USS

The U.S. Navy has confirmed to TWZ that the MQ-25 Stingray demonstrator drone, also known as T-1, is embarked on the supercarrier USS Nimitz. Pictures of Nimitz with the uncrewed aircraft on its deck had prompted questions about whether the initial production representative MQ-25, which made its maiden flight in April, had now gone aboard a carrier for the first time. We now know that is not the case. Regardless, the images of T-1 aboard Nimitz still underscore just how big the Navy’s first advanced carrier-based drone actually is, especially when placed next to other aircraft in the air wings. Production MQ-25s will be an important and imposing presence when they enter operational service, something the service hopes will finally start next year.

“We do indeed have a Boeing-owned T-1 prototype currently onboard,” a Navy spokesperson told TWZ today when asked about the drone seen on Nimitz‘s deck.

The spokesperson directed us to contact Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) for more information about the current status of the MQ-25 program. T-1 has been flying since 2019 and has taken part in a slew of testing in support of the development of the Stingray in the air and on the ground. This also includes deck handling testing aboard the Nimitz class carrier USS George H.W. Bush in December 2021, something we will come back to later on. T-1 has never taken off from or landed aboard a Navy carrier, and would have had to be transported aboard Nimitz.

“To honor the United States’ 250th anniversary, the MQ-25A T1 prototype is aboard the USS Nimitz, offering a glimpse of the Navy’s carrier air wing of the future,” Boeing has now also written in a post on X. “The special ‘Boeing Backs America’ mark highlights our support for U.S. aviation.”

The USS Nimitz has been sailing in the Atlantic Ocean as part of Fleet Exercise 250 (FLEETEX 250). This is a large, multi-national event that is running concurrently with several celebrations marking the 250th anniversary of the United States. In addition to the United States, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Senegal, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom are also taking part, according to the Navy. As part of FLEETEX 250 activities last week, Nimitz had taken the lead in a group sail photo exercise that included 25 other naval vessels from 13 of the participating countries.

“USS Nimitz is underway taking part in Fleet Exercise (FLEETEX) 250 alongside 25 other warships, multi-national aircraft, and their crews, conducting a series of structured training events at-sea,” a Navy spokesperson had also told TWZ last week in response to queries about that ship after it was spotted leaving Mayport, Florida, on June 25. “Following FLEETEX, we are scheduled to take part in another major event celebrating our nation’s 250th birthday.”

The T-1 demonstrator was lashed to the carrier’s deck for the pictures, along with four F/A-18E Super Hornet fighters and two C-2A Greyhound carrier onboard delivery aircraft. The drone notably has new “250” markings written in blue on both sides of the fuselage.

As noted, T-1’s size stands out when parked next to the F/A-18Es, which are themselves not small aircraft. The production MQ-25 has a wingspan of 75 feet, according to Boeing. With its wings folded, the drone is still 31.3 feet across, as well as 51 feet long. For comparison, the Super Hornet’s wingspan is nearly 45 feet and it is just over 60 feet long, per the Navy.

T-1 looks large even when contrasted with the C-2As, at least with their wings folded. With its wings extended, the Greyhound is 80 feet, seven inches from tip to tip, according to the Navy. It is also 56 feet, 10 inches in length.

All of this underscores the amount of work the Navy will have to do to get production MQ-25s ready for routine operational use. As we wrote roughly a year ago, when the start of ground testing of the production representative Stingray was announced:

The Stingrays will also have to be woven into the existing cadence of flight deck operations, including just figuring out how to move them around amid the hustle and bustle of other activity. Carrier decks are very constrained environments physically, and present very different conditions to operate in compared to bases on land. This is true even for crewed aircraft operations, where individuals onboard can provide additional situational awareness. A wearable glove-like system that personnel could use for deck handling was notably used during testing of the X-47B. A different kind of portable control device has been used in testing of the T-1 MQ-25 demonstrator in the past, as well. The video released today does not appear to offer any major new insights into how the Navy plans to maneuver the Stingray around on carrier decks.

This is on top of more general flight testing, including demonstrating that the drones can safely take off from and land on Navy carriers, as well as integration with the control systems on those ships. The MQ-25 will bring new tactics, techniques, and procedures to the service’s carrier air wings, as well as open the door to further operational developments.

