USS

The U.S. Navy expects the stealthy destroyer USS Zumwalt, with its new launchers for Intermediate-Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missiles, to be formally returned to service by September. Upgrade work on the ship, which started back in 2023, is some 10 months behind schedule. One contributing factor in the delay was the first full shutdown of the notoriously complex Integrated Power System (IPS) since the ship was delivered to the Navy six years ago. IPS is a power plant that provides massive amounts of electricity to propel the ship and run its advanced systems.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog, provided new details on the hypersonic missile upgrades for USS Zumwalt, also known by its hull number DDG-1000, in a report released today. The four new launch tubes, each of which will be able to hold three IRCPS missiles, notably take the place of the destroyer’s original pair of 155mm Advanced Gun Systems (AGS).

Zumwalt has also been receiving other improvements, including expanded fuel capacity allowing for increased range and endurance, as well as undergoing routine maintenance, in parallel to the IRCPS integration. The Navy refers to all of this work, collectively, as the Build Yard Modernization Period (BYMP).

The Navy’s other two Zumwalt class destroyers – the USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) and the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) – are set to receive the same complete slate of modifications. Work on the Lyndon B. Johnson is already underway as part of the larger process of delivering that ship, which is now scheduled for April 2027. The service also eventually plans to integrate IRCPS onto Block V Virginia class submarines.

The Navy’s IRCPS program is also being run in close cooperation with the U.S. Army. The missile at the core of IRCPS is the same one the Army is working to field in ground-based configuration, which it calls Dark Eagle.

The weapon itself consists of a multi-stage ballistic missile-like rocket booster with an unpowered hypersonic boost-glide vehicle on top. The booster gets the vehicle to an optimal speed and altitude, after which it is released. After separating from the booster, the vehicle glides along a relatively shallow flight path within the Earth’s atmosphere to its target, maneuvering along the way, sometimes erratically. In general, hypersonic boost-glide vehicles offer a combination of speed, flight trajectory, and maneuverability that creates distinct challenges for enemy forces. The vehicles are difficult to spot and track, let alone intercept. Their speed limits the time an opponent has to react in other ways. The ability to pierce enemy air defenses and rapidly strike very high-value targets, even ones that may be fleeting, is what makes hypersonic weapons of this type attractive.

“Over the past year, the cost and schedule performance on the first ship to undergo this [IRCPS and other upgrade] work, the DDG 1000, has degraded,” according to GAO’s report. “Program officials reported that the primary cause of recent delays is unplanned work.”

As already noted, one “source of unplanned work and delays per program officials is that this is the first time that the Navy has shut down and restarted key DDG 1000 class ship systems,” per GAO. “For example, equipment failures in the ship’s complex electrical system, which is akin to a small power plant, contributed to delays.”

Zumwalt‘s IPS is a hybrid-electric system that combines gas turbines and electric generators. Hybrid propulsion is not unique, broadly speaking, to this class of ships, but the DDG-1000 design takes it to a completely different level. IPS can generate up to “approximately 78 megawatts of power, nearly what a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier generates,” according to the Navy. It is also said to be able to pump out 58 megawatts of reserve power even while cruising at 20 knots. This level of power generation is essential to support the ship’s array of advanced capabilities, but it also comes with complexities that have proven troublesome over the years.

Integrated Power System (IPS)

In addition, “the unplanned work addresses the need for more cabling than was anticipated in the initial project design, as the contractor cut and removed more cabling than planned from the forward part of the ship for CPS missile launch tube installation,” the report adds. “The additional cabling was needed to match changes to the ship configuration since new construction cables were installed as part of the BYMP.”

Overall, “program officials noted that the Navy modified the BYMP contract with Huntington Ingalls in August 2025 to add 230,000 hours – at a cost of $20 million – for unplanned work,” according to GAO. “The program reported increasing its estimate to upgrade all three ships from $1.8 billion to at least $2 billion.”

GAO says the Navy also stressed that this is the first time it has ever integrated a hypersonic weapon onto one of its warships, and that it has been a learning experience. The service says it is working to ensure that useful lessons are being woven into ongoing work on Lyndon B. Johnson, as well as USS Michael Monsoor‘s future BYMP availability, which is slated to begin before the end of the year.

The timeline for delivery of the Lyndon B. Johnson and the upgrade schedule for Michael Monsoor are already delayed, as can be seen in the GAO graphic below. Delays have also pushed back the target date for a first live-fire at-sea IRCPS launch, a milestone now set to come next year.

The Navy and the Army have conducted several land-based launches as part of a test plan that has suffered its own setbacks in the past.

