Costliest U.S. Carrier Isn't Ready to Defend Itself, Tests Show

[left-of-center2012]

Source: Bloomberg

Three combat systems on the $13 billion USS Gerald R. Ford have been found deficient in recent tests, raising questions about whether the aircraft carrier will be able to defend itself, according to the Pentagon’s testing office.

Navy evaluations of defensive capabilities for the costliest U.S. warship revealed “deficiencies and limitations” with its radar, electronic warfare surveillance system and a ship-to-ship communications data network, said in an annual Pentagon report released Thursday.

“These deficiencies and limitations reduce the overall self-defense capability of the ship,” Robert Behler, the Defense Department’s director of testing, said in the report, which offers an assessment of major weapons systems including the carrier and the F-35 fighter jet.

The Navy may also have to address a problem far less technologically complex than an inadequate radar system or balky munitions elevators: Not enough bunks for the crew. The USS Gerald R. Ford “will likely be short of berthing spaces” once the Navy fully evaluates personnel requirements for the ship’s crew as well as the air wing and temporary detachments on board, Behler wrote.



Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-30/costliest-u-s-carrier-isn-t-ready-to-defend-itself-tests-show

[paleotn]

1. I guess we're back to hot racking

The Navy hasn't done that in a long time. And there's still this little guy....the bane of all super duper aerocraft flat tops everywhere....

Gotland class diesel electrics and their Chinese, PRK and Russian knockoffs.

[Sgent]

7. Bleh

My uncle (a SSB Officer) explained the concept of hot-racking. He was only 2 / bunk due to officer status, but I feel sorry for any seaman / marine privates.

[Glorfindel]

2. A thirteen-billion-dollar sitting duck

What a stupid, pathetic waste of resources.

[keithbvadu2]

3. A carrier is a small war/peacetime weapon.

A carrier is a small war/peacetime weapon.

[Sapient Donkey]

4. My sister-in-law is on this carrier right now.

I suppose one good thing is that as long as she's on that then there isn't much of a chance of her being sent far away.

I don't understand the military's obsession with trying to shove so many new untested technologies on a single platform. Like these are supposed to replace all the aging Nimitz, right? Why not have the first one just have one of the new techs, then the next have two of the new systems etc.. Given the delays and problems they keep having, I can't see that costing too much more overtime.

[Grokenstein]

5. Defense ain't about defense anymore.

It's about business deals and ooo shiny new toys.

[Sapient Donkey]

6. That seems about right.

[Sherman A1]

8. Precisely

[jgmiller]

9. It's the same with aircraft

The defense geeks get big eyes and then the contractors get even bigger eyes and try to stuff everything in. The other problem is that these things are so costly now and take so long to design and build that even if my first sentance weren't true it's just human nature to try and pack as much stuff in because you think you won't get multiple shots at it.

Navy ships used to (and still do to some extent) evolve capabilities over their very long service life and we used to have more patience to let them evolve, like most things that patience has gone away.

[hunter]

10. These are the 21st century version of the Maginot Line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line

The French spent a lot of money digging big holes in the ground.

We're spending a lot of money digging big holes in the water.

For jobs, or something...

Meanwhile we've got homeless people everywhere; a lot of them working homeless who simply can't find safe, secure housing.

You'd think we'd have the resources to do something about that.

But someone needs an aircraft carrier.

[rwsanders]

11. Yeah folks, everyone here is right, but what a fitting tribute to its namesake