The U.S. Navy’s first Ford-class aircraft carrier, the future USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), has begun its second set of sea trials called acceptance trials, on Wednesday.
The builder’s sea trials began April 8 at Huntington Ingalls Industries [HII] Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Va. and lasted until April 14 (Defense Daily, April 14). Following those trials the ship was moved to Naval Station Norfolk. The ship has been under construction since 2009.
These acceptance trials are meant to demonstrate to the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) the carrier’s ability to conduct operations at sea and that the ship is constructed in accordance with contract specification. This involves operating many of the ship’s key systems and technologies.
Acting Secretary of the Navy Sean Stackley told the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Wednesday that the Navy expects the Ford to be delivered later this month and that it “is delivering on promised capability, as demonstrated by land-based, pierside, and at-sea testing to-date.”
However, Stackley noted the cost for the Ford-class ship remains a concern.
“The Navy and industry are focused on capturing lead ship lessons learned, refining the ship construction process, capitalizing on technological improvements, and enhancing shipbuilder facilities to drive down cost,” he said in prepared remarks.
The secretary reiterated to reporters following the hearing that he had read no orders from President Donald Trump on changing the carrier’s catapult from a electromagnetic aircraft launching system (EMALS) to the older steam system, but that he is willing to brief the president on the matter.
In an interview earlier this month, Trump said the Navy should jettison the electromagnetic aircraft launcher on its new carriers in favor of the outdated steam-powered catapults. “You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good,” Trump said (Defense Daily, May 11).
“I’ve read the statements that the president has made. I look forward to the opportunity to present the traits that supported the prior decision to determine the [EMALS] path going forward,” Stackley said.
He explained the Navy has previously looked at what would be required to return to steam catapults in terms of cost, schedule impacts, operations, generation rate, impact on crew, and maintainability while the 2009-2010 timeframe decision on the catapult found EMALS is the most affordable and best operational catapult option going forward.