Can USS Gerald R. Ford be Sunk?

By Sufian Al-Tal


Construction of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford began in 2005. Its plans were fully prepared and built on defensive foundations that, based on the data and military science available up to 2005, made it unsinkable.

However, between 2005 and 2025, 20 years of scientific and military development passed, and new sciences emerged and clashed, which the aircraft carrier’s plans and designs at the time did not take into account. In addition, the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, which entered service in 1961, was officially decommissioned on February 3, 2017, after more than 55 years.

Thinking strategically?

The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford is one of the most advanced warships in modern history and is often referred to as “unsinkable.” However, while this description is valid in its military context, it remains relative, not absolute. The real question is not whether sinking it is theoretically possible, but whether its defensive design philosophy can still keep pace with the rapid scientific and military advancements the world witnessed between 2005 and 2025.

Work on the design of the aircraft carrier began at the start of the new millennium. This means that the engineering plans and defensive doctrines upon which it was based were grounded in the military science, weapons technologies, and anticipated threat patterns available at the time.

At that time, traditional naval threats, such as anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles, were known and incorporated into existing defense systems. This allowed the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier to be designed as a highly fortified, multi-system vessel capable of absorbing damage without losing combat capability. From an engineering perspective, no naval vessel is designed with the absolute impossibility of sinking in mind, but rather with the principle of survivability after being hit.

The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford relies on a complex internal layout that minimizes the risk of cascading sinking, advanced fire suppression and damage control systems, and the ability to continue operating even after sustaining direct hits. However, all of this assumes a specific type of threat and relatively conventional combat scenarios within the parameters of that era.

Hypersonic missiles

Between 2005 and 2025, the military world witnessed significant developments that were not part of the initial design calculations. Among the most prominent of these are the emergence of hypersonic missiles with speeds and trajectories that are difficult to intercept, the growing capabilities of cyber warfare targeting command and control systems, and the rise of drone swarms as a means of overwhelming defenses through saturation. Additionally, advancements in sensor technologies and artificial intelligence have enabled the tracking of small, large, complex, and moving targets. These transformations do not necessarily imply that the aircraft carrier has become weak, but they do raise legitimate questions about the adequacy of the defensive philosophy established two decades ago.

At that time, conventional maritime threats were well-known and integrated into the carrier’s design, which relied on layered defenses and advanced damage control systems. However, between 2005 and 2025, the world experienced tremendous and rapid scientific and military advancements. China, for example, has surged in military spending and innovation, with its development rate increasing by approximately 250–300% between 2005 and 2025, making it one of the world’s closest competitors.

In contrast, the United States maintained its dominance, albeit at a slower pace, with an estimated development rate of 160–180%. Russia, on the other hand, achieved selective modernization while preserving its nuclear capabilities, with an estimated development rate of 140–160%.

Iran, starting from a modest base, made a relatively significant leap in its missile and drone capabilities, with an estimated development rate of 300–350%. In this context, another question arises concerning the thinking of some countries that do not seek to emulate the United States in terms of fleet size or number of aircraft carriers, such as China, Russia, or Iran. Instead of engaging in a costly, conventional arms race, these countries’ military thinking (thinking outside the box) focuses on circumventing this model and seeking unconventional means to neutralize, disable, or directly destroy the platform.

Within this framework, discussions arise regarding technologies based on radiation, microwaves, or other directed energy sources. In principle, there is nothing to prevent the development of devices based on high-powered microwaves, electromagnetic pulses, or high-energy lasers. However, the potential role of these technologies, as currently understood, is not to melt or physically destroy the carrier’s hull, but rather to disable or confuse sensitive electronics, disable radar, navigation, and communication systems, or disrupt flight control systems on the carrier’s deck.

The idea of ​​melting thick marine steel, armored hulls, or parts thereof with beams from combat range is unrealistic given current data, due to the enormous energy requirements, radiation dispersion, and the difficulty of precise targeting of a moving target protected by multiple layers of defense. However, we cannot confirm or deny that there are those who think and work in this field, shrouding their activities in absolute secrecy. Surprising the enemy with unexpected weapons has always been, and remains, a core element of military planning.

The real danger lies not in a super-radiation weapon, but in the integration of multiple fields, such as a cyberattack that disrupts combat command and control systems, electromagnetic jamming that confuses sensor systems, followed by a conventional physical attack. In such a scenario, the carrier transforms from a highly organized platform into a complex system suffering from information bottlenecks, one of the most serious challenges facing modern armies. Military history shows that what is described as secret science is not the discovery of new physical laws (which would be astonishing and groundbreaking if it occurred), but rather innovative applications of known sciences. The novelty lies in the application of these sciences.

