Hubbry Logo
Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrierGerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrierMain
Open search
Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
Community hub
Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
USS Gerald R. Ford underway
USS Gerald R. Ford underway in April 2017
Class overview
NameGerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
BuildersNewport News Shipbuilding
Operators United States Navy
Preceded by
Cost
  • Program cost: US$37.30 billion (FY2018)[1]
  • Unit cost: US$12.998 billion (FY2018)[1]
Built2009–present
In service2017–present
Planned10[2][3]
On order2
Building3
Completed1
Active1
General characteristics
TypeAircraft carrier
DisplacementAbout 100,000 long tons (100,000 tonnes) (full load)[4]
Length1,092 ft (333 m)[5] – 1,106 ft (337 m)[6]
Beam
  • 256 ft (78 m) (flight deck)[7]
  • 134 ft (41 m) (waterline)[7]
Height250 feet (76 m)[8]
Draft39 ft (12 m)[9]
Decks25
Installed powerTwo Bechtel A1B PWR nuclear reactors, HEU 93.5%[10][11]
PropulsionFour shafts
SpeedIn excess of 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)[5]
RangeUnlimited
Endurance50-year service life
Complement
  • 508 officers
  • 3,789 enlisted[9]
CrewAbout 2,600[12]
Sensors &
processing systems
Electronic warfare
& decoys
Armament
Aircraft carried75+[7]
Aviation facilities1,092 ft × 252 ft (333 m × 77 m) flight deck

The Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are currently being constructed for the United States Navy, which intends to eventually acquire ten of these ships in order to replace current carriers on a one-for-one basis, starting with the lead ship of her class, Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), replacing Enterprise (CVN-65), and later the Nimitz-class carriers. The new vessels have a hull similar to the Nimitz class, but they carry technologies since developed with the CVN(X)/CVN-21 program,[N 1] such as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), as well as other design features intended to improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, including sailing with smaller crews.[15] This class of aircraft carriers is named after former U.S. President Gerald R. Ford.[16] CVN-78 was procured in 2008 and commissioned into service in July 2017. The second ship of the class, John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), initially scheduled to enter service in 2025, is now expected to be commissioned in 2027.[17]

Design features

[edit]

Carriers of the Gerald R. Ford class have:[1]

The biggest visible difference from earlier supercarriers is the more aft location of the island (superstructure).[27] The Gerald R. Ford-class carriers will have a reduced whole-life cost due in part to reduced crew size.[19] These ships are intended to sustain 160 sorties per day for 30-plus days, with a surge capability of 270 sorties per day.[28][29] Director of Operational Testing Michael Gilmore has criticized the assumptions used in these forecasts as unrealistic and has indicated sortie rates similar to the 120/240 per day of the Nimitz class would be acceptable.[29][30]

Development

[edit]
Gerald R. Ford arrived at Naval Station Norfolk after seven days of builders trials in April 2017.

The current Nimitz-class aircraft carriers in US naval service have been part of United States power projection strategy since Nimitz was commissioned in 1975. Displacing about 100,000 tons when fully loaded, a Nimitz-class carrier can steam in excess of 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph), cruise without resupply for 90 days, and launch aircraft to strike targets hundreds of miles away.[31] The endurance of the Nimitz class is exemplified by USS Theodore Roosevelt, which spent 159 days underway during Operation Enduring Freedom without visiting a port or being refueled.[32]

The Nimitz design has accommodated many new technologies over the decades, but it has limited ability to support the most recent technical advances. As a 2005 RAND report said, "The biggest problems facing the Nimitz class are the limited electrical power generation capability and the upgrade-driven increase in ship weight and erosion of the center-of-gravity margin needed to maintain ship stability."[33]

With these constraints in mind, the US Navy developed what was initially known as the CVN-21 program, which evolved into CVN-78, Gerald R. Ford. Improvements were made through developing technologies and more efficient design. Major design changes include a larger flight deck, improvements in weapons and material handling, a new propulsion plant design that requires fewer people to operate and maintain, and a new, smaller island that has been pushed aft. Technological advances in electromagnetics have led to the development of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and an Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG). An integrated warfare system, the Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS), has been developed to allow the ship to more easily take on new missions. The new Dual Band Radar (DBR) combines S-band and X-band radar.[34]

These advances will allow the new Gerald R. Ford-class carriers to launch 25% more sorties, generate triple the electrical power with improved efficiency, and offer crew quality-of-life improvements.[7][15]

Flight deck

[edit]
Aerial view of Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78, bottom) alongside USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75, top), a ship of the preceding Nimitz class

The movement of weapons from storage and assembly to the aircraft on the flight deck has also been streamlined and accelerated. Ordnance will be lifted to the centralized rearming location via higher-capacity weapons elevators that use linear motors.[35] These elevators are located so that ordnance need not cross any areas of aircraft movement, thereby reducing traffic problems in the hangars and on the flight deck. In 2008, Rear Admiral Dennis M. Dwyer said these changes will make it hypothetically possible to rearm the airplanes in "minutes instead of hours".[36]

Power generation

[edit]

The new Bechtel A1B reactor for the Gerald R. Ford class is smaller and simpler, requires fewer crew, and yet is far more powerful than the Nimitz-class A4W reactor. Two reactors will be installed on each Gerald R. Ford-class carrier, providing a power generation capacity at least 25% greater than the 550 MW (thermal) of the two A4W reactors in a Nimitz-class carrier.[37] The portion of thermal power allotted to electrical generation will be tripled.[38]

The propulsion and power plant of the Nimitz-class carriers were designed in the 1960s, when onboard technologies required less electrical power. "New technologies added to the Nimitz-class ships have generated increased demands for electricity; the current base load leaves little margin to meet expanding demands for power."[39]

The Gerald R. Ford-class ships convert steam into power by piping it to four main turbine generators (MTG) to generate electricity for major ship systems, and the new electromagnetic catapults.[40][41] The Gerald R. Ford-class ships use steam turbines for propulsion.[41]

A larger power output is a major component of the integrated warfare system. Engineers took extra steps to ensure that integrating unforeseen technological advances onto a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier would be possible. The Navy expects the Gerald R. Ford class will be part of the fleet for 90 years, until the year 2105, which means that the class must successfully accept new technology over the decades. Only half of the electric power generation capacity is used by currently planned systems, with half remaining available for future technologies.[42]

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System

[edit]
Main article: Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System
A drawing of the EMALS's linear induction motor

The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) launches aircraft by means of a catapult employing a linear induction motor rather than the steam piston used on the Nimitz class. The EMALS accelerates aircraft more smoothly, putting less stress on their airframes. The EMALS also weighs less, is expected to cost less and require less maintenance, and can launch both heavier and lighter aircraft than a steam piston-driven system. It also reduces the carrier's requirement for fresh water, thus reducing the demand for energy-intensive desalination.[43]

Advanced Arresting Gear landing system

[edit]
Main article: Advanced Arresting Gear

Electromagnets are also being used in the new Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) system. The current system relies on hydraulics to slow and stop a landing aircraft. While the hydraulic system is effective, as demonstrated by more than fifty years of implementation, the AAG system offers a number of improvements. The legacy system is unable to capture unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) without damaging them due to extreme stresses on the airframe. UAVs do not have the necessary mass to drive the large hydraulic piston used to trap heavier, manned airplanes. By using electromagnetics, the energy absorption is controlled by a turbo-electric engine. This makes the trap smoother and reduces shock on airframes. Even though the system will look the same from the flight deck as its predecessor, it will be more flexible, safe, and reliable, and will require less maintenance and manning.[44]

Sensors and self-defense systems

[edit]
Diagram of AN/SPY-3 vertical electronic pencil beam radar conex projections
An Evolved SeaSparrow Missile launching

Another addition to the Gerald R. Ford class is an integrated active electronically scanned array search and tracking radar system. The dual-band radar (DBR) was being developed by Raytheon, for both the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers and the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers. The island can be kept smaller by replacing six to ten radar antennas with a single six-faced radar. The DBR works by combining the X band AN/SPY-3 multifunction radar with the S band AN/SPY-4 Volume Search Radar (VSR) emitters, distributed into three phased arrays.[45] The S-band radar was later deleted from the Zumwalt-class destroyers to save money.[23]

The three faces dedicated to the X-band radar handle low-altitude tracking and radar illumination, while the three S-band faces handle target search and tracking regardless of weather. "Operating simultaneously over two electromagnetic frequency ranges, the DBR marks the first time this functionality has been achieved using two frequencies coordinated by a single resource manager."[34]

This new system has no moving parts, therefore minimizing maintenance and manning requirements for operation. The AN/SPY-3 consists of three active arrays and the Receiver/Exciter (REX) cabinets above-decks and the Signal and Data Processor (SDP) subsystem below-decks. The VSR has a similar architecture, with the beamforming and narrowband down-conversion functionality occurring in two additional cabinets per array. A central controller (the resource manager) resides in the Data Processor (DP). The DBR is the first radar system that uses a central controller and two active-array radars operating at different frequencies. The DBR gets its power from the Common Array Power System (CAPS), which comprises Power Conversion Units (PCUs) and Power Distribution Units (PDUs). The DBR is cooled via a closed-loop cooling system called the Common Array Cooling System (CACS).[46]

The Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) is a new design surveillance radar that is to be installed in the second Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), in lieu of the Dual Band radar. The America-class amphibious assault ships starting with LHA-8 and the planned LX(R) will also have this radar.[47] The EASR suite's initial per-unit cost will be about $180 million less than the DBR, for which the estimate is about $500 million.[48]

Possible upgrades

[edit]
AN/SEQ-3 laser prototype during an on-board test

Future defense systems, such as free-electron laser directed-energy weapons, electric armor, and tracking systems will require more power. "Only half of the electrical power-generation capability on CVN-78 is needed to run currently planned systems, including EMALS. CVN-78 will thus have the power reserves that the Nimitz class lacks to run lasers and electric armor."[42] The addition of new technologies, power systems, design layout, and better control systems results in an increased sortie rate of 25% over the Nimitz class and a 25% reduction in manpower required to operate.[49]

