Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier
Program: Background and Issues for Congress
Updated November 16, 2023
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RS20643

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Summary
The aircraft carriers CVN-78, CVN-79, CVN-80, and CVN-81 are the first four ships in the
Navy’s new Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs). The
Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget requests $2,540.4 million (i.e., about $2.5 billion) in
procurement funding for Ford-class ships, including $624.6 million for CVN-79, $1,115.3 million
for CVN-80, and $800.5 million for CVN-81.
CVN-78 (Gerald R. Ford) was procured in FY2008. The ship’s procurement final cost was
$13,316.5 million (i.e., about $13.3 billion) in then-year dollars. The ship was commissioned into
service on July 22, 2017, and achieved initial operational capability in December 2021. The
ship’s first deployment was delayed by a need to complete work on the ship’s weapons elevators
and correct other technical problems aboard the ship. The first deployment—a two-month
“service-retained deployment” in Atlantic waters that served as an operational stress test—
reportedly began on October 4, 2022, more than five years after the ship was commissioned into
service, and ended on November 26, 2022. The ship reportedly will make its first full-length
deployment in 2023.
CVN-79 (John F. Kennedy) was procured in FY2013. The Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget
estimates the ship’s procurement cost at $12,700.0 million (i.e., $12.7 billion) in then-year
dollars. The ship is being built with an improved shipyard fabrication and assembly process that
incorporates lessons learned from the construction of CVN-78. CVN-79 is scheduled for delivery
to the Navy in July 2025.
CVN-80 (Enterprise) was procured in FY2018. The Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget estimates
the ship’s procurement cost at $12,812.9 million (i.e., about $12.8 billion) in then-year dollars.
The ship is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in March 2028.
CVN-81 (Doris Miller) is treated in this report as a ship that was procured in FY2019, consistent
with congressional action on the Navy’s FY2019 budget. (The Navy’s FY2024 budget
submission, like its FY2021-FY2023 submissions, shows CVN-81 as a ship that was procured in
FY2020.) The Navy’s FY2024 budget submission estimates the ship’s procurement cost at
$12,929.1 million (i.e., about $12.9 billion) in then-year dollars. The ship is scheduled for
delivery to the Navy in February 2032.
CVN-80 and CVN-81 are being procured under a two-ship block buy contract that was authorized
by Section 121(a)(2) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (H.R. 5515/P.L. 115-232 of August 13, 2018). The use of the two-ship block buy contract
reduced the combined estimated procurement cost of the two ships.
Oversight issues for Congress for the CVN-78 program include the following:
• the future aircraft carrier force level;
• cost growth in the CVN-78 program, Navy efforts to stem that growth, and Navy
efforts to manage costs so as to stay within the program’s cost caps;
• the delay in CVN-78’s first deployment;
• additional CVN-78 program issues that were raised in a January 2023 report from
the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation (DOT&E) and a June 2023 Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report on DOD weapon systems; and
• the procurement of aircraft carriers after CVN-81.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Introduction
This report provides background information and potential oversight issues for Congress on the
Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN) aircraft carrier program.
The Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget requests $2,540.4 million (i.e., about $2.5 billion) in
procurement funding for the program. Congress’s decisions on the CVN-78 program could
substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements and the shipbuilding industrial
base.
Background
Current Navy Aircraft Carrier Force
The Navy’s current aircraft carrier force consists of 11 CVNs,1 including 10 Nimitz-class ships
(CVNs 68 through 77) that entered service between 1975 and 2009, and one Gerald R. Ford
(CVN-78) class ship that was commissioned into service on July 22, 2017.2
Statutory Requirements for Carriers and Carrier Air Wings
Requirement to Maintain Not Less Than 11 Carriers
10 U.S.C. 8062(b) requires the Navy to maintain a force of not less than 11 operational aircraft
carriers.3 The requirement for the Navy to maintain not less than a certain number of operational
aircraft carriers was established by Section 126 of the FY2006 National Defense Authorization
Act (H.R. 1815/P.L. 109-163 of January 6, 2006), which set the number at 12 carriers. The
requirement was changed from 12 carriers to 11 carriers by Section 1011(a) of the FY2007 John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17, 2006).4
Prohibition on Retiring Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers Prior to Refueling
Section 1054 of the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (H.R. 6395/P.L. 116-
283) amended 10 U.S.C. 8062 to create a new subsection (f) stating: “A nuclear powered aircraft
carrier may not be retired before its first refueling.’’

1 The Navy’s last remaining conventionally powered carrier (CV), Kitty Hawk (CV-63), was decommissioned on
January 31, 2009.
2 The commissioning into service of CVN-78 on July 22, 2017, ended a period during which the carrier force had
declined to 10 ships—a period that began on December 1, 2012, with the inactivation of the one-of-a-kind nuclear-
powered aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN-65), a ship that entered service in 1961.
3 10 U.S.C. 8062 was previously numbered as 10 U.S.C. 5062. It was renumbered as 10 U.S.C. 8062 by Section 807 of
the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (H.R. 5515/P.L. 115-232 of August 13,
2018), which directed a renumbering of sections and titles of Title 10 relating to the Navy and Marine Corps. (Sections
806 and 808 of P.L. 115-232 directed a similar renumbering of sections and titles relating to the Air Force and Army,
respectively.)
4 As mentioned in footnote 2, the carrier force dropped from 11 ships to 10 ships between December 1, 2012, when
Enterprise (CVN-65) was inactivated, and July 22, 2017, when CVN-78 was commissioned into service. Anticipating
the gap between the inactivation of CVN-65 and the commissioning of CVN-78, the Navy asked Congress for a
temporary waiver of 10 U.S.C. 8062(b) to accommodate the period between the two events. Section 1023 of the
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647/P.L. 111-84 of October 28, 2009) authorized the waiver,
permitting the Navy to have 10 operational carriers between the inactivation of CVN-65 and the commissioning of
CVN-78.
Congressional Research Service

1

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Requirement to Maintain a Minimum of Nine Carrier Air Wings
10 U.S.C. 8062(e), which was added by Section 1042 of the FY2017 National Defense
Authorization Act (S. 2943/P.L. 114-328 of December 23, 2016), requires the Navy to maintain a
minimum of nine carrier air wings.5
Navy’s Aircraft Carrier Force-Level Goal
Current Aircraft Carrier Force-Level Goal
In December 2016, the Navy released a force-level goal for achieving and maintaining a fleet of
355 ships, including 12 aircraft carriers6—one more than the minimum of 11 carriers required by
10 U.S.C. 8062(b).
Emerging Aircraft Carrier Force-Level Goal
The Navy and Department of Defense (DOD) have been working since 2019 to develop a new
force-level goal to replace the 355-ship force-level goal of 2016. Studies of this emerging force-
level goal that have been released by the Navy in summary form suggest that the new force-level
goal could call for achieving and maintaining a Navy with a carrier force of 8 to 12 carriers, to be
supplemented (in the case of the lower end of that range) by up to 6 light aircraft carriers
(CVLs).7
Given the time needed to build a carrier and the projected retirement dates of existing carriers,
increasing the carrier force from 11 ships to 12 ships on a sustained basis would take a number of
years. Under the Navy’s FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan, for example, carrier procurement
would shift from five-year centers (i.e., one carrier procured each five years) to four-year centers
after the procurement of CVN-82 in FY2028, and a 12-carrier force would be achieved on a
sustained basis in the 2060s.8

5 10 U.S.C. 8062(e) states the following:
The Secretary of the Navy shall ensure that-
(1) the Navy maintains a minimum of 9 carrier air wings until the earlier of-
(A) the date on which additional operationally deployable aircraft carriers can fully support a 10th
carrier air wing; or
(B) October 1, 2025;
(2) after the earlier of the two dates referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1), the
Navy maintains a minimum of 10 carrier air wings; and
(3) for each such carrier air wing, the Navy maintains a dedicated and fully staffed headquarters.
6 For more on the 355-ship force-level goal, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
7 For the effort to develop a successor to the 355-ship goal of 2016, including the studies that the Navy has released in
summary form, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
8 The projected size of the carrier force in the Navy’s FY2020 30-year (FY2020-FY2049) shipbuilding plan reflected
the Navy’s now-withdrawn FY2020 budget proposal to not fund the RCOH for the aircraft carrier CVN-75 (Harry S.
Truman), and to instead retire the ship around FY2024. With the withdrawal of this budget proposal, the projected size
of the carrier force became, for the period FY2022-FY2047, one ship higher than what is shown in the Navy’s FY2020
budget submission. The newly adjusted force-level projection, reflecting the withdrawal of the proposal to retire CVN-
75 around FY2024, were as follows: The force is projected to include 11 ships in FY2020-FY2021, 12 ships in
FY2022-FY2024, 11 ships in FY2025-FY2026, 10 ships in FY2027, 11 ships in FY2028-FY2039, 10 ships in FY2040,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 13 Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Projected Number of Aircraft Carriers
The Navy’s FY2024 30-year (FY2024-FY2053) shipbuilding plan includes three alternative 30-
year shipbuilding profiles for the period FY2029-FY2053. Under all the three profiles, the carrier
force is projected to include 11 carriers in most years between FY2024 and FY2039. Under the
first and second profiles, the carrier force is to include 10 carriers from FY2040 until FY2045,
and then 9 or sometimes 10 carriers from FY2046 through FY2053. Under the third profile, the
carrier force is projected to include 10 carriers in most years from FY2040 through FY2053.
Incremental Funding Authority for Aircraft Carriers
Congress since the 1990s has authorized DOD to use incremental funding for procuring certain
Navy ships, most notably aircraft carriers.9 Under incremental funding, some of the funding
needed to fully fund a ship is provided in one or more years after the year in which the ship is
procured.10
Aircraft Carrier Construction Industrial Base
All U.S. aircraft carriers procured since FY1958 have been built by Huntington Ingalls
Industries/Newport News Shipbuilding (HII/NNS), of Newport News, VA. HII/NNS is the only
U.S. shipyard that can build large-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. The aircraft carrier
construction industrial base as of 2019 also included roughly 2,000 supplier firms in 46 states.11

11 ships in FY2041, 10 ships in FY2042-FY2044, 11 ships in FY2045, 10 ships in FY2046-FY2047, 9 ships in
FY2048, and 10 ships in FY2049.
9 The provisions providing authority for using incremental funding for procuring Ford-class carriers are as follows:
Section 121 of the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17,
2006) granted the Navy the authority to use four-year incremental funding for CVNs 78, 79, and 80. Under this
authority, the Navy could fully fund each of these ships over a four-year period that includes the ship’s year of
procurement and three subsequent years.
Section 124 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 of December 31, 2011)
amended Section 121 of P.L. 109-364 to grant the Navy the authority to use five-year incremental funding for CVNs
78, 79, and 80. Since CVN-78 was fully funded in FY2008-FY2011, the provision in practice originally applied to
CVNs 79 and 80, although as discussed in the footnote to Table 1, the Navy made use of the authority in connection
with an FY2020 reprogramming action that reprogrammed $86.0 million of funding into FY2012 for CVN-78.
Section 121 of the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310/P.L. 112-239 of January 2, 2013) amended
Section 121 of P.L. 109-364 to grant the Navy the authority to use six-year incremental funding for CVNs 78, 79, and
80. Since CVN-78 was fully funded in FY2008-FY2011, the provision in practice applies to CVNs 79 and 80.
Section 121(c) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (H.R. 5515/P.L. 115-
232 of August 13, 2018) authorized incremental funding to be used for making payments under the two-ship block buy
contract for the construction of CVN-80 and CVN-81. This provision does not limit the total number of years across
which incremental funding may be used to procure either ship.
10 For more on full funding and incremental funding, see CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding
Policy—Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Stephen Daggett, and CRS Report
RL32776, Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative Funding Approaches—Background and Options for Congress, by
Ronald O'Rourke.
11 Source: Jennifer Boykin, president of HII/NNS, as quoted in Marcus Weisgerber, “US Navy Places First 2-Carrier
Order in Three Decades,” Defense One, January 31, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) Class Program
Overview
The Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class carrier design (Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3) is the
successor to the Nimitz-class carrier design. The Ford-class design uses the basic Nimitz-class hull
form but incorporates several improvements, including features permitting the ship to generate
more aircraft sorties per day, more electrical power for supporting ship systems, and features
permitting the ship to be operated by several hundred fewer sailors than a Nimitz-class ship,
reducing 50-year life-cycle operating and support (O&S) costs for each ship by about $4 billion
compared to the Nimitz-class design, the Navy estimates. Navy plans call for procuring at least
four Ford-class carriers—CVN-78, CVN-79, CVN-80, and CVN-81.
Figure 1. USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)

Source: Cropped version of U.S. Navy photograph 170408-N-WZ792-198, showing CVN-78 on April 8, 2017.
Accessed March 17, 2021, at https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Photo-Gallery/igphoto/2001728935/.
CVN-78 (Gerald R. Ford)
CVN-78, which was named Gerald R. Ford in 2007,12 was procured in FY2008. The ship’s final
procurement cost was $13,316.5 million (i.e., about $13.3 billion) in then-year dollars. The ship
was commissioned into service on July 22, 2017, and achieved initial operational capability
(IOC) in December 2021.13 The ship’s first deployment was delayed by a need to complete work
on the ship’s weapons elevators and correct other technical problems aboard the ship. The first
deployment—a two-month “service-retained deployment” in Atlantic waters that served as an
operational stress test—reportedly began on October 4, 2022, more than five years after the ship

