\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Navy’s Newest Aircraft Carrier Heads to Mideast as It Fixes Nagging Problems(N

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/uss-ford-iran...
Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e
  02/28/26
Reader PicksAll MisterCamera commented 8 hours agoIn reply ...
Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e
  02/28/26


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: February 28th, 2026 1:16 AM
Author: Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e (One Year Performance 1978-1979 (Cage Piece) (Awfully coy u are))

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/uss-ford-iran.html

The carrier has had mechanical problems throughout its eight-month deployment, but officials now say it is ready for battle. Take a look inside the ship.

John Ismay

By John Ismay

As a naval officer, John Ismay served aboard the aircraft carrier Nimitz during its 2009-2010 deployment to the Northern Arabian Sea, which was extended twice. He reported from Washington.

Feb. 27, 2026

The U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford, the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, has had a difficult few months at sea.

On Oct. 24, the Ford, with its 4,500 sailors, was redirected to the Caribbean Sea from a planned six-month European deployment. Then on Feb. 12, the Pentagon sent the ship to the Middle East as part of the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against Iran.

The Navy typically schedules ships for six-month deployments and tries to avoid having them go longer than seven. This week, however, the Ford marked its eighth month on deployment.

Members of the crew have told The New York Times that morale on the ship dipped after their deployment was first extended and has cratered since it was ordered to the Middle East.

At 1,106 feet long, the Ford is the Navy’s largest aircraft carrier. It was designed with new technologies that replaced steam and hydraulic systems for launching and recovering aircraft with electronic systems run by software.

But according to current and former Ford sailors, equipment problems limited the ship’s ability to carry out its most basic mission: sending warplanes into combat.

However, two senior Navy officials said on Thursday that the Ford’s radars, catapults and arresting gear for recovering planes had been fixed.

This week, the Ford docked in Souda Bay off the Greek island of Crete, taking on supplies and ammunition and repairing broken equipment.

Here’s a look inside the warship:

4,500 sailors are the lifeblood of the ship.

The Ford was designed to need about 1,000 fewer sailors than its predecessors, bringing the number deployed aboard down to roughly 4,500.

But even with the new technology, most of the jobs that sailors perform on the Ford are the same as on earlier carriers.

The ship still has nuclear propulsion engineers, sailors who run the machines that turn seawater into potable water, quartermasters who navigate, cooks who feed the crew, hull technicians who weld and fix sewage problems, aviation mechanics and dozens of other specialties.

According to the Navy, the Ford has “improved berthing compartments, better gyms, and more ergonomic work spaces” for the crew as well.

Just below the flight deck is the Ford’s cavernous hangar bay.

There, sailors do maintenance on airplanes and helicopters in two separate bays that can be walled off from each other in case of a fire.

With Ford’s larger flight deck, the ship can carry 75 aircraft while its predecessors typically carry 70.

New features on the ship require advanced nuclear reactors.

The Navy had to design new kinds of nuclear reactors to generate more electricity for the Ford, to power systems that had been run by steam on earlier carriers.

The reactors installed on Ford create 25 percent more electrical power than earlier nuclear power plants on carriers, while requiring about half the number of sailors to run them, according to the Department of Energy.

Fighter jets are the key offensive weapons onboard.

The main offensive firepower on the Ford comes from four squadrons of F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters, which can carry a mix of guided bombs, rockets, and anti-ship and air-to-air missiles. A squadron of EA-18G Growler jets can carry out airstrikes as well.

The Ford, however, would need to be retrofitted to carry the Navy’s stealth warplane: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, whose design was finalized after the ship was completed.

Machine guns are used to protect the Ford from small enemy boats.

To protect the ship from small enemy boats, the Ford carries .50-caliber heavy machine guns as well as more powerful 25-millimeter chain guns that can fire explosive projectiles.

While a carrier’s warplanes provide its first line of aerial defense, the Ford and other carriers also have launchers for two kinds of short-range antiaircraft missiles.

As a last-ditch defense against incoming enemy weapons, the Ford carries 20-millimeter Phalanx guns that fire thousands of tungsten projectiles per minute.

Bombs are stowed onboard for combat missions.

The primary weapons for the Ford’s warplanes are Mark-80 series airdropped bombs in the 500, 1,000 and 2,000-pound versions.

They contain the equivalent of 192 pounds, 445 pounds and 945 pounds of TNT high explosive.

Each bomb can be fitted with a laser- or GPS-guidance kit for more accurate delivery of the weapon.

