USS Gerald R. Ford: The billion-dollar failure that embarrassed the US Navy

The aircraft carrier “USS Gerald R. Ford” represents American military ambition at its best. It isn’t merely a warship but a floating city designed to be the unrivaled “Lady of the Seas” in the 21st century.

Follow-ups – Al-Khabar Al-Yemeni:

However, this ambition has turned into rich material for political and military debate and controversy after the vessel faced a series of technical and financial hurdles that made many wonder: Did the US Navy fall into the trap of “epic failure”?

The outlines of the crisis emerged from the very first moments of constructing this engineering miracle, as the total cost exceeded $13.3 billion, making it the most expensive military piece in human history.

The issue didn’t stop at budget depletion but extended to years of schedule delays, resulting from reliance on “revolutionary” technologies that were not sufficiently tested before adoption. Instead of entering service as an immediate strike force, the “Ford” turned into an expensive experimental field that took years to correct its primitive mistakes.

The roots of the “technical failure” lie at the heart of the systems that were supposed to distinguish it, most notably the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) that replaced traditional steam catapults.

This system, despite its advancement, suffered from frequent malfunctions and low reliability in its early stages, threatening the carrier’s ability to launch aircraft at a rapid pace in war situations. The “Advanced Weapons Elevators” were not luckier, as they suffered for years from programming and magnetic issues, rendering the ship technically incapable of moving munitions from the warehouses to the flight deck at the required speed.

Given the geopolitical landscape of 2026 and the emergence of “hypersonic” missiles and anti-ship weapons possessed by powers like China and Iran, doubts have begun to take a strategic turn: Are large carriers of this size still an effective means of deterrence, or have they become “easy targets” that can be neutralized by missiles far cheaper than the price of a single bolt in the “Ford’s” hull? Even service systems didn’t escape criticism, as problems with sewage system blockages and their exorbitant maintenance costs became a symbol of poor engineering planning down to the smallest detail.

Despite these failures, project defenders argue that the “Ford” is the victim of a necessary “technological leap” that requires paying its price. It possesses an immense electrical power generation capacity, two and a half times greater than previous generations, qualifying it to accommodate laser weapons and electromagnetic railguns in the future. Between administrative failure and deferred technological success, the “USS Gerald R. Ford” remains a harsh military lesson on how to balance the desire for innovation with immediate combat readiness.