New US Aircraft Carrier Hit by Significant Delays
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The USS John F. Kennedy, the second ship in the new Ford class of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, could be delayed by up to two years, according to a new report.
Why It Matters
Many U.S. Navy shipbuilding projects have been plagued by setbacks and ballooning costs, including the USS Gerald R. Ford, the first Ford-class aircraft carrier. The Gerald R. Ford was commissioned, or formally marked as in active service, by President Donald Trump during his first term in office.
What To Know
The USS John F. Kennedy, also known as the CVN-79, was expected to be handed over to the U.S. military in July this year, but will instead be ready in March 2027, according to U.S. Navy budget documents for the coming year. The delay was first reported by the USNI News outlet attached to the Naval Institute non-profit on Monday.
The USS Gerald R. Ford heads to the Norfolk, Virginia naval station on April 14, 2017 after almost a week of trials during which the ship's systems were tested.
The USS Gerald R. Ford heads to the Norfolk, Virginia naval station on April 14, 2017 after almost a week of trials during which the ship's systems were tested.
Bill Tiernan/The Virginian-Pilot via AP
The USS John F. Kennedy is the second of the new Ford-class aircraft carriers, replacing the decades-old Nimitz-class.
The third aircraft carrier in the class, the USS Enterprise, will be delivered in July 2030, rather than September 2029, according to the U.S. Navy budget documents. The delay was chalked up to issues getting hold of materials for the vessel, and hold-ups with industry and supply chains.
The delay in delivery of the USS John F. Kennedy is "not surprising," bearing in mind the changes it needed after its initial building phase and "challenges throughout the U.S. shipbuilding industry," said Robert Murrett, a retired U.S. Navy vice admiral who is now a professor of practice of public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University.
The USS John F. Kennedy needs to take on board the lessons from the first of the new class of aircraft carriers, Murrett told Newsweek. It also needs to build in new technology, like updated radars, and equipment for F-35C fighter jets, Murrett said.
Although the U.S. Navy's fleet of operational carriers will hit just 10 for a year, he added, "this can be mitigated with careful management of existing CVNs' maintenance and overhaul schedules, as well as equally careful management of longer deployments for our carrier sailors, which is already an issue." CVN is shorthand for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.
A Navy spokesperson told USNI News that the military was "exploring opportunities for preliminary acceptance of the vessel prior to formal delivery and is coordinating closely with stakeholders to ensure the fastest possible transition to fleet operations and a combat-capable carrier."
Newsweek has reached out to the U.S. Navy for comment via email.
The Navy budget documents put the delay to the USS John F. Kennedy down to the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) for the ship and Advanced Weapons Elevator work.
AAG is a new system for the second and third Ford-class aircraft carriers, according to the military. It is designed to make sure aircraft landing on the carriers slow down quickly and safely.
Advanced Weapons Elevators help move weapons and ammunition around a ship.
What People Are Saying
The U.S. military has hailed the USS John F. Kennedy as "the most agile and lethal combat platform globally," kitted out with "improved systems" that link the carrier up more closely with other forces.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump caught off guard by Pentagon's abrupt move to pause Ukraine weapons deliveries, AP sources say
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's decision to send more defensive weapons to Ukraine came after he privately expressed frustration with Pentagon officials for announcing a pause in some deliveries last week — a move that he felt wasn't properly coordinated with the White House, according to three people familiar with the matter. The Pentagon, which announced last week that it would hold back some air defense missiles, precision-guided artillery and other weapons pledged to Ukraine because of what U.S. officials said were concerns that American stockpiles were in short supply. Donald Trump said Monday that the U.S. will have to send more weapons to Ukraine, effectively reversing the move. Two of the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the sensitive internal discussions, said there was some internal opposition among Pentagon brass to the pause — coordinated by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby — before it was announced. One of the people described Trump as being caught 'flat footed' by the announcement. The White House did not respond to queries about whether Trump was surprised by the Pentagon pause. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson denied that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had acted without consulting the president. 