Exactly how many of them Ford or any other carrier has in its magazines is classified.

As those munitions are used up in combat missions, carriers like the Ford can receive additional weapons from supply ships — either via trolleys that move along metal cables between the two ships, or suspended under helicopters ferrying loads.

An electromagnetic catapult is one of the Ford’s greatest technological advancements.

But the catapult, which launches aircraft, has also proved to be one of its biggest weaknesses.

Carriers of the past used steam generated by boilers or nuclear reactors to sling warplanes off their decks at speeds of more than 200 miles per hour.

But current and former crew members have said that, as the first carrier outfitted with the new catapult system, the Ford has struggled to maintain both the hardware and the computer software that controls it.

To keep the Ford’s catapults in operation, the Navy has cannibalized parts from the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, a Ford-class carrier that is still under construction.

With a slightly larger flight deck than previous carriers, the Ford was supposed to be able to launch roughly 30 percent more sorties per day than its predecessors.

Editors’ Picks

Attire With Sparkling Personality

The Best New Reason to Visit the Barbecue Capital of Texas

Jeff Galloway Made Me a Marathoner

Problems with the electromagnetic system prevented the ship from reaching that level, according to current and former sailors. But a senior Navy official said on Thursday that the Ford’s sortie rate had improved and now exceeds that of previous carriers.

This equipment helps planes safely land on the deck.

Image

In another update to the decades-old technology used to “trap” warplanes landing on a carrier’s flight deck, the Ford debuted a modified version of a system first used by the Navy on land, calling it Advanced Arresting Gear.

Older carriers used a manually controlled hydraulic system to slow the planes down after their tailhooks caught one of the four wires stretched across the flight deck. But on the Ford, each wire is connected to devices under the flight deck called “water twisters” — liquid-filled turbines that can electronically adjust how much resistance they offer for heavier or lighter aircraft.

The Ford also uses electromagnets in elevators.

The elevators bring munitions from magazines deep in the ship’s hull up to the flight deck. From the flight deck, the weapons can be loaded onto jets for combat missions.

It is one area where Ford has a clear advantage over the Navy’s previous carriers. The ship has 11 ordnance elevators, each of which can lift 24,000 pounds of weapons at a time to the flight deck, compared to nine elevators on the Nimitz-class carriers that are rated for only 10,500-pound loads.

The Ford has been fitted with a unique air-search radar.

Instead of a traditional radar that rotates and requires maintenance to keep it spinning, Ford uses a series of flat radar panels that don’t move but constantly emit a bubble of radio waves around the ship.

Called Dual-Band Radar, it was originally meant to be installed on a few dozen other ships. But when the Navy later scrapped that plan, it meant that spare parts for the Ford’s were harder to get and more expensive.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5839226&forum_id=2...#49701559)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 28th, 2026 1:16 AM
Author: Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e (One Year Performance 1978-1979 (Cage Piece) (Awfully coy u are))

Reader PicksAll

MisterCamera commented 8 hours agoIn reply thread

M

MisterCamera

NC ·

8h ago

@SpacemanI have a kid in the Navy. I can't say much as I don't want to identify him directly. To say there is low morale is an understatement. There is great concern regarding the leadership of this administration. Particularly, around how politicized it is trying to make the military. The Military has people of all political persuasions to apolitical. and they fight for all of us. They don't bleed Democrat and Republican, they bleed real American blood. They don't expect to be kept "safe" all the time. The point of a military is to use it. And they are ready to do their duty. But they do have a lot of reservations about what they are being asked to do. Particularly, blowing up alleged drug boats with extrajudicial executions, and How Hegseth and Trump just fire anyone who questions the rationality or legality of what they are doing. Having a Fox News host be their commander, particularly, is grating. He is not fit for the job. And there is a lot of worry over Trump's mercurial demands and lack of planning and thought and eratic behavior.

4 Replies

258 Recommend

Roy Crowe commented 8 hours ago

R

Roy Crowe

Long Island ·

8h ago

Sounds like the Navy has not changed in the past 25 years. Still wearing out crews, fighting software glitches, cannibalizing other ships in the class to stay operational, running from hot spot to hot spot while the President acts without congressional approval.

168 Recommend

Vet24 commented 6 hours ago

V

Vet24

Ne ·

6h ago

I made two west-pacs on a carrier. One was extended due to the Iranian hostage crisis. We were in the Gulf of Oman getting bum-rushed by Iranian F-14s. At one point we had 3 carrier task groups in the Arabian Sea. Being on deployment is tiring and gets especially so when it goes over 8 months. When it gets to the length the Ford has been going, it gets very dangerous.

