Supercarrier

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

The U.S. Navy has disclosed the test of an AeroVironment LOCUST laser counter-drone system, which has been in the news recently, aboard the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush. As far as TWZ is aware, this looks to be the first time a laser weapon has been fitted to a carrier. Earlier this year, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle, the Navy’s top officer, said his goal was for directed energy weapons to eventually be the go-to choice for the crews of American warships when facing close-in threats.

The Navy has shared three pictures of the LOCUST system onboard USS George H.W. Bush, seen at the top of this story and below. They were all taken on October 5, 2025, but released today. This coincides with the start of the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space exposition, at which TWZ is in attendance.

The captions to each of the images include the following: “During the live-fire event, [the] LOCUST LWS [laser weapon system] effectively detected, tracked, engaged, and neutralized multiple unmanned aerial vehicles marking a milestone toward fielding operational directed energy capabilities.”

TWZ has reached out to the Navy for more information.

“The successful demonstration of its palletized LOCUST Laser Weapon System (LWS) aboard the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) in October 2025″ was conducted “in collaboration with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO),” according to a press release from AeroVironment.

“During the live-fire event, the Palletized High Energy Laser (P-HEL) system tracked, engaged, and neutralized multiple target drones – marking a major milestone toward fielding operational directed energy capabilities across all domains and platforms,” the release adds. “This achievement validates that the LOCUST LWS is truly platform-agnostic, seamlessly transitioning from fixed-site and land-based mobile platforms, such as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) and Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV), to the dynamic and demanding environment of a maneuvering aircraft carrier.”

The central element of LOCUST is a laser directed energy weapon in a turret, which also includes built-in electro-optical and infrared video cameras for target acquisition and tracking. Tertiary sensors, including small-form-factor high-frequency radars and passive radio frequency signal detection systems, can also be used to cue the laser. The JLTV and ISV-based configurations mentioned in AeroVironment’s release both feature small radars.

LOCUST’s power rating is generally understood to be in the 20-kilowatt range at present. When it comes to laser directed energy weapons, this is at the lower end of the power spectrum, fully in line with a system intended to defeat smaller drones. LOCUST has also been demonstrated with a 26-kilowatt power rating, but how much more it could be scaled within the existing form factor is unclear.

As of December 2025, the U.S. Army was known to have taken delivery of palletized LOCUST systems, as well as ones mounted on JLTVs and ISVs. The Army has at least deployed the palletized versions overseas operationally in the past. One of the service’s LOCUST systems was also at the center of a widely criticized and controversial shutdown of airspace around El Paso, Texas, in February of this year, as you can read more about here. The system had been on loan to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the time. Earlier this month, the Pentagon signed an agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding the continued use of anti-drone laser systems along the southern border with Mexico.

The U.S. Marine Corps has also moved to acquire JLTV-based LOCUST systems in the past. In addition to appearing to be the first instance of a laser-directed energy weapon going aboard a carrier, last year’s test aboard USS George H.W. Bush also looks to be the first known instance of the Navy even evaluating LOCUST for use on ships or in any other context.

Navy interest in using LOCUST to defend ships, especially very high-value ones like aircraft carriers, is not surprising. For years now, the service has been very active in pursuing shipboard laser and microwave directed energy weapons with a particular eye toward providing additional layers of counter-drone defense.

Experience gained in recent years from operations in and around the Red Sea, as well as against Iran, has only underscored the critical importance of bolstering the ability of U.S. warships to protect themselves against uncrewed aerial threats. The Navy has also been adding counter-drone systems that use physical interceptors as their effectors to a growing number of ships to help address this reality.

In general, lasers like LOCUST offer the promise of functionally unlimited magazine depth, which could be exceptionally valuable in the counter-drone role when faced with large volumes of incoming threats. The dangers that uncrewed aerial systems pose are only set to increase as artificial intelligence and machine learning-driven capabilities, including automated targeting and fully networked swarming, continue to improve while the barrier to entry steadily drops.

Palletized and containerized systems like the P-HEL version of LOCUST can also be employed with more flexibility on a wide variety of ships, as long as sufficient deck space and available power. The test aboard USS George H.W. Bush involved simply lashing the system to the flight deck. This also means the systems can be installed and/or removed more readily depending on mission requirements. The Navy also has a demand for counter-drone capability on land to protect key facilities and assets abroad and at home, where LOCUST would also be relevant.

LOCUST Laser Weapon System

At the same time, especially when it comes to employing lasers on ships, there are also potential pitfalls. As TWZ has previously written:

“A single laser can only engage one target at once. As the beam gets further away from the source, its power also drops, just as a result of it having to propagate through the atmosphere. This can be further compounded by the weather and other environmental factors like smoke and dust. More power is then needed to produce suitable effects at appreciable distances. Adaptive optics are used to help overcome atmospheric distortion to a degree. Altogether, laser directed energy weapons generally remain relatively short-range systems.”

“In addition, laser directed energy weapons, especially sensitive optics, present inherent reliability challenges for use in real-world military operations. Shipboard use adds rough sea states and saltwater exposure to the equation. There is also the matter of needing to keep everything properly cooled, which creates additional power generation and other demands.”

Over the years, the Navy has faced continued and significant hurdles in attempting to field operational laser weapon systems more broadly across its fleets. U.S. military officials have often sought to temper expectations, while also being open about their frustrations with the lack of greater progress, in recent years.

Still, the Navy, in particular, has persisted in its pursuit of these capabilities, given the benefits mentioned earlier. Lasers are set to be a particularly important component of the full arsenal aboard the future Trump class “battleships.”

“My thesis research at [the] Naval Post Graduate School was on directed energy and nuclear weapons,” Adm. Caudle told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable back in January. “This is my goal, if it’s in line of sight of a ship, that the first solution that we’re using is directed energy.”

In particular, “point defense needs to shift to directed energy,” the admiral added, emphasizing that “it has an infinite magazine.”

“What that does for me is it improves my loadout optimization, so that my loadout, my payload volume is optimized for offensive weapons,” Caudle added at the time. Furthermore, “as you increase power, the actual ability to actually engage and keep power on target, and the effectiveness of a laser just goes up.”

Laser directed energy weapons with higher power ratings could potentially defend ships against other threats, including certain types of incoming missiles.

Whether or not the Navy decides to acquire and field LOCUST operationally on its ships, the service’s general demand for more counter-drone capabilities across the board does not look set to decrease any time soon.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com