'It is the job of the Secretary of Defense to make military recommendations to the commander-in-chief. Secretary Hegseth provided a framework for the President to evaluate military aid shipments and assess existing stockpiles. This effort was coordinated across government. The Department will continue to give the President robust options regarding military aid to Ukraine, consistent with his goal of bringing this tragic war to an end and putting America first,' Wilson said in a statement to The Associated Press. The pause in critical weapons deliveries had come at a difficult moment for Ukraine, which has faced increasing — and more complex — air barrages from Russia during the more than three-year-old war. Trump acknowledged that in announcing the reversal on Monday night, saying, "They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now." Asked by a reporter Tuesday who approved the pause, Trump bristled at the question while he was gathered with his Cabinet. 'I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" Trump's change in tone on Putin The president also laid into Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting he was unnecessarily prolonging the war that Trump has said he's determined to quickly conclude. Trump has struggled to find a resolution, with talks between the sides stalled. The Republican leader has sounded increasingly exasperated with Putin in recent days. The two spoke by phone last week. 'We get a lot of bull---- thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth," Trump said during Tuesday's Cabinet meeting. "He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.' He has threatened, but held off on, imposing new sanctions against Russia's oil industry to try to prod Putin into peace talks. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said last week that Trump has given him the go-ahead to push forward with a bill he's co-sponsoring that calls, in part, for a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that continue to buy Russian oil. The move would have huge ramifications for China and India, two economic behemoths that buy Russian oil. Trump said Tuesday that he's 'looking at it very strongly.' Pentagon says it's going to resume shipments to Ukraine The weapons pause announced last week impacted shipments of Patriot missiles, precision-guided GMLRS, Hellfire missiles and Howitzer rounds and more, taking not only Ukrainian officials and other allies by surprise but also U.S. lawmakers and other parts of the Trump administration, including the State Department. The Pentagon said late Monday that at Trump's direction, it would resume weapons shipments to Ukraine 'to ensure the Ukrainians can defend themselves while we work to secure a lasting peace and ensure the killing stops.' Still, spokesman Sean Parnell added that its review for Trump to evaluate military shipments worldwide continues as part of 'America First' defense priorities. It's also unclear which weaponry would now be sent, though Trump said that the U.S. will primarily be assisting Ukraine with defensive weapons. Counting the weapons On Tuesday, each of the services and the combatant commands — the multiservice organizations that spearhead U.S. military operations around the world — were still sending up information on their stockpiles of specific munitions to Pentagon leadership, a U.S. official said. 'They are literally still doing the math,' the official said. The information was being presented on a stoplight chart — where munitions were either in a red, yellow or green status, similar to slides that had been created the week before, the official said. That earlier study had concluded that some munitions were OK to keep sending to Ukraine — but others were reaching concerning levels. Getting a full visibility on the numbers of actual munitions on hand takes time, the official said, because while Patriot missiles, for example, initially belong to the Army, once they are requested and sent to a combatant command, such as U.S. Central Command, the service loses visibility on those numbers in inventory. The vast majority of the munitions and weapons the U.S. has shipped to Ukraine have been pulled from the Army, which has monitored levels closely in recent years, particularly for high-demand items like 155mm artillery shells and Patriot missiles for air defenses. It's been harder for the Army to ramp up production on those items than had been planned: It was trying to hit a goal of producing 100,000 155mm shells a month by the end of 2025 but won't meet that goal now until 2026, Army spokesman Steve Warren said. Ramping up Patriot missile production also has been challenging, Warren said. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement Tuesday that he was glad Trump was resuming deliveries to Ukraine. 'This time, the President will need to reject calls from the isolationists and restrainers within his Administration to limit these deliveries to defensive weapons," McConnell said. 'And he should disregard those at DoD who invoke munitions shortages to block aid while refusing to invest seriously in expanding munitions production.' ___ Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
34 minutes ago
What would it take for Elon Musk to create a new political party in America?
