Showing posts with label Zumwalt-class destroyer. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Railgun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For railroad artillery, see Railway gun. For other uses, see Rail-gun.

Basics

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2013)

Schematic diagram of a railgun

The armature may be an integral part of the projectile, but it may also be configured to accelerate a separate, electrically isolated or non-conducting projectile. Solid, metallic sliding conductors are often the preferred form of railgun armature but "plasma" or "hybrid" armatures can also be used. A plasma armature is formed by an arc of ionised gas that is used to push a solid, non-conducting payload in a similar manner to the propellant gas pressure in a conventional gun. A hybrid armature uses a pair of "plasma" contacts to interface a metallic armature to the gun rails. Solid armatures may also "transition" into hybrid armatures, typically after a particular velocity threshold is exceeded.
In its simplest (and most commonly used) form, the railgun differs from a traditional homopolar motor in that no use is made of additional field coils (or permanent magnets). This configuration is thus a self-excited linear homopolar motor formed by a single loop of current. A relatively common variant of this configuration is the augmented railgun in which the driving current is channelled through additional pairs of parallel conductors, arranged to increase ("augment") the magnetic field experienced by the moving armature.^[4] In electric motor terminology, augmented railguns are usually series-wound configurations.
A railgun requires a pulsed, direct current power supply. For potential military applications, railguns are usually of interest because they can achieve much greater muzzle velocities than guns powered by conventional chemical propellants. Increased muzzle velocities can convey the benefits of increased firing ranges while, in terms of target effects, increased terminal velocities can allow the use of kinetic energy rounds as replacements for explosive shells. Therefore, typical military railgun designs aim for muzzle velocities in the range of 2000–3500 m/s with muzzle energies of 5–50 MJ. For single loop railguns, these mission requirements require launch currents of a few million amperes, so a typical railgun power supply might be designed to deliver a launch current of 5 MA for a few milliseconds. As the magnetic field strengths required for such launches will typically be approximately 10 T, most contemporary railgun designs are effectively "air-cored", i.e. they do not use ferromagnetic materials such as iron to enhance the magnetic flux.
It may be noted that railgun velocities generally fall within the range of those achievable by two stage light gas guns; however, the latter are generally only considered to be suitable for laboratory use while railguns are judged to offer some potential prospects for development as military weapons. In some hypervelocity research projects, projectiles are "pre-injected" into railguns, to avoid the need for a standing start, and both two stage light gas guns and conventional powder guns have been used for this role. In principle, if railgun power supply technology can be developed to provide compact, reliable and lightweight units, then the total system volume and mass needed to accommodate such a power supply and its primary fuel can become less than the required total volume and mass for a mission equivalent quantity of conventional propellants and explosive ammunition. Such a development would then convey a further military advantage in that the elimination of explosives from any military weapons platform will decrease its vulnerability to enemy fire.

History

German railgun diagrams

In 1918, French inventor Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplee invented an electric cannon which is an early form of railgun. He filed for a US patent on 1 April 1919, which was issued in July 1922 as patent no. 1,421,435 "Electric Apparatus for Propelling Projectiles".^[5] In his device, two parallel busbars are connected by the wings of a projectile, and the whole apparatus surrounded by a magnetic field. By passing current through busbars and projectile, a force is induced which propels the projectile along the bus-bars and into flight.^[6]
In 1944, during World War II, Joachim Hänsler of Germany's Ordnance Office built the first working railgun, and an electric anti-aircraft gun was proposed. By late 1944 enough theory had been worked out to allow the Luftwaffe's Flak Command to issue a specification, which demanded a muzzle velocity of 2,000 m/s (6,600 ft/s) and a projectile containing 0.5 kg (1.1 lb) of explosive. The guns were to be mounted in batteries of six firing twelve rounds per minute, and it was to fit existing 12.8 cm FlaK 40 mounts. It was never built. When details were discovered after the war it aroused much interest and a more detailed study was done, culminating with a 1947 report which concluded that it was theoretically feasible, but that each gun would need enough power to illuminate half of Chicago.^[6]
During 1950, Sir Mark Oliphant, an Australian physicist and first director of the Research School of Physical Sciences at the new Australian National University, initiated the design and construction of the world's largest (500 megajoule) homopolar generator.^[7] This machine was operational from 1962 and was later used to power a large-scale railgun that was used as a scientific experiment.^[8]

Design

Theory

A railgun consists of two parallel metal rails (hence the name) connected to an electrical power supply. When a conductive projectile is inserted between the rails (at the end connected to the power supply), it completes the circuit. Electrons flow from the negative terminal of the power supply up the negative rail, across the projectile, and down the positive rail, back to the power supply.^[9]
This current makes the railgun behave as an electromagnet, creating a magnetic field inside the loop formed by the length of the rails up to the position of the armature. In accordance with the right-hand rule, the magnetic field circulates around each conductor. Since the current is in the opposite direction along each rail, the net magnetic field between the rails (B) is directed at right angles to the plane formed by the central axes of the rails and the armature. In combination with the current (I) in the armature, this produces a Lorentz force which accelerates the projectile along the rails, away from the power supply. There are also Lorentz forces acting on the rails and attempting to push them apart, but since the rails are mounted firmly, they cannot move.
By definition, if a current of one ampere flows in a pair of infinitely long parallel conductors that are separated by a distance of one metre, then the magnitude of the force on each metre of those conductors will be exactly 0.2 micro-newtons. Furthermore, in general, the force will be proportional to the square of the magnitude of the current and inversely proportional to the distance between the conductors. It also follows that, for railguns with projectile masses of a few kg and barrel lengths of a few m, very large currents will be required to accelerate projectiles to velocities of the order of 1000 m/s.
A very large power supply, providing on the order of one million amperes of current, will create a tremendous force on the projectile, accelerating it to a speed of many kilometres per second (km/s). 20 km/s has been achieved with small projectiles explosively injected into the railgun. Although these speeds are possible, the heat generated from the propulsion of the object is enough to erode the rails rapidly. Under high-use conditions, current railguns would require frequent replacement of the rails, or to use a heat-resistant material that would be conductive enough to produce the same effect.

