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.

Opinion

Oslo: Strangling The Dove

Dr Khairi Janbek
May 10, 2026

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When we do a recap of the Oslo Agreements, they were a series of accords between Israel and the PLO signed in 1993. It was a process meant to lead to a permanent settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within five year, including decisions on borders, refugees, security, Jerusalem and settlements.

But right from the start, voices were divided over the process, while for others, the whole idea had a built-in mechanism for failure from the start. The Palestinians started seeing that the Oslo Agreements were neither ending the establishment of Israeli settlements nor the end to occupation, while for the Israelis it didn’t seem to end their security concerns.

Indeed, it is pointless to think which comes first, the chicken or the egg, because two different fears and logistics persisted from the start. But also, it is important to think about the circumstances which brought about the idea of launching the process, and which did put the PLO in a tough position for being perceived as supporting the wrong side which lost; Iraq.

The room for manoeuvre for the late Yasser Arafat was very tight as he stood to lose the legitimacy of the PLO.

What one is trying to say is that, right from the start, outside official circles, many on the Palestinian side were against Oslo probably as many as was the case on the Israeli side.

The gradual erosion of Oslo mainly through the continued Israeli actions kept feeding extremism on both sides. Nevertheless, the concept was not revoked by any Israeli government because of its effect on Arab public opinion, pressure which is likely to block any peace initiative. Moreover, the international atmosphere was not conducive for such an initiative.

Having said that, one cannot claim that the international atmosphere is currently more indifferent to the abrogation of the Oslo, rather Israel seems to have more leeway in undertaking unilateral actions with more impunity.

Of course, it is not international law that can be counted on in this respect but rather, at least for the time being Donald Trump’s disapproval of the idea of annexing the West Bank by Israel. This is despite the fact that all the Israeli actions of dividing the West Bank from north to south first and currently from west to east, goes unnoticed. But the important thing has been till now, and don’t say the magic word, end of Oslo.

However, the recent development is that Israeli political parties, the partners in Netanyahu’s government are all pushing openly, for the abrogation of the Oslo agreements and cancelling out all the Israeli obligations towards it.

One can only say such an open declaration is a matter of principle by the Israeli government, because the changes on the ground are there for all to see. One supposes all parties are playing for time to see the end of the Palestinian national aspirations.

The columnist is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France

Opinion

How Trump Burned Western Friendships

CrossFireArabia
May 7, 2026

By Jassem Al-Azzawi

Something remarkable is happening today in the corridors of western powers. America’s closest allies are no longer whispering their frustrations behind closed doors; they are now shouting them from the podiums of their parliaments and in press conferences. And US president Donald Trump is responding in kind. The transatlantic alliance, painstakingly built over eight decades, is now fracturing in a live broadcast.

The immediate cause is the American-Israeli war on Iran, launched on 28 February, 2026, without consulting NATO partners, United Nations, or even Washington’s closest friends. But the rift runs deeper than a single conflict; it reflects a strategy that is indifferent to its allies, or even openly contemptuous of them.

“The Americans clearly lack a strategy.”

The breaking point was starkly illustrated in the frank remarks made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to students in Marsberg, northwest Germany. Merz likened the conflict with Iran to past US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It’s clear the Americans don’t have a strategic plan,” he said, describing Washington’s approach as “ill-conceived.”

He went even further, suggesting that the US was being “humiliated” by Tehran’s negotiating tactics which is a stunning public accusation from a Chancellor who, until recently, was one of Washington’s most hawkish European allies.

Trump reacted furiously, writing on his TruthSocial platform that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and threatening to reduce the number of US troops stationed in Germany, currently at 36,436. He then told the German chancellor to mind his own business:

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, where he has been completely ineffective, and fixing his own battered country… rather than meddling in the affairs of those who are eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat.”

This verbal sparring is transcending all diplomatic norms and is shakening the foundations of the US-European axis.

Starmer: “I’m fed up,” he says publicly.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer invested considerable political capital in cultivating a working relationship with Trump, but that investment has now proven costly. When asked about Trump’s threats to destroy Iran, Starmer told ITV:

“These are not words I would ever use, because I speak from our British values and principles.”

The harshest language came when Starmer placed Trump alongside Vladimir Putin as partners in causing British economic hardship, telling Talking Points:

“I’m fed up with seeing families and businesses across the country struggling with fluctuating energy bills because of Putin’s or Trump’s actions around the world.”

On British military involvement, Starmer was unequivocal: “I will not change my mind, and I will not back down. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so.” Trump rewarded this initial stance with a statement to The Sun newspaper: “Starmer has not been cooperative. The relationship is clearly not what it used to be,” he said.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund underscored the scale of the material risks by lowering its 2026 growth forecast for Britain to 0.8 percent. This is a direct consequence of the energy shock Trump’s trade war has inflicted on British households.

Sanchez and Carney: Europe and Canada Draw a Line

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has emerged as the most vocal European leader in his criticism of Trump and his uncompromising stance. After Trump threatened to sever all trade ties with Madrid following Spain’s refusal to allow US troops to use the Rota and Morón air bases, Sanchez did not back down. When the ceasefire was announced, his judgment was scathing:

“A ceasefire is always good news, but this temporary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, destruction, and lives lost. The Spanish government will not applaud those who set the world ablaze just because they have finally appeared with a bucket of water.”

For his part, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney offered a broader structural indictment, stating in a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney:

“Geostrategically, dominant powers are increasingly acting without restraint or respect for international norms and laws, while others bear the consequences.”

He described the war as “a failure of the international order,” adding that “the United States and Israel acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada.”

The alarm bells were not only ringing abroad; Senate Democrats launched a fierce campaign to reclaim congressional authority over a war they deemed illegal, unauthorized, and a diplomatic disaster.

Senator Tim Kaine’s diagnosis was accurate: “There was no clear justification, no clear plan, and no effort to engage allies or Congress. When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable.”

Senator Chris Murphy was even more blunt.

“We have never seen a foreign conflict so publicly mismanaged. We have become a laughingstock around the world, while hurting Americans who are now paying billions more in fuel prices.” Senator Tammy Duckworth linked the current disaster to America’s post-World War II pattern, saying:

“Our duty is to ensure that our nation never again slides into an endless, self-serving war.” Despite this, all six war powers resolutions introduced by the Democrats failed due to Republican loyalty to Trump, even as the war cost the lives of 13 Americans in its first month and the price of a gallon of gasoline reached $4.30.

Time for reckoning has come…

Whether Trump’s antagonism toward allies is a strategic dismantling or simply the impulsiveness of a leader who confuses aggression with strength, the result is the same. He threatened to withdraw from NATO, imposed trade sanctions on Spain, threatened to withdraw troops from Germany, and pushed the “special relationship” with Britain to the brink of collapse. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning also came to light.

Trump will “re-examine” Washington’s commitments to allies who did not support the war, as a declaration of “conditional friendship.”

America’s friends are being pushed away, its adversaries are watching, and the West, for the first time since 1945, is genuinely unsure whether it can rely on Washington.

Jassem Al-Azzawi is an Iraqi writer and journalist who contributed this article to the Arabic website, Al Rai Al Youm and appears in Crossfirearabia.com.