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

Netanyahu, Mount Hermon and Arab Silense

Heba
September 13, 2026

By Awni al-Rajoub

What is happening? What remains of the dignity of an Arab nation that stands before such a grave scene and then moves on as if nothing has happened?

For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to enter Syrian territory and reach the Mount Hermon area, forcibly and under the protection of occupation forces, without hesitation or shame, is not merely a passing provocation, nor a fleeting political maneuver that can be dismissed as media posturing.

It is a scene that encapsulates the extent of Israeli arrogance and disregard for all international rules, norms, and conventions.

What audacity! What kind of arrogance allows the head of the occupation government to enter the territory of a sovereign Arab state as if it were unclaimed land?

Who gave him the right? Who said that power grants its possessor the right to violate the borders of states? Who said that the occupation can impose its own law on the region, while others are required to abide by international law?

What is happening can no longer be glossed over or addressed with cold diplomatic language. There is an occupation that acts according to the logic of force, and there is an Arab silence that grows heavier and more painful.

Netanyahu did not enter Mount Hermon because he doesn’t know it’s Syrian territory. Nor did he cross the border because he misread the map.

He knows perfectly well where he stands, he knows perfectly well what this move means, and he knows that the message is not just for Syria.

The message is for the entire region.

A message that says Israel is ready to advance whenever it finds the way open, to impose a new reality by force, and to test the limits of Arab and international reaction each time.

And therein lies the tragedy. The problem is not only with the one advancing, but with the one who allows him to advance without paying a real political price. We have reached a point where the question has become more painful than the event itself:

Is there still an Arab nation?

A nation that sees the land of an Arab state violated, the borders of an Arab state transgressed, and the sovereignty of an Arab state trampled upon, and then finds nothing in the face of this scene but silence, statements, and positions that change nothing on the ground?

We don’t want random wars, military adventures, or empty slogans. But we do want at least one thing:

For the Arabs to take a stance commensurate with the magnitude of the danger.

A genuine political stance. A genuine diplomatic stance. A stance that makes the occupation understand that every transgression has a price, that the region is not without will, and that the Arabs are not so powerless.

What is happening today in Syria should not be viewed as an internal Syrian matter or an isolated incident.

It is a matter of Arab sovereignty.

If violating the borders of an Arab state becomes something that can be overlooked with silence, what prevents it from happening again elsewhere?

Today it’s Mount Hermon.

And tomorrow, what?

Where will this project end?

The most dangerous thing facing the nation is not only the strength of the enemy, but the nation’s habituation to retreating before it. For occupation to become commonplace. For raids to become routine. For incursions to become routine. That violations of sovereignty become mere news items that pass through the news bulletins and are then forgotten.

This is the true catastrophe. Nations are not only defeated when they lose their battles, but also when they lose sight of the gravity of what is happening to them.

Netanyahu’s incursion into Syrian territory in this manner should awaken a profound question within us:

What do we want for the future? Do we accept that the map of the region be drawn by force?

Do we accept that Arab borders become subject to change whenever one party possesses military power?

Do we accept that sovereignty becomes a mere word in statements, while facts on the ground are imposed by force?

And will we continue to stand idly by as this saga of Israeli arrogance unfolds before our very eyes?

For how long? It is time to state it clearly:

Israel does not act with such arrogance in a vacuum. It does so because it senses that the cost of defiance is low, that reactions are limited, that the Arab world is mired in its crises and disputes, and that every country is preoccupied with its internal affairs.

And here we must pause. Arab disputes must not be allowed to become an open opportunity for others. Nor must Arab divisions be a bridge for occupation to cross into more Arab lands. We are facing a moment that demands we ask ourselves honestly:

Where is the Arab decision? Where is the Arab will? Where is the ability to transform anger into action? Where is the capacity to utilize politics, diplomacy, law, economics, and all available means of pressure?

No one is asking the impossible. No one is asking the Arabs to go to war. But what is required is that the nation not remain a mere spectator. For prolonged silence in the face of arrogance ultimately becomes a green light.

