MAGA Dotard's $13B Gerald Ford Carrier fucked up at sea again, and back into dry dock for another few month's delay! GVGT!

[Ang4MohTrump]

https://taskandpurpose.com/navy-gerald--ford-carrier-problems




The Navy's $13 billion supercarrier is still having major problems
Ryan Pickrell, Business Insider
March 27, 2019 at 10:34 AM

Military Tech

content.jwplatform.com

The U.S. Navy's new supercarrier continues to face major problems that will delay its delivery to the fleet for three months as the service bets big on this troubled ship, Navy officials revealed Tuesday.
Following testing and evaluation with the fleet, the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford began a yearlong maintenance and upgrade process at Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia last July, with expectations that the carrier would return to the fleet this summer.
The Ford is now slated to spend at least another three months in dry dock due to unforeseen problems with the ship's nuclear power plant, the weapons elevators, and other areas, USNI News reported Tuesday, citing recent testimony by Navy officials before the House Armed Services Committee seapower and projection subcommittee.
"October right now is our best estimate," James Geurts, the assistant secretary of the Navy for research development and acquisition, told the committee.
The weapons elevators, of which the Ford only has two of the necessary 11, have long been an issue, but the propulsion problem is reportedly less understood.

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is maneuvered by tugboats in the James River during Ford's turn ship evolution. Ford is currently undergoing its post-shakedown availability at Huntington Ingalls Industries-Newport News Shipbuilding (U.S. Navy/Petty Officer 2nd Class Ryan Seelbach)

The problems with the ship's main turbine generators appear more serious than initially indicated when they were discovered during sea trials.
The main turbine generators use steam from the ship's two onboard nuclear reactors to generate electricity for the ship's four propeller shafts, USNI News reports, adding that sources familiar with the repairs say that two of the turbine generators need "unanticipated and extensive overhauls."
The issue first appeared in May of last year, when the ship was forced to return to port early. "The ship experienced a propulsion system issue associated with a recent design change, requiring a return to homeport for adjustments before resuming at sea testing," the service told Navy Times.
As The War Zone notes, the $13 billion Ford has experienced numerous problems affecting everything from the arresting gear and catapults to its radar systems, yet the Navy is pushing ahead with purchases of this new class of carrier while proposing early retirement for an operational Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.
In its fiscal year 2020 budget proposal, the Navy announced plans to retire the USS Harry S. Truman two decades early rather refuel the ship's nuclear cores to power it for another quarter century. The move will reportedly to free up billions for a block buy of two Ford-class carriers and investment in unproven and untested unmanned systems the service has determined will be necessary for future combat.
The Ford continues to face developmental challenges as the service is moving forward on future Ford-class carriers — the USS John F. Kennedy, the USS Enterprise, and a yet to be named carrier identified only as CVN-81.
The embattled flagships are expected to play a crucial role in power projection, but setbacks have raised questions about when exactly it will be ready to play that part.
Read more from Business insider:

• The Pacific is filling up with submarines, raising warnings about an underwater code of conduct
• I spent a day with the US Coast Guard in the Port of Miami, where units search for drug smugglers and unauthorized migrants
• U.S. Navy wants to get rid of an aircraft carrier to buy new weapons needed for a next-level fight with China
• Japan sent fighter jets to intercept a new kind of Chinese sub-hunting plane for the first time
• The Marines have big plans to upgrade their tanks, but they're still well behind the Army

SEE ALSO: The Navy's Newest Carrier Finally Has The Critical Weapons System That The Navy Secretary Staked His Job On — And It Actually Works
WATCH NEXT: The Navy's Lethality Push




EMALS Gerald R. Ford Aircraft Carrier U.S. Navy uss gerald r. ford news

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

Earlier problem 2019:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-planes-in-the-air-or-safely-back-on-the-deck

Navy's New Carrier Still Can't Reliably Get Planes In The Air Or Safely Back On The Deck
The Navy's newest and most advanced carrier can't make it through a day of operations, on average, without a launch and recovery system failure.
By Joseph TrevithickJanuary 30, 2019

• The War Zone

USN
SHARE
Statistics from a new Pentagon report show that the troublesome electromagnetic catapults and new arresting gear on the U.S. Navy's newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, performed terribly during at-sea trials over the past two years. The news comes just weeks after the Pentagon approved plans for a block buy of two more of Ford-class flattops in an attempt to help cut ballooning costs. The first-in-class USS Gerald R. Ford, also known as CVN-78, was billions of dollars over budget at the time of delivery in 2017 and continues to require significant and costly work.
Bloomberg was first to report the new details about the Ford's dismal performance in 2018 after obtaining a copy of the latest annual review from the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, more commonly known as DOT&E. Every Spring, this office releases public reports on how well, or not, various high-profile military systems performed in testing in the previous fiscal year, which ends in September. These reviews often include data compiled over multiple years, as well.


