Ford-class under threat as US Navy reviews aircraft carrier program

US Navy Secretary John Phelan announced on the sidelines of the Sea Air Space 2026 exhibition that his department plans to complete a review of the Ford-class aircraft carrier program within the next month. He stated that a comprehensive analysis—a thorough examination of the design of these ships, their combat potential, and the project costs—is currently underway.

The key question that needs to be answered is whether we are getting value for money—that is, how much better are the Ford-class carriers than the older Nimitz-class carriers?

As noted in the American press, President Donald Trump is a vocal critic of Ford, particularly their electromagnetic catapults and weapons-transporting elevators, which have faced serious reliability and maintenance issues:

We have Ford aircraft carriers. We're planning to upgrade to a different class of carrier.

As Phelan stated, the Navy has not yet made a decision on the construction of CVN-82 ​​and CVN-83 - these are the numbers of hulls 5 and 6 of the Ford-class aircraft carriers (the lead one is in service, the second is on sea trials, two are under construction), this issue is still being studied:

I think this is a reasonable and practical step on our part, given their cost as a percentage of the budget. The President knows we're studying [the aircraft carrier program] and wants us to present the results of our analysis.

Based on some of Phelan's remarks, it can be understood that the Ford project is compared to the Nimitz in terms of the frequency of combat sorties, aircraft wear and tear, the efficiency of the catapults (including in terms of their cost), and infrastructure costs.

Phelan was asked about the possibility of cutting the Ford program as a result of the project review:

It's too early to talk about it, but we will have aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers are a crucial component of our force, and we will need them. I think the question is more about how we determine what we can do to reduce costs? What can we do to improve efficiency? What can we do to simplify the design? Where can we cut costs, and where can't we?

The American press indicates that the threat looming over the Ford program may be directly related to shift in priorities in the Navy towards the Trump-class battleships, which will be more expensive than serial aircraft carriers.

Comments

[TermNachTer]

No one is revising the aircraft carrier construction program. The Ford project is being reconsidered, taking into account operational experience and combat performance.

[Mikhail Ivanov]

During the fighting, the mattress troughs were raked away as far as possible!!
And today, it's a reality. An aircraft carrier is needed for wars with the Papuans, but against a prepared enemy, it's simply a massive target. Drones have changed a lot in warfare!

[TermNachTer]

Any weapon must be used correctly to be effective. An aircraft carrier is designed for achieving supremacy on the high seas. It's not very effective when used for land strikes.

[isv000]

Quote: TermNachTER

An aircraft carrier is designed to gain supremacy on the high seas. It's not very effective when used for land-based attacks.

If this ruler of all the seas is hit with a Zircon, it may turn out that a second missile will no longer be needed.

[TermNachTer]

To plant a "zircon," you'd have to get within 1000 km. And in the open ocean, that's not easy.

[isv000]

Quote: TermNachTER

To plant a "zircon," you'd have to get within 1000 km. And in the open ocean, that's not easy.

What are you ?! Will the traffic cops stop you?! What if you surface, shoot back, and then dive again? No? No way? Especially with a range of 1500 km?!

[TermNachTer]

The AUG is escorted by a Virginia, so approaching and firing back isn't that easy. Who will provide the targeting for the 1500 km range?

[isv000]

Quote: TermNachTER

The AUG is escorted by a Virginia, so approaching and firing back isn't that easy. Who will provide the targeting for the 1500 km range?

In the 80s, we were shown satellite images of a newspaper on the grass, readable...

[TermNachTer]

In those days, the USSR had a fully functional MRCC "Legenda." Now it has "Liana," but the number of satellites on it raises some concerns.