This is often in the method of integration and deployment, not in the essence of the science itself. Therefore, despite the possibility of technologies whose details have not been disclosed, it is necessary to mention a Chinese and an Iranian development:

The media is currently reporting on a Chinese achievement dubbed the “aircraft carrier killer,” an air-launched ballistic missile likely designed to target American aircraft carriers and warships. Since this missile is hypersonic and employs a special guidance system, it is capable of maneuvering and evading anti-ship weapons.

Regarding Iran’s threats that a weapon capable of sinking a ship is more dangerous than the ship itself, Israeli sources are discussing the “Whale torpedo,” which is launched underwater, operates in a supercavitational cavity, and moves within a gas bubble that reduces its water resistance. At speeds of up to 360 km/h, it reduces the reaction time of targeted ships and makes interception difficult.

In conclusion, bypassing conventional weaponry has become a reality, and disabling an aircraft carrier is now, theoretically, possible. However, completely sinking one remains a secret weapon, not disclosed by those who possess it, in order to surprise the enemy.

This article is a translated piece of an Arabic version that appeared in Al Rai Al Youm.

  • CrossFireArabia

    CrossFireArabia

    Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

    Related Posts

    Trump: Tunes, Ceasefire and Hormuz

    Saleem Ayoub Quna

    The latest ceasefire by Trump reminded me of an aspiring young violinist, who every time she started playing her own written piece, the tunes of her instrument would go havoc!

    Last move, the declaration of a ceasefire with no deadline, by President Donald Trump on the Hormuz virtual chessboard with Iran, did not lack the usual element of surprise. Still, it was a relief for some, annoying for others and revealing for a third group!

    While at it in the White House, the Pakistani host intermediaries in the other side of the hemisphere, were stood up for the arrival of the negotiation teams, who seemingly were hindered by other conflicting schedules, while pilots of the jet fighters, in the air bases and on board destroyers, and the launchers of missiles, drones and anti–missile batteries, were all getting itchy over the delay of orders from their commanders, which left TV anchors and other commentators, boringly speculating and redundant!

    After the two rounds of exchanging intensive missile and rocket attacks, between Iran and the US-Israeli axis, in less than a year, using the open skies over the Middle East from the Mediterranean to the Gulf area, as a last resort to make each party’s views clearer to the other, President Trump, the man who happens to hold most of the important cards in his hands, seems today, to have come to the conclusion, that neither his message, nor his tools, or even his sheer luck have helped making his message loud and clear enough to his opponents and to the rest of world!

    Luck in this context can be associated with the totality of internal, regional and world unanticipated reactions to this complicated conflict, in terms of rising oil and gas prices for the average consumer, whether in Europe, North America or in Eastern Asia. It is highly suspected that these instruments in the hands of Trump, started producing tunes that were not written or desired by Trump himself, and if they did, it was just a kind of dissonance!

    It is also very probable that Trump’s tactics as a deal maker, continuously changing his tone and vocabulary, made his listeners lose track of his true original storyline, if there was one! But more seriously, weighing and counting the odds that have befell Trump in the aftermath of the breakout of the war, some of which were

    of his own making, and other developments that came out as natural by-products of the original move!

    Following is a rundown of those unexpected unpleasant by-products, or side-effects, some of which might turn into chronicle headaches*, of the whole initiative which Trump had closely coordinated with his persistent ally, Netanyahu, the first in June 2025, when the two of them orchestrated the “Midnight Hammer” surprise operation against sensitive Iranian targets, and the second round “Epic Fury” on Feb28 this year, while negotiators were in session:

    1. Rise of oil and gas price in world markets

    2. Drop of share prices in stock markets

    3. Fracture with NATO*

    4. Decline in Republican Party ratings ahead of the midterms congressional elections in November

    5. Resurgence of Trump’s friendship with Epstein’s scandals.

    6. Firing key US generals in the midst of crisis, culminated by ousting Navy Secretary, John Phelan.

    7. Emulating Jesus Christ in a replica image!

    8. Personal row with Pope Leo who stands as the most respectful living figure in the Western civilization.*

    9. Lebanon and Hezbollah’s connection.*

    10. The Strait of Hormuz new strategic entanglement*

    None of the above problems or symptoms of problems, except for point 5 and 9, existed before Trump made up his mind to go into war against Iran last year. Even back in 2018 during his first term, Trump shocked the world by tearing up the Iran-nuclear deal approved by Obama’s Administration after being endorsed by the rest of the Western powers. No one expected that Trump would go this far in his second term, except the Prime Minister of Israel!

    All things considered, the whole world, minus Israel, was shocked by the magnitude of the bombings to finish Iran’s potentials to own its own nuclear knowhow and capabilities. All of which leaves me wondering if this latest ambiguous ceasefire, and the way it was presented and its timing, will prove to be a real turning point in the ongoing strife in the Middle East, or just another boring maneuvering tactic by Trump!

