Carrier

Ukraine has begun testing a new homegrown armored personnel carrier, a tracked vehicle named Skif (Scythian, an ancient warrior tribe that also lived in parts of modern Ukraine). The development underscores the fact that, despite extensive losses of legacy tracked APCs, this is a class of vehicle that the Ukrainian Armed Forces still prioritizes as it tries to hold off the Russian invasion.

According to reports, UkrArmoTech has begun factory testing a prototype of the Skif, which has apparently been developed in direct response to the requirements of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, drawing from lessons learned since the full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022.

UkrArmoTech is among the leading developers and manufacturers of armored vehicles for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but has, to date, focused on wheeled models such as the Desna, Gyurza, and Tisa. With that in mind, the Skif marks a new direction for the company.

“First and foremost, we relied on our contacts with the military, our understanding of their needs, and our experience with the use of wheeled vehicles on the battlefield,” UkrArmoTech CEO Hennadii Khirhii told the Ukrainian Defense Express website. “Active combat operations in Ukraine have demonstrated the need for a significant number of armored vehicles to ensure and maintain the mobility of units and formations of the Armed Forces and Defense Forces.”

The design of the Skif is heavily influenced by the U.S.-developed M113, a Cold War-era tracked APC, many hundreds of which have been supplied to Ukraine since February 2022.

Despite its age, it seems the M113 has been a success in Ukrainian hands, offering a useful combination of reliability, maintainability, troop-carrying capacity, and off-road mobility.

The designers of the Skif were therefore instructed to produce a vehicle that matched the M113’s mobility while improving on its levels of protection and firepower.

According to reports, the Skif makes use of off-the-shelf components and assemblies from foreign manufacturers involved in the production of armored vehicles that are “descendants” of the M113.

It’s unclear if this implies that the Skif uses components from Western manufacturers that have built the M113 and its derivatives, or if the Ukrainian vehicle employs parts from other Western-made APCs. Noteworthy is the fact that members of the broader M113 family have been built under license in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, as well as several other countries outside Europe.

Reportedly, 60 percent of the vehicle’s components will initially be imported, and these will include the engine, transmission, suspension components, transfer case, and tracks. If production is launched, an increasing proportion of the components will be made locally.

In its basic form, the Skif is intended to transport soldiers from mechanized units across the battlefield and to provide them with fire support. As well as three crew (driver, commander, and gunner), located in the front section behind the power module, the Skif can accommodate eight soldiers in the rear troop compartment. The troops enter and exit via a rear ramp, as on the M113.

The prototype of the Skif has an aluminum hull, reportedly the first time this has been used on a Ukrainian combat vehicle. However, a series-production version will likely feature an armored steel. While steel offers better ballistic resistance and is easier to repair in the field, it comes with a significant weight penalty.

With the aluminum hull, the Skif weighs around 15 tons and is driven by a 360-horsepower diesel engine. The modular design means that different engines can be installed, for example, if more power is needed for a steel hull, or when fitted with heavier weapons.

In its basic form, the Skif has a Ukrainian-made remotely controlled combat module on the hull roof. This can be armed either with a 12.7mm or 14.5mm heavy machine gun paired with a 7.62mm auxiliary machine gun. As seen in the photos, the prototype does not currently have the combat module fitted.

Armor protection is in line with NATO STANAG 4569 Level 4 over the frontal section (withstanding, for example, 14.5mm machine gun fire, or a 155mm artillery projectile detonating at 25 meters), and Level 3 on the sides and rear (resistant to 7.62mm gunfire, or a 155mm artillery projectile detonating at 60 meters). Mine protection below the hull is rated at Levels 3a and 3b. The vehicle is expected to withstand the detonation of around 13 pounds of explosives under the hull or tracks.

It’s unclear what kinds of protection are provided against the threat of attack drones, but some type of electronic warfare gear is included; it would also be expected that the vehicle receives a purpose-designed ‘cope cage’ of the kind that has appeared on most Ukrainian and Russian combat vehicle types during the conflict. Otherwise, the Skif is equipped with communications, navigation, situational awareness, and fire-control systems of Ukrainian origin. A bank of smoke grenade launchers is fitted across the front of the hull on the Skif prototype.

