plant

The inability of a munitions plant in Mesquite, Texas, to build a key part set back the U.S. Army’s plans for ramping up production of 155mm shells to 100,000 rounds per month, according to a scathing new report by the War Department’s Office of Inspector General (DOWIG). Despite receiving close to $500 million from the U.S. Army funded through supplemental spending bills from Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (GD-OTS), failed to make a single subcomponent needed to produce the badly needed shells as of last March.

“Without the 30,000 additional projectile metal parts anticipated from the Mesquite facility, the Army will be unable to reach its monthly capability goal of 100,000 155-mm artillery rounds,” the report concluded. “As of March 2026, the CPE A&E [Capability Program Executive Ammunition & Energetics] officials have not developed a plan to produce the additional rounds that are supposed to be produced at the Mesquite facility.”

At present, the Army is only producing 36,000 rounds per month, inspectors revealed.

Through modernization efforts and two new facilities, the Army expects to exceed the 100,000-round-per-month goal significantly by the end of next year. The initial goal was established by Congress in the wake of the U.S. providing millions of rounds to Ukraine.

Still, the report highlights the challenges U.S. arms makers face in trying to meet tighter timelines to produce more weapons. This all comes as the U.S. is increasingly concerned about stockpiles of a wide array of munitions after heavy usage in past and current conflicts and donations to partners like Ukraine, as well as foreign military sales. These are issues that we raised long before and during the current war with Iran, but they have become major headlines in the aftermath of the initial stages of that conflict.

The plant at the center of this new report is the Universal Artillery Projectile Line owned and operated by General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems. It opened in May 2024 to great fanfare and high hopes.

According to the IG report, more than three million 155mm shells were donated to Ukraine, more than 111,000 rounds were used over the past four years on training and testing, and nearly 218,000 rounds were sold to foreign customers. Combined, U.S. stocks were depleted by more than 3.6 million rounds since the start of the war in Ukraine.

The Mesquite plant was opened to help replenish the supply. However, according to DOWIG, it failed to live up to expectations.

“The DoW increased its capability and capacity to produce 155-mm artillery ammunition but did not reach the 2025 National Defense Industrialization Strategy Implementation Plan goal of 100,000 rounds per month by October 2025,” the DOWIG report pointed out.

As of March 2026, “the Army had increased its monthly production from 14,000 to 36,000 rounds because of expansion and modernization efforts at both the projectile metal parts and the load, assemble, and pack facilities,” the IG report noted. “However, at a contractor-owned, contractor-operated facility in Mesquite, Texas, the contractor has been unable to produce any projectile metal parts that meet contract specifications.”

According to an Army news release about the plant opening, it was built to “feature high-volume production capabilities for large-caliber metal parts and is equipped with long-stroke, high-tonnage forging capabilities.”

“The facility’s 155mm metal parts production lines also meet Army modernization goals by incorporating high levels of automation, modern manufacturing practices, and digital-data-capture ability. It will offer the flexibility to produce a variety of metal parts ranging from 60mm to 155mm, with minimal changeover requirements,” the Army added.

The Army “planned for the Mesquite Texas facility to produce 30,000 rounds per month,” the report added. “With only three facilities producing the required projectile metal parts, the DoW will reach only 71,000 rounds per month, or 71 percent of its monthly production capacity goal for 155-mm artillery rounds.”

We’ve reached out to General Dynamics and the Army for comment and will update this story should the company respond.

The main issue inspectors found was that the plant adapted equipment used to make parts for M107 155mm shells to produce parts for M795 155‑mm shells. The latter is an upgraded version of the munition that is slightly heavier and longer, and has an extended range.

As a result of this adaptation, several factors came into play, according to DOWIG. Army officials knew that the concept of trying to produce the more advanced 155mm shells using equipment not designed for that was risky. However, officials felt that would pay off because that machinery was already available. In addition, the report stated that the existing Scranton plant’s past work with GD-OTS on ammunition production was a factor in deciding to take a chance on what turned out to be a flawed assumption.

The report states, in part:

• According to the Army’s CPE A&E, “ACC issued the contract and CPE A&E accepted the risk associated with the contractor’s plan to purchase and adapt M107 metal part production equipment to produce a newer variant of the 155-mm projectile metal parts at different specifications.”
• “According to CPE A&E officials, the Mesquite facility was a high-risk, high-reward opportunity, and CPE A&E is realizing some of that risk now because the facility has been unable to produce acceptable rounds.”
• “CPE A&E accepted the contractor’s proposal to acquire and adapt unique production equipment and an unproven production process because equipment was already available. According to the CPE A&E official, obtaining and adapting the available production line equipment was expected to be faster than obtaining new M795 production line equipment.”