Waste management technology will be deployed on Gerald R. Ford. Co-developed with the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, PyroGenesis Canada Inc. - was in 2008 awarded the contract to outfit the ship with a Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System (PAWDS). This compact system will treat all combustible solid waste generated on board the ship. After having completed factory acceptance testing in Montreal, the system was scheduled to be shipped to the Huntington Ingalls shipyard in late 2011 for installation on the carrier.[50]

The Navy is developing a free-electron laser (FEL) to defend against cruise missiles and small-boat swarms.[51][52][53]

3D computer-aided design

[edit]

Newport News Shipbuilding used a full-scale three-dimensional product model developed in Dassault Systèmes CATIA V5 to design and plan the construction of the Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers.[citation needed]

The CVN 78 class was designed to have better weapons movement paths, largely eliminating horizontal movements within the ship. Current plans call for advanced weapons elevators to move from storage areas to dedicated weapons handling areas. Sailors would use motorized carts to move the weapons from storage to the elevators at different levels of the weapons magazines. Linear motors are being considered for the advanced weapons elevators. The elevators will also be relocated such that they will not impede aircraft operations on the flight deck. The redesign of the weapons movement paths and the location of the weapons elevators on the flight deck will reduce manpower and contribute to a much higher sortie generation rate.[54]

Crew accommodations

[edit]
A typical berthing on Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers of three racks per section

Systems that reduce crew workload have allowed the ship's company on Gerald R. Ford-class carriers to total only 2,600 sailors, about 700 fewer than a Nimitz-class carrier. The massive, 180-man berthing areas on the Nimitz class are replaced by 40-rack berthing areas on Gerald R. Ford-class carriers. The smaller berthings are quieter and the layout requires less foot traffic through other spaces.[55] Typically the racks are stacked three high, with locker space per person. The berthings do not feature modern "sit-up" racks with more headroom; bottom and middle racks only accommodate a sailor lying down. Each berthing has an associated head, including showers, vacuum-powered septic-system toilets (no urinals since the berthings are built gender-neutral)[56] and sinks to reduce travel and traffic to access those facilities. WiFi-enabled lounges are located across the passageway in separate spaces from the berthing's racks.[55]

Since deployment, the first two carriers of the class have run into problems with the plumbing of the waste system. The pipes were too narrow to handle the load of users, resulting in the vacuum failing and repeatedly clogged toilets.[57] To alleviate the problem, specialized acidic cleaning solutions have been used to flush out the sewage system. These cleaning treatments cost about $400,000 each time, resulting in a substantial unplanned increase in the lifetime expense of operating these ships according to the GAO. These cleanings will have to be performed for the lifetime of the ship.[57]

Medical facilities

[edit]

Gerald R. Ford, first in the class, has an on-board hospital that includes a full laboratory, pharmacy, operating room, 3-bed intensive care unit, 2-bed emergency room, and 41-bed hospital ward, staffed by 11 medical officers and 30 hospital corpsmen.[58]

Construction

[edit]
Gerald R. Ford while under construction at Newport News, along with her construction crew, 2013

Construction of the first vessel in the class, CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford, officially began on 11 August 2005, when Northrop Grumman held a ceremonial steel cut for a 15-ton plate that would form part of a side shell unit of the carrier,[59] but construction began in earnest in early 2007.[60] The carrier was assembled at Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries (formerly Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding) in Newport News, Virginia. This is the only shipyard in the United States that can build nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

In 2005, Gerald R. Ford was estimated to cost at least $13 billion: $5 billion for research and development plus $8 billion to build.[19] A 2009 report raised the estimate to $14 billion, including $9 billion for construction.[61] In 2013, the life-cycle cost per operating day of a carrier strike group (including aircraft) was estimated at $6.5 million by the Center for New American Security.[62]

Originally, a total of three carriers were authorized for construction, but if the Nimitz-class carriers and Enterprise were to be replaced one-for-one, 11 carriers would be required over the life of the program. The last Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is to be decommissioned in 2058.

In a speech on 6 April 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that each Gerald R. Ford-class carrier would be built over five years, yielding a "more fiscally sustainable path" and a 10-carrier fleet after 2040.[63] That changed in December 2016, when Navy Secretary Ray Mabus signed a Force Structure Assessment calling for a 355-ship fleet with 12 aircraft carriers.[64][65] If enacted, this policy would require each Gerald R. Ford-class carrier to be built in three to four years.[66]

Susan Ford Bales, Gerald R. Ford's ceremonial sponsor, examines a propeller in Dry Dock No. 12 at Newport News Shipbuilding.

First-of-class type design changes

[edit]

As construction of CVN-78 progressed, the shipbuilder made first-of-class type design changes, which it will use to update the model before the construction of the remaining vessels of its class. Several of these design changes related to EMALS configuration changes, which required electrical, wiring, and other changes within the ship. The Navy anticipates additional design changes stemming from remaining advanced arresting gear development and testing. According to the Navy, many of these 19,000 changes were programmed into the construction schedule early on—a result of the government's decision, at contract award, to introduce improvements to the ship's warfare systems during construction, which are heavily dependent on evolving commercial technologies.[67]

Naming

[edit]

There was a movement by the USS America Carrier Veterans' Association to have CVN-78 named after America rather than after President Ford.[68] Eventually, the amphibious assault ship LHA-6 was named America.

On 27 May 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced the name of CVN-79 would be USS John F. Kennedy.[69]

On 1 December 2012, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that CVN-80 would be named USS Enterprise. The information was delivered during a prerecorded speech as part of the deactivation ceremony for the previous Enterprise (CVN-65). The future Enterprise (CVN-80) will be the ninth U.S. Navy ship to bear this name.[70]

On 20 January 2020, during a ceremony in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas B. Modly named a future Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier in honor of World War II hero Doris Miller. This will be the first aircraft carrier named for an African American, and the first aircraft carrier to be named for a sailor in the enlisted ranks. It is the second ship named in honor of Miller, who was the first African American to be awarded the Navy Cross.[71][72][73]

On 13 January 2025, President Joe Biden announced that CVN-82 and CVN-83 would be named after former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush respectively.[74]

Ships in class

[edit]

There are expected to be ten ships of this class.[75] To date, six have been announced:

Ship Hull no. Laid down Launched Commissioned Status Scheduled to replace References
Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 14 November 2009 17 November 2013 22 July 2017 Active, in service Enterprise (CVN-65) [76][77]
John F. Kennedy CVN-79 20 July 2015 29 October 2019 March 2027 (scheduled)[78] Fitting out Nimitz (CVN-68) [1][79]
Enterprise CVN-80 27 August 2022 November 2025 (scheduled)[80] 2029 (scheduled)[81] Under construction Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) [1][82]
Doris Miller CVN-81 January 2026 (scheduled)[80] October 2029 (scheduled)[80] 2032 (scheduled) Under construction Carl Vinson (CVN-70) [1][73]
William J. Clinton CVN-82 2027 (scheduled) 2032 (scheduled) 2036 (scheduled) Planned Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) [1][74]
George W. Bush CVN-83 TBD TBD TBD Planned TBD [74]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Gerald R. Ford-class comprises nuclear-powered supercarriers designed and constructed for the United States Navy as successors to the Nimitz-class vessels, with the lead ship USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) commissioned on July 22, 2017, at Naval Station Norfolk. These carriers incorporate over 23 new or modified systems to enhance operational efficiency, including electromagnetic aircraft launch systems, advanced arresting gear, and dual-band radars, enabling a projected 33% increase in aircraft sortie generation rates compared to prior classes. Built by Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding division, the class emphasizes reduced crew requirements, lower maintenance costs, and improved quality-of-life features such as enhanced berthing and workspaces. Key advancements in the Ford-class focus on integrating cutting-edge technologies to sustain naval power projection, with nuclear propulsion via the A1B reactor providing extended endurance and the Advanced Weapons Elevators facilitating faster munitions handling through electromagnetic linear synchronous motors rather than traditional cable systems. The design supports a flight deck capable of operating a broader range of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, positioning these carriers as the Navy's premier platforms for expeditionary strike and sea control missions. However, the program has encountered substantial challenges, including technical difficulties with systems like the electromagnetic launchers and arresting gear, alongside cost overruns that elevated the lead ship's price to approximately $13.3 billion and delayed full operational capability. These issues have prompted ongoing refinements, with subsequent ships like CVN-79 incorporating lessons to mitigate similar setbacks, though congressional oversight continues to scrutinize affordability and reliability.

Overview and Strategic Context

Design Objectives and Enhancements

The Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers were designed to deliver enhanced combat effectiveness and operational efficiency over the Nimitz-class, with core objectives centered on increasing aircraft sortie generation rates while lowering manning and lifecycle costs. The class targets a sustained daily sortie rate of 160 launches and recoveries, surging to 270 in wartime, representing a 33% improvement over predecessors to enable more rapid and flexible power projection. These goals stem from requirements for independent forward presence and sustained air campaigns without reliance on land bases. To achieve cost efficiencies, the design incorporates reduced crew requirements and maintenance demands, aiming for 20% lower maintenance costs and personnel savings yielding approximately $4 billion per ship over a 50-year relative to Nimitz-class carriers. Enhanced and optimized layouts support fewer personnel—about 100 fewer in the ship's company and 400 fewer for the air wing—while prioritizing electrical power growth to enable advanced systems without proportional increases in manpower. Major technological enhancements include the (EMALS), which uses linear induction motors to replace steam catapults, providing smoother acceleration, reduced stress, and compatibility with lighter unmanned alongside heavier manned jets, thereby cutting and enabling higher launch reliability. The complementary Advanced (AAG) employs hydraulic and water-based energy absorption for recoveries, offering greater precision, safety margins, and support for diverse types including UAVs, with lower manpower and upkeep than legacy hydraulic systems. Further advancements encompass the Dual Band Radar (DBR), integrating X-band and S-band phased arrays for simultaneous volume search and precision tracking to bolster air defense and . An upgraded A1B triples electrical output over Nimitz-class plants, powering EMALS, directed-energy weapons, and future upgrades while facilitating reduced crew oversight through automated controls. These features collectively aim to extend service intervals to 12 years between dockings, enhancing availability for strategic deterrence.

