“…The immediate trigger for the ship’s withdrawal was the March 12 fire, which originated in the ship’s laundry facilities and spread through adjacent areas. The incident affected roughly 100 berths and resulted in nearly 200 sailors being treated for smoke exposure, with at least one requiring evacuation.
Although the Navy confirmed that propulsion systems were unaffected and the carrier remained operational, the scale of the incident forced a reassessment of the ship’s condition.
The fire isn’t the only reason the repairs are required – it’s really just the straw that broke the camel’s back. It came after months of high operational tempo and known system issues, with no chance for maintenance.
Could It Be 14 Months of Repairs?
Under normal conditions, post-deployment maintenance for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier can take several months, even without major damage. Historical examples show that complex overhauls or major repair periods can extend well beyond a year, depending on scope and system upgrades.
In the case of Ford, several factors point to it being a longer timeline. First, the ship is a first-in-class platform with known challenges across multiple systems, meaning maintenance is already going to be more complex. Second, the extended deployment has created a backlog of deferred work that must now be addressed in a single maintenance period. Third, the fire itself caused structural and habitability damage that will require repair alongside the routine engineering work. Nothing about this is routine.
When these factors are combined, the possibility of a 12-14 month downtime seems perfectly plausible, even if it has not been officially confirmed. Prolonged deployments come with a cost, and this could be it. ..”
***
“…Defense analyst Jack Buckby reports that the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) has left the Red Sea for Souda Bay, Crete, following a major laundry room fire on March 12.
-The blaze displaced over 600 sailors and destroyed 100 berths, compounding morale issues on a record-breaking 268-day deployment…”
***
The Navy’s USS Gerald R. Ford Aircraft Carrier Almost Became an Unfixable Problem
“…The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), a $13.3 billion supercarrier, is labeled a “defense acquisition horror show” due to “critical failures” in its core technologies.
The carrier was delivered $2.5 billion over budget and years late, plagued by a faulty propulsion system, non-functional weapons elevators (9 of 11 were broken at delivery), and unreliable EMALS catapults (failing 1 in 75 launches) and AAG arresting gear.
A faulty Dual-Band Radar also needed replacement in 2025. The cascading failures have delayed the next carrier, USS Kennedy, to 2027 and reportedly prompted President Trump to order a return to steam catapults.
The USS Gerald R. Ford Supercarrier Is Not That Super
The USS Gerald R. Ford supercarrier is now headed to the Caribbean after serving a deployment in the Mediterranean.
The Ford will help the U.S. Southern Command with counter-narcotics interdiction in Latin America…”
***
USS Gerald R. Ford: The U.S. Navy’s Problem Child 100,000 Ton Nuclear Aircraft Carrier
“Ford-class carriers possess 23 technological advancements for aircraft carriers, according to the Navy, including a new electromagnetic system for launching aircraft that replaces steam-powered catapults. The Ford-class ships are also expected to be able to operate with a crew 20% smaller than that of a Nimitz-class carrier.
“But the military struggled to implement some of that new technology on the Ford, resulting in construction delays,” the NPR story said. “The Navy says the tab for building the Ford, the most advanced U.S. aircraft carrier in existence, topped $13 billion.”
In November 2013, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jonathan Greenert, who was then the Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations, spoke of the impact of “sequestration” on the national defense. During the Obama Administration, sequestration was part of a compromise between the White House and Congress that brought about spending cuts, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011.
One effect, as laid out in that testimony, was to “delay delivery of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) by two years, extending the period of 10 CVN in service, and lowering surge capacity.”
In 2018, Navy Times reported that the Gerald Ford was “forced back into port.” The reason why? “Another propulsion train problem.”
“The ship experienced a propulsion system issue associated with a recent design change, requiring a return to homeport for adjustments before resuming at sea testing,” Colleen O’Rourke, spokeswoman for Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, said at the time.
“Ford has been tasked with conducting critical test and evaluation operations that identify construction and design issues,” O’Rourke said in the 2018 story. “As a continuation of that testing and evaluation process, Ford got underway to conduct an independent steaming event that would allow the ship and its crew to continue testing its systems and procedures.”
Then, in 2019, USNI News wrote about further delays in the carrier, this time citing testimony by Navy officials before the House Armed Services Committee panel.
The problem was the need for “more time needed to repair Ford’s nuclear propulsion system and Advanced Weapons Elevators,” Navy acquisition chief James Geurts told the House panel.
“All three of those causal factors – making the adjustments to the nuclear power plant that we noted during sea trials, fitting in all of the post-shakedown availability workload, and finishing up the elevators – they’re all trending about the same time,” Geurts told the committee in 2019. “So, October right now is our best estimate. The fleet has been notified of that. They’re working that into their train-up cycle afterward.”