The LARGEST Ship in The Navy Has A GIANT Problem

[@BeyondFacts]

Love our videos? Join our ‘Paper Pilot Club’ now! Get new videos first, special paper airplanes, and cool badges. Click ‘Join’ to be a member and have more fun with us! kzbin.info/door/zgWZmqmKpmsr4oPWITusKAjoin

[@rvsteve583]

no..................

[@icosthop9998]

Read the comments of people who used to be in *"The Service"* . They are saying you have placed many mistakes in this video. 😒

[@BrumKid]

@@icosthop9998 Not just this video but many others and they always make out American is the best in the world thats why i unsubscribed. This is what they claim:- "Beyond Facts is the channel to unveil all the interesting facts for you. Whether you want to learn about the lifestyle of famous celebrities, how they spend their millions, the most expensive things in the world, secret military technology, money topics and even some of the strangest discoveries - we've got." TOTAL BS.

[@samproud6192]

A t and t customer service

[@grahamvincent3061]

🎉😢😢

[@thomasheyart7033]

Oh B.S.! The USS Roosevelt was resupplied every few days. No ship, especially a CVN could go 5 months solo

[@stanleyhatfield]

I was going to toss a BS flag on that to. I did two med cruises and a bunch of shakedown cruises on the USS Forrestal in the early 70's, and yes, we had underway replenishment ops on a pretty regular basis.

[@tommyd688]

Unless the ship can shit its own Jet fuel it was resupplied several times a month. I'm sure it can carry a lot of Jet fuel but those jet's use a butt load of it.

[@Bob-yl9rz]

A carrier has a 70 day supply of both dry and cold food in storage. 15-20 years without needing to refuel the reactors. They are more limited on how much aviation fuel and weapons they have available to conduct combat operation in that 70 days. That's the reason at sea resupply is so vital.

[@Budlopes]

Yeah I was like that’s BS!!!

[@metube336]

Nimitz Class Carriers can carry a max load of 3.3M gallons of JP-5 jet fuel and an average 2.6M Gallons onboard (with peacetime replenishments). However, the embarked Air Wing (50-60 Aircraft) can go through the average Nimitz class Carrier's JP-5 storage capacity in about a week at normal peacetime training sortie (cycles). Maybe this is why this website is called "Beyond Facts".

[@bartobo]

This is old news, like about two years ago. The EMLS, AAG issues have long been known with fixes and workarounds in place. There’s always going to be bugs that need correction with new highly complex systems.

[@HeinzGuderian_]

Correct. That's the point of shakedown cruises. New ships don't enter actual service for 6 months or more after being fitted out.

[@tvgerbil1984]

It would be easier for the rest of the Gerald Ford class carriers. First-of-class type design changes, especially those related to the EMALS, have already been fed back into the construction for the rest of the class.

[@FredJones-lo2df]

Probably counter intell for idiots.

[@frankdesantis8078]

BS. This gives the builders more of our tax money. This carrier is a cash bonanza for the MIC. That’s the goal, our money. Fighting, that.’s the Navy’s problem. Besides, the builders will take more of our money as they try to fix this turkey. Newport News will just keep smiling. Obviously, the Navy accepted this lemon as it was. We will pay for this decision for many more years.

[@bruceholtermann9646]

Kind of like MS Windows always upgrading, always some problem. and with no competition innovation stops. Just re-boot the Carrier?

[@N0B0DY_SP3C14L]

Yeah, physics are indeed a problem. New system with bugs? You don't say! Sounds like pretty normal stuff to me. Sounds like a lot of hype in the tag line. 🙄

[@peterhall8572]

Salt water Hates Electronics

[@N0B0DY_SP3C14L]

@@peterhall8572 I think it's the other way around. Electronics do not like salt water. Salt water doesn't really care.

[@dickgoesinya8173]

the author saw a photo of a ship once. that makes him a expert.

[@johngaither9263]

Sounds like Ford Motor Company installing too many new and untried options on their vehicles. Of course you seldom have to deal with MIGS or Sukhoi aircraft in your F-150.

[@Gangsta1168]

These ships are NOTHING more than big coffins in the age of hypersonic nuclear missiles.. 💯💯

[@ronc110]

No "STEAM" catapaults on the USS G.R. Ford! Magnetic catapaults only.

[@gilbertdk]

Right on. I'm sure there is steam somewhere between the Uranium and the Aircraft, when on the catapult, but it's not the catapult.. :-D

[@loktom4068]

And it's only in writing. Because it doesn't work.

[@fkchci681]

@@loktom4068 funny, they have been launching aircraft. How do you suppose they are doing that with no catapult?