The modular design means that the Skif can be adapted for other missions. These are likely to include vehicles equipped for command and control, reconnaissance, anti-armor, mortar carrier, medical evacuation, and more.

With the continued debate over wheeled versus tracked combat vehicles, it is interesting to note that Ukraine, after focusing on the local production of wheeled fighting vehicles, continues to see the necessity for tracked APCs. While heavier, more complex, and more costly, they are better able to deal with the brutal mud that is a feature of Ukrainian winters. They are also generally better in terms of armor protection.

For that reason, the aging M113 and the Soviet-era MT-LB remain popular choices for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

According to the Oryx open-source tracking group, since the start of the current conflict, more than 500 Ukrainian M113s and more than 150 MT-LBs have been confirmed destroyed or damaged. The actual figures are certainly higher, as Oryx only tallies losses that are confirmed with visual evidence.

Despite the need for a vehicle in this class, there remain significant challenges in getting it into production. Very likely, Ukraine will have to rely heavily on foreign funds and expertise if it is to put the Skif into quantity production. Should that prove realistic, Ukraine will likely also seek to sell the Skif to foreign customers, too.

Continued factory testing of the Skif prototype should provide a practical assessment of the new platform’s design maturity, including whether its mobility and running performance meet local requirements. Certainly, the new tracked APC is a bold venture for Ukraine’s war-ravaged industry, but it represents a class of vehicle for which there is a near-insatiable local demand.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including deployed Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG), using publicly available open-source information. Check out last week’s map here.

The George H.W. Bush CSG arrived in U.S. 5th Fleet’s area of responsibility last week, becoming the third U.S. aircraft carrier operating in the Middle East. According to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), this is the first time since the 2003 Iraq War that the U.S. has triple-carrier coverage in the region. Outside the Gulf of Oman, the Abraham Lincoln CSG and Tripoli ARG are operating in the Arabian Sea, supporting blockade measures. The Gerald R. Ford CSG remains on station in the northern Red Sea, satellite imagery shows.

Combined, the three flattops represent roughly 14 acres of sovereign U.S. territory that can be positioned anywhere around the world within weeks, and embark 27 squadrons of more than 200 aircraft. The nine guided-missile destroyers are equipped with 846 VLS tubes and loaded with a mix of offensive and defensive missiles. The undersea escorts – at least three, if not more, fast-attack subs – are not highlighted in the graphic below, but provide additional VLS capacity, among many other capabilities.

The Theodore Roosevelt CSG (TRCSG) is working up in U.S. 3rd Fleet AOR, a spokesperson told us. There are several notable aspects of the training, including integration with an Unmanned Surface Vessel Division (USVDIV) operating a medium USV (MDUSV) Seahawk, as well as the potential test of new Raytheon Coyote and Longbow Hellfire missile launchers, which TWZ first reported here. In February, Vice Adm. Brendan McLane told reporters that a medium drone would deploy alongside TRCSG later this year, Breaking Defense reported, and the Seahawk may be set to assume that role. There has been a flurry of naval drone activity off the California coast, including the NOMARS USX-1 Defiant, based on public AIS data from Marine Traffic. Roosevelt is at the leading edge of the Navy’s “tailored force pairing” concept – which could include integrating naval drones into CSG operations – and Seahawk appears to be the MDUSV selected to train and potentially deploy with the group.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (IKE) completed sea trials on April 24, the U.S. Navy announced, following a 15-month maintenance availability. “The extensive maintenance period included critical upgrades and repairs to the ship’s combat systems, propulsion plant, and habitability spaces, ensuring IKE’s ability to be fully mission capable and ready to support global maritime operations.” USS Carl Vinson is undergoing scheduled maintenance, according to photos released on April 21, while “remaining a combat-ready force dedicated to protecting and defending the United States.” USS Nimitz is participating in exercise Southern Seas, and was most recently off the coast of Chile. USS George Washington, forward-deployed to Japan and the only U.S. carrier stationed in the Indo-Pacific, is in port.

Four of America’s 11 carriers are currently in maintenance or have an availability scheduled this year. Three are deployed in the Middle East, one is forward-stationed in the Indo-Pacific, two are training, and one is at homeport. Delivery of the next Ford-class carrier, what will become the USS John F. Kennedy, is expected in 2027, unless there are additional delays or modifications to the program.