Any decent military leader knows you cannot keep someone on the 'tip of the spear' for very long without degradation of equipment, moral and personnel. But then we do not have any decent leaders in charge of DoD, (oh- excuse me, DoW) or the country at this time.

2 Replies

166 Recommend

Spaceman commented 9 hours ago

S

Spaceman

Milky Way ·

9h ago

We are "currently" not at war, why haven't these sailors been replaced with a new crew?

Just because it is new and uses lots of new technology and computers doesn't mean it is better. The new catapult system seems like a nightmare and if you can't get it to work in peace time you sure aren't going to get it to work in the middle of war.

While these "improvements" might be better than previous ships with less crew members required, increased sorties, better payload for armaments, who are we competing with besides ourselves? Shouldn't reliability be the highest metric our military should be focusing on instead a potential increased capability under the best of circumstances? We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.

This article is concerning to me. A crew with low morale because of an extended deployment, the latest and greatest carrier that seems late and not that great to be currently on active duty.

12 Replies

162 Recommend

Frank Ohrtman commented 8 hours ago

F

Frank Ohrtman

Denver ·

8h ago

I spent much of 1984 on the aircraft carrier USS America in the North Arabian Sea off the coast of Iran waiting for President Reagan to determine why we were there. Bomb Iran? Keep oil flowing through the Starits of Hormuz?

Fast forward to 2026 and the crew of the $13 billion USS Gerald R. Ford (flight ops are $30,000/hour/jet x 100+ hours/day) are wondering what the mission is: bomb Iran (why?), keep CO2 intensive fossil fuels flowing through Straits of Hormuz?

How is deploying TWO aircraft carrier battle groups to the waters off Iran "America First"?

1 Reply

135 Recommend

Paul commented 8 hours ago

P

Paul

St Paul Park ·

8h ago

The Ford is an accident waiting to happen. 8 months at sea with the ops tempo of a carrier is a long time the crew is exhausted, and the carrier itself is due extensive maintenance. Before this is done it will be June and an 11 months at sea. I wonder how many who are due for reenlistment, will choose to leave rather than endure another stretch at sea like this one, especially with tRump having nearly 3 years left in office.

116 Recommend

Stephen H commented 8 hours ago

S

Stephen H

Brooklyn ·

8h ago

As far as I know, an aircraft carrier like the Ford does not depend on a few machine guns to defend itself--there are several destroyers, cruisers and attack submarines that shadow it. Are the sailors on those ships also seeing longer deployments?

4 Replies

93 Recommend

Watson Brown commented 8 hours ago

W

Watson Brown

Isle of Skye ·

8h ago

On July 29th, 1967, USS Forrestal was put out of Action for over 6 months due to an accidental launch of a Zuni Rocket from an Aircraft on the crowded flight deck. It ripped open a fuel tank on an Aircraft and the fuel spilled out and caught on fire.

About 90 seconds after the fire began, an outdated 1,000-pound bomb (Composition B) detonated. This initial blast killed the ship's specialized firefighting team instantly and tore holes in the armored flight deck, allowing burning fuel to pour into the berthing compartments below.

134 sailors and airmen lost their lives, and another 161 were injured.

Iran would like nothing more than to severely damage the USS Ford, or even sink her.

She will send Drone after Drone 24/7 to attack the Ford. Any of their missiles/bombs could set off the type of explosive chain reaction that happened on the Forrestal.

The Navy is relying on an Electronic Launch System for its Aircraft, a Radar system that it can barely find spare parts for, a Nuclear Reactor that has not been used on a ship before and is being pushed to its limits.

Meanwhile it depends up .50 caliber Machine Guns manned by unprotected sailors and far, far too few 20 mm automated guns for the protection of that huge ship - target.

A Disaster waiting to happen if the Electrical System goes out.

3 Replies

84 Recommend

Carlos commented 7 hours ago

C

Carlos

San Diego ·

7h ago

I’m a member of the US Navy with a bone to pick. The Gerald Ford is also the first American aircraft carrier to remove all urinals. This has resulted in long waiting times for the male staff to wait for a stall. At busy times this can take 45 minutes. How are sailors supposed to function in a crisis without the ability to swiftly relieve ourselves.

2 Replies

81 Recommend

Peter commented 7 hours ago

P

Peter

Switzerland ·

7h ago

Trump’s reliance on a massive military shadow-boxing campaign is proving to be a major miscalculation. While the USS Gerald R. Ford has been deployed since June 2025—exhausting its crew after the Venezuela mission—Tehran is simply playing for time.