[@jimthurman2571]

​@@loktom40680090o[ooo9o⁹⁹9⁹😊

[@HarriHoll69]

​ Might want to look that up before commenting so you don't look like a spastic. The EMALs on the CVN-79 are fully operational and this ship is not even done being built yet.

[@taliskyrim]

i serve on the ford, we out preform the nimitz class in every way

[@randywiley66]

Cool

[@mikejeffries974]

Out perform by failing where other proceed

[@patrickweaver1105]

The Nimitz is as good as the Ford at a few not very important things. Pretty much everything else is better on the Ford. That's what fifty years of technological advancement gets you.

[@dereklucero5785]

Tyvm for your service sir 😁👍🇺🇸

[@Wyomingchief]

​@@mikejeffries974keep coping😂😂

[@jonbutcher9805]

You should mention that all the vessels around the GRF Aircraft Carrier have a little something to do with how it can maintain operations at sea. Just a little.

[@AdamG.GoNavy.FlyNavy]

A new ship design loaded with lots of new and advanced technology is going to have growing pains. It’s how we advance the level of innovation in engineering and unseen problems will normally emerge. Modifications will be developed and implemented in this hull and all succeeding hulls. This is nothing unusual in is actually planned for. Go Navy. Fly Navy!

[@jamesb4789]

8 years of shakedown and debugging and they still fail to meet design spec's is NOT normal. The flaws in critical systems are fundamental and in large part due to contractors with no real experience. GA built ONE (1) EM rollercoaster ride before getting the EMAL contract.

[@Gangsta1168]

Yeah.. Let's keep adding to the $14 trillions debt you owe your GODS.. 💵💵😂😂😂

[@Gangsta1168]

​@@jamesb4789really.. But how many times you VOTED then HOPE for CHANGE?? 😂😂😂

[@jss27560]

@@jamesb4789 beginning with the USS Langley did every new aircraft carrier work perfectly from the beginning or did it take years to resolve what issues were going on?

[@normanwyatt8761]

I fully agree with you. Seeing that we were elected police of the world, the carriers are needed in places where we have no military bases to house our fighter planes. The future will decide whether it was a good idea or not. Our tax money would go down a deep hole anyway, lining the pockets of our politicians and their friends pockets too. They all retire in luxury.

[@eddiepearl536]

Bro you need to update your research The Ford is now fully operational and has exceeded daily sortie rate of Nimitz class

[@noahway13]

It was ai generated BS.

[@GordMerrick]

@@noahway13 Tales of woe are golden for the media. They don't employ fact checkers, it's bad for business

[@loski1955]

Doesn't sound like a GIANT problem to me................

[@BernhardSchwarz-xs8kp]

Nothing is a problem compared to the leadership of the country - Pentagon included.

[@djprentowalker8878]

😂😂😂

[@USSNIMITZCVAN68]

I did 90 days on the cargo team instead of galley work as a new crewman. The Nimitz took on supplies such as fuel, weapons and food often. The reactors didn't need refuel, but JP-5 fuel tanks that feed the planes sure do. Plank Owner U.S.S. Nimitz. BOHICA!

[@randydutton1]

The F-35B doesn't need a catapult.

[@Bob-yl9rz]

The F-35 does need the catapult if it needs to carry anything over the minimum weapons load. Take off vertically is not ideal for combat ops. You would burn a lot of fuel just to take off. Landing vertically would make aircraft turn around quicker though.

[@hoghogwild]

@@Bob-yl9rz F-35B STOVL (Short TakeOff Vertical Landing). Can it even take off vertically if it has any sort of combat load? the USMC F-35B uses no catapult, just a short flat acceleration run off the boat using engine power only. Only the USMC/USN F-35C uses a catapult for launch and arresting wires for recovery as the C is the CATOBAR variant(Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Landing)..

[@fkchci681]

What about the other aircraft they use? Plus if the F35 is fully loaded, it cannot take off vertically.

[@krashd]

@@hoghogwild F-35B requires a ski ramp if carrying a combat load, that's why our two limp biscuit carriers have them.

[@hoghogwild]

@@krashd I didn't realize that you're British. You guys have some pretty amazing capabilities in those ships/aircraft. Yes the US small carriers and the UK Queen Elizabeth Class both launch F-35 from the boat without catapults. The ships both launch an F-35B with 2-1000lb precision bombs and 2 AIM-120 missiles all internal with full expendables, fly 505 nautical miles away then turn around and fly 505nm back to the ship and perform an underway vertical landing profile The difference is that the US Navy ships use a 600ft launch strip whilst the UK carriers use a 450ft strip with a ski jump. Amazing capability for a jump jet aircraft. Current SuperHornet has a strike profile mission radius of 390nm.

