped on shoreside test rigs. Both hardware and software (NEVER underestimate the software) need to be checked out thoroughly before being stuffed into a hull.
I was part of the independent test company that was in Tupelo MS where the systems are being built. I can assure you that the testing was extensive.
@@keepitklean9365 I remember the EMALS shoreside being done preliminary in ‘09-‘10 when I was in my freshman year of high school. I’m always scratching my head when people say it was tested too little.
@@tyvernoverlord5363 @Keep It Klean - I'm an R&D S/W engineer, with the type of problems, especially reliability - the results demonstrated that the shoreside testing was insufficient. Testing has its own science in terms of when it's ready for release - and for each of these new technology-based systems, you have to factor in "Murphy". I have a lot of systems on the Ford (and across the fleet) dating back to '75 (and today they are still considered black magic). These systems have to operate flawlessly first time, last time and every time.....
The real problem is tied to one contractor who was lead for all the systems that are a cluster.
@@ioio5993 You are right. EMLS was a system that needed to be proven, at scale, in conditions as similar to final as reasonably possible before designing it into the class. That USS Ford has not yet done a full deployment this many years after commissioning is telling. A new class that takes what works on Ford and what works on Nimitz should be seriously considered. Ford class could just end up being laboratories.
Any one vote for a video with the same kind of analysis of the F-35?
Greetings from the UK my friend and another outstanding discussion , The electromagnetic catapult was originally planned to be fitted to the two HMS Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers in the Royal Navy, apparently when they go for there first refit it's going to fitted.
Awesome vid Ward! Thanks!
Hey Ward, love your content. Would you happen to have plans to do a similar video as this on the F-35 program? I'd like to know what your thoughts are as a carrier aviator on the B (STOVL) and C (Carrier) variants, in terms of the capability we are buying for the cost.
Excellent, well-presented overview - thank you. Bugs and problems with new technology are inevitable, but it is totally inexcusable to have problems of items not physically fitting as they are supposed to when installation is attempted. That has nothing to do with "new tech" problems, but is due purely to incompetent program/contract management for not catching those issues well before delivery. Could you provide a quick and dirty explanation of what causes a "cold cat", and why the system is not instrumented to detect those conditions prior to attempting to launch the aircraft?
I wonder how many of these 23 new techs can be retrofitted into the older carriers once the bugs are sorted out? The extra electrical power and directed energy weapons might mean the carrier has the highest self defence capabilities. Very nicely presented Ward, like always I am impressed.
Unfortunately not much if any. The problem is the electrical power required for the new technologies and the older carries just don't have enough power generation capability.
Mr Carroll, sorry but I'm not quite sure what to call you.... every show that I watch I cannot begin to tell you how much I learn from listening to your programs. Thank you for your efforts, thank you for serving our great nation and thank you for your patriotism. No, more than ever, we need Patriots in this nation
GOOD NEWS to hear. I find it incredible that they could over look such important equipment. Thank you.
Great video Ward! I’d love to see you do something on the F-35. There’s a lot of biased info floating around out there about it and your take would be invaluable. Keep up the good work and let’s here some Zeppelin, eh?
It's good to hear something about the Ford Class that isn't just doom and gloom. I've always had faith that in the end everything would work as planned. I just worried that the politicians would get cold feet first.
The USN however won't feel complete until you have a USS Enterprise sailing the high seas. Must be a Star Trek thing.
I lived in Bremerton while the 'prise was in the yard. We started calling her "building 65".
@@johnstreet819 Cool.
Love Ward’s grounded and well experienced perspective. It’s one thing follow a president because he is our commander in chief and it’s still our responsibility to be informed and educated on things so we don’t blindly follow an ignorant politician.
I can confirm the steam system was really loud. Luckily I wasn't an airman and didn't have to do the maintenance on it.
Thanks for this comprehensive review of the new air craft carrier ships and their various systems. It's really great to hear from an actual air craft carrier pilot explaining the details.
Good strategic-level analysis, Ward - thanks much. The higher priority reqs should drive the big decisions. For our military, that's Mission Readiness and Capability. Deterrence is the first goal, until the goal becomes killing the enemy. When I worked in aerospace, contracting at JPL, I found it interesting that cutting-edge technology was not used in all applications. Materials selection and hardware design for multi-year interplanetary missions demanded Hi-Rel - and that was usually not the newest tech on the shelf. Conversely, development resources were not spared in support of major mission objectives, and a comfortable balance was struck between reliability and capability. Push the envelope in dev and test - not at sea, or in combat.
were you in JPL when that Mars Climate Orbiter thing happened?
