War Stories

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is to be the lead ship of her class of United States Navy supercarriers. As announced by the U.S. Navy on January 16th, 2007, the ship is named after the 38th President of the United States Gerald R. Ford, whose World War II naval service included combat duty aboard the light aircraft carrier Monterey in the Pacific Theater.

The keel of Gerald R. Ford was laid down on November 13th, 2009. Construction began on August 11th, 2005, when Northrop Grumman held a ceremonial steel cut for a 15-ton plate that forms part of a side shell unit of the carrier. She was christened on November 9th, 2013. The schedule calls for the ship to join the U.S. Navy's fleet in March 2016 with the first deployment in 2019. Gerald R. Ford will enter the fleet replacing the inactive USS Enterprise (CVN-65), which ended her 51 years of active service in December 2012.

Gerald R. Ford is intended to be the first of a class of aircraft carriers that offer significant performance improvements over the previous Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Gerald R. Ford is equipped with an AN/SPY-3 active electronically scanned array multi-function radar, and an island that is shorter in length and 20 feet (6.1 m) taller than that of the Nimitz-class; it is set 140 feet (43 m) further aft and 3 feet (0.91 m) closer to the edge of the ship. Replacing traditional steam catapults, the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) will launch all carrier aircraft. This innovation eliminates the traditional requirement to generate and store steam, freeing up considerable below-deck square footage. With this EMALS innovation, Gerald R. Ford can accomplish 25% more aircraft launches per day than the Nimitz-class and requires 25% fewer crew members. The Navy estimates it will save $4 billion in operating costs over a 50-year lifespan.

However, these performance enhancers have proven problematic in Pentagon tests. In January, 2014, the annual Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report said that critical ship systems including the EMALS, Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), Dual Band Radar, and weapons elevators were not reliable enough and needed more testing and improvements. EMALS testing recorded 201 launch failures out of 1,967 launches, equaling a reliability rate of 240 mean cycles (launching of one aircraft) between critical failures. Testing of the AAG recorded 9 arresting failures out of 71 attempts, equaling a reliability rate of 20 mean cycles (recovery of one aircraft) between operational mission failure, a failure rate 248 times higher than should be expected. Those systems performed at a fraction of their requirements for shipboard configurations, and even less of required standards.

Radar and weapons elevator test data was not made available, but were also below expectations. The Navy maintains that further testing will resolve the problems. Gerald R Ford is projected to be able to generate 30 percent more sorties than Nimitz-class carriers, but the DOT&E report claims that is too optimistic, though the Navy also maintains that assumption based on modeling and simulations. Gerald R Ford is planned to complete Initial Operational Test & Evaluation in 2017 before entering service.

In 2015, it was revealed that the launching and landing systems on the Ford would place extra stress on aircraft, precluding the external fuel tanks needed for combat missions.

The E-series designs were simpler, cheaper to produce and more efficient than their predecessors; however, their design offered only modest improvements in armour and firepower over the designs they were intended to replace, such as the Jagdpanzer 38(t), Panther Ausf.G or Tiger II; and would have represented the final standardization of German armoured vehicle design. Indeed, nearly all of the E-series vehicles ? up through and including the E-75 - were intended to use what were essentially the Tiger II's eighty centimeter diameter, steel-rimmed road wheels for their suspension, meant to overlap each other (as on the later production Tiger I-E and Panther designs that also used them).

The American M26 Pershing, the British Centurion Mk 3, and the Soviet T-44 tanks would have been the Entwicklung series' E-50 and E-75 contemporaries and likely opponents.

- E-5
The E-5 was supposed to be 5-10 tonnes in weight and form the basis of a family of light tanks, reconnaissance vehicles, casemate-form turretless Jagdpanzer-style tank destroyers and armored personnel carriers. So far no evidence of this tank is found in primary sources, and is quite likely to be a purported design of potential post-war origin.

- E-10
Said to have been designed by the Klockner-Humboldt-Deutz Magirus AG firm in Ulm, the E-10 project was developed as a replacement of the Panzer 38(t) and the designs based on it. The 38(t) chassis was enlarged and redesigned. This new design was to be called PzKpfw 38 (d), d standing for deutsch ("German") as opposed to (t) for tschechisch ("Czech"). The designs based on this new chassis would all be in the 10 to 25 tonnes weight class, and using only four Tiger II-style but larger[citation needed] all-steel road wheels per side in an overlapping layout for its main "slack-track" suspension with no return rollers and a rear drive sprocket.

The intention was to create several new light tank destroyers as a replacement for the Jagdpanzer 38(t), as well as a new family of Waffentrager armed with heavy anti-tank guns.