[@dewayneblue1834]

Wow, this is one of the most poorly informed military videos I've ever seen, and there are some terrible ones out there!

[@noahway13]

Was ai generated.

[@lancerevell5979]

And, whoever programmed the TTS voice needs a course in Adult Literacy.

[@johnhoffman8203]

Reactors dont make steam, they make hot water fed to a steam generator that makes steam.

[@Trance2010de]

@johnhoffman8203 Ok. Because you are so petty, I unfortunately have to react. Unfortunately, you are wrong! Reactors don't make hot water, they produce heat, fed to a water tank, that makes hot water. 🔥😂

[@johnhoffman8203]

@@Trance2010de I know I am petty, cant help it, I was a Master Chief PETTY Officer, and nuclear trained at that, on 5 subs. I shimmed a lot of control rods in a reactor to make hot water. This hot water is pumped to steam generator tubes conducting this heat to the water surrounding them and returning the cooled water back to the reactor to rinse and repeat. There is a water tank that is electrically heated to make a steam bubble, but that only maintains pressure inside the reactor vessel.

[@Trance2010de]

@@johnhoffman8203 😂👍. Yes, you're right. I tried to act like a smartass and described it in even more detailed. Because before the steam comes the heat of the reactor, and then hot water, then steam. Also the electricity you mentioned, is mainly produced by turbines/generators, using the steam.

[@johnhoffman8203]

@@Trance2010de You have a gross conceptual error about both reactor operational concepts and heat transfer and fluid flow. The primary fluid never comes into direct contact with the secondary system. The only component common to both systems is the steam generators that make steam form both engine turbines and generator turbines.

[@Trance2010de]

@@johnhoffman8203 I have not even mentioned or described in more detail, the type of heat exchange or the various water cycles. I also know, how such a system works. Since I also have a certain technical understanding, as a trained electronics engineer with professional experience.

[@joseevsngelista6342]

You are talking normal things. Debugging is always happening. It’s not like a brand new car.

[@stevenr8606]

Even brand new cars have problems. Lots of problems. Some are know as TSB (Technical Service Bulletins) which are performed without owners knowledge. 😮

[@jamesb4789]

Sorry, but why exactly is 8 long years of "shakedown operations and $6 billion over budget is normal? And they still have not fixed the flaws.

[@joseevsngelista6342]

@@jamesb4789 what flaws. I don’t know and you don’t know. After any deployment, preventive maintenance is just normal for any flaws.

[@stephenludlum9746]

@@jamesb4789 The video is inaccurate, and even after eight years, it is not a fast process to get all the bugs out of that new technology and update it. See, as they work the bugs out, they are still updating that technology. They don't even mention their downtime and problems with the old technology. It was not a perfect system and needed a lot of maintenance. The technology has already shown its advantage over the old technology.

[@waltermorris5786]

Just imagine how smart the Captain must be to understand in a general sense all the depth in that ship and mastering the bridge.

[@maj.kennethwithrow8390]

You are so Ill-advised, Ms Informed, with every Inaccurate information it's mirror's your Title. Beyond Facts .

[@davedixon2068]

I saw an article in an aviation magazine about 3 pages long going into detail of all the problems with a new aircraft coming into navy service and how bad it was with lots of faults showing up, this was around the time the F18 was just entering service so people reading immediately thought it was about the recently released problems with that aircraft, however when you reached the end of the article they explained that it was taken from the into service report on the F4 Phantom, and was being used to indicate that even the best machinery often starts with problems that need fixing

[@MrScottr1958]

Have they tried unplugging it then plugging it back in?

[@Pozi_Drive]

They omitted the expensive plug and hardwired it. What on earth could go wrong?

[@krashd]

Is that you, Roy?

[@larrym2434]

The extension cord isn't long enough.

[@joshshepherd5660]

Just wait till you see a C-130 take off from the deck...

[@8731GC]

Lol

[@drguffey]

@@8731GC A C-130 has landed on and taken off from a carrier. The USS Forestall. You can see it here on KZbin !

[@charlesbranch4120]

It has been done, and landings, too. (USS Forrestal) YT videos may still be available.

[@Wyomingchief]

​@@charlesbranch4120yeah there's a lot of videos of it. They were able to land come to a complete stop, and then take off from that exact same spot. Pretty damn insane if you think about it

[@drguffey]

@@bushman1492 Simply not practical ! C-130 is too big.