Role in US National Security and Deterrence

The Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers form the core of U.S. carrier strike groups, enabling power projection through embarked air wings capable of conducting strike warfare, achieving sea control, and providing battle management across global theaters. These vessels support national security by operating as mobile sea bases independent of foreign ports, allowing the U.S. to respond to crises, protect vital sea lanes, and integrate with joint and allied forces for expeditionary operations. Their design emphasizes force protection, incorporating advanced self-defense systems to withstand threats while sustaining high-tempo missions essential for deterring aggression. Nuclear propulsion grants these carriers virtually unlimited range and endurance, facilitating prolonged forward deployments that signal U.S. commitment and resolve to adversaries. The class achieves a sustained sortie generation rate of 160 launches and recoveries per day over days, with surge capacity reaching 270 s during 24-hour operations—a 33% improvement over Nimitz-class predecessors—enhancing deterrence through demonstrated superior and rapid response capabilities. During USS Gerald R. Ford's fiscal year 2024 deployment, the ship and air wing met combatant commander requirements for sortie rates, underscoring the class's operational reliability in real-world scenarios. In deterrence roles, the mere presence of a Ford-class carrier acts as a visible of American military power, influencing adversary calculations in regions like the and . Deployments, such as USS Gerald R. Ford's activities in , , exemplify this by deterring potential threats, defending U.S. and allied interests, and ensuring maritime stability amid tensions. The U.S. Navy's commitment to an 11-carrier fleet, sustained by Ford-class procurements, reinforces global deterrence, as leaders describe carriers as indispensable for sea control and projecting credible threats that adversaries recognize from afar. This posture counters peer competitors by maintaining qualitative overmatch in carrier-based air power, vital for preserving U.S. strategic advantages in an era of great-power competition.

Program Development

Initiation and Planning Phases

The U.S. initiated planning for a successor to the Nimitz-class carriers in the mid-1990s, recognizing limitations in incremental upgrades to propulsion capacity, flight deck efficiency, and overall survivability amid evolving threats. Designated as the CVX program, early efforts focused on revolutionary concepts to achieve higher sortie generation rates and reduced through advanced and power generation, as part of a dual-track that balanced near-term Nimitz modernizations with long-term innovation. This phase involved concept exploration studies emphasizing electromagnetic launch systems and directed-energy weapons integration, grounded in operational analyses projecting needs for 21st-century . By 2001, the program transitioned to CVN(X), proposing an evolutionary two-ship buy: a smaller CVN(X)-1 for cost control and a larger CVN(X)-2 incorporating full technological advances. Congress approved initial advance procurement funding of approximately $100 million in fiscal year 2001 for what became CVN-78, the lead ship, signaling commitment despite debates over per-unit costs potentially exceeding $10 billion. In 2002, facing budgetary pressures and requirements for a single leap in capability, the Navy consolidated into the CVN-21 program, abandoning the phased approach to prioritize a supercarrier design with at least twice the electrical power of Nimitz-class ships for future weapons like lasers and railguns. Planning culminated in Milestone B approval on April 2, 2004, authorizing engineering and manufacturing development after rigorous trade-off analyses on hull form, efficiency, and sustainment. This decision followed the merger of CVN(X)-1 and CVN(X)-2 elements into one design, with the Department of Defense endorsing a three-ship buy starting with CVN-78 targeted for 2007. Key planning documents projected lifecycle cost reductions of up to 20% through and 12-year maintenance cycles, though highlighted risks of technological immaturity driving overruns. The program's renaming to Gerald R. Ford-class occurred later in , honoring former President Ford, but foundational planning emphasized empirical assessments of peer competitors' naval advancements to ensure deterrence primacy.

Key Technological Advancements

The Gerald R. Ford-class carriers integrate 23 major technological advancements relative to the Nimitz-class, focusing on enhanced sortie generation, reduced manpower requirements, and greater electrical capacity for future upgrades. Central to flight operations is the (EMALS), which utilizes stored and solid-state power conversion via linear induction motors to propel with precise end-speed control and smoother acceleration, accommodating platforms from lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles to heavy strike fighters. Compared to steam catapults, EMALS offers higher reliability, reduced maintenance, lower needs, and decreased stress on aircraft airframes, while occupying less and generating less and heat in operational spaces. Complementing EMALS, the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) employs electric motors for controlled deceleration during aircraft recoveries, replacing legacy hydraulic mechanisms to enable safer and more efficient operations across varying aircraft weights and speeds. The system's design supports higher recovery rates and has demonstrated functionality in over 8,700 landings on (CVN-78). Advanced Weapons Elevators utilize electromagnetic linear synchronous motors to transport ordnance at speeds of 150 feet per minute with capacities up to 11 tons per load—50% faster and more than double the 4.8-ton limit of Nimitz-class cable-driven elevators—facilitating quicker rearming and sustained combat sortie rates. Eleven such elevators are installed, optimizing weapons flow without traversing movement areas. The class's two A1B pressurized water reactors generate approximately 600 megawatts of electrical power, triple the output of the Nimitz-class A4W reactors, providing surplus capacity for electromagnetic systems, directed-energy weapons, and advanced sensors. This increased power supports overall automation, enabling a crew of about 4,600—20% fewer than the roughly 5,600 on Nimitz-class carriers—through reduced manual interventions in launch, recovery, and logistics functions. The Dual Band Radar (DBR) combines S-band volume search and X-band multi-function capabilities in a phased-array configuration, delivering integrated , tracking, and fire control superior to legacy systems for air and . These innovations collectively aim for a sustainable sortie generation rate of 160 per day, exceeding Nimitz-class benchmarks, though initial implementations faced reliability hurdles addressed in post-commissioning trials.

Engineering Challenges During R&D

The Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier program encountered substantial engineering hurdles during its research and development phase, largely stemming from the ambitious integration of over 20 novel technologies into a first-of-class vessel, including electromagnetic systems replacing legacy steam-based mechanisms. These innovations, intended to boost generation to 160 per day and cut crew requirements by 25%, instead precipitated reliability shortfalls and integration complexities that extended timelines and escalated costs beyond initial projections of $10.5 billion for the . A primary challenge was the (EMALS), which faced persistent issues with component failures and inconsistent launch performance during land-based prototype testing at facilities starting in the mid-2000s. Early iterations suffered from and malfunctions, necessitating multiple redesigns and delaying full-scale shipboard integration until after the 2009 , as the system's pulsed-power demands strained the carrier's electrical architecture derived from the new A1B nuclear reactors. Similarly, the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) grappled with design flaws in its hydraulic and control subsystems, including wire positioning inaccuracies and engine reliability gaps identified in developmental trials, which postponed testing schedules by up to two years and heightened risks for on-time delivery of subsequent ships like CVN-79. The Dual Band Radar (DBR) presented problems and integration difficulties with the ship's combat systems, prompting the to limit its installation to only the CVN-78 and adopt the SPY-6 radar for follow-on vessels to mitigate ongoing performance shortfalls. Propulsion and power generation faced scrutiny due to voltage regulator failures in the main generators tied to the A1B reactors, which deliver 250% more electrical output than prior designs but required novel integration to support high-energy weapons and launch systems without dedicated steam lines. These issues, evident in early sea trials, underscored the risks of concurrent development of interdependent subsystems, where immature reactor controls and distribution networks led to cascading failures under load. Advanced weapons elevators, reliant on electromagnetic drives for rapid munitions handling, encountered mechanical and software synchronization problems during prototyping, further complicating the ship's goals and contributing to deferred capabilities in initial operational testing. Overall, these R&D-phase setbacks, documented in Government Accountability Office assessments, highlighted systemic underestimation of technological maturation timelines for complex naval platforms, resulting in a $120 billion program cost by 2024.

Technical Specifications

Hull and Flight Deck Configuration

The hull of the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier measures 1,106 feet (337 meters) in overall length, with a beam of 134 feet (41 meters) at the waterline and a draft of 39 feet (12 meters). Full-load displacement reaches approximately 100,000 long tons, comparable to the preceding Nimitz-class but achieved through design optimizations for reduced structural weight and enhanced buoyancy distribution. The hull form employs a conventional monoco hull with high-tensile steel construction, incorporating a to improve hydrodynamic efficiency and fuel economy at cruising speeds exceeding 30 knots. The flight deck configuration represents a key evolution from the Nimitz-class, featuring a width of 252 feet (77 meters) and an area of 4.5 acres optimized for high sortie generation rates. The deck's layout includes an angled landing strip and provisions for four catapults, with the superstructure—island—relocated 140 feet farther aft and reduced in volume by 30% compared to Nimitz-class designs. This repositioning frees up forward deck space for additional aircraft staging, refueling, and rearming stations, enabling up to 160 sorties per day in sustained operations. The island's starboard placement and slimmer profile also minimize turbulence over the deck, improving aircraft handling safety and efficiency during launch and recovery cycles. Deck-edge extensions and radar-absorbent shaping further reduce the ship's radar cross-section without compromising operational utility.

Propulsion and Electrical Systems

The Gerald R. Ford-class employs two A1B pressurized water reactors to generate for , driving four shafts connected to four propellers. This configuration delivers speeds exceeding 30 knots (56 km/h) with unlimited range, constrained only by onboard supplies. The A1B reactors, developed by for the U.S. , produce at least 25% more thermal power than the A4W reactors in the Nimitz-class, with estimates around 700 MW thermal per reactor, enabling a 50-year with mid-life refueling. Compared to predecessors, the system features a simplified steam-generating setup with fewer than 200 valves and only eight pipe sizes, reducing construction complexity and demands. Electrical generation exceeds 100 MW, nearly three times the output of Nimitz-class systems, supporting high-energy demands from electromagnetic aircraft launch systems, advanced , and automated weapons elevators. The zonal electrical power distribution architecture enhances reliability and flexibility, allowing power rerouting to critical systems during operations or battle damage. This increased capacity stems from the A1B's higher efficiency and , which also cuts reactor department manning by approximately 50% through and reduced component counts. The integrated approach prioritizes survivability, with redundant generators and turbine-driven maintaining performance under degraded conditions.

