Naval Air: USS Truman Gets Dent
Ezoic
April 15, 2025: On February 12th the aircraft carrier Truman (CVN-75) received a small gash in its hull and damage to its right side aircraft elevator when it collided with a merchant ships while approaching the Suez Canal. The Truman went to a port in the Mediterranean where it could have the damage repaired.
This wouldn’t have happened if the May 2019 retirement announcement of the Truman had been carried out. This was to save the cost of its mid-life upgrade and refueling of the nuclear reactors. The mid-life upgrade will cost $3.5 billion and takes five years to complete. At that point, Truman would be able to operate another 25 years. That would cost $20 billion. By retiring the Truman the navy would save about $24 billion over 30 years and that money would be used to build new, smaller, ships and buy new weapons. Retiring Truman would also allow the navy to order and build two new Ford class CVNs at once, which would save time and money. The decision to keep Truman in service was not about money, but the fact that the new Ford class CVNs were facing major problems with launching and recovering aircraft and somewhat less desperate problems with its new radar and some other mechanical systems. Keeping the Truman was also about the seemingly intractable problems the navy has building ships and developing new designs. Keeping the Truman is seen as a positive move towards fixing some fundamental management problems.
The Ford class has become a major crisis. In February 2018 the navy confirmed that it had major problems with the design and construction of its new EMALS Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System catapult installed in its latest aircraft carrier; the USS Ford (CVN 78) and the three other Ford-class carriers under construction. During sea trials, the Ford used EMALS heavily, as would be the case in combat and training operations and found EMALS less reliable than the older steam catapult. EMALS was also more labor intensive to operate and put more stress on launched aircraft than expected. Worse, due to a basic design flaw, if one EMALS catapult becomes inoperable, the other three catapults could not be used in the meantime as was the case with steam catapults. This meant that the older practice of taking one or more steam catapults offline for maintenance or repairs while at sea was not practical. The navy admitted that in combat if one or more catapults were rendered unusable, they remained that way until it was possible to shut down all four catapults for repairs. During the initial at-sea tests the EMALS failed once every 75 aircraft launches. The standard for steam catapults is one failure every 4,166 launches. The landing and recovery system also had reliability problems, failing once every 76 landings, which is far below the standard of one failure per 16,500 landings. In effect, these problems with launching and recovering aircraft make the Fords much less effective than the older Truman and other Nimitz class CVNs. The navy has long had a growing problem with developing new ships and technology and the Ford is the worst example to date. With no assurance as to when and to what extent the launch and recovery systems would be fixed and be at least as effective as the older steam catapults. the navy was overruled and told to keep the Truman.
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/2025041502847.aspx#gsc.tab=0
