Question for Naval FReepers: Are these just the normal teething troubles of a new ship and new class?
It's a big change from a conventional steamer launch plant. Nuke CVN's are also steamers as well as conventional. When the Navy built it's first super carrier Forestall it had the old design propulsion #600PSI with 8 boilers. The next CVA was Saratoga which was the first 1200 PSI 8 boiler propulsion plant. When Enterprise was built a CVN she was designed with 8 Reactors. Later the next carrier the Nimitz had two Reactors to generate steam.
I was skeptical when I heard the Gerald R Ford was going to a non steam catapult launch system and I still am. Steam is a certainty and is fairly basic. I've seen a conventional CV loose an entire Main Machinery Room {2 boilers a generator and a key switchboard} due to a pipe rupture above the switchboard. I've seen way too many power failures where a generator tripped off at sea.
I'll be flamed but with our situation strength wise and training issues to get an operational and qualified carrier or two back in fleet I say build two conventionals on on KH or JFK Class design. Home port one or both in Mayport, Florida.
Looks as if the Navy wants to beat the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as the most screwed up procurment or all time.
Think of it this way: it’s not like we could copy someone else’s.
Yes.
A new class of ship with technology that is a rapid departure from anything used before.
Problems aplenty to be had, yet not one that can’t be solved. It will take some time, which means money.
As to the delays... DDDDDDUUUUUHHHHH! Whiners and Politicians, but I’m being redundant, will always scream.
Invention is HARD! Invention is EXPENSIVE! Invention never meets SCHEDULE!
It is my guess that they are introducing a lot of new technologies and new construction methods all at once, in this gargantuan ship...not normal, but...nothing surprises me any more.