Launch, Recovery, and Armament Systems

The Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers employ the (EMALS) to propel from the , replacing the steam-powered catapults used on preceding Nimitz-class vessels. EMALS utilizes electromagnetic force generated by linear induction motors to accelerate aircraft to takeoff speed, enabling precise control over launch parameters such as speed and distance, which supports a broader range of aircraft weights from lighter unmanned systems to heavier fighter jets. This system integrates with the ship's advanced electrical architecture, drawing power from the A1B nuclear reactors to achieve up to 25% more daily sorties compared to legacy systems while reducing maintenance requirements and crew demands. By April 2021, EMALS on (CVN-78) had completed over 8,000 launches during testing, demonstrating reliability in operational environments including post-delivery trials. For aircraft recovery, the class features the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), an electromagnetic system that decelerates incoming using energy-absorbing units, digital controls, and water-based for wire tension management. AAG employs electric motors to regulate the arrestment force applied to synthetic cables, allowing for smoother stops that minimize stress on airframes and undercarriages, particularly for lighter or unmanned , and enabling recoveries in higher states than traditional hydraulic systems. The system's modular design facilitates easier maintenance and upgrades, contributing to sustained flight operations. During USS Gerald R. Ford's full ship shock trials in 2021, AAG performed as designed under explosive stress, and by April 2021, it had achieved over 8,000 successful recoveries in aggregate testing. Armament systems on Ford-class carriers emphasize close-range defense against missiles, aircraft, and small surface threats, integrated with the ship's dual-band and combat management suite. Primary offensive capability resides in embarked air wing assets, but self-defense includes two Mk 29 launchers each capable of holding eight RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles (ESSM) for medium-range air defense against anti-ship missiles. Short-range protection is provided by two Mk 49 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers with 21 RIM-116 missiles each, targeting incoming threats like cruise missiles and drones. Close-in weapon systems comprise three mounts, each with a 20mm firing 4,500 rounds per minute to shred inbound projectiles, proven effective in live-fire trials where CIWS destroyed target drones during USS Gerald R. Ford's combat systems qualification in April 2021. Additional layers include four Mk 38 25mm machine gun systems and four M2 .50 caliber machine guns for surface threats, with provisions for emerging directed-energy weapons like high-energy lasers tested against drones. These systems prioritize layered, automated interception to protect the carrier's primary mission of via air operations.

Sensors, Electronics, and Defensive Features

The Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers feature advanced radar systems for air and surface surveillance, with the lead ship USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) equipped with the Dual Band Radar (DBR), which integrates the AN/SPY-3 multi-function radar operating in X-band for precision tracking and fire control, and the AN/SPY-4 volume search radar in S-band for long-range detection. Subsequent ships in the class, starting with CVN-79, replace the DBR with the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), based on the AN/SPY-6(V)3 array, to address reliability issues observed in DBR testing and provide enhanced scalability against evolving threats. The DBR on CVN-78 has demonstrated performance shortfalls in operational testing, achieving only partial reliability for volume search and multi-function tasks prior to its 2023 deployment, as reported in independent assessments. Electronic warfare capabilities include the AN/SLQ-32(V)6 system, upgraded with the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 for improved detection, geolocation, and jamming against anti-ship missiles and radar-guided weapons. This suite provides electronic support measures for emitter identification and electronic countermeasures to degrade enemy targeting, though has revealed limitations in countering advanced s without additional upgrades. defense is supported by the AN/SLQ-25C Nixie towed array, which deploys acoustic decoys to divert incoming torpedoes. These systems integrate with the for automated response, enabling coordinated illumination and electronic attack. Defensive armament emphasizes layered close-in protection against air and surface threats, including two Mk 49 launchers for RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM), each with 21 rounds, capable of engaging anti-ship missiles at short ranges using passive infrared and homing. Two Mk 41 vertical launch systems accommodate RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM), with up to eight missiles per launcher, providing medium-range surface-to-air defense through and compatibility with the ship's illuminators. Three Mk 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS) deliver rapid-fire 20mm gatling gun interception for terminal-phase threats, firing armor-piercing discarding sabot rounds at 4,500 per minute. Combat systems qualification trials on CVN-78 in 2021 verified the integration of RAM, ESSM, and Phalanx, with live-fire demonstrations confirming missile telemetry and fusing against simulated targets. Advanced Weapons Elevators enhance defensive responsiveness by automating ordnance delivery from magazines to launchers, reducing crew exposure and increasing reload rates during sustained engagements.

Crew Accommodations and Automation

The Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers employ advanced automation technologies to significantly reduce crew size and operational demands, targeting a total complement of approximately 4,500 personnel, including ship's company and air wing, compared to the Nimitz-class's requirement of over 5,000. This 20% manpower reduction stems from systems like electromagnetic aircraft launch systems (EMALS), advanced (AAG), and automated weapons elevators, which minimize manual handling and streamline workflows previously reliant on steam-powered catapults and human-intensive processes. Automation extends to electrical and propulsion controls, where all-electric architecture eliminates extensive steam piping and associated maintenance crews, further cutting valve counts by a third and enabling remote monitoring that replaces on-site inspections. These features, integrated during design phases starting in the early , prioritize efficiency to lower lifecycle costs, with projections for 20% reduced through fewer personnel hours. Crew accommodations reflect this downsizing with modular, compact berthing units housing 40 per area—replacing Nimitz-class's larger 180-person compartments—featuring triple-stacked bunks in 3-by-6-foot spaces for optimized density. Enhanced livability includes wider passageways for easier movement, upgraded gyms with modern equipment, and multifunctional lounges equipped for recreation and training, all designed to boost and retention amid denser staffing. These improvements, informed by feedback during pre-commissioning trials on (CVN-78) in 2017, accommodate shifts in crew composition over the ship's 50-year service life via flexible bunk configurations.

Construction and Production

Shipyards and Manufacturing Processes

The Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers are constructed exclusively at , a division of located in , which serves as the sole U.S. shipyard capable of designing and building nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. This facility has handled all Ford-class production, including lead ship (CVN-78), whose ceremonial steel cutting occurred on August 11, 2005, marking the initiation of fabrication for a 15-ton side shell plate. Subsequent ships, such as (CVN-79), follow the same site, with modular units assembled progressively; for instance, CVN-79 reached 75% structural completion by integrating prefabricated sections. Manufacturing employs modular construction techniques, dividing the hull into smaller sections outfitted with systems off-site before them into larger "superlifts" for integration, a method aimed at streamlining assembly and reducing on-site labor hours compared to prior Nimitz-class builds. Superlifts can exceed 700 metric tons, as demonstrated by a 704-metric-ton module lift for CVN-79, enabling parallel fabrication and sequential erection to accelerate overall timelines. This process incorporates lessons from CVN-78, refining fabrication sequences for follow-on ships like CVN-80 and CVN-81, with dual-carrier builds now occurring in a single to optimize workload and infrastructure use. Advanced and outfitting occur in controlled environments prior to module mating, minimizing weather delays and enhancing precision. To support heavy steel fabrication, the shipyard invested in expanded facilities, including a new heavy-plate workshop, specialized burners, and a 5,000-ton thick-plate press for processing armor-grade and structural steels required for the carrier's 100,000-ton displacement hull. Digital engineering underpins the process, with full-scale 3D product models guiding design, virtual prototyping, and assembly planning to verify fit and reduce rework; components originate as digital twins in environments like Rapid Operational Virtual Reality (ROVR) before physical cutting and forming. These methods, combined with automated pipe and cable routing during module build-up, target a 30% reduction in man-hours per ship from Nimitz-class standards, though actual efficiencies vary by ship due to first-of-class complexities.

First-of-Class Modifications and Iterations

The construction of (CVN-78), the of the class, necessitated over 19,000 engineering changes due to design immaturity, with only 76 percent of the design complete when construction began in 2009. These modifications addressed integration challenges for advanced systems, including the (EMALS), Advanced (AAG), and Dual Band (DBR), contributing to $738 million in cost growth from rework and inefficiencies. Suboptimal build sequencing and material shortages further drove $846 million in overruns, prompting adjustments to modular assembly processes and supplier coordination during the build. Technology development shortfalls, such as EMALS and AAG reliability issues identified in concurrent testing, led to onboard power system tweaks and deferred some work, like refinements and weapons elevator installations, to post-delivery phases. Lessons from CVN-78's construction informed iterations for follow-on ships, particularly USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), which adopted refined fabrication and assembly techniques to reduce labor hours by 18 percent compared to the lead ship. The Navy shifted certain tasks, including advanced weapons elevator integrations, from post-shakedown availability to the construction period, applying component-specific knowledge gained from CVN-78 to streamline production. For EMALS and AAG, CVN-79 incorporates reliability enhancements based on CVN-78 operational testing data, while combat systems iterate with the SPY-6(V)3 radar replacing DBR and upgraded Ship Self-Defense System baselines. These changes aim to mitigate first-of-class risks, though GAO assessments note persistent uncertainties in cost estimates for achieving targeted efficiencies. CVN-79's process improvements, such as earlier material procurement and optimized work sequencing derived from CVN-78 experiences, have enabled higher module completion rates at key milestones, supporting the Navy's goal of serial production cost reductions. Subsequent ships like CVN-80 (Enterprise) build on these, with further refinements to support F-35C and CMV-22 operations through targeted design updates. However, the absence of a fourth AAG engine on CVN-78—omitted for cost savings—prompted evaluations for retrofits or inclusions in later hulls to boost system redundancy based on initial operational test data. Overall, these iterations reflect a shift toward incorporating empirical feedback from the lead ship's challenges to enhance class-wide manufacturability and performance.

