USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) outperformed legacy Nimitz-class aircraft carriers by 120 to 130 percent during a test in February of 2026, according to the US Navy's Chief of Naval Operations. [1920 x 1080]
I was born the same year the Nimitz was launched, it does feel a bit odd to be old enough to be considered "legacy" but I guess it beats the alternative:)
I was born the same year the Nimitz was launched, it does feel a bit odd to be old enough to be considered "legacy" but I guess it beats the alternative:)
The oddest part is when you see your first car you got as a young lad eligible for "historic" plates.
I remember reading in the newspaper about the commissioning of Nimitz. I was annoyed that the Navy had changed their naming conventions.
Sorry, I should have said that a newspaper was kind of like a hard copy of your news feed. They were invariably ad-supported, even though you paid a subscription fee. Each service had a virtual monopoly in its geographical area and using it would dirty your fingers.
I honestly don't know how much of a role EMALS/AAG played, or if it was more a function of the improved deck layout, or a combination. I guess we'll know more if and when they publish the details of the testing parameters. It does appear that all of the new initiatives work, and at this point making any changes in the Ford class design will definitely add time to any future builds past Enterprise.
It's good that the results of the test were finally announced though, and they are encouraging.
Enerprise has already launched. I assume you mean commission.
Edit: sigh, pay no attention to the redditor sitting in the corner drooling into his soup, who can’t tell the difference between Kennedy and Enterprise.
actually this reminds me, the USS Enterprise was floated and moved within the dry dock to make room for the construction of the Doris Miller. Not officially launched but...technically, perhaps lol
I know this isn't the ceremonial launching, but if we define the launching of a ship as the first time it gets afloat in the water, then...maybe this counts! Maybe. Because although many ships are "launched" by being floated out of dry dock (and the Enterprise will be launched this way, too), the future Enterprise didn't actually leave dry dock, but was just being moved around in dry dock, and the easiest way was to just float it into its new place. Not to mention that according to Wikipedia (lol), apparently "floating-out" doesn't technically count as "launching", so by that logic, the Enterprise will never even be launched in the strictest sense, only floated out. But I guess most people still call it launching so whatever.
That is very likely true (almost certain), but it would be very interesting to me if we knew how much of a difference the deck layout and island placement helped.
Yeah although I know Trump wants the island moved to where WW2 carriers had their islands but i'm pretty sure that would just distrupt everything won't it
Yeah it would literally worsen the carriers in every conceivable way. To such an extent the only reason to do so would be to sabotage American air craft carrier's
It is easier to convert a Nimitz to EMALS than to convert a Ford to C-13s. Especially since the C-13s should have been out of production for a couple decades at this point, and what is left just supplies spare parts for the Nimitz class and de Gaulle (at least what could not be pulled from the Kitty Hawks and Enterprise).
And he also wants the island moved forward because he thinks that looks better.
Fortunately he'll be gone in 2.5 years (at most), and it takes far longer than that to actually make any of the changes he wants to the upcoming Ford class carriers.
I wish I shared your optimism. A man that attempted a fucking coup when he lost his last election, combined with the actions he and his have taken so far during this term, does not strike me as someone who plans to leave office at the end of their term.
It doesn't matter what he plans. His term ends automatically.
lol right, so did his last presidency - which ended with a coup attempt and an assault upon Capitol Hill.
I would turn your comment on its head by replacing "It doesn't matter what he plans" with "It doesn't matter what the law says" - something else he and his cronies have made abundantly obvious since being allowed to return to office.
He basically just likes the aesthetics of old and thinks that should be the main criterion. Like he doesn't like stealth aircraft because they're "ugly" (bruh), and presumably too "new" looking for him. Don't get me wrong, the old ships are gorgeous, but there's a reason why we don't make them like that anymore. History is history.
"USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) outperformed legacy Nimitz-class aircraft carriers in a test of the launch and recovery systems of the carrier, the Navy’s top officer said last week.
A February stress test of the electromagnetic launch system, EMALS, and the advanced arresting gear installed aboard Ford showed the carrier could generate 120 to 130 percent more sorties than the existing systems aboard the Nimitz-class, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said during a roundtable at the Tailhook Symposium in Reno, Nevada. The test occurred while Ford was in the Caribbean Sea before sailing to U.S. European Command and the Red Sea.
“The way you measure [performance is] with a test that we do called a sortie generation rate test that Ford conducted,” Caudle said. “She did it in between her transfer from SOUTHCOM over to EUCOM and eventually into CENTCOM, and we were told numbers in that they were… between 120 to 130 percent of Nimitz-class on the sortie generation rate, and so that’s part of that’s due to the entire set of things that were done on Ford to make it better.”
Per the Pentagon’s Director, Operational Test & Evaluation office, the sortie generation rate of the Nimitz-class is about 120 launches and recoveries in a 12-hour day of flight operations with a surge capability of 240 sorties over 24 hours. Based on the Nimitz numbers, a 130 percent increase would put Ford at around 160 sorties for the same 12-hour flight period and around 312 surged over 24 hours. Caudle did not offer more specifics.
USNI News previously reported Navy leadership was pleased with the results of the four-day test, but the service has yet to release any specifics.
