The Ford class features a number of improvements over existing aircraft carriers that the Navy believes will improve the combat capability of the carrier fleet while simultaneously reducing acquisition and life cycle costs. These improvements include an increased rate of aircraft deploying from the carrier (sorties), reduced manning, significant growth in electrical generating capability, and larger service life margins for weight and stability to support future changes to the ship during its expected 50-year service life. To meet its requirements, the Navy developed over a dozen new technologies for installation on Ford-class ships (see appendix II). For example, advanced weapons elevators, using an electromagnetic field to transport weapons within the ship instead of cables, are expected to increase payload capacity by 229 percent as compared to Nimitz-class carriers, while also facilitating reduced manning and higher sortie generation rates. Other technologies allowed the Navy to implement favorable design features into the ship, including an enlarged flight deck, a smaller, aft-positioned island, and a flexible ship infrastructure to accommodate changes during the ship’s service life. As we have previously reported, of the critical technologies, three have presented some of the greatest challenge during development and construction: Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), which uses an electrically generated moving magnetic field to propel aircraft that places less physical stress on aircraft as compared to legacy steam catapult launchers on Nimitz-class carriers. Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) is an electric motor based aircraft recovery system that rapidly decelerates an aircraft as it lands. AAG replaces legacy hydraulic arresting equipment currently in use on Nimitz-class carriers. Dual Band Radar (DBR) integrates two component radars—the multifunction radar and the volume search radar—to conduct air traffic control, ship self-defense, and other operations. The multifunction radar includes horizon search, surface search, navigation, and missile communications. The volume search radar includes long-range, above horizon surveillance and air traffic control capabilities. As is typical in Navy shipbuilding, Ford-class carrier construction occurs in several phases and includes several key events, including the following: Pre-construction and planning: Long-lead time materials and equipment are procured and the shipbuilder plans for beginning ship construction. Block fabrication, outfitting, and erection: Metal plates are welded together to form blocks, which are the basic building components of the ship. The blocks are assembled and outfitted with pipes, brackets for machinery or cabling, ladders, and any other equipment that may be available for installation. Groupings of blocks form superlifts, which are then lifted by crane into dry dock and welded into the respective location of the ship. Launch: After the ship is watertight, it can be launched—floated in the water—then towed into a quay or dock area where remaining construction and outfitting of the ship occurs. Shipboard testing: Once construction and system installations are largely complete, the builder will test the ship’s hull, mechanical and electrical systems, and key technologies to demonstrate compliance with ship specifications and provide assurance that the items tested operate satisfactorily within permissible design parameters. Delivery: Once the Navy is satisfied that the ship is seaworthy and the shipbuilder has met requirements, the shipyard transfers custody of the ship to the Navy. Post-delivery activities: After ship delivery, tests are conducted on the ship’s combat and mission-critical systems, the ship’s air wing— consisting of the assigned fixed and rotary wing aircraft, pilots, support and maintenance personnel—is brought onto the ship, and the crew begins training and operating the ship while at sea. A period of planned maintenance, modernization, and correction of government-responsible deficiencies follows—referred to as Post Shakedown Availability. Deployment ready: The last stage of the ship acquisition process occurs when all crew and system operational tests, trainings, and certifications have been obtained and the ship has achieved the necessary level of readiness needed to embark on its first deployment. During and after construction, DOD acquisition policy requires major defense programs, including shipbuilding programs, to execute and complete several types of testing, while the ship progresses toward operational milestones including the point during the acquisition process when the fleet initially receives and maintains the ship: Developmental testing is intended to assist in the maturation of products, product elements, or manufacturing or support processes. For ship technologies, developmental testing typically includes land- based testing activities prior to introducing a new technology in a maritime environment and commencing with shipboard testing. Developmental testing does not include testing systems in concert with other systems. Integration testing is intended to assess, verify, and validate the performance of multiple systems operating together to achieve required ship capabilities. For example, integration testing would include among other things, testing the operability of the DBR in a realistic environment where multiple antennas and arrays are emitting and receiving transmissions and multiple loads are placed upon the ship’s power and cooling systems simultaneously. Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) is a major component of post-delivery testing intended to assess a weapon system’s capability in a realistic environment when maintained and operated by sailors, subjected to routine wear-and-tear, and employed in combat conditions against simulated enemies. During this test phase, the ship is exposed to as many actual operational scenarios as possible to reveal the weapon system’s capability under stress. The Navy schedules and plans these test phases and milestones using a test and evaluation master plan (TEMP) that is approved by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) and the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E). The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for DT&E leads the organization within the Office of the Secretary of Defense that is responsible for providing developmental test and evaluation oversight and support to major acquisition programs. The Director, DOT&E leads the organization within the Office of the Secretary of Defense that is responsible for providing operational test and evaluation oversight and support to major defense acquisition programs. Due to their vast size and complexity, aircraft carriers require funding for design, long-lead materials, and construction over many years. To accomplish these activities on the Ford class, the Navy has awarded contracts for two phases of construction—construction preparation and detail design and construction—which are preceded by the start of advance procurement funding. Since September 2008, Newport News Shipbuilding has been constructing CVN 78 under a cost-reimbursement contract for detail design and construction of CVN 78. This contract type places significant cost risk on the government, which may pay more than budgeted should costs be more than expected. The Navy now expects to largely repeat the lead ship design for CVN 79, with some modifications, and construct that ship under a fixed-price incentive contract, which generally places more risk on the contractor. To ensure the Navy adheres to its cost estimates, Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, established a $10.5 billion procurement cost cap for CVN 78, and an $8.1 billion cost cap for each subsequent carrier.the cost cap are necessary, it must first obtain statutory authority from Congress, which means it would be required to submit a proposal to Congress increasing the cost cap. The 2007 legislation also contains six provisions that allow the Navy to make adjustments to the cost cap (increasing or decreasing) without seeking statutory authority: If the Navy determines adjustments to cost changes due to economic inflation; costs attributable to shipbuilder compliance with changes in Federal, State, or local laws; outfitting and post-delivery costs; insertion of new technologies onto the ships; cost changes due to nonrecurring design and engineering; and costs associated with correction of deficiencies that would otherwise preclude safe operation and crew certification. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 further expanded the list of allowable adjustments, solely for CVN 78, to include cost changes due to urgent and unforeseen requirements identified during shipboard testing. Since 2007, the Navy has sought and been granted adjustments to CVN 78’s cost cap to the current amount of $12.9 billion, which were attributed to construction cost overruns and economic inflation. In 2013, the Navy increased CVN 79’s cost cap to $11.5 billion, citing inflation and additional non-recurring design and engineering work. Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 increased the legislated cost cap for any follow-on ship in the Ford-class to $11.5 billion. In addition, the Navy delayed CVN 79’s delivery by 6 months, from September 2022 to March 2023, to reflect changes in the ship’s budget. Figure 1 outlines the Navy’s acquisition timeline for the Ford class, along with adjustments made to the legislated cost cap throughout the course of the shipbuilding program. In August 2007 and September 2013, we reported on the programmatic challenges associated with technology development, design, construction, and testing of the lead ship (CVN 78). In our 2007 report, we noted that delays in Ford-class technology development and overly optimistic cost estimates would likely result in higher lead ship costs than what the Navy allotted in its budget. We recommended actions to improve the realism of the CVN 78 budget estimate and the Navy’s cost surveillance capacity, as well as develop carrier-specific tests of the DBR to ensure the radar meets carrier-specific requirements. The Navy addressed some, but not all, of our recommendations. Our 2013 report found delays in technology development, material shortfalls, and construction inefficiencies were contributing to increased lead ship construction costs and potential delays to ship delivery. We also found the Navy’s ability to demonstrate CVN 78’s capabilities after delivery was hampered by test plan deficiencies, and reliability shortfalls of key technologies could lead to the ship deploying without those capabilities.