Cost Management and Efficiency Measures

The Gerald R. Ford-class design incorporates and advanced systems to minimize life-cycle costs, enabling a reduced of approximately 2,600 personnel compared to over 5,000 on Nimitz-class carriers, which lowers annual personnel and training expenses by an estimated $250 million per ship. These features, including automated weapons handling and damage control, also support a 20 percent reduction in maintenance costs and extended 12-year docking cycles, projecting $4 billion to $5 billion in total ownership savings per carrier over a 50-year . In production, the U.S. and applied lessons from CVN-78 construction to ships, implementing modifications and simplified sequencing that reduced man-hours and material costs; for instance, CVN-79 achieved a cumulative man-hour cost performance index of 0.91, reflecting labor efficiency below budgeted levels. This resulted in a target cost for CVN-79 of $11.4 billion, about 12 percent lower than CVN-78's $12.9 billion, through measures like advanced planning for module outfitting and integration to avoid rework. Specific hardware decisions further controlled expenses, such as deferring installation of a fourth Advanced engine across the class to prioritize reliability testing over redundancy, yielding immediate savings while maintaining operational thresholds. Ongoing efficiency targets for CVN-80 and beyond emphasize dual-ship agreements to stabilize supplier chains and engineering support, aiming for over 18 percent reductions in construction hours relative to earlier units.

Ships in Service and Planned

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)

USS (CVN-78) is the lead ship of the Navy's -class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, designed to enhance strike warfare capabilities through advanced technologies including electromagnetic aircraft launch systems and improved automation. Named for the 38th , , the vessel measures 1,106 feet (337 meters) in length with a flight deck beam of 256 feet (78 meters) and displaces approximately 100,000 tons fully loaded. Powered by two A1B nuclear reactors driving four shafts, it supports sustained operations exceeding 20 knots and carries up to 75 aircraft, including fighters, helicopters, and unmanned systems. Construction commenced with a ceremonial steel cut on August 11, 2005, at Newport News Shipbuilding, followed by keel laying on November 13, 2009, and launch on October 11, 2013. The ship was christened on November 9, 2013, and delivered to the Navy on May 31, 2017, after extensive testing of first-of-class innovations such as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Weapons Elevators. Commissioned on July 22, 2017, by then-President Donald Trump at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, CVN-78 entered active service amid challenges from integrating novel technologies that caused initial reliability issues. Its final procurement cost reached $13.3 billion, reflecting overruns from baseline estimates due to developmental risks inherent in pioneering designs. As the prototype for the class, USS Gerald R. Ford underwent post-delivery trials, achieving initial operational capability in December 2021 after addressing electromagnetic and deficiencies identified during sea trials. The carrier completed its maiden deployment in 2022, operating in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, and has since participated in exercises demonstrating enhanced sortie generation rates. In 2025, CVN-78 deployed with to the U.S. European Command area, transiting the on August 18, visiting , , on September 16, and operating in the by October 20 before redirection to U.S. Southern Command's region on October 24. These operations validate the ship's role in , though early teething problems with new systems underscore the trade-offs of prioritizing technological leaps over proven reliability in initial builds.

John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) and Subsequent Builds

The USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), second vessel of the Gerald R. Ford-class and named for the 35th U.S. president, commenced advanced construction with the first cut of steel on February 25, 2011, at Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding division. Her keel was ceremonially laid on August 22, 2015, followed by christening on December 7, 2019. As a follow-on ship, CVN-79 incorporates production refinements derived from CVN-78 experience, such as enhanced modular assembly and process streamlining to reduce labor hours and accelerate outfitting of over 500 compartments. Despite these efficiencies, system integration issues—particularly with the Advanced Arresting Gear and electromagnetic catapults—have postponed delivery from an initial July 2025 target to March 2027, with commissioning anticipated later that year. This delay stems from the need to resolve technical maturation shortfalls identified during CVN-78 testing, ensuring reliability before fleet introduction. The ship has since set sail for the first time, marking the initiation of builder's sea trials to test propulsion and other systems underway. The third ship, USS Enterprise (CVN-80)—the ninth U.S. Navy vessel to bear the name—had her keel laid on April 5, 2022, with a ceremonial keel-laying event on August 27, 2022. Construction at Newport News advances under a two-ship procurement strategy with CVN-81, yielding material and workflow savings through bulk buys and parallel module fabrication. In November 2024, the mid-body hull section was relocated within the dry dock to enable concurrent assembly of both carriers, a first for the program that optimizes yard capacity and reduces serial delays. Launch is projected for November 2025, with delivery in March 2028. USS Doris Miller (CVN-81), named for World War II Mess Attendant Doris Miller who manned anti-aircraft guns during the attack, began with the ceremonial first cut of steel on August 26, 2021. is scheduled for 2026, followed by assembly starting early 2025 alongside CVN-80, and delivery in 2032. This ship benefits from further iterative improvements in supplier integration and digital design tools, aiming to sustain cost reductions observed in prior builds while maintaining the class's core specifications for propulsion, aviation capability, and survivability.

Procurement and Naming Conventions

The procurement of Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers follows the U.S. Navy's standard acquisition process, involving detailed , advance funding, and full contracts awarded primarily to , a division of . authorizes and appropriates funds through annual National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs) and defense appropriations bills, often incorporating advance starting several years before the ship's official to mitigate and risks. The , CVN-78, was procured in 2008 with an estimated cost of $13,316.5 million in then-year dollars, reflecting a combination of research, development, and expenditures. Subsequent ships, such as CVN-79, utilize similar multi-year funding profiles, with the Navy requesting advance , economic order quantity funding for common components, and full funding spread over the year plus up to three additional years under congressional authority. For instance, the Navy's 2026 budget proposed $3,431.6 million for advance , , and cost-to-complete funding across the class. Congress has imposed procurement cost caps to control expenditures, with the lead ship's cap adjusted over time to account for technical complexities and overruns, though exact figures for follow-on ships incorporate lessons from CVN-78 to target efficiencies like block buys for components. The process emphasizes dual-sourcing where feasible but relies heavily on Newport News as the sole nuclear-capable carrier builder, leading to integrated production schedules with Nimitz-class maintenance. Funding requests are justified by strategic needs for carrier presence, with each ship's procurement tied to the Navy's 11-carrier force structure goal, though delays in earlier ships have influenced subsequent authorizations. Naming conventions for Gerald R. Ford-class carriers adhere to U.S. Code (10 U.S.C. § 8669b), which directs the Secretary of the Navy to name aircraft carriers after persons "most worthy of national recognition," guided by historical traditions favoring U.S. presidents, naval heroes, or iconic vessels. The class lead, CVN-78, honors President Gerald R. Ford for his naval service and post-presidency contributions. Follow-on ships continue this pattern with a mix of presidential and commemorative names: CVN-79 after President , CVN-80 reviving Enterprise from prior carriers, and CVN-81 after Mess Attendant for his heroism at . In January 2025, Secretary of the Navy announced CVN-82 as USS William J. Clinton and CVN-83 as USS George W. Bush, both former presidents, aligning with the convention's emphasis on executive leaders while diverging from the Nimitz-class focus on admirals. This approach reflects evolving priorities, balancing tradition with contemporary recognition without strict adherence to presidents alone.

Operational Deployment and Performance

Commissioning, Trials, and Early Operations

The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), of her class, was delivered to the U.S. Navy on May 31, 2017, following completion of builder's sea trials that commenced on April 8, 2017, off the coast. Formal commissioning occurred on July 22, 2017, at , , where President presided over the ceremony, emphasizing the carrier's role in advancing naval . Post-commissioning activities focused on validating the ship's advanced systems through a prolonged shakedown period, including combat systems ship's qualification trials (CSSQT) completed on April 17, which certified key warfighting capabilities. Full Ship Shock Trials (FSST), testing structural resilience to underwater explosions, were conducted off the coast of , with the first explosive event on , 2021, and completion by early August 2021. These trials revealed the need for post-event inspections and minor repairs, delaying full operational readiness. Early operations emphasized incremental testing and training rather than immediate deployment, entering a Post-Delivery Test and Trials (PDT&T) phase in late October 2019 to address first-of-class integration challenges with technologies like the (EMALS). The ship's inaugural deployment commenced in October 2022, over five years after commissioning, involving operations in the Atlantic and Mediterranean as part of the . This maiden voyage, concluding on November 26, 2022, validated sustained at-sea performance amid ongoing system refinements. Subsequent activities included exercises in the in August-September 2023 and a port visit to , .

Major Deployments and Mission Accomplishments

The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the of the Gerald R. Ford-class, completed its inaugural full-length deployment from May 2, 2023, to January 17, 2024, spanning 262 days across the U.S. Fifth and Sixth Fleet areas of responsibility. This deployment validated the ship's 23 advanced technologies, including electromagnetic catapults and aircraft launch systems, demonstrating reliable performance in sustained operations without reliance on steam-based mechanisms. The projected naval power amid regional instability, conducting flight operations with 8, which encompassed F/A-18E/F Super Hornet squadrons and electronic warfare assets, while supporting allied deterrence efforts in the following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. During the 2023-2024 deployment, CVN-78 facilitated the qualification of 86 F/A-18 strike-fighter pilots through detachments, enhancing air combat readiness. The ship's operations underscored its role in integrated strike group maneuvers, including replenishments at sea and ammunition onloads, contributing to the group's recognition for meeting rigorous combat deployment standards. Post-deployment evaluations highlighted CVN-78's operational effectiveness, leading to its selection as the top all-around ship in the Atlantic Fleet and recipient of the 2024 Battenberg Cup. In June 2025, the Gerald R. Ford departed for a second major deployment to the European theater, integrating with allies during Neptune Strike 2025 exercises in the in late September. The carrier transited to the by early October 2025, conducting joint operations such as passages with assets. As of October 24, 2025, the strike group, comprising CVN-78 and five destroyers, received orders to redirect to the and Latin American waters to counter narco-terrorism threats, marking the first such carrier deployment to the in this context. This mission emphasized the ship's adaptability for hemispheric security, building on prior accomplishments in multinational training and advancements.