Mathematical formula

The magnitude of the force vector can be determined from a form of the Biot–Savart law and a result of the Lorentz force. It can be derived mathematically in terms of the permeability constant ( $\mu_0$ ), the radius of the rails (which are assumed to be circular in cross section) ( $r$ ), the distance between the centrepoints of the rails ( $d$ ) and the current in amps through the system ( $I$ ) as follows:
It can be shown from the Biot-Savart law that at one end of a semi-infinite current-carrying wire, the magnetic field at a given perpendicular distance ( $s$ ) from the end of the wire is given by:

$\mathbf{B}(s) = \frac{\mu_0 I}{ 2\pi s}$

Note this is if the wire runs from the location of the armature e.g. from x = 0 back to $x = -\infty$ .
So, if the armature connects the ends of two such semi-infinite wires separated by a distance, $d$ , the total field from both wires at any given point on the armature is:

$B(s) = \frac{\mu_0 I}{ 2\pi}\left(\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{d-s}\right)$

To obtain an approximate expression for the average magnetic field on a railgun armature, we assume that the rail radius $r$ is small compared with the rail separation $d$ and, by assuming that the railgun rails can be modelled as a pair of semi-infinite conductors, we compute the following integral:

$B_{\text{avg}} = \frac{1}{2d}\int_r^{d-r}B(s)\text{d}s = \frac{\mu_0 I}{ 4\pi d}\int_r^{d-r}\left(\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{d-s}\right)\text{d}s=\frac{\mu_0 I}{ 2\pi d} \ln \frac{d-r}{r} \approx \frac{\mu_0 I}{ 2\pi d} \ln \frac{d}{r}$

By the Lorentz force law, the magnetic force on a current-carrying wire is given by $IdB$ , so since the width of the conductive projectile is $d$ , we have

$F = IdB_{\text{avg}} = \frac{\mu_0 I^2}{ 2\pi}\ln \frac{d}{r}$

The formula is based on the assumption that the distance ( $l$ ) between the point where the force ( $F$ ) is measured and the beginning of the rails is greater than the separation of the rails ( $d$ ) by a factor of about 3 or 4 ( $l>3d$ ). Some other simplifying assumptions have also been made; to describe the force more accurately, the geometry of the rails and the projectile must be considered.
Since it is not easy to produce an electromagnetic expression for the railgun force that is both simple and reasonably accurate, most simple railgun analyses actually used a lumped circuit model to describe the relationship between the driving current and the railgun force. In these models the voltage across the railgun breech is given by:

$V = I.R + \frac{\text{d}(L.I)}{\text{d}t}$

Then the barrel resistance and inductance are assumed to vary linearly with the projectile position, so that

$R = R'.x$

$L = L'.x$

from which

$V = I.(R'x + L'v) + L'x\frac{\text{d}I}{\text{d}t}$

If the driving current is held constant, there is a power flow equal to $I^2L'v$ which represents the electromagnetic work done. In this simple model, exactly half of this is assumed to be needed to establish the magnetic field along the barrel, i.e. as the length of the current loop increases. The other half represents the power flow into the kinetic energy of the projectile. Since power can be expressed as force times speed, this gives the standard result that the force on the railgun armature is given by:
$F = \frac{L'I^2}{2}$
This simple equation shows that high accelerations will require very high currents. For an ideal square bore railgun, the value of $L'$ would be about 0.6 microHenries per metre ( $\mu$ .H/m) but most practical railgun barrels exhibit lower values of $L'$ than this.
Since the lumped circuit model describes the railgun force in terms of fairly normal circuit equations, it becomes possible to specify a simple time domain model of a railgun.
Ignoring friction and air drag, the projectile acceleration is given by:

$\frac{\text{d}v}{\text{d}t} = \frac{L'I^2}{2m}$

where m is the projectile mass. The motion along the barrel is given by:

$\frac{\text{d}x}{\text{d}t} = v$

and the above voltage and current terms can be placed into appropriate circuit equations to determine the time variation of current and voltage.

Considerations

The power supply must be able to deliver large currents, sustained and controlled over a useful amount of time. The most important gauge of power supply effectiveness is the energy it can deliver. As of December 2010, the greatest known energy used to propel a projectile from a railgun was 33 megajoules.^[10] The most common forms of power supplies used in railguns are capacitors and compulsators which are slowly charged from other continuous energy sources.
The rails need to withstand enormous repulsive forces during shooting, and these forces will tend to push them apart and away from the projectile. As rail/projectile clearances increase, arcing develops, which causes rapid vaporization and extensive damage to the rail surfaces and the insulator surfaces. This limited some early research railguns to one shot per service interval.
The inductance and resistance of the rails and power supply limit the efficiency of a railgun design. Currently different rail shapes and railgun configurations are being tested, most notably by the United States Navy, the Institute for Advanced Technology, and BAE Systems.

Materials used

The rails and projectiles must be built from strong conductive materials; the rails need to survive the violence of an accelerating projectile, and heating due to the large currents and friction involved. Some erroneous work has suggested that the recoil force in railguns can be redirected or eliminated; careful theoretical and experimental analysis reveals that the recoil force acts on the breach closure just as in a chemical firearm.^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14] The rails also repel themselves via a sideways force caused by the rails being pushed by the magnetic field, just as the projectile is. The rails need to survive this without bending and must be very securely mounted.

Heat dissipation

Massive amounts of heat are created by the electricity flowing through the rails, as well as by the friction of the projectile leaving the device. The heat created by this friction itself can cause thermal expansion of the rails and projectile, further increasing the frictional heat. This causes three main problems: melting of equipment, decreased safety of personnel, and detection by enemy forces. As briefly discussed above, the stresses involved in firing this sort of device require an extremely heat-resistant material. Otherwise the rails, barrel, and all equipment attached would melt or be irreparably damaged.
In practice the rails are, with most designs of railgun, subject to erosion due to each launch; in addition, projectiles can be subject to some degree of ablation, and this can limit railgun life, in some cases severely.^[15]

Applications

Railguns have a number of potential practical applications, primarily for the military. However, there are other theoretical applications currently being researched.

Launch or launch assist of spacecraft

Main article: Mass driver

Key Parameters^[19]	Value	Units
Muzzle Velocity	7500	m/s
Muzzle Energy	35	GJ
Launcher length	1600	m
Maximum acceleration	19500	m/s^2
Maximum acceleration	1988	g's
Launch time	0.43	s
Current density	6.8	MA/m