​The Iranian leadership has recognized that they only need to stall. The longer the negotiations drag on, the more this "armada" becomes an internal political and logistical liability for the White House. Trump is now a hostage of his own fleet: withdrawing the carriers without a "historic deal" would be a public embarrassment, but keeping them deployed indefinitely breaks the morale of the troops and their families. Those who project maximum strength without a clear exit strategy eventually become the pawns of those who simply have more patience.

1 Reply

70 Recommend

American exile commented 9 hours agoIn reply thread

American exile

American exile

Vienna ·

9h ago

@Spaceman: Indeed. Reminds me of the shortcomings of going from a B-17 to a B-24 (harder to fly, glitchy hydraulics), to a B-29 (engines that easily caught fire).

In the 81 years since WWII ended, the B-17 is the only one of the three widely regarded with affection by those who flew in it.

2 Replies

59 Recommend

Joseph Bergen commented 8 hours ago

J

Joseph Bergen

Buffalo NY ·

8h ago

Despite a cost of $13.3B, the vacuum toilet system is also malfunctioning resulting in 45 min. waits. Might be a bad time start an undeclared war.

58 Recommend

afflatus commented 7 hours ago

a

afflatus

thunder bay ·

7h ago

Very impressive craft...but nothing about just how vulnerable these floating behemoths have become in this new era of hypersonic ballistic missiles & drone swarms....?

1 Reply

50 Recommend

AB85 commented 6 hours ago

A

AB85

Vienna, VA ·

6h ago

Thank you to the service women and men - and to their families left behind - for serving this country. It is a harsh and unreasonable things to demand extended deployments when circumstances do not warrant it: we are not at war, we don’t need to be at war, we have no idea why we are are preparing to attack Iran, and we have been given no reason why US forces should be or are being called upon to make extraordinary sacrifices.

50 Recommend

Dave Kerr commented 6 hours ago

D

Dave Kerr

Pennsylvania ·

6h ago

As sophisticated as the USS Gerald Ford is, it is no match for hundreds of hyper-sonic anti-ship missiles launched by a peer or near-peer adversaries, e.g., China.

Aircraft carriers are the battleships of the 21st Century. Their usefulness has long since passed.

50 Recommend

MP commented 5 hours ago

M

MP

SF Peninsula ·

5h ago

The first country we go up against that has anything like Ukraine’s level of sophistication with large numbers of small drones and that carrier deck full of neatly arranged airplanes is going to be a big huge expensive sitting duck. Carrier groups are designed to defend against attack by other large naval vessels and individual missiles, not hundreds of precisely targeted, tiny and rapidly direction-changing drones.

49 Recommend

Jack commented 8 hours ago

J

Jack

Alabama ·

8h ago

Just because it is ready for battle does not mean it should be used in battle.

1 Reply

43 Recommend

mw commented 8 hours ago

m

mw

canada ·

8h ago

Changing many technologies that depend on each other all at the same time is a surefire way to make the system fail to perform as expected most of the time.

43 Recommend

dave commented 6 hours ago

d

dave

Mich ·

6h ago

Can you imagine the cost per day of operating this vessel, on top of cost to build. Fuel, bombs, ammunition, 4500 crew salary and retirement, cloths, food, 75 aircraft, maintenance. Not even counting destroyer and supply escorts. A fire hose of money never to recovered. And now vulnerable to 500,000 dollars missile sinking it all. We really need to start rethinking some of this.

3 Replies

40 Recommend

Y commented 6 hours ago

Y

Y

New York, NY ·

6h ago

While it's nice to report and debate the advantages and disadvantages of particular ships or weapons, the fact that this article is coming out now is a sad statement on the complete failure of both the media and the Congress to have an actual debate on any decision to go to war. Articles on the "why", followed by the articles on the actual goals, should precede any pieces on the "how".

Running a piece on the "how" without any serious national discussion on the why or the goals, risks normalizing the truly broken hardware in our government and our media.

Every NYT article on military action in Iran needs to include the sentence that as of now, any action would be illegal under both domestic and international law.

Anything less is not responsible or accurate reporting.

Will the military obey clearly illegal orders without a declaration of war by Congress? I guess we can ask the families of the drug runners / wayward fishermen in the Caribbean.