On the heels of the Fourth of July -- and amid his feud with President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans over the president's tax policy bill -- tech billionaire Elon Musk announced plans for a brand new political party, dubbed "America Party," to represent what he called "the 80% in the middle." Musk, who recently left his temporary government post as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, told his X followers that his new party will "give you back your freedom." In a series of posts over the weekend, Musk said his party would use "extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield" to target "2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts," which he believes "would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws." So what would it take for Musk to launch his third-party effort? Here's an overview. Getting on the ballot To start, Musk would have to get his party on the ballots in the states where he wants to compete -- each with its own process for qualifying. In many states -- including Kentucky, where the race to fill retiring Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell's open seat in 2026 is heating up -- a party-designated candidate must win a nomination from a state-recognized political party that has received a certain percentage of votes in the previous presidential election -- or else a candidate has to run as an independent or a write-in candidate. In other states, the America Party's name itself could present a problem -- like in New York, where state law prohibits political parties from having the word "American," or any part of it, as part of their party names, according to Election Law Blog. Bankrolling these state-level efforts would take significant resources. Experts would be needed to navigate each state's election laws and political systems in order to identify and nominate promising candidates, and canvassers would have to gather thousands to tens of thousands of signatures for each candidate to get them on the ballot. Traditionally, candidates and their parties spearhead these operations, working together to strategize signature-gathering, voter registration, and campaign fundraising and spending. But Musk's America Party is unlikely to become a certified political party anytime soon, because the Federal Election Commission, which reviews political organizations' qualification as political parties, has not been in quorum to do so since a commissioner resigned in April, leaving the agency with just three commissioners. FEC commissioners can only be appointed by President Trump himself. It's not yet clear if Musk has filed any paperwork for his America Party, and an FEC spokesperson declined to comment on whether the agency has received any paperwork from Musk's team. Going the PAC route Faced with the long odds of gaining party certification, some election experts say that Musk, at least for the time being, could focus on House and Senate candidates through a super PAC. That's because ballot access for congressional races is governed by the states -- not the federal government -- so the America Party could still put its designated candidates on the ballot without the FEC's certification, as long as they pass state qualifications. And because super PACs are unconstrained by fundraising or spending limits, an America Party super PAC could be funded by unlimited donations from supporters including Musk himself, and could independently spend an unlimited amount of money in support of its candidates. The only catch is that super PACs are unable to work directly with campaigns the way FEC-certified political parties can -- but election lawyer Matt Sanderson of Caplin and Drysdale told ABC News that the efficiency of a super PAC can actually outweigh the advantages of a political party. "Form a super PAC, just call yourselves a political party -- that's not against the rules. The FEC blessing is not needed," said Sanderson, who was legal counsel for the No Labels movement during the 2024 election. "I actually don't think it makes a lick of sense in this day and age to try to form yourself as a national party committee." "They can call themselves whatever they want," Sanderson said, explaining that the FEC doesn't prohibit a super PAC from calling itself a political party as long as it doesn't coordinate directly with campaigns. "Just skip right past this very cumbersome and not-all-that-beneficial process, hold themselves out as a political party, and move forward." Joining forces Additionally, Musk could enlist the help of existing third parties, like the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. However, third parties historically have had little success in gaining office in the United States. During the 2024 election, the centrist group No Labels led a third-party presidential movement but ended its efforts months before the Republican and Democratic national conventions, after failing to find their candidate before their self-imposed deadline. Longstanding Libertarian Party nominee Chase Oliver ran in the 2024 presidential race but received less than 0.5% of the total vote. Still, a possible collaboration could be in the works: Musk has been in touch with one-time Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who in recent days has spearheaded a third party centrist effort of his own, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News. Caleb Burns, an election lawyer at Wiley Rein, acknowledged the potential significance of obtaining an official party status through the FEC instead of bypassing that step with a super PAC -- stressing the role of a political party as a "brand for politicians." "The success of any new political party will turn on whether there are sufficient candidates -- and, by extension, members of the public -- interested in aligning with that new brand," Burns said. "If the answer is yes, then it makes sense to do everything possible to enhance and promote that brand -- which means proceeding with the organizational and legal burdens necessary to create and formalize a new political party." "The critical predicate, however, is the political question of whether or not there is sufficient interest in a new brand of politician," Burns said. "For that, it seems we will have to wait and see what Mr. Musk concludes."
Bloomberg
35 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Pressures South Korea to Pay More for Defense
President Donald Trump said South Korea should pay more for its own defense, upping pressure on the Asian ally after sending a letter to extend time for negotiations before 25% across-the-board levies are set to kick in for its shipments to the US. 'South Korea is making a lot of money and they are very good, they are very good but you know, they should be paying for their own military,' Trump said during a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday.