System Reliability and Post-Deployment Fixes

The (EMALS) on (CVN-78) demonstrated persistent reliability challenges following initial sea trials and commissioning in 2017, with mean cycles between failure rates falling short of operational requirements, thereby limiting sortie generation rates during flight operations. The Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) similarly underperformed, contributing to adverse effects on aircraft recovery and overall deck cycle efficiency, as documented in annual testing reports. Post-shakedown availability (PSA), commencing July 15, 2018, and concluding October 30, 2019, addressed initial deficiencies through hardware repairs and software refinements, including upgrades to EMALS components and corrections to propulsion-related issues in the main reduction gear. Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWEs), critical for munitions handling, remained non-operational at commissioning due to electromagnetic drive failures and were prioritized for retrofitting during the PSA, with the committing to full functionality by mid-2019 to enable independent ordnance movement without crew intervention. Despite these interventions, the Dual Band Radar (DBR) experienced operational failures during pre-deployment exercises in early 2025, necessitating part replacements and highlighting ongoing integration challenges with the ship's sensor suite. Following the ship's extended first deployment from May 2022 to January 2023, post-deployment maintenance availability incorporated fixes for catapult reliability, , and jet blast deflectors, though Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) assessments in 2024 noted that unplanned repairs delayed further validation testing until early 2025. As of September 2025, EMALS and AAG maintainability issues continued to impact flight operations on CVN-78, with reliability metrics improving incrementally through iterative software updates and component hardening but still posing risks to sustained combat sortie rates. The Navy's approach emphasized phased upgrades during selected restricted availabilities, focusing on causal factors such as and in electromagnetic systems, informed by empirical data from over 10,000 launch/recovery cycles accumulated by 2023. These post-deployment efforts underscore the inherent complexities of integrating unproven technologies in a first-of-class vessel, where initial design assumptions underestimated failure modes under high-tempo operations.

Controversies, Costs, and Criticisms

Budget Overruns and Schedule Delays

The lead ship, (CVN-78), procured in 2008, saw its procurement cost escalate from an initial $10.5 billion target to $12.9 billion by 2017, representing a nearly 23 percent overrun primarily attributed to inefficiencies and economic . The final procurement cost reached $13.3 billion in then-year dollars, with additional delays pushing delivery beyond original timelines; sea trials commenced in 2016, but initial operational capability was not achieved until April 2022, over four years later than planned. These setbacks triggered Nunn-McCurdy reviews for subsystems, including a critical breach in the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) program due to over $600 million in overruns from technical integration challenges. Follow-on ships have mirrored these patterns, though to varying degrees. For USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), procured in fiscal year 2015 with a target cost of $11.4 billion, delivery has slipped to March 2027—20 months later than the fiscal year 2026 budget projection and over two years from initial expectations—largely due to persistent issues with advanced weapons elevators and first-of-class learning curves. Government Accountability Office assessments indicate ongoing risk of further cost growth for CVN-79 and subsequent vessels like Enterprise (CVN-80), with the latter facing an additional 10-month delay, stemming from immature technologies and supply chain disruptions rather than fully mitigated lead-ship deficiencies.
ShipOriginal Procurement Cost TargetActual/Final CostDelivery Delay
CVN-78 (Gerald R. Ford)$10.5 billion (FY2008)$13.3 billion~4 years to IOC (2018 planned vs. 2022 actual)
CVN-79 ()$11.4 billion (FY2015 cap)Ongoing (growth expected)20+ months (2025 planned vs. March 2027)
Such overruns have reduced the Navy's carrier fleet availability temporarily, dropping to 10 operational carriers for a period due to CVN-79's postponement amid concurrent maintenance backlogs on legacy Nimitz-class vessels. Critics, including bodies, attribute these to the Navy's decision to concurrently develop and integrate unproven systems like electromagnetic aircraft launchers, which amplified risks absent from incremental upgrades on prior classes.

Technical Reliability Issues

The (EMALS) on the (CVN-78) has exhibited persistent reliability shortfalls, with mean cycles between operational mission failure rates falling short of requirements during initial testing and deployment phases. These deficiencies have contributed to reduced sortie generation rates, as the system's maintainability demands exceed expectations, requiring frequent interventions that disrupt flight operations. The Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) similarly suffers from inadequate reliability, with failure rates impacting aircraft recovery efficiency and overall mission capability during operational evaluations. Government Accountability Office assessments in 2020 noted that both EMALS and AAG continued to pose risks to flight operations, despite partial mitigations, as evidenced by adverse effects on daily flight schedules post-commissioning. Advanced Weapons Elevators, intended to automate munitions handling for faster aircraft rearming, have faced integration and reliability challenges, including software faults leading to operational delays; as of 2020, not all elevators met full operational capability standards, prompting extended post-shakedown availability periods. The Dual Band system also encountered performance inconsistencies prior to full deployment, with tracking and maintenance issues reported in Director of Operational Test and Evaluation findings. Propulsion components experienced early setbacks, such as a 2018 main failure attributed to manufacturing defects, which temporarily halted sea trials, though subsequent repairs restored functionality by 2019. Post-shakedown assessments through 2021 revealed ongoing needs for subsystem refinements to achieve sustained reliability, with Department of Defense testing reports emphasizing risks to initial operational test timelines from these cumulative technical vulnerabilities. Despite these hurdles, incremental improvements during deployments, including over 8,700 EMALS launches and arrests by 2025, indicate progress toward meeting baseline operational thresholds, albeit below the class's designed superiority goals.

Debates on Value Versus Expenditure

The Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers, with the lead ship USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) costing approximately $13.3 billion to construct, have sparked debates over whether their advanced capabilities justify the program's total expenditure exceeding $120 billion to date, including $40 billion in overruns. Critics argue that the high unit costs—nearly double those of preceding Nimitz-class carriers—and persistent budget escalations divert resources from more numerous, distributed naval assets like destroyers or submarines, potentially weakening overall fleet resilience against peer adversaries equipped with anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) weapons such as hypersonic missiles. For instance, the Congressional Budget Office has proposed halting construction after the fourth ship to reallocate funds, estimating savings from forgoing future procurements amid doubts about carriers' survivability in high-intensity conflicts. Proponents, including U.S. leadership, counter that the class's innovations—such as electromagnetic aircraft launch systems (EMALS) and advanced —enable up to 160 sorties per day, a 33% increase over Nimitz-class performance, providing unmatched sustained without dependence on vulnerable land bases. This capability underpins global deterrence, particularly in the against China's expanding naval forces, where carriers serve as mobile sovereign territory projecting U.S. resolve and enabling rapid response to crises. The justifies the through long-term efficiencies, including a reduced crew size of about 4,500 (versus 5,000+ on Nimitz ships) and projected 50-year service lives, with block buys for subsequent hulls yielding up to $5 billion in savings via . Analyses from defense think tanks highlight the causal trade-offs: while expenditure on fewer high-end carriers risks concentration of forces vulnerable to saturation attacks, empirical data from exercises and deployments affirm their role in maintaining sea control and alliance reassurance, as no alternative platform matches their air wing capacity of up to 75-90 aircraft. Skepticism persists regarding return on investment, with some experts questioning if technological risks, like EMALS reliability issues, undermine the promised operational tempo gains that were meant to offset costs. Ultimately, the debate centers on whether the carriers' strategic multiplier effect—amplifying U.S. influence across theaters—outweighs fiscal pressures, especially as adversaries like China field asymmetric threats at lower cost thresholds.

Future Developments and Strategic Implications

Upgrades and Refit Plans

The lead ship, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), completed its inaugural Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) from October 2021 to March 2022 at Huntington Ingalls Industries-Newport News Shipbuilding, incorporating upgrades such as modernization, enhancements to the Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES), and maintenance on advanced systems to improve operational readiness. This post-shakedown availability addressed early reliability issues identified during sea trials and initial operations, focusing on empirical testing data to refine electromagnetic systems. Ongoing upgrades to the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) have emphasized fault mitigation and component hardening, with EMALS and AAG demonstrating reliable performance during full-ship shock trials in September 2021 and accumulating 8,725 launch and recovery cycles without major failures during CVN-78's 2023 deployment. Follow-on ships like USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) incorporate lessons learned, including structural modifications for F-35C Lightning II integration to enable joint strike fighter operations. Refit plans for the class center on mid-life Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH), mirroring Nimitz-class procedures but adapted for A1B reactors and modular systems, with the first RCOH projected for CVN-78 in the mid-2030s after approximately 20-25 years of service to refuel cores and upgrade propulsion, sensors, and armament. The U.S. Navy's FY2026 requests $52.5 million in advanced for Ford-class RCOH, signaling commitment to fleet sustainment over alternatives like skipping overhauls for new construction, which were deemed cost-prohibitive. Future refits will prioritize radar modernization, with the Department of Defense recommending replacement of the Dual Band Radar (DBR) on CVN-78 with the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) configuration starting on CVN-79 to enhance detection reliability based on operational data from legacy systems. These plans leverage the class's increased electrical generation capacity—three times that of Nimitz-class—for scalable integrations like advanced refinements and potential directed-energy systems, ensuring causal alignment with evolving threats through iterative, data-driven enhancements.