Right now, the MQ-25’s principal mission will be extending the reach of other aircraft in the carrier air wing. This is a critical capability for the Navy as adversary anti-access and area denial bubbles, especially ones that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has established and continues to expand, threaten to push carriers out of reach of target areas.

By extension, the Stingray will also eliminate the need to use crewed F/A-18F Super Hornets in the tanker role, freeing them up for other missions and reducing wear and tear on those airframes.

The drones will also come with a built-in secondary intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability, thanks primarily to a sensor turret under the nose. The size of the MQ-25, its extreme range potential, and other attributes of the design could well lead it to be adapted to other roles in the future, such as a long-range strike platform, as TWZ has previously explored in detail.

Showcasing the T-1 during FLEETEX 250 does highlight the Stingray program and its importance to the Navy. The effort has faced significant delays and cost growth in recent years, with the original goal being for the MQ-25 to have reached initial operational capability (IOC) in 2024. As noted, the first production representative example only flew in April, despite a major push by the Navy and Boeing to hit that milestone before the end of 2025. When that drone might make its first appearance on a carrier deck remains to be seen, but the Navy is now aiming to reach IOC sometime next year.

As an aside, carrying T-1 for display during FLEETEX 250 and associated events may be the extent to which Nimitz ever embarks any MQ-25s. The Navy has extended the carrier’s service life due to a number of factors, but only into March of next year. The USS George H.W. Bush received a first-of-its-kind drone control center in 2024. The Navy subsequently moved to install that equipment on the USS Carl Vinson, USS Theodore Roosevelt, and USS Ronald Reagan, creating an initial group of Nimitz class carriers that will be able to operate the Stingrays.

The Navy also sees the MQ-25 as a ‘pathfinder’ to future uncrewed additions to its carrier air wings. This is set to include carrier-based Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones, an effort that is still very much in its infancy. Navy officials have talked in the past about a goal to see the makeup of future carrier air wings be 60 percent or more uncrewed.

In the meantime, T-1’s latest appearance on the deck of the USS Nimitz has already underscored the big changes coming to Navy carrier air wings, both figuratively and literally.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

More than three decades after decommissioning the USS Long Beach, the Navy is finally preparing to dispose of what’s left of the world’s first nuclear-powered surface combatant. The cruiser – which already had its distinctive boxy superstructure as well as its bow and stern sections removed – has been moored at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility since being decommissioned in 1995.

After a long process to determine what to do with Long Beach, the Navy on Wednesday put out a call for companies willing and able to perform the extremely complex and lengthy operation to transport, dismantle, de-militarize, and dispose of what was once a 721-foot-long ship that displaced 15,540 tons, including its two defueled reactor plants. Long Beach was launched in 1959 and commissioned two years later.

You can read more about the ship, its unique character, armaments and exploits in our two-part interview with a master chief who served on Long Beach here and here.

This marks just the second time the Navy has opted to select a commercial yard to dismantle a nuclear-powered warship. The first was the ex-USS Enterprise, the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from the same era as Long Beach. It is vastly more complex and expensive to dispose of nuclear-powered vessels than conventionally powered ones because of all the radiological concerns, even long after the reactors have been defueled.

We’ll get into more details about how difficult, time-consuming and costly a process this could be later in this story when we examine the pitfalls of the Enterprise situation, admittedly a much more complex undertaking for various reasons we will explain. However, first we need to understand how Long Beach got to this point.

The decision to go forward with the Long Beach dismantling process came after a Naval Vessel Historical Evaluation (NVHE) in April determined that the ship was ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) despite its history as the first surface combatant ever to have nuclear propulsion and combat service that ranged from the Vietnam War to Operation Desert Storm.

USS Long Beach (CGN-9)

“The ship was deactivated in 1994 and towed to Newport News Shipbuilding where the entire superstructure was removed and the reactors were defueled,” according to the NVHE. “After this work was completed in the winter of 1995, the hull was towed through the Panama Canal to Puget Sound where it has been waiting to be recycled.”

In 2012, the ship was sold for scrap.

“Long Beach had 10,000 tons of steel, 300 miles of electrical cable and 450 tons of aluminum, earning it the voice radio call sign ‘Alcoa’ after the aluminum maker of the same name,” Reuters reported at the time.

“More than a dozen scrap dealers have expressed interest in taking part in sealed online bidding for the hull, with more than 7.35 million pounds (3.33 million kg) of steel, aluminum and copper wiring, galley equipment, tables, chairs, lockers and bunks,” Government Liquidation president Tom Burton told the news outlet.