Weaponry

Drawings of electric gun projectiles

Railguns are being researched as weapons with projectiles that do not contain explosives or propellants, but are given extremely high velocities: 3,500 m/s (11,500 ft/s) (approximately Mach 10 at sea level) or more (for comparison, the M16 rifle has a muzzle speed of 930 m/s (3,050 ft/s), and the 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun that armed World War II American battleships has a muzzle speed of 760 m/s (2,490 ft/s)), which would make their kinetic energy equal or far superior to the energy yield of an explosive-filled shell of greater mass. This would decrease ammunition size and weight, allowing more ammunition to be carried and eliminating the hazards of carrying explosives or propellants in a tank or naval weapons platform. Also, by firing at greater velocities, railguns have greater range, less bullet drop, less time to target, and less wind drift, bypassing the physical limitations of conventional firearms: "the limits of gas expansion prohibit launching an unassisted projectile to velocities greater than about 1.5 km/s and ranges of more than 50 miles [80 km] from a practical conventional gun system."^[20]
The increased launch velocities of railguns would also allow greater capability for both offensive and defensive applications as compared to traditional weapons. The greater kinetic energy and decreased time on target associated with increased launch velocities, when coupled with non-traditional rounds, would allow a single railgun to effectively attack both airborne and land or sea based targets.
If it were possible to apply the technology as a rapid-fire automatic weapon, a railgun would have further advantages of increased rate of fire. The feed mechanisms of a conventional firearm must move to accommodate the propellant charge as well as the ammunition round, while a railgun would only need to accommodate the projectile. Furthermore, a railgun would not have to extract a spent cartridge case from the breech, meaning that a fresh round could be cycled almost immediately after the previous round has been shot.
Many critics of weaponized railgun systems claim running at a suitable exit velocity and rate of fire would consume too much power, though this would likely not be a problem for nuclear-powered systems such as on large warships or submarines.
The first weaponized railgun planned for production, the General Atomics Blitzer system, began full system testing in September 2010. The weapon launches a streamlined discarding sabot round designed by Boeing's Phantom Works at 1,600 m/s (5,200 ft/s) (approximately Mach 5) with accelerations exceeding 60,000 g.^[21] During one of the tests, the projectile was able to travel an additional 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) downrange after penetrating a ¹⁄₈ inch (3.2 mm) thick steel plate. The company hopes to have an integrated demo of the system by 2016 followed by production by 2019, pending funding. Thus far, the project is self-funded.^[22]
In October 2013, General Atomics unveiled a land based version of the Blitzer railgun. A company official claimed the gun could be ready for production in "two to three years".^[23]
The U.S. Navy plans to integrate a railgun that has a range of 100 mi (160 km) onto a ship by 2016.^[24] By that time the Navy expects to have a weapon that can fire multiple projectiles per minute. The hyper-velocity rounds weigh 23 lb (10 kg) and cost about $25,000 each. They have command guidance but are planned to be self-guided in the future.^[25] Currently the only ships that can produce enough electrical power to get desired performance are the Zumwalt-class destroyers; they can generate 78 megawatts of power, far more than would be necessary. Engineers are working to derive technologies from the DDG-1000 series ships into a battery system to store enough energy so other warships can operate a railgun.^[26] Even if current ships, such as the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, can be upgraded with enough power to operate a railgun, the space taken up on the ships by the integration of an additional weapon system may force the removal of existing weapon systems to make room available.^[27] The first shipboard tests will be from a railgun installed on a Joint High Speed Vessel. Though ships of that class are non-combatants, they were chosen for their available cargo and topside space and schedule flexibility. They will not be permanently installed on the JHSV and the Navy has yet to decide which ship classes will receive a fully-operational railgun.^[28]

Tests

Diagram showing the cross-section of a linear motor cannon

Full-scale models have been built and fired, including a 90 mm (3.5 in) bore, 9 MJ kinetic energy gun developed by the US DARPA. Rail and insulator wear problems still need to be solved before railguns can start to replace conventional weapons. Probably the oldest consistently successful system was built by the UK's Defence Research Agency at Dundrennan Range in Kirkcudbright, Scotland. This system has now been operational for over 10 years at an associated flight range for internal, intermediate, external and terminal ballistics, and achieved several mass and velocity records.^{[citation needed]}
The Yugoslavian Military Technology Institute developed, within a project named EDO-0, a railgun with 7 kJ kinetic energy, in 1985. In 1987 a successor was created, project EDO-1, that used projectile with a mass of 0.7 kg (1.5 lb) and achieved speeds of 3,000 m/s (9,800 ft/s), and with a mass of 1.1 kg (2.4 lb) reached speeds of 2,400 m/s (7,900 ft/s). It used a track length of 0.7 m (2.3 ft). According to those working on it, with other modifications it was able to achieve a speed of 4,500 m/s (14,800 ft/s). The aim was to achieve projectile speed of 7,000 m/s (23,000 ft/s). At the time, it was considered a military secret.^{[citation needed]}
The United States military is funding railgun experiments. At the University of Texas at Austin Centre for Electromechanics, military railguns capable of delivering tungsten armor piercing bullets with kinetic energies of nine megajoules have been developed.^[29] 9 MJ is enough energy to deliver 2 kg (4.4 lb) of projectile at 3 km/s (1.9 mi/s) – at that velocity a rod of tungsten or another dense metal could easily penetrate a tank, and potentially pass through it.
The United States Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division demonstrated an 8 MJ railgun firing 3.2 kg (7.1 lb) projectiles in October 2006 as a prototype of a 64 MJ weapon to be deployed aboard Navy warships. The main problem the U.S. Navy has had with implementing a railgun cannon system is that the guns wear out due to the immense heat produced by firing. Such weapons are expected to be powerful enough to do a little more damage than a BGM-109 Tomahawk missile at a fraction of the projectile cost.^[30] Since then, BAE Systems has delivered a 32 MJ prototype to the U.S. Navy.^[31]
On January 31, 2008 the US Navy tested a railgun that fired a shell at 10.64 MJ with a muzzle velocity of 2,520 m/s (8,270 ft/s).^[32] Its expected performance is a muzzle velocity over 5,800 m/s (19,000 ft/s), accurate enough to hit a 5-metre (16 ft) target over 200 nmi (370 km) away while firing at 10 shots per minute. The power was provided by a new 9-megajoule prototype capacitor bank using solid-state switches and high-energy-density capacitors delivered in 2007 and an older 32-MJ pulse power system from the US Army’s Green Farm Electric Gun Research and Development Facility developed in the late 1980s that was previously refurbished by General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (EMS) Division.^[33] It is expected to be ready between 2020 to 2025.^[34]
A test of a railgun took place on December 10, 2010, by the US Navy at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division.^[35] During the test, the Office of Naval Research set a world record by conducting a 33 MJ shot from the railgun, which was built by BAE Systems.^[36]^[37]
A more recent test took place in February, 2012, at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. While similar in energy to the aforementioned test, the railgun used is considerably more compact, with a more conventional looking barrel.^[38] A General Atomics-built prototype was delivered for testing in October 2012.^[39]

External video
Official 33MJ video
Additional footage
February 2012 test

Trigger for inertial confinement fusion

Railguns may also be miniaturized for inertial confinement nuclear fusion.

Fusion is triggered by very high temperature and pressure at the core.
- Current technology calls for multiple lasers, usually over 100, to concurrently strike a fuel pellet, creating a symmetrical compressive pressure.
- Railguns may be able to trigger fusion by firing energetic plasma from multiple directions. The process developed involves four key steps.^[40]
  - Plasma is pumped into a chamber.
  - When the pressure is great enough, a diaphragm will rupture, sending gas down the rail.
  - Shortly afterwards, a sufficient voltage is applied to the rails, creating a conduction path of ionized gas.
  - This plasma accelerated down the rail, eventually being ejected at a large velocity.
The rails and dimensions are on the order of centimetres.

