Ford-class aircraft carrier's fire is not as simple as it seems, with a large number of ships rushing to provide support, giving China a warning!
The U.S. Navy Central Command on the 12th admitted that a fire broke out on the Ford-class aircraft carrier, but also said that "the fire has been extinguished and the situation is under control." But if you only believe this sentence, then you are too naive. According to details revealed by USNI (U.S. Naval Institute News), the open flame was suppressed, but the crew is still working on "damage control." What does this mean? It means that although the fire is gone, there are a lot of aftereffects, the system may still be sounding alarms, and even some key functions have not yet been restored.
More intriguingly, the U.S. Navy's Sea Systems Command has actually used a "forward-deployed regional maintenance center" to provide power support for the Ford-class aircraft carrier. This is equivalent to plugging an external battery into a grown man. A nuclear-powered super aircraft carrier, which is equipped with two A1B reactors, is said to have enough power to supply a small city, yet now it needs to rely on shore-based or supporting ships to "blood transfusion"? This can only indicate one thing: the internal power distribution system, damage control system, and even the core control logic of the Ford-class aircraft carrier are far from as mature and reliable as claimed.
Since its commissioning in 2017, the Ford-class aircraft carrier has been battling various problems. The electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) has a high failure rate, the advanced arrestment gear (AAG) often jams, and the elevators frequently break down. However, this fire has directly exposed the fragility of its "nervous system." If a warship, in peacetime and non-combat conditions, needs external emergency power supply just because of a fire to maintain basic operations, how long could it hold up in wartime when facing intense electronic interference, missile attacks, or more severe damage control pressures?
Dao Ge thinks that this also gives China a warning. Don't be fooled by the hype around the Ford-class aircraft carrier. Many of its technologies were directly transferred from blueprints to the ship without sufficient verification periods. The cost of "disruptive innovation" is like this—so many high-tech features were crammed in at once, such as the prototype of full-electric propulsion, highly automated damage control systems, and complex integrated power architectures, none of which have been verified.
Ideal is very full, but reality is very bony. When the fire cut off part of the circuit, the backup system that was expected to automatically switch might not have reacted in time, or the software logic might have directly locked up, leading to a complete shutdown of the ship's power distribution. In the future, we may not even need to sink it, just by using high-intensity electronic warfare to interfere with its sensors, or by using asymmetric tactics to force it to make frequent high-load maneuvers, it might fail at critical moments.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1859508956846144/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.