From Navy Times

 

Next-gen carrier launch system could be shelved

By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Apr 6, 2009 15:46:34 EDT

 

A decision point is looming for the Navy’s biggest shipbuilding project: whether to launch carrier aircraft using cutting-edge — but untried, over-budget and behind-schedule — electromagnetic technology, or return to heavy, bulky, maintenance-intensive steam catapult systems that offer proven reliability.

 

Acting Navy Secretary B.J. Penn and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead are to be briefed in mid-April by service officials on the status of the electromagnetic aircraft launch system, which is to be installed on the new Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, a three-star admiral said. The briefing also will include cost, schedule and other data that would result from replacing EMALS on the carrier with steam cats.

 

The review was spurred by technical development problems with EMALS that took place last year, causing further cost growth and production delays. Navy officials declined to reveal cost growth figures, citing the ongoing study, while industry officials have characterized the most recent delays as adding “a couple months” to the schedule.

 

Fabrication work on Ford already has begun, making an early decision on the launch system a necessity before construction proceeds much further.

 

But putting a finer point on the issue is the apparent desire by the Navy to include changes to the carrier program in the fiscal 2010 budget now being prepared by the Pentagon and the Obama administration. The budget is expected to be submitted to Congress in mid-May.

 

Navy officials have not released any cost figures for a potential steam system swap-out.

 

“We don’t know what the delay would be. We don’t know what the cost would be,” Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, deputy chief of naval operations for integrations of capabilities and resources, told reporters April 1 after testifying before Congress. “Obviously at this point in the design of an aircraft carrier, if you’ve got to change it, there would be some delays and some cost increase. We just want to make sure we understand all the options.”

 

Some commercial sources have speculated that the total cost of a swap could approach $1 billion. Such a figure would include purchase of the systems, extensive redesign work in many areas of the ship, the cost of schedule delays, and provision for additional crew members to operate and maintain the system. Unofficial estimates of the added number of people that would result from installing a steam system vary, although it may be no more than 35 to 40 additional sailors.

Untested waters

 

Concerns over the viability of the EMALS are not new, and have long been part of the Ford-class carrier program. Although the ship’s keel-laying is to take place later this year, the first launch of a live aircraft by an EMALS isn’t scheduled to happen until 2010.

 

According to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, the EMALS won’t demonstrate full performance of a shipboard-ready system until at least seven months after system installation is to begin on the ship, and after the flight deck has been laid down. The GAO cites the EMALS as one of the highest risk factors in keeping the construction of the new carrier on cost and schedule, along with the untried dual-band radar system.

 

The option to revert to the steam system has been “an option since the inception of the program,” Allison Stiller, the Navy’s top shipbuilding official, said after testifying with McCullough.

 

Earlier, in response to a question about EMALS from House Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., Stiller explained that, “We’re looking at all options. There has been cost growth to the EMALS system. We’re looking at the total cost of acquisition and life cycle for EMALS and steam. We’re looking at schedule and what does that do if we went back to steam on CVN 78. What would that do to schedules. We’re in the process of getting information from industry so that we can make an informed decision.”

 

Asked by Murtha whether the EMALS problems were slowing the construction schedule, Stiller replied, “We do not see that it will have an impact on the actual schedule of the carrier at this point in time.”

 

Another key lawmaker is headed to the EMALS factory near Tupelo, Miss., to check on the situation.

 

Asked April 1 whether he thought the EMALS program was in trouble, Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., chairman of the House Armed Services seapower subcommittee said, “I don’t know. I’m hearing different things. That’s why I’m headed down to the factory next week.”

Confidence from builder

 

Scott Forney, head of the EMALS program for manufacturer General Atomics, expressed confidence that past problems with the system have been resolved.

 

“We lost a couple of months last year” in the schedule, he said in an April 1 interview, acknowledging “a couple of months of difficulty between September and December.” But the company is keeping to a new, revised schedule agreed on in January.

 

“We’ve been marching to it ever since,” Forney said. “I am pretty confident in our schedule, that we can support the schedule for the aircraft carrier. We have great confidence in the schedule.”

 

Forney declared support for including a backup plan in the carrier program.

 

“I certainly endorse having a backup plan, and the backup plan is steam,” he said.

 

A six-month margin for delivery to shipbuilder Northrop Grumman has been built into the EMALS development schedule, Forney said. “We start delivering material from 2010 to 2014. We help install hardware. Everything has to be available to install by 2014.”

 

Delivery of Ford to the Navy is scheduled for September 2015.

Maybe we can ask the Brits for some help, isn't their specialty new carrier tricks after all <_>

 

In all seriousness though I'm rooting for EMALs, it must save a lot of trouble over the life of the ship and probably extend the life of the launched aircraft as well with the ease of manipulating the acceleration at each part of the launch.

DoD just awarded a $573 million production contract. More here.