Monday, March 10, 2014

USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier Pictures

http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/DCS13-471-267.jpg

http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/1267630_637733599604789_1354532272_o.jpg

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/usa/cvn77-2.jpg

http://www.richardcyoung.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Building-a-Giant-lg.png

http://infographics-images.idlelist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/uss-gerald-r-ford-791x1024.jpg

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4ef21303eab8ea3a59000016-1200/the-f-35-will-also-have-a-specific-carrier-design-made-for-the-ford-class-carriers.jpg

http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/F-35C%202.jpg

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CVN78131119-ford_float17nov13b.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/30/article-2439212-1867572D00000578-977_634x872.jpg

http://static.progressivemediagroup.com/uploads/imagelibrary/kfldiodeu.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lag93vw6OR1qzsgg9o1_r1_500.jpg

http://i.usatoday.net/news/gallery/day/migrated-media/03carrier_n070116.jpg

http://gandoza.gandoza.netdna-cdn.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/u/s/uss-gerald-ford-aircraft-carrier-cvn-78-_22_.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/USS_Gerald_R._Ford_(CVN-78)_in_dry_dock_front_view_2013.JPG

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3/flo0.jpg

http://www.gandoza.com/media/3d-models/uss-gerald-ford-aircraft-carrier-cvn-78-05.jpg

http://themellowjihadi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/USS-Gerald-R.-Ford.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027801.jpg

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/september/PublishingImages/carrier_procurement_dan2.jpg

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/cvn78-01.jpg

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USS *Gerald R. Ford* (CVN-78)
Career
Gerald R. Ford on the James River in November 2013.
Namesake:	Gerald R. Ford
Awarded:	10 September 2008
Builder:	Huntington Ingalls Industries
Cost:	$12.8 billion + $4.7 billion R&D (estimated)^[1]
Laid down:	13 November 2009^[2]
Launched:	9 November 2013
Sponsored by:	Susan Ford^[3]
Christened:	9 November 2013^[4]
Commissioned:	2016 (planned)^[1]
Status:	Under construction
Badge:
General characteristics
Class & type:	Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
Displacement:	Approximately 100,000 long tons (110,000 short tons; 100,000 tonnes) (full load)^[5]
Length:	1,106 ft (337 m)
Beam:	256 ft (78 m)
Height:	nearly 250 ft (76 m)
Decks:	25
Installed power:	Two A1B nuclear reactors
Propulsion:	Four shafts
Speed:	In excess of 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range:	Unlimited distance; 20-25 years
Complement:	4,660
Armament:	Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Rolling Airframe Missile Close-in weapons system (CIWS)
Aircraft carried:	More than 75
Aviation facilities:	1,092 ft × 256 ft (333 m × 78 m) flight deck

PCU Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is to be the lead ship of her class of United States Navy supercarriers. As announced by the U.S. Navy on 16 January 2007, the ship is named after the 38th President of the United States Gerald R. Ford, whose World War II naval service included combat duty aboard the light aircraft carrier Monterey in the Pacific Theater.^[6]
The keel of Gerald R. Ford was laid down on 13 November 2009.^[2] Construction began on 11 August 2005, when Northrop Grumman held a ceremonial steel cut for a 15-ton plate that forms part of a side shell unit of the carrier. She was christened on 9 November 2013.^[1] The schedule calls for the ship to join the U.S. Navy's fleet in 2016. Gerald R. Ford will enter the fleet replacing the inactive USS Enterprise (CVN-65), which ended her 51 years of active service in December 2012.^[7]^[8]

Naming

Ford in U.S. Navy uniform, 1945

In 2006, while Gerald Ford was still alive, Senator John Warner of Virginia proposed to amend a 2007 defense-spending bill to declare that CVN-78 "shall be named the USS Gerald Ford."^[9] The final version signed by President George W. Bush on 17 October 2006^[10] declared only that it "is the sense of Congress that ... CVN-78 should be named the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford."^[11] Since such "sense of" language is typically non-binding and does not carry the force of law,^[12] the Navy was not required to name the ship after Ford.
On 3 January 2007, former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the aircraft carrier would be named after Ford during a eulogy for President Ford at Grace Episcopal Church in East Grand Rapids, Michigan.^[13] Rumsfeld indicated that he had personally told Ford of the honor during a visit to his home in Rancho Mirage a few weeks before Ford's death. This makes the aircraft carrier one of the few U.S. ships named after a living person. Later in the day, the Navy confirmed that the aircraft carrier would indeed be named after the former President.^[14] On 16 January 2007, Navy Secretary Donald Winter officially named CVN-78 the USS Gerald R. Ford. Ford's daughter Susan Ford Bales was named the ship's sponsor. The announcements were made at a Pentagon ceremony attended by Vice President Dick Cheney, Senators Warner and Levin (D-MI), Major General Guy C. Swan III, Bales, Ford's other three children, and others.^[15]
The USS America Carrier Veterans Association (CVA) had pushed to name the ship USS America. The CVA is an association of sailors who served aboard USS America (CV-66), which was decommissioned in 1996 and scuttled in the Atlantic as part of a damage test of large deck aircraft carriers in 2005.^[16] Eventually, LHA-6 was named America.

History

Construction

The 555-metric ton island sits in place after being lifted into position on the ship's flight deck during a ceremony at Newport News Shipbuilding in January 2013.

On 10 September 2008, the U.S. Navy signed a $5.1 billion contract with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding in Newport News, Virginia, to design and construct the carrier. Northrop had begun advance construction of the carrier under a $2.7 billion contract in 2005. The carrier is being constructed at the Huntington Ingalls (formerly Northrop Grumman) Newport News Shipbuilding facilities in Hampton Roads, Virginia, which employs 19,000 workers.^[17]
The keel of the new warship was ceremonially laid on 14 November 2009 in Dry Dock 12^[18] by Ford's daughter, Susan Ford Bales. Said Bales in a speech to the assembled shipworkers and DoD officials: "Dad met the staggering challenges of restoring trust in the presidency and healing the nation's wounds after Watergate in the only way he knew how — with complete honesty and integrity. And that is the legacy we remember this morning."^[19]
As of August 2011, the carrier was reported to be "structurally halfway complete".^[20] In April 2012, it was said to be 75 percent complete.^[21] On 24 May 2012, the important milestone of completing the vessel up to the waterline was reached when the critical lower bow was lifted into place.^[22] This was the 390th of the nearly 500 lifts of the integral modular components (from which the vessel is assembled) that the ship's construction will ultimately require. On 8 October 2012, the carrier reached over the 88 percent of the complete structural construction. Huntington Ingals reported (in an 8 Nov. 2012 GLOBE NEWSWIRE press release) that they have "Reached 87 percent structural completion of CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford".^[23] By 19 December 2012, construction had reached 90 percent structural completion. "Of the nearly 500 total structural lifts needed to complete the ship, 446 have been accomplished."^[24]

Gerald R. Ford sitting in drydock during construction.