CVN-81, The Fourth Ford Class Supercarrier, Is Slated To Cost A Whopping $15BBy Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone
Shock Trials or No, the Navy's Newest Supercarrier Is Still an Unreliable DebacleBy Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone
The US Navy's Newly Delivered Supercarrier Still Needs a Ton of WorkBy Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone
Mattis's New Unpredictable Carrier Strike Group Deployment Strategy Has BegunBy Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone
Navy Could Extend The Life Of USS Nimitz Past 50 Years To Maintain 12 Carrier FleetBy Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone
We have yet to see the full report for ourselves, but DOT&E's latest examination of Ford shows that Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) suffered 10 "critical failures" across 747 aircraft launches in at-sea trials since delivery in 2017, according to Bloomberg. The Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) had 10 “operational mission failures” over the course of 763 landing attempts in that same time frame.

There are no additional details on what qualifies as a "critical failure" for the EMALS or an "operational mission failure" for the AAG. It is reasonable to assume these categories are instances where the catapults did not successfully launch the aircraft and that the arresting gear did not safely stop returning planes, for one reason or another.

USN
Ford with her deck devoid of aircraft during initial sea trials.
EMALS and AAG are essential for Ford's ability to conduct aviation operations and both of these systems, which are all-new to this class of ships, are also supposed to improve its capabilities compared to past flattops. These electronically operated and controlled launch and recovery systems allow the crew to fine tune how they get aircraft up in the air and get them safely back on the deck, at least in principle. When they're working correctly, the two systems are supposed to help increase the number of sorties the carrier can generate and reduce the physical strain on aircraft, lowering maintenance and logistical demands.
Suffice to say, so far this hasn't been the case and the persistent problems with the EMALS and AAG directly impact the carrier's ability to conduct actual meaningful operations. For testing purposes, in the past, the Navy has defined a typical day of operations as launching and recovering 84 aircraft in a 24 hour period. The required number of sorties could easily be far greater during combat, especially during the initial phases of a major conflict or even a smaller crisis.

At present, Ford “will probably not achieve” the required number of sorties per day due to “unrealistic assumptions" that “ignore the effects of weather, aircraft emergencies, ship maneuvers and current air-wing composition on flight operations," Robert Behler, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, wrote in his latest report, according to Bloomberg. But this latest review raises continued questions about whether the carrier can even meet those requirements under optimal circumstances.
“None of the interruptions experienced during CVN-78 flight operations caused injury to personnel, or damage to the aircraft or ship,” Michael Land, a U.S. Navy spokesperson, told Bloomberg. The tests provide "an insufficient number of events from which to draw conclusions with respect to reliability," he added. General Atomics, which makes both the EMALS and the AAG, declined to comment to Bloomberg on any specifics about the performance of the two systems.
But based on the data in the previous DOT&E report, the Ford's performance still sounds absolutely dreadful. As of 2017, the EMALS was suffering a critical failure once every 455 launches. This was already nine times more frequent than the Navy's desired rate.
If the information from the new report is accurate, during at-sea testing, the catapults broke down once every 75 launches or so, a significantly greater rate than the previously stated average. Land, the Navy spokesperson, said that in the case of two of the critical failures, the ship only "briefly" suspended flight operations before the problem got resolved.

Again, however, previous DOT&E reports say that it takes a minimum of an hour and a half to just begin troubleshooting an issue since there is no way to shut down specific components of the EMALS in order to inspect them. We do not know if this has changed since 2017 or what the Navy defines as a "brief" pause in regular operations.
Unlike the EMALS, the AAG's demonstrated better reliability at-sea compared to its overall failure rate as of 2017. The arresting gear only experienced a major failure once every 76 recovery attempts, based on the information from Bloomberg.

The AAG was failing once every 20 landing attempts on average across all testing as of 2017, according to DOT&E's previous review. The Navy isn't likely to be impressed by this "improvement," though, given that the service expects Ford's arresting system to properly stop aircraft in 16,500 consecutive landings on average before experiencing a major fault.
We'll have to wait to see the full report to be sure, but its likely that it contains additional criticisms of Ford's performance, or lack thereof. Starting in November 2018, there have been a series of reports detailing persistent difficulties with the ship's electromagnetically-operated Advanced Weapon Elevators, which that move ordnance to and from the main flight deck.

