Vertical Logistics on Floating Fortresses: The Elevator Systems of Nimitz and Ford-Class Aircraft Carriers

Modern aircraft carriers rank among the most complex engineering marvels of global power projection and maritime control. The combat effectiveness of these colossal platforms is directly linked not only to the number of air assets they carry, but also to how swiftly and safely the vertical logistics cycle (the transport traffic between the hangar and the flight deck) is managed. Aircraft lifts, which support aircraft take-off and landing processes on the flight deck, and weapon lifts, which transport ammunition from ammunition stores to the flight deck, are the most critical components of this logistics cycle. This article examines the structural, mechanical and operational characteristics of the lift systems on the Nimitz-class and the new-generation Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers, analysing their structural, mechanical and operational characteristics, their impact on flight deck efficiency, the challenges in integration processes, safety risks and the redundancy logic in the event of damage, from a comparative engineering perspective.

In this photograph, taken on 4 June 2020 and shown on the cover, the Ford-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) [the ship on the left] and the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) [the ship on the right] are seen transiting the Atlantic Ocean; this marks the first time a Ford-class and a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier have been underway together.

Introduction and Dimensional Comparison

The transition from the Nimitz class to the Gerald R. Ford class represents not merely a dimensional expansion in aircraft carrier architecture, but also a radical phase of technological integration. Although both classes share similar full-load displacement values, they exhibit profound differences in terms of the nuclear reactor technology employed, electrical power generation capacity, and the structure of their launch and recovery systems.

The two Westinghouse-manufactured A4W reactors on the Nimitz-class ships not only power the propulsion system but also provide 64 MW of electrical power via auxiliary generators. The Gerald R. Ford class, however, utilises two Bechtel A1B reactors featuring a completely new design. These next-generation reactors generate approximately 1,200 MWt of thermal energy, providing the ship with approximately 200 MW of usable electrical power. This approximately threefold increase in electrical generation capacity creates the massive energy reserve required for the uninterrupted operation of the ship’s electromagnetic launch system (EMALS), advanced arresting gear (AAG) and electromagnetic lifts.

Nimitz (CVN-68) and Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) Class Basic Structural and Technical Characteristics

Structural and Physical Parameters Nimitz Class (CVN-68) Gerald R. Ford Class (CVN-78)

Full Load Displacement ~97,000 – 100,000 Long Tons ~100,000 Long Tons

Overall Length (LOA) 1,092 feet (333 m) 1,106 feet (337 m)

Waterline Length 1,040 feet (317 m) 1,040 feet (317 m)

Waterline Beam 134 feet (41 m) 134 feet (41 m)

Flight Deck Width 252 feet (77 m) 256 feet (78 m)

Draft 37 feet (11 m) 39 feet (12 m)

Installed Power (Reactor) 2x Westinghouse A4W (1,100 MWt) 2x Bechtel A1B (~1,200 MWt)

Electrical Power Generation ~64 MW ~200 MW (Estimated)

Aircraft Carrying Capacity 65–82+ aircraft 75–90+ aircraft

In the image above, the aircraft elevators on the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) are shown in red, numbered in sequence.

Technical and Operational Characteristics of Aircraft Elevators

Aircraft elevators serve as the most critical vertical logistics link in the process of rapidly launching air assets—which are stored, maintained or armed on the hangar deck—to the flight deck. Whilst Nimitz-class ships feature four deck-edge elevators, the number has been reduced to three on the Gerald R. Ford class. Although this numerical reduction may initially appear to represent a decrease in vertical transport capacity, it has actually increased the operational efficiency per elevator through the optimisation of the flight deck layout.

When examining the historical evolution of aircraft lift vertical transfer performance, older-generation aircraft carriers such as the USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Saratoga (CV-3), used during the Second World War, were equipped with hydraulic lifts positioned on the centreline. On these ships, the forward lift had a lifting capacity of only 16,000 pounds (7,300 kg), whilst the aft lift’s capacity was limited to 6,000 pounds (2,700 kg). The deck-edge aircraft lifts, which became standard with the Nimitz class, achieved a lifting capacity of 75,000 pounds (approximately 34 tonnes) per lift, reaching a level capable of carrying two fully loaded F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter aircraft simultaneously.

