Date: February 28th, 2026 1:16 AM
Author: Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e (One Year Performance 1978-1979 (Cage Piece) (Awfully coy u are))
Reader PicksAll
MisterCamera commented 8 hours agoIn reply thread
M
MisterCamera
NC ·
8h ago
@SpacemanI have a kid in the Navy. I can't say much as I don't want to identify him directly. To say there is low morale is an understatement. There is great concern regarding the leadership of this administration. Particularly, around how politicized it is trying to make the military. The Military has people of all political persuasions to apolitical. and they fight for all of us. They don't bleed Democrat and Republican, they bleed real American blood. They don't expect to be kept "safe" all the time. The point of a military is to use it. And they are ready to do their duty. But they do have a lot of reservations about what they are being asked to do. Particularly, blowing up alleged drug boats with extrajudicial executions, and How Hegseth and Trump just fire anyone who questions the rationality or legality of what they are doing. Having a Fox News host be their commander, particularly, is grating. He is not fit for the job. And there is a lot of worry over Trump's mercurial demands and lack of planning and thought and eratic behavior.
4 Replies
258 Recommend
Roy Crowe commented 8 hours ago
R
Roy Crowe
Long Island ·
8h ago
Sounds like the Navy has not changed in the past 25 years. Still wearing out crews, fighting software glitches, cannibalizing other ships in the class to stay operational, running from hot spot to hot spot while the President acts without congressional approval.
168 Recommend
Vet24 commented 6 hours ago
V
Vet24
Ne ·
6h ago
I made two west-pacs on a carrier. One was extended due to the Iranian hostage crisis. We were in the Gulf of Oman getting bum-rushed by Iranian F-14s. At one point we had 3 carrier task groups in the Arabian Sea. Being on deployment is tiring and gets especially so when it goes over 8 months. When it gets to the length the Ford has been going, it gets very dangerous.
Any decent military leader knows you cannot keep someone on the 'tip of the spear' for very long without degradation of equipment, moral and personnel. But then we do not have any decent leaders in charge of DoD, (oh- excuse me, DoW) or the country at this time.
2 Replies
166 Recommend
Spaceman commented 9 hours ago
S
Spaceman
Milky Way ·
9h ago
We are "currently" not at war, why haven't these sailors been replaced with a new crew?
Just because it is new and uses lots of new technology and computers doesn't mean it is better. The new catapult system seems like a nightmare and if you can't get it to work in peace time you sure aren't going to get it to work in the middle of war.
While these "improvements" might be better than previous ships with less crew members required, increased sorties, better payload for armaments, who are we competing with besides ourselves? Shouldn't reliability be the highest metric our military should be focusing on instead a potential increased capability under the best of circumstances? We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.
This article is concerning to me. A crew with low morale because of an extended deployment, the latest and greatest carrier that seems late and not that great to be currently on active duty.
12 Replies
162 Recommend
Frank Ohrtman commented 8 hours ago
F
Frank Ohrtman
Denver ·
8h ago
I spent much of 1984 on the aircraft carrier USS America in the North Arabian Sea off the coast of Iran waiting for President Reagan to determine why we were there. Bomb Iran? Keep oil flowing through the Starits of Hormuz?
Fast forward to 2026 and the crew of the $13 billion USS Gerald R. Ford (flight ops are $30,000/hour/jet x 100+ hours/day) are wondering what the mission is: bomb Iran (why?), keep CO2 intensive fossil fuels flowing through Straits of Hormuz?
How is deploying TWO aircraft carrier battle groups to the waters off Iran "America First"?
1 Reply
135 Recommend
Paul commented 8 hours ago
P
Paul
St Paul Park ·
8h ago
The Ford is an accident waiting to happen. 8 months at sea with the ops tempo of a carrier is a long time the crew is exhausted, and the carrier itself is due extensive maintenance. Before this is done it will be June and an 11 months at sea. I wonder how many who are due for reenlistment, will choose to leave rather than endure another stretch at sea like this one, especially with tRump having nearly 3 years left in office.
116 Recommend
Stephen H commented 8 hours ago
S
Stephen H
Brooklyn ·
8h ago
As far as I know, an aircraft carrier like the Ford does not depend on a few machine guns to defend itself--there are several destroyers, cruisers and attack submarines that shadow it. Are the sailors on those ships also seeing longer deployments?
4 Replies
93 Recommend
Watson Brown commented 8 hours ago
W
Watson Brown
Isle of Skye ·
8h ago
On July 29th, 1967, USS Forrestal was put out of Action for over 6 months due to an accidental launch of a Zuni Rocket from an Aircraft on the crowded flight deck. It ripped open a fuel tank on an Aircraft and the fuel spilled out and caught on fire.
About 90 seconds after the fire began, an outdated 1,000-pound bomb (Composition B) detonated. This initial blast killed the ship's specialized firefighting team instantly and tore holes in the armored flight deck, allowing burning fuel to pour into the berthing compartments below.
134 sailors and airmen lost their lives, and another 161 were injured.
Iran would like nothing more than to severely damage the USS Ford, or even sink her.
