USS

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

The U.S. Navy has abandoned plans to return the Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Boise to active duty. This brings an end to the saga of a still-incomplete major overhaul of the boat, which has lasted more than a decade now. In that time, it has become a poster child for the Navy’s worrisome struggles to tackle huge maintenance backlogs, as well as larger concerns about the availability, or lack thereof, of naval shipyard capacity in the United States.

The Navy announced its decision to inactivate Boise, which was first commissioned into service in 1992, earlier today.

“After a rigorous, data-driven analysis, we’ve made the tough but necessary decision to inactivate the USS Boise,” Navy Adm. Daryl Caudle, Chief of Naval Operations, the service’s top officer, said in a statement. “This strategic move allows us to reallocate America’s highly-skilled workforce to our highest priorities: delivering new Virginia and Columbia class submarines and improving the readiness of the current fleet. We owe it to our Sailors and the nation to make these tough calls to build a more capable and ready Navy.”

“The move is part of the Navy’s broader, data-driven initiative to optimize the fleet’s composition, ensuring that every dollar is invested in capabilities that directly contribute to maintaining a decisive warfighting advantage,” the service also said in a press release. “Funds and personnel associated with the planned overhaul of USS Boise will be redirected to support other Navy priorities, including the timely delivery of America’s submarine capability.”

To date, the Navy has spent approximately $800 million on Boise’s overhaul, which is still only 22 percent complete, the service separately told Semafor. The total estimated cost to complete the overhaul had risen to $3 billion, according to Fox News.

“At some point, you just cut your losses and move on,” Secretary of the Navy John Phelan also told Fox News in an interview ahead of today’s announcement. “The Boise represents 65% of the cost of a new Virginia class submarine, yet it only delivers 20% of the remaining service life.”

The Navy had originally planned for Boise to begin its overhaul in 2013, but the timetable was repeatedly delayed, primarily due to a lack of shipyard availability. The submarine has not been to sea since it returned from its last cruise in January 2015. The boat was deemed unable to conduct normal operations by 2016, and it formally lost its dive certification the following year.

The Navy moved Boise from its home port in Norfolk, Virginia, to Newport News Shipbuilding’s facilities in 2018. Newport News Shipbuilding is a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII).

The submarine returned to Norfolk the following year amid competing funding priorities. It went back to Newport News in 2020, but did not actually enter a dry dock there until 2021, after which limited maintenance work began. The full overhaul was then further set back due to budgetary issues, with a formal contract only signed in 2024.

As of last year, the Navy was still pushing to complete Boise‘s overhaul and return it to the fleet, which was expected to occur in 2029. By that point, the submarine would have spent more than a third of its service life in port.

The overall size of the Navy’s Los Angeles attack submarine force has been steadily declining for years now already, as the service has acquired more modern and capable Virginia class types. The Navy commissioned 62 Los Angeles class boats between 1976 and 1996, and 23 remain in service today.

As noted, the Navy’s struggles with Boise are reflective of larger and more serious issues that have long challenged the service’s ability to meet even its peacetime operational demands. Back in 2018, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report saying that the Navy had more than two decades’ worth of operational time across its submarine fleets due to maintenance shortfalls.

These are concerns that would only be magnified if a large-scale conflict, especially one with China in the Pacific, were to break out. For years now, TWZ has also been sounding the alarm on the interrelated issue of dwindling U.S. naval shipbuilding capacity, in general, where the disparity with Chinese state-run enterprises has become enormous.

The Navy, with support from Congress, has been trying to take steps in recent years to reverse these trends, including moving to increasingly leverage foreign shipyard capacity. The second Trump administration, through Navy Secretary Phelan, has been particularly open about its efforts to shake up how the service acquires and maintains ships, and otherwise does business across the board. This has notably already included the cancellation of the Constellation class frigate program, which had become beset by huge delays and ballooning costs, as you can read more about in detail here. The Navy has been touting efforts to try to avoid similar pitfalls with new shipbuilding programs like the FF(X) frigate and Medium Landing Ship.

“I think, by killing these programs, it’s sending a message that we’re not going to continue to send good money after bad investments, and that we’re going to try to make prudent economic decisions that are in the best interest of the fleet and the force,” Phelan said, speaking generally around today’s anouncement about Boise, according to Semafor.