USN
Sailors stand inside the newly delivered weapon elevator onboard the USS Ford in January 2019.
The Navy only formally accepted delivery of the first of these elevators on Ford in December 2018, more than a year after taking delivery of the ship itself. The carrier is still waiting on 10 more of them, meaning that it lacks another major set of components critical to regular operations.
The question is increasingly becoming whether or not all of these issues will have gotten resolved by the time the next Ford-class carrier, the future USS John F. Kennedy, is set to get commissioned in 2024. The cost of that ship has already risen to around $15 billion. This two billion more than Ford and four-and-a-half billion more than the Navy insisted the ships would cost initially, in spite of higher cost estimates from government watchdogs and the shipbuilder, Newport News Shipbuilding.
A third example, the future USS Enterprise, is also already under construction. The Navy has not yet received any actual funding for the two additional ships it wants to purchase in the block buy.
Unfortunately, the Navy already has a "carrier gap" that has made it difficult to meet existing demands for naval airpower, let alone the added strain of a sudden crisis. Given what we know of Ford's capabilities at present, it's anyone's guess when that carrier might be ready to contribute to actual operations in anything but an emergency capacity.
Contact the author: [email protected]

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

Problems non-stop from DAY 1 !

https://news.usni.org/2016/07/12/cvn-78-delivery-pushed-back-due-first-class-issues

Ford Carrier Delayed Again Due to ‘First-of-Class Issues’

By: Megan Eckstein


July 12, 2016 12:49 PM

Tug boats maneuver Pre-Commissioning Unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) into the James River during the ship’s Turn Ship evolution on June 11, 2016. US Navy photo.
Delivery of the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) has been pushed back again, this time by about a month and a half due to ongoing first-in-class challenges.
Navy spokeswoman Capt. Thurraya Kent told reporters that the ship’s current estimated delivery date is now November 2016, though the program manager told USNI News in May that delivery was on track for late-September. Kent said that “during the ongoing testing of developmental systems onboard the CVN-78, first-of-class issues are continuing to be resolved” and that if additional challenges arise the date could be pushed back further.
Naval Sea Systems Command spokeswoman Colleen O’Rourke told USNI News that no one system caused the delay, but rather the Navy and shipbuilder are “working through some first-of-class issues” generally.
The ship was originally planned to deliver to the Navy in March 2016. That was pushed back by six to eight weeks, as announced in September 2015, due to “deterioration” in progress that would cause a slip in the ship’s test schedule.
Problems with the Advanced Arresting Gear threatened to further delay delivery, but then-Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers Vice Adm. Tom Moore told USNI News in October 2015 that, even though AAG wouldn’t be certified to trap all the different aircraft types prior to the ship’s delivery date, that work would not affect the ship’s delivery date.
Even when that manned AAG testing and certification effort in New Jersey started nearly two months late, CVN-78 Class Program Manager Capt. Chris Meyer told USNI News in May that the ship was on track for a late-September delivery – which reflected a further delay beyond the previously announced eight-week delay but was not a result of AAG testing challenges. Meyer explained that the delays in the AAG tests – which are taking place at a ground facility at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J. – would have little to no operational impact on the ship because AAG installation and testing could take place concurrently. The Navy already understood that the AAG system would be installed but not tested when the ship delivered, and the aircraft recovery tests would take place post-delivery during the six-month post-shakedown period.
“It’s important to remember that we’re not going to start on day 1 on the ship launching and recovering fleet aircraft,” he said of the ship shakedown. The island on the flight deck is shaped and located differently than is the island on Nimitz-class carriers, and the Navy will need to measure how that will affect the wind patterns for flight deck operations. Early at-sea testing after the ship’s delivery will support rotary wing dynamic interface testing, Meyer said, followed by air traffic control certifications with its new radar systems, and eventually Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and AAG testing with test squadrons.
It is unclear what role, if any, AAG played in the most recent delivery delay, with Navy spokespeople declining to discuss individual systems.
Still, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) took aim the program in a blistering statement Tuesday, saying “The Navy’s announcement of another two-month delay in the delivery of CVN-78 further demonstrates that key systems still have not demonstrated expected performance. The advanced arresting gear (AAG) cannot recover airplanes. Advanced weapons elevators cannot lift munitions. The dual-band radar cannot integrate two radar bands. Even if everything goes according to the Navy’s plan, CVN-78 will be delivered with multiple systems unproven.”
“This situation is unacceptable and was entirely preventable,” the statement continues.
“The Ford-class program is a case study in why our acquisition system must be reformed – unrealistic business cases, poor cost estimates, new systems rushed to production, concurrent design and construction, and problems testing systems to demonstrate promised capability. After more than $2.3 billion in cost overruns have increased its cost to nearly $13 billion, the taxpayers deserve to know when CVN-78 will actually be delivered, how much developmental risk remains in the program, if cost overruns will continue, and who is being held accountable.
McCain singled out the AAG program, noting it has seen more than $600 million in cost overruns and should trigger a Nunn-McCurdy critical breach.
“As the Department of Defense Inspector General reported last week, ‘Ten years after the program entered the engineering and manufacturing development phase, the Navy has not been able to prove the capability or safety of the system to a level that would permit actual testing of the system on an aircraft carrier,’” McCain said.
“Returning to a variant of the Mark 7 arresting gear is a viable option that must be considered during the Nunn-McCurdy review.”
The Navy could not immediately characterize what testing was left between now and delivery. As of last month, ship construction is 98-percent complete, 97 percent of the spaces have been turned over to the Navy and 89 percent of shipboard testing is complete.
EMALS tested completed in May, with 242 total dead load launches – large weights to simulate the various aircraft types that will launch from the ship – among all four catapults. All six dual-band radar arrays, three of them multi-function radar arrays and three volume search radar arrays, have been energized at full power, and the MFR arrays have tracked targets of opportunity in the area.
The ship’s propulsion plant is still being tested, and the ship turned itself around in a “turn ship evolution” June 11, which was the first time the ship had moved from its pier since it left the dry dock in November 2013. O’Rourke said the evolution demonstrates that the crew can safely get the ship underway and also allows the remaining testing to take place once the ship is facing the opposite direction.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...w-failure-at-sea-as-u-s-navy-seeks-more-funds