12 §1012 of the FY2007 defense authorization act (H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17, 2006) expressed the sense of
Congress that CVN-78 should be named for President Gerald R. Ford. On January 16, 2007, the Navy announced that
CVN-78 would be so named. CVN-78 and other carriers built to the same design are consequently referred to as Ford
(CVN-78) class carriers. For more on Navy ship names, see CRS Report RS22478, Navy Ship Names: Background for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
13 See, for example, Marcus Weisgerber, “Surprise! The Navy Declared Its Newest Carrier Battle-Ready Last Year,”
Defense One, April 5, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

4

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

was commissioned into service, and ended on November 26, 2022.14 The ship reportedly began
its first full-length deployment on May 2, 2023.15
Figure 2. USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)

Source: U.S. Navy photograph 200515-N-QI093-1151, showing CVN-78 on May 15, 2020, with the oiler USNS
Patuxent (T-AO 201) alongside. Accessed March 17, 2021, at https://allhands.navy.mil/Media/Gallery/igphoto/
2002340124/.
CVN-79 (John F. Kennedy)
CVN-79, which was named John F. Kennedy on May 29, 2011,16 was procured in FY2013. The
Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget estimates the ship’s procurement cost at $12,700.0 million (i.e.,
$12.7 billion) in then-year dollars. On August 10, 2023, the Navy notified the congressional
defense committees that, using authority granted by Section 121 of the FY2020 National Defense

14 See, for example, Nick Wilson, “First-in-Class Ford Aircraft Carrier Completes Inaugural Deployment,” Inside
Defense, November 29, 2022; Sam LaGrone, “Video: USS Gerald R. Ford Back in Norfolk After Two Months in the
Atlantic,” USNI News, November 26 (updated November 27), 2022; Diana Stancy Correll, “USS Gerald R Ford Slated
to Wrap Up First Deployment,” Navy Times, November 23, 2022.
15 See, for example, Diana Stancy Correll, “USS Gerald R Ford Leaves Norfolk for First Full-Length Deployment,”
Navy Times, May 2, 2023; Aaron-Matthew Lariosa, “Aircraft Carrier USS Gerald R. Ford Departs Norfolk for
Worldwide Deployment,” USNI News, May 2, 2023.
16 See “Navy Names Next Aircraft Carrier USS John F. Kennedy,” Navy News Service, May 29, 2011, accessed online
on June 1, 2011, at http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=60686. See also Peter Frost, “U.S. Navy’s Next
Aircraft Carrier Will Be Named After The Late John F. Kennedy,” Newport News Daily Press, May 30, 2011. CVN-79
is the second ship to be named for President John F. Kennedy. The first, CV-67, was the last conventionally powered
carrier procured for the Navy. CV-67 was procured in FY1963, entered service in 1968, and was decommissioned in
2007.
Congressional Research Service

5

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Authorization Act (S. 1790/P.L. 116-92 of December 20, 2019), the Navy was increasing the cost
limitation baseline (aka cost cap) for CVN-79 by $236 million, to $12,936 million, to support full
ship delivery efforts. (For further information on procurement cost caps for the CVN-78 program,
see “Program Procurement Cost Cap” below.) CVN-79 is being built with an improved shipyard
fabrication and assembly process that incorporates lessons learned from the construction of CVN-
78. CVN-79 is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in July 2025.
Figure 3. USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)

Source: Cropped version of photograph accompanying Megan Eckstein, “Navy Removes Ford Carrier Program
Manager, Citing Performance Over Time,” USNI News, July 2, 2020. The caption credits the photograph to the
U.S. Navy and states that it shows CVN-78 on June 4, 2020.
CVN-80 (Enterprise)
CVN-80, which was named Enterprise on December 1, 2012,17 was procured in FY2018. The
Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget estimates the ship’s procurement cost at $12,812.9 million (i.e.,

17 The Navy made the announcement of CVN-80’s name on the same day that it deactivated the 51-year-old aircraft
carrier CVN-65, also named Enterprise. (“Enterprise, Navy’s First Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier, Inactivated,”
Navy News Service, December 1, 2012; Hugh Lessig, “Navy Retires One Enterprise, Will Welcome Another,” Newport
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 35 Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

about $12.8 billion) in then-year dollars. The ship is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in March
2028.
CVN-81 (Doris Miller)
CVN-81, which was named Doris Miller on January 20, 2020,18 is treated in this report as a ship
that was procured in FY2019, consistent with congressional action on the Navy’s FY2019 budget.
(The Navy’s FY2024 budget submission, like its FY2021-FY2023 submissions, shows CVN-81
as a ship that was procured in FY2020.) The Navy’s FY2024 budget submission estimates the
ship’s procurement cost at $12,929.1 million (i.e., about $12.9 billion) in then-year dollars. The
ship is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in February 2032.
Two-Ship Block Buy Contract for CVN-80 and CVN-81
CVN-80 and CVN-81 are being procured under a two-ship block buy contract that was authorized
by Section 121(a)(2) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (H.R. 5515/P.L. 115-232 of August 13, 2018). The provision permitted the Navy to add
CVN-81 to the existing contract for building CVN-80 after DOD made certain certifications to
Congress. DOD made the certifications on December 31, 2018, and the Navy announced the
award of the contract on January 31, 2019. Prior to the awarding of the two-ship block buy
contract, CVN-81 was scheduled to be procured in FY2023.
Compared to the estimated procurement costs for CVN-80 and CVN-81 in the Navy’s FY2019
budget submission, the Navy estimated under its FY2020 budget submission that the two-ship
block buy contract will reduce the cost of CVN-80 by $246.6 million and the cost of CVN-81 by
$2,637.3 million, for a combined reduction of $2,883.9 million (i.e., about $2.9 billion).19 (DOD
characterized the combined reduction as “nearly $3 billion.”20) Using higher estimated baseline
costs for CVN-80 and CVN-81 taken from a December 2017 Navy business case analysis, the
Navy estimated under its FY2020 budget submission that the two-ship contract will reduce the
cost of CVN-80 by about $900 million and the cost of CVN-81 by about $3.1 billion, for a
combined reduction of about $4.0 billion.21 These figures are all expressed in then-year dollars,
meaning dollars that are not adjusted for inflation. For additional background information on the
two-ship block buy contract, see the Appendix.
Interest in Potential Two-Ship Block Buy Contract for CVN-82 and CVN-83
Some observers reportedly are interested in the option of using another two-ship block buy
contract to procure two additional Ford-class carriers, which would be CVN-82 and CVN-83.22

News Daily Press, December 2, 2012.) CVN-65 was the eighth Navy ship named Enterprise; CVN-80 is to be the
ninth.
18 Doris Miller was an African American enlisted sailor who received the Navy Cross for his actions during the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. For further discussion of the naming of CVN-81 for Doris
Miller, see CRS Report RS22478, Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
19 Source: CRS calculation based on costs for single-ship purchases as presented in Navy’s FY2019 budget submission
and costs for two-ship purchase as presented in the Navy’s FY2020 budget submission.
20 Source: Navy information paper on estimated cost savings of two-ship carrier buy provided to CRS by Navy Office
of Legislative Affairs on June 20, 2019.
21 Navy information paper provided to CRS by Navy Office of legislative Affairs on June 20, 2019.
22 See, for example, Megan Eckstein, “US Navy Mulls Timing of New Double-Carrier Award Amid Enterprise Delay,”
Defense News, October 26, 2023; Loren Thompson, “The Right Way To Buy The U.S. Navy’s New Generation Of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 13 Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

The Navy’s FY2024 30-year (FY2024-FY2053) shipbuilding plan shows the next two carriers
after CVN-81 as scheduled for procurement in FY2028 and either FY2032 or FY2033.
Section 132 of the FY2023 NDAA (H.R. 7776/P.L. 117-263 of December 23, 2022) required the
Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2023, on
advance procurement funding for CVN-82 and CVN-83 under single-carrier and two-carrier
acquisition strategies.
Program Procurement Cost Cap
Congress between established and subsequently amended procurement cost caps for Ford-class
aircraft carriers.23
Program Procurement Funding
Table 1 shows procurement funding for CVNs 78, 79, 80, and 81 through FY2028, the final year
of funding programmed for CVN-81, under the Navy’s FY2024 budget submission. As shown in
the table, the Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget requests $2,540.4 million (i.e., about $2.5 billion)
in procurement funding for Ford-class ships, including $624.6 million for CVN-79, $1,115.3
million for CVN-80, and $800.5 million for CVN-81.

Supercarriers,” Forbes, September 30, 2022; Mike Gooding, “Block-Buy for New Aircraft Carriers Will Save
Taxpayers Billions of Dollars,” 13 News Now, August 30 (updated August 31), 2022; Megan Eckstein, “Navy, HII
Pitch Congress for Another Two-Carrier Contract,” Defense News, August 29, 2022; Sam LaGrone, “HII Argues for
Aircraft Carrier Block Buy as New Enterprise Takes Shape,” USNI News, August 28, 2022; Justin Katz, “Ahead of
Shipyard Ceremony, Navy and Industry Advocate for Another Aircraft Carrier ‘Block Buy,’” Breaking Defense,
August 26, 2022.
23 The provisions that established and later amended the cost caps are as follows:
Section 122 of the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17,
2006) established a procurement cost cap for CVN-78 of $10.5 billion, plus adjustments for inflation and other factors,
and a procurement cost cap for subsequent Ford-class carriers of $8.1 billion each, plus adjustments for inflation and
other factors. The conference report (H.Rept. 109-702 of September 29, 2006) on P.L. 109-364 discusses Section 122
on pages 551-552.
Section 121 of the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 3304/P.L. 113-66 of December 26, 2013)
amended the procurement cost cap for the CVN-78 program to provide a revised cap of $12,887.0 million for CVN-78
and a revised cap of $11,498.0 million for each follow-on ship in the program, plus adjustments for inflation and other
factors (including an additional factor not included in original cost cap).
Section 122 of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1356/P.L. 114-92 of November 25, 2015) further
amended the cost cap for the CVN-78 program to provide a revised cap of $11,398.0 million for each follow-on ship in
the program, plus adjustment for inflation and other factors, and with a new provision stating that, if during
construction of CVN-79, the Chief of Naval Operations determines that measures required to complete the ship within
the revised cost cap shall result in an unacceptable reduction to the ship’s operational capability, the Secretary of the
Navy may increase the CVN-79 cost cap by up to $100 million (i.e., to $11.498 billion). If such an action is taken, the
Navy is to adhere to the notification requirements specified in the cost cap legislation.
Section 121(a) of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810/P.L. 115-91 of December 12, 2017)
further amended the cost cap for the CVN-78 program to provide a revised cap of $12,568.0 million for CVN-80 and
subsequent ships in the program, plus adjustment for inflation and other factors. (The cap for CVN-79 was kept at
$11,398.0 million, plus adjustment for inflation and other factors.) The provision also amended the basis for adjusting
the caps for inflation, and excluded certain costs from being counted against the caps.
Section 121 of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1790/P.L. 116-92 of December 20, 2019) further
amended the cost cap for the CVN-78 program to provide revised caps of $13,224.0 million for CVN-78, $11,398.0
million for CVN–79, $12,202.0 million for CVN–80, and $12,451.0 million for CVN–81. The provision directs the
Navy to exclude from these figures costs for CVN–78 class battle spares, interim spares, and increases attributable to
economic inflation after December 1, 2018.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 7 link to page 14 Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 1. Procurement Funding for CVNs 78, 79, 80, and 81 Through FY2028
(Millions of then-year dollars, rounded to nearest tenth)
FY
CVN-78
CVN-79
CVN-80
CVN-81
Total
FY01
21.7 (AP)
0
0
0
21.7
FY02
135.3 (AP)
0
0
0
135.3
FY03
395.5 (AP)
0
0
0
395.5
FY04
1,162.9 (AP)
0
0
0
1,162.9
FY05
623.1 (AP)
0
0
0
623.1
FY06
618.9 (AP)
0
0
0
618.9
FY07
735.8 (AP)
52.8 (AP)
0
0
788.6
FY08
2,685.0 (FF)
123.5 (AP)
0
0
2,808.5
FY09
2,687.0 (FF)
1,210.6 (AP)
0
0
3,897.6
FY10
851.3 (FF)
482.9 (AP)
0
0
1,334.2
FY11
1,848.1 (FF)
902.5 (AP)
0
0
2,750.6
FY12
86.0 (FF)*
554.8 (AP)
0
0
640.8
FY13
0
491.0 (FF)
0
0
491.0
FY14
588.1 (CC)
917.6 (FF)
0
0
1,505.7
FY15
663.0 (CC)
1,219.4 (FF)
0
0
1,882.4
FY16
123.8 (CC)
1,569.5 (FF)
862.4 (AP)
0
2,555.7
FY17
0
1,241.8 (FF)
1,370.8 (AP)
0
2,612.6
FY18
20.0 (CC)
2,556.4 (FF)
1,569.6 (FF)
0
4,146.0
FY19
0
0
929.1 (FF)
643.0 (FF)
1,572.1
FY20
0
0
1,062.0 (FF)
1,214.5 (FF)
2,276.5
FY21
71.0 (CC)
0
958.9 (FF)
1,606.4 (FF)
2,636.3
FY22
0
291.0 (CC)
1,062.0 (FF)
1,287.7 (FF)
2,640.7
FY23
0
461.7 (CC)
1,465.9 (FF)
1,052.0 (FF)
2,995.2
FY24 (requested)
0
624.6 (CC)
1,115.3 (FF)
800.5 (FF)
2,540.4
FY25 (programmed)
0