Comparative Advantages Over Peer Competitors

The Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers possess several technological edges over contemporary foreign designs, including China's Type 003 and the United Kingdom's Queen Elizabeth-class, primarily in , launch systems, and operational . via two A1B reactors enables virtually unlimited range and endurance without reliance on , contrasting with the conventional diesel-electric systems on both the (approximately 80,000 tons displacement) and Queen Elizabeth (65,000 tons), which limit sustained high-speed operations and require frequent resupply. This power surplus—three times that of prior U.S. carriers—also supports directed-energy weapons and advanced sensors, features less feasible on power-constrained conventional platforms. In aircraft operations, the Ford-class sustains 160 sorties per day with surges to 270, a 30-33% improvement over legacy U.S. carriers and far exceeding the estimated 100-120 daily launches of ski-jump-equipped Chinese predecessors or the STOVL-limited Queen Elizabeth, which relies on vertical-lift F-35B jets for lower payload capacities per sortie. The (EMALS) and enable precise launches of diverse , including lighter unmanned systems, with reduced wear and higher reliability compared to steam catapults or the Fujian's newer but unproven EMALS implementation, which lacks U.S. operational maturity. At 100,000 tons, the Ford accommodates up to 75-90 , surpassing the Fujian's projected 50-60 air wing and the Queen Elizabeth's 40-50 mix dominated by STOVL types. Stealth-oriented design elements, such as radar-absorbent materials and hull shaping, reduce the radar cross-section relative to non-stealth-optimized peers like the angular-decked or conventionally configured Queen Elizabeth, enhancing survivability in contested environments. further minimizes crew requirements to about 4,500—25% fewer than Nimitz-class—lowering logistical demands absent in less automated foreign carriers, though these gains stem from iterative U.S. rather than revolutionary departures.
FeatureFord-class (U.S.)Type 003 Fujian (China)Queen Elizabeth-class (UK)
Displacement100,000 tons~80,000 tons65,000 tons
PropulsionNuclear (2x A1B reactors)ConventionalConventional (diesel)
Launch MethodEMALS (CATOBAR)EMALS (CATOBAR)Ski-jump (STOVL)
Sustained Sorties/Day160 (surge 270)~120 (estimated)~100 (STOVL-limited)
Aircraft Capacity75-9050-6040-50
These disparities reflect decades of U.S. carrier evolution, though Chinese designs close gaps rapidly via state-driven industrialization, per analyses from defense observers.

Long-Term Program Sustainability

The Gerald R. Ford-class program is designed to sustain a U.S. carrier fleet of eleven carriers by replacing the aging Nimitz-class ships, with plans for of at least six Ford-class vessels—CVN-78 through CVN-83—as outlined in the 's 2026 submission. While initial aspirations targeted ten ships to fully transition the fleet, budgetary constraints and high per-unit costs have introduced uncertainty, with some analyses suggesting the total may be reduced to around half if unresolved technical and fiscal challenges persist. leadership has reaffirmed commitment to the program as essential for maintaining strategic deterrence and capabilities amid peer competition from adversaries like . Key sustainability features include reduced manning requirements—approximately 4,500 personnel versus over 5,000 for Nimitz-class carriers—enabled by in launch/recovery systems, control, and administrative functions, alongside a targeted 20% reduction in costs through modular and . These elements support a 50-year with docking cycles shortened to 12 years for enhanced availability, contrasting with the Nimitz class's longer but more labor-intensive intervals. projections estimate lifecycle cost savings of roughly $5 billion per ship compared to equivalent Nimitz-class operations, driven primarily by lower personnel and sustainment expenditures rather than upfront efficiencies. However, realization of these savings remains contingent on resolving early operational deficiencies, as demonstrated by CVN-78's suboptimal sortie generation rates—averaging below 75% of targets during initial deployments due to electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) and advanced arrested gear (AAG) unreliability—which could elevate long-term repair and retrofit demands. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has highlighted risks in follow-on ship production, including underestimated labor hours and persistent supply chain issues for advanced weapons elevators, recommending quarterly oversight to mitigate cost growth exceeding 20% already observed in lead-ship construction. Critics, including congressional budget analysts, argue that without demonstrated improvements in system mean time between failures, the program's high initial investment—averaging $13 billion per hull—may undermine fleet-wide affordability, potentially necessitating trade-offs such as deferred procurements or hybrid Nimitz-Ford transitions. Ongoing Navy investments in reliability enhancements, such as phased upgrades for CVN-79 and beyond, aim to align actual performance with design intent, but empirical data from post-shakedown availability periods will be critical to validating sustained viability.

