Or, whatever it costs to get it to float.


f particular concern is the ship’s arresting gear, used to catch landing aircraft, which is "unlikely to support high-intensity flight operations" and "is well below expectations and well below what is needed to succeed in combat."


Tests show that the arresting gear could only be used 25 times consecutively before failing.

The ship’s launch system is better, but far from ideal. While the system should be able to perform 4,166 takeoffs before critical failures, tests show the USS Gerald Ford’s can only conduct 400 before requiring significant maintenance.

"Based on current reliability estimates, the CVN-78 is unlikely to conduct high-intensity flight operations at the outset of war," Gilmore wrote.



The warship’s radar systems are also a concern. The effectiveness of the dual-band radar, used for both self-defense and air-traffic control, "is unknown," according to Gilmore.

The ship has already seen a number of delays. Christened in 2013, it was originally scheduled to be delivered to the US Navy in September 2014. Last week



So, after All these years of building launch and retrieval systems, now, we CAN'T?  Did they not build scale model and TEST!? If you're using a new design or new types of materials, you have to test things before you build it .

I don't know how they went about designing the carrier and its equipment. I'm just looking at what it cost and how well it works. I probably wouldn't accept a free ride on the maiden voyage of a newly designed airplane. But I expect the planes will perform satisfactorily and safely...
The degree computer Design is a question. I'm aware of CAD, but I don't know how much the computer decides.
Does It spec out the load bearing capacity of the wheel bearings? Does it lay out Where the spars go in the wings, or, are those things determined by an engineer who Tells the computer where to put them? Or, does a computer Design a wing that is of X wingspan or less that will create Y pounds of lift at Z MPH airspeed AND tolerate predicted G loads?

The ships inabilities to operate and throw and catch planes all day without needing major maintenance is, IMO, inexcusable.
We have years of experience in building Better. Just because a machine spits out a design doesn't mean that someone should just trot off and build it. I would probably take the design and compare it to the best equipment that had been built to date.
But, that is just me. I tend to think things through a bit.

If, for example, the new design calls for an arresting cable made of a new material, I would have to design a scale test bed and beat the snot outta the stuff.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/24/16 at 08:29:11:


No, not really, the subsidies prolly more closely resemble working welfare, like too big to fail, mindset.

Don't get me wrong, I ain't slamming it, the money generated at Boeing creates much economy that allows lifestyles to many, many people.
It is a perfect example of a partnership between business, and government.
Sure, some folks complain about exorbitant salaries, but those who complain are clueless.
They have no idea the "selling of their souls" these folks pay in their personal life relationships.....
To me, it's not worth it, but they must believe otherwise, I guess.

Those that whine are just plain old envious    

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/24/16 at 09:46:38:



Jog, think of it like this....

A new car sells for 50,000 dollars.
It provided for a local economy.
It gets re-sold....
That, provides for a new revenue for a local economy.

One commodity.
One initial cost factor.
Yet.....
It can foster all sorts of income.

Boeing makes money because it has a fiscal need. There is competition in the market. There is a demand to answer to shareholders.

The military... not so much.
Especially not with the no-bid contracts we saw with Halliburton.


--Steve

Can you imagine doing this for the 1st time?


You have No idea the things I imagine doing
For the first time...