- E-25
The E-25 designs, in the 25-50 tonnes weight class, were to be the replacements of all Panzer III and Panzer IV based designs, with Alkett, Argus and Adler, with involvement of the Porsche firm. This family would include medium reconnaissance vehicles, medium Jagdpanzer and heavy Waffentr?ger, using five Tiger II style road wheels but larger[citation needed] per side in a similar overlapping layout to the lighter E-10 suspension, also with "slack-track" design and a rear drive sprocket.

- E-50 Standardpanzer
The E-50 Standardpanzer was intended as a standard medium tank, replacing the Panther and Tiger I and the conversions based on these tanks. The E-50 hull was to be longer than the Panther, in fact it was practically identical to the K?nigstiger (Tiger II) in overall dimensions except for the glacis plate layout. Compared to these earlier designs however, the amount of drilling and machining involved in producing these Standardpanzer was reduced drastically, which would have made them quicker, easier and cheaper to produce, as would the proposed conical spring system, replacing their predecessors' torsion bar system which required a special steel alloy.

Other sources show that a variant of the narrow-mantlet 'Schmalturm' turret designed for the Panther Ausf. F would have been used, coupled with a variant of the 88 mm L/71 gun.

As indicated by its name, the weight of the E-50 would fall between 50 and 75 tonnes. The engine was an improved Maybach HL234 which had 900 hp. Maximum speed was supposed to be 60 km/h.

- E-75 Standardpanzer
The E-75 Standardpanzer was intended to be the standard heavy tank to be used as a replacement of the Tiger II and Jagdtiger. The E-75 would have been built on the same production lines as the E-50 for ease of manufacture, and the two vehicles were to share many components, including the same Maybach HL 234 engine. As its name indicates, the resulting vehicle would have weighed in at over 75 tonnes, reducing its speed to around 40 km/h. To offset the increased weight, the bogies were spaced differently from on the E-50, with an extra pair added on each side, giving the E-75 a slightly improved track to ground contact length.

According to some sources, the similarities between the E-50 and the E-75 went further; they were to be equipped with the same turret and 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 along with an optical rangefinder for increased long range accuracy. German scientists and engineers had successfully designed a Schmalturm, narrow-front turret and infra-red lighting and sights for use on the prototypes of the Panther Ausf. F as the war drew to a close.

The original complex suspension by torsion bars was simplified with bogies. The standard Tiger II turret was equipped with 8.8cm KwK 44 L71 gun. The engine was an improved, fuel-injected Maybach HL234 which had 900 hp.

- E-100
The earliest ancestor of the E-100 was the Tiger-Maus. The Tiger-Maus was never built, but it was to use components from the Tiger II and the turret from the Maus.

The E-100 was to be a superheavy combat tank designed to be the replacement for the prototype-only, Porsche-designed Maus. Development and building of a prototype E-100 started in 1944 but was largely abandoned after Adolf Hitler ordered an end to the development of the Maus.

Only the chassis was finished. It was taken to the United Kingdom for evaluation purposes and eventually scrapped. The E-100's turret would have been that of the Maus II, the proposed upgrade to the Maus. It would have housed 128 mm KwK 44 L/55 (75 rounds). Armor was 240mm-40mm. According to some sources, the E-100 was proposed to have been equipped with the 15 cm KwK 44 L/38 high-velocity gun as well.

There is no common MRAP vehicle design, as there are several vendors, each with its own vehicle. MRAP vehicles usually have "V"-shaped hulls to deflect explosive forces from land mines or IEDs below the vehicle, thereby protecting vehicle and passengers. MRAPs weigh 14 to 18 tons, 9 feet high, and cost between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

The MRAP may not be effective against Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP), which use an explosive charge to propel a specially shaped metal plate at high velocity while simultaneously deforming it into an armor-piercing projectile. Use of EFPs in the Iraq war more than doubled in 2006, and as of 2007 was expected to continue to increase. In 2007, 11 percent of all roadside bomb fatalities were due to EFPs. In 2007, the Marines had estimated that the use of the MRAP could reduce casualties in Iraq due to IED attacks by as much as 80 percent. The MRAP weakness was addressed by the next-generation MRAP II. As an interim solution, the military installed a variant of the Humvee's IED defeating Frag Kit 6 armor, which adds significant weight, as well as width to the already large and heavy vehicle. In July 2008, the U.S. military reported the number of EFP attacks had dropped by 70 percent.

On January 19th, 2008, a 3rd Infantry Division U.S. Army soldier operating as the exposed turret gunner, was killed in a Navistar MaxxPro MRAP vehicle by an ANFO IED estimated at 600 lb. It is unknown whether the gunner was killed by the explosion or by the vehicle when it rolled over after the blast. The vehicle?s v-hull was not compromised. The crew compartment also appeared to be uncompromised, and the three other crew members inside the vehicle survived; one with a shattered left foot, a broken nose and several broken teeth; one with a fractured foot; and the third physically unharmed.