[@MultiCconway]

The REAL STORY after the first cruise: In 239 days underway, the ship’s crew conducted 43 underway replenishment, logged more than 17,826 flight hours and 10,396 sorties, sailed more than 83,476 nautical miles, and safely transferred 20.7 million gallons of fuel with zero mishaps. The Ford crew conducted 33,444 flight deck moves, 3,124 hangar bay aircraft moves, 2,883 aircraft elevator moves, 16,351 aircraft fueling evolutions, and transferred 8,850 pallets of cargo and mail. The Gerald R. Ford culinary team prepared and served 3.1 million meals, which included approximately 48,000 dozen eggs, 24,000 gallons of milk, 131,000 hamburgers, 367,000 pounds of chicken, and Gerald R. Ford’s favorite . . . 79,000 chocolate chip cookies. THAT is nothing to sneeze at . . . However, we still do not have a way to continue deck launch operations while working on one of the EMALS launchers.

[@paulbade3566]

Wouldn't working on a steam catapult also interrupt launch operations?

[@timtrewyn453]

So 10,395 sorties / 239 days underway = 44 sorties / day underway. Presumably some days were higher or lower in sorties with a few days having no sorties. Of course, the maximum number of sorties generated in a single day has probably been kept classified. 2018 Congressional Budget Office: "According to the Navy, each of its 10 older Nimitz class carriers can sustain 95 strike sorties per day and, with each aircraft carrying four 2,000-pound bombs, deliver three-quarters of a million pounds of bombs each day."

[@flotsamike]

There was no mention of the problem with the weapons elevators. The launch rate of the Gerald R Ford would be a more meaningful number if you compared it with what A Nimitz class carrier had done in the same 8 months. Also no mention that we bought two more of this class of carrier and one is being built even though the issues haven't been resolved yet.

[@jcak552]

I think you have the Kennedy and Nimitz stats backwards at 0:19

[@fredbalster3100]

Best comments by knowledgeable people.😯😯😯😯😯

[@TCBElvisAPresley]

My little pee-brain was immediately wondering, "do we have our smartest brains working on these problems? You know, our top-tier brainiacs who can often be found loitering around places like Harvard or MIT? I'm sure they have them on all of this, right? If I was President, I'd round up our top of the line engineers and physicists for Manhattan Project 2.0. And as I'm turning the key to lock the door, I'd say "don't worry, folks, I'll let you out just a soon as you guys and gals knock out these little issues our people are about to present to you! Thank you for your patriotism and loyalty! And don't forget to have fun! "

[@oldschoolfoil2365]

Some truths in your comment

[@paulhunter1735]

Beyond Facts is right for this channel or more correctly it should be called you got your facts wrong. The Ford does not have steam catapults, they are magnetic. If you can't even get that info right then just maybe do some videos on basket weaving or something.

[@stevemartin7464]

But they may get those wrong too and then I wouldn't know how to weave a basket.

[@paulbade3566]

I think the script writer meant to say that EMALS is used INSTEAD of the steam catapults used on previous carriers.

[@hello_its_me.]

Paul, hopefully you'll get over the mistake.

[@paulbade3566]

@@hello_its_me. Nothing for me to get over. However, errors, propaganda, low information density, omissions of pertinent data and outdated material can lower my personal rating of a channel.

[@ExpeditionNomadicAdventures]

Government contractors correcting defects yelling Mo money, mo money, mo money!

[@bobbrezniak6386]

Lets see....first all new launch and recovery system in 60 years. Power generation more than 6 times previous ship...meaning shes built to accommodate nextgen electromagnetic weapons. Streamlined operating overhead to make sizable reduction in crew size (some reports over 1000). Increased airwing capacity. Basically one of the most complex machines on the planet that "has a few bugs". The Navy is giving CVN 80 the legendary name Enterprise....they have faith in this class

[@jamesb4789]

Bugs don't take 8 years to patch. The EMAL and AAG issues are fundamental design flaws that the best efforts of crew and shipyard people can not correct.

[@Subdood04]

If you want to trust the military industrial complex -and the woke brass in the military, go ahead.

[@michaelwilliams2430]

@@jamesb4789 The problems are ALREADY fixed.

[@stratolestele7611]

​@@jamesb4789 your 'current events/facts' are dated.

[@fkchci681]

@@jamesb4789 you do realize most of the info in this video is old, don't you?

[@raywhitehead730]

The claimed number of "traps" for the Ford over an 8 month cruise is Nowhere near a record, even though it has more planes. The Nimitz, in its 2002/3 cruise had over 11,000! And I am not sure what a record is for a carrier cruise.. For years Navy Brass hid the deep problems that the Ford had. I bet they Still are. Other classes of aircraft carriers have been started with far less problems. Carriers I have been on: Enterprise, Roosevelt, Lexington, Midway. And Yes, that Lexington Was in WW2. CV16.