Note: Positions are general approximations. Non-deployed LHA/LHD amphibious warships are not shown.

Contact the author: ian.ellis-jones@teamrecurrent.io

Secretary of the Navy John Phelan says his service is looking to wrap up a review of its aircraft carrier plans within the next month or so. The Navy has been taking a deep look at the design and capabilities, and associated costs, of the Ford class as compared to the older Nimitz class. The question has been raised about whether this might point to a major shift in the service’s carrier acquisition strategy on the horizon, including the potential cancellation of planned orders for more Ford class ships and even a transition to a new design.

Phelan talked about the carrier review yesterday at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2026 exposition. When asked, Phelan said that there was nothing in particular about the Ford class that prompted the Navy to take a new comprehensive look at the program and that the service is looking for ways to cut costs and be more efficient across the board.

A key question the review has been focused on is “are we getting the appropriate bang for our buck, i.e., how superior is the Ford [class] to the older Nimitz class, etc,” the Navy’s top civilian leader said. “To be honest, we’re reviewing every program, so it’s – carriers [are] just one of them.”

That being said, President Donald Trump has been a vocal critic of the Ford class, and its electromagnetic catapults (also known as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS) and weapons elevators in particular, which have faced serious reliability and maintenance issues. Last October, he pledged to sign an executive order that would compel the Navy to go back to using steam-powered catapults and hydraulic elevators on new aircraft carriers, which has yet to materialize. Two months later, in announcing plans for the Trump class “battleship,” the President also said that “we have the Ford class. We’re going to be upping that to a different class of aircraft carrier,” but did not elaborate.

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS)

Watch the Advanced Weapons Elevators on the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford

Phelan’s comments yesterday about the ongoing review were prompted, in part, by a question about whether the Navy has actually been looking at acquiring a new class of aircraft carrier. There is no indication that this is the case currently. The service has explored alternatives to the Ford class, including smaller designs, on several occasions in the past decade or so.

“What I would say on the carriers is, we are looking at [CVN-]82 and [CVN-]83 to review the costs, the designs, the systems, to make sure that they make sense and they have all the systems and requirements that we want going forward,” Phelan explained. “I think it’s a prudent and practical thing for us to do, given the costs of them, as a percentage of the budget, and how we are thinking about the force design and our needs going forward.”

CVN-82 and CVN-83 are the hull numbers assigned to a pair of future Ford class aircraft carriers currently set to be named the USS William J. Clinton and the USS George W. Bush. Construction has not begun on either of those ships, and the Navy has not even awarded contracts yet to order them. The service is asking for advance funds to support the future procurement of CVN-82 in its newly released budget request for the 2027 Fiscal Year. The budget documents also still show plans to seek funding for CVN-83 in the coming years.

The USS Gerald R. Ford is the only member of its class currently in service. It is now in the midst of a marathon deployment that has lasted some 10 months already, the longest for any carrier since the Vietnam War. In its time at sea so far, the ship and its air wing took part in the mission to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, and more recently supported operations against Iran. Ford suffered a fire in March, underscoring concerns about strains on the ship and its crew, as you can read more about here.

There are three more Ford class carriers in various stages of being built. The second ship in the class, the future USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), left port for the first time for initial sea trials in January and is set to be formally delivered to the Navy next year.

John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) Successfully Completes Builder’s Sea Trials

Kennedy and all subsequent ships in the class are already set to have notable differences from Ford, including AN/SPY-6(V)3 radars in place of the design’s original Dual Band Radar (DBR). The immensely troublesome DBR is just one of a laundry list of issues that Ford has had to contend with over the years. The Navy has been trying to leverage lessons learned from those experiences to streamline work going forward.

However, Kennedy, as well as the next two ships in the class after that, the future USS Enterprise (CVN-80) and USS Doris Miller (CVN-81), have all continued to suffer further delays. As of last year, the estimated total procurement costs for Kennedy, Enterprise, and Doris Miller were nearly $13.2 billion, almost $14.25 billion, and just over $15.2 billion, respectively, according to the Congressional Research Service.

