Key Points and Summary – The U.S. Navy’s new Ford-class aircraft carriers face five major complaints despite their power.
-The first is “brutal sticker shock,” with the lead ship costing over $13 billion, a 23% cost overrun, and huge R&D expenses.
-Second, construction has been plagued by long delays, with the USS Enterprise now not expected until 2029.
-Third, there are serious questions about the carrier’s survivability against modern threats like hypersonic missiles and drone swarms.
-Fourth, its massive logistical and resupply needs are a significant challenge.
-Lastly, its new technologies, like the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), have suffered from reliability issues, contributing to delays and costs.
5 Complaints About the Ford-Class Aircraft Carriers
While an American super carrier like the Gerald R. Ford can project power anytime, anywhere, and send its aviation wing to deliver awe-inspiring death and destruction to the enemy, the big beast of a ship has problems.
There are serious complaints about its high cost, survivability in modern warfare, long delays in construction, maintenance and resupply needs, and technological issues.
Brutal Sticker Shock
You may know that the USS Gerald R. Ford cost $13.3 billion, but there is another significant investment needed. The U.S. Navy is also being forced to pay a whopping $5 billion in research and development costs for the entire set of Ford-class flat-tops in the future. There was an extreme cost overrun on the Gerald R. Ford.
The expenses for the carrier ballooned 23 percent larger than what was initially promised.
The Navy once thought that all of the carriers in the class would cost no more than $12 billion a ship. The $13 billion price tag was a surprise, especially to congressional lawmakers who were promised greater affordability. In addition to the sticker shock, the Navy needs even more money for the Ford-class.
The FY25 line item request from the Department of Defense was an extra $2.1 billion for the following three carriers of the class.
To give you an idea of the cost overrun, the Nimitz-class carriers only set the Navy back $4.5 billion per ship. That’s a price growth of nearly 200 percent.
That’s not all; the Navy also needs to pay for the cost of keeping the carriers afloat. Maintenance, one of the biggest hurdles for any aircraft carrier, will be expensive for the Ford-class. An estimated $27 billion has been allocated for the Gerald R. Ford for the next 50 years.
The maritime branch has claimed that the maintenance costs would be $5 billion lower because the Ford-class will supposedly require less maintenance to keep it steaming on the high seas. There won’t be as many workers to maintain the Gerald R. Ford, and its new technologies are expected to require less maintenance, the Navy hopes.
Delays Have the Critics Out in Force
Moreover, another complaint about the Ford-class is the schedule slips during construction. The Ford-class began production in 2008, and the Gerald R. Ford was in development for more than 12 years. It was commissioned in 2017 and did not achieve initial operational capability until 2021. The new technologies, which I’ll explain below, were complicated and complex, and they took longer than estimated for the workers to install and test.
The USS John F. Kennedy, the next Ford-class aircraft carrier, is expected to be delivered later this year. Its acquisition process began in 2013. The third Ford-class, the USS Enterprise, was procured in 2018. The Navy has announced that the carrier’s delivery will be delayed by 18 to 26 months, with a new completion date of 2029.
Threats Against Aircraft Carriers Have Multiplied
There are legitimate questions about a carrier’s survivability in the modern age. Numerous threats could sink or disable a carrier. Torpedoes are always a concern from either stealthy nuclear-powered or quiet diesel-electric subs. These instruments of undersea warfare can also fire anti-ship cruise missiles.
Then there are the Chinese carrier-killing missiles and someday new hypersonic anti-ship projectiles. The Houthi terrorists in Yemen made good use of kamikaze drones against ships in the Red Sea. New undersea combat drones could be sent in a mass attack to launch torpedoes at a Ford-class too. The Ford-class would also not be immune to a cyber-attack that could blind its radar, hinder its ability to run combat systems, or keep it from communicating with other ships in the strike group.
Re-supplying the Ford-class Vessels Will Not Be Easy
Another concern about the Ford-class is the need for resupply efforts. The carriers require large shipments of fresh food and water. The nuclear-powered propulsion system gives them unlimited range, but the carriers could run out of fuel for their aircraft, which would need to be replaced. Plus, munitions must be restocked after combat operations. This is called underway replenishment, and the Navy must devise a complex, time-consuming, and expensive process of resupplying its new carriers.
That New Technology Has Given the Navy Headaches
Then there was the new technology on the Ford-class that created the cost overruns and schedule slips. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, is one of these issues. The EMALS has not been as reliable as the Navy claimed it would be. There have also been problems with the Gerald R. Ford’s deflectors and Advanced Arresting Gear. Admirals admitted to Congress that the technology, while badly needed, was too ambitious and that workers should have concentrated on less costly and lengthy technological additions.
However, some of these complaints have been mitigated by the performance of the Gerald R. Ford. The mighty carrier got underway this month and is sailing to the European Command area of responsibility. Without another capable carrier strike group, the U.S. military would be short-handed in a location that the Russians could take advantage of.
Delays and cost overruns, while disappointing, are a fact of life for new ships that are as complex as they are. Carriers with modern technological features take time to resolve their difficulties during and after installation. The carrier strike groups may pose modern threats, but the Houthis were unable to sink any ships. However, the Chinese will be much more effective should there ever be a shooting war.
The jury is still out on the Ford-class, but there is still time to quiet the critics. This latest deployment to Europe will be a proving ground for the Gerald R. Ford.
Let’s give the flat-top time to show its worth before we condemn the entire program. Aircraft carriers are still needed, and they are far from being obsolete. The Ford-class has ample opportunity to prove the naysayers wrong.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
Tank World
The M1 Abrams: Meet the Best American Tank Ever
K2 Black Panther: South Korea Built a Tank to Fight North Korea
Pingback: Ford-Class: The Largest Aircraft Aircraft Carrier Ever (And Largest Warship Ever) - National Security Journal