[@danmandanning]

Is the an EMP signature that is emitted with every launch?

[@billt6116]

I remember sitting at Port Orchard across the Bay from Bremerton Washington, Watching them test the "cats" During an upgrade to the now decommissioned constellation. The waited carts would cause a splash higher than the Ship's superstructure. An observing aircraft was almost splashed out of the sky!

[@ScoutSniper3124]

Loving that M-14 line throwing gun. 1:16

[@timtrewyn453]

General Atomics was recently awarded a contract for over $1 billion to "improve" EMALS. I would think the USS Doris Miller will be paused until the new EMALS 2.0 is proven. Considering that the air gap between a stator and moving "rotor" is rather small, and a large ship does flex somewhat, it does not surprise me that frequent adjustment is necessary. The lack of sectionalization of the four catapults is also a bit stunning. Hopefully, the Miller will get it all right.

[@grayfox1422]

The Dory Miller has not even begun construction. The JFK is about to be launched/christened (CVN-79). Next up and under construction is CVN-80, the USS Enterprise. After that (and the first steps to construction are large steel pieces being cut), would be the CVN-81 Doris Miller. Although a wonderful gesture of recognizing a patriotic fighter at Pearl Harbor who later lost his life in the Pacific War, the Biden administration HAD TO choose that name for political reasons. (He was a black sailor.) The carrier after that has yet to be named but it is said the powers that be want to return to names if battles and famous ships and AMERICA has a strong cheering section as well. Personally, I would like a few dead Presidents recognized too like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are not scheduled for replacement for decades. We have recent Presidents on a number of the carriers to include FORD, REAGAN, GEORGE HW BUSH, JOHN F KENNEDY. A periodic visit to the Navy's web site is best source of the latest info on ship/naming decisions.

[@EDouble1]

"Fatal" design flaws? Foh

[@8731GC]

Haha

[@robertstoneking7916]

They were at one point. That's why delivery was 18 months late

[@EDouble1]

@@robertstoneking7916 No, they weren't fatal.

[@ryanside9117]

I’m glad I checked the comments at the start of the video.✌️

[@ADR-j9m]

Not to mention potential laser weapons that require tremendous amounts of electricity.

[@markoconnell804]

2:45 the F-35B can and does do that.

[@andy41417]

Any effective countermeasure to hypersonics?

[@paulbade3566]

That depends on the particular form of the attacking weapon. Ballistic intercepts are now almost routine. Hypersonic maneuvering vehicles may be more difficult, but not impossible. The g-force tolerance of such a weapon poses a physical limit on its ability to get past countermeasures, and its path necessarily becomes more predictable as it approaches its target. I surmise the ability to knock down hypersonic vehicles is one of the goals of the rail gun program.

[@WardenWolf]

Sensors failing? That's something that's fairly easily fixed by the manufacturer usually. It sounds like overall it's good, just has some minor kinks left which nonetheless don't have a severe impact on performance since parts can be replaced much more easily.

[@paulbade3566]

I'd bet it's something unanticipated like steel capacitor leads being bent by the electromagnets. That would crack the seals or attachments in the capacitors, or wear out the solder connections. Since almost all capacitors with wire leads use steel wire, the fix will be expensive since the parts would no longer be off-the-shelf. This will lead to some Congress critter grandstanding about paying $30 for a part that usually costs less than $2.

[@brucelownhole]

What is that first graphic displaying? The Ford, no matter how impressive, is not by any metric more powerful than France. What do those bombs even represent?

[@jyvben1520]

yeah, hey comms signal the enemy to pause actions while we call a contractor to repair ... expected downtime about a week but the submarine depth charge system looks good, must remember to reverse the ship as not to blow up the bow !

[@marktheaardvark7208]

No big deal, Every new weapon system is basically obsolete as soon or shortly after it’s deployment, The hope is that the advancements are good enough to keep the weapon relevant for long enough until the next generation comes along,

[@denisethorbjornsen7493]

We don't want the enemy knowing what is on our aircraft carriers

[@BernhardSchwarz-xs8kp]

Tell that to Mark Milley. He called the Chinese every time Trump made a move that could get them into trouble. And he is still there.

[@fredcarr3550]

A basis tenor is:if it ain't broken, don't try to fix it. All these new systems installed in this carrier, had suppliers and lobbyists who, probably made donations to the politicians and in turn they then pushed for the Navy to purchase same. That the new systems wouldn't work as promised, were not really considered by those benefitting from the acquisitions. Is there any difference between them and those whom it is said, stole from Russia's defence programs?