And here I fear that a day will come when the question will no longer be:

Why did Netanyahu enter Mount Hermon?

But rather:

Why did we let him go even further?

The Arab nation’s brow is not only stained when its land is occupied, but also when it witnesses repeated aggression and lacks the will to stop it.

And the shame lies not in the nation’s weakness at any point in its history; Weakness can afflict nations.

But the true shame is for a nation to become accustomed to its weakness, and to treat humiliation as an unchangeable fate.

It is high time the Arab nation regained its self-confidence. To understand that the respect others have for it begins with its respect for its sovereignty. And to realize that Arab national security is not a slogan to be raised on special occasions, but a historical responsibility.

As for Netanyahu, he must understand that the region does not belong to him, that history will not grant him a deed to possess land that does not belong to him, and that military power, however great, cannot grant occupation perpetual legitimacy.

Mount Hermon is not just a mountain.

It is a symbol of land, sovereignty, borders, and dignity.

Therefore, what happened should not be treated as just another news item.

It must remain an open question for every Arab:

What is happening?

And what remains of our nation?

This opinion, written by Awni al-Rajoub, was published by the Arabic website Jo24 and reprinted in English in crossfirearabia.com

Opinion

Trumpaplooza! View from Amman

Saleem Ayoub Quna
September 11, 2026

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

Once again President Trump managed to highjack the spotlight as he delivered his keynote speech at the unconventional midterm Republican National Convention in Dallas last week, or at what some media outlets, appropriately, dubbed as the Trumpaplooza!

These media organizations named some candidates who said they preferred Trump to stay out of their own local campaigns, because they thought his interference would not be to their advantage! Other candidates deleted Trump’s name and/or picture from their previous campaign posts for the same reason! And some republican personalities abstained from going to the convention altogether!

Nevertheless, in his nearly two-hour long monologue, Trump came up with more than few original ideas and suggestions for his supporters which he thought would help the GOP candidates, to be elected or reelected, to the Senate and the House next November.

In a rare unheard of tactic to convince his supporters to vote for their candidates, he begged them to imagine that his name was on the ballot they would cast! What this actually meant that their names and identities are less important than that of his own! In other words, President Trump was really saying those candidates would be worth nothing were they not running on behalf of the Republican Party, which he controls and are one of his own many intellectual properties! It must feel awkward for some candidates who fall under this category!

Then comes the big bombshell which no one was expecting, namely the $5000 bonus to be paid for each adult (a registered voter) when and if the elections guaranteed a republican majority in both the Senate and the House!

But let’s dig a little bit further in the significance of the timing of this generous dividend! The difference between the payment (after or before) the elections can be viewed from more than one angel. And this must be very revealing for many Americans and those watching the American experience from other parts of the world!

From purely a Trumpean point of view it is just another business transaction, simple and clear!

Trump’s argument on this point would go something like this: “I can reward you, when and if I am satisfied with the work you have done for me! For I am the one who is running this political bonanza called the “midterm elections” campaign, and I am the one who gave you the chance to vote for my-would be supporters at the Senate and the House”!

Then, he might go on to say: “But I cannot pay you now simply because, I do not buy any fish that is still in the sea”!

But what President Trump is not saying is he first does not have this much cash “a trillion dollar” in his drawer, and that he does not trust every single “adult” who promises, he or she, would vote republican! Trump thinks, and he is right, that there could be some pretenders who would say something but do something else!

A third possibility could be that Trump’s bid would prevail and the republicans would have made it! And the day of payment would arrived, while Trump would not have cash yet! Here, Trump’s genius as a great businessman would come to the test and it will be the guessing game of the century!

But seriously, observers of the American scene under the Trump Presidency, and many Americans as well, must be wondering how on earth the politics of a great country like the US, could get stuck in such an unusual labyrinth of contradictions, where not so many can differentiate between reality and virtual reality, between incentive and bribery and between a hasty promise and commitment!!