2416.7 (FF)
666.0 (FF)
3,082.7
FY26 (programmed)
0

1,922.1 (FF)
1,922.1
FY27 (programmed)
0

2,011.8 (FF)
2,011.8
FY28 (programmed)
0

1,725.0 (FF)
1,725.0
Total
13,316.5
12,700.0
12,812.9
12,929.1
51,758.5
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on Navy’s FY2024 budget submission and prior-year submissions.
Notes: Figures may not add due to rounding. AP is advance procurement funding; FF is ful funding; CC is cost-
to-complete funding (i.e., funding to cover cost growth), which is sometimes abbreviated in Navy documents as
CTC. Regarding the * notation for the FY2012 funding figure for CVN-78, even though FY2012 is after FY2011
(CVN-78’s original final year of ful funding), the Navy characterizes the $86.0 mil ion reprogrammed into
FY2012 as ful funding rather than cost-to-complete funding on the grounds that in the years since FY2011, as
discussed earlier in this report (see footnote 9), the authority to use incremental funding for procuring aircraft
carriers has been expanded by Congress to permit more than the four years of incremental funding that were
permitted at the time that CVN-78 was initially funded.
Changes in Estimated Unit Procurement Costs Since FY2008 Budget
Table 2 shows changes in the estimated procurement costs of CVNs 78, 79, 80, and 81 since the
budget submission for FY2008—the year of procurement for CVN-78.
Congressional Research Service

9

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 2. Changes in Estimated Procurement Costs of CVNs 78, 79, 80, and 81
(As shown in FY2008-FY2024 budgets, in millions of then-year dollars)
CVN-78
CVN-79
CVN-80
CVN-81
Est.
Scheduled/
Est.
Scheduled/
Est.
Scheduled/
Est.
Scheduled/
proc.
actual FY
proc.
actual FY
proc.
actual FY
proc.
actual FY
Budget
cost
of proc.
cost
of proc.
cost
of proc.
cost
of proc.
FY08
10,488.9
FY08
9,192.0
FY12
10,716.8
FY16
n/a
FY21
FY09
10,457.9
FY08
9,191.6
FY12
10,716.8
FY16
n/a
FY21
FY10
10,845.8
FY08
n/a
FY13
n/a
FY18
n/a
FY23
FY11
11,531.0
FY08
10,413.1
FY13
13,577.0
FY18
n/a
FY23
FY12
11,531.0
FY08
10,253.0
FY13
13,494.9
FY18
n/a
FY23
FY13
12,323.2
FY08
11,411.0
FY13
13,874.2
FY18
n/a
FY23
FY14
12,829.3
FY08
11,338.4
FY13
13,874.2
FY18
n/a
FY23
FY15
12,887.2
FY08
11,498.0
FY13
13,874.2
FY18
n/a
FY23
FY16
12,887.0
FY08
11,347.6
FY13
13,472.0
FY18
n/a
FY23
FY17
12,887.0
FY08
11,398.0
FY13
12,900.0
FY18
n/a
FY23
FY18
12,907.0
FY08
11,377.4
FY13
12,997.6
FY18
n/a
FY23
FY19
12,964.0
FY08
11,341.4
FY13
12,601.7
FY18
15,088.0
FY19
FY20
13,084.0
FY08
11,327.4
FY13
12,335.1
FY18
12,450.7
FY19
FY21
13,316.5
FY08
11,397.7
FY13
12,321.3
FY18
12,450.7
FY19
FY22
13,316.5
FY08
11,929.7
FY13
12,405.5
FY18
12,483.6
FY19
FY23
13,316.5
FY08
12,700.0
FY13
12,832.9
FY18
12,930.0
FY19
FY24
13,316.5
FY08
12,700.0
FY13
12,812.9
FY19
12,929.1
FY19
Annual % change
FY08 to FY09
-0.3

0%

0%

n/a

FY09 to FY10
+3.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

FY10 to FY11
+6.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

FY09 to FY11

+26.7%

FY11 to FY12
0%

-1.5%

-0.1%

n/a

FY12 to FY13
+6.9%

+11.3%

+2.8%

n/a

FY13 to FY14
+4.1%

-0.6%

0%

n/a

FY14 to FY15
+0.5%

+1.4%

0%

n/a

FY15 to FY16
0%

-1.3%

-2.9%

n/a

FY16 to FY17
0%

+0.4%

-4.2%

n/a

FY17 to FY18
+0.2%

-0.2%

+0.7%

n/a

FY18 to FY19
+0.4%

-0.3%

-3.0%

n/a

FY19 to FY20
+0.9%

-0.1%

-2.1%

-17.5%

FY20 to FY21
+1.8%

+0.6%

-0.1%

0%

FY21 to FY22
0%

+4.7%

+0.7%

+0.3%

FY22 to FY23
0%

+6.5%

+3.4%

+3.6%

FY23 to FY24
0%

0%

-0.156%

-0.007%

Cumulative % change through FY24 from actual procurement dates of FY08, FY13, FY18, and FY19
Since FY08
+27.0%

+38.2%

+19.6%

n/a

Since FY13
+8.1%

+11.3%

-7.7%

n/a

Since FY18
+3.2%

+11.6%

-1.4%

n/a

Since FY19
+2.7%

+12.0%

+1.7%

-14.3%

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on FY2008-FY2024 Navy budget submissions.
Notes: n/a means not available. The FY2010 budget submission did not show estimated procurement costs or
scheduled years of procurement for CVNs 79 and 80. The scheduled years of procurement for CVNs 79 and 80
shown here for the FY2010 budget submission are inferred from the shift to five-year intervals for procuring
Congressional Research Service

10

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

carriers that was announced by Secretary of Defense Gates in his April 6, 2009, news conference regarding
recommendations for the FY2010 defense budget.
Issues for Congress for FY2024
Future Aircraft Carrier Force Level
One issue for Congress concerns the future aircraft carrier force level. Decisions on this issue
could have implications for the service lives of existing aircraft carriers and/or plans for procuring
new aircraft carriers. The future aircraft carrier force level has been a frequent matter of
discussion over the years, and (correctly or not) is often the starting point or the center of broader
discussions over the future size and composition of the Navy.Factors involved in discussions
about the future aircraft carrier force level include but are not limited to the following:
• the capabilities and costs (including procurement costs and life-cycle operation
and support [O&S] costs) of aircraft carriers and their embarked air wings, and
how those capabilities and costs compare to those of other U.S. military forces;
• the prospective survivability of aircraft carriers in conflicts against adversaries
(such as China) with highly capable anti-ship missiles;
• the numbers of carriers needed to support policymaker-desired levels of day-to-
day aircraft carrier forward presence in various regions around the world; and
• the utility of carriers for purposes other than high-end combat, including
deterrence of potential regional adversaries, reassurance of allies and partners,
signaling U.S. commitment and resolve, and noncombat operations such as
humanitarian assistance/disaster response (HA/DR) operations.
As discussed earlier, the Navy and DOD have been working since 2019 to develop a new force-
level goal to replace the 355-ship force-level goal of 2016. Studies of this emerging force-level
goal that have been released by the Navy in summary form suggest that the new force-level goal
could call for achieving and maintaining a Navy with a carrier force of 8 to 12 carriers, to be
supplemented (in the case of the lower end of that range) by up to 6 light aircraft carriers
(CVLs).24
An aircraft carrier force-level goal that includes fewer than 11 CVNs could lead to Navy
proposals for one or more of the following:
• accelerated retirements for one or more Nimitz-class carriers that have already
received their mid-life nuclear refueling overhauls (which are called Refueling
Complex Overhauls, or RCOHs);
• a deferral or cancellation of the procurement of the next aircraft carrier after
CVN-81, which under the Navy’s FY2024 30-year shipbuilding plan is scheduled
for FY2028; and/or
• the deferral or cancellation of the construction of CVN-81, which could require
modifying the current two-ship construction contract for CVN-80 and CVN-81.

24 For the effort to develop a successor to the 355-ship goal of 2016, including the studies that the Navy has released in
summary form, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 14 link to page 13 Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Cost Growth
Overview
Another issue for Congress concerns cost growth in the CVN-78 program, which the Navy has
worked for years to control. Navy efforts to stem cost growth and manage costs in the CVN-78
program so as to stay within the program’s cost caps have been a continuing oversight issue for
Congress. Congress has passed legislation on the issue that is in addition to the earlier-mentioned
legislation that established and amended cost caps for the ships.25
As shown in Table 2, the estimated procurement costs of CVN-78, CVN-79, and CVN-80 have
grown 27.0%, 38.2%, and 19.6%, respectively, since the submission of the FY2008 budget. As
shown in Table 1, cost growth on CVN-78 and CVN-79 has required the Navy to request
$2,843.2 million (i.e., about $2.8 billion) in cost-to-complete (CC) procurement funding to cover
cost growth on the two ships, including $1,465.9 million for CVN-78 and $1,377.3 million for
CVN-79.
CVN-78
A primary source of past cost growth for CVN-78 appears to have been an unrealistically low
original cost estimate for the ship in the FY2008 budget submission, which might have reflected
an underestimate of the intrinsic challenges of building the then-new Ford-class design compared
to those of building the previous and well understood Nimitz-class design.26

25 This additional legislation includes the following:
Section 128 of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1356/P.L. 114-92 of November 25, 2015), which
established a limitation on availability of funds for CVN–79 until certain conditions were met;
Section 126 of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 2943/P.L. 114-328 of December 23, 2016), which
established a limitation on availability of funds for procurement of CVN–80 until certain conditions were met;
Section 121(b) of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810/P.L. 115-91 of December 12, 2017),
which provided for a waiver on the limitation of availability of funds for CVN–79; and
Section 122 of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1790/P.L. 116-92 of December 20, 2020), which
modified the above-listed Section 126 of P.L. 114-328 regarding an annual report on cost targets for Ford-class carriers.
26 The Congressional Budget office (CBO) in 2008 and GAO in 2007 questioned the accuracy of the Navy’s cost
estimate for CVN-78. CBO reported in June 2008 that it estimated that CVN-78 would cost $11.2 billion in constant
FY2009 dollars, or about $900 million more than the Navy’s estimate of $10.3 billion in constant FY2009 dollars, and
that if “CVN-78 experienced cost growth similar to that of other lead ships that the Navy has purchased in the past 10
years, costs could be much higher still.” CBO also reported that, although the Navy publicly expressed confidence in its
cost estimate for CVN-78, the Navy had assigned a confidence level of less than 50% to its estimate, meaning that the
Navy believed there was more than a 50% chance that the estimate would be exceeded. (Congressional Budget Office,
Resource Implications of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2009 Shipbuilding Plan, June 9, 2008, p. 20.) GAO reported in
August 2007 that
Costs for CVN 78 will likely exceed the budget for several reasons. First, the Navy’s cost estimate,
which underpins the budget, is optimistic. For example, the Navy assumes that CVN 78 will be
built with fewer labor hours than were needed for the previous two carriers. Second, the Navy’s
target cost for ship construction may not be achievable. The shipbuilder’s initial cost estimate for
construction was 22 percent higher than the Navy’s cost target, which was based on the budget.
Although the Navy and the shipbuilder are working on ways to reduce costs, the actual costs to
build the ship will likely increase above the Navy’s target. Third, the Navy’s ability to manage
issues that affect cost suffers from insufficient cost surveillance. Without effective cost
surveillance, the Navy will not be able to identify early signs of cost growth and take necessary
corrective action.
(Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Navy Faces Challenges Constructing
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