In the image above, the positions of the aircraft elevators on the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the first ship of the Gerald R. Ford class, are shown in green with numerical labels in sequence (NATO Neptune Strike Exercise, Ionian Sea, July 2025)

Of the three aircraft elevators on the Gerald R. Ford-class, two are located on the starboard side and one on the port side. One of the starboard-side elevators measures 85 feet in length, 52 feet in width and has an empty platform weight of approximately 120 tonnes. The vertical lift capacity of these elevators on the Ford-class has been increased to over 75,000 pounds. The operational capabilities of the Ford class have also been validated by current data; indeed, during the ship’s deployment activities in 2024, 2,883 aircraft lift movements, 33,444 flight deck movements and 3,124 in-hangar aircraft movements were successfully carried out, thereby demonstrating the system’s operational resilience.

In the image below, the locations of the aircraft elevators on the Gerald R. Ford and Nimitz-class aircraft carriers are highlighted in red and light green, respectively.

Mechanical, Electrical and Structural Safety Systems for Lifts

According to data from specialist defence industry manufacturers such as Jered and L3Harris, who design ship-type vertical transport systems, aircraft and cargo lifts are designed to operate even under extreme hydrometeorological conditions such as Sea State 6, and to successfully pass shock tests in accordance with military standards (shock-qualified). The operational safety and structural integrity of these lift systems are safeguarded by advanced mechanical, pneumatic and electrical control mechanisms.

The lifts’ vertical travel speeds can reach up to 120 feet per minute (FPM), and this movement is controlled by Variable Voltage Variable Frequency (VVVF) electric motor drive systems, thereby minimising acceleration vibrations during the platform’s take-off and stopping phases. The system incorporates automatic reset overspeed safety mechanisms to prevent any potential free fall or uncontrolled acceleration. Furthermore, hydraulic or pneumatic systems have been integrated to lock the platform to the ship’s hull during loading and unloading, thereby preventing the lift platforms from swaying due to sea motion. L3Harris-designed lift systems feature integrated fireproof, gas-tight and spray-tight doors and flight deck hatches; in addition, automatic folding platform structures, mobile safety nets, signal lights and aircraft lashing points are provided as standard to reduce the ship’s width.

When the lifts reach the same level as the flight deck, they are securely locked in place by horizontal locking bars, which are operated independently under normal conditions by a double-acting pneumatic air engine. In the event of a potential loss of air pressure, each locking bar can also be locked manually using a manual gear mechanism. In accordance with safety protocols, the lift safety stanchions and barriers are never operated in fully automatic mode to prevent personnel from becoming accidentally trapped; they are always kept in manual or emergency control mode. Furthermore, prior to commencing towing operations to move aircraft to the lift or hangar on the flight deck, it is mandatory for the flight deck chief and directors to verify that the aircraft’s ground safety locks are engaged.

The most critical precision components in lift control mechanisms are limit switches and proximity sensors. Engineering studies conducted by the US Navy on the Advanced Weapons Handling System (IWHS) lifts on aircraft carriers have revealed that these mechanical contact or static proximity sensors have high failure rates due to salt accumulation, intensive painting operations, physical impacts and electromagnetic interference (EMI). To address this vulnerability, the use of d-c magnetic flux sensors—the sensor type most resistant to the harsh conditions of the shipboard environment, intense electromagnetic noise and explosive gas atmospheres—has been standardised. Furthermore, all lift control circuits in ammunition stores and hazardous areas where there is a risk of fuel vapour accumulation are housed within explosion-proof electrical enclosures.

Weapon Lifts and Logistical Conversion

An aircraft carrier’s combat capability is measured not by the aircraft’s time in the air, but by how quickly it can be rearmed and sent back into the air after landing (the reload cycle). Whilst ammunition transfer from the ammunition magazines to the flight deck on Nimitz-class ships is carried out using cable-driven conventional hydraulic lifts, the Gerald R. Ford class has introduced 11 Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE) that operate entirely on electromagnetic principles.