• “The contractor has been working since the original contract task order was issued in November 2022 to produce the contracted 155-mm projectile metal parts. However, according to CPE A&E officials, acquiring the equipment and adapting it to produce M795 155-mm projectile metal parts resulted in significant challenges.” The report redacted specific examples.
• “In addition, according to CPE A&E officials, CPE A&E recommended the contractor for the Mesquite facility because the contractor has 20 years of experience producing 155-mm projectile metal parts at the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant.”
• “Scranton Army Ammunition Plant officials stated that despite the contractor’s years of experience, the Scranton facility encountered separate ongoing problems with the contractor in terms of responsiveness, equipment maintenance, and timeliness.”
• “Those officials expressed concern to the evaluation team that ACC did not open the contract for the Mesquite facility to competition from other contractors.”
• “In addition, according to ACC officials, the contract for the Mesquite facility was issued as a task order under the property management contract for the Scranton Ammunition facility and not as a separate contract.”

The Army did not dispute that the Mesquite factory was not producing the needed parts.

“The Capability Program Executive Ammunition & Energetics will correct issues identified in this report, and develop and implement a corrective action plan,” CPE A&E responded.

The “United States Army concurs with the report as written,” the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition, Logistics and Technology stated.

Army Contracting Command (ACC), however, took issue with how the relationship between the Scranton and Mesquite plants was characterized. In its response, ACC stated that no one reached out to them to question GD-OTS’s plan and that it had received sign off from higher authorities to execute the contract without Congressional approval. Moreover, ACC added that it did not need to open up competition for the new plant.

The ACC response says:

• “It is unclear what parties or organization are being referred to by ‘SCAAP officials,’ so it cannot confirm the accuracy of this information, however, ACC-RI would like to clarify that at no point did anyone question or raise concerns to ACC in terms of the acquisition strategy to award this effort to the contractor under the existing Scranton facility effort. Further, ACC-RI did document the contract file with a Determination of Contractor Responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104 prior to award of these task orders.”
• “ACC-RI received concurrence and approval on the acquisition strategy to execute these efforts on a sole source basis under W52P1J-19-D-0075 from the requiring activity, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army-Procurement, and the Office of General Counsel, with notification provided to Congress prior to execution.”
• “ACC-RI would like to clarify that while some might refer to W52P1J-19-D-0075 as the ‘Property Management contract for the Scranton Ammunition facility,’ the scope of the contract states that it covers operation, maintenance, and modernization; includes Production Based Support projects; and doesn’t require active operation at Scranton.” 
• “The contract states that ‘The Property Management of SCAAP can be accomplished either through active operation of the Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated facility or layaway maintenance’ and allows the contractor to operate the contract at a privately-owned facility. As such, ACC-RI already determined it in scope to execute the Universal Artillery Projectile Line requirement as separate task orders under W52P1J-19-D-0075 and documented such in-scope determinations in memorandums within the contract file.”

Problems with the plant were emerging even before the DOWIG released its report.

In February, Brent Ingraham, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, complained to lawmakers about the inability of the plant to produce needed parts.

“First, let me start by saying I’m not happy with where we are at Mesquite either, right?” he testified. “So I’m in the same boat you are.” 

The Army was considering scrapping GD-OTS’s contract to manage the production lines in Mesquite, but Ingraham said the service ultimately did not go through with it, according to Breaking Defense. The Army is still in negotiations with the company, he said at the time.

“I anticipate you will see an investment from the company themselves, from the industry partner themselves, to ensure they can continue to build out that facility that would make rounds that would primarily be supported by the [foreign military sales],” Ingraham said. “But we are currently in negotiation [on] what that looks like, both from a line perspective, a quantity perspective, and hopefully we’ll have that wrapped up soon.”

A month ago, General Dynamics announced it would “invest $200 million of its own money and unwind a partnership with Turkish defense contractor Repkon in a bid to finally start producing 155mm artillery shells at a Texas plant that’s been beset by delays,” Bloomberg News reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

The factory “has joined a long list of US defense programs that have failed to meet the lofty goals set out for them,” the publication added.

Munitions manufacturing equipment provided by Repkon “had failed to meet required standards and will be replaced by hardware and management from Deterrence Defense, a privately-held company based in Fremont, Calif.,” Bloomberg added. “General Dynamics and the US Army ‘have reached an agreement on a path forward, which includes additional investment,’ the company said in a statement without disclosing the amount.”

As we noted earlier in this piece, despite the problems at the Mesquite plant, the Army projects that it will turn things around by next year.

“According to Army officials, the Army did not reach its goal for increased capability and capacity to load, assemble, and pack 155-mm artillery ammunition,” investigators found. “However, through the modernization of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant and the addition of two new facilities in Kansas and Arkansas, the Army is on track to increase its capability and capacity to load, assemble, and pack 140,000 155-mm artillery rounds per month by December 2027. This exceeds the NDIS Implementation Plan goal by 40,000 rounds per month.”

Still, that’s more than a year away and, as we noted earlier in this story, about 14 months later than the Army was expecting to receive these shells. Whether it can meet these revised goals remains to be seen.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Iranian officials say US strikes across Bushehr province damaged civilian infrastructure, including areas near the Bushehr nuclear power plant, airports, logistical facilities and fishing wharfs where several fishing boats caught fire. The US says strikes were aimed at military targets.