“It’s a two-year process but it could take 18 to 26 months,” Burton said. “What’s left is an inert hull.”

USS Long Beach CGN-9

It remains unclear what happened to that scrap sale. We reached out to the Navy for answers.

The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard subsequently completed a limited-scope hull preservation availability in 2015 that resulted in the removal of the bow and stern, according to the NVHE records. It was ultimately decided not to save the ship by placing it on the NRHP because “major alterations have been made in design that do not maintain the historic design of the vessel (loss of the superstructure and major hull elements),” the review found. “Character defining features of USN warship have been lost, such as main armament, superstructure, bow, and stern. Does not evoke the aesthetic of a 20th Century USN warship.”

Moreover, a 60-day period for stakeholders to comment expired earlier this month with no responses.

With all the hurdles to ultimate destruction now out of the way, the Navy will host an Industry Day meeting on June 24 and 25 in Washington, D.C. for companies interested in learning more about what is involved in the final dismantling of the USS Long Beach.

Whoever gets the job will first have to transport it from Puget Sound to the shipbreaking yard by “dry transport via semi-submersible barge, deck barge, or semi-submersible heavy lift vessel” because the ship’s “current structural condition precludes an open ocean tow,” according to the RFI.

“Dismantling and disposing of ex-Long Beach is necessary in order to comply with Navy policy for inactive nuclear-powered ships stricken from the Naval Vessel Register, and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) statutory responsibilities,” the RFI explains. “The requirement for disposal includes dismantling, demilitarizing, and recycling the remnant hull sections at an authorized commercial facility in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, and removing and packaging the reactor plant components for transportation and disposal as low‑level radioactive waste (LLRW) at an authorized radioactive waste facility or facilities.”

There are no timelines or cost estimates associated with the RFI, nor is there any guarantee that a request for proposal will be issued. We’ve reached out to the Navy for more details.

Our past reporting offers some insights into the tremendous time and money it takes to dismantle a nuclear-powered warship, as evidenced by the saga of the aforementioned Enterprise. However, it should be noted that there are some big differences between that vessel and Long Beach. The carrier is far larger and more complex, had eight reactors compared to two, and had less prep work done in advance.

In 2019, the Government Accountability Office found that it could cost the Navy more than $1.5 billion to fully dispose of Enterprise.

The GAO report also stated that a complete process could take more than 15 years to finish.

From our previous story about the dismantling of the ship known as the Big E: 

“The Navy officially decommissioned Enterprise, also known by its hull number CVN-65, in February 2017, after more than five decades of service. The ship had already effectively been in mothballs since 2012 and Newport News Shipbuilding completed a lengthy ‘inactivation’ process, which included removing nuclear fuel, mission systems, and other items from the ship, in April 2018.

‘At approximately 76,000 tons, CVN-65 will require an unprecedented level of work to dismantle and dispose of as compared to previous ships,’ GAO’s review, which the congressional office published on Aug. 2, 2018, said. ‘Regardless of the approach the Navy chooses, CVN-65 will set precedents for the processes, costs, and oversight that may be used to dismantle and dispose of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the future, such as the Nimitz-class carriers which the Navy will begin to retire in the mid-2020s.’”

The first of those, the USS Nimitz, the Navy’s oldest operational carrier, is scheduled to be inactivated in 2027, the Navy told us.

On March 13, the Navy signed a $95.7 million contract with Huntington Ingalls Inc. “for advance planning and long-lead-time material procurement to prepare and make ready for the accomplishment of the inactivation and defueling of USS Nimitz (CVN 68). Work will be performed in Newport News, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by March 2027.”

Meanwhile, the Navy originally projected that it would cost somewhere between $500 and $750 million to scrap the Enterprise, but by 2013, this figure had grown to over $1 billion. The difficulties involved forced the service to push back the start of the process more than once.

The regulatory and logistical picture was equally tangled. The Navy and the NRC disagreed on what standards should apply if a private company did the work, and NRC only has direct authority in 13 states, potentially limiting where the job could even be done. Conducting the work at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard — the Navy’s proven approach — risked worsening an already serious maintenance backlog for active ships. The commercial route could be faster and cheaper, but no private yard had ever handled military nuclear reactors at this scale, and the highly classified nature of U.S. naval reactor design added another layer of complexity. 