[@soilmanted]

What are those numbers beginning to be shown at 0:15? How many tons each ship can carry? How many tons each ship weighs? How come the numbers keep changing? Makes no sense. And what are those pictographs to the left of each changing number? Can't be the number or airplanes that can be stored on each carrier? The airplanes take off and land on a carrier much like they do on a land-based runway - horizontally. They don't take off or land vertically. More senselessness.

[@paladin0654]

Sources for this?

[@marvinbanka7592]

The Ford would not be deployed unless it was ready.

[@alanrobinson4318]

Would an EMP blast cripple those systems ??? If so, then an analog version, unaffected by EMP, would be the most advantages.

[@Michaeldavis-il6od]

Men need food!

[@johnstark4723]

whoever made this video is very uneducated on the USS Ford. The catapult and elevator issues were fixed 2 years ago. There is no carrier afloat that can be at war for 5 months without resupply. The Roosevelt was supplied every couple of days. Actually do research before posting BS!

[@drjdsjr]

That's "can not be overstated."

[@joejaenisch5839]

And why would you tell everyone about those flaws

[@Shipspotting_Vietnam]

The problem might be already fixed!

[@danhextor7436]

Mechanical rule 1: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[@oliverwh5350]

0:20, true 1:50, true. Beyond fact.

[@lancerevell5979]

Whoever programmed this TTS voice needs a course in Adult Literacy.

[@danielmainville5612]

Just like the battle ships 100 years ago became obsolete ,these big floating target are now obsolete . Concentrating so much military asset was an issue that was debated 50 years ago , and now with the development hypersonique missile I dont think they will be build anymore .

[@narref04]

This is "Americas Secret Weapon"??? Theres NOTHING SECRET about this giant ship!

[@user-393cbm]

Blessings & Godspeed DOD…🇺🇸♾️😎

[@alanwright7819]

Gee, who would have thought that an aircraft carrier named after Gerald Ford would be prone to stumbling? 🤔

[@jamesb4789]

Actually, the issues are real and would have a real impact on combat capability. The Weapons elevators as installed were junk. The Navy had to build a special facility in the Philadelphia Navy Yard to redesign and make major modifications for each elevators. Of the original 11, only 3 functioned at the minimum requirement. The original elevators have been removed one by one. The AAG in the original ship spec called for 4 wires for combat redundancy. Pentagon Brass sided with the contractor and went with 3, but the Navy was able to provide for installing a 4th system and it will be installed at an overhaul. the lack of the forth wire has lead to delays in landings while crews rush to get the wires set up. As the crew gained experience, the landings between failures rose but are far below the Nimitz class. EMALS was a wonderful toy for the top Brass and has been a very poor performer. The EMALS have NEVER hit their launches between failures and are still far below the Nimitz class . Worse, the EMALS design requires ALL 4 catapults be brought down to work on a damaged or failed unit since the can not be isolated. In combat that would mean simply ignoring the failed cat until operations allowed enough time to halt air operations. The numbers are better than 2 years ago but far below spec. All three of these systems were designed by General Atomic I believe. Correct me if I am in error. The company had ZERO carrier experience and little experience on any combat vessels. They were given the contracts by the politicians in the Pentagon for political reason. The Navy's preferred supplier was a regular adn understood ships an their systems. And they were the low bid. But somehow the Obama White House pushed GA. Do you think it was because their largest stock holder was a major fund raiser for Obama??? the Ford has come in at least $ 6 Billion over budget and it will take a lot more cash to fix. The Navy has been forced to delay a lot of new ships and stretch out overhauls to scrape up the cash. The worst part is the Ford was supposed to be have double the reliability fo the Nimitz class but is struggling to hit the Nimitz minimums. The Ford's deployment last year was primarily an extended shakedown cruise to figure out solutions away for prying eyes. Ford is the least effective carrier listed as read for duty and there is no end in sight. People leaving comment fail to remember that this ship has been in the water and a mess since 2016. WE are now hitting 8 years of debugging and shakedown with hopes of a resolution any time soon . And many of the known design flaws were carried over to JFK. A large number of design changes were made for Enterprise so there is hope for the class, but the Ford remains a vast money pit and I am afraid JFK will be too until the rotten designs are replaced.

[@Subdood04]

Yep. Well said.

[@raywells2858]

The "Bomb Farm" is located normally behind the Island starboard side somewhere to afford its safety and for ready issue. What you referred to as the Bomb Farm here is the magazines storage areas and assembly areas. I spent 21 years as a Ships Company Aviation Ordnanceman and was an instructor to teach that NEC at Namtragrudet 4033 North Island Ca.

