Key Points and Summary on Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier – The U.S. Navy’s new Ford-class aircraft carriers, the largest warships ever built, are a paradox of immense power and deep-seated problems.
-Plagued by staggering costs of nearly $13 billion per ship and significant production delays that stretch into the 2030s, the program also faces existential questions about the supercarrier’s survivability in an era of “carrier-killer” hypersonic missiles.
-These challenges are compounded by a struggling U.S. shipbuilding industry that is being dramatically outpaced by China.
-Despite these glaring issues, the author argues the Ford-class remains an essential, if flawed, instrument of American power projection.
Premise and Promise: The Case for the Ford Aircraft Carriers
The lead ship of the class, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), was commissioned on 22 July 2017.
USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) is next in line, having already been launched on 29 October 2019 (appropriately christened by her namesake’s daughter Caroline) and expected to be commissioned sometime this year, but now looks delayed.
The Fords are set to replace the battle-proven but now aging USS Enterprise (CVN-65), which began service in 1961, and the Nimitz-class CVNs, which debuted in May 1975.
The Ford-class carriers are impressive, especially in terms of sheer size: CVN-78 is *THE* largest warship ever built, with a displacement of 100,000 tons, a hull length of 1,092 feet, a beam width of 256 feet.
That size is put to good use, as the ship has a carrying capacity of at least 75 aircraft.
In spite of that size and bulk, the Ford still has a max speed capability in excess of 30 knots (35 mph). For self-defense, she wields four surface-to-air missile (SAM) launchers and three Phalanx CIWS gun systems.
In addition, the Ford supercarriers bear multiple innovative features (so-called “first-in technologies”), such as:
-New nuclear plant that can generate nearly triple the amount of electrical power of its predecessors
-Advanced arresting gear
-Electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) that replaces the traditional steam catapult system and expands the aircraft launch envelope
Problems with the Ford-Class Program: The Case Against the Fords
First and foremost, there is the hefty price tag: the Fords’ program costs $37.3 billion USD, and the unit cost is a bit short of $13 billion.
There’s also the question of whether aircraft carriers in general are being rendered obsolescent if not outright obsolete. This is especially true of advancements in ship-killing missiles wielded by America’s adversaries.
Such concerns were raised exponentially during two separate incidents that transpired during the US aerial campaign against the Houthi terrorist group in Yemen: (1) a near-miss—to the tune of 200 meters (656 feet)—experienced by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) sometime in 2024; and (2) a May 2025 incident wherein USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) had one of its precious F/A-18 Super Hornets fall overboard as the ship was making a hard turn to avoid Houthi missile.
These incidents understandably raise the concern of whether carriers have become mere multibillion-dollar “floating coffins.”
Regardless of the technical merits and demerits alike of the Ford carriers, they run afoul of the same obstacle affecting the other naval vessels covered in this series: the sorry state of shipbuilding in the United States.
In a 2 May 2025 address to the McCain Institute’s annual Sedona Forum, Indo-Pacific (INDOPACOM) Commander Admiral Samuel j. Paparo Jr. warned that China’s shipyards produce out six combat vessels for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) annually, compared with the 1.8 manufactured in the US.
Indeed, the third and fourth ships of the Ford class, the USS Enterprise (CVN-80) and USS Doris Miller (CVN-81), aren’t expected to be commissioned until 2029 and 2032 respectively. This is an awfully long lag time whilst the PLAN continues to (1) modernize its own aircraft fleet and (2) commit acts of bullying against America’s allies in the INDOPACOM region such as Tawain and the Philippines.
So, Is the Ford-Class Worth It?
In this military veteran’s opinion, the answer is still a qualified “Yes.” To be frank, America’s enemies would love to have these platforms in their arsenals.
The costs of the Fords in particular and the physical vulnerabilities of carriers in general certainly cannot be dismissed lightly.
The supercarrier remains the primary power projection platform and rapid response platform for the USN, and that’s not going to change anytime soon.
After all, none of the USN’s warplanes have the range and global reach of, say, the US Air Force’s and B-2 Spirit strategic bombers.
Until a truly viable replacement for the supercarrier comes along, it’s the best and most powerful tool in the naval arsenal.
America’s carriers need every edge, every 21st century technological improvement they can get, and the Fords, for all their faults, meet those needs.
About the Author: Christian D. Orr, Defense Expert
Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor. He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU).
More Military
The U.S. Navy’s Submarine Crisis Is Real