She will send Drone after Drone 24/7 to attack the Ford. Any of their missiles/bombs could set off the type of explosive chain reaction that happened on the Forrestal.
The Navy is relying on an Electronic Launch System for its Aircraft, a Radar system that it can barely find spare parts for, a Nuclear Reactor that has not been used on a ship before and is being pushed to its limits.
Meanwhile it depends up .50 caliber Machine Guns manned by unprotected sailors and far, far too few 20 mm automated guns for the protection of that huge ship - target.
A Disaster waiting to happen if the Electrical System goes out.
3 Replies
84 Recommend
Carlos commented 7 hours ago
C
Carlos
San Diego ·
7h ago
I’m a member of the US Navy with a bone to pick. The Gerald Ford is also the first American aircraft carrier to remove all urinals. This has resulted in long waiting times for the male staff to wait for a stall. At busy times this can take 45 minutes. How are sailors supposed to function in a crisis without the ability to swiftly relieve ourselves.
2 Replies
81 Recommend
Peter commented 7 hours ago
P
Peter
Switzerland ·
7h ago
Trump’s reliance on a massive military shadow-boxing campaign is proving to be a major miscalculation. While the USS Gerald R. Ford has been deployed since June 2025—exhausting its crew after the Venezuela mission—Tehran is simply playing for time.
The Iranian leadership has recognized that they only need to stall. The longer the negotiations drag on, the more this "armada" becomes an internal political and logistical liability for the White House. Trump is now a hostage of his own fleet: withdrawing the carriers without a "historic deal" would be a public embarrassment, but keeping them deployed indefinitely breaks the morale of the troops and their families. Those who project maximum strength without a clear exit strategy eventually become the pawns of those who simply have more patience.
1 Reply
70 Recommend
American exile commented 9 hours agoIn reply thread
American exile
American exile
Vienna ·
9h ago
@Spaceman: Indeed. Reminds me of the shortcomings of going from a B-17 to a B-24 (harder to fly, glitchy hydraulics), to a B-29 (engines that easily caught fire).
In the 81 years since WWII ended, the B-17 is the only one of the three widely regarded with affection by those who flew in it.
2 Replies
59 Recommend
Joseph Bergen commented 8 hours ago
J
Joseph Bergen
Buffalo NY ·
8h ago
Despite a cost of $13.3B, the vacuum toilet system is also malfunctioning resulting in 45 min. waits. Might be a bad time start an undeclared war.
58 Recommend
afflatus commented 7 hours ago
a
afflatus
thunder bay ·
7h ago
Very impressive craft...but nothing about just how vulnerable these floating behemoths have become in this new era of hypersonic ballistic missiles & drone swarms....?
1 Reply
50 Recommend
AB85 commented 6 hours ago
A
AB85
Vienna, VA ·
6h ago
Thank you to the service women and men - and to their families left behind - for serving this country. It is a harsh and unreasonable things to demand extended deployments when circumstances do not warrant it: we are not at war, we don’t need to be at war, we have no idea why we are are preparing to attack Iran, and we have been given no reason why US forces should be or are being called upon to make extraordinary sacrifices.
50 Recommend
Dave Kerr commented 6 hours ago
D
Dave Kerr
Pennsylvania ·
6h ago
As sophisticated as the USS Gerald Ford is, it is no match for hundreds of hyper-sonic anti-ship missiles launched by a peer or near-peer adversaries, e.g., China.
Aircraft carriers are the battleships of the 21st Century. Their usefulness has long since passed.
50 Recommend
MP commented 5 hours ago
M
MP
SF Peninsula ·
5h ago
The first country we go up against that has anything like Ukraine’s level of sophistication with large numbers of small drones and that carrier deck full of neatly arranged airplanes is going to be a big huge expensive sitting duck. Carrier groups are designed to defend against attack by other large naval vessels and individual missiles, not hundreds of precisely targeted, tiny and rapidly direction-changing drones.
49 Recommend
Jack commented 8 hours ago
J
Jack
Alabama ·
8h ago
Just because it is ready for battle does not mean it should be used in battle.
1 Reply
43 Recommend
mw commented 8 hours ago
m
mw
canada ·
8h ago
Changing many technologies that depend on each other all at the same time is a surefire way to make the system fail to perform as expected most of the time.
43 Recommend
dave commented 6 hours ago
d
dave
Mich ·
6h ago
Can you imagine the cost per day of operating this vessel, on top of cost to build. Fuel, bombs, ammunition, 4500 crew salary and retirement, cloths, food, 75 aircraft, maintenance. Not even counting destroyer and supply escorts. A fire hose of money never to recovered. And now vulnerable to 500,000 dollars missile sinking it all. We really need to start rethinking some of this.
3 Replies
40 Recommend
Y commented 6 hours ago
Y
Y
New York, NY ·
6h ago
While it's nice to report and debate the advantages and disadvantages of particular ships or weapons, the fact that this article is coming out now is a sad statement on the complete failure of both the media and the Congress to have an actual debate on any decision to go to war. Articles on the "why", followed by the articles on the actual goals, should precede any pieces on the "how".
