Key Points and Summary: The U.S. Navy’s Ford-class aircraft carriers, designed to replace the Nimitz-class, bring advanced technologies like EMALS and AAG to significantly boost sortie rates and combat efficiency.
-However, they also face cost overruns, reliability concerns, and a shifting strategic environment due to potent Chinese anti-ship missiles.
-Critics argue that these carriers concentrate too much risk in a single vessel, pushing policymakers to consider more distributed, unmanned-heavy fleets.
-Still, Ford-class carriers represent state-of-the-art engineering and unmatched power projection, remaining vital assets for decades.
-The Navy must decide whether to retain these massive ships or move toward smaller vessels and unmanned solutions.
How the U.S. Navy’s Ford-Class Is Changing Power Projection
The latest generation of United States Navy supercarriers, the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers, are intended to replace the Nimitz-class, which have grown long in the tooth and are approaching the end of their service lifespan.
Once all of the planned 10-ship class enters service, they’ll be the largest ships ever built for the United States and offer an unparalleled power projection capability.
Compared to the previous Nimitz-class carriers, the Ford-Class will offer better efficiency and higher sortie rates, thanks in part to innovations such as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), and other automation, which reduces crew requirements.
Other planned advancements could include mating directed energy laser weapons onto the carriers, facilitated by their nuclear reactors’ high electric energy output potential, as well as improved radar.
Criticisms Abound
Though the Ford-class is significantly more technologically advanced than its Nimitz-class predecessors, the new carriers have faced a raft of criticism. These critiques center on the ship’s cost and the reliability of the new technology.
The first-in-class USS Gerald R. Ford experienced severe delays and cost overruns, with its price tag ballooning to over $13 billion from an initially projected $10.5 billion.
Some of the carrier’s essential systems, like the EMALS and the Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWEs), suffered from prolonged developmental and operational issues, delaying full deployment and raising concerns about their reliability in combat situations.
One of the most pointed criticisms, however, pertains to the carriers’ continued relevance against an increasingly robust and prolific anti-ship missile threat.
The Anti-ship Missile Dilemma and Aircraft Carriers
Strategically, the utility of these massive carriers has come under scrutiny in light of modern anti-ship threats. China’s military has developed a robust anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy, which centers around the use of advanced anti-ship ballistic missiles like the DF-21D and DF-26 — often given the moniker “carrier killers.”
These weapons are designed to target and neutralize large naval vessels from extreme ranges, in essence pushing carriers and other capital ships out and away from the Chinese mainland and offering a deep protective buffer.Another critique leveled at the aircraft carriers is their centralization or concentration of forces and their value as targets — and how catastrophic the loss of just one carrier would be for American power projection, as well as the symbolic consequences to the United States Navy.
A Shift Away
Given the potential vulnerability of American aircraft carriers in the face of the Chinese anti-ship missile threat, some military analysts have advocated for a shift away from relying on massive aircraft carriers, arguing for a shift toward a more distributed fleet architecture.
A more distributed system of perhaps some smaller carriers, amphibious assault ships, and a greater emphasis and investment in unmanned platforms could help to mitigate the damage to the United States Navy that the loss of even a single Ford-Class carrier would be.
Similarly, large numbers of smaller vessels could operate closer to contested areas, hold greater swaths of the ocean at risk, and recover more quickly from losses.
Full Steam Ahead
Irrespective of what the next major naval war for the United States Navy ultimately looks like, the Ford-Class represents the pinnacle of engineering and capability — they’re the largest ships afloat, and the maritime dominance they offer is unlikely to be surpassed by any other nation anytime soon.
However, there is a growing argument that they might also be the last aircraft carriers the United States ever built.
The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) underway on its own power for the first time. The first-of-class ship — the first new U.S. aircraft carrier design in 40 years — spent several days conducting builder’s sea trials, a comprehensive test of many of the ship’s key systems and technologies.
In an age increasingly defined by smaller, attainable, unmanned systems, the age of the aircraft carrier might end.
Given that threat, the United States Navy must decide if it should continue to rely on a more centralized power projection strategy or if it should opt for a forces structure comprising smaller, more numerous, and increasingly unmanned systems.
About the Author: Caleb Larson
Caleb Larson is an American multiformat journalist based in Berlin, Germany. His work covers the intersection of conflict and society, focusing on American foreign policy and European security. He has reported from Germany, Russia, and the United States. Most recently, he covered the war in Ukraine, reporting extensively on the war’s shifting battle lines from Donbas and writing on the war’s civilian and humanitarian toll. Previously, he worked as a Defense Reporter for POLITICO Europe. You can follow his latest work on X.