The island was originally scheduled to land in 2012.^[25] However, the island landing and ceremony actually took place on 26 January 2013.^[25]
On 9 April 2013, the flight deck of the carrier was completed following the addition of the ship's upper bow section, bringing the ship to 96 percent structural completion.^[26]
On 7 May 2013, the last of 162 superlifts was put in place, bringing the ship to 100 percent structural completion.^[27] Remaining work that needs to be done includes hull painting, shafting work, completion of electrical systems, mooring equipment, installation of radar arrays, and flooding of the dry dock.^[28]
On 11 July 2013, a time capsule was welded into a small room just above the floor, continuing a long Navy tradition. The time capsule holds items chosen by President Ford's daughter, Susan Ford Bales, and includes sandstone from the White House, Navy coins, and aviator wings from its first commanding officer.^[29]
The ship was originally scheduled for launch in July 2013 and delivery in 2015.^[20] Production delays meant that the launch had to be delayed until 11 October 2013 and the naming ceremony until 9 November 2013,^[30] with delivery in February 2016.^[1]^[31]
On 3 October 2013, Gerald Ford had four 30 ton, 21 ft (6.4 m)-diameter bronze propellers installed. The installation of the propellers required more than 10 months of work to install the underwater shafting.^[32]

Susan Ford Bales, daughter of President Gerald R. Ford, christens Gerald R. Ford.

On 11 October 2013, the ship's drydock was flooded for the first time in order to test various seawater-based systems.^[33] Her launch date was set to be on the same day as her naming ceremony on 9 November 2013.^[34]
On November 9, 2013, the ship was christened by Ford's daughter with a bottle of champagne.^[1]^[35]
As of 2013, construction costs are estimated at $12.8 billion, 22% over the 2008 budget, plus $4.7 billion in research and development costs. Because of budget difficulties, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, has warned there may be a two year delay beyond 2016 in completing Gerald R. Ford.^[1]

Performance improvements

Gerald R. Ford is intended to be the first of a class of aircraft carriers that offer significant performance improvements over the previous Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Gerald R. Ford is equipped with an active electronically scanned array multi-function radar, and an island that is shorter in length and 20 feet (6.1 m) taller than that of the Nimitz-class; it is set 140 feet (43 m) further aft and 3 feet (0.91 m) closer to the edge of the ship. Electromagnetic catapults (EMALS) will launch aircraft, eliminating the need to store water and heat it for steam catapults. Gerald R. Ford can accomplish 25% more aircraft launches per day than the Nimitz-class and requires 25% fewer crew members. The Navy estimates it will save $4 billion in operating costs over a 50 year lifespan.^[36] According to an Associated Press story:

"'She is truly a technological marvel,' Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said in a webcast ceremony at the Newport News, Va., shipyard where Gerald R. Ford is being built. 'She will carry unmanned aircraft, joint strike fighters, and she will deploy lasers.'"^[37]

However these performance enhancers have proven problematic in Pentagon tests.^[38] In January 2014, the annual Director, Operational Test, and Evaluation (DOT&E) report said that critical ship systems including the EMALS, Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), Dual Band Radar, and weapons elevators were not reliable enough and needed more testing and improvements. EMALS testing recorded 201 launch failures out of 1,967 launches, equaling a reliability rate of 240 mean cycles (launching of one aircraft) between critical failures. Testing of the AAG recorded 9 arresting failures out of 71 attempts, equaling a reliability rate of 20 mean cycles (recovery of one aircraft) between operational mission failure, a failure rate 248 times higher than should be expected. Those systems performed at a fraction of their requirements for shipboard configurations, and even less of required standards. Radar and weapons elevator test data was not made available, but were also below expectations. The Navy maintains that further testing will resolve the problems. Gerald R. Ford is projected to be able to generate 30 percent more sorties than Nimitz-class carriers, but the DOT&E report claims that is too optimistic, though the Navy also maintains that assumption based on modeling and simulations. Gerald R. Ford is planned to complete Initial Operational Test & Evaluation in 2017 before entering service.^[39]

Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Ford class" redirects here. For the 1950s Royal Navy vessels, see Ford-class seaward defence boat.

*Gerald R. Ford*-class aircraft carrier
Class overview
Gerald R. Ford on the James River in November 2013.
Name:	Gerald R. Ford–class aircraft carrier
Builders:	Newport News Shipbuilding
Operators:	United States Navy
Preceded by:	Nimitz class
Cost:	$11.3384 billion (FY14)^[1]
Building:	2
Planned:	10^[2]
General characteristics
Type:	Aircraft carrier
Displacement:	Approximately 100,000 long tons (110,000 short tons; 100,000 tonnes) (full load)^[3]
Length:	1,106 ft (337 m)
Beam:	256 ft (78 m) (flight deck) 134 ft (41 m) (waterline)
Height:	250 feet (76 m)
Draft:	39 ft (12 m)^[4]
Decks:	25
Installed power:	Two A1B nuclear reactors
Propulsion:	Four shafts
Speed:	In excess of 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Complement:	508 officers 3,789 enlisted^[4]
Armament:	Anti-aircraft missiles: 2 × RIM-162 ESSM 2 × RIM-116 RAM Guns: 2 × Phalanx CIWS 4 × M2 12.7mm machine guns
Aircraft carried:	75+
Aviation facilities:	1,092 ft × 256 ft (333 m × 78 m) flight deck

Gerald R. Ford class (or Ford class) is a class of supercarriers currently being built to replace some of the United States Navy's existing Nimitz-class carriers. The new vessels will have a hull similar to the Nimitz carriers, but will introduce technologies developed since the initial design of the previous class (such as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System), as well as other design features intended to improve efficiency and running costs, including reduced crew requirement.^[5] The first ship of the class, the Gerald R. Ford, has hull number CVN-78.^{[Note 1]}^[6]

Features summary

Carriers of the Ford-class will incorporate design features including:^[7]

Advanced arresting gear.^[8]
Automation, which reduces crew requirements by several hundred from the Nimitz-class carrier.
The updated RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow missile system.^[9]
AN/SPY-3 dual-band radar (DBR), as developed for Zumwalt-class destroyers.
An Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) in place of traditional steam catapults for launching aircraft.^[8]
A new nuclear reactor design (the A1B reactor) for greater power generation.
Stealth features to help reduce radar profile.
The ability to carry up to 90 aircraft, including the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Boeing EA-18G Growler, Grumman C-2 Greyhound, Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, and Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II, Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk helicopters, and unmanned combat air vehicles such as the Northrop Grumman X-47B.^[9]^[10]