U.S. Navy’s Costliest Warship Suffers New Failure at Sea
By
Anthony Capaccio

May 8, 2018, 4:00 PM GMT+8

The Gerald R. Ford, the U.S. Navy’s costliest warship, suffered a new failure at sea that forced it back to port and raised fresh questions about the new class of aircraft carriers.


The previously undisclosed problem with a propulsion system bearing, which occurred in January but has yet to be remedied, comes as the Navy is poised to request approval from a supportive Congress to expedite a contract for a fourth carrier in what was to have been a three-ship class. It’s part of a push to expand the Navy’s 284-ship fleet to 355 as soon as the mid-2030s.



It was the second failure in less than a year with a “main thrust bearing” that’s part of the $12.9 billion carrier’s propulsion system. The first occurred in April 2017, during sea trials a month before the vessel’s delivery. The ship, built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc., has been sailing in a shakedown period to test systems and work out bugs. It’s now scheduled to be ready for initial combat duty in 2022.


‘Manufacturing Defect’

The Naval Sea Systems Command said the Ford experienced “an out of specification condition” with a propulsion system component. Huntington Ingalls determined it was due to a “manufacturing defect,” the command said, and “not improper operation” by sailors. The defect “affects the same component” located in other parts of the propulsion system, the Navy added.



Navy officials didn’t disclose the problem during budget hearings before Congress in recent weeks, and House and Senate lawmakers didn’t ask about it.
Shelby Oakley, a director with the U.S. Government Accountability Office who monitors Navy shipbuilding, said the latest part failure was “unfortunate, but this and other ship quality issues are not surprising. The Navy has had issues with the extent of its inspections prior to delivery from the shipbuilder.”
The Navy is seeking approval in the fiscal 2019 defense request to accelerate purchase of the fourth Ford-class carrier by bundling it in a contract with the third. It expects to request congressional support over the next month or two for what’s now an estimated $58 billion program.
Trump’s Promise
President Donald Trump promised the “12-carrier Navy we need,” up from 11 today, when he stood on the Ford’s vast deck during a visit in March 2017 to Newport News, Virginia, where Huntington Ingalls built the ship and is headquartered.

The Ford’s propulsion system flaws are separate from reliability issues on its troubled aircraft launch and recovery system and less publicized delays with its 11 advanced weapons elevators for moving munitions, which are not yet operational.
In the January incident, the bearing overheated to what a March 8 Navy memo described as "92 degrees Fahrenheit above the bearing temperature setpoint” and “after securing the equipment to prevent damage, the ship safely returned to port."
A failure review board is identifying “modifications required to preclude recurrence,” it said. The bearing is one of four that transfers thrust from the ship’s four propeller shafts.
The Navy and Huntington Ingalls “are evaluating the case for a claim against the manufacturer,” so the amount of repair costs to be paid by “the manufacturer has not yet been determined,” William Couch, a spokesman for the Sea Systems Command, said in the statement.
It’s “encouraging that the Navy wants to hold the manufacturer accountable, however, it is unclear what warranty provisions the Navy has,” Oakley said. “The Navy has a cost-reimbursement contract with the shipbuilder, where the Navy pays the shipbuilder’s costs in exchange for its best efforts to build the ship, and also did not have a warranty with the shipbuilder.”
GE’s Role
Couch and Huntington Ingalls spokesman Beci Brenton declined to say who made the bearing that failed.
But General Electric Co. is responsible for the propulsion system part, and the Navy program office said in an assessment that an inspection of the carrier’s four main thrust bearings after the January failure revealed “machining errors” by GE workers at a Lynn, Massachusetts, facility “during the original manufacturing” as “the actual root cause.”
Deborah Case, a GE spokeswoman, said in an email that “GE did produce the gears for the CVN-78. However, we are no longer producing gears for CVN-78” and “we cannot comment on the investigation.”