39 Recommend

PhillySub commented 6 hours ago

P

PhillySub

USA ·

6h ago

What really concerns me is that there are no spare parts. Who in their right mind decided on this? It's a warship. If it goes into combat, it likely will be damaged. Even just normal wear and tear requires replacement parts. So a multi-billion dollar warship might soon be useless because spare parts are unavailable. The only consolation is that the crew will get some leave.

2 Replies

38 Recommend

Bill Fennelly commented 7 hours ago

B

Bill Fennelly

PA ·

7h ago

My wife’s grandson is aboard the Ford. Praying that all the men and women in the Middle East remain safe and out of danger

1 Reply

33 Recommend

Cody McCall commented 7 hours ago

C

Cody McCall

tacoma ·

7h ago

The 'War Dept.' is spending way too much money and time building these behemoths. They are little more than big, fat, floating targets. They wouldn't last a week in a serious conflict with the Chinese who have about a thousand anti-ship missiles to sink this ship. Those F/A-18's are obsolete and where are all those 'new' F-35's to replace them? We always build our military for yesterday's wars. How many drone swarms could we build for the price on this carrier? And build much faster, too. Remember, the US navy was almost defeated at Okinawa by Japanese kamikazes, which were manned 'drones' full of gas and bombs. Our money and time could be put to better use to defend our country than fritter it away on yet another titanic target.

31 Recommend

Hector Samkow commented 6 hours ago

H

Hector Samkow

Oregon ·

6h ago

No mention of the sewage system problems. I've read elsewhere that the Ford's "new and improved" system is constantly plugging and backing-up, and that a significant number of toilets don't work. Adding to the low-morale.

1 Reply

31 Recommend

Glen commented 5 hours ago

G

Glen

Seattle WA ·

5h ago

So, in other words, it's a hot mess.

If we are dumb enough to attack Iran for no good reason, I predict they'll take a carrier out. Which (apart from the brave souls lost) might be a good wake-up call to not put so many eggs in one basket.

30 Recommend

yeahbut commented 8 hours ago

y

yeahbut

california ·

8h ago

Re: the new catapult system being software driven, rather than old fashioned steam etc.

I definitely am not any kind of expert, and i'm probably wrong, but....

Is this just another modern digital innovation that can be cyber hacked and disabled by the enemy?

No catapult system obviously neuters the operational value of a carrier in combat.

3 Replies

28 Recommend

James commented 5 hours ago

J

James

USA ·

5h ago

There’s not one word in the article about the main problem right now, which is the sewage system on board.

27 Recommend

-ABC...XYZ commented 5 hours ago

-ABC...XYZ

-ABC...XYZ

NYC ·

5h ago

via ' Y ' of NYC : " Every NYT article on military action in Iran needs to include the sentence that as of now, any action would be illegal under both domestic and international law. "

26 Recommend

John commented 7 hours ago

J

John

USA ·

7h ago

“Instead of a traditional radar that rotates and requires maintenance to keep it spinning, Ford uses a series of flat radar panels that don’t move but constantly emit a bubble of radio waves around the ship.”

Flat radar panels have been around since the commissioning of the first Aegis cruiser, the USS Ticonderoga, in 1983. From this point on, every major surface combatant is built around a fixed array radar.

24 Recommend

Marat1784 commented 6 hours ago

M

Marat1784

CT ·

6h ago

A carrier’s role has changed over the last century (!) so that it is now just a means for projecting power, no longer a durable weapon in extended conflict. The updates and details don’t matter; it’s a launch once and discard platform against even second or third tier opponents. That it’s too expensive to have useful multiples or that updates take way too long are just more evidence. And, of course, we now have a president demanding “battleships” with his personal esthetic preferences.

War never goes away, and that’s so sad, but making outdated or disfunctional weaponry isn’t a great idea.

24 Recommend

Jens commented 8 hours agoIn reply thread

J

Jens

Mililani Mauka ·

8h ago

@Spaceman

"why haven't these sailors been replaced with a new crew?”

Crews aren’t made up of “spare parts” that can be swapped out at will. Crews take time to come together and work together. Nuclear submarines generally have blue and gold crews that replace each other regularly because of the pressure of deployments and the need to keep the subs out there all the time. Sub crews average in size from 134 to 150 depending on the sub and mission. It’s not prohibitive to have two crews.

This carrier has a crew of 4500 officers, sailors, and aviators. The expense of having a “spare crew” that is completely worked up and functioning together waiting on shore is ridiculously expensive and wasteful.

Bottom line: It doesn’t work like that.

1 Reply

22 Recommend

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5839226&forum_id=2...#49701560)