Or in the aether above the dome, er, ...I mean space.
Flat earth joke. Couldn’t help it. I’m in a snarky, make fun of flat earthers type mood tonight. 😁
@@ashokiimc Khumbani - is this you? It would be like you to ask that stupid friggin' question, Salvi! LOL No Sir - over 10 yrs before that - worked on UARS, Galileo, and Pathfinder (not the Mars one). I was there during the Uranus encounter - a fantastic time to be on the Lab; and when Challenger was lost - not so fantastic. Saw 30-year careerists weeping at their desks that day. Galileo was scheduled to fly on the next Shuttle launch.
@@edfederoff2679 no sir i am not who you think i am. I'm just a 17 y/o kid from india.
I had a lil question for ya.
If i recall correctly galileo was originally intended to be launched on the centaur carried by the shuttle. So what modifications were made to the shuttle to allow it to carry the centaur. i think Atlantis and challenger were the orbiters selected for that task. Also why was it cancelled after challenger? Didn’t managers before challenger realise how dangerous it was or did something like an accident happen which "opened their eyes"?
If you don't mind me asking can you tell me what challenger was like for you? where were you at that time? Did you know anyone related to that mission? maybe in mission control or the creew? or the people who made the spartan halley spacecraft for the mission? What did you personally think went wrong initially like before it was clear what had happened?
Also do you remember columbia? Again what did you think caused the accident before the report came out. Did you know anyone involved in the mission?
I actually think it's great that he happened to be talking to someone who knew what they were talking about, and asked their opinion and honestly listened to them even though it wasn't what he wanted to hear. He made some small talk and gets an idea of different peoples opinions even though he may disagree with them. It shows how he became a very effective manager in real ilfe.
Biden: You mean to tell me we’ve got airplanes on boats? C’mon man… that’s ridiculous! Hey Jill, come listen to this crazy guy…
Yeah... Fat Donny seemed to have experienced a brief moment of reason and lucidity! The fact that you think it's "great" that a president😏 relied on experts, instead of spitballing about something he knows nothing about, is a little scary!
It's a shame he didn't do the same with the medical experts regarding Covid!
I can hear the response now... Whadya mean, he pushed for the rapid development of the vaccine didn't he?!!
True. However, in the meantime he was in outright denial, downplayed the use of masks and played with voodoo cures, including bleach, costing thousands of lives. Some governors continue in his footsteps to this day!
@@jmiegs80 If you honestly don't think that Biden is much smarter than Trump, you're not very bright yourself!
Biden certainly wasn't my first choice, but there's no comparison! Hell ... I'd even go so far to say that "W" is smarter than Trump, and that isn't saying much!
@@carlwilliams6977 Every president of my lifetime has done things I disagree with, and none of them are perfect, but for whatever reason as I’ve gotten older, the people in this country tend to accentuate the negative and make their opponents out to be total evil and outright ignore the faults in the people they like. I found Trumps no bs attitude and acting quickly and decisively to correct issues to be really refreshing and the strength of his presidency. Like instead of getting us involved in a forever war with Iran, he wiped their top general off the earth and moved on. He did a lot of great things as president. That’s not so say he didn’t have weaknesses like being really impolite and his communication style often left much to be desired, but he should get credit for being so decisive and a strong leader, while still listening to people like this behind the scenes.
What do you think about light fleet carriers? Not as replacements for the biggies but as an addition cause 12 carriers may not be enough in wartime due to periods of maintenance, repairs, training etc. - so in the end there may be about 4 carriers ready for action at any given point of time.
Once upon a time stem cats were new. Angled flight deck were new. Landing lights were new. Arrestor gear was new. Nuclear power was new. Even steel ships were new once. Great channel Shipmate! (Nimitz Plank Owner)
Insightful look at the Gerald R Ford, the CVN-78 carrier.
1 - the Navy should look long and hard at the GRF procurement procedures and improve that part of the equation.
2 - Electric is the way to go. It will get better as time goes on. To go back to steam is to go back to the _grease monkey_ days of mechanics. It's less maintenance & has greater capability.
3 - it's exciting to see the capability that the new reactors bring with more power. Rail guns, electromagnetic energy weapons and lasers are a leap beyond what we have now, especially defensive weapons.
You didn't play the clip where Trump asked the sailors whether they preferred stealth aircraft carriers or the kind you can see.