This, in turn, has created complications for Navy plans to begin retiring Nimitz class carriers. In May, the service announced it was extending the USS Nimitz‘s service life into 2027, in line with the latest delivery schedule for Kennedy.

“So the President knows we’re reviewing it [the carrier plans], and want [sic] us to put in a review,” Phelan said. “And I think, like any businessman, he’s – okay, make sure you look at all these programs, understand the capabilities and what they’re doing.”

The Secretary of the Navy was asked what metrics the service might be looking at in order to assess the comparative capabilities of the Ford class and the preceding Nimitz class. Phelan was given, as an example, statements the Navy has made in the past about the new EMALS catapults offering improved sortie generation rates and reducing wear and tear on aircraft during launches.

“I think you’ll see the sortie rate come out and it will be eye-watering,” Navy Rear Adm. Ben Reynolds said just yesterday at the Pentagon during the rollout of the service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, according to USNI News. “The capability is just absolutely incredible.”

Reynolds is currently serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Budget and Director of the Fiscal Management Division within the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

USS Ford Launches, Recovers Fighters With Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS)

“So these are all things you’ve heard. These are all the same things I’ve heard,” Phelan said at the roundtable at Sea Air Space. “I go to the Ronald Reagan School of trust, but verify. That’s what I’m doing.”

“Trust me, we measure and monitor a lot of things in the Navy, including that – the airframes and how that works. So I think it’s a function of just understanding it, for example, is the sortie rate generation that much greater? And then what are the cost implications of this electric catapult, and did it really generate the savings?” Phelan continued. “You know, the Navy would like to say we’ve saved $5 billion in terms of savings in number [sic] of men and maintenance. I just need to check that back up, and that’s what I mean by that.”

“I think, like anything, it’s both understanding the cost-benefit analysis of it, because we really want to make sure we’ve got a good handle on the costs,” the Navy Secretary added. “I think one of the things we have to do a better job of in the Navy is kind of what I call total cost of ownership. So what does it really cost to sustain and maintain these things? I think we do a reasonable job at that, to be honest. But the infrastructure needs on these are also costs you have to understand going in.”

As Phelan noted, the Navy has been conducting reviews of major programs across the service. The Navy Secretary has also shown a willingness to curtail high-profile, but seriously underperforming efforts despite high sunk costs. Last November, the service axed the Constellation class frigate program, long touted as a major priority, but which had become mired in delays and at risk of ballooning costs. Earlier this month, the Navy finally abandoned plans to return the Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Boise to active service, closing out a more than 10-year-long saga that had already cost it $800 million.

Yesterday, Phelan was also asked whether the Ford class could be curtailed as a result of the ongoing review. The possibility of truncating the program has been raised in the past.

“It’s too early to say, but we will have carriers. So, carriers are an important component to [sic] the force, and we will need that,” the Navy Secretary said. “I think it’s more, how do we figure out – like, again, this comes back to every program we’re looking at. What can we do to cut costs? What can we do to make this more efficient? What can we do to make the design more simple [sic]? What are the areas where we think we can save or not save?”

Even just cancelling future orders for Ford class ships would have major downstream impacts, including on the shipbuilding industrial base and its many suppliers. At the same time, the Navy’s shipbuilding priorities also now include the Trump class “battleships,” the first of which may cost $17 billion, according to the latest official estimates. If that price point holds, these large surface combatants will be more expensive than a Ford class aircraft carrier.

“These are very important decisions to be made, and you’re locking into very big contracts and very big platforms that are going to be around for a long time. And so I just think we’re trying to make prudent decisions across everything,” he added. “I think what I found a little bit is, I have a lot of people who know how to do finance. I don’t have a lot of people who necessarily understand finance, understand incentives and deal structures, and that’s something we just need to fix.”

How the Navy’s plans for the Ford class, and aircraft carriers in general, may evolve going forward will likely become clearer after the current review is completed.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The U.S. Navy has shared details about what looks to be a previously undisclosed effort to rapidly arm ships in two carrier strike groups with radar-guided Longbow Hellfire missiles to protect against drones. This reflects a larger push to expand shipboard defenses against uncrewed aerial threats, which now includes four Arleigh Burke class destroyers sailing with new launchers to fire Coyote interceptors. TWZ was first to report on the appearance of one of these launchers on the USS Carl M. Levin, with Naval News subsequently sharing more information.