12

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

In addition to this general cause of past cost growth, secondary and more-specific past risks of
cost growth for CVN-78 included certain new systems to be installed on the ship. These included
a new type of aircraft catapult called the Electromagnetic Launch System (EMALS), a new
aircraft arresting system called the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), and the ship’s primary radar,
called the Dual Band Radar (DBR). Congress followed these and other sources of risk of cost
growth on CVN-78 for years.
CVNs 79, 80, and 81
Impact of Original CVN-78 Cost Estimate
An unrealistically low cost estimate for CVN-78 may have led to similarly unrealistically low
cost estimates for CVN-79 and CVN-80 in the FY2008 budget submission, since the cost
estimates for CVN-79 and CVN-80 would have been derived from the estimate for CVN-78.
Confidence Levels
The Navy stated in June 2019 that its confidence levels for its estimated procurement costs (not
including costs for class-wide spare parts) for CVNs 79, 80, and 81 were 36%, 22%, and 20%,
respectively, meaning that the Navy as of June 2019 estimated that the risk of future cost growth
on CVNs 79, 80, and 81 were 64%, 78%, and 80%, respectively.27
October 2023 CBO Report
An October 2023 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the potential cost of the Navy’s
FY2024 30-year shipbuilding plan states:
The Navy estimates that [CVN-79] will cost $14.8 billion (in [constant FY]2023 dollars,
or $12.7 billion in nominal dollars). CBO’s estimate for the ship is almost the same: $14.9
billion (in [constant FY]2023 dollars)….
In the 2024 budget, under the two-carrier [CVN-80 and CVN-81] buy, the Navy estimated
that the CVN-80 will cost $12.3 billion (in [constant FY]2023 dollars, or $12.6 billion in
nominal dollars). By contrast, CBO is less certain about the savings the two-carrier
purchase will generate. On the basis of the costs of the two previous ships, CBO estimates
that the CVN-80 will cost $14.0 billion (in [constant FY]2023 dollars), about 13 percent
more than the Navy’s estimate. Similarly, the Navy estimates that the CVN-81 will cost
$12.0 billion (in [constant FY]2023 dollars, or $12.9 billion in nominal dollars). By
contrast, CBO estimates that the CVN-81 will cost $13.6 billion (in [constant FY]2023
dollars), which is also 13 percent more than the Navy’s estimate.
The Navy’s estimates for future carriers are much higher than its estimates for the CVN-
80 or CVN-81. In the [Navy’s] 2024 [30-year] shipbuilding plan, the Navy estimates that
the 6 carriers purchased under [30-year] Alternatives 1 and 2 would each cost about $17
billion (in [constant FY]2023 dollars), on average, and the 7 carriers purchased under [30-
year] Alternative 3 would each cost about $16 billion…. The difference between those two
estimates for the alternatives is driven largely by the effect of building carriers every five

the Aircraft Carrier Gerald R. Ford within Budget, GAO-07-866, August 2007, summary page. See
also Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Realistic Business Cases Needed
to Execute Navy Shipbuilding Programs, Statement of Paul L. Francis, Director, Acquisition and
Sourcing Management Team, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary
Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, July 24, 2007 (GAO-07-943T),
p. 15.)
27 Source: Navy information paper provided to CRS by Navy Office of legislative Affairs on June 20, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

13

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

years under the first two alternatives versus every four years under the third alternative.
The Navy expects that if future carriers can be purchased repeatedly using the two-carrier
buy strategy over the next 30 years, then the costs could be lower than the estimates
provided in the [FY]2024 [30-year shipbuilding] plan.
In a report to the Congress, the Navy estimates that a two-ship buy strategy would save
about 7 percent, if the carriers were purchased every five years. If those ships were
purchased every four years, then the estimated savings would double, to about 14 percent
under Alternatives 1 and 2. Under Alternative 3, the savings would be a little less than 7
percent because the Navy already envisions buying carriers every four years under that
alternative. Even so, the Navy’s recent estimates suggest that the industry is experiencing
growth in real costs. The increase in its estimates for the [FY]2024 [30-year shipbuilding]
plan, compared with those in the [FY]2023 [30-year shipbuilding] plan, amounts to roughly
$500 million more per ship than is accounted for by shipbuilding inflation alone (using the
same assumptions about how frequently the Navy would buy the ships).
CBO estimates that under the first two alternatives, carriers would cost, on average, $16.6
billion—3 percent less than the Navy’s estimate. CBO’s estimate for carrier purchases
under the third alternative is $15.7 billion per ship—2 percent less than the Navy’s
estimate. Although using the two-carrier buy strategy should generate savings, it is not
clear that the large savings the Navy anticipates would occur. The savings that could be
realized with two-carrier buys will be better understood once the CVN-80 and CVN-81 are
complete.28
CVN-79
Navy officials have stated that they are working to control the cost of CVN-79 by equipping the
ship with a less expensive primary radar,29 by turning down opportunities to add features to the
ship that would have made the ship more capable than CVN-78 but would also have increased
CVN-79’s cost, and by using a build strategy for the ship that incorporates improvements over the
build strategy that was used for CVN-78. These build-strategy improvements, Navy officials have
said, include the following items, among others:
• achieving a higher percentage of outfitting of ship modules before modules are
stacked together to form the ship;
• achieving “learning inside the ship,” which means producing similar-looking ship
modules in an assembly line-like series, so as to achieve improved production
learning curve benefits in the production of these modules; and
• more economical ordering of parts and materials including greater use of batch
ordering of parts and materials, as opposed to ordering parts and materials on an
individual basis as each is needed.
As noted earlier, on August 10, 2023, the Navy notified the congressional defense committees
that, using authority granted by Section 121 of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act
(S. 1790/P.L. 116-92 of December 20, 2019), the Navy was increasing the cost limitation baseline
(aka cost cap) for CVN-79 by $236 million, to $12,936 million, to support full ship delivery
efforts.

28 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2024 Shipbuilding Plan, October 2023, p. 24.
29 See, for example, Megan Eckstein, “PEO Carriers: CVN-79 Will Have a New Radar, Save $180M Compared to
[CVN-78’s] Dual Band Radar,” USNI News, March 17, 2015; Christopher P. Cavas, “Dual Band Radar Swapped Out
In New Carriers,” Defense News, March 17, 2015; Christopher P. Cavas, “New US Carrier Radar Enters the Picture,”
Defense News, March 23, 2015.
Congressional Research Service

14

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

A March 7, 2022, press report stated
Aircraft carrier manufacturer Newport News Shipbuilding is revamping its processes to
become more efficient as it builds the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers, a company official
said.
Brian Fields, the vice president of aircraft carrier construction for CVN-80 and CVN-81,
told reporters Feb. 18 the company had a plan going into construction on the Gerald R.
Ford, but lessons learned are driving down cost and schedule as the company works
through the John F. Kennedy and now the Enterprise.
One lesson relates to crane lifts of large modules or supermodules. Given the immense size
of aircraft carriers, the workforce builds the steel framing for segments of the ship, which
can then be outfitted with pipes and cables. These modules are then lifted by crane and put
into place on the hull.
Fields said the company has learned to use even larger supermodules, therefore needing
fewer crane lifts to put the pieces into place.
“Some of our super lifts [on Enterprise] have incorporated what on [Ford and Kennedy]
were in some cases 10, 15 erections with a crane—building one large supermodule,” he
said. “We’re seeing a lot more opportunity to outfit earlier in the build process, which
provides a lot of efficiencies just based on where the work is being performed.”
Fields said the company is also trying to group steel structures into “unit families,” where
the pieces aren’t identical but similar enough that lessons can still be applied from one
piece to the next. The sequencing on Ford and Kennedy had been based on what steel
pieces were needed in what order to form modules that could be stacked in the right order.
The new changes on Enterprise mean some steel pieces are built early to need—but Fields
said “localized learning” could happen when similar pieces were built consecutively in a
“batch manufacturing process.”
Fields said the company is seeing similar learning happening at its 2,500 suppliers around
the country....
Fields also noted the Ford class was designed in a digital 3D environment, rather than using
traditional blueprint drawings. The associated step-by-step digital work instructions
weren’t ready for the first two ships, so Ford and Kennedy were built by craftspeople using
paper drawings derived from the digital plans—though Kennedy was used to experiment
with early digital work instructions and get employee feedback.
Starting with Enterprise, workers at the shipyard used laptops with digital work instructions
for each step, with 3D images that can be enlarged and rotated.
“It provides the mechanics a lot clearer picture of what they’re expected to be doing. It
helps with first-time quality. It helps the younger craftspeople, who sometimes, we find it
takes as much time to learn to read drawings as it does to develop the craft skills,” Fields
said.
Enterprise and Doris Miller will be fully built with these digital work instructions, in a first
for the Navy.
Fields said the Navy invested significantly in getting the 3D product model and the digital
work instructions right, as they will be the basis of not only construction of carriers and
submarines at Newport News but also for lifecycle maintenance work at the Navy’s four
public shipyards.
Fields said Newport News Shipbuilding made a “generational investment” in buying
laptops for all hourly workers so they could access the digital work instructions. But, he
said, the investment is yielding other benefits, giving workers immediate access to
Congressional Research Service

15

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

resources like procedures, troubleshooting manuals and more, as well as better access to
their supervisors.30
Delay in CVN-78’s First Deployment
Overview
Another oversight issue for Congress concerns the delay in CVN-78’s first deployment that was
caused by a need to complete work on the ship’s weapons elevators and correct other technical
problems aboard the ship. As noted earlier, the ship’s first deployment occurred in October and
November 2022, more than five years after it was commissioned into service. The delay in the
ship’s first deployment lengthened a period during which the Navy attempted to maintain
policymaker-desired levels of carrier forward deployments with its 10 other carriers—a situation
that may have added to operational strains on those 10 carriers and their crews.
Weapons Elevators
The ship’s 11 weapons elevators—referred to as Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWEs)—move
missiles and bombs from the ship’s weapon magazines up to the ship’s flight deck, so that they
can be loaded onto aircraft that are getting ready to take off from the ship. A lack of working
weapons elevators can substantially limit an aircraft carrier’s ability to conduct combat
operations. Challenges in completing the construction, testing, and certification of the ship’s
AWEs were first reported in November 2018,31 and the issue became a matter of continuing
congressional oversight. Navy officials stated that the 11th and final weapon elevator was
completed, tested, and certified on December 22, 2021.
Following the initial press report about the ship’s AWEs in November 2018, the Navy struggled
to meet promises it repeatedly made to the defense oversight committees to get the AWEs
completed, tested, and certified. Reported developments included the following:
• For much of 2019, the Navy continued to report that two of the 11 AWEs were
completed, tested, and certified.32

30 Megan Eckstein, “Navy Says Digital Work Instructions, Lessons Learned Are Improving Construction of Third
Ford-Class Carrier,” Defense News, March 7, 2022.
31 See Anthony Capaccio, “U.S. Navy’s Costliest Carrier Was Delivered Without Elevators to Lift Bombs,”
Bloomberg, November 2, 2018.
32 Sam LaGrone, “Carrier Ford Will Only Have Two Weapon Elevators Ready When it Leaves Shipyard,” USNI News,
October 9, 2019. See also Anthony Capaccio, “On Costliest U.S. Warship Ever, Navy Can’t Get Munitions on Deck,”
Bloomberg, July 30, 2019. (The article was also published by Bloomberg with the title “Flawed Elevators on $13
Billion Carrier Miss Another Deadline.”) Ben Werner, “Navy Says More Experts Coming to Work Ford Carrier
Elevator Delays,” USNI News, July 5, 2019; Navy Research, Development and Acquisition Public Affairs Office,
“Navy Full Court Press on USS Gerald R. Ford Weapons Elevators,” Navy News Service, July 1, 2019; Mark D. Faram,
“The Navy’s New Plan to Fix Ford’s Elevators Failures,” Navy Times, July 1, 2019; Paul McLeary, “Navy Calls In
Outsiders To Fix Troubled Ford Carrier,” Breaking Defense, July 1, 2019; Ben Werner and Sam LaGrone, “USS
Gerald R. Ford Weapons Elevator Certifications Will Extend Pat October,” USNI News, May 29, 2019. See also Paul
McLeary, “Will Trump Fire SecNav? Super Carrier USS Ford Suffers New Setback,” Breaking Defense, May 29,
2019; Rich Abott, “Ford Elevator Work Prioritized And Extending Past October,” Defense Daily, June 3, 2019; Megan
Eckstein, “Navy Building a Land-Based Test Site for Ford-Class Weapons Elevators, But Timing Won’t Help CVN-
78,” USNI News, May 31, 2019.
For earlier press reports, see Anthony Capaccio, “U.S. Navy’s Costliest Carrier Was Delivered Without Elevators to
Lift Bombs,” Bloomberg, November 2, 2018; Anthony Capaccio, “Flawed Bomb Elevators Leave Inhofe Leery of
Buying Two Carriers,” Bloomberg, December 5, 2019; Megan Eckstein, “SECNAV to Trump: Ford Carrier Weapons
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

16

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

• On October 23, 2019, the Navy reported that the figure had increased to four of
11.33
• On April 22, 2020, the Navy announced that the fifth AWE had been certified,
that the sixth was scheduled to be certified in the fourth quarter of FY2020, and
that the remaining five were scheduled to be certified by the time that the ship
underwent Full Ship Shock Trials (FSSTs), which was then scheduled for the
third quarter of FY2021.34
• On July 23, 2020, the Navy announced that the sixth AWE had been certified.35
• In November 2020, it was reported that the seventh AWE was scheduled to be
certified before the end of calendar year 2020, and that the remaining four would
be completed by the end of April 2021.36
• On March 16, 2021, it was reported that seventh AWE had been delivered in
early March, that the eighth elevator was in testing and was scheduled to be
delivered in April, that work on all the AWE considered together was 93% or
94% complete, and that the remaining three AWEs would be completed during
2021.37
• On March 23, 2021, Navy Admiral John Aquilino testified that nine of the 11
AWEs had been “repaired.”38