The navy believes that with the addition of the most modern equipment and extensive use of automation, it will be able to reduce the crew requirement and the total cost of future aircraft carriers.^[11] The primary recognition feature compared to earlier supercarriers will be the more aft location of the navigation island to make aircraft movements more efficient.^[12] The Ford class are intended to sustain 160 sorties per day for 30+ days, with a surge capability of 270 sorties/day, but the Director of Operational Testing Michael Gilmore has criticised the unrealistic assumptions used in these forecasts and has indicated sortie rates similar to the 120/240 per day of the Nimitz class would be acceptable.^[13]

Design and development

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier has been an integral part of United States power projection strategy since Nimitz was first commissioned. Displacing approximately 100,000 tons when fully loaded, a Nimitz-class carrier is capable of steaming faster than thirty knots, self-sustaining for up to ninety days, and launching aircraft to strike targets hundreds of miles away.^[14] The endurance of this class is exemplified by USS Theodore Roosevelt, which spent 159 days underway in support of Operation Enduring Freedom without the need to visit a port or be refueled.^[15] Over the lifespan of the class many new technologies have been successfully integrated into the design of this vessel. However, with the technical advances made in the past decade the ability of the navy to make improvements to this class of ship has become more limited. "The biggest problems facing the Nimitz class are the limited electrical power generation capability and the upgrade-driven increase in ship weight and erosion of the center-of-gravity margin needed to maintain ship stability."^[16]
With these constraints in mind the navy developed what was initially known as the "CVN-21" program, which ultimately evolved into CVN-78, Gerald R. Ford. Improvements were made through developing technologies and more efficient design. Major design changes include a larger flight deck, improvements in weapons and material handling, a new propulsion plant design that requires fewer personnel to operate and maintain, and a new smaller island that has been pushed aft. Technological advances in electromagnetics have led to the development of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), and an Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG). An integrated warfare system, the Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS), has been developed to support flexibility in adapting the infrastructure of the ship to future mission roles. The new Dual Band Radar (DBR) combines S-band and X-band radar in a single system.^[17] With new design and technology the Ford will have a 25% increase in sortie generation, threefold increase in electrical generating capacity, increased operational availability, and a number of quality-of-life improvements.^[18] Requirements for a higher sortie rate of around 160 exits a day with surges to a maximum of 270 sorties a day in times of crisis and intense air warfare activity, have led to design changes in the flight deck, which enable greater aircraft launch capabilities.

Flight deck

Artist's concept of CVN-78

Changes to the flight deck are the most visible of the differences between the Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford classes. Several sections have been altered from the layout of the Nimitz-class flight deck to improve aircraft handling, storage, and flow. Catapult number four on the Nimitz-class cannot launch fully loaded aircraft because of a deficiency of wing clearance along the edge of the flight deck.^[19] CVN-78 will have no catapult-specific restrictions on launching aircraft, but still retains four catapults, two bow and two waist,^[20] and the number of aircraft lifts from hangar deck to flight deck level was reduced from the earlier ships from four to three. The design changes to the flight deck are instrumental in the maximization of sorties launched.
The route of weapons to the aircraft stops on the flight deck has been replanned to accommodate higher rearming rates, and in turn higher potential sortie rates.
Another major change: a smaller, redesigned island will be pushed further back relative to the older classes of carriers. Moving the island creates deck space for a centralized rearming and refueling location. This reduces the number of times that an aircraft will have to be moved after landing before it can be launched again. Fewer aircraft movements require, in turn, fewer deck hands to accomplish them, reducing the size of the ship's crew. A similar benefit is realized by altering the path and procedures for weapons movement by redshirts from storage to flight deck, again potentially allowing the new ship to support a higher sortie rate than the Nimitz-class ship while using fewer crew members than the Nimitz requires. On Nimitz-class carriers the time that it takes to launch a plane after it has landed is set by the time needed to rearm and refuel it. To minimize this time, ordnance will be moved from storage areas to the centralized rearming location via relocated, higher capacity weapons elevators, utilizing linear motors.^[21] The new path that ordnance follows does not cross any areas of aircraft movement, thereby reducing traffic problems in the hangars and on the flight deck. According to Rear Admiral Dennis M. Dwyer, these changes will make it hypothetically possible to rearm the airplanes in "minutes instead of hours".^[22]

Power generation

The propulsion and power plant of the Nimitz-class carriers was designed in the 1960s. Technological capabilities of that time did not require the same quantity of electrical power that modern technologies do. "New technologies added to the Nimitz-class ships have generated increased demands for electricity; the current base load leaves little margin to meet expanding demands for power."^[23] Increasing the capability of the U.S. Navy to improve the technological level of the carrier fleet required a larger capacity power system.
The new A1B reactor plant is a smaller, more efficient design that provides approximately three times the electrical power of the Nimitz-class A4W reactor plant. The modernization of the plant led to a higher core energy density, lower demands for pumping power, a simpler construction, and the use of modern electronic controls and displays. These changes resulted in a two-thirds reduction of watch standing requirements and a significant decrease of required maintenance.^[24]
A larger power output is a major component to the integrated warfare system. Engineers took extra steps to ensure that integrating unforeseen technological advances onto a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier would be possible. The U.S. Navy projects that the Gerald R. Ford-class will be an integral component of the fleet for ninety years into the future (the year 2105). One lesson learned from that is that for a ship design to be successful over the course of a century, a great deal of foresight and flexibility is required. Integrating new technologies with the Nimitz-class is becoming more difficult to do without any negative consequences. To bring the Gerald R. Ford-class into dominance during the next century of naval warfare requires that the class be capable of seamlessly upgrading to more advanced systems.

Launch and landing systems

The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers use steam-powered catapults to launch aircraft. Steam catapults were developed in the 1950s and have been exceptionally reliable. For over fifty years at least one of the four catapults has been able to launch an aircraft 99.5% of the time.^[25] However, there are a number of drawbacks. "The foremost deficiency is that the catapult operates without feedback control. With no feedback, there often occurs large transients in tow force that can damage or reduce the life of the airframe."^[26] The steam system is massive, inefficient (4–6%),^[27] and hard to control.
Control problems with the system results in minimum and maximum weight limits. The minimum weight limit is above the weight of all UAVs. An inability to launch the latest additions to the Naval air forces is a restriction on operations that cannot continue into the next generation of aircraft carriers. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) provides solutions to all these problems .^{[citation needed]} An electromagnetic system is more efficient, smaller, lighter, more powerful, and easier to control. Increased control means that EMALS will be able to launch both heavier and lighter aircraft than the steam catapult. Also, the use of a controlled force will reduce the stress on airframes, resulting in less maintenance and a longer lifetime for the airframe. Unfortunately the power limitations for the Nimitz class make the installation of the recently developed EMALS impossible.
Electromagnetics will also be used in the new Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) system. The current system relies on hydraulics to slow and stop a landing aircraft. While effective, as demonstrated by more than fifty years of implementation, the AAG system offers a number of improvements. The current system is unable to capture UAVs without damaging them due to extreme stresses on the airframe. UAVs do not have the necessary mass to drive the large hydraulic piston used to trap heavier manned planes. By using electromagnetics the energy absorption is controlled by a turbo-electric engine. This makes the trap smoother and reduces shock on airframes. Even though the system will look the same from the flight deck as its predecessor, it will be more flexible, safe, and reliable, and will require less maintenance and manning.^[28]