Police arrested pro-Palestine activists for blockading a UK facility operated by UAV Engines Ltd, a subsidiary of Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems, and one of the world’s largest drone engine manufacturers. Activists say Elbit’s weapons are used in Israel’s war on Gaza.

For nearly a century, Sparkletts bottled its water in a vast building on Lincoln Avenue designed to look like a Moorish palace, or maybe an industrial oasis.

Now Sparkletts has moved out, the owners aren’t talking and L.A. city officials, hoping to save the building, have named the site a historic-cultural monument.

“We’ve always had an eye on the building because it’s such an icon in the community,” said Frank Parrello, Landmarks and Advocacy chair for the Eagle Rock Valley Historical Society. “We want to make sure that whatever happens in the future, the building is considered.”

The plant, which drew water from subterranean springs and bottled it for distribution through Southern California, went up in 1929 on E. Lincoln Avenue along the Eagle Rock-Highland Park border, filling the block between N. Avenue 45 and N. Avenue 46. Designed by architect Richard D. King, its main building features arches, towers and domes, a white-washed brick exterior and wrought-iron lanterns.

The L.A. Conservancy calls it a bold example of Moorish Revival industrial style and a prime illustration of “the industrialization of drinking water in Los Angeles.”

Neighbors call it “the Taj Mahal,” resident Anthony Carmona says.

The Sparkletts building, built in 1929, was designed in a Moorish Revival style. The building, idle since 2025, has been added to the L.A. City Historical-Cultural Monument list.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

Questions about the building’s future began to multiply in 2025, when Sparkletts ceased operations on the site. A 4.4-acre portion of the property was listed for sale, then for lease. The L.A. Conservancy warned that the building was “at risk of redevelopment.”

The Instagram site Save Iconic Architecture also sounded an alarm, saying the Sparkletts building “tells the story of Los Angeles’ innovation, design, and relationship with its most precious resource: water.”

Meanwhile, the Eagle Rock Valley Historical Society nominated the building as a historic-cultural monument, which led to a site visit and votes by the city of Los Angeles Cultural Affairs Commission and City Council.

On June 24, the council voted to protect the building as a monument. The designation “does not guarantee that the building cannot be demolished,” but it does allow city officials to delay demolition for up to 360 days “to allow for time to preserve the monument.”

The city Planning Department staff report on the historic monument nomination lists the owners as Sparkletts Drinking Water Corporation and Foremost Water Corporation. Neither commented to the city on the monument nomination and Primo Brands (Sparkletts’ parent company) did not respond to requests for information Monday.

The city’s staff report on the site says the architect may have been influenced by a Moorish design trend in the 1920s that included the film “The Thief of Bagdad” (1924). The El Capitan Theater on Hollywood Boulevard and Shrine Auditorium near USC, both completed in 1926, are also known for their Moorish features.

Architectural historians David Gebhard and Robert Winter included the Sparkletts building in their “Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles,” noting its mosque-like presence and saying “the best remaining element” is the tiled mosaic oasis scene over the entrance.

The building has seen some changes. As the Eagle Rock Valley Historical Society nomination notes, the building’s largest Sparkletts sign was removed in July 2025. City records show that decades ago, in the course of repairs after the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, at least one minaret was removed.

The entrance, however, remains largely intact, featuring three arches and a set of steps framed by a pair of tall palm trees. Just above the front door and beneath a surviving Sparkletts sign hangs the tilework that Gebhard and Winter enjoyed.

Moreover, “it’s very impressive inside,” Parrello said. “It’s a big open industrial floor plan, which could be used for a lot of things.”

The Sparkletts building, idle since 2025, has been added to the L.A. City Historical-Cultural Monument list.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

If public agency or nonprofit is able to play a role in the property’s future, Parrello added, “it could become a housing complex, or a community center for a housing complex.”

A similar answer came from Carmona, 51, a restaurant worker who lives in an RV about a block away from the Sparkletts building. Carmona said he’d love to see it become a gathering place where neighbors can trade products, services, ideas, “lemons, oranges, whatever.” In a perfect world, Carmona said, “there should be free water for everyone, but of course that’s not going to happen.”

The city of L.A. began designated historic-cultural landmarks in 1962 and has given that status to more than 1,000 buildings and other structures.

The closure of the Eagle Rock Sparkletts operation followed a 2024 merger between Sparkletts’ parent company, Primo Water, and another bottled water company, BlueTriton, to from Primo Brands.

June 22 (UPI) — An explosion at Qatar’s largest natural gas plant killed 13 people and injured about 66, authorities said.

The blast, caused by a technical malfunction, took place Sunday as the facility restarted its natural gas production after a shutdown caused by the Iran-U.S. war, authorities from the interior ministry said. It took place in the Ras Laffan industrial zone. The nearby Ras Laffan Port is the largest artificial harbor in the world and was targeted by Iranian strikes earlier this year, BBC News reported.

Saad Sherida al-Kaabi, Qatar’s energy minister, said that the explosion would not affect the country’s exports and that it was an accident and “not sabotage or hostile in nature.”

All of those killed were workers at the plant, The New York Times reported. They were all from India or Pakistan, BBC News said.