The Zumwalt class, as a whole, has suffered various trials and tribulations over the years due to a variety of factors. This includes persistent technical difficulties with various systems, especially the main AN/SPY-3 radar. There have been signs for years now that the Navy could replace the AN/SPY-3 with a version of the newer AN/SPY-6. A growing number of other Navy ships are already sailing with or are set to receive AN/SPY-6 variants. The ships have also seen other cutting-edge capabilities watered down.

Challenges facing the Zumwalt class destroyers have been compounded by the prior decision to slash planned orders for these ships from 32 to just three. This has also made the ships extremely expensive to acquire, operate, and sustain. In a separate annual assessment of major U.S. military programs released earlier this month, GAO reported that the unit cost of each of the destroyers had risen to just over $10.6 billion (inclusive of research and development costs). The total acquisition cost of the DDG-1000 program is now nearly $32 billion. For comparison, the price tag on a new Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyer is around $2.5 billion, according to data released last year by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Broader questions have been raised about the roles and missions that the trio of Zumwalt class ships can be reasonably expected to perform. IRCPS will give the members of the Zumwalt class a new, very-long-range, high-value strategic strike role. The Navy sees this as a key capability for future high-end fights, such as one against China in the Pacific.

At the same time, GAO’s report today also highlights the small number of missiles the Navy and the Army are in the process of acquiring now for IRCPS and Dark Eagle. Prime contractor Lockheed Martin still has limited capacity to produce them, too.

“Navy data indicate that the contractor facility operations are not currently able to meet demand, making it difficult for Lockheed Martin to keep production commitments,” according to GAO. “Specifically, the facility is currently capable of producing a maximum of six to seven rounds a year out of the 12 rounds per year necessary to stabilize production.”

“Over the past 5 years, CPS costs estimates have fluctuated, driven by factors such as the Navy’s removal or addition of host platforms, revisions to total quantities, planned periodic capability insertions, and production time frames to date, among others,” per GAO’s report. “In fiscal year 2020, early in the MTA [middle tier acquisition] rapid prototyping phase, the Navy estimated it would cost about $31 billion in total lifecycle costs for a program that would deliver 262 missiles. In 2024, the Navy increased its estimate of the total cost to acquire CPS by about 30 percent while reducing the number of missiles to be procured – now $41 billion in total lifecycle costs for 224 missiles.”

“These missile quantities do not reflect a specific program requirement, according to CPS program officials, but rather modeling based on various inputs, including budget documents, analyses of industrial base capacity, and direct, ongoing collaboration with the U.S. Strategic Command and the requirements sponsor – OPNAV N97 [the Undersea Warfare Division within the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations],” the report also notes. “Additionally, the Army is planning to spend more than $10 billion to procure 48 missiles and associated ground support equipment.”

As of April 2026, the average estimated unit cost for each missile was pegged at approximately $67 million. GAO points out that “the exact unit cost will depend on the contractor’s efficiency in production, which is, in part, dependent on stable annual procurement funding for the missile.”

USS Zumwalt‘s formal return to the fleet as the Navy’s first vessel equipped to fire hypersonic missiles will be an important milestone. However, signs still very much point to IRCPS being a relatively limited and costly capability, likely to be held in reserve for very high-priority targets, at least in the near term.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The U.S. Navy’s Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has been underway for 210 straight days – well over half a year – in support of Operation Epic Fury and the subsequent blockade of Iran. This looks to be a record-setting milestone. Lincoln, the flagship of Carrier Strike Group 3 (CSG-3), is currently operating in Middle Eastern waters.

Abraham Lincoln, the fifth Nimitz class supercarrier and self-styled “most capable CSG in the fleet,” departed Naval Base Guam on December 12, 2025, after a quick one-day port call. Port calls, or temporary visits to friendly countries, allow the crew to disembark for “liberty” – to step on solid ground – and break up the grueling, nonstop schedule experienced during deployments. However, the stop in Guam, a strategic U.S. territory in the Western Pacific, was so brief that much of the crew likely never went ashore.

Lincoln and CSG-3, made up of more than 5,000 Sailors and Marines, quietly left Naval Base San Diego three weeks earlier on November 21, 2025. At the time, the U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean was the focus of public attention, and Lincoln was expected to conduct a routine Pacific patrol. An Iran contingency was on the table following Operation Midnight Hammer, when B-2 bombers struck nuclear targets deep inside Iran, and Lincoln’s Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX) included preparing for a fight in the Middle East. COMPTUEXs are weeks-long capstone training events for carrier strike groups that come right before they deploy.

After leaving Guam, Lincoln conducted operations in the South China Sea before entering the Indian Ocean and arriving in the northern Arabian Sea in late January. Aircraft from Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9 launched sorties in the opening salvo of Operation Epic Fury, and the CSG was instrumental in enforcing the naval blockade that followed. Since the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed on June 17, Lincoln has remained in the northern Arabian Sea, launching retaliatory strikes during the recent skirmishes.