[Boa kaa]

I doubt the Ford-class submarines fell victim to the Trump-class battleships. They are different branches of the US Navy.
The question of Ford's "magnificent" combat qualities arose after the IRGC fire and the "laundry fire" due to the "prank" of irresponsible sailors who set something on fire in the AVMA ventilation system.
And if we recall what happened before, it turns out that the aircraft's electromagnetic launch system and electric hoists were substandard, difficult to repair, and incomplete. The same goes for the 6th-moderation active phased array (AESA) for detecting NLCs... The complexity of the equipment resulted in 12 months of repairs after the "fire," but most likely after the Iranian air defense missile actually landed (1-2, no more, but enough to put the aircraft out of range of the air defense missiles).
An incredibly expensive car in terms of construction costs and (most importantly) operation.
Moving on to combat effectiveness/cost, it turns out that instead of two Fords, three Nimitz-class ASWs could be built. However, three ASWs carry one-third more aircraft and control a larger area of ​​water than two Fords. Moreover, they are simpler and have already been mastered over many years of service.
The Navy will have to review and rework the Ford project: simplify it, make it more secure in terms of design and air defense/missile defense systems.

[TermNachTer]

The fact that the sailors wanted a "modified Nimitz" rather than a Ford was already discussed at the conceptual design stage. But the Washington lobby pushed through the more expensive option, as Northrop shareholders' profits depended on it.

[bayard]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Instead of two Fords, three Nimitz-class submarines could be built. But three submarines carry 1/3 more aircraft and control a larger area than two Fords.

The US Navy has been talking about this for a long time. They were partly spurred on by China's choice of catapult-based destroyers for its carriers, and the US didn't want to be stuck with the old steam-powered ones. Perhaps the result will be some kind of hybrid of the Nimitz and the Ford. Or perhaps the fading US naval power will force a return to a modernized version of the Nimitz, which will shorten construction time and save money on additional ships, as well as on operational complexity and costs.

[Most polite]

A battleship is more expensive than an aircraft carrier?! I didn't know...

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Most polite

A battleship is more expensive than an aircraft carrier

Not just any battleship, but a Trump battleship made entirely of pure gold.

[TermNachTer]

Any idea can be taken to the extreme if you have a strong desire to make money.

[bayard]

Quote: Most polite

A battleship is more expensive than an aircraft carrier?! I didn't know...

The Trump-class battleship's price includes R&D and all preparatory work (17 billion). For production ships, it's expected to be around 11 billion. This is the "Golden Fleet," after all.

[Vasyan1971]

President Donald Trump has been a vocal critic of Ford, particularly its electromagnetic catapults and weapons-transporting elevators, which have faced serious reliability and maintenance problems.

All this is bullshit! The main thing is to have a reliable latrine!

[isv000]

Quote: Vasyan1971

All this is bullshit! The main thing is to have a reliable latrine!

There is nothing simpler, and you don’t need any paper, it will be so clean that your farm will shine like a cat’s farm!

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: isv000

There is nothing simpler, and you don’t need any paper, it will be so clean that your farm will shine like a cat’s farm!

Yes! How many people are there in the crew? A line to visit + three-tiered clusters of devices! And an unforgettable spectacle for all the passersby...

[Eugene Zaboy]

It's too early to talk about it, but we will have aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers are a crucial part of our force, and we will need them. I think the question is more about how we determine what we can do to reduce costs.

An aircraft carrier is a dangerous weapon for states without a developed satellite constellation, UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, or missile launchers. If these components are sufficiently developed to ensure effective target acquisition, then using aircraft carriers becomes extremely dangerous. Perhaps the world is rapidly changing, and space will soon become crowded.

[Alemax]

We have Ford aircraft carriers. We're planning to upgrade to a different class of carrier.

The key question that needs to be answered is whether we are getting value for money—that is, how much better are the Ford-class carriers than the older Nimitz-class carriers?

You don't have to read the rest, to be honest.

[snow mountain]

Quote from Eugene Zaboy

An aircraft carrier is a dangerous weapon for states that do not have a developed space satellite constellation.

Do you mean Papuans?

[EgorEgorovich]

Whenever they show the decks of aircraft carriers, there are always some clowns twirling around on the deck. They wave their arms and strike strange poses. It's like they're signaling. Does the pilot have time to observe each clown? Is the radio unsuitable for transmitting the launch command? This seems odd when collecting final data and making a final decision.