“We convey our deepest condolences to the families of those who have unfortunately passed away in the sad incident at Ras Laffan Industrial City last night,” the Embassy of India in Doha said in a social media post.

Liquified natural gas is important to Qatar’s economy, and the country is one of the world’s largest exporters of it. Ras Laffan is the largest site in the country for producing LNG. Qatar had ceased production earlier in the Iran-U.S. war and has said damage from attacks during the conflict could take years to repair.

The blast turned the city’s skyline orange and was felt by residents more than 43 miles away, BBC News said.

Ukraine says facility a ‘critical component’ in defence production as local Russian authorities confirm attack.

Ukraine’s military has said it struck a plant producing electronics for missiles in Russia’s Voronezh region, as well as the Dubna satellite communications centre in the Moscow region.

In a statement on Telegram on Monday, the Ukrainian General Staff said it had used air-launched cruise missiles to hit the plant in Voronezh, which it described as a “critical component” in Russia’s defence production.

Alexander Gusev, the Voronezh governor, said a production plant was damaged and three people were injured in the attack, without specifying the nature of the facilities.

Gusev said in a post on Telegram that air defence forces had destroyed several high-speed targets in the skies over Voronezh and warned residents of the danger of missile attacks.

The Ukrainian military also said it struck Russia’s Dubna satellite communications centre in the Moscow region, adding that heavy smoke was observed at the site and the extent of the damage was being assessed.

Eighty-four drones headed for Moscow were downed in the past 24 hours, the city’s Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said on Telegram.

He said emergency services had been dispatched to the areas where drones were downed, but gave no further information.

The airports of Sheremetyevo, Domodedovo and Vnukovo, as well as Zhukovskiy near the Russian capital, had temporarily suspended flights, the aviation watchdog said separately.

In total, Russian defence systems downed 301 drones overnight, local news agencies said, citing the Ministry of Defence. That tally included Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine.

The latest raids follow a drone attack that hit Moscow’s sole oil refinery last week, in one of the biggest air attacks on the city since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Teenager killed in Ukraine

In Ukraine, authorities said a Russian drone attack early on Monday in the Sumy region killed a 13-year-old boy, his 36-year-old father, and his 73-year-old grandmother.

Regional governor Oleh Hryhorov said the 73-year-old was the mother of the man’s roommate.

Russian drone attacks in the southeastern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia overnight and early on Monday killed two people and injured a further seven, Ukraine’s emergency services said.

Russia also hit the southern Odesa region with an Iskander ballistic missile on Sunday evening, killing one and injuring three people, regional governor Oleh Kiper said on Telegram. Vehicles and fuel storage tanks caught fire after the strike hit an agricultural facility, he said.

Elsewhere, the city of Sevastopol in Russian-annexed Crimea cancelled all open-air public events on Monday and will keep streetlights switched off, its governor, Mikhail Razvozhayev said, as he called on people to curb electricity usage.

Russian drones hit a Turkish dry cargo vessel, the Victress, which was sailing under the Panamanian flag, Ukraine’s navy said.

Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Kuleba said a 58-year-old Egyptian cook was killed and eight other crew members, including Turkish and Indian nationals, had to evacuate on a lifeboat.

The leaders of Europe’s top military powers will meet on Wednesday in Berlin to discuss the Ukraine conflict and an upcoming NATO summit.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz plans to host the leaders of France, Britain, Italy and Poland, a spokesman said Monday, adding that the resignation announcement of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had not changed those plans.

May 28 (Asia Today) — Korea Water Resources Corporation, also known as K-water, is accelerating the use of four-legged artificial intelligence robots to inspect large-scale water treatment plants.

The state-run water agency is adopting robots to improve facility inspections and safety management in hazardous areas and during nighttime patrols at water treatment plants.

Under K-water’s plan to introduce inspection robots at metropolitan water treatment plants, four-legged robots will be deployed this year and next year at four facilities in Seongnam, Hwaseong, Gosan and Gongju.

The agency plans to use data and results from those sites to expand the system to 40 additional water treatment plants by 2030.

K-water plans to deploy robots at 10 plants in 2027, 11 in 2028, nine in 2029 and 10 in 2030. The plan would establish a robot operating system at 44 metropolitan water treatment plants, with 44 robots in total.

A task force will soon begin work to operate the four pilot sites selected for this year.

The total budget for the project is 26 billion won, or about $17.3 million. It includes 7.8 billion won, or about $5.2 million, in state funding and 18.2 billion won, or about $12.1 million, from K-water’s own budget.

The robots will be used for equipment inspections, patrols, construction supervision and accident response. K-water is also considering the phased introduction of water quality analysis assistance robots, grass-cutting robots and unmanned guide robots.

The agency eventually plans to replace some of the robots with humanoid robots.

The use of AI and robots at water treatment plants is part of K-water’s strategy to create fully autonomous facilities. The agency aims to upgrade AI functions now used to assist workers and achieve fully autonomous water treatment plant operations within four years.

After that, K-water plans to package AI-based plant operation technology with robot-based management systems for use in overseas water management markets.