You can read more about the challenges involved with breaking up a nuclear behemoth in our deep dive into the problems with the Enterprise effort here.

The Decommissioning Of The USS Enterprise

The challenges of disposing of Enterprise, however, continued even after a final decision was made about what to do with the vessel.

On May 30, 2025, the Navy awarded a $536.7 million contract to dismantle the ship to NorthStar Maritime Dismantlement Services, LLC, of Vernon, Vermont, according to Pentagon records. The work was initially expected to be completed in November 2029.

“It was the first time a U.S. nuclear-powered warship will be dismantled through a commercial effort, representing a significant milestone in responsibly and safely closing out the legacy of one of the most iconic nuclear-powered warships,” the Navy noted at the time, according to USNI.

However, the effort unraveled over a legal battle over how the Navy handled final bid submissions, ultimately resulting in the service being “ordered to pause the project and reassess bids, while the appeal now puts the future of the contract back in question,” according to NBC15 News. “The Navy is expected to re-award the contract by June 2026.”

We have reached out to the Navy to find out the status of that contract as well.

USS Enterprise to be dismantled in Alabama

Even as the Navy is working to dispose of its first nuclear-powered surface combatant, it is planning for the newest one. The Navy says its proposed Trump class battleships will be nuclear-powered as well.

It remains to be seen how the complications the Navy has faced trying to dismantle Enterprise will affect the disposal of Long Beach and what lessons will be applied, if any. The answers to some of those questions should come into sharper focus next week when interested parties get to ask the Navy for themselves at the Industry Day.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

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

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei says Iran’s latest response to the US had asked for an end to the war, removal of the naval blockade, and release of assets.

The US had dismissed the Iranian response, Baqaei said, as it clings to its ‘unreasonable demands’.

United States President Donald Trump has claimed Iran is “collapsing financially” and said the country is losing millions of dollars a day due to Washington’s naval blockade of Iranian ports.

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday night, Trump wrote: “Iran is collapsing financially! They want the Strait of Hormuz opened immediately – Starving for cash! Losing 500 Million Dollars a day. Military and Police complaining that they are not getting paid. SOS!!!”

The US blockade of Iranian ports began at 14:00 GMT on April 13. Since then, the US has fired on and seized an Iranian-flagged tanker near the Strait of Hormuz, and redirected ships in the open seas carrying cargo to or from Iran. Iran’s armed forces have called this “an illegal act” that “amounts to piracy”.

In response to the US naval blockade, Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz to all foreign shipping and has captured several foreign-flagged ships. Previously, it had allowed some ships deemed “friendly” to Iran to pass.

On April 19, Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said the “security of the Strait of Hormuz is not free”.

“One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others,” he wrote in a post on X.

“The choice is clear: either a free oil market for all, or the risk of significant costs for everyone,” he added. “Stability in global fuel prices depends on a guaranteed and lasting end to the economic and military pressure against Iran and its allies.”

In a statement on social media on Thursday, Iran’s parliamentary speaker and lead negotiator in the ceasefire talks, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said a full ceasefire could only work if the US naval blockade is lifted.

Analysts say the blockade is hurting Iran but believe the country has the economic and political will to sustain it.

How long can Iran survive the naval blockade?

Here’s what we know:

How is the naval blockade hurting Iran?

Iran exports oil, gas and other goods including petrochemicals, plastics and agricultural products by sea. Analysts say the US naval blockade of its ports, including in the Strait of Hormuz, could therefore affect this trade.

Soon after the start of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28, authorities in Tehran implemented the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the only waterway out of the Gulf, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped from Gulf producers in peacetime.

The near-shutdown of the vital chokepoint sent global oil and gas prices soaring, and since then, Iran has controlled the strait. However, it has continued to export its own energy products through the waterway.

Iran’s oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz account for about 80 percent of its total oil exports. According to Kpler, a trade intelligence firm, Iran exported 1.84 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil in March and has shipped 1.71 million bpd so far in April, compared with an average of 1.68 million bpd in 2025.

From March 15 to April 14, it exported 55.22 million barrels of oil. The price per barrel of Iranian oil – across its three major variants, known as Iranian light, Iranian heavy and Forozan blend – has not fallen below $90 per barrel over the past month. On many days, the price has surpassed $100 a barrel.

Even at the conservative estimate of $90 a barrel, Iran has earned at least $4.97bn over the past month from its ongoing oil exports.