The CVN-78 is the official name of the Gerald R. Ford.
Couch said defects “will be fully corrected” during the ship’s upcoming “post-shakedown availability” phase. All vessels go through the phase intended for correcting deficiencies discovered during the post-delivery sea trial conducted by sailors.
The post-shakedown availability was supposed to start last month and end in December. Its start is now delayed until this summer in part because of the failure, with completion about a year later, according to Couch.



https://navaltoday.com/2018/05/23/uss-gerald-r-ford-returns-to-port-with-propulsion-issues/

The US Navy’s newest aircraft carrier was forced to return to port after suffering another propulsion issue as it set out for a new round of at sea testing.

The recently-commissioned USS Gerald R. Ford got underway from Norfolk on May 19 but was forced to return due to a propulsion system issue related to a recent design change, a Navy Times report says.

This second propulsion issue is unrelated to a previous one identified earlier this year. According to Navy Times, the current issues are related to mechanical failures which prevent steam produced in the ship’s nuclear plant from adequately spinning the ship’s 30-ton propellers.

According to the report, the USS Gerald R. Ford was expected to spend a longer period of time underway prior to heading to Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News yard for a post-shakedown availability maintenance which is designed to rectify all issues identified during the sea trials.

On April 2, 2018, HII received a contract potentially worth up to $66.5 million to carry out the PSA which is expected to be completed by June 2019.

Every new ship undergoes a post-shakedown availability (PSA) after going through a test and evaluation period. During the availability, contractors repair or improve the design of the ship in preparation for final contractor trials.

While CVN 78 is the first new US aircraft carrier design in 40 years and identifying problems with the ship’s design and systems is part of the evaluation process, officials are still concerned with some of the brand new systems installed on the lead ship in the class.

In its latest report, the director of operational test and evaluation identified poor or unknown reliability of the newly designed catapults, arresting gear, weapons elevators, and radar. All these systems are critical for flight operations and DOT&E notes they could affect the ability of CVN 78 to generate sorties, make the ship more vulnerable to attack, or create limitations during routine operations.

USS Gerald R. Ford was ordered from Huntington Ingalls Industries, on Sept. 10, 2008 while the keel laying ceremony took place on November 13, 2009. The aircraft carrier was launched on October 11, 2013, and started sea trials in April 2017. Ford entered service in July 2017.

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

 

[Hypocrite-The]

How is Yankee land going to fight a war with ah tiong land or with anyone when their most atas ship is out of commission even b4 it is fully operational?

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

How is Yankee land going to fight a war with ah tiong land or with anyone when their most atas ship is out of commission even b4 it is fully operational?

Chinese already cooked US Navy completely by Strength of Warship production (400% of USA in 2018) and by Strategic Warship Capability Design (forced USA to abolish useless and expensive Zumwalt DDG-100 & LCS pet warship ideas) Now they are forced to write of hundreds of billions of dollars and decades of time for development and go back to drawing board.

US was in total freedom of naval combat strategies, it was their absolute playing field and they control all oceans after Soviet collapse, and their warship / fleet design was dominance. They used to shape the planet's water battle fields. Russia only got advantage with Submarines. China was only able to coastal defense. But the game totally changed in Dotard's hands, now Chinese warship & fleet design & production, completely put US Navy in a hopeless handicap position. They are not only forced to catch up but also to give up and to struggle holding on to their last straws. Drowning in the water which they used to be World ACE.

Chinese ships will win not just by scale and speed of production but by their combat performance capabilities, which clear-cut cannibalize US Navy fleets. Better Radars, better missiles and better weapon payload capacities. Better OVERALL WAR SYSTEM (super spy satellites, BDS-3, communication network better than 5G, super killer Rocket Army, super drones etc.) Most advanced Chinese Missiles, range + speed + UN-interceptable trajectory, better radars (Quantum Radar Tera-Hertz, Lidar, anti-stealth), better Laser Weapons, & most successful Electro-magnetic Rail Guns. Everything beats USA. Clear Cut advantages forced US Navy to withdraw all their expensive and fancy loser plans & games & toys, Zumwalt cut from scheduled 32 ships stopped at 3rd ship. Littoral Combat Ships proven too weak can be easily killed by PLA with many options.