Elevators Will Be Fixed by Summer, or ‘Fire Me,’” USNI News, January 8, 2019; USS Gerald R. Ford Public Affairs,
“USS Gerald R. Ford Accepts First Advanced Weapons Elevator,” Navy News Service, January 16, 2019; Christopher
Woody, “The Navy’s Newest Aircraft Carrier Got a Long-Missing Piece of Gear in December, Helping to Solve a
Problem the Navy Secretary Has Bet His Job on Fixing,” Business Insider, January 20, 2019; Richard Sisk, “Navy
Finally Has One Weapons Elevator Working on Its Newest Carrier,” Military.com, January 22, 2019; Mark D. Faram,
“Once Beleaguered by Critics, the Ford Gets a Lift,” Navy Times, January 23, 2019; USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78)
Public Affairs, “USS Gerald R. Ford Accepts Second Advanced Weapons Elevator,” Navy News Service, March 6,
2019; Mark D. Faram, “Why the Once-Maligned Flattop Ford Is Finally Getting a Lift (or 11),” Navy Times, March 7,
2019; Rich Abott, “Carrier Elevator Test Site Will Procure New Elevator, Ford Accepts Second Elevator,” Defense
Daily, March 7, 2019; Rich Abott, “Navy To Build Land-Based Carrier Elevator Test Site,” Defense Daily, February
21, 2019.
33 Wesley Morgan, “Navy Secretary Accuses Congressional Critics of ‘Disinformation’ on Ford Carrier,” Politico Pro,
October 23, 2019. See also Sam LaGrone, “Carrier Ford May Not Deploy Until 2024, 3rd Weapons Elevator Certified,”
USNI News, October 22, 2019; Anthony Capaccio, “Trump Lets Navy’s Chief Off the Hook Over an Offer to ‘Fire
Me,’” Bloomberg, November 2, 2019.
34 Program Executive Office Aircraft Carriers Public Affairs, “Fifth Advanced Weapons Elevator certified aboard USS
Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78),” Navy News Service, April 22, 2020. See also Megan Eckstein, “Ford’s 5th Weapons
Elevator Done With Testing; All 11 Should Be Done By Next Summer’s Shock Trials,” USNI News, April 16, 2020.
On January 16, 2020, a Navy official reportedly stated that work on all 11 elevators will be completed by May 2021,
although the official acknowledged that there is some risk in that schedule. (Mallory Shelbourne, “Navy Confident
CVN-78 Will Have All Weapons Elevators by May 2021,” Inside Defense, January 16, 2020.)
35 Gina Harkins, “Supercarrier Ford Could Soon Have More Than Half of Its Weapons Elevators Working,”
Military.com, June 19, 2020.
36 Mallory Shelbourne, “USS Gerald R. Ford Making Steady Progress Ahead of Deployment,” USNI News, November
24, 2020.
37 Michael Fabey, “US Navy Reports Progress on Key Carrier Ford Systems,” Jane’s Navy International, March 16,
2021; Megan Eckstein, “As USS Gerald R. Ford Nears Shock Trials, Carrier Remains Busy With Testing, Fleet
Support,” USNI News, March 12, 2021. See also Kara Dixon, “USS Gerald R. Ford Moving Toward Completion of
Post-Delivery Tests and Trials,” WAVY.com, March 10, 2021.
38 See Rich Abott, “Aquilino Says Nine Of 11 Ford Elevators Finished,” Defense Daily, March 23, 2021; Aidan
Quigley, “Aquilino: Ford ‘Through’ Technological Challenges, All but Two Elevators Finished,” Inside Defense,
March 23, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

17

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

• On May 13, 2021—about four years after the ship was delivered to the Navy—it
was reported that four of the 11 AWEs would not be certified until later in 2021.39
• On July 21, 2021, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Michael
Gilday, reportedly stated: “We’ll deliver two more [of the AWEs] in early fall
[2021] and then the remaining two by the end of 2021, so the elevators will be
complete. And that’s going very, very well.”40
• The Navy stated that the 11th and final AWE was completed, tested, and certified
on December 22, 2021.41
The Navy stated in 2020 that lessons learned in building, testing, and certifying CVN-78’s AWEs
will be applied to the AWEs of subsequent Ford-class carriers.42
Other Technical Challenges
In addition to challenges in building, testing, and certifying the ship’s weapon elevators, the Navy
reportedly worked to address problems with other systems on the ship. A January 21, 2022, press
report stated
Four years after the U.S. Navy’s costliest warship was hobbled by a flaw in its propulsion
system, prime contractor Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and subcontractor General
Electric Co. are still haggling over who will pay for fixing the defect.
The $13 billion USS Gerald R. Ford was forced to return to port during post-delivery sea
trials in early 2018 after the failure of a main thrust bearing, a key propulsion system
component that’s made by GE.
Huntington Ingalls has repaired the faulty gear, and the Navy advanced funds for the work.
The “actual root cause” of the defective part was “machining errors” by GE workers,
according to Navy documents. The bearing, one of four that transfers thrust from the ship’s
four propeller shafts, overheated but “after securing the equipment to prevent damage, the
ship safely returned to port,” the Navy said in a March 2018 memo to Congress.
The Ford returned to sea for additional trials after the damage was contained....
Vice Admiral Thomas Moore, then head of the Naval Sea Systems Command, told
reporters in 2019 that the Navy was paying for the repairs until GE and Huntington “figure
out who has the liability for it. At some point you’ve got to pay them to get the work done.”

39 Aidan Quigley, “Ford Missed Elevator Certification Timeline Goal but Moves into Shock Trials on Time,” Inside
Defense, May 10, 2021. See also Craig Hooper, “Despite Promises, USS Ford Heads to Shock Trials with 4 Broken
Elevators,” Forbes, May 13, 2021; Peter Suciu, “The Navy’s New, Powerful Aircraft Carrier Is Heading to ‘Shock
Trials,’” Business Insider, May 24, 2021.
40 As quoted in Rich Abott, “CNO Says Final Ford Elevators Delivered By End Of Year, Identifies Lessons Learned,”
Defense Daily, July 21, 2021. See also Aidan Quigley, “Navy Says Final Four Ford Elevators to be Complete by End of
Year,” Inside Defense, August 3, 2021; Konstantin Toropin, “All of Aircraft Carrier Ford’s Weapons Elevators Will Be
Ready by End of Year Despite Long Delay, Navy Says,” Military.com, August 10, 2021.
41 See, for example, Megan Eckstein, “US Navy Completes Final Weapons Elevator on Aircraft Carrier Gerald R.
Ford,” Defense News, December 23, 2021; Sam LaGrone, “HII Delivers Final Advanced Weapons Elevator Aboard
USS Gerald R. Ford,” USNI News, December 23, 2021; Craig Hooper, “The Navy Gets A Christmas Present: All 11
USS Ford Weapons Elevators Delivered,” Forbes, December 24, 2021; Anthony Capaccio, “Navy’s Costly Carrier
Finally Has Its Bomb-Lifting Elevators,” Bloomberg, December 30, 2021.
42 See, for example, David B. Larter, “US Navy Makes Progress on Aircraft Carrier Ford’s Bedeviled Weapons
Elevators,” Defense News, July 23, 2020; Mallory Shelbourne, “Navy Verifies USS Gerald R. Ford’s Sixth Advanced
Weapons Elevator,” USNI News, July 23, 2020; Rich Abott, “Navy Certifies Second [Lower-Stage] Ford Magazine
Elevator,” Defense Daily, July 23, 2020; Gina Harkins, “Navy Carrier Ford Now Has 6 Working Weapons Elevators,”
Military.com, July 24, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

18

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

The Navy has declined to say how much it paid Huntington, although in 2018 it asked
Congress to shift $30 million from other accounts to start work.
The companies are still hashing things out.
“We are continuing to work on a final agreement with GE to resolve this claim,” Danny
Hernandez, a spokesman for Newport News, Virginia-based Huntington Ingalls, said in a
statement. Sean Smith, a spokesman for Boston-based GE, said “we continue working with
the U.S. Navy and Huntington Ingalls to resolve this issue.” GE hasn’t commented publicly
on the Navy’s contention that its workers were at fault.43
An April 28, 2021, press report stated
The Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) and Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System
(EMALS) achieved 8,000 aircraft recoveries and launches aboard USS Gerald R. Ford
(CVN 78) on April 19, during the final independent steaming event of her 18-month Post
Delivery Test & Trials (PDT&T) period, the Naval Air Systems Command said in an April
26 release.
Capt. Kenneth Sterbenz, Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment (ALRE) program
manager (PMA-251) for EMALS and AAG, said ALRE finished PDT&T strong, and they
are ready for the next step, as Ford prepares for Full Ship Shock Trials, which is scheduled
to begin summer 2021.
“ALRE’s support of EMALS and AAG was admirable throughout the rigorous testing of
PDT&T operations,” said Sterbenz. “On the way to reaching 8,000 launches and
recoveries, we saw many Ford crew trained, learned a great deal about the systems, and
laid invaluable groundwork for future Ford-class ships.”
As CVN 78 moved through PDT&T, ALRE had the opportunity to directly support the
fleet, as 351 Naval aviators were qualified using EMALS and AAG throughout 2020 and
2021. Time and training also enabled a great increase in the efficiency of flight operations.
More than 7,000 of Ford’s total launches and recoveries were completed in the last 18
months.44
An April 27, 2021, press report stated
The efforts of USS Gerald R. Ford sailors during the carrier’s 18 months of post-delivery
tests and trials look set to cut the time before the Navy’s newest carrier is ready to deploy—
possibly by a year or more.
Rear Adm. Craig Clapperton, commander of the Ford’s carrier strike group, said the
group’s latest exercises show the Ford would be ready to deploy 12 to 18 months earlier
that its current—a schedule that was in its turn roughly two years later than the Navy had
hoped when it started working on the carrier nearly two decades ago.
After a set of live-fire exercises over the past several weeks at sea, the Ford has certified
the missiles and cannons that are its last line of a defense.
The Ford and the ships and air wing in its strike group also completed a long distance
maritime strike exercise, a critical war-gaming test in which it had to escape from another
task force seeking to disable it and then attack in its turn.

43 Anthony Capaccio, “Priciest U.S. Warship Spurs Haggling on Who Pays for Crucial Fix,” Bloomberg, January 21,
2022.
44 Seapower Staff, “EMALS, AAG Hit 8,000 Aircraft Recoveries, Launches on Ford,” Seapower, April 28, 2021. See
also Rich Abott, “Ford Finishes Combat Systems Ship Trials, Reaches 8,000 Aircraft Launches/Recoveries,” Defense
Daily, April 26, 2021; Rich Abott, “Navy Completes Ford Carrier Post-Delivery Trials, Touts Success and Outlines
Next Steps,” Defense Daily, May 5, 2021; Aidan Quigley, “Ford Missed Elevator Certification Timeline Goal but
Moves into Shock Trials on Time,” Inside Defense, May 10, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

19

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

“We have accelerated the timeline for Gerald R. Ford,” Clapperton said….
During the Ford’s latest at-sea exercise, its 18th since starting post delivery tests and trials,
its electromagnetic catapult, for launching planes, and arresting gear, for keeping them
from plunging into the sea when landing, hit the 8,000 launch-and-recovery cycle mark,
said Capt. Joshua Sager, air wing commander.
That’s a key measure, since that is roughly the number of sorties an air-wing will fly during
the several months of a deployment overseas.
Sager said the new electromagnetic technology means the air-wing can get into the air—
and return to the battle after rearming and refueling—faster than with the traditional steam-
and-hydraulics systems that have been the mainstay for decades.
“Now we’ve gone past the point of showing the Ford can do what Nimitz class can do….
Now we’re at the point of taking it to the next level,” he said, referring the class of 10
nuclear carriers now in service.45
Potential Oversight Questions
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
• Why did the Navy accept delivery of CVN-78 from the shipbuilder and
commission the ship into service if most or all of its weapon elevators were not
completed, tested, and certified?
• What steps did the Navy take following the delivery of CVN-78 to the Navy on
May 31, 2017, to keep Congress informed of challenges regarding the ship’s
weapon elevators and other ship systems?
• Why did it take so long, and how much did it cost, to complete, test, and certify
the weapon elevators?
• How much additional operational stress did the delay in CVN-78’s first
deployment place on the Navy’s 10 other aircraft carriers?
• What steps is the Navy taking to ensure that a similar situation does not arise
regarding the construction and initial deployments of CVN-79, CVN-80, and
CVN-81?
Issues Raised in DOT&E and GAO Reports
Another oversight issue for Congress concerns CVN-78 program issues raised in a January 2023
report from DOD’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)—DOT&E’s annual
report for FY2022—and in the 2023 edition of the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO’s)
annual report surveying selected DOD weapon acquisition programs, which was published in
June 2023.
January 2023 DOT&E Report
Regarding the CVN-78 program, the January 2023 DOT&E report stated the following in part:
TEST ADEQUACY
The Navy began CVN 78 IOT&E [Initial Operational Test and Evaluation] in September
2022. The Navy is conducting IOT&E in accordance with TEMP [Test and Evaluation

45 Dave Ress, “Ford Crew’s Efforts Set to Shorten Time Until the Carrier Is Ready to Deploy, Strike Group CO Says,”
Newport News Daily Press, April 27, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