Once the robot operating system is established, K-water expects robots to handle 61% of condition inspection work among inspection and maintenance tasks. Condition inspections include checking whether equipment has visible abnormalities.

The agency estimates the system could save about 2.25 billion won, or about $1.5 million, annually.

K-water also plans to develop its own independent control system to avoid dependence on specific vendors for data accumulated during robot operations and additional operating costs.

“Bidding for the four pilot sites is expected to begin as early as next month, along with software service procurement,” a K-water official said. “Contracts are expected around August, and actual installation is expected to begin at the end of the year.”

The official said K-water will also consider gradually expanding the system beyond water treatment plants to other water supply facilities, dams and sewage systems.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260528010008434

This summer, the U.S. Navy will demonstrate the ability of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, with its two A1B nuclear reactors, to power a base on land. The test at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia is part of a larger effort to ensure facilities can remain up and running even if existing power sources are lost due to attacks and other contingencies. Using ships to provide electricity ashore is not new, but being able to use a Ford class aircraft carrier in this way might open up additional operational possibilities, as well as help in future disaster relief scenarios.

Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao briefly mentioned the planned test at a hearing before members of the House Armed Services Committee on May 14.

“This summer, Norfolk Naval Base [sic] is going to be powered from an aircraft carrier,” Cao said on May 14. “We’re going to export the energy from the aircraft carrier to the base.”

“The Department of the Navy is executing a multi-pronged strategy to ensure the delivery of firm, baseload power to our installations for energy resilience and mission assurance,” a Navy spokesperson subsequently told TWZ directly when we reached out for more information. “One line of effort in the strategy is to deliver power from a Ford class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to a compatible shore installation, to demonstrate the capability to meet emergent, mission critical needs. An initial test of this capability is being planned for later this year at Naval Station Norfolk.”

This statement refers to the Ford class generically, but the USS Gerald R. Ford is currently the only ship of its kind to have been commissioned into service. It is also homeported in Norfolk and just recently returned from a marathon 326-day deployment. That is the longest an American carrier has been at sea since the Vietnam War, and included supporting the mission to capture Venezuela’s dictatorial former President Nicolas Maduro and combat operations against Iran.

USS Ford returns home after 11-month deployment for Iran war and Maduro’s capture

Supercarriers like Ford are already very much floating cities, with typical crew complements ranging from roughly 4,000 to 5,000 individuals, including members of the embarked air wing. They have immense power-generation requirements.

As noted, each Ford class carrier has two A1B nuclear reactors, the exact power output of which is classified. However, they are said to offer a 25 percent increase in “reactor energy” compared to the A4Ws used on Nimitz class aircraft carriers, as well as be simpler to operate. Based on that, the A1B is generally assessed to be rated at some 700 MWt. Two of them would then have a combined rating of 1,400 MWt. This is a fraction of what is offered by typical commercial power-generating reactors in the United States today. At the same time, those reactors are also designed to provide electricity across entire regions rather than just to a single military base.

Being able to use the Ford and other future carriers as floating power plants for major bases like Norfolk could offer a useful backup option for providing electricity if established power sources suddenly become unavailable for any reason. American officials have been increasingly sounding the alarm that many areas previously considered inaccessible sanctuaries, including in the U.S. homeland, could now be at risk during future conflicts. The scale and scope of long-range threats, as well as options for carrying out near-field attacks, only continue to grow. The proliferation of longer-range one-way attack drones, something where the barrier to entry is also low, has had a particularly pronounced impact on this threat ecosystem.

Demonstrating the ability of a Ford class aircraft carrier to provide power ashore might open up other operational possibilities. The U.S. military, as a whole, is increasingly focused on new distributed concepts of operations involving widely dispersed forces, many of which could be forward-deployed at operating locations with limited established infrastructure.

Turning an aircraft carrier into a floating powerplant could be valuable in a wide array of non-combat scenarios abroad and at home, including during disaster relief missions. Getting the power back on is often a critical component of those operations, which in turn can help restore access to medical care and other essential services.

Many critical U.S. military facilities are themselves in areas prone to natural disasters, the impacts of which can be severe and have significant second-order ramifications. Bases provide epicenters for recovery, too, routinely providing essential services after disasters. They could do so after attacks or in other contingencies. Making sure they have uninterrupted power in any of those scenarios would be critical. There are also long-standing concerns about the resiliency of America’s aging power grids, which could also be an indirect threat vector, including from cyberattacks.

During his testimony, Acting Secretary Cao highlighted how a carrier serving as a powerplant could also provide other support in a non-combat scenario.

“The energy that’s produced from these, we can … use it for a four-stage distiller making water, fresh potable water,” he said. “On a carrier, we’re pumping millions of gallons over the side every day of fresh potable water that tests at pH 7 [neutral pH], right, that we can now export in places like California, where you have a drought.”

As noted, none of this is entirely new. The U.S. military has a long history of using ships, including conventionally-powered aircraft carriers, to provide power ashore. One of America’s very first carriers, the USS Lexington (CV-2), helped provide electricity to Tacoma, Washington, between December 1929 and January 1930. At the time, the city’s grid relied on hydroelectric power sources, the output from which had dropped severely due to a mix of environmental factors. In 1931, Lexington also brought medical personnel and humanitarian aid to Nicaragua following an earthquake, an early example of the general value of carriers in the disaster relief role.