Sensors

Another addition to the Gerald R. Ford-class is an integrated search and tracking radar system. The dual-band radar was being developed for both the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers and the Ford-class aircraft carriers. The island can be kept smaller by replacing six to ten radar antennas with a single six-faced radar. The DBR works by combining the X-Band AN/SPY-3 multifunction radar with the S-band volume search radar.^[29] The S-band radar was later deleted from the Zumwalt class destroyers as a cost saving measure.^[30] The three faces dedicated to the X-band radar are responsible for low altitude tracking and target illumination, while the other three faces dedicated to the S-band are responsible for target search and tracking regardless of weather. "Operating simultaneously over two electromagnetic frequency ranges, the DBR marks the first time this functionality has been achieved using two frequencies coordinated by a single resource manager."^[17] This new system has no moving parts, therefore minimizing maintenance and manning requirements for operation.

Possible upgrades

Each new technology and design feature integrated into the Ford-class aircraft carrier improves sortie generation, manning requirements, and operational capabilities. New defense systems, such as free-electron laser directed-energy weapons, dynamic armor, and tracking systems will require more power. "Only half of the electrical power-generation capability on CVN 78 is needed to run currently planned systems, including EMALS. CVN 78 will thus have the power reserves that the Nimitz-class lacks to run lasers and dynamic armor."^[31] The addition of new technologies, power systems, design layout, and better control systems results in an increased sortie rate of 25% over the Nimitz-class and a 25% reduction in manpower required to operate.^[32]
Breakthrough waste management technology will be deployed on Gerald R. Ford. Co-developed with the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, PyroGenesis Canada Inc., was in 2008 awarded the contract to outfit the ship with a Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System (PAWDS). This compact system will treat all combustible solid waste generated on board the ship. After having completed factory acceptance testing in Montreal, the system was scheduled to be shipped to the Huntington Ingalls shipyard in late 2011 for installation on the carrier.^[33]

Construction

Gerald R. Ford under construction at Newport News

Construction began on components of CVN-78 in early 2007^[34] and is planned to finish in 2015. It is under construction at Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries (formerly Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding) in Newport News, Virginia. This is the only shipyard in the United States capable of building nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. In 2005, it was estimated to cost at least $8 billion excluding the $5 billion spent on research and development (though that was not expected to be representative of the cost of future members of the class).^[11] A 2009 report said that the Ford would cost $14 billion including research and development, and the actual cost of the carrier itself would be $9 billion.^[35] The daily operating cost of a carrier strike group is estimated at $6.5 million.^[36]
A total of three carriers have been authorized for construction, but if the Nimitz-class carriers and Enterprise were to be replaced on a one-for-one basis, eleven carriers would be required over the life of the program. However, the last Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is not scheduled to be decommissioned until 2058.
In a speech on 6 April 2009, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that the program would shift to a five-year building program so as to place it on a "more fiscally sustainable path". Such a measure would result in ten carriers after 2040.^[37]
In 2013 a GAO report cast doubts on the delivery schedule.^[38]^[39] As of 2013, construction costs are estimated at $12.8 billion, 22% over the 2008 budget, plus $4.7 billion in research and development costs. Because of budget difficulties, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, has warned there may be a two year delay beyond 2016 in completing the Ford.^[40]

Naming

There was a movement by the USS America Carrier Veterans' Association to have CVN-78 named after America rather than after President Ford. Eventually, the amphibious assault ship LHA-6 was named America.
On 27 May 2011, the Department of Defense announced the name of CVN-79 would be USS John F. Kennedy.^[41]
On 1 December 2012, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that CVN-80 would be named USS Enterprise. The information was delivered during a prerecorded speech as part of the deactivation ceremony for the previous USS Enterprise (CVN-65). The future Enterprise (CVN-80) will be the ninth U.S. Navy ship to bear this name.^[42]

A1B reactor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The A1B reactor is a nuclear reactor being designed for use by the United States Navy to provide electricity generation and propulsion for the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers.^[1] It has been in development since 1998.^[2]
The A1B designation stands for:^[3]

A = Aircraft carrier platform
1 = Contractor's first core design
B = Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation is the contracted designer

Initial plans for the Gerald R. Ford-class carrier program include a two-reactor complex intended to replace the A4W reactor design used on the Nimitz-class carriers. The new A1B reactor plant is a smaller, more efficient design that provides approximately three times the electrical power of the Nimitz-class A4W reactor plant.^[4] The modernization of the plant led to a higher core energy density, lower demands for pumping power, a simpler construction, and the use of modern electronic controls and displays. These changes resulted in a two-thirds reduction of watch standing requirements and a significant decrease of required maintenance.^[5]

AN/SPY-3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AN/SPY-3
Country of origin	United States
Type	Navigation/Targeting
Frequency	X band
Range	200 mi (320 km)

The AN/SPY-3 is an active electronically scanned array radar manufactured by Raytheon and designed for both blue-water and littoral^[1] operations.

Ancestry

The Aegis battle management system began with the AN/SPY-1 radar, intended to deal with an aircraft threat. AN/SPY-2 is an additional Aegis system, which extends the Aegis system sensors to be capable of ballistic missile defense.

Technology

X-band functionality (8 to 12 GHz frequency range) is optimal for minimizing low-altitude propagation effects, narrow beam width for best tracking accuracy, wide frequency bandwidth for effective target discrimination, and the target illumination for SM-2 and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM). The X-band has, in general, favorable low-altitude propagation characteristics, which readily support the horizon search functionality of the AN/SPY-3. A large operating bandwidth is required to mitigate large propagation variations due to meteorological conditions. ^[2]
The system uses commercial off the shelf (COTS) computers and has reduced manning requirements for operation and maintenance. A number of operation and maintenance functions can be completely automated.^[3]
The AN/SPY-3 was originally to be combined with the S-Band AN/SPY-4 under the designator "Dual Band Radar" on both the Zumwalt Class (DDG-1000) destroyer and Ford Class (CVN-78) aircraft carrier. On 2 June 2010, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter announced that they will be removing the SPY-4 S-band Volume Search Radar from the DDG 1000's dual-band radar to reduce costs as part of the Nunn-McCurdy certification process. Due to the SPY-4 removal, SPY-3 radar is to have software modifications so as to perform a volume search functionality. Shipboard operators will be able to optimize the SPY-3 MFR for either horizon search or volume search. While optimized for volume search, the horizon search capability is limited. Without the VSR, DDG-1000 is still expected to perform local area air defense. The Ford Class aircraft carriers will be the only platforms to have both radars married in one system. ^[4]

Deployment

The system will be introduced in the new Zumwalt-class destroyers and Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers. It is also under consideration for retrofit to existing ships (USS Makin Island (LHD-8), Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, and San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks. Other installation candidates are the LH(X) future ship class.^[1]

The National Interest

5 Ways U.S. Aircraft Carriers Will Soon Be More Lethal

Far from being obsolete, future aircraft carriers will pack a
much more lethal punch.

