The USS Gerald R. Ford, the most expensive warship ever built, is heading toward the Middle East without the ability to launch or recover F-35C Lightning II stealth fighters from its flight deck. Despite being the Navy’s newest and most technologically advanced aircraft carrier, the Ford still relies on aging F/A-18 Super Hornets as its primary strike aircraft, a gap that raises hard questions about whether the service’s next-generation carrier can fulfill its intended mission.
The disconnect between the Ford’s ambitions and its current capabilities traces back to persistent reliability problems with the ship’s launch and recovery systems. Those problems have not been fully resolved, and they carry consequences that extend well beyond a single vessel, touching the Navy’s broader modernization plans and the credibility of its investment in cutting-edge carrier technology.
Super Hornets Fill the Stealth Gap
As the Ford steams toward a potential confrontation zone near Iran, its air wing tells a story the Navy would rather not advertise. The ship’s main offensive firepower comes from four squadrons of F/A‑18 Super Hornet fighters, which can carry a mix of guided weapons and perform a range of missions from air defense to precision strike. That is the same basic airframe the Navy has flown since the 1990s, upgraded over time but still rooted in a fourth‑generation design. The F‑35C, intended to give carrier air wings a survivable stealth platform capable of penetrating advanced air defenses, is nowhere in the Ford’s current loadout.
This means the Navy’s flagship carrier is deploying into a region where adversaries have invested heavily in integrated air defense networks, and it is doing so with an air wing that lacks a true low‑observable strike aircraft. The Super Hornet remains a capable jet, but it was never designed to slip past modern radar systems the way the F‑35C was. For sailors and pilots aboard the Ford, the practical effect is clear: they must rely on standoff weapons, electronic warfare support, and careful route planning to compensate for the stealth capability they were promised but do not yet have, accepting higher risk or narrower target options in any high‑end conflict scenario.
Launch System Reliability Remains the Bottleneck
The Ford was built around a suite of new technologies meant to replace the steam catapults and hydraulic arresting gear found on older Nimitz‑class carriers. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, known as EMALS, and the Advanced Arresting Gear, or AAG, were supposed to offer smoother launches and recoveries, reduce maintenance demands, and handle a wider range of aircraft types, including the F‑35C. In practice, both systems have struggled to meet their reliability targets. A regularly updated Congressional Research Service program report on the Ford class consolidates official Navy reporting and oversight findings, documenting unresolved sortie‑generation constraints tied to EMALS reliability, AAG performance, and the completion of Advanced Weapons Elevators.
Sortie generation, the rate at which a carrier can launch, recover, rearm, and relaunch aircraft, is the single most important measure of a carrier’s combat effectiveness. When EMALS or AAG experiences a failure, the entire cycle slows or stops, reducing the number of aircraft that can be kept on station over a target area. The CRS analysis also flags incomplete testing milestones, including aspects of initial operational testing that bear directly on whether the Ford can safely and consistently operate the F‑35C. Until those milestones are met and the systems prove they can handle repeated launches and recoveries within acceptable failure rates, integrating the stealth jet into the Ford’s air wing is not just delayed but functionally blocked.
Jet Blast Deflectors and the Deck‑Level Chain
Jet blast deflectors, or JBDs, represent another critical link in the Ford’s launch chain. These heavy panels rise behind an aircraft on the catapult to protect deck crew and equipment from engine exhaust during launch, absorbing and redirecting intense heat and pressure. On a carrier designed to operate heavier, higher‑thrust aircraft like the F‑35C, JBD performance is not a minor detail; it determines how safely and how often aircraft can be cycled through each catapult. The Ford’s JBDs have faced their own reliability questions, and a fixed‑version CRS reference document captures specific language about EMALS, AAG, and JBD reliability alongside readiness milestones relevant to launch and recovery capabilities.
Each of these systems must work in concert for the Ford to achieve the sortie rates the Navy originally projected. A glitch in EMALS, a fault in AAG, or a JBD unable to withstand repeated high‑power launches can all create bottlenecks that ripple across the flight deck. For a complex aircraft like the F‑35C, which places different thermal and structural demands on deck equipment than the Super Hornet, those margins grow even tighter. Until the Navy can demonstrate that EMALS, AAG, and the JBDs can sustain high‑tempo operations with acceptable downtime and maintenance burdens, commanders will be reluctant to base their most advanced and expensive carrier aircraft on the Ford.
What This Means for the Broader Fleet
The Ford’s inability to operate the F‑35C is not just a problem for one ship. It signals a broader timeline risk for the Navy’s carrier aviation strategy, which hinges on gradually replacing or supplementing legacy fighters with stealth aircraft. The service has long planned to transition its carrier air wings from a mix of fourth‑generation fighters to a blend that includes the F‑35C as the primary low‑observable platform. Every month that the Ford cannot support that jet is a month the Navy falls further behind its own modernization schedule, stretching the service life and operational load of older airframes.
Older Nimitz‑class carriers have already begun operating F‑35C squadrons in limited deployments, which creates an awkward inversion: the newest, most expensive carrier in the fleet cannot do what its predecessors can. The Nimitz‑class ships use proven steam catapults and hydraulic arresting gear that, while less technologically ambitious, have decades of operational history behind them and are known quantities for maintainers and air crews. The Ford’s advanced systems were supposed to surpass that legacy, not lag behind it. For taxpayers, the gap between promise and delivery on a ship that has consumed billions in development and construction funding is a concrete cost measured in delayed capability and reduced return on investment over the carrier’s early years of service.
Operational Stakes in the Middle East
The timing of the Ford’s deployment sharpens the significance of these technical shortfalls. Heading toward the Middle East amid tensions with Iran, the carrier is entering a theater where the ability to project air power quickly and with minimal detection matters enormously. Iran has invested in layered air defenses, anti‑ship ballistic missiles, and expanding drone warfare capabilities, all of which complicate operations near its coastline. A carrier air wing built around Super Hornets can still deliver significant firepower, but it does so with a higher risk profile than one equipped with stealth jets designed to operate inside contested airspace and degrade defenses from within.
Navy planners have likely accounted for this gap in their operational planning, relying on other assets such as submarine‑launched cruise missiles, land‑based bombers, and specialized electronic attack aircraft to fill parts of the stealth role. But the entire point of building the Ford class was to concentrate those capabilities on a single mobile platform, able to surge combat power without depending heavily on land bases or vulnerable regional infrastructure. When the carrier cannot deliver on that vision, the Navy must spread its bets across a wider array of assets, each with its own logistical and operational constraints. That fragmentation reduces the speed and flexibility that a fully capable supercarrier is supposed to provide in a crisis.
A Carrier Without Its Centerpiece Aircraft
The Ford represents the Navy’s bet that revolutionary technologies could unlock a new era of carrier aviation, with higher sortie rates, lower long-term maintenance demands, and seamless integration of advanced aircraft like the F‑35C. For now, that bet remains only partially realized. The ship is deploying into a volatile region without the very stealth fighters that were meant to define its combat edge, constrained instead by the reliability of its launch and recovery systems and the pace of testing needed to certify them.
How quickly the Navy can close that gap will shape not just the Ford’s reputation, but also the trajectory of the entire Ford‑class program and the future of U.S. carrier air power. If EMALS, AAG, and the associated deck systems can be brought up to their promised performance, the Ford may yet deliver the leap in capability its designers envisioned. If not, the fleet’s most expensive ship will continue to sail with an air wing that looks more like the past than the future, even as it operates on the front lines of U.S. power projection.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