The dangers drones pose, including to Navy warships, are not new. Still, the service’s experiences in recent years during operations in and around the Red Sea, as well as against Iran, have firmly driven home the critical need for more shipboard defenses against uncrewed aerial threats.

“Supplemental funding was provided to rapidly field CUAS [Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems] solutions for the Gerald R Ford Carrier Strike Group (CSG) which included the procurement of Longbow Hellfire launchers, Coyote launchers, and the installation/integration work,” according to a line item in the Navy’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request, which the service rolled out in full earlier this week. “Funding was also provided to rapidly field CUAS solutions on the Theodore Roosevelt CSG to include Longbow Hellfire Launchers, Coyote launchers, and the installation/integration work.”

“FY2024 and FY2025 [Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025] funding utilized to rapidly field CUAS solutions for the Gerald R Ford Carrier Strike Group (CSG) and the Theodore Roosevelt CSG, which included the procurements of Longbow Hellfire launchers, procurements of Coyote launchers, installations, and integration work,” the newly released budget documents also note.

The same line item is present in the Navy’s proposed budget for the 2026 Fiscal Year, but makes no mention of the Hellfire or Coyote integration efforts. An early type of naval launcher for Coyote was first seen on Arleigh Burke class destroyers assigned to the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group last year, and we will come back to developments on that front later on.

The Navy’s latest budget documents do not say which ships in the Gerald R. Ford and Theodore Roosevelt CSGs may have received the Longbow Hellfire launchers, or whether they are currently installed. TWZ has reached out to Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), as well as the Long Hellfire’s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, for more information about this integration work and what it has entailed to date.

The millimeter-wave radar-guided Longbow Hellfire, which also carries the designation AGM-114L, has a demonstrated counter-drone capability, as well as the ability to strike targets on land or at sea. The Navy previously announced modifications to its Freedom class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) to allow them to engage uncrewed aerial threats with AGM-114Ls fired from launchers specifically designed for those vessels. However, LCSs are not a component of a typical carrier strike group. On the surface, Navy carriers are usually escorted by a mix of Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

In June 2025, Naval News did report that two Arleigh Burke class destroyers – the USS Jason Dunham and USS The Sullivans – had previously been involved in testing of various new capabilities, including Longbow Hellfire in the counter-drone role. Neither of those ships were assigned to the Gerald R. Ford or Theodore Roosevelt CSGs at that time. No specific details were available then about what the integration of AGM-114L had consisted of, either.

In March, Lockheed Martin did unveil a containerized Hellfire launcher called Grizzly, development of which started last year. At the time, the company said Grizzly could be adapted for shipboard use.

As an aside, the Navy has talked about a containerized counter-drone launcher able to hold up to 48 Hellfires as being a future armament option for its forthcoming FF(X) frigates. There has been no indication, though, that this is an operational capability now.

Lockheed Martin has also been developing a ship-based launch capability for its AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), which is derived from the laser-guided AGM-114R variant of the Hellfire. For more than a year now, the company has been publicly displaying a model of an Arleigh Burke class destroyer fitted with six four-cell JAGM Quad Launchers (JQL; pronounced jackal). At the same time, there have been no signs so far that the Navy is actively moving to field those launchers on ships of this class.

Hellfire, in general, does have a long history at this point of being integrated onto a wide variety of platforms, including helicopters and ground vehicles. A tripod launcher even exists for laser-guided variants of the missile.

With all this in mind, it is not surprising that Longbow Hellfire in some configuration would be an attractive immediate option for the Navy to help bolster shipboard defenses against ever-growing drone threats.

As the Navy’s latest budget documents note, the service has also been working to add other counter-drone interceptors to its ships, such as the combat-proven Coyote. The USS Carl M. Levin, as well as the USS John Paul Jones, the USS Paul Hamilton, and the USS Decatur, have all now received new eight-cell Coyote launchers. All of those warships are currently assigned to the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group. This builds on the integration of the earlier four-cell launchers on at least two other ships in the class, the USS Bainbridge and the USS Winston S. Churchill.