During World War II, the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy in the United Kingdom collectively utilized at least seven Buckley class destroyer escorts as floating power plants. The Buckley class was well suited for this use given its propulsion system, which consisted of steam turbines powering electric motors. At least one of these ships, the USS Donnell, was converted to this role after suffering severe damage during combat operations in the North Atlantic. It was deemed to be too expensive to repair the ship to return to service in its original role.

An especially relevant past example is that of the MH-1A. This was a floating nuclear power plant converted from a World War II Liberty ship, originally named the SS Charles H. Cugle and later renamed Sturgis. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operated MH-1A, which had a power rating of 10 MW, and used it to provide electricity in the Panama Canal Zone between 1968 and 1975. The ship and its reactor were subsequently returned to the contiguous United States. MH-1A was defueled in 1977. It remained in storage for decades before the decision was finally made to decommission it, a lengthy process that was only completed in 2018. Sturgis was subsequently scrapped.

At the time of writing, it is unclear if the Navy has any ships or barges in inventory that are explicitly capable of providing power ashore. Electricity is routinely provided to naval vessels in port from grids ashore, and the ability to send power the other way, at least in an ad hoc manner, has come up in the past. For instance, in 1982, the Navy considered sending the Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Indianapolis to Hawaii to serve as a floating nuclear power station in the wake of Hurricane Iwa. Indianapolis was not ultimately deployed for this purpose in that case.

As an aside, the Navy has also long used decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines as floating schoolhouses for sailors learning how to operate and maintain nuclear reactors.

There are examples of ship-to-shore power generation elsewhere globally. Currently, Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov is the only purpose-built floating nuclear power plant in operation today, and you can read more about it here. However, South Korea’s Samsung Heavy Industries is actively working on a new floating nuclear power station design, and similar developments could be on the horizon elsewhere. There are also non-nuclear floating power plant designs in service, notably with commercial firm Karpowership in Turkey, and in development today.

Floating Nuclear Power Plant (FNPP) “Akademik Lomonosov”

Powership Video

There are still questions about the viability of employing Navy carriers like Ford in this way today. For one, ships sitting in port are inherently more vulnerable than ones at sea. Carriers are high-value assets that would be top targets in any major conflict, to begin with. Using a carrier as a replacement for traditional power sources, especially for a base that may have already have been or still be under attack, could come along with substantial additional force protection requirements. At the same time, carriers are inherently well-protected and relatively hardened platforms, especially against lower-end, smaller-scale threats.

There is also an operational capacity question. The Navy is currently struggling to meet operational demands with the 11 carriers it has available now. Between continued delays in the construction of new Ford class carriers and the schedule for retiring aging Nimitz class ships, there is a possibility that the force could shrink further in the near term. The Navy just extended the service life of the USS Nimitz to bring its impending inactivation in line with the expected delivery date of the second member of the Ford class, the future USS John F. Kennedy.

Around the Yard at NNS: John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) Builder’s Sea Trials

Pulling any of the Navy’s heavily in-demand aircraft carriers, which provide unique power projection capabilities, out of rotation to sit in port generating power could be a tough sell. That being said, carriers that are in between deployments could be used in this way, in some cases with relatively minimal disruption to other aspects of the force generation cycle. The seriousness of the contingency in question would also factor into the Navy’s assessment of its general force requirements and priorities.

It is worth noting here that the U.S. military has already been making investments in other forms of energy resiliency at established bases, as well as the ability to provide significant amounts of power at forward locations, in recent years. Acting Secretary Cao’s comments last week about the upcoming test at Naval Station Norfolk were prompted by a question about ongoing work on new small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs, to help power U.S. military bases. The U.S. Army is currently the lead service for those efforts, as you can read more about here. The U.S. Air Force has also been heavily involved.

“We’ve got to have an overall programmatic champion for the SMR program,” Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Caudle, the service’s top officer, who also testified at the hearing alongside Cao, said. “So I think we’re dithering a bit there, and not really landing on the pilot, and laying out the program of record.”

“While the Army may be tapped to be the overall lead for it [SMR], I see no world in which the Navy is not going to be part of that discussion and bring our expertise through our long-established Naval Reactors [office], deep understanding of reactor physics, and understanding [of] safe operation.”

As an aside, the Navy just recently announced its intention to expand its nuclear-powered fleets by using this method of propulsion on the future Trump class battleships. This, in turn, has raised new questions about the outlook for those ships, which you can read more about here.

When it comes to using Ford class aircraft carriers as floating nuclear power plants, the test this summer will help in determining whether this could be another mission to add to the repertoire of these ships.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

A drone attack that caused a fire close to the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates has raised further concerns about nuclear security and military escalation in the Gulf as discussions of peace between Iran and the United States hang in the balance.

Barakah was the first nuclear power station to be built on the Arabian Peninsula. Here is what we know about it:

What is the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant?