How the Navy fares in its broader efforts to turn things around when it comes to shipbuilding and maintenance remains to be seen, but the USS Boise‘s increasingly sad story is now coming to an end.

UPDATE: 2:10 PM EDT –

Todd Corillo, an HII spokesperson for the Newport News Shipbuilding division, has now provided TWZ with the following statement:

“We have been notified of the U.S. Navy’s decision to discontinue engineered overhaul (EOH) work on USS Boise (SSN 764). We will work with the Navy to execute this decision in an efficient, cost-effective way. We anticipate there will be no impact to our workforce and will transition shipbuilders currently assigned to USS Boise to other work underway at Newport News Shipbuilding.”

“We understand the importance of a strong submarine force to our national security. While our work on USS Boise will end, our commitment to ensuring our nation maintains our undersea maritime supremacy will not.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

US media is reporting the Trump administration has proposed a temporary ceasefire and a 15-point plan to end the war on Iran. The reports emerge as Trump claims the US is already talking to Iranian officials – a claim Iran has vehemently denied.

The Pentagon is reportedly sending the Wasp class amphibious assault ship USS Boxer and the rest of its Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), loaded with elements of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). This comes as the Trump administration is reported to be increasingly considering seizing or blockading Iran’s highly strategic Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf as part of a new phase of Operation Epic Fury.

It has now been widely reported that what is described as an “accelerated” deployment of the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group and the 11th MEU from the West Coast will be in support of Operation Epic Fury.

The Boxer Amphibious Ready Group also includes two other amphibious warfare ships, the San Antonio class USS Portland and the Whidbey Island class USS Comstock. The 11th MEU has roughly 2,500 personnel, in total, and includes air and ground components.

This follows reports last week that the America class amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli and its ARG, carrying elements of the 31st MEU, had also begun moving from the Pacific toward the Middle to support ongoing operations against Iran.

Axios reported today that the Trump administration could be leaning toward establishing a blockade around Iran’s Kharg Island, through which it exports much of its oil, or occupying it, citing unnamed officials. The central goal of doing this would be to step up pressure on the regime in Tehran to, in turn, force it to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Traffic through that waterway has come to a virtual halt, which is causing massive reverberations across global energy markets.

“[Trump] wants Hormuz open. If he has to take Kharg Island to make it happen, that’s going to happen. If he decides to have a coastal invasion, that’s going to happen,” one official said, according to Axios. “But that decision hasn’t been made.”

The U.S. military carried out extensive strikes on Kharg Island this past weekend. A deployment of U.S. ground troops there would be a major escalation that could have significant ramifications, including domestically.

“We’ve always had boots on the ground in conflicts under every president, including Trump. I know this is a fixation in the media, and I get the politics, but the president is going to do what’s right,” a second official, who also said no decision has yet been made, said, per Axios.

Just yesterday, TWZ spoke with Joseph Votel, the former commander of U.S. Central Command, with a particular focus on the tumultuous Strait of Hormuz, through which around 20 percent of the world’s oil passes. You can read that interview here.

In the meantime, publicly available flight-tracking data indicates that the U.S. Navy is using MQ-4C Triton intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance drones to monitor Kharg Island as part of their patrols of the northern Persian Gulf.

Trump has warned that he might consider targeting oil facilities on the island if Iran or other countries “do anything to interfere” with the safe passage of ships through the strait.

Destroying or damaging oil infrastructure on Kharg could have unintended side effects, however. On the one hand, it would further push up global oil prices. The complex nature of infrastructure might take years to repair, which would compound this. In the long term, there is also the question of whether oil infrastructure here should be preserved for the benefit of a potential new Iranian government.

Any successor to the current regime would lose out on vital oil income, potentially driving further internal strife.

There is also the possibility that seizing the island and cutting off the current Iranian government from its most vital source of revenue could be used as a catalyst to bring about its fall.