“This is the first deployment of this launcher which increases the cell count from four to eight and provides increased marinization,” a Navy spokesperson told TWZ when asked for more information after Carl M. Levin emerged with the new Coyote capability. “We are working [on] plans for future carrier strike group deployments to install these and potentially other containerized launchers.”

“This is a non-permanent change; launchers can be removed after the completion of a deployment and transferred to other ships—accelerating the deployment of advanced capabilities throughout the Fleet,” that spokesperson added.

The Navy has previously confirmed plans to integrate Anduril’s Roadrunner-M counter-drone interceptors on additional surface warships. The service has also been working with the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) on the development of Roadrunner-M, as well as another interceptor called White Spike from Zone 5 Technologies, under a project called Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems – NEXT, or Counter-NEXT.

Zone 5 White Spike Counter UAS drone interceptor flight tests

Navy plans for additional shipboard counter-drone capabilities go beyond physical interceptors, as well. Just this week, the service disclosed a live-fire test of a palletized version of the AeroVironment LOCUST laser counter-drone system onboard the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush. You can read more about that test, which occurred in October 2025, here.

Demand within the Navy, as well as the rest of the U.S. military, for an array of layered counter-drone capabilities is likely to remain high for the foreseeable future. As noted, these threats are not new and are continuing to expand in scale and scope, driven now in large part by advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Automated targeting and fully networked swarming capabilities are not only proliferating, but the barrier to entry, even for non-state actors, is low.

More launchers for counter-drone interceptors, whether they are loaded with Longbow Hellfires, Coyotes, or something else, are only likely to continue appearing on Navy warships as the service works to further address this threat.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including deployed Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG), using publicly available open-source information.

The Gerald R. Ford CSG transited the Suez Canal southbound on April 16, the Associated Press reported on Friday, once again entering the Red Sea and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR). The second CSG in the region, led by USS Abraham Lincoln, is operating in the northern Arabian Sea, enforcing the naval blockade of Iranian ports and coastal areas. The George H.W. Bush CSG is reportedly transiting around the Horn of Africa en route to the Middle East, according to USNI News, but TWZ has been unable to independently confirm via open sources. Following the arrival of USS George H.W. Bush, the U.S. will have three carriers positioned in the Middle East should the ceasefire fail and combat operations resume.

The Tripoli ARG is also supporting blockade measures, with the embarked 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) boarding and seizing Iranian-flagged M/V Touska on April 19 after USS Spruance fired multiple 5-inch rounds, targeting the engine room and disabling the vessel’s propulsion. “American forces issued multiple warnings and informed the Iranian-flagged vessel it was in violation of the U.S. blockade. After Touska’s crew failed to comply with repeated warnings over a six-hour period, Spruance directed the vessel to evacuate its engine room.” The second ARG-MEU tasked to CENTCOM, the Boxer ARG-11th MEU, is currently transiting through U.S. Indo-Pacific Command at an undisclosed location.

At a press conference on Thursday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dan Caine and CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper provided a detailed briefing on the opening hours of the blockade, which TWZ covered here, and shared unclassified slides of ship positions before and after implementation. Below is an animation visualizing the first 48 hours of the U.S. blockade, and confirmed Navy ships operating in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean at the time.

“Since the blockade’s commencement, U.S. forces have directed 25 commercial vessels to turn around or return to an Iranian port,” CENTCOM said in the release. “In addition to this blockade, the joint force, through operations and activities in other areas of responsibility, like the Pacific Area of Responsibility, under the command of Admiral Paparo, will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran,” Gen. Caine added.

Back stateside, the Theodore Roosevelt CSG departed San Diego on April 15, according to local ship spotters. A U.S. 3rd Fleet spokesperson told TWZ the CSG is underway conducting routine operations and integrated training in the 3rd Fleet AOR and “remains ready to respond to crisis or contingency at any time.” Elements of the group were recently outfitted with a new Raytheon Coyote counter-UAS 8-cell launcher, which could be tested during upcoming training periods.

Note: Positions are general approximations. Non-deployed LHA/LHD amphibious warships are not shown.

Contact the author: ian.ellis-jones@teamrecurrent.io