[ Post a Response | The SteelNavy.Com Message Board ]
Posted by Ralph Wood on August 18, 2026, 02:49:50, in reply to "Re: Next shoe to fall NSF"
So, for 10 prior cutters, the government supplied the standard, then switched on the 11th? Government furnished equipment in this context referes to things like the weapons, ECM, radars, etc. These systems are purchased under separate contracts by the government, then supplied to the yard to install. The ship was 15% complete, so not to that stage. This was contruction material, and that's the yard's to source. I like your out-of-the-box thinking, though. 
Previous Message
or the shipyard rejected the gov supplied materials as substandard?? Previous Message
Looking into that got me this source:
https://www.workboat.com/shipbuilding/dhs-cancels-11th-national-security-cutter
From it, this:
"The forecasted delays and setbacks were associated with a contract related dispute,” according to Kimberly Aguillard, spokesperson for HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding. “We worked collaboratively with the Coast Guard to reach a mutually acceptable resolution that supports and aligns with the Coast Guard’s overall cost-saving objectives.”"
The nature of the contract dispute would seem to be the root of the matter, but most articles, including a USNI article simply repeat this wording nearly identically and don't explain the dispute.
However, from this source:
https://maritime-executive.com/article/trump-s-homeland-security-dept-cancels-order-for-incomplete-uscg-cutter
Comes this info:
"USCG had reported to Congress that there were issues with the project saying that construction of the 11th ship had been halted since at least November 2024 with the ship 15 percent complete. It blamed “material conformance concerns,” and said that the Coast Guard and the shipbuilder were working to resolve the issue."
Material conformance concerns means the CG found the yard using substandard material. That is on the yard, not the government. Work then got halted over the dispute, and that delay ran up costs.
So, this issue is preventable in the future by better oversight of the yard. As we've all seen, there are certainly other ways it can go wrong, though, so your outlook is understandable. We can't "not try," though. Previous Message
Yep, the NSF (National Security Frigage) derived from the National Security Cutter. Number 11 for the Coast Guard was behind schedule and over budget, that's why they cancelled it. Same shipyard is building NSF, here we go again. Previous Message Previous Message
Nice write-up, Ralph. Thanks! Previous Message
Ships operating F-35s--B or C models--require installation of some specialized electronics in a "classified" compartment. Without this, they're perfectly capable of handling the aircraft, but not "operating" it. F-35s have extensive data link ability, and this classified compartment permits full use of that feature. Ford was built somewhat concurrently with F-35C development, so the compartment was not added, but planned for "later." For "scheduling" reasons of some sort, it was also to be skipped until later for JFK. It was scheduled for Enterprise. When Congress found that out, they had a fit and mandated that JFK be fitted. It was "preposterous" that America's newest ship not be able to operate America's newest plane! Fine and dandy, but that blew the schedule. The ship is/has been fitted, but there's one more delay.
For the F-35B, vertical version, the jet blast is so hot that special deck coatings are required. The Marines and the Navy worked together to expedite both the "secret compartment" and the deck coating on the Amphibs. AFAIK, they can all now operate F-35B. If I'm not mistaken, they--at least initially--did not coat the entire flight decks. F-35Bs can/could only land and launch from specific treated parts of the deck. I have heard that the jet blast deflectors of the CTOL carriers also need this coating. For its carrier trials, it was launched and landed from ships not fitted out for its operation, so I am guessing those then at least got their blast deflectors coated.
Excepting Nimitz and Eisenhower, all carriers that have had an RCOH (Refuleing, Complex OverHaul) are equipped to operate the F-35C. Those still to receive RCOH will get the ability then. Ford will eventually also be "caught up," possibly in this current extensive maintenace period. JFK now can, and Enterprise was always scheduled for it.
One last tidbit... the old C-2 Greyhound could not carry replacement F-35 engines. They don't fit inside. The new CMV-22 Osprey can carry them. So, the RCOH carriers which were operating F-35s also had to have the CMV-22 available. If only Greyhounds were available, spare engines had to be dismantled and shipped in assemblies. At least one carrier...T. Roosevelt, I think...did that, and I think the delpoyment was brief. Obviously not ideal, and not widely practised. The C-2 is now fully retired from carrier use (though still some land based use remains) so "this little detail" is no longer in play. Previous Message
My best guess is that due to the stealth technology used in the F-35, it takes several years to train the crew in maintenance and care of the aircrafts systems.
Dean Previous Message
why does it take several years to make a carrier f35c capable??? it was designed as a carrier aircraft from the start???? Previous Message
The linked article stated that the trials began on 12 August.
It is true that the new systems caused delays to the programme.
However, reverting to the long-out-of-production systems of the Nimitz class would require a significant redesign of the Ford-class ships and cause further delays.
The Ford class is designed around an electric system. Replacing them would require not only a redesign around this system, but also of the entire energy system and distribution, e.g. the transfer of steam to the catapults. Perhaps 50% of the ship would need to be redesigned, and new production lines would need to be set up for outdated technology.
Responses « Index