By contrast, in early February before the war started, Iran was earning about $115m a day from its crude oil exports, or $3.45bn in a month.

Simply put, Iran has earned 40 percent more from oil exports in the past month than it did before the war.

Stopping this is a key motivation behind the US naval blockade of Iranian ports.

In an interview with Al Jazeera on April 14, Frederic Schneider, a nonresident senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, told Al Jazeera that the previous six weeks had been a boon for Iran in terms of oil revenues, but with the US blockade, that will change.

“Iran has some buffer in the form of crude oil reserves in floating tanks – basically parked tankers – which was estimated at about 127 million barrels in February. But that doesn’t mean that the blockade wouldn’t hurt Iran,” he said.

On Friday, Schneider told Al Jazeera that Iran, however, seems to be “playing the longer game” and has anticipated and prepared for this sort of conflict to some degree.

“The naval blockade has added economic strain, as several civilian ships have been captured in international waters. But it remains unclear how tight the blockade is, how many ships manage to pass given the considerable amount of floating Iranian oil, and how long Trump can maintain the blockade,” he said.

Can the US keep the blockade going for long?

Schneider noted that Trump will face a legislative challenge by May 1, when the 60 days he can maintain a foreign offensive without congressional approval come to an end.

Dire conditions have been reported on the ships that are upholding the blockade, he said, and it remains to be seen how China will react to the continuing seizure of ships that carry any of its cargo.

“China has already said it sees the blockade of Chinese trade with Iran as unacceptable. Further, the closure of Hormuz by Iran in retaliation is hurting, if not the US itself that much, American allies in the region and globally, raising the pressure on Trump,” he said.

“If we can glean anything from the behaviour of the two sides, it is Iran that is signalling patience and Trump showing impatience,” he added.

Adam Ereli, a former US ambassador to Bahrain, told Al Jazeera’s This is America programme that while the US blockade of Iranian ports and seizure of vessels transporting Iranian oil “makes sense” as a policy, it may not work as intended due to domestic political considerations in the US.

“The Iranians have prepared for this, for this eventuality. They have their own plans. They’ve got alternative means of storing their oil or selling their oil,” Ereli told Al Jazeera.

“Even if they ran out of oil, they have ways to survive a very tough blockade and sanctions regime that, frankly, I think will outlast Trump’s patience and the patience of the American people,” he said.

“Remember, this isn’t just about moving soldiers and ships and planes around on a map. There’s politics involved here in the United States,” he added.

“Trump is nothing if not attuned to the political winds. And for that reason, I think that you’ve got this Iran strategy on the one hand that runs up against an electoral strategy on another hand, and therefore, the question is, which one is going to give?”

Can Iran store the oil the US is blockading in the meantime?

Iran’s domestic refineries have a capacity of 2.6 million bpd, according to consultancy FGE Energy. Its oil and gas production facilities are concentrated in southwestern provinces: Khuzestan for oil and Bushehr for gas and condensate from the South Pars gasfield.

Iran is also the third-largest oil producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and exports 90 percent of its crude oil via Kharg Island for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

The US naval blockade has begun affecting the country’s storage capacity, according to TankerTrackers, the maritime intelligence agency. The blockade means Iran has to store more oil, and space could become tight.

TankerTrackers said that on Kharg Island, to prepare for the possibility of running out of oil storage space, Iran has brought an old tanker named NASHA (9079107) out of retirement.

“She’s a 30yo [year old] VLCC [Very Large Crude Carrier] that’s been anchored empty for the past few years; currently spending 4 days on a trip that should take 1.5-2 days,” TankerTrackers said in a post on X, suggesting that the tanker is being used to store oil. It is unclear if the ship has a heading or course.

Can Iran continue to earn revenues from oil?

Yes, analysts say that for a few months, Iran can continue to earn revenue from oil which is already in transit at sea.

Kenneth Katzman, former Iran analyst at the Congressional Research Service in Washington, DC, said Iran is not exporting new oil amid the US blockade of Iranian ports, but Tehran has between 160 million and 170 million barrels of oil “afloat” on ships around the world currently.

Those supplies, which transited the Strait of Hormuz before the US blockade was imposed, are on board hundreds of tankers and “waiting to be delivered”, Katzman told Al Jazeera.

Katzman said he had been informed by an Iranian professor that, based on those supplies, Tehran could have revenue flows that can last until August despite the US naval blockade.