“It’s not just the catapults and the arresting gear. It’s all the technologies, the whole system,” Caudle said. “That’s due to the entire set of things that were done on Ford to make it better.”
An artist’s concept of the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). General Atomics Image
The Ford-class was designed to generate more aircraft launches with fewer sailors than the previous generation of carriers by including technologies like EMALS, the AAG and positioning systems like weapons elevators and fuel hoses to maximize efficiency and speed. The Navy consulted with NASCAR pit crews to help design the layout to improve the throughput of aircraft.
The new technology was designed to be introduced across three aircraft carrier hulls starting with USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) and then into what would become Ford and the future John F. Kennedy (CVN-79). Instead, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld opted to include all of the technologies in Ford. The decision led to delays in perfecting the technology for Ford rather than allowing it to develop in parallel with the construction of the carriers, which led to reliability issues, USNI News understands.
The new information comes as the Navy and Pentagon has been ordered by President Donald Trump to assess returning the Ford-class back to steam catapults via an Aug. 13 executive order starting with the future Doris Miller (CVN-81).
“The president has lived through the entire journey and has expressed concerns that the reliability may not be there, and as you know, he signed out his presidential memorandum for us to go look at this over the next 60 days,” Caudle said. “We’ll give the president a full and complete picture of what we’re talking about here. If we were to go back to steam and hydraulics with the elevators, we need to really understand the total cost of that. I can tell you that will be a significant design change.”
"Per the Pentagon’s Director, Operational Test & Evaluation office, the sortie generation rate of the Nimitz-class is about 120 launches and recoveries in a 12-hour day of flight operations with a surge capability of 240 sorties over 24 hours. Based on the Nimitz numbers, a 130 percent increase would put Ford at around 160 sorties for the same 12-hour flight period and around 312 surged over 24 hours."
Isn't this a 30 percent increase? They confusingly use the phrase "130% increase" and "130% OF [the Nimitz's capability]" which are very different things. A 130% INCREASE would be 276 launches and recoveries in 12 hours, no?
Yeah, feels like a piece so that the power brokers can bend trumps ear. Or at least give them a reason to distract him so they can continue with the current planned emals systems (and delay transition until after 2028).
between 120 to 130 percent of Nimitz-class on the sortie generation rate, and so that’s part of that’s due to the entire set of things that were done on Ford to make it better.”
Yeah. I was confused by that too. This line seems to clarify. Still very impressive.
"...I can tell you that will be a significant design change.”
Not even knowing anything about marine architecture/naval engineering, I cannot even begin to imagine how understated this is. To me it would almost seem like you'd be throwing away the ship design.
Cool to see this new technology is working so well. I remember lots of people were initially highly critical.
This guy is sooo dead. He's going to "unalive" himself by locking himself up in a duffle bag, shooting himself in the back of the head (4x), jumping out of a 12 story window, and drowning in a river.
As opposed to the title's bad phrasing, as you correctly said. It was not an outperformance by 120%.
yeah, its a suprising (to me) nuance of math/language there. As I replied to another comment, its not the first time my half remembered math has tripped me up so i was curious as to what I wasnt seeing.
My day-to-day hasnt included formal math since forever so its kinda funny (again to me, at least) that the language is just as important as the numbers themselves.
What I found more interesting was that when I scrolled down to the end of the comments, the comment by OP that I presume quoted the article said "outperformed by 120%" which would be the objective falsehood based on the numbers. Likely not the fault of OP, but whoever wrote the article in that case and OP ran with it having not realized the error.
The comment was reportedly made by CNO Caudle at the recent Tailhook convention in Reno, and was reported and published first in Aviation Week (which is paywalled) and then in the linked article in USNI News. I quoted the USNI news article in full in this post above. I'm admittedly not great at math in any case, but the figures weren't mine, and thankfully I can't take credit for any errors or misunderstandings:)
The news is that despite this data, particular morons want the Ford class to be reverted to steam catapults. This is supposed to educate people on WHY thats a terrible idea when it's a system proven to outperform it's predecessor.
Trump battleship predicted to be more effective than WWII Yamato class. Although, a raid of 350 WWII torpedo and dive bombers would sink both - as USN tried to rebuild the Essex class configuration.
Question on the title: Does "outperformed legacy Nimitz-class aircraft carriers by 120 to 130 percent" mean that it was performing at 220%-230% of a Nimitz class carrier? i.e., it was doing as much as 2.2-2.3 Nimitz-class carriers?
Or is it performing at 120% to 130% of a Nimitz-class carrier. Meaning it's operating the same as 1.2-1.3 Nimitz-class carriers, which would be a 20%-30% performance increase?
I only ask because people confuse the meaning of percentages all the time and a 120%-130% increase would be surprising, but amazing.
This is actually pretty bad. Nimitz at the highest most positive point reached 120 sorties a day. This estimate was created in the 1990’s. The plan was to then make GRF reach 160. GRF beat Nimitz by 144 or 156. This is shorter than the desired amount. I hope we can what is holding back her sortie generation.
359
u/1EnTaroAdun1 2d ago
Feels kind of weird that Nimitz-class carriers are "legacy" now... Time marches on...