They go back to drawing board, will still lose at the next round because the Chinese got better abilities and drawings already on the drawing boards. By the time US navy build what they draw to counter the current PLA Navy, the PLA will enlarge the gap even further and wider, with much newer war toys that US cannot imagine.

In simple words, US lost the arm race.

https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2019-03-29/doc-ihsxncvh6442933.shtml

一年造一个法国海军:中国2018年下水军舰吨位是美4倍

一年造一个法国海军:中国2018年下水军舰吨位是美4倍



873

原标题：一年造一个法国海军！中国2018年造船造疯了：足足是美国的4倍
海军的建设总是牵动着万千军迷的心，而海军的总吨位，以及每年下水和服役的总吨位，也总有一些热心的军迷进行着总结。近日就有一张可视度很高的2018年全球主要海军国家舰艇下水总吨位图，这张图一出，在军迷圈儿里可谓是一片掌声。为何？从这张圆饼形的分析图中可见，我国的下水舰艇总吨位，占了2018年全球下水舰艇总吨位的约40%，达到了20万吨，这是一个什么概念呢？

20万吨的总量虽然并不能算很多，但熟悉海军的军迷都知道，一艘美军的尼米兹级航母排水量10万吨，伯克级驱逐舰排水量约9800吨，一艘俄罗斯22350型护卫舰排水量4500吨，一艘法国的西北风级两栖攻击舰排水量2万吨。20万吨也就相当于一年下水了2艘核动力航母，或20艘驱逐舰，或40艘护卫舰，或10艘两栖攻击舰。而这仅仅是一年之中我国下水的舰艇总量。有一句话在军迷圈儿中是这样流传的：“我军一年开工一个舰队，一年下水一个舰队，一年服役一个舰队”，此话绝非虚言。
那么这20万吨的下水舰艇总吨位具体都是哪些舰艇呢？小编详细的梳理了一下，总结如下：

三艘052D改型驱逐舰+三艘055大型驱逐舰+10艘056型轻型护卫舰+一艘054A型护卫舰，大概是75500吨
两艘071型综合登陆舰+1艘903A型综合补给舰+两条远洋双体海洋调查船，共91000吨
两条远洋拖船+两条医院船、2-3条636A型远洋调查船、至少一条094型弹道导弹核潜艇、至少4条081型扫雷舰还有不明数量的726A型气垫登陆艇，这些合计58000吨。
这些舰艇总计约22.45万吨，如此计算下来，对比图中的20万吨，显然真正下水的总吨位更多一些。这几乎相当于法国海军的总吨位。

当然，这只是小编粗略的一些统计，除了这些为外人知道的舰艇，海军还有一些诸如勤务船、补给船和密级程度很高的舰艇并未列入其中，但总吨位显然是只会更多不会更少。在表中我们看到美军的下水舰艇总吨位已经是很突出了，却也仅仅相当于我军的四分之一，究其原因，其实最大的缘故就是美军在去年并未下水太多的主力舰艇：伯克级尚处于伯克3型前期准备的阶段，核潜艇按部就班不紧不慢的下水，核动力航母由于只有一个船坞能够建造，因而隔几年才能下水一艘，只有LCS濒海战斗舰依旧稳步推进建造和下水，因此，这5.8万吨的下水量并没有反应美军真实的建造能力和总规模。
但是，如果除去美军，我军22万多吨的总吨位，恰好等于其他所有国家下水总吨位的总和，要知道，这其中可是包含了诸如英国皇家海军、法国、意大利、俄罗斯、日本等传统海洋和海军强国，还有诸如巴西、澳大利亚、印度、韩国、印尼等海上新贵，而表中甚至没有荷兰、西班牙等“祖上富裕”的海洋豪强。由此可见，我军虽然是在补齐历史发展造成的欠账，但依然在这个方面显示出了一个建设远洋海军的伟大梦想。（作者署名：利刃军事 利刃/东风破）


https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2019-03-29/doc-ihtxyzsm1410359.shtml