Barakah is a nuclear energy plant located in Al Dhafra, the largest municipal region of the emirate of Abu Dhabi. It is the UAE’s only nuclear power plant.

Construction of the plant began in 2012, and its first reactor became commercially operational in 2021.

The plant is located close to the border with Saudi Arabia, about 225km (140 miles) west of the UAE’s capital city, Abu Dhabi.

The facility features four pressurised water reactors, the most common type of nuclear power reactor. The model used here is the advanced power reactor 1400, a pressurised water reactor design developed in South Korea. Each reactor of this type has the capacity to produce 1,400 megawatts (MW), which is enough to power roughly 1 million homes.

According to the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC), the plant’s reactors produce 40 terawatt-hours (TWh) each year, which is equivalent to about 25 percent of the UAE’s electricity needs. The website for the London-based World Nuclear Association also confirmed that Barakah, when fully operational, meets 25 percent of the UAE’s electricity needs.

According to a September report by the Abu Dhabi media office, Barakah had produced 40TWh of clean energy over “the past 12 months”.

Since nuclear power plants produce a lower amount of carbon dioxide emissions than conventional power plants, the ENEC said Barakah saves up to 22.4 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year, equivalent to removing 4.8 million cars from the roads.

What happened in the attack on Sunday, and how has the UAE responded?

Authorities in Abu Dhabi said a single drone strike caused a blaze to break out at an electrical generator outside the Barakah plant’s inner perimeter in the Al Dhafra region on Sunday. No injuries were reported, and officials said radiation levels remained normal.

The UAE’s nuclear regulator said operations at the Barakah facility had not been affected. “All units are operating as normal,” it said in a social media post.

In a statement, the UAE’s Ministry of Defence said two more drones had been “successfully” intercepted and the drones had been launched from the “western border”. It did not give more details.

The UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted a statement on X on Sunday saying the country condemned “the unprovoked terrorist attack” in “the strongest terms”.

The statement added: “The UAE emphasised that it will not tolerate any threat to its security and sovereignty under any circumstances, and that it reserves its full, sovereign, legitimate, diplomatic, and military rights to respond to any threats, allegations, or hostilities in a manner that ensures the protection of its sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity, and the safety of its citizens, residents, and visitors, in accordance with international law.”

There was no immediate claim of responsibility, and the statements by the ministries did not publicly blame any country.

But Anwar Gargash, an adviser to the UAE’s president, wrote in an X post on Sunday: “The terrorist targeting of the Barakah clean nuclear power plant, whether carried out by the principal perpetrator or through one of its agents, represents a dangerous escalation and a dark scene that violates all international laws and norms, in criminal disregard for the lives of civilians in the UAE and its surroundings.”

Gargash’s post appeared to blame Iran and its proxy network of allied armed groups in the region, which Tehran calls the “axis of resistance”.

The launch point of the drones remained unclear, but on Sunday, Saudi Arabia also reported it had intercepted three drones that had been launched from Iraq, where some Iran-allied groups operate. If Iranian Shahed-136 drones, which have an estimated range of 2,000km to 2,500km (1,240 to 1,550 miles), were fired from Iraqi territory, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE would fall well within their reach.

Other reactions

Neighbouring Gulf states Saudi Arabia and Qatar condemned the attack on the Barakah plant.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kuwait also issued a statement denouncing the attack, which it called “heinous”.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs condemned the attack, calling it “unacceptable”, saying it represented “a dangerous escalation” and urging a return to diplomacy.

Has Iran responded to the incident?

Iran has not claimed responsibility for the drone attacks, and there has been no public statement from Iran about the incident at Barakah.

However, in the aftermath of the drone attacks, United States President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

Iranian Ministry of Defence spokesperson Reza Talaei-Nik said on Sunday that the military is “fully prepared” to confront any new aggression from the US and Israel.

Iran has previously warned that countries where US military assets are deployed or Israeli-linked interests are located are viewed as legitimate targets.

Iran has also accused the UAE of strengthening ties with Israel while reports have emerged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a “secret” visit to the Gulf state during the US-Israel war on Iran. The UAE has denied this.

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also said last week that Israel had deployed Iron Dome air defence systems and personnel to the UAE to help defend against possible Iranian attacks.

What has the IAEA said?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, said Sunday’s incident in the UAE had forced one reactor to rely temporarily on emergency diesel generators.

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi expressed “grave concern” and warned that military activity threatening nuclear facilities was “unacceptable”.

How serious could a strike on a nuclear facility be?

Attacks on nuclear power plants are especially worrying because they can risk damaging critical safety systems or reactors, which could release radioactive material into the atmosphere, not only over the country targeted but also across neighbouring states. Radiological material, specifically the hazardous isotope Caesium-137, could be released into the atmosphere.

The release of radioactive material could result in environmental contamination and poses major risks to public health. Water, if contaminated, becomes undrinkable while farmland and fisheries could become unsafe for decades, depending on the isotope released.

Short-term, acute exposure to radioactivity can cause burns and acute radiation sickness, which can be life-threatening.