“Which is a long time. Does President Trump have until August? Probably not,” he said.

“He’s probably going to have to look at kinetic escalation if he wants to bring this to the conclusion that he wants, or he’s going to have to accept less than the deal he ideally wants,” he said.

Iranian ships will still have to avoid US naval ships on the open ocean, as the US Navy has also recently intercepted ships carrying Iranian cargoes.

On Wednesday this week, for example, the US military intercepted at least three Iranian-flagged tankers in ‌Asian waters, Reuters reported, and was said to be redirecting them away from their positions near India, Malaysia and Sri Lanka.

How else can Iran earn revenue?

Besides oil revenue, Iran is also currently receiving revenue from a “toll booth” system that the country imposed on the Strait of Hormuz in March.

On Thursday, Iran’s deputy parliament speaker Hamidreza Haji-Babaei said Tehran’s central bank had received the first revenues from tolls imposed since the start of the war, according to the semiofficial Tasnim news agency. It is unclear how much that toll revenue is.

Iranian politician Alaeddin Boroujerdi told the United Kingdom-based, Farsi-language satellite TV channel Iran International in March that the country has been charging some vessels as much as $2m each to pass through the strait.

According to Lloyd’s List, the shipping news outlet, at least two vessels that have transited the strait so far have paid fees in yuan, China’s currency. Lloyd’s List reported that one “transit was brokered by a Chinese maritime services company acting as an intermediary, which also handled the payment to Iranian authorities”. It is, however, not clear how much the vessels paid.

How resilient is Iran’s leadership?

In recent days, while pressuring Iran to negotiate a ceasefire deal, US President Donald Trump has claimed that Iranians are “having a very hard time figuring out who their leader is”, alleging that there is “crazy” infighting between “moderates” and “hardliners” in Tehran.

But the country’s officials have insisted that Iran’s government is united.

Mohammad Reza Aref, Iran’s first vice president, said on Thursday: “Our political diversity is our democracy, yet in times of peril, we are a ‘Single Hand’ under one flag. To protect our soil and dignity, we transcend all labels. We are one soul, one nation.”

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also dismissed allegations that the Iranian military may be at odds with the political leadership.

“The failure of Israel’s terrorist killings is reflected in how Iran’s state institutions continue to act with unity, purpose, and discipline,” he wrote on X, referring to the assassinations of Iranian political and military figures Israel has carried out in recent weeks.

“The battlefield and diplomacy are fully coordinated fronts in the same war. Iranians are all united, more than ever before.”

One of the strongest messages of unity came from Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian.

“In Iran, there are no radicals or moderates,” he said on X.

“We are all Iranians and revolutionaries. With ironclad unity of nation and state and obedience to the Supreme Leader, we will make the aggressor regret.”

How strong is Iran militarily?

Iran has demonstrated considerable military resilience in the face of weeks of US-Israeli strikes through its use of asymmetric warfare.

This includes the use of guerrilla tactics, cyberattacks, arming and supporting proxy armed groups and other indirect tools.

During its war with the US and Israel, Iran has targeted energy infrastructure in Israel and across the Gulf, threatened to target banking institutions and targeted US data centres of technology companies such as Amazon in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

Iran has also blocked the Strait of Hormuz and reportedly placed mines in the strait to disrupt shipping, sending global oil prices soaring.

Since the US began its naval blockade of Iranian ports in mid-April, Iranian officials have repeatedly promised that their country will defend itself and respond to any US attack.

Earlier this week, after the US military said it had seized an Iranian vessel and ordered dozens of others to turn around, Iran also retaliated by capturing foreign commercial vessels around the Hormuz Strait, which it said violated naval regulations.

Ereli, the former US ambassador, told Al Jazeera that Iran and the IRGC have “revolutionary fervour”, which means they can “survive”. “They can tolerate pain for a lot longer than I think most American decision makers and planners calculate,” Ereli said.

Ereli said it was unknown how long Tehran could last under “siege conditions” imposed by the US, but probably a lot longer than the US anticipates.

“I think they can go a lot longer, especially than most people imagine, and especially when it comes to kneeling to the Americans,” Ereli said.

“There’s a level of pride and survival. They’re at war with us, and for them it’s a war of necessity. They’ve got to survive,” he added.

