Can USS Gerald R. Ford be Sunk?

CrossFireArabia
Opinion
February 24, 2026

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

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.

News Opinion

World Cup, Wimbledon Kicks: Flags, Nepotism, Red Cards and a Watermelon!

Saleem Ayoub Quna
July 9, 2026

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

For a change I would like to give credit to President Trump’s, latest attempt to support the American team before facing off Belgium’s team on July 6, when the day before, and despite his tight and loaded schedule, he called “his friend” Gianni Infantino, FIFA’s President, and asked him for a second look at the punishment against the American striker Folarin Balogun, who made a foul against a Bosnia-Herzegovina player in the match they played earlier on July 2, and which the US won 2-0.

FIFA regulations stipulate that when a player gets a red card during a match for an offense he makes against the other team, he should be suspended from playing in the following match! Mr. Infantino obliged and lifted the ban against the American player. But the match against Belgium in which Balogun played was won by Belgium 4-1.

This intervention episode by Trump on behalf of the American national soccer squad did not end there and led to a controversy that would not be settled before the closing of the 32nd round of the current international tournament.

Infantino was criticized by many within and outside the FIFA body and was asked to resign his post as head of this huge powerful organization. In brief, this episode shows that behind the broad smiles and nice words, sits a huge monster of nepotism and even possible corruption!

Also it means that sports, as a human “noble” endeavor, is not immune from certain uncouth and loath viruses that can affect and may shatter the dreams of other less resourceful nations!

Then we have the phenomenon of waiving national flags when a team wins a match. This occasion is ceased by some staff of the winning teams and players to demonstrate their support for a certain political or human cause or admiration of a person. This is exactly what Hossam Hassan, head-coach of the Egyptian team did when his players defeated Australia on July 3 as they scored 4 goals against Australia which scored only 2 goals, in the final shootout play of the match.

Coach Hassan came down to the pitch and waived the Palestinian flag in a sign of support for the Palestinians in beleaguered Gaza, which celebrated Egyptian performance at the tournament. Israel protested this solidarity gesture with Palestinians and labeled it as anti-Semitic, but FIFA officials maintained that flags belonging to FIFA members, (including Palestine) are allowed to be waived on this occasion!

On the other side of the Atlantic, and in London to be precise, another major sports event is underway, known as the Wimbledon grand slam championship. Wimbledon is known for its strict rules starting with the must-wear white attire, by all players and staff!

On June 29, the Turkish Tennis player, Zeynep Sonmez, ranked 51 by WTA, defeated American player Ann Li 2-1. Sonmez wanted to waive a sign of support for the Palestinians, but could not and according to Jamie Baker, the Wimbledon Tournament Director: “Wimbledon rules do not allow political massaging from players”!

So, what does Ms. Zeynep Somez do?! She sticks a small rubber shock absorber to her racket in a shape of a watermelon composed of the four colors of red, white, black and green! To that subtle demonstration, the Wimbledon people could not raise a finger or blow a whistle!

In this regard, other sources insisted that some people among the audience waived the Israeli which was received by a blind eye!

So next time I attend an important tournament or watch it on TV, I will keep my eyes open on tactics and kicks of this sort, which actually might add to the fun of watching!

Opinion

New York: AIPAC Stranglehold No More !

CrossFireArabia
July 8, 2026

By James J. Zogby

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has long held sway in elections, threatening and intimidating any opposition. When a critic of Israel was defeated, they boasted of victory as a lesson for others. In last week’s Democratic primary elections in New York City, three insurgent critics of Israeli policies defeated AIPAC-endorsed candidates, pointing to the potential end of an era for the pro-Israel lobby.

 AIPAC’s approach to politics and elections was smart. Formed by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, they were connected from the outset to an impressive national network of American Jewish leaders, activists, and donors they used to effectively influence members of Congress to embrace pro-Israel positions.  They’d visit elected officials in Washington seeking endorsements of legislation and enlist local leaders in a congressperson’s district to make the pitch.

They’d have local representatives offer to help write new candidates’ Middle East policy positions. Implicit were the promise of support if the official or candidate did what was asked—and the threat of opposition if they didn’t.  AIPAC also spawned a network of PACs—political action committees—to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute for or against candidates depending on their positions on Israel.  Strategic in their operations, not everyone benefited from AIPAC’s largesse.

Chairs of important congressional committees and very supportive congressmembers facing tough reelections received bundled contributions. When elected officials repeatedly stepped out of line, their opponents would benefit from PAC monies and bundled contributions from individual pro-Israel donors.  Overall, the amounts were not overwhelming but sufficient to send a message. When an election went their way, the lobby would crow about the victory, whether or not their support had been a factor. Their goal was communication: “Fear us, or you too can be defeated.”  

With the end of federal oversight of independent election expenditures, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups created “super-PACs” to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars each cycle. In 2022 and 2024, they effectively targeted a few candidates critical of Israel and spent millions to defeat them.  After Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, we’ve witnessed a dramatic collapse of public support for Israel—especially among Democrats. AIPAC can no longer make examples of just a few candidates, with well over 100 electeds now critical of Israel. Add to this that AIPAC has become so toxic they’ve been forced to create new entities or rely on alternates to distribute funds to candidates.  Meanwhile, Israel’s behaviors alienate more voters. And the more money AIPAC spends, the more toxic its brand—even when they win, their heavy-handed tactics lead to declining support.

This brings us to last week’s New York primaries, a turning point in US politics when two prominent pro-Israel members of Congress were defeated by challengers critical of Israeli policies and supporters of Palestinian justice, and a former leader of pro-Palestinian campus protests won an open race. Not only did AIPAC and its allies spend millions and fail, but also these elections were upfront about Israeli policies and Palestinian rights.  

A hallmark of pro-Israel groups’ past campaign involvement was the lengths they’d go to not make support for Israel a public issue. They’d raise money from their supporters based on Israel, but their expenditures would pay for ads criticizing a candidate’s age or “radical agenda,” never mentioning the candidate’s position on Israel. In these NY contests, many issues mattered to voters, especially frustration with the Democratic establishment’s failed policies—but they were also about Israel, and voters knew it.   

In predictable reactions from the pro-Israel side, some accused the targeting of AIPAC’s money and influence as unfair or even antisemitic—ignoring decades of AIPAC boasting about its money and influence as the source of its power. Others claimed that with the election’s results, “Jews no longer feel safe in New York,” ignoring that the most prominent contest’s victor is Jewish—a self-proclaimed progressive Zionist who strongly opposed Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. Finally, some desperately attempted to dismiss the entire election as just about New York with no larger significance, ignoring the changed national political landscape as similar contests emerge everywhere.   

The bottom line is that after a half-century AIPAC’s hold over politics has been weakened. It won’t go away anytime soon, but a real debate over US Middle East policy can now take place. Thank you, New York voters

James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute  and contributed this article to The Jordan Times