The CSG has been deployed for more than seven months now and would likely be among the first naval assets to rotate out of the theater if an agreement is reached between the U.S. and Iran. The details and scale of the drawdown of forces in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) AOR, as per the MOU agreed to by American and Iranian officials last month, are to be determined within 30 days if a final deal is reached before the deadline in mid-August. A new spate of tit-for-tat strikes just this week has created serious uncertainty around future talks between Washington and Tehran. More than 20 U.S. Navy surface combatants are still operating in the region.

“We’ve officially claimed the title for most consecutive days at sea for any modern aircraft carrier,” Lt. Commander Alexis Travis, an officer currently serving aboard Lincoln, wrote on Instagram on June 16.

We have reached out to the Navy to confirm whether this is indeed a record-breaking period at sea. However, we have not received a response as of the time of publication.

In June 2020, the U.S. Navy did announce that the Nimitz class carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Ticonderoga class cruiser USS San Jacinto had set a new record after spending 161 days consecutively operating at sea. Eisenhower did not make a stop in port until the next month, having been at sea for 206 consecutive days in the end. This was, in part, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, when port access was severely limited due to quarantine restrictions. The carrier had left Norfolk in January 2020 for a deployment to the Middle East and launched combat sorties during Operation Freedom’s Sentinel in Afghanistan, returning home nearly seven months later without a single stop. Prior to that, USS Theodore Roosevelt held the record in 2002, supporting the post-9/11 response. Roosevelt left Norfolk in September 2001 to participate in Operation Enduring Freedom and spent 160 days at sea before anchoring in Bahrain for a reprieve in February the following year.

In April, USS Gerald R. Ford, the newest American carrier and largest in the world, logged the longest deployment on record at 326 days. Ford, while deployed for nearly eleven months, was operating primarily in the U.S. European Command-6th Fleet area of responsibility (AOR) and U.S. Southern Command-4th Fleet AOR, which is relatively friendly territory, and made at least nine port calls in Marseille, Oslo, Palma de Mallorca, Split, St. Thomas Island, and Souda Bay. Between port calls and stops to refuel and make emergent repairs, Ford averaged a visit to port every 36 days.

The Lincoln CSG, which also includes guided-missile destroyers from Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 21, served as the tip of the spear in Operation Epic Fury. DESRON 21 fired dozens of Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) against Iran, and provided defensive measures for the CSG, using Standard Missiles and other armaments to intercept incoming threats. The embarked “air wing of the future,” CVW 9, launched thousands of sorties and pressured Iran’s southern axis during the 40-day war, successfully escorted commercial ships through the contested Strait of Hormuz, and hunted and disabled Iranian-affiliated vessels attempting to run the blockade. The carrier’s air wing notably includes F-35C Joint Strike Fighters assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 314 (VMFA 314), giving it better penetrating capabilities. The CSG has proven its ability to blend and interoperate high, medium, and low-end naval and joint capabilities, for offensive and defensive purposes, as well as integrate across platforms, including manned and unmanned systems, conventional and unconventional, surface and subsurface, overt and covert, and more, during nonstop combat operations.

The destroyers escorting Lincoln were able to make port calls before the war began, but some have been at sea for over four months. USS Frank E. Petersen Jr., the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Commander, moored at Navy Terminal in the Port of Duqm, Oman, for two days in mid-February. USS Michael Murphy, the last destroyer to leave the Persian Gulf before the first shots were fired, docked in Dubai, UAE, from February 25-27, and left the day before the city was targeted in the initial waves of Iran’s counterattack. Satellite imagery reviewed by TWZ at the time showed Murphy’s precise location the day prior was targeted. USS Spruance, the only San Diego-based destroyer operating with CSG-3, deployed on the same day as Lincoln, and has been at sea for just as long, with one port call in December in Guam. Spruance was spotted firing a black TLAM on the first day of Epic Fury.

“Literally no one signed up for this,” Lt. Commander Travis also wrote on Instagram. “And yet here we are, still doing it safely and successfully. Just a strong group doing tough stuff, breaking records and then waking up and doing it again.”

When the crew serving tirelessly aboard Lincoln will next set foot on land is unknown, and with the fate of the U.S.-Iran MOU similarly uncertain, it may be some time.

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

Extreme weather disrupted the US’s 250th anniversary celebrations, forcing evacuations, cancellations and delays. Despite setbacks including a National Mall evacuation and a fireworks display setting the Brooklyn Bridge on fire, Trump called the day ‘one of the most joyous and glorious’ in US history.

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’.