Running a piece on the "how" without any serious national discussion on the why or the goals, risks normalizing the truly broken hardware in our government and our media.
Every NYT article on military action in Iran needs to include the sentence that as of now, any action would be illegal under both domestic and international law.
Anything less is not responsible or accurate reporting.
Will the military obey clearly illegal orders without a declaration of war by Congress? I guess we can ask the families of the drug runners / wayward fishermen in the Caribbean.
39 Recommend
PhillySub commented 6 hours ago
P
PhillySub
USA ·
6h ago
What really concerns me is that there are no spare parts. Who in their right mind decided on this? It's a warship. If it goes into combat, it likely will be damaged. Even just normal wear and tear requires replacement parts. So a multi-billion dollar warship might soon be useless because spare parts are unavailable. The only consolation is that the crew will get some leave.
2 Replies
38 Recommend
Bill Fennelly commented 7 hours ago
B
Bill Fennelly
PA ·
7h ago
My wife’s grandson is aboard the Ford. Praying that all the men and women in the Middle East remain safe and out of danger
1 Reply
33 Recommend
Cody McCall commented 7 hours ago
C
Cody McCall
tacoma ·
7h ago
The 'War Dept.' is spending way too much money and time building these behemoths. They are little more than big, fat, floating targets. They wouldn't last a week in a serious conflict with the Chinese who have about a thousand anti-ship missiles to sink this ship. Those F/A-18's are obsolete and where are all those 'new' F-35's to replace them? We always build our military for yesterday's wars. How many drone swarms could we build for the price on this carrier? And build much faster, too. Remember, the US navy was almost defeated at Okinawa by Japanese kamikazes, which were manned 'drones' full of gas and bombs. Our money and time could be put to better use to defend our country than fritter it away on yet another titanic target.
31 Recommend
Hector Samkow commented 6 hours ago
H
Hector Samkow
Oregon ·
6h ago
No mention of the sewage system problems. I've read elsewhere that the Ford's "new and improved" system is constantly plugging and backing-up, and that a significant number of toilets don't work. Adding to the low-morale.
1 Reply
31 Recommend
Glen commented 5 hours ago
G
Glen
Seattle WA ·
5h ago
So, in other words, it's a hot mess.
If we are dumb enough to attack Iran for no good reason, I predict they'll take a carrier out. Which (apart from the brave souls lost) might be a good wake-up call to not put so many eggs in one basket.
30 Recommend
yeahbut commented 8 hours ago
y
yeahbut
california ·
8h ago
Re: the new catapult system being software driven, rather than old fashioned steam etc.
I definitely am not any kind of expert, and i'm probably wrong, but....
Is this just another modern digital innovation that can be cyber hacked and disabled by the enemy?
No catapult system obviously neuters the operational value of a carrier in combat.
3 Replies
28 Recommend
James commented 5 hours ago
J
James
USA ·
5h ago
There’s not one word in the article about the main problem right now, which is the sewage system on board.
27 Recommend
-ABC...XYZ commented 5 hours ago
-ABC...XYZ
-ABC...XYZ
NYC ·
5h ago
via ' Y ' of NYC : " Every NYT article on military action in Iran needs to include the sentence that as of now, any action would be illegal under both domestic and international law. "
26 Recommend
John commented 7 hours ago
J
John
USA ·
7h ago
“Instead of a traditional radar that rotates and requires maintenance to keep it spinning, Ford uses a series of flat radar panels that don’t move but constantly emit a bubble of radio waves around the ship.”
Flat radar panels have been around since the commissioning of the first Aegis cruiser, the USS Ticonderoga, in 1983. From this point on, every major surface combatant is built around a fixed array radar.
24 Recommend
Marat1784 commented 6 hours ago
M
Marat1784
CT ·
6h ago
A carrier’s role has changed over the last century (!) so that it is now just a means for projecting power, no longer a durable weapon in extended conflict. The updates and details don’t matter; it’s a launch once and discard platform against even second or third tier opponents. That it’s too expensive to have useful multiples or that updates take way too long are just more evidence. And, of course, we now have a president demanding “battleships” with his personal esthetic preferences.
War never goes away, and that’s so sad, but making outdated or disfunctional weaponry isn’t a great idea.
24 Recommend
Jens commented 8 hours agoIn reply thread
J
Jens
Mililani Mauka ·
8h ago
@Spaceman
"why haven't these sailors been replaced with a new crew?”
Crews aren’t made up of “spare parts” that can be swapped out at will. Crews take time to come together and work together. Nuclear submarines generally have blue and gold crews that replace each other regularly because of the pressure of deployments and the need to keep the subs out there all the time. Sub crews average in size from 134 to 150 depending on the sub and mission. It’s not prohibitive to have two crews.
This carrier has a crew of 4500 officers, sailors, and aviators. The expense of having a “spare crew” that is completely worked up and functioning together waiting on shore is ridiculously expensive and wasteful.
Bottom line: It doesn’t work like that.
1 Reply
22 Recommend
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5839226&forum_id=2Ã#49701560)