[@WTH1812]

Upgrades in technology always have as many bugs as a cicada swarm. But without upgrades, the flaws and deficiencies of current tech become exposed and exploitable over time.

[@pearsonfrank]

A couple of relatively cheap stealth UAVs and UUAVs with hypersonic missiles would cripple this expensive show boat.

[@fkchci681]

When a new ship of even a tried and proved design is first launched, it will have issues.

[@jamesb4789]

The have been operating he carrier for 8 years and they can not fix the major issues. There are serious design flaws.

[@fkchci681]

@@jamesb4789 funny, they have only had possession of it for 7 years.

[@miscprojects9662]

Gay sailors not being able to lift munitions is a major problem for any combat vessel.

[@aquariuswithfire]

Did the magnets get wet? LOL

[@PeterLee-zn3jl]

Alarming TAG LINE IS BUNKO.. NEXT...?

[@terminusest5902]

Marine F-35Bs can launch from US carriers without catapults. Just to be pedantic. It is possible the Navies F-35Cs could operate without catapults but with significant disadvantages. Using a larger portion of the deck, carrying less fuel and bombs. To be even more pedantic. Super Hornets may also have this capability. And would likely require full afterburners. B-25 bombers did so during WW2 with shorter decks, no catapults and far less power. Catapults remain a very important advantage. Future carriers should be built to carry either steam or electric drives until the electric drives are proven. And more or larger bomb elevators added. They could even have steam power from the reactors. Or more batteries. Which could be used as counterweights.

[@brucerines]

The Ford is a very expensive ship to build and operate. As such I believe that manufacturers should step up to the plate and carry through with their products to ensure utmost reliability. The United States Navy has always been a world leader. This is a great nation that will continue to be a world leader.

[@rexbentley8332]

When diplomacy fails? That's just the last step in diplomacy, often times I think it should be the first step. C1As could do a deck run to launch but why I don't know.

[@RodneyGodwin-dm5fj]

Awesome, and wonderful. Rodney Alan Godwin RAG 24

[@LeeHarris]

that is one giant sitting duck

[@BernhardSchwarz-xs8kp]

Are you talking about Mark Milley?

[@djprentowalker8878]

Lol😂

[@raywhitehead730]

About being at sea and operating continuously. That record goes to the British. In the very early 1800's the British had ships operating at sea continuously for as long as 5 years. That's right, 5 years.

[@theconchonetwork498]

I think what they mean by operating continuously meaning they did not make landfall to resupply, obviously this wouldn't apply to the British in the 1800s

[@ffwest12]

The Ford was pushed into production long Before the brand new systems were fully tested and vetted. Elevators, arresting gear and catapults cause millions upon millions in cost overruns, because of the systems not being fully vetted. It also caused this birdfarm from being able to deploy until way after she was commissioned. Normally a ship before it can be commissioned, it must pass builder trials and then pass acceptance trials. Only then are they "Normally" ready to be commissioned and PLACED INTO ACTIVE SERVICE. Because of delay after delay problem after problem they allow this POS to be commissioned without being able to Deploy. I find it interesting that the cost overruns mandated only 3 AAG's. This whole fiasco was pushed through by Politicians that have no idea what they were wanting done. This has become the norm in DC. Another case is the Zumwalt Destroyer. Again tons of equipment that was not fully tested causing cost overruns ended up costing the whole class to be built and the decision not to manufacture the ammunition for the main deck guns.

[@timtrewyn453]

There is something to say about land-based system models. The Burkes have been well served by this. EMALS may have required nothing less than a pared down test ship that would work out what rough seas might do to the system. General Atomics recently received a $1 billion contract to "improve" EMALS.

[@johnseah5678]

What is the probability that the Fujian will NOT be severely handicapped by these 2 problems (electromagnetic catapult and advanced arresting cable system) that have plagued the USS Gerald Ford?

[@davedixon2068]

they just have to fix the cracks in the Fujian's deck

[@timtrewyn453]

If they bought or stole the original plans . . .

[@johnseah5678]

@@timtrewyn453 That's the WRONG answer. If the Chinese copied the US design, they would run into the same problems as the USS Gerard Ford!! By the way, the various problems plaguing the Ford have not all been solved yet, as the design of Ford's EMALS catapult system seems sub-optimal.

[@timtrewyn453]

@@johnseah5678 General Atomics was recently awarded another $1 billion to "improve" EMALS.