    As for the fate of young aspiring violinist, it was said that after she had discovered that her violin was not authentic but a replica, she decided to become a soprano!

    Continue reading
    An Unholy War!

    By Robert Stephen Ford

    Presidents and popes have disputed wars in the past. Pope Paul VI criticized the American war in Vietnam, saying that America was losing its moral standing. Pope John Paul II called the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 unjust and illegal. However, the clash between US President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV, who are the two most influential Americans in the world, about the war against Iran is without precedent.

    The rift that preceded the war

    The relations between the Vatican and the Trump administration were difficult even before the Iran war. Before the appointment of Pope Leo, Pope Francis in 2025 criticized Donald Trump’s restrictions against immigration and the treatment of refugees and immigrants in American detention centers. In January 2026, three top Catholic Church leaders in the United States issued a report stating that American foreign policy was immoral. They pointed to reduced assistance to world health programs that have harmed tens of millions of people worldwide.

    The American surprise attack on Iran on February 28 sharpened the dispute between the Vatican and the White House. The Trump administration portrays the war as a kind of holy crusade blessed by God. In his April 7 social media message threatening to destroy Iranian civilization, Trump exclaimed, “Glory to God!” while also saying that God ensured the success of the mission to rescue an American pilot whose plane was shot down over Iran. On March 26, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a press conference that military strikes against Iran enjoyed protection from God, and at a religious service in the Pentagon on April 1, he quoted from the Old Testament, asking God to “break the enemy’s teeth.”

    The Pope responded on April 6 that Jesus called for peace and reconciliation, and he rejected politicians using God to justify war. His rebuke generated sharp counterattacks from Trump and some Republican Party leaders. Vice President JD Vance and Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson said the pope appeared not to understand the Catholic Church theory of just war. Several American bishops close to Pope Leo responded that it was ridiculous to suggest that the pope did not understand the theology and the theory of just war since Leo himself is from the branch of the Catholic Church founded by Augustine, the Christian thinker who, 1,600 years ago, first set down the principles of a just war. The surprise American attack in the middle of negotiations, the American failure to avoid striking civilian targets and the ambiguous American government goals of the Iran war did not meet the standards of a just war, they noted.

    Politics dressed as theology

    Trump and the Republicans are politicians, not theologians. They portray the war against Iran as holy because they understand that the war is unpopular in the United States and they need the support of Christian conservatives in their political base. Notably, most Catholics, who are about 20% of the American population, voted for Trump in 2024. Opinion polls since late March have shown that most Americans doubt the war is in America’s national interests. After Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilian infrastructure and civilization on April 6-7, the pope called the threats “unacceptable” and would violate international law. He even urged American citizens to contact their representatives in Congress to demand that the war stop. It was unprecedented for a pope to urge Americans to mobilize this way, and it directly touched a big part of the Republican Party base. Trump responded five days later with his social media message alleging that the pope appears to accept that Iran can have nuclear weapons and does not understand foreign policy. No American president had attacked a pope so personally. With economic damage from the Iran war and opinion polls indicating Democratic Party victories in the November congressional elections, the White House and Republicans are especially sensitive to criticisms towards their war policy.

    The pope enjoys a big advantage over Trump in opinion polls in the United States, and Trump over the past four days has retreated a little. He said on April 16 that while he respected the pope’s right to say what he thinks, Trump insisted that he would continue to say and do what he thinks is right. The pope, meanwhile, said on April 18 that he did not want to debate the president. The pope’s role in the end is not to descend to politics but rather to stay on a high level focused on how people should live according to the principles of Christianity. This round of arguments has been winding down, but the Trump administration’s use of Biblical scripture and symbols to justify controversial policies will trigger new fights with the Catholic Church in the months ahead, especially if the war escalates.

    The writer is a former US Ambassador to Algeria and Syria and contributed this article to Anadolu

    Continue reading

    You Missed

    Trump: Tunes, Ceasefire and Hormuz

    Trump: Tunes, Ceasefire and Hormuz

    Israeli Looters in Lebanon

    • By marwan
    • April 23, 2026
    • 17 views

    Ayat, Qamar Bid Farwell to Their Martyr Dad

    Ayat, Qamar Bid Farwell to Their Martyr Dad

    ‘We Killed Our Own Then Blamed Hamas’

    ‘We Killed Our Own Then Blamed Hamas’

    An Unholy War!

    An Unholy War!

    ‘Journalist Khalil Trapped Under Rubble Left to Die’

    ‘Journalist Khalil Trapped Under Rubble Left to Die’