20

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

master Plan] Revision E and the IOT&E Test Plan, which involves 10 underway periods
(including integrated test), extensive modeling, and spans 2 years.
The first of three land-based cyber survivability tests was completed on the
Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG)
in June 2022. This test was executed in accordance with a DOT&E-approved test plan and
DOT&E observed the test. The planned test was limited in scope due to the Navy’s lack of
robust cyber testing capability on industrial control systems that are common on modern
ships. The Navy Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia Division’s Strategic Cyber- Physical
Initiative is attempting to address this limitation. Land-based cyber testing will continue in
FY23, and a shipboard test is scheduled for FY24.
The Navy conducted self-defense testing against unmanned aerial vehicles and unmanned
small boats in July 2022, in accordance with a DOT&E-approved test plan that was
executed during Combat Systems Operational Rehearsal Event Phase 2. DOT&E observed
the testing, and the results are still undergoing analysis.
Additionally, CVN 78 conducted sea trials after its PIA [Planned Incremental Availability
(PIA, a 6-month maintenance period] and six underway periods that included fixed-wing
flight operations, two of which were in accordance with a DOT&E-approved test plan and
one was observed by DOT&E. Four of these underway periods involved training squadrons
and two involved a portion of its carrier air wing. To date, CVN 78 has conducted 10,826
catapult launches (2,699 of which were in FY22) and 10,826 arrested landings (2,699 of
which were in FY22). During these underway periods, the crew also performed two
ammunition onloads and a RAM [Rolling Airframe Missile] live fire. One of the
ammunition onloads was part of a DOT&E-approved test plan, and the live fire was part
of a Carrier Strike Group 12 self-defense exercise. DOT&E observed one ammunition
onload and the RAM live fi re. Although not part of the IOT&E test plan, the data from the
RAM live fire will be adjudicated for score and is planned to contribute to the PRA
[Probability of Raid Annihilation] model.
In April 2022, DOT&E submitted a classified report to Congress detailing system
performance during planned test events against the Self Defense Test Ship (SDTS)
configured to represent CVN 78’s capability. This report covers testing between December
2018 and December 2020, during which the Navy completed three of the four planned test
events against the SDTS [self-defense test ship], including the employment of RAMs
and/or ESSMs [Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles].
There may not be enough data to determine the operational effectiveness and suitability of
the self-defense capability of CVN 78 against anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) due to
test data that will not be available for reasons discussed in the Ship Self-Defense System
article of this Annual Report. The self-defense tests planned in the Revision E TEMP will
provide the only remaining live fire self-defense data points in IOT&E, and will not inform
performance against some types of ASCM threats. It is vital that the Navy successfully
verify, validate, and accredit the high-fidelity PRA model being developed by the Program
Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems in order to gain adequate understanding
of the Anti-Air Warfare mission capability by completion of IOT&E.
The Navy plans to eventually upgrade the combat systems suite on CVN 78 to match CVN
79 and follow-on ships. Due to the differences between the combat systems, and the fact
that CVN 79 will be the enduring self-defense configuration for the class, it is imperative
that CVN 79 self-defense capabilities are adequately tested.
PERFORMANCE
EFFECTIVENESS
Combat System
Congressional Research Service

21

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

In April 2022, DOT&E submitted a classified interim report to Congress on the operational
effectiveness of CVN 78’s self-defense capability against ASCMs.
Regarding the self-defense testing against unmanned aerial vehicles and unmanned small
boats in July 2022, no preliminary assessment is available because analysis is not yet
complete.
Sortie Generation
The reliability of CVN 78 catapults, arresting gear, and jet blast deflectors (JBDs)
continues to have an adverse effect on sortie generation and flight operations efficiency.
During an underway period in August of 2022, the ship returned early due to unexpected
problems with its JBDs. The early return was necessary to facilitate JBD repairs and did
not allow completion of CQ. The ongoing reliability problems with these critical
subsystems remains the primary risk to the successful completion of CVN 78 IOT&E.
Executing the planned sortie generation-rate testing, as outlined in the Revision E TEMP,
will be crucial to evaluating the ship’s combat effectiveness and accrediting the high-
fidelity Sea Strike/Sea Basing Aviation Model, an essential tool for evaluating the sortie
generation rate key performance parameter and supporting life-of-class upgrades.
SUITABILITY
The low or unproven reliability of the following five CVN 78 systems pose the most
significant challenge to flight operations:
EMALS [Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System]
During testing from March through June 2022 (after the PIA), EMALS achieved a
reliability of 614 mean cycles between operational mission failures (MCBOMF) during
1,841 catapult launches (where a cycle is the launch of one aircraft). While this reliability
is well below the requirement of 4,166 MCBOMF, EMALS showed slight improvement
in reliability from FY21 (460 MCBOMF throughout 1,758 catapults). However, during the
first underway of IOT&E in September 2022, EMALS reliability appeared to regress and
slowed CQ. While the data are still being analyzed, the adverse effect to operations on two
of the ten days of CQ was significant. Naval Air Systems Command is working on short-
and long-term improvements to address EMALS reliability degraders. Short-term
improvements are focused on improving component reliability and are expected to be
incorporated on Gerald R. Ford by the end of FY23.
AAG [Advanced Arresting Gear]
During testing from March through June 2022 (after the PIA), AAG achieved a reliability
of 460 MCBOMF during 1,841 aircraft recoveries (where a cycle is the recovery of a single
aircraft). While this reliability is well below the requirement of 16,500 MCBOMF, AAG
showed slight improvement in reliability from FY21 (115 MCBOMF throughout 1,758
catapults). However, during the first underway of IOT&E in September 2022, AAG
reliability appeared to regress and slowed CQ. While the data are still being analyzed, the
adverse effect to operations on three of the ten days of CQ was significant. Naval Air
Systems Command is working on short- and long-term improvements to address AAG
reliability degraders. Short-term improvements are focused on improving indications and
software and are expected to be incorporated on Gerald R. Ford by the end of 2QFY23
[second quarter of FY2023].
JBDs
During early developmental testing, reliability concerns were identified with the Electro
Mechanical Actuators (EMA) that are used to raise and lower the JBDs on the Ford class.
Several modifications were implemented on CVN 78 during the PIA to improve reliability.
During the August 2022 CQ, the ship experienced EMA failures on all four JBDs, which
caused the ship to cancel the remainder of CQ and return early. The cause of the EMA
Congressional Research Service

22

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

failures was corroded fasteners in various components of the EMA. The root cause of the
fastener corrosion is being addressed, and repairs were completed prior to September’s CQ
[carrier qualification]. During the September CQ, JBD performance did not adversely
affect flight operations.
Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE)
The Navy conducted a partial ammunition onload in April 2022 and a full ammunition
onload in September 2022. DOT&E observed the September ammunition onload; data are
still being analyzed. Observation of the lower stage AWE performance was very promising
as the ordnance was transferred from the hangar bay to the magazines more efficiently than
on a Nimitz-class carrier. Through the first 19,767 elevator dispatches, 109 individual
elevator failures were reported. AWE system reliability will be critical as the Navy
develops standard procedures for moving ordnance from magazines to the flight deck. The
Navy’s planned service-retained employment of CVN 78 in 1QFY23 [first quarter of
FY2023] will provide the first operationally representative opportunity to fully stress the
AWE system.
DBR [dual-band radar]
Through June 2022, DBR demonstrated a reliability of 100 hours mean time between
operational mission failures, which does not meet the minimum threshold of 339 hours
mean time between operational mission failures. DBR was operationally available 94% of
the time, compared to the 98% requirement.
SURVIVABILITY
An adequate survivability assessment depends upon a combination of Full Ship Shock
Trials (FSST), extensive modeling based on surrogate testing, and a total-ship survivability
test (TSST). Sufficient data to assess ship survivability against close-aboard explosions
should be available by the end of FY23.
From June-August 2021, the Navy conducted FSST on CVN 78 including three shock
events of increasing effect. The FSST identified several survivability improvement
opportunities for CVN 78 against underwater threat engagements. In 1QFY23, DOT&E
will publish a classified FSST report that details these results.
The Navy plans for the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division to provide
model-based vulnerability assessment reports that assess the class’s vulnerability to threat
weapons in 2QFY23.
The TSST is scheduled for 3QFY23 [third quarter of FY2023]. TSST is an onboard,
extensive damage-control test of both the crew and associated systems.
The Revision E TEMP outlines a strategy to use land-based cyber testing in 2022 and 2023
to build up to a shipboard cybersecurity test in 2024. The first cybersecurity test event was
a cyber-survivability assessment of EMALS and AAG, using systems installed at Joint
Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey in June 2022. Many subsystems on the ship
were tested to various degrees in both developmental and operational testing on other ship
platforms. However, required CVN 78 platform-level testing has not yet occurred, and
some systems specific to CVN 78 have yet to undergo any operational cyber survivability
assessments.
The survivability of CVN 78 in a contested and congested electromagnetic spectrum
environment has not been evaluated. Tests to do so in FY24 are part of the second phase
of the test plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Navy should:
1. Continue to improve reliability for EMALS, AAG, JBDs, DBR, and AWE.
Congressional Research Service

23

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

2. Execute planned sortie generation and self-defense tests, as outlined in the Revision E
TEMP and the IOT&E Test Plan.
3. Address combat system deficiencies identified in the classified USS Gerald R. Ford
(CVN 78) Self-Defense Interim Assessment report, dated April 2022.
4. Continue to develop more robust capabilities to test the cyber survivability of shipboard
industrial control systems.
5. Fund the modeling and simulation suite required to assess the CVN 78 PRA requirement.
6. Upon release of DOT&E’s CVN 78 FSST report, develop and resource a way forward
to correct deficiencies and provide it to DOT&E.
7. Complete and deliver the vulnerability assessment reports and supporting
documentation.
8. Update the CVN 78 TEMP to complete the test strategy and provide resources for
requirements to adequately test the combat system on CVN 79.
9. Continue to fund the maintenance availability for the SDTS to ensure its readiness to
support CVN 79 combat systems testing.
10. Update the IOT&E Test Plan to complete the test requirements and scheduling for the
second phase of IOT&E.46
A March 7, 2023, opinion piece stated:
While the Navy puts on a brave face on the carrier’s well-publicized technical problems,
balancing the drumbeat of bad news with morale-boosting press visits, credulous “gee-
whiz” media coverage, and showpiece deployments, the IOT&E tests, when completed in
late FY 2024, are likely to carry a far less positive message about the USS Ford’s
warfighting capabilities—the ultimate business case for what will be, at a minimum, a class
of four expensive vessels....
To be blunt, the USS Ford has yet to demonstrate the ability to operate at sea—
uninterrupted and without a port call—for more than 35 days at a stretch. It also seems
unable—or the Navy is simply unwilling—to even carry out a standard set of sortie-
generation tests—allowing an easy “apples-to-apples” comparison with the Navy’s legacy
Nimitz class carriers.
The fact remains that the USS Ford, 6 years after delivery, still appears unable to match
the sortie generation performance a World War II-era carrier, USS Midway (CV-41)
exhibited during Desert Storm.
It is a big problem—and it won’t go away anytime soon....
DOT&E has been very clear about linking the carrier’s technical problems to concrete
measures of carrier performance. The testing agency, in their 2023 annual report, did a
great job of tying pilot certification challenges to the USS Ford’s unreliable flight deck
systems. The message was clear—the Ford’s reliability challenges inflict real
consequences on naval missions.
The Navy, obviously uncomfortable with DOT&E’s focus on mission accountability,
grasped for a positive spin. It abruptly shifted gears on the media, introducing a reliability
metric that it has never used before in public discussions of the aircraft carrier’s poor-
performing electromagnetic launch (EMALS) and recovery systems (Advanced Arresting
Gear, or AAG).

