Comments by "Tim Trewyn" (@timtrewyn453) on "The True Cost Of The Most Advanced Aircraft Carrier | True Cost" video.

Did they go to the guys who build the larger aircraft elevators that go between the hangar and the deck? You'd think those guys would have the right experience.
2
I doubt it will be ready for deployment in 2022. I am not aware that the US Navy has made any commitment to do so. The EMALS has not yet been able to match the MTBF of steam catapult systems, nor time to repair and return to service. It would not surprise me if the USS Ford is permanently assigned to Pensacola, Florida as a training and humanitarian relief ship for its full life. That scenario does not require every aspect of reliability required for a deployed carrier. At best, USS Ford replaces USS Nimitz in 2025. Hope I am wrong.
1
The impulse to launch an aircraft is greater than the impulse to start a train moving. The difference is the time spent getting from 0 speed to final speed. Impulse stresses the equipment. I am not defending EMALS. I think it needed more land reliability testing and refining before being designed into a carrier.
1
Last I heard the EMALS does not meet reliability requirements. It's MTBF was unacceptably below steam cat reliability. They could not fix it at sea. So I am waiting for test results that show EMALS reliability matches or exceeds steam. USS JFK faces similar risk unless it has a more rugged EMALS.
1
@raywhitehead730 Yeah. Should have been building more Nimitz class until EMALS was proven with same or better MTBF as steam. All they show is one or two EMALS cat shots at time. I read it failed when they tried to launch and arrest sorties at a rate typical of deployment. They could not fix it at sea either. Sounds like the repeated fix is depot level.
1
They did test it. There's all kinds of videos of single cat shots. But they forgot about the test where you have to complete a significant number of cat shots within a limited time, like a deployed aircraft carrier. Apparently they did not run that test until the system was installed in USS Ford and in sea trials. It failed. They could not fix it at sea and had to bring it back to port for repair. They do not appear to have established the system's reliability to military standards at the land test site. Or, the effects of the ship's movement at sea introduce significant forces to the system that could not or were not simulated at a less expensive land test site. The failure seems related to the cumulative forces of multiple cat shots.
1
I think the US was defeated in Afghanistan by Pakistan, which needs to be in control of Afghanistan should war break out with India. I also think Iran, China, and Russia assisted the Taliban because it is in their interest to counter the United States. The AK47 is a Russian weapon, made in large quantities by China. The Taliban did not win by themselves, nor are they in complete control of Afghanistan. They are heavily influenced by Pakistan and rely on Pakistan to maintain power. The United States could remove the Taliban from power again if it chose to, but then would be returning to a stalemate because Pakistan would resume its support and sanctuary operations for the Taliban. Winning that war required crippling Pakistani support for the Taliban. Probably never going to happen.
1
Don't most LIMs start with less jerk and impulse than an aircraft catapult though? It sounds like the cumulative effective of multiple launches stresses the system into failure much faster than what we see in steam systems.
1
@bestkickz2464 F=ma. Mass may be big but if acceleration is low, like for a train, force is low. Acceleration of an aircraft by a catapult is high, making force high. That force is not only applied to the aircraft. It is applied to the components of the LIM and the structure supporting the LIM. Good LIM operation means magnetic flux gaps (through which the force is conveyed from the LIM to the catapult shuttle) are very small. Large forces can mess with those gaps. In large electric generators, stators and rotors need periodic maintenance because of the varying forces they experience. A LIM would be no different other than it is not experiencing centripetal forces. However strong that ship is, if it is moving and pitching, its structure is going to be flexing slightly along the length of the catapult. That can mess with the magnetic flux gaps as well. Roller coasters and trains are on solid foundations. My sense is that EMALS components need to be very rugged and very stiffly supported by the structure.
1
I am waiting to hear the EMALS has reached steam system reliability levels, or close enough. Haven't heard that yet. Don't know how they can set any dates until that milestone is reached. Do you have info on that?
1
Yup. And basic is going to include stepped up potty training. Checklist on the wall behind the head and the back of the door.
1
I think it depends on how sophisticated the terminal guidance on the DF26 is. It's moving very fast with little time to course correct on a moving target. If it gets fooled by countermeasures, then all 10 miss. If they use nuclear warheads to try to cancel any error, then they've crossed a line. If they lock the correct target, can they dodge the CIWS, ABMs, and eventually beam weapons? Once hostilities start, there will be attrition of the sensors used to provide the DF26 with initial targeting. DF26 launchers will also become targets. DF26 relies on sensors local (including space) to the carrier task force transmitting accurate targeting data. DF26 relies on surprise. Carriers will probably be stationed near the DF26 maximum range where they can move east if tensions escalate. DF26 launchers would not have impunity for long.
1
@harryloo8544 Probably if they are nukes. But that's a can of worms. The US is not going to promise not to counter with tactical nuclear options to reduce an opposing fleet. DF26 velocity is actually a disadvantage.
1
@harryloo8544 Pre-emptively attacking a launcher would be crossing a line, but so is launching a DF26 at a carrier. It's war either way, at least conventional. Considering land a launcher sanctuary is a strategy for defeat. The launchers have to stop, set up, and finalize targeting data. They are vulnerable for that window. Sensors are not all in space, but depth in space sensors is possible as are other platforms, e.g. stealth drones at various altitudes. Subs are going to have their sensors overloaded by acoustic decoys and torpedoes coming back at them. Once a flight of DF26's is detected, cruise missiles with target updating and targeting AI will be after the launchers and sensors. I think it gets very intense very fast and the outcome is very uncertain, which is a good reason to not start the fight.
1
Does it not come down to getting EMALS to an MTBF, a time to repair, an ability to repair at sea, and an ability to sectionalize the good cats from a bad one, as good as or better than steam cats, BEFORE designing EMALS into a carrier? Sounds like there was overconfidence in EMALS. I have little doubt the other issues of USS Ford will be resolved. But the Ford CLASS is handicapped until EMALS performs as good as or better than steam. EMALS is obviously not simple, and it is mission critical. It is a controlling item on every carrier that so far has been designed with a reliance on it. Is anybody sure that an EMALS that meets requirements will even fit in Ford class? How could they be until they meet reliability requirements? I would redesign USS Doris Miller with steam cats if that still can be done, it's years away from being laid down.
1
Are there aviation systems that can't be "bench" tested or wind tunnel tested? You have to build test aircraft and test fly them, right? Still, something like EMALS, in my mind, needed to proven, in a less expensive way, that its tempo, MTBF, and time and conditions of repair would match or exceed a steam catapult system before it was ever designed into a complete aircraft carrier. Even if the test setup cost half of a carrier, I think that would have been worth it. They don't have unlimited space in the ship to modify EMALS until it works as good as steam. They don't get specific about the problem, but it sounds related to the effects of multiple launches. The Navy keeps showing us one or two cat shots as if to say, "see, it works". But a deployment needs the cats to work almost all of the time, or be repairable in reasonable time. Some say one cat fail takes at least two or even all the cats down. I hope that's not true.
1