[@johnseah5678]

Fujian's electromagnetic catapults were tested successfully during the recent 4th sea trials, launching both J-15 fighters and KJ-600 (the Chinese equivalent of the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye). The PLAN took only a few months to test and demonstrate the reliability of their version of EMALS compared a few years by the USN. The Chinese version uses DC power instead of the AC power used on the Ford. If any of the 4 catapults on the Ford develops a problem, all 4 catapults have to be shutdown to fix the problem. But on the Fujian, any problem affecting one catapult can be fixed by isolating that faulty catapult without having to shut down other catapults. The Chinese design is clearly superior and works from the get-go.

[@davidtennien39]

Ckick bait, the Uss Gerald R Ford has been on deployment for ayear now with no issues.

[@leroyessel2010]

Ocean water as fuel source by Eirex Tech in Canada.

[@peterhall8572]

A steam cat can be fixed with a wrench and a hammer, Electronic stuff doesnt do well when exposed to a sea water environment

[@BSGNZ]

I'm one minute in,, and I'm going to guess the electric catapults are one of the issues...

[@onlyme112]

What an excellent video! Very informative and easy to follow. I'm not surprised this carrier has a problem. After all, it's a Ford.

[@charleswesley9907]

Electric Launch and electric elevators were a big payoff scheme that will never work.The only way to fix it is to have steam catapults and elevators .

[@77space-vt8wi]

Basically what we have here is click bate.

[@MordaxTenebre]

you do know that she's a test bed ship, like the last Enterprise was for the Nimitz class.

[@rolop847]

It's not steam launch it is electric launch

[@zogzog1063]

Short point: It's complicated.

[@willdsm08]

The Ford is first in class. This means it will be used to troubleshoot and fix problems before, and as, the next in class are being built and trialed. Every new weapons system needs to be used and abused in order to find out what breaks. All of this is standard and expected for the first ship in a new class.

[@timtrewyn453]

Many systems can be proven in land-based labs. New systems for the Burkes get tested out thoroughly on land before being implemented at sea. $13 billion is too much for a test ship. Something like EMALS could work fine on land with a launch now and then. It needed to be pushed hard in a land lab, and then tested after and in rough seas on a pared down test ship.

[@skenzyme81]

Behold, the USS Drone Magnet. Sure, the carrier group can shoot down 100 cheap drones. Can it shoot down 10,000?

[@billdouglas2936]

The battleships became obsolete when the carriers came into their own. The carriers will become obsolete as anti-ship missles become much more effective.

[@bobmorgan1575]

Every new innovation in weaponry breeds a new countermeasure for it.

[@richardloewen7177]

I got an intimation of these problems years ago. I saw a documentary on design discussion in this ship, which showed disturbing mindset-revealing planning re the washrooms. Old-school planning is to build different-style washrooms for men and women. With urinals (men's washrooms), there are at least 4 advantages. #1 More units per washroom, since urinals can be more closely spaced than toilet cubicles. More people get cycled through faster😮, freeing people up for urgent ops. #2 Less time (in urination) at the urinals vs. doing so in a toilet cubicle. Further speeding throughput. #3 less spill mess, and less smell. #4 better hygiene (health!) and improved morale. Thus, old-school-- the increased cost of dedicated washtooms, front-loaded in budget (as construction costs), leads to multiple operational dividends (and reduced costs). The right way to do it. BUT, done in self-congratulatory (over-confident) tone, the documented discussion of "improved" and "more scientific" washroom design on this new ship--toilet cubicles only--let the design costs go down, but at the price of increased operational costs and headaches. The planners wanted themselves to look good, while not caring a fig sbout downstream headaches. Seeing this, I thought, "Oh, boy!" AND "What will be the results of this design philosophy on the other systems in this ship?" The present documentary shows further negative consequences.

[@CynthiaRoberts-ii1tl]

Hyper-sonic missiles made carriers obsolete.

[@shaung8182]

SHE is awesome!! Well done America!! EVERY new ships have teething difficulties in the beginning of the ships life!!

[@mogeking56]

No bathroom every sailor has to urinate and poop 💩 off the side of the ship every hour every day

[@steve25782]

These aren't critical design flaws; It's just predictable debugging of radically new systems. Give the Ford a year or two to get the bugs out and get the crew trained. :-)

[@Ned-r4t]

From reports there was 21 new technologies in the Ford class. Way too many, Ford carrier's will always be a problem child! Just as the LCS, which all have been decommissioned, at a cost of $500,000,000. Per!

[@byronyoung4302]

why do they have a gripen?

[@Oldguy-k3t]

Can Ford defend itself from hypersonic missles?

[@rodcozad2585]

Why do we tell our enemies this?

[@Jonasbarbury]

Can you imagine the problems China's having

[@ericstyles3724]

11 Aircraft Carriers & no Health Care.. The United States of Spartan Inequity.