46 Department of Defense, Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, January 2023, pp. 168-171.
Congressional Research Service

24

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Tellingly, the Navy’s new reliability metric indicated “improvement in the reliability of the
catapult and arresting gear systems” but it somehow lacked a direct tie to carrier
performance.
The Navy, when pressed for clarification, said, it “has addressed EMALS and AAG issues
via a reliability growth plan that has resulted in an average Operational Availability of ~
0.98 for the last 5,500 (~45%) launches and recoveries across both systems.”
And yet, somehow, the carrier, despite great operational availability scores, struggled to
qualify pilots.
This gets at the root of the problem. Essentially, the Navy seems content to merely field
something that looks and acts like a carrier. And by introducing another metric, the Service
is refusing to even acknowledge the launch-and-recovery problems exist, effectively
discrediting Pentagon weapons testers by muddying their very real concerns about the USS
Ford’s ability to accomplish the platform’s central mission—generating more aircraft
sorties faster than any previous U.S. aircraft carrier....
The Navy, in a statement that took nine days to generate, focused on the DOT&E’s primary
measurement of EMALS and AAG reliability, or, in the technological lingo, “Mean cycles
Between Operational Mission Failures”. The unsophisticated measure tallies the number
of launches and recoveries that occur between system failures, and then averages them. As
a mean, the Pentagon’s testing measure isn’t perfect, and can be overly influenced by
outliers.
For the Navy, “the reliability requirements for EMALS and AAG are expressed in terms
of ‘Operational Availability’, which is the measure of how often a system is available to
perform a mission versus not.”
The Navy’s statement continued, explaining that “EMALS and AAG Operational
Availability measures the amount of time the system is available for operational use and is
a ratio of system uptime divided by total time uptime and downtime. Downtime is a result
of failures which prevent the system from accomplishing its mission. Total downtime is a
function of time required to diagnose the issue, complexity of repair, and availability of
spare parts.”
DOT&E responded, issuing a statement saying that the organization will continue to
“collect operationally representative effectiveness and suitability data from flight
operations”.
The Pentagon said it focused on mean cycles between operational mission failure because
the testing organization considers it “to be the most applicable metric during developmental
test, and it remains applicable during operational test” and that “no combat representative
scenarios have been scored to date” where operational availability might matter.
The Pentagon statement put the focus right back onto the mission, saying that “the ship and
air wing have additional operational metrics” that add context to the measurements cited
by both DOT&E and the Navy, cautioning that a “combination of all three are needed to
best capture how reliability and availability may impact combat flight operations.”
In short, the Navy—unless it can get its act together—is soon going to face the music about
their troubled aircraft carrier. It needs to show that the positive metrics it has proffered to
the press can translate into the basic mission of launching and recovering aircraft.
The smart money is on DOT&E’s concerns over the Ford’s battle readiness. With a history
of broken performance promises, public relations games, little accountability, and an active
“revolving door” of high-level carrier decision-makers going to work for the carrier’s
Congressional Research Service

25

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

builder, America’s sea service hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory during the USS Ford’s
acquisition process.47
June 2023 GAO Report
A June 2023 GAO report—the 2023 edition of GAO’s annual report assessing selected major
weapon acquisition programs—stated the following about the CVN-78 program:
Technology Maturity, Design Stability, and Production Readiness
The Navy continues to face challenges with demonstrating the reliability of key systems,
and the CVN 78 program remains about a decade away from demonstrating their reliability.
Consequently, the ship may not meet a key performance requirement by the planned end
of operational testing in November 2023.
Metrics used to assess system reliability for the electromagnetic aircraft launch system
(EMALS) and advanced arresting gear (AAG) are slowly increasing. CVN 78 completed
multiple at-sea events, including thousands of aircraft launches and recoveries or landings.
These launch and recovery cycles help the program demonstrate system reliability, conduct
testing, and certify aircraft on the systems. However, the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation, continues to highlight reliability as a risk to CVN 78’s ability to rapidly launch
and recover aircraft.
The Navy expects to install the first Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) on CVN
79, which it is currently developing for other ship classes. EASR, along with other systems,
will replace the program’s original Dual Band Radar. The Navy has delivered EASR to the
shipyard as it continues testing. However, CVN 79 delivery, planned for late in fiscal year
2024, could be delayed if EASR problems discovered during testing require rework.
The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, approved the April 2022 CVN 78 Test and
Evaluation Master Plan, after the program implemented changes to the test strategy. The
Navy subsequently began operational testing in August 2022. Given that operational
testing is ongoing, CVN 78 has yet to demonstrate that it is operationally effective and
suitable for combat. Any deficiencies discovered during operational testing may lead to a
backlog of maintenance issues that the fleet will need to address during future maintenance
periods.
Software and Cybersecurity
The CVN 78 program’s software and cybersecurity approach has not changed since last
year. According to program officials, the program conducted an evaluation of potential
cybersecurity vulnerability for EMALS and AAG in June 2022. They stated that other ship
systems will undergo cybersecurity assessments in fiscal years 2023 through 2025.
Other Program Issues
Since our report last year, program costs increased by $3.8 billion. Some of the main drivers
are CVN 79 contract overruns and EMALS and AAG configuration changes on CVN 80
and CVN 81.
The Navy reported final CVN 78 construction costs of $13.2 billion. Maintenance or other
funding categories will cover any additional costs. For example, according to program
officials, the Navy is considering replacing the Dual Band Radar with EASR during a
maintenance period to ensure a more reliable supply chain for maintenance. The Navy only

47 Craig Hooper, “Put Up Or Shut Up Time For America’s Troubled New Aircraft Carrier,” Forbes, March 7, 2023.
See also Sam LaGrone, “VIDEO: Navy’s Newest Carrier USS Gerald R. Ford Faces Toughest Test Yet,” USNI News,
March 11 (updated March 12), 2023.
Congressional Research Service

26

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

has one operational Dual Band Radar unit—installed on CVN 78—which makes sourcing
and procuring spare parts more expensive, according to program officials.
In August 2021, the Navy increased CVN 79’s cost baseline by $1.3 billion to $12.7 billion,
primarily due to contract overruns. At over 88 percent complete, CVN 79 is in the complex,
final phases of construction when cost growth is most likely. Program officials stated that
they do not expect CVN 79 would require additional funding. However, our analysis shows
that, based on current performance, the shipbuilder is unlikely to achieve its cost estimate
at completion.
The Navy reported saving $4 billion by concurrently awarding contracts for CVN 80 and
CVN 81, compared with buying the ships individually. CVN 80 is 25 percent complete,
and the Navy requested additional funding to complete the transition from using paper
drawings for construction to a digital model. The Navy estimated the new model would
reduce production labor hours by 5 to 7 percent. However, program officials indicated that
it is too early to determine if the shipbuilder will achieve this target. Additionally, program
officials reported that industrial base issues, including supply chain delays and inflation of
material costs, could contribute to the unlikelihood of it achieving anticipated savings.
Program Office Comments
We provided a draft of this assessment to the program office for review and comment. The
program office provided technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.
According to the program office, CVN 78 completed ship construction at a total cost of
$13.2 billion. It stated that from October to November 2022, CVN 78 conducted an at-sea
deployment and completed more than 1,250 aircraft flights, expended 78 tons of weaponry,
and completed 13 resupply efforts at sea. The program office noted that CVN 79 costs
increased due to the transition to a new delivery schedule in January 2022 to enable
delivery of the ship with its complete warfare systems. It added that costs also increased
due to modifications to ensure CVN 79 will be capable of operating and deploying F-35C
aircraft upon the completion of the next maintenance period. CVN 80 conducted its keel
laying ceremony in August 2022 and the CVN 81 keel laying is scheduled for fiscal year
2026. The program office stated that it expects that the two-ship acquisition strategy for
CVN 80 and CVN 81 will deliver significant savings to the government compared with the
Navy’s cost estimate to procure these ships separately.48
Procurement of Aircraft Carriers After CVN-81
Another issue for Congress concerns the procurement of aircraft carriers after CVN-81. The
question of whether the Navy should shift at some point from procuring CVNs like the Ford-class
carriers to procuring smaller and perhaps nonnuclear-powered aircraft carriers has been a
recurrent matter of discussion and Navy study over the years.
As mentioned earlier, the Navy’s FY2024 30-year shipbuilding plans shows the next aircraft
carrier after CVN-81 being procured in FY2028. The Navy has not stated that this ship would be
something other than CVN-82 (i.e., a fifth Ford-class carrier).
As also mentioned earlier, studies of the emerging new force-level goal that have been released
by the Navy in summary form suggest that the new force-level goal could call for achieving and
maintaining a Navy with a carrier force of 8 to 12 carriers, to be supplemented (in the case of the
lower end of that range) by up to 6 light aircraft carriers (CVLs). The Navy does not currently
operate CVLs. The Navy in recent years has experimented with the concept of using an LHA-

48 Government Accountability Office, Weapon Systems Annual Assessment[:] Programs Are Not Consistently
Implementing Practices That Can Help Accelerate Acquisitions, GAO-23-106059, June 2023, p. 142.
Congressional Research Service

27

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

type amphibious assault ship with an embarked group of F-35B Joint Strike Fighters as a CVL.49
A February 1, 2021, press report, for example, states
The Navy’s engineering community has already started conducting light carrier design and
engineering studies, even as the Navy and the joint force still consider whether they’d even
want to invest in a CVL to supplement supercarriers to bring more distributed capability to
the fleet for less cost.
The idea of a light carrier resurfaced last summer as a Pentagon-led Future Naval Force
Study was nearing its completion. The idea hadn’t appeared in Navy and Marine Corps
plans, but then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper had a growing interest in the topic as he
sought ways to keep future shipbuilding and sustainment costs down and as he worried
about the Navy’s ability to conduct maintenance on its nuclear-powered aircraft carriers at
Navy-run public shipyards.
The FNFS and the plan it produced, Battle Force 2045, ultimately recommended between
zero and six light carriers and noted much more study would need to be done.
That work is already happening at Naval Sea Systems Command within the engineering
and logistics directorate (SEA 05).
Rear Adm. Jason Lloyd, the SEA 05 commander and deputy commander for ship design,
integration and engineering, said last week that his Cost Engineering and Industrial
Analysis team has been studying different options to understand what operational utility
the Navy would get out of each design and for what cost compared to the Ford-class carrier,
“and then let the operators really, and the Navy, decide, hey, do we want that capability for
that cost?”
“We have looked at an America-class possibility,50 we have looked at a Ford-class-light,51
we’ve looked at various different options and done cost studies on all those options. There
are also capabilities studies on all those options,” Lloyd said last week while speaking at a
virtual event hosted by the American Society of Naval Engineers.52
Advocates of smaller carriers traditionally have argued that they are individually less expensive
to procure, that the Navy might be able to employ competition between shipyards in their
procurement (something that the Navy cannot do with large-deck, nuclear-powered carriers like
the Ford-class carrier, because only one U.S. shipyard, HII/NNS, can build aircraft carriers of that
size), and that today’s aircraft carriers concentrate much of the Navy’s striking power into a
relatively small number of expensive platforms that adversaries could focus on attacking in time
of war.
Supporters of CVNs traditionally have argued that smaller carriers, though individually less
expensive to procure, are less cost-effective in terms of dollars spent per aircraft embarked or
aircraft sorties that can be generated; that it might be possible to use competition in procuring
certain materials and components for large-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers; and that

49 See CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
50 This is a reference to a CVL whose design is based on that of the America (LHA-6) class amphibious assault ship.
51 This is a reference to a carrier whose design is similar to that of the CVN-78 design, but with some of the CVN-78
design’s features reduced or removed, resulting in a ship whose procurement cost and capability are less than that of the
CVN-78 design.
52 Megan Eckstein, “Light Carrier Studies Already Underway As Navy Considers Role for CVLs in Future Fleet,”
USNI News, February 1, 2021. See also Joseph Trevithick, “Navy Looking At America And Ford Class Derivatives In
New Light Aircraft Carrier Studies,” The Drive, February 2, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 33 link to page 33 Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

smaller carriers, though perhaps affordable in larger numbers, would be individually less
survivable in time of war than CVNs.53
Section 128(d) of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1356/P.L. 114-92 of
November 25, 2015) required the Navy to submit a report on potential requirements, capabilities,
and alternatives for the future development of aircraft carriers that would replace or supplement
the Ford-class aircraft carrier. The report, which was conducted for the Navy by the RAND
Corporation, was delivered to the congressional defense committees in classified form in July
2016. An unclassified version of the report was then prepared and issued in 2017 as a publicly
released RAND report.54 The question of whether to shift to smaller aircraft carriers was also
addressed in three studies on future fleet architecture that were required by Section 1067 of the
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1356/P.L. 114-92 of November 25, 2015).
Legislative Activity for FY2024
Summary of Congressional Action on FY2024 Funding Request
Table 3 summarizes congressional action on the FY2024 procurement funding request for the
CVN-78 program. The request for CVN-79 is for cost-to-complete (CC) funding to cover cost
growth on CVN-79 following the completion in FY2018 of the ship’s original full funding.
Table 3. Congressional Action on FY2024 Procurement Funding Request
(Millions of dollars, rounded to nearest tenth)
Authorization
Appropriation

Request
HASC
5ASC
Final
HAC
SAC
Final
CVN-79
624.6
624.6
624.6

624.6
624.6

CVN-80
1,115.3
1,275.3
1,115.3

1,104.4
1,115.3

CVN-81
800.5
800.5
800.5

800.5
800.5

Total above
2,540.4 2,700.4
2,540.4

2529.5
2,540.4

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on Navy’s FY2024 budget submission, committee and conference
reports, and explanatory statements on FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act and FY2024 DOD
Appropriations Act.
Notes: HASC is House Armed Services Committee; SASC is Senate Armed Services Committee; HAC is
House Appropriations Committee; SAC is Senate Appropriations Committee. The request for CVN-79 is for
cost-to-complete (CC) funding to cover cost growth on CVN-79 fol owing the completion in FY2018 of the
ship’s original ful funding.
FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2670/S. 2226)
House
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 118-125 of June 30, 2023) on H.R.
2670, recommended the funding levels shown in the HASC column of Table 3. The

53 See, for example, Talbot Manvel, “The Lightning Carrier Isn’t Either,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, July 2023.
54 Bradley Martin and Michael McMahon, Future Aircraft Carrier Options, Santa Monica, CA, RAND Corporation,
2017, 87 pp.
Congressional Research Service

29

link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 33 Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

recommended increase of $160.0 million for CVN-80 is for “Navy [FY2024] UPL [Unfunded
Priorities List]—CVN 75 and CVN 80 SEWIP [Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement
Program] BLK III.” (Page 445)
Senate
The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 118-58 of July 12, 2023) on S.
2226, recommended the funding levels shown in the SASC column of Table 3.
Section 121 of S. 2226 would amend 10 USC 8062(e) to require the Navy to maintain a
minimum of nine carrier air wings until the date on which additional operationally deployable
aircraft carriers can fully support a 10th carrier air wing, after which point the Navy is to maintain
a minimum of 10 carrier air wings.
Regarding Section 121, S.Rept. 118-58 states:
Reduction in the minimum number of Navy carrier air wings and carrier air wing
headquarters required to be maintained (sec. 121)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8062(e) of title 10,
United States Code, to relieve the Navy of a requirement to maintain 10 carrier air wings.
The Department of Defense has asked for relief from the requirements of this section,
which directs the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the Navy maintains 9 carrier air
wings until additional deployable aircraft carriers can fully support 10 carrier air wings, or
October 1, 2025, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, the Navy would be required to maintain
10 carrier air wings.
The Navy intends to maintain 9 carrier air wings as the fleet returns to 11 operational
aircraft carriers. The Navy argues that even with 11 operational aircraft carriers, two of
those carriers are regularly unavailable for worldwide deployment due to routine or
scheduled maintenance or repair to include refueling and complex overhauls, docking
planned incremental availabilities, or planned incremental availabilities. Thus, the Navy
believes that maintaining 9 carrier air wings is sufficient to support 11 operational aircraft
carriers and that maintaining 10 carrier air wings is unnecessary. (Page 7)
FY2024 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 4365/S. 2587)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 118-121 of June 27, 2023) on H.R.
4365, recommended the funding levels shown in the HAC column of Table 3. The recommended
reduction of $10.876 million for CVN-80 is for “Joint precision aircraft landing system early to
need.” (Page 145)
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 118-81 of July 27, 2023) on S. 2587,
recommended the funding levels shown in the SAC column of Table 3.