Then there is the huge question about the kind of military effort that would be required to seize Kharg. This would require a large-scale, sustained operation and would be brought with risk. The island is only 20 miles from the Iranian mainland, putting whatever U.S. force is there at extreme risk of bombardment of multiple types. Getting amphibious assault ships through the Strait and into the Gulf would be an issue, as well, and those ships would be heavily targeted during transit and especially once inside the Gulf. With this in mind, a longer-range aviation assault would be most likely.

A naval blockade of the island might be easier to achieve in the short term, but it would run the risk of Iranian attacks, likely involving uncrewed surface vessels (USVs), drones, and other asymmetric options, as well as anti-ship cruise missiles, the use of which has been limited up to this point, as you can read about here.

As already noted, additional U.S. forces are headed to the region in the form of the Tripoli ARG and the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). While the deployment of the big-deck amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli had already been reported, we now know it is being supported by the amphibious transport docks USS San Diego (LPD-22) and USS New Orleans (LPD-18), thanks to publicly available ship-tracking data.

What exactly the next phase of Operation Epic Fury will look like could be clearer as the Navy amphibious warfare ships and the thousands of Marines they are carrying get closer to the Middle East.

UPDATES

UPDATE: 6:16 PM EST –

There are some mixed messages coming out of Washington about the future of Epic Fury.

President Donald Trump said he is considering “winding down” the war on Iran. His comments, delivered on his Truth Social account, come even though two Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) are steaming toward the Middle East and the Pentagon has reportedly drawn up plans to put American troops into Iran with the president’s approval.

Trump added that the U.S. could end the war effort even with the Iranians still closing the Strait of Hormuz.

“We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran,” Trump proclaimed.

He stated that the U.S. has: “(1) Completely degrading Iranian Missile Capability, Launchers, and everything else pertaining to them. (2) Destroying Iran’s Defense Industrial Base. (3) Eliminating their Navy and Air Force, including Anti Aircraft Weaponry. (4) Never allowing Iran to get even close to Nuclear Capability, and always being in a position where the U.S.A. can quickly and powerfully react to such a situation, should it take place. (5) Protecting, at the highest level, our Middle Eastern Allies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and others.”

The Strait, Trump added, “will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations who use it — The United States does not! If asked, we will help these Countries in their Hormuz efforts, but it shouldn’t be necessary once Iran’s threat is eradicated. Importantly, it will be an easy Military Operation for them.”

Our coverage has ended for the day. Stay tuned for more.

UPDATE: 5:15 PM EST –

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who served as Defense Secretary and CENTCOM commander, weighed in on the war, saying he doesn’t believe regime change is likely.

Iranian state media warns Iran will target the UAE’s industrial port city of Ras Al-Khaimah if Iranian islands are again attacked from that nation, Arab News reported.

March 13 (UPI) — The USS Tripoli, and the 2,500 Marines on the amphibious assault ship, are headed to the Middle East to bolster U.S. military power there as the war in Iran enters its third week.

The Tripoli, along with Marines of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Group, had been operating in the Philippine Sea but is now headed west south of Taiwan through the Luzon Strait, USNI News reported.

Although the Tripoli had been with the USS San Diego and USS New Orleans in the Philippine Sea, it is not clear if the San Diego and the New Orleans are also being moved closer to Iran.

As Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz to most traffic, and is targeting vessels that transit it, the move comes as U.S. Central Command asked the Pentagon for additional military options in the conflict, Axios reported.

The 31st MEU can conduct ground operations, which have not been announced but have not been ruled out, according to the Trump administration.

The deployment comes as President Donald Trump said he is considering sending U.S. Navy vessels to escort shipping vessels through the strait, the military is planning to take out anti-ship missiles that have been sent by Iran to the area.

CENTCOM is particularly focused on ensuring freedom of navigation in the straight, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine told reporters on Friday, which “means going after Iran’s mine-laying capability and destroying their ability to attack commercial vessels.

Oil prices have surged over the last week after Iran shut down the strait, though Caine noted that some traffic is moving through it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also said Friday that the military is “dealing with” Iranian attacks on the strait, saying that “we have been dealing with it and don’t need to worry about it.”

Hegseth added that as the military campaign continues and Iran’s military capabilities weaken, the United States has also been taking out Iranian defense companies to prevent the ability to build more weapons.