Comparison of Technological and Performance Criteria of Nimitz-class and Gerald R. Ford-class (AWE) Weapons Elevators

Performance and Technical Criteria Nimitz-class Weapons Elevator Gerald R. Ford-class Advanced Weapons Elevator (AWE)

Drive Technology Conventional Cable-Driven and Hydraulic Electromagnetic Linear Synchronous/Induction Motor-Driven

Maximum Load Capacity 10,000–10,500 lb (~4.8 tonnes) 24,000 lb (~11 tonnes)

Vertical Travel Speed 100 feet/minute (FPM) 150 feet/minute (FPM)

System Control Infrastructure Electromechanical Relays and Centralised Control Wi-Fi Sensors, Battery Power and Distributed PLC

Operational Layout Open-Air Stowage on the Flight Deck Protected Stowage Areas Below the Flight Deck

The hydraulic weapon lifts on the Nimitz-class carriers have a maximum lifting capacity of 10,000 to 10,500 pounds and a vertical speed of 100 feet per minute. As the exit points of these lifts do not lead directly to the parking areas on the flight deck, munitions must be manually transferred on the hangar deck or at intermediate stations, which limits the speed of vertical logistics. The staging of prepared munitions in open areas on the flight deck both narrows the aircraft taxiways and increases the risk of a chain reaction explosion of the munitions should the ship be hit.

The 11 Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE) on the Gerald R. Ford-class ships operate using electromagnetic linear synchronous motors, eliminating the need for cables and hydraulic fluid. Thanks to this technological transformation, the lifts’ lifting capacity has been increased to 24,000 pounds (11 tonnes), whilst their vertical movement speed has been raised to 150 feet per minute. Consequently, munitions loads twice as heavy as those of the Nimitz class can be delivered to the flight deck 50 per cent faster.

The vertical logistics architecture of the AWE has also been completely redesigned. Seven of the 11 lifts operate between the munitions stores and the protected staging areas located immediately below the flight deck, whilst four provide direct access from these staging areas to the flight deck. As weapons are only brought onto the flight deck when they are to be loaded onto the aircraft, deck clutter is prevented, the storage of munitions in the open is avoided, and the ship’s overall survivability is enhanced. I will discuss the Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE) in greater detail in the next instalment of this series.

Flight Deck Efficiency and Integration Challenges

One of the Gerald R. Ford class’s primary design objectives is to increase the sortie generation rate (SGR) by 25% to 33% compared to the Nimitz class, achieving an average daily capacity of 160 sorties (temporarily up to 270 under combat conditions). To support this operational increase, the flight deck layout has been geometrically revised; the island has been designed smaller and shifted aft, and the number of aircraft elevators has been reduced from four to three. This has allowed the parking and preparation area (corral) in front of the island to be expanded, preventing aircraft from blocking one another whilst taxiing (deck lock-up). Furthermore, thanks to in-deck fueling and electrical stations, aircraft can be refuelled directly at their parking positions; the traffic and safety risks caused by heavy hoses extending along the flight deck have been eliminated.

However, the integration of these advanced systems led to serious structural crises due to the ‘concurrency’ philosophy adopted during the design phase. The simultaneous installation of numerous new technologies (EMALS, AAG, Dual-Band Radar and AWE) onto the ship before they had been fully matured on land caused the systems to interfere with one another. Indeed, when CVN-78 was delivered to the Navy in 2017, none of the 11 advanced weapon elevators (AWE) were operational. Certification of the systems was delayed due to alignment errors, electromagnetic tolerance incompatibilities, door sealing issues and software instability; this situation postponed the ship’s originally planned deployment date from 2018 to late 2022.

The US Navy implemented three key solutions to overcome this integration crisis:

-Multidisciplinary Expert Panel: An independent technical committee comprising experts in electromagnetic systems, software, system integration, fabrication and production control was established to oversee work at the shipyard.

-Land-Based Test Site: A ‘Land-Based Test Site’ was constructed within the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard to simulate the electromagnetic lift components on land and resolve any faults.

-Software and Physical Digital Twin: Thanks to the digital twin infrastructure established at Newport News Shipyard, the mechanical movements of the lifts and software scenarios were tested in a virtual environment, thereby accelerating the debugging processes.

As a result of these steps, the lifts were completed in phases; following shock tests, the final lift was handed over to the crew in December 2021, bringing the system fully into operation.

Another significant integration challenge arose in crew planning and living quarters. The Ford-class was designed to operate with approximately 20% fewer crew members (~4,600 personnel) compared to the Nimitz-class, thanks to its high level of automation, and its berthing capacity was limited to 4,660 berths (1,100 fewer than the Nimitz). However, due to the maintenance and repair workload and personnel requirements of complex systems such as EMALS, AAG and AWE not being fully anticipated in the initial phase, the estimated crew requirement on the ship rose to between 4,656 and 4,758, creating a significant berthing capacity bottleneck on board.