A U.S. warship striking another vessel with its deck gun is very rare occurrence in modern times. When the Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer USS Spruance opened fire on the Iranian cargo ship Touska on April 19th with its 5-inch MK 45 gun, it marked the first time in almost four decades something like that had happened. In fact, the prior incident took place almost exactly 38 years ago to the day in the same general vicinity against the same enemy. 

“From what we are tracking, the last known irrefutable instance of a Navy ship firing its deck gun at another ship was on April 18, 1988 during Operation Praying Mantis,” a U.S. Navy official told us, referring to a duel between the U.S. and Iranian navies in the Persian Gulf.

That’s when the Belknap class guided missile cruiser USS Wainwright, Knox class destroyer escort USS Bagley and the Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigate USS Simpson all fired upon the Iranian Karman class fast attack ship IRIS Joshan.

In addition to launching anti-ship missiles at the Iranian ship, the Wainwright and Bagley engaged the Joshan with 5-inch deck guns while the Simpson used its 3-incher, the official noted. The three ships belonged to what was then known as Surface Action Group (SAG) Charlie.

Praying Mantis was part of the much larger Operation Ernest Will, which began in 1987 when Iraqi and Iranian forces increased attacks on merchant ships in the Persian Gulf during latter stages of the Iran-Iraq War.

Ernest Will involved reflagging Kuwaiti oil tankers under the American banner, allowing them to be escorted by U.S. Navy ships. In July, 1987, during the first such escort, one of those ships struck a mine, setting off a chain reaction of events that led to Praying Mantis. That operation was in response to the Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts striking an Iranian mine.

The mine’s detonation against the Roberts “blew an immense hole in the ship’s hull,” according to a Navy history of the incident. “Ten Sailors from Samuel B. Roberts sustained severe injuries. Four were seriously burned. Commander Paul X. Rinn was hurt as well. The ship should have sunk, but thanks to an extraordinary damage control effort by all hands of an extremely well-trained crew, Samuel B. Roberts was kept afloat.”

“The U.S. response was fierce,” the Navy history continued. “Operation Praying Mantis was the largest of five major U.S. Navy surface actions since World War II. It was the first, and so far only, time the U.S. Navy has exchanged surface-to-surface missile fire with an enemy, and it resulted in the largest warship sunk by the U.S. Navy since WWII.”

At 10:48 a.m. local time, “an approaching Iranian frigate, Joshan, was identified,” according to Defense Media Network. “The Joshan ignored three warnings issued from the Wainwright, and launched a Harpoon missile that narrowly missed the cruiser.”

The vessels in the U.S. Navy’s surface action group returned fire with SM-1 and Harpoon missiles, heavily damaging the Joshan. The burning frigate was then sunk with gunfire.

The Joshan wasn’t the only Iranian asset hit that day.

“In the one-day operation, the U.S. Navy destroyed two Iranian surveillance platforms, sank two of their ships, and severely damaged another,” according to a Navy history of the event.

Praying Mantis helped change the course of events.

“Stung by its defeats, Iran decreased its attacks against merchant vessels after the US responses,” the Modern Warfare Institute at West Point noted.

While the Spruance attack on the Touska is the Navy’s first use of a deck gun on another ship since then, there are more differences than similarities between these engagements.

The Touska is an unarmed civilian cargo vessel that tried to evade the Navy’s blockade on Iranian ports. While the Spruance’s gun blew a hole in Touska’s engine room, the ship didn’t sink, but was instead boarded and seized. The vast majority of Iran’s navy has been destroyed during Epic Fury, leaving an array of small attack craft, but nothing the size of the Joshan still afloat.

You can see video of the Touska being hit with a 5-inch gun below:

US Navy seizes an Iran-flagged ship near the Strait of Hormuz

Here is a file video of a Arleigh Burke class destroyer firing its 5-inch gun:

5-inch 62-caliber Mk 45 Naval Gun Live Fire – Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer

The Touska encounter didn’t seem to have the same effect on Iran as Praying Mantis. If anything, as we previously noted, for at least certain factions within the fragmented Iranian power structure, it hardened the resolve not to enter a second round of negotiations to end the war. Though Trump has extended the deadline for a ceasefire, Iran has yet to indicate it will return to the bargaining table.

Iran, calling the Touska incident an act of piracy, has demanded the return of the ship and its crew and has threatened retaliation. However that has yet to happen.

Regardless, now we know the last time the U.S. Navy has used one of its main deck guns against another ship in anger was 38 years ago.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.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