References

  1. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2252354/navy-to-commission-new-first-in-class-aircraft-carrier-gerald-r-ford/
  2. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2238301/navy-full-court-press-on-uss-gerald-r-ford-weapons-elevators/
  3. https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gerald-r-ford-class/
  4. https://allhands.navy.mil/Features/Ford/
  5. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2238781/uss-gerald-r-ford-accepts-first-advanced-weapons-elevator/
  6. https://www.airlant.usff.navy.mil/cvn78/
  7. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78.htm
  8. https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/the-navys-new-ford-class-aircraft-carrier-is-now-delayed-2-years/
  9. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS20643
  10. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2010/navy/2010cvn78.pdf
  11. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/08/05/ten-performance-gains-the-ford-class-carrier-will-deliver-that-a-nimitz-never-can/
  12. https://news.usni.org/2023/09/01/report-to-congress-on-gerald-r-ford-aircraft-carrier-program
  13. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-15-22.pdf
  14. https://www.military.com/equipment/gerald-r-ford-class-aircraft-carrier
  15. https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/Electromagnetic-Aircraft-Launch-System-EMALS
  16. https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/advanced-arresting-gear-aag
  17. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2024/navy/2024cvn78.pdf
  18. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2011/navy/2011cvn78.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-112032-597
  19. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2012/navy/2012cvn78.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-111609-737
  20. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2024/navy/2024cvn78.pdf?ver=1HIFsfmEEV4I2B6i9LMjxw%253D%253D
  21. https://www.c6f.navy.mil/Press-Room/News/News-Display/Article/3626216/worlds-largest-aircraft-carrier-arrives-in-souda-bay/
  22. https://news.usni.org/2025/08/26/air-boss-navy-committed-to-maintaining-11-aircraft-carriers-ford-class-program/
  23. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-21.htm
  24. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1997/april/next-carrier-piece-piece
  25. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20050624_RS20643_41a71cf42cd72ceb8d31bb62e70e66826c6be08f.pdf
  26. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-07-866.pdf
  27. https://aviationweek.com/navys-cvn-21-carrier-moves-design-phase
  28. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA472563.pdf
  29. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3438921/the-worlds-largest-aircraft-carrier-uss-gerald-r-ford-arrives-in-split-croatia/
  30. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2883211/advanced-weapons-elevators-completed-aboard-uss-gerald-r-ford-cvn-78/
  31. https://www.seaforces.org/usnships/cvn/Gerald-R-Ford-class.htm
  32. https://www.wral.com/story/us-navy-s-most-lethal-combat-platform-the-carrier-uss-gerald-r-ford-is-being-sent-to-the-caribbean/22213963/
  33. https://www.militaryaerospace.com/sensors/article/55243240/raytheon-technologies-corp-dual-band-radar-is-for-surveillance-for-the-aircraft-carrier-uss-ford
  34. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/22/ford-carrier-emblematic-of-navys-struggle-with-technology-costs.html
  35. https://news.usni.org/2025/08/05/report-to-congress-on-ford-class-aircraft-carrier-program-2
  36. https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/the-ford-class-aircraft-carrier-the-u-s-navys-problem-child/
  37. https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/inside-the-us-navys-ford-class-aircraft-carrier-delays-a-120-billion-problem/
  38. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2016/09/18/carrier-ford-has-serious-power-problem/
  39. https://news.usni.org/2015/03/19/navsea-advanced-arresting-gear-design-flaw-delayed-testing-schedule-two-years-adds-risk-to-ford-carrier-on-time-delivery
  40. https://www.twz.com/sea/uss-gerald-r-ford-was-still-struggling-with-its-dual-band-radar-prior-to-deployment
  41. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/03/17/dual-band-radar-swapped-out-in-new-carriers/
  42. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/08/14/the-us-navy-fixed-the-propulsion-problems-on-its-13-billion-supercarrier-but-the-ship-still-has-serious-issues/
  43. https://www.gao.gov/assets/a265650.html
  44. https://www.aol.com/us-navy-still-grappling-elevator-182630044.html
  45. https://sldinfo.com/2020/10/building-blocks-on-the-uss-ford-reshaping-the-flight-deck-and-ops-tempo/
  46. https://www.twz.com/45101/uss-gerald-r-fords-captain-on-why-the-carriers-new-island-design-works
  47. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships
  48. https://www.engineering.com/engineering-destruction-the-terrifying-and-awesome-power-of-the-uss-gerald-r-ford/
  49. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2010/navy/2010cvn78.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-112818-393
  50. https://www.ga.com/general-atomics-emals-and-aag-systems-support-successful-uss-gerald-r-ford-flight-deck-certification
  51. https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/EMALS-AAG-hit-8000-aircraft-recoveries-launches-completion-Ford-Post-Delivery-Test-Trials/Mon
  52. https://www.ga.com/emals-and-aag-successful-performance-during-cvn-78-full-ship-shock-trials
  53. https://armyrecognition.com/military-products/navy/aircraft-carriers/gerald-r-ford-class
  54. https://www.airlant.usff.navy.mil/Press-Room/News-Stories/Article/2584371/gerald-r-ford-successfully-completes-combat-systems-ships-qualification-trials/
  55. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2020/navy/2020cvn78.pdf?ver=RmIv0PBEZ-jMiY9MfYoxrg%253D%253D
  56. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2020/navy/2020cvn78.pdf
  57. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2584336/gerald-r-ford-successfully-completes-combat-systems-ships-qualification-trials/
  58. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2596370/uss-gerald-r-ford-closes-out-evolutionary-18-month-pdtt-for-first-in-class-airc/
  59. https://www.govconexec.com/articles/uss-gerald-r-ford-most-powerful-aircraft-carrier-world/
  60. https://www.key.aero/article/aboard-uss-gerald-r-ford-next-generation-aircraft-carrier
  61. https://magazines.marinelink.com/Magazines/MaritimeReporter/201709/content/inside-gerald-ford-530242
  62. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2014/10/13/crew-s-ship-sailors-comfort-a-centerpiece-of-new-supercarrier-ford/
  63. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2014/navy/2014cvn78.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-110354-577
  64. https://hii.com/what-we-do/capabilities/aircraft-carriers/
  65. http://www.uscarriers.net/cvn78history.htm
  66. https://hii.com/news/john-f-kennedy-75-percent-structural-completion/
  67. https://hii.com/news/releases-jfk-704-metric-ton-lift/
  68. https://virginiabusiness.com/newport-news-shipbuilding-ford-class-carriers/
  69. https://hii.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Fact-File-NNS-February-2025.pdf
  70. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RS/PDF/RS20643/RS20643.279.pdf
  71. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-575.pdf
  72. https://news.usni.org/2020/04/22/navy-applying-uss-gerald-ford-advanced-weapons-elevators-lessons-to-rest-of-carrier-class
  73. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/13300000000-why-navys-ford-class-aircraft-carrier-so-expensive-211708/
  74. https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/03/the-navys-ford-class-120-billion-aircraft-carrier-nightmare-has-just-begun/
  75. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%2520Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2019_SARS/20-F-0568_DOC_24_CVN_78_SAR_Dec_2019_Full.pdf
  76. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SAS2019/Capt%2520Malone-SAS-05062019.pdf
  77. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-575
  78. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2025/february/dont-delay-next-dual-buy-carriers
  79. https://www.airlant.usff.navy.mil/Organization/Aircraft-Carriers/USS-Gerald-R-Ford-CVN-78/Command-History/
  80. https://www.navysite.de/cvn/cvn78.html
  81. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2252376/president-trump-commissions-uss-gerald-r-ford-cvn-78/
  82. https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/national/military-news/uss-gerald-r-ford-banner-year-2022/291-29d7d52b-e2bd-474a-b5f9-1ed3fdb72659
  83. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/display-news/Article/4276995/gerald-r-ford-carrier-strike-group-transits-strait-of-dover/
  84. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/display-news/Article/4305116/uss-gerald-r-ford-arrives-in-oslo-norway/
  85. https://news.usni.org/2025/10/20/usni-news-fleet-and-marine-tracker-oct-20-2025
  86. https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/12-years-why-it-takes-so-long-to-build-and-deploy-a-new-u-s-navy-aircraft-carrier/
  87. http://www.uscarriers.net/cvn79history.htm
  88. https://www.airlant.usff.navy.mil/Organization/Aircraft-Carriers/PCU-John-F-Kennedy-CVN-79/Command-History/
  89. https://hii.com/news/photo-release-newport-news-shipbuilding-division-progresses-construction-activities-on-the-aircraft-carrier-john-f-kennedy-cvn-79/
  90. https://news.usni.org/2025/07/07/carrier-john-f-kennedy-delivery-delayed-2-years-fleet-will-drop-to-10-carriers-for-1-year
  91. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navy-making-progress-on-next-supercarrier-ps-100725
  92. https://www.twz.com/sea/future-uss-john-f-kennedy-second-ford-class-carrier-has-set-sail-for-the-first-time
  93. https://www.facebook.com/TeamHII/posts/as-we-continue-to-celebrate-national-us-navy-aircraftcarriermonth-take-a-look-at/969637488535200/
  94. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/Images/igphoto/2003066193/
  95. https://hii.com/news/hii-moves-enterprise-cvn-80-for-first-time-enabling-construction-of-two-aircraft-carriers-at-once/
  96. https://www.seaforces.org/usnships/cvn/CVN-80-USS-Enterprise.htm
  97. https://www.naval-technology.com/news/hii-conducts-first-steel-cut-doris-miller/
  98. https://www.seaforces.org/usnships/cvn/CVN-81-USS-Doris-Miller.htm
  99. https://hii.com/news/doris-miller-first-cut-steel/
  100. https://seawaves.com/future-enterprise-cvn-80-moved-to-make-room-for-doris-miller-cvn-81/
  101. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RS/PDF/RS20643/RS20643.277.pdf
  102. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20171222_RS20643_3017e12ccf5e748eb452ff62c997ea2d20f11289.html
  103. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RS/PDF/RS20643/RS20643.207.pdf
  104. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/4027830/secnav-del-toro-names-future-aircraft-carriers-cvn-82-and-cvn-83/
  105. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a61478541/us-navy-ship-naming-convention-changes/
  106. https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/signal-processing/the-future-uss-gerald-r-ford-completes-builders-sea-trials
  107. https://www.airlant.usff.navy.mil/Press-Room/News-Stories/Tag/176498/uss-gerald-r-ford-cvn-78/
  108. https://www.dvidshub.net/feature/FullShipShockTrials
  109. https://news.usni.org/2021/08/09/uss-gerald-r-ford-wraps-up-shock-trials-ahead-of-maintenance-period-deployment
  110. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2949716/uss-gerald-r-ford-cvn-78-completes-inaugural-planned-incremental-availability-p/
  111. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3178670/making-history-on-uss-gerald-r-ford-as-deployment-nears/
  112. https://navalaviationnews.navy.mil/editorial-staff-tools/article-submission/article-display/article/3238492/ford-executes-first-deployment/
  113. https://www.usff.navy.mil/press-room/press-releases/article/3647965/gerald-r-ford-carrier-strike-group-returns-from-historic-deployment/
  114. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2024/02/14/uss-gerald-r-ford-leaders-look-back-on-maiden-and-extended-cruise/
  115. https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2025-03-31/ford-aircraft-carrier-drones-houthis-17322414.html
  116. https://www.usff.navy.mil/Press-Room/News-Stories/Article/3921170/best-in-the-fleet-uss-gerald-r-ford-wins-the-2024-battenberg-cup/
  117. https://news.usni.org/2025/06/24/uss-gerald-r-ford-deploys-from-norfolk-for-european-theater-uss-nimitz-now-in-middle-east
  118. https://news.usni.org/2025/09/25/carrier-uss-gerald-r-ford-joins-natos-neptune-strike-in-high-north
  119. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/543275/gerald-r-ford-carrier-strike-group-and-esps-canarias-f86-transit-strait-gibraltar
  120. https://news.usni.org/2025/10/03/uss-gerald-r-ford-now-in-the-mediterranean-sea
  121. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2025/10/24/us-to-deploy-uss-gerald-r-ford-to-latin-america/
  122. https://www.twz.com/sea/supercarrier-uss-ford-being-pulled-from-europe-and-ordered-to-caribbean
  123. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujsRTwShfqE
  124. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/02/03/navy-replaces-troubled-part-on-ford-carrier-after-test-cancelation/
  125. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2237445/uss-gerald-r-ford-completes-post-shakedown-availability/
  126. https://news.usni.org/2019/01/08/secnav-to-trump-aircraft-carrier-weapons-elevators-to-be-fixed-by-summer-or-fire-me
  127. https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/defence/dote-cites-operational-success-but-notes-reliability-issues-on-carrier-ford
  128. https://maritime-executive.com/article/report-carrier-uss-ford-s-electromagnetic-systems-still-need-work
  129. https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/navy-quietly-declares-aircraft-carrier-ford-operational/
  130. https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/navys-advanced-arresting-gear-program-incurs-critical-cost-breach
  131. https://www.defensedaily.com/second-ford-class-carrier-running-another-20-months-late-third-adds-10-more-months-in-budget-books/navy-usmc/
  132. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/will-uss-john-f-kennedy-cvn-79-ever-be-ready-for-delivery-bw-101725
  133. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2017/navy/2017cvn78.pdf?ver=2019-08-19-113711-773
  134. https://news.usni.org/2025/07/21/uss-gerald-r-ford-now-operating-in-the-mediterranean
  135. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2020/06/04/USS-Ford-still-has-major-technical-problems-says-GAO-report/5201591306147/
  136. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-still-struggling-with-elevators-on-ford-aircraft-carriers-2025-4
  137. https://gcaptain.com/gerald-r-ford-aircraft-carrier-suffers-new-failure-at-sea/
  138. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navys-ford-class-aircraft-carriers-120-billion-mistake-210928/
  139. https://interestingengineering.com/lists/uss-gerald-r-ford-advanced-carrier-us
  140. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ford-class-aircraft-carrier-us-navys-13000000000-mistake-207637/
  141. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/60923
  142. https://news.usni.org/2025/08/26/air-boss-navy-committed-to-maintaining-11-aircraft-carriers-ford-class-program
  143. https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/block-buy-of-fifth-sixth-ford-class-carriers-could-yield-5b-in-savings-senior-navy-official/
  144. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2403821/navy-continues-to-enhance-combat-capability-on-second-ford-class-carrier-uss-jo/
  145. https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/sea/pentagon-budget-2026-proposed-us-navy-spending-plan-funds-carrier-production-overhaul
  146. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2023/navy/2023cvn78.pdf
  147. https://www.airdatanews.com/fujian-vs-and-gerald-r-ford-new-aircraft-carrier-compared/
  148. https://www.forcesnews.com/technology/sea-vessels/uss-gerald-r-ford-v-hms-queen-elizabeth-comparison
  149. https://curious-droid.com/1271/uss-gerald-r-ford-vs-hms-queen-elizabeth-nuclear-vs-non-nuclear/
  150. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-2-of-the-worlds-most-powerful-aircraft-carrier-classes-stack-up-2018-10
  151. https://news.usni.org/2023/04/04/navy-uss-gerald-r-ford-set-to-deploy-in-may-kennedy-deployment-schedule-unaffected-by-delivery-change
  152. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/11/new-technologies-improve-ford-class-carrier-sortie-rate/
  153. https://www.newsweek.com/fujian-china-ford-aircraft-carrier-comparison-1899121
  154. https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Gerald-R-Ford-aircraft-carrier-use-stealth-technology-What-are-its-major-improvements-over-the-Nimitz-class
  155. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a64514247/china-naval-advancements-aircraft-carriers/
  156. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/us-next-generation-supercarrier-venezuela
  157. https://news.usni.org/2018/11/28/navy-tackling-ford-class-weapons-elevator-challenges-decision-2-carrier-buy-still-pending
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.