中国已找到美航母编队弱点 正以罕见速度造055大驱

中国已找到美航母编队弱点 正以罕见速度造055大驱



315

055首舰已挂上彩旗准备服役仪式
中国正在开展世界史上规模罕见的水面舰艇建造工作，以图在短期内打造一支最先进的海军。据俄罗斯军事网站近日发表的题为《海战：中国挡住美国舰队的去路 中国海军找到美国航母集群的弱点》的文章称，中国海军在主力驱逐舰的建造上，正以世界罕见的速度“下饺子”堪称世界第二强的055舰即将服役就体现了这一点。随着更多大型驱逐舰以及现代化核动力航母的服役，中国海军将在接下来的10年将继续崛起，并达到向美国海军的独大地位发起挑战的水平——至少是在西太平洋。

055舰的体积和战力堪比巡洋舰
从已获知的信息来看，055舰装备精良，是中国为自己的航母战斗群打造的主要护航力量。该舰长度超过180米，宽20米，满载排水量超过12000吨，可配备防空、反导、反舰和反潜武器，具有112个VLS单元，是一种令人生畏的海上军事力量。尽管中国海军正式将其归类为“驱逐舰”，但它的大小和作战能力超过了传统的大中型海军战舰标准，因此在美国国防部的年度中国军事力量的报告中，055舰被称为“巡洋舰”。

055舰将成为中国海军的作战核心
更重要的是，055型驱逐舰一旦服役，将与直-18预警直升机联网，形成协同作战系统。在实战应用中，055舰将与歼-15舰载机、直-18预警机、052C与052D型驱逐舰以及海军其它作战平台所携武器形成“协同作战能力”（CEC）。这不仅意味中国海军远洋战力又向前迈进了一大步，也进一步提高了远洋编队的态势感知能力，可使航母编队的攻击与防御能力迈向更高的里程碑，必将更有效的增强中国航母编队的整体作战能力。

中国海军走向远洋有了保护伞

在中国海军设想的远海作战中，需要面对的是拥有全维空间作战能力的强大对手，而能应对这一切的惟有055舰。预计防空反导能力突出的055舰批量服役后，依靠其强大的综合作战能力，无论是以其为核心组建水面舰艇战斗群，或是加入航母战斗群作为护航舰艇，都可大幅提升中国海军的整体作战能力。也许过不了多久，具有世界先进水平的中国海军航母战斗群，在大量先进的水面与水下舰艇以及战机的支持下，必将发展成为可与世界一流海军比肩的强大海上力量！（作者署名：军评陈光文）


Create a French navy in one year: China’s tonnage of launching warships in 2018 is 4 times more beautiful


Create a French navy in one year: China’s tonnage of launching warships in 2018 is 4 times more beautiful



873



Original title: Create a French navy in a year! China’s shipbuilding in 2018 is crazy: it’s four times that of the United States.

The construction of the navy always affects the hearts of thousands of military enthusiasts, and the total tonnage of the Navy, as well as the total tonnage of the water and service each year, is also summarized by some enthusiastic military enthusiasts. Recently, there is a highly visible tonnage map of the launching of major naval ships in the world in 2018. This picture is a round of applause in the military fans. Why? It can be seen from the analysis of this round shape that the total tonnage of China's launching ships accounts for about 40% of the total tonnage of launched ships in the world in 2018, reaching 200,000 tons. What is the concept?

Although the total amount of 200,000 tons is not a lot, but the military fans familiar with the navy know that a US military Nimitz-class aircraft carrier has a displacement of 100,000 tons, and a Burke-class destroyer has a displacement of about 9,800 tons. A Russian 22350 frigate With a displacement of 4,500 tons, a French northwest wind-class amphibious assault ship has a displacement of 20,000 tons. 200,000 tons is equivalent to two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, or 20 destroyers, or 40 frigates, or 10 amphibious assault ships. And this is only the total number of ships that have been launched in China during the year. There is a saying circulating in the military fans: "Our army starts a fleet in a year, a fleet of ships in one year, and a fleet in one year." This is by no means a false statement.

Then, which ships are the total tonnage of these 200,000 tons of launching ships? Xiaobian detailed sorting out, summarized as follows:

Three 052D modified destroyers + three 055 frigates + 10 056 light frigates + one 054A frigate, about 75,500 tons

Two Type 071 Integrated Landing Ships + 1 Type 903A Integrated Supply Ship + Two Oceanic Double Body Marine Survey Ships, totaling 91,000 tons

Two ocean-going tugs + two hospital ships, 2-3 636A ocean-going survey vessels, at least one 094-type ballistic missile submarine, at least four 081-type minesweepers, and an unknown number of 726A air-cushion landing crafts, which total 58,000 tons.

These ships total about 224,500 tons, so calculated, compared to 200,000 tons in the figure, it is clear that the total tonnage of the actual launch is more. This is almost equivalent to the total tonnage of the French Navy.