Robert Farley

August 16, 2015

HMS Furious, the first real aircraft carrier, entered service in early 1918. A converted cruiser, she displaced about 20,000 tons, and flew about half a dozen Sopwith Camels, an aircraft with a range of about 150 miles and a weapons payload just short of 100 pounds. Twenty-five years later, Furious could carry 36 aircraft, ranging at least twice as far with weapon loads of around 2,000 pounds. Her larger, purpose built cousins could carry double the number of aircraft. Armored flight decks, improved anti-aircraft armament, and better damage control procedures protected many of these later carriers from attacks that would sink their older brethren.
In short, aircraft carriers are composite systems of warfare that can increase rapidly in lethality as their components improve. While the USN (and the other carrier fleets of the world) will likely never achieve the leaps forward in lethality that the inter-war navies experienced, it can still expect that its carrier fleet will grow in effectiveness over time. The USN can increase the effectiveness of its carriers in one of three ways: increase their offensive striking power, tighten their defense, or (perhaps most difficult) bring their procurement costs into line. In this context, here are five developments that could increase the lethality of the USN’s aircraft carrier fleet:
Integrated missile defense
The greatest present threat to the aircraft carrier appears to lie in the combination of cruise and precision ballistic missiles. Individually, either of these can give a carrier a very bad day, resulting in mission-killing damage to the flight deck, or worse. In combination, they present a lethal problem for fleet air defense to manage, especially when the cruise missiles approach from multiple vectors.
Air defense isn’t a new problem for aircraft carriers; many World War II carriers were lost to air attack, and the Soviets planned to destroy the USN’s carriers with huge flights of missile-carrying Backfire bombers. The combination of ballistic and cruise missiles presents a new tactical picture, one that the USN has concentrated on ameliorating over the last decade by improving its ballistic missile defenses. Most recently, the United States has reopened the possibility of “multi-object kill vehicles,” interceptors which can destroy multiple incoming targets and decoys. The ability of carrier escorts to prevent damage to their charge unquestionably makes carriers more dangerous to prospective opponents.
Laser
The power generation capabilities of the Gerald Ford (CVN-78)-class vastly exceed those of the previous Nimitz-class carriers. In the short term, this may not mean much, although it will certainly make some tasks easier (including EMALS, the new electromagnetic launch system). In the longer term, this extra power generation capacity may make lasers an effective tool for air defense.
The U.S. Navy has devoted a great deal of attention to the prospect of making directed energy weapons a useful defense system. In theory, lasers could resolve many of the problems associated with ballistic and cruise missile defense, including the accuracy and limited number of interceptors. A carrier with sufficiently powerful laser defenses could curtail the threat of even large salvos of cruise and ballistic missiles, providing a carrier group with an extra degree of security and lethality in contested areas.
Drones
With the post-Cold War cancellation of the A-12 Avenger, and the retirement of the A-6 Intruder, the USN’s carrier force has lacked a long-range strike option. The Navy has replaced this capability with the Tomahawk missile, a system that poses considerably less risk to its operators than a manned aircraft. The USN has also focused on inflight refueling as a way of extending the range of its fighter-bombers, although this practice has strained the airframes of many of the Navy’s planes.
At the moment, probably the biggest debate in the Navy involves the UCLASS program, an effort to supply the Navy with a long-range stealth drone. Much of the debate turns on what exactly the drone will be able to do; advocates want a long-range strike aircraft, while the more cautious want a drone that can focus on ISR. The development of either would increase the lethality of the USN’s carrier force, but a long-range strike drone, while expensive, would represent a welcome addition to the air wing.
Gens 5-6 airwing
Fundamentally, the strength of a carrier depends most on the capabilities of its air wing. In the next decade, the aircraft launched from U.S. carriers will undergo considerable change. Most notably, the arrival of the F-35C (whatever the larger problems with the program) will increase the stealth, sensor capacity, and communications capabilities of the air wing. In combination with the EA-18 Growler, this will increase the lethality of the entire air wing.
Down the road, the Navy’s pursuit of a sixth-generation fighter will hopefully keep the carrier air wing vital and effective, even against strongly defended targets. The aircraft that the Gerald Ford enters service carrying will look little like those that it flies when it leaves service.
Cost management
The biggest threat to the future of the aircraft carrier lies not in missiles or torpedoes, but in the enormous combined cost of the ships, their escorts, and their air wings. This is a problem that has not improved over the past century; carriers have grown ever more expensive, increasing the strain on defense budgets and national governments.
The Ford class and the F-35C have not been exceptions to this trend, as both have exceeded cost expectations. In the future, the Navy hopes to rein in costs by focusing on finding construction efficiencies, and using “concurrency” to accelerate the development and operationalization of new technologies. Thus far the results haven’t been great. In the future, the exorbitant cost of the ships and their aircraft may force the Navy to choose between smaller carriers, or fewer carriers.
Wrap
Aircraft carriers are just big ships with flat decks. Their true power comes from their ability to provide a secure, mobile airbase for a powerful air wing. Given the expected lifespan of the new carriers entering service with the USN (50 years or more), we can have no doubt that the ships will radically increase in lethality over the next decades.
Robert Farley is an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce. His work includes military doctrine, national security, and maritime affairs. He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money,Information Dissemination and The Diplomat. Follow him on Twitter:@drfarls.
Image: Flickr/U.S. Pacific Fleet

Search This Blog

Wikipedia

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Railgun

Contents

Basics

History

Design

Theory

Mathematical formula

Considerations

Materials used

Heat dissipation

Applications

Launch or launch assist of spacecraft

Weaponry

Tests

Trigger for inertial confinement fusion

See also

Monday, March 10, 2014

USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier Pictures

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)

Contents

Naming

History

Construction

Performance improvements

Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier

Contents

Features summary

Design and development

Flight deck

Power generation

Launch and landing systems

Sensors

Possible upgrades

Construction

Naming

A1B reactor

AN/SPY-3

Ancestry

Technology

Deployment

5 Ways U.S. Aircraft Carriers Will Soon Be More Lethal