Prolonged exposure, even to smaller doses, can increase the risk of illnesses such as cancer, especially thyroid cancer and leukaemia. Children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable.

Over the course of the US-Israel war on Iran, energy infrastructure has become a target.

Iran’s only functioning nuclear plant, the Bushehr power plant, has come under repeated attacks in the war. There are fears that damage at Bushehr could contaminate water across the entire Gulf region, most of which lacks groundwater and relies heavily on the desalination of seawater. Desalination plants are not specifically built to filter radioactive material, and not all plants currently are fitted with the technologies required to do so.

May 17 (UPI) — A drone strike on a nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates sparked a fire at the facility Sunday, defense officials said.

The UAE’s Defense Ministry said three drones entered the country from the “western border direction,” two of which were intercepted. The third carried out a strike on an electrical generator at the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant in Abu Dhabi, the BBC reported.

Politico said there were no reports of injuries or a release of radiation at the facility.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, but the UAE’s Foreign Ministry described it as an “unacceptable act of aggression.”

“The targeting of peaceful nuclear energy facilities is a flagrant violation of international law, the U.N. charter and the principles of humanitarian law,” the ministry said.

Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a statement on X that “military activity that threatens nuclear safety is unacceptable.”

May 5 (UPI) — An explosion at a fireworks factory in China’s Hunan Province has killed 26 people and injured dozens more, state media reported Tuesday, prompting Chinese President Xi Jinping to call for those responsible to be held accountable.

The blast occurred Monday afternoon at the Huasheng Fireworks Manufacturing and Display plant in the southern city of Liuyang, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported. Authorities said 26 people were killed and 61 injured at a press conference Tuesday.

Five rescue teams totaling nearly 500 personnel were dispatched to the scene, while an area with a radius of nearly two miles was evacuated due to the risk of further explosions.

Rescuers set up firebreaks and sprayed water over the site to “prevent secondary accidents during the rescue,” Xinhua said.

Mayor Chen Bozhang of provincial capital Changsha told reporters Tuesday that search and rescue operations were largely complete, adding that real-time air and water monitoring showed no signs of environmental contamination.

The person in charge of the fireworks company has been taken into custody, Chen said.

Aerial footage from Chinese state broadcaster CCTV showed widespread damage, with smoldering factory buildings leveled across a wide area.

Xi on Tuesday ordered a prompt investigation into the accident and said “those responsible must be held accountable,” state media reported. He also called for stronger risk screening and hazard controls in key sectors, along with enhanced public safety management.

The blast follows other deadly fireworks-related accidents in China in recent years. Ahead of Lunar New Year celebrations in February, an explosion and fire at a fireworks store in Jiangsu Province killed eight, prompting officials to call for increased safety checks on pyrotechnics.

In 2019, another fireworks factory explosion in Liuyang killed 13 people. The city is the hub of China’s fireworks manufacturing industry, accounting for about 60% of the domestic market and roughly 70% of exports, according to state media.

A Ukrainian attack on the captured Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant kills a worker, according to the site’s Russia-installed authorities.

Ukrainian officials say Russian drones have again attacked the southern port city of Odesa, injuring at least 11 people, including two children, and damaging homes and important infrastructure.

Odesa Governor Oleh Kiper said the attack affected three districts, hitting residential buildings, vehicles and civilian facilities, including a hotel, warehouses and funicular railway. Windows shattered in many buildings and the port area sustained damage.

“All specialised and municipal services are working to mitigate the consequences. Law enforcement agencies are documenting the latest war crimes committed by Russia against the peaceful population of [the] Odesa region,” Kiper said.

Russian attacks killed one person in the southeastern Zaporizhzhia region, according to Governor Ivan Fedorov.

“A 59-year-old man died as a result of an enemy attack on the Zaporizhzhia region,” Fedorov wrote on Telegram.

A Ukrainian drone attack killed an employee at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which was captured by Russian forces and is shut down.

“A driver was killed today when a Ukrainian Armed Forces drone struck the transport department at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant,” said a statement from plant managers who were installed by Russia.

Regional governor Fedorov said Russian forces launched 629 strikes across 45 settlements in the region in a single day, with at least 50 reports of damage to homes and infrastructure.

Russian officials reported Ukrainian drone attacks in the Belgorod border region, where at least one person was killed and four women injured, alongside damage to buildings and vehicles.

Stalled diplomatic efforts

The attacks come as diplomatic efforts to end the war remain stalled. Donald Trump said on Sunday that he has had “good conversations” with Presidents Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

“We’re working on the Russia situation, Russia and Ukraine, and hopefully we’re going to get it,” Trump said on Fox News.

“I do have conversations with him, and I do have conversations with President Zelenskyy, and good conversations,” he said.

“The hatred between President Putin and President Zelenskyy is ridiculous. It’s crazy. And hate is a bad thing. Hate is a bad thing when you’re trying to settle something, but it’ll happen.”

Zelenskyy said he signed agreements on security and energy cooperation with Azerbaijan during a visit to Baku, adding that Kyiv had discussed the possibility of future talks with Russia there.