Congressional Research Service

30

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix. Background Information on Two-Ship
Block Buy for CVN-80 and CVN-81
This appendix presents additional background information on the two-ship block buy contract for
CVN-80 and CVN-81.
The option for procuring two Ford-class carriers under a two-ship block buy contract had been
discussed in this CRS report since April 2012.55 In earlier years, the discussion focused on the
option of using a block buy contract for procuring CVN-79 and CVN-80. In subsequent years,
interest among policymakers focused on the option of using a block buy contract for procuring
CVN-80 and CVN-81.
On March 19, 2018, the Navy released a request for proposal (RFP) to Huntington Ingalls
Industries/Newport News Shipbuilding (HII/NNS) regarding a two-ship buy of some kind for
CVN-80 and CVN-81. A March 20, 2018, Navy News Service report stated the following:
The Navy released a CVN 80/81 two-ship buy Request for Proposal (RFP) to Huntington
Ingalls Industries—Newport News Shipbuilding (HII-NNS) March 19 to further define the
cost savings achievable with a two-ship buy.
With lethality and affordability a top priority, the Navy has been working with HII-NNS
over the last several months to estimate the total savings associated with procuring CVN
80 and CVN 81 as a two-ship buy.
“In keeping with the National Defense Strategy, the Navy developed an acquisition strategy
to combine the CVN 80 and CVN 81 procurements to better achieve the Department’s
objectives of building a more lethal force with greater performance and affordability,” said
James F. Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research Development and Acquisition.
“This opportunity for a two-ship contract is dependent on significant savings that the
shipbuilding industry and government must demonstrate. The Navy is requesting a
proposal from HII-NNS in order to evaluate whether we can achieve significant savings.”
The two-ship buy is a contracting strategy the Navy has effectively used in the 1980s to
procure Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and achieved significant acquisition cost savings
compared to contracting for the ships individually. While the CVN 80/81 two-ship buy
negotiations transpire, the Navy is pursuing contracting actions necessary to continue CVN
80 fabrication in fiscal year (FY) 2018 and preserve the current schedule. The Navy plans
to award the CVN 80 construction contract in early FY 2019 as a two-ship buy pending
Congressional approval and achieving significant savings.56
Section 121(a)(2) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019
(H.R. 5515/P.L. 115-232 of August 13, 2018) permitted the Navy, after DOD made certain
certifications to Congress, to add CVN-81 to the existing contract for building CVN-80. DOD
provided the required certification on December 31, 2018. On January 31, 2019, the Navy

55 See the section entitled “Potential Two-Ship Block Buy on CVN-79 and CVN-80” in the April 4, 2012, version of
CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O'Rourke. In more recent years, this section was modified to discuss the option in connection with CVN-80 and
CVN-81.
56 Naval Sea Systems Command Public Affairs, “Navy Seeks Savings, Releases Two-Carrier RFP,” Navy News, March
20, 2018. See also Megan Eckstein, “UPDATED: Navy, Newport News Taking Steps Towards Two-Carrier Buy,”
USNI News, March 19, 2018.
Congressional Research Service

31

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

announced that it had awarded a two-ship fixed-price incentive (firm target) (FPIF) contract for
CVN-80 and CVN-81 to HII/NNS.57
The two-ship contract for CVN-80 and CVN-81 can be viewed as a block buy contract because
the two ships are being procured in different fiscal years (CVN-80 was procured in FY2018 and
CVN-81 was procured in FY2019 [or, according to the Navy’s FY2021-FY2024 budget
submissions, in FY2020]).58 The Navy’s previous two-ship aircraft carrier procurements occurred
in FY1983 (for CVN-72 and CVN-73) and FY1988 (for CVN-74 and CVN-75). In each of those
two earlier cases, however, the two ships were fully funded within a single fiscal year, making
each of these cases a simple two-ship purchase (akin, for example, to procuring two Virginia-
class attack submarines or two DDG-51 class destroyers in a given fiscal year) rather than a two-
ship block buy (i.e., a contract spanning the procurement of end items procured across more than
one fiscal year).
Compared to DOD’s estimate that the two-ship block buy contract for CVN-80 and CVN-81
would produce savings of $3.9 billion (as measured from estimated costs for the two ships in the
December 2017 Navy business case analysis), DOD states that “the Department of Defense’s
Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) developed an Independent Estimate
of Savings for the two-ship procurement and forecast savings of $3.1 billion ([in] Then-Year
[dollars]), or approximately 11 percent.... The primary differences between [the] CAPE and Navy
estimates of savings are in Government Furnished Equipment59 and production change orders.”60
Within the total estimated combined reduction in cost, HII/NNS reportedly expects to save up to
$1.6 billion in contractor-furnished equipment.61
A November 2018 DOD report to Congress that was submitted as an attachment to DOD’s
December 31, 2018, certification stated the following regarding the sources of cost reduction for
the two-ship contract:
The CVN 80 and CVN 81 two-ship buy expands and improves upon the affordability
initiatives identified in the Annual Report on Cost Reduction Efforts for JOHN F.
KENNEDY (CVN 79) and ENTERPRISE (CVN 80) as required by section 126(c) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (P.L. 114-328). Production
saving initiatives for single-ship buys included use of unit families in construction, pre-
outfitting and complex assemblies which move work to a more efficient workspace
environment, reduction in the number of superlifts,62 and facility investments which
improve the shipbuilder trade effectiveness. A two-ship buy assumes four years between

57 See Office of the Navy Chief of Information, “Navy Awards Contract for Construction of Two Carriers,” Navy News
Service, January 31, 2019; Megan Eckstein, “UPDATED: Navy Awards 2-Carrier Contract to Newport News
Shipbuilding,” USNI News, January 31, 2019; Marcus Weisgerber, “US Navy Places First 2-Carrier Order in Three
Decades,” Defense One, January 31, 2019; David B. Larter, “US Navy Signs Mammoth Contract with Huntington
Ingalls for Two Aircraft Carriers,” Defense News, January 31, 2019; Rich Abott, “Navy Awards HII $15 Billion In
Two Carrier Buy,” Defense Daily, February 1, 2019.
58 For more on block buy contracting, see CRS Report R41909, Multiyear Procurement (MYP) and Block Buy
Contracting in Defense Acquisition: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
59 Government-furnished equipment (GFE) is equipment that the government purchases from supplier firms and then
provides to the shipbuilder for incorporation into the ships.
60 Department of Defense, FORD Class Aircraft Carrier Certification, CVN 80 and CVN 81 Two Ship Procurement
Authority, as Required by Section 121(b) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (P.L. 115-232), November 2018, pp. 8-9.
61 Rich Abott, “Navy Awards HII $15 Billion In Two Carrier Buy,” Defense Daily, February 1, 2019. Contractor-
furnished equipment (CFE) is equipment that the contractor (in this case, HII/NNS) purchases from supplier firms for
incorporation into the ships.
62 A superlift is the use of a crane to move a very large section of the ship from the land into its final position on the
ship.
Congressional Research Service

32

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

ship deliveries which allows more schedule overlap, and therefore more shop-level and
assembly-level production efficiencies than two single-ship buys.
Procuring two ships to a single technical baseline reduces the requirement for engineering
labor hours when compared to single-ship estimates. The ability to rollover production
support engineering and planning products maximizes savings while recognizing the
minimum amount of engineering labor necessary to address obsolescence and regulatory
changes on CVN 81. The two-ship agreement with the shipbuilder achieves a 55 percent
reduction in construction support engineering hours on CVN 81 and greater than 18 percent
reduction in production support and planning hours compared to single ship procurements.
The two-ship procurement strategy allows for serial production opportunities that promote
tangible learning and reduced shop and machine set-up times. It allows for efficient use of
production facilities, re-use of production jigs and fixtures, and level loading of key trades.
The continuity of work allows for reductions in supervision, services and support costs.
The result of these efficiencies is a production man-hours step down that is equivalent to
an 82 percent learning curve since CVN 79.
Key to achieving these production efficiencies is Integrated Digital Shipbuilding (iDS).
The Navy’s Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) and the shipbuilder’s
investment in iDS, totaling $631 million, will reduce the amount of production effort
required to build FORD Class carriers. The two-ship buy will accelerate the benefits of this
approach. The ability to immediately use the capability on CVN 81 would lead to a further
reduction in touch labor and services in affected value streams. The two-ship agreement
with the shipbuilder represents a production man-hours reduction of over seven percent
based on iDS efficiencies. Contractual authority for two ships allows the shipbuilder to
maximize economic order quantity material procurement. This allows more efficient
ordering and scheduling of material deliveries and will promote efficiencies through earlier
ordering, single negotiations, vendor quotes, and cross program purchase orders. These
efficiencies are expected to reduce material costs by about six percent more when
compared to single-ship estimates. Improved material management and flexibility will
prevent costly production delays. Furthermore, this provides stability within the nuclear
industrial base, de-risking the COLUMBIA and VIRGINIA Class programs. The two-ship
buy would provide economic stability to approximately 130,000 workers across 46 States
within the industrial base.
Change order requirements are likewise reduced as Government Furnished Equipment
(GFE) providers will employ planning and procurement strategies based on the common
technical baseline that minimize configuration changes that must be incorporated on the
follow ship. Change order budget allocations have been reduced over 25 percent based on
two-ship strategies.
In addition to the discrete savings achieved with the shipbuilder, the two-ship procurement
authority provides our partner GFE providers a similar opportunity to negotiate economic
order quantity savings and achieve cross program savings when compared to single-ship
estimates.63
An April 16, 2018, press report stated the following:
If the Navy decides to buy aircraft carriers CVN-80 and 81 together, Newport News
Shipbuilding will be able to maintain a steady workload that supports between 23,000 and
25,000 workers at the Virginia yard for the next decade or so, the shipyard president told
reporters last week.

63 Department of Defense, FORD Class Aircraft Carrier Certification, CVN 80 and CVN 81 Two Ship Procurement
Authority, as Required by Section 121(b) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (P.L. 115-232), November 2018, pp. 6-7.
Congressional Research Service

33

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Part of the appeal of buying the two carriers together is that the Navy would also buy them
a bit closer together: the ships would be centered about three-and-a-half or four years apart,
instead of the five-year centers for recent carrier acquisition, Newport News Shipbuilding
President Jennifer Boykin told reporters.
Boykin said the closer ship construction centers would allow her to avoid a “labor valley”
where the workforce levels would dip down after one ship and then have to come back up,
which is disruptive for employees and costly for the company.
If this two-carrier buy goes through, the company would avoid the labor valley altogether
and ensure stability in its workforce, Boykin said in a company media briefing at the Navy
League’s Sea Air Space 2018 symposium. That workforce stability contributes to an
expected $1.6 billion in savings on the two-carrier buy from Newport News Shipbuilding’s
portion of the work alone, not including government-furnished equipment....
Boykin said four main things contribute to the expected $1.6 billion in savings from the
two-carrier buy. First, “if you don’t have the workforce valley, there’s a labor efficiency
that represents savings.”
Second, “if you buy two at once, my engineering team doesn’t have to produce two
technical baselines, two sets of technical products; they only have to produce one, and the
applicability is to both, so there’s savings there. When we come through the planning, the
build plan of how we plan to build the ship, the planning organization only has to put out
one plan and the applicability is to both, so there’s savings there.”
The third savings is a value of money over time issue, she said, and fourth is economic
order quantity savings throughout the entire supply chain.64

Author Information

Ronald O'Rourke

Specialist in Naval Affairs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

64 Megan Eckstein, “Newport News Would Save $1.6 Billion, Maintain Stable Workforce of 25,000 Under 2 Proposed
Carrier Buy,” USNI News, April 16, 2018. See also Rich Abott, “HII Sees Two Carrier Buy Saving $1.6 Billion Before
GFE,” Defense Daily, April 11, 2018: 10-11.
Congressional Research Service
RS20643 · VERSION 279 · UPDATED
34