Shock Trials: Why the U.S. Navy Detonates Massive Bombs Near Aircraft Carriers

[rangerrebew]

September 9, 2019

Shock Trials: Why the U.S. Navy Detonates Massive Bombs Near Aircraft Carriers

Some crazy testing.
by Kris Osborn

Is this a really bad idea?


The US Navy is planning to finalize weapons integration on its new USS Ford carrier and explode bombs in various sea conditions near the ship to prepare for major combat on the open seas, service officials said.

Service weapons testers will detonate a wide range of bombs, to include a variety of underwater sea mines to assess the carrier’s ability to withstand enemy attacks. “Shock Trials,” as they are called, are typically one of the final stages in the Navy process designed to bring warships from .development to operational deployment.

“The USS Gerald R. Ford will conduct further trails and testing, culminating in full-ship shock trials. The ship will then work up for deployment in parallel with its initial operational testing and evaluation,” William Couch, an official with Naval Sea Systems Command, told Warrior Maven earlier this year.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/shock-trials-why-us-navy-detonates-massive-bombs-near-aircraft-carriers-78961

[roamer_1]

Because blowing crap up is fun.
And almost blowing crap up is almost as fun.

[corbe]

   It'd certainly be embarrassing if the Air Force sunk the $13B USS Ford.

[PeteS in CA]

Having worked in defense electronics for a number of years, this doesn't at all surprise me. Every HUD or MPM or power module my companies shipped had to undergo vibration, mechanical shock, temperature (-54 - >+70C), and for parts used in aircraft, altitude testing. It totally makes sense that a multi-billion-dollar CVN would be tested to see if it could withstand realistic combat stresses.

[Cyber Liberty]

Having worked in defense electronics for a number of years, this doesn't at all surprise me. Every HUD or MPM or power module my companies shipped had to undergo vibration, mechanical shock, temperature (-54 - >+70C), and for parts used in aircraft, altitude testing. It totally makes sense that a multi-billion-dollar CVN would be tested to see if it could withstand realistic combat stresses.

I don't see the problem either.  Field testing is still a "thing."

[PeteS in CA]

I don't see the problem either.  Field testing is still a "thing."

While @corbe is correct, obviously, there are worse ways to discover a design or quality flaw.