Of course, this is just a rough summary of some statistics. In addition to these ships known to outsiders, the Navy also has some ships such as service ships, supply ships and high-density ships, but the total tonnage is obviously only more More will not be less. In the table, we can see that the total tonnage of the US military’s launching ships is already very prominent, but it is only a quarter of our army. The reason is that the biggest reason is that the US military did not launch too much water last year. Ship: The Burke class is still in the pre-preparation stage of the Burke 3 type. The nuclear submarine is stepping into the unhurried launch. The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier can only be built because only one dock can be built. Only the LCS Littoral Combat Ship can be launched every few years. The construction and launching of the water are still steadily advanced. Therefore, the 58,000 tons of water does not reflect the true construction capacity and total scale of the US military.

However, if the US military is removed, the total tonnage of our army of more than 220,000 tons is exactly equal to the sum of the total tonnage of all other countries. It should be noted that this includes traditional oceans such as the Royal Navy, France, Italy, Russia, and Japan. And the naval powers, as well as maritime upstarts such as Brazil, Australia, India, South Korea, Indonesia, etc., and the table does not even have the ancestral wealth of the Netherlands, Spain and so on. It can be seen that although our army is making up the debts caused by historical development, it still shows a great dream of building a distant ocean navy in this respect. (Author's signature: sharp blade military blade / Dongfeng broken)



Https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2019-03-29/doc-ihtxyzsm1410359.shtml


China has found the weakness of the US aircraft carrier formation. It is making a 055 drive at a rare speed.


China has found the weakness of the US aircraft carrier formation. It is making a 055 drive at a rare speed.



315



055 the first ship has been hung up for the bunting ceremony

China is carrying out the construction of a rare surface ship in the history of the world, in order to build a state-of-the-art navy in the short term. According to a recent article published by the Russian military website entitled "Sea Battle: China's Blocking of the US Fleet, the Chinese Navy Finds the Weakness of the US Aircraft Carrier Cluster", the Chinese Navy is "making dumplings" at the speed of the world at the construction of the main destroyer. This is reflected in the fact that the 055 ship, the world’s second-largest ship, is about to enter service. With more frigates and modern nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in service, the Chinese Navy will continue to rise in the next 10 years and reach the level of challenge to the US Navy's dominant position – at least in the Western Pacific.

The size and combat power of the 055 ship is comparable to that of a cruiser.

Judging from the information already known, the 055 ship is well equipped and is the main escort force that China has built for its aircraft carrier battle group. With a length of more than 180 meters, a width of 20 meters and a full displacement of more than 12,000 tons, the ship can be equipped with air defense, anti-missile, anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons. With 112 VLS units, it is a formidable maritime military force. Although the Chinese Navy officially classified it as a "destroyer", its size and combat capability exceeded that of traditional large and medium-sized naval warships. Therefore, in the report of the US Department of Defense's annual Chinese military force, the 055 ship was called " cruiser".

055 ship will become the operational core of the Chinese navy

More importantly, once the 055 destroyer is in service, it will be networked with the Zhi-18 early warning helicopter to form a coordinated combat system. In actual combat applications, the 055 ship will form a "cooperative combat capability" (CEC) with the J-15 carrier aircraft, the straight-18 early warning aircraft, the 052C and 052D destroyers, and other naval combat platforms. This not only means that the Chinese navy's oceanic combat capability has taken a big step forward, but also further enhanced the situational awareness of the ocean-going formation, which will enable the aircraft carrier's attack and defense capabilities to move toward higher milestones, which will surely be more effective. The overall combat capability of the Chinese aircraft carrier formation.

The Chinese Navy has a protective umbrella for going to the ocean

In the long-sea battles envisaged by the Chinese Navy, it is necessary to face a powerful opponent with full-dimensional space combat capability, and only 055 ships can handle all of this. It is expected that after the 055 ships with outstanding air defense and anti-missile capabilities will be deployed in batches, relying on their strong comprehensive operational capabilities, whether they are building a surface warship battle group at the core or joining the aircraft carrier battle group as a escort ship, they can greatly enhance the Chinese navy. Overall combat capability. Perhaps it will not be long before the Chinese naval aircraft carrier battle group with world-class level, with the support of a large number of advanced water surface and submarine ships and fighters, will develop into a powerful sea force that can stand shoulder to shoulder with the world-class navy! (Author's signature: Military Review Chen Guangwen)

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

However the most fucktard idea of Xijinping is peace aka harmony hexie 和谐:



Written on the 1st model HSR train at the nose!

和谐 my ass! Planet Earth have no room for this luxurious civilized idea any more.

 

[syed putra]

Cost of maintaining China's hefty military will start to eat into its economy just as in the US.