Safety Risks Encountered During Landing and Take-off

Active operational hours on the flight deck, during which aircraft land and take off, constitute one of the most hazardous working environments under military standards. During this process, the position and movements of the aircraft elevators harbour potential risks that could directly affect flight safety and pilots’ approach routes.

Landing Signal Officers (LSOs), who direct aircraft landings, are stationed on the port side, on the LSO Platform immediately behind (at the stern of) the port aircraft elevator. LSOs monitor aircraft approach glide paths in real-time via the Integrated Launch and Landing Television Surveillance System (ILARTS) and HUD displays. In a standard Case I, II or III landing procedure, to ensure the aircraft makes a perfect approach, there must be a vertical safety margin of exactly 11 feet between the aircraft’s tailhook and the ship’s stern round-off, and the touchdown (wheel contact) must occur exactly 180 feet ahead of the round-down. During landing, the tolerance limits for the aircraft deviating from the course due to wind or sea movements are a maximum of 2 feet to port of the landing centreline, or a maximum of 7 feet to port as the aircraft approaches the final arresting wire.

Should these limits be exceeded on the landing approach, or should an aircraft or personnel be present over the port-side aircraft elevator, the runway is immediately declared a “Foul Deck”. In Foul Deck situations, the LSO activates the red wave-off lights using the “pickle” control in their hand, prompting the pilot to abort the landing and go-around. In accordance with safety guidelines, the Foul Deck waveoff procedures are applied as follows:

- Presence of Personnel or Vehicles on the Runway: If there is an active human or aircraft obstacle in the landing area, the approaching aircraft is directed to go around at a safe altitude ensuring it passes at least 100 feet above the highest obstacle on the ground.

-Other Technical Obstacles: Even if there are no people or aircraft in the landing area, should the runway be deemed ‘dirty’ for technical reasons, the aircraft must complete a wave-off manoeuvre to ensure it passes at least 10 feet above runway level.

The diagram below shows the flight deck architecture of a Forrestal-class supercarrier operating to 1960s standards. The diagram illustrates, from an architectural perspective, the two main catapults at the bow, the launch tracks in the midship section, and the geometric boundaries of the six-line arresting gear at the stern.

An examination of historical design flaws reveals that, in the Forrestal class—the first supercarrier class—the port-side aircraft lift was positioned immediately at the forward end of the angled deck. Due to this layout, the port-side lift not only obstructed the taxi route of landing aircraft but also directly blocked launch operations (waist catapults). This situation led to the runway being fouled (foul deck) every time the lift was used, thereby jeopardising operational safety. Learning from this error, in the subsequent Kitty Hawk, Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford-class carriers, the port-side lift was relocated to the stern of the angled deck, completely removing it from the take-off and landing corridors.

In emergency situations where aircraft cannot be stopped by standard arresting wires and cannot be diverted to another land base, a massive safety net made of nylon strips—known as the emergency barricade landing is stretched between the stanchions to bring the aircraft to a halt on the deck.

Damage Control and Redundancy Logic

Although sinking an aircraft carrier under combat conditions is extremely difficult, a ‘Mission Kill’ (Mission Kill) can occur at any moment. A scenario where the flight deck is hit, the catapults are rendered inoperable, or the aircraft/weapon elevators cease to function constitutes a Mission Kill scenario that completely blocks the ship’s offensive and defensive capabilities.

Historical Evolution and Flight Deck Redundancy

During the Second World War, on aircraft carriers using centre-line elevators, if an elevator was hit and became jammed in the lowered position, a massive gap would form in the centre of the flight deck, bringing all flight operations to a complete halt. Furthermore, during this period, to ensure redundancy for damaged flight decks, Yorktown and Essex-class ships were equipped with catapults on the hangar deck as well. Should damage occur on the flight deck that prevented aircraft take-off, aircraft could still be launched from the hangar deck. In fact, the ships were designed to accommodate arresting wires and an LSO platform at the bow as well, to protect against damage from the stern, and could recover aircraft by steaming backwards when necessary.

The transition to a deck-edge lift design in modern supercarriers has eliminated this single point of failure. Even if one of the deck-edge elevators is hit or malfunctions, the integrity of the flight deck’s runway is maintained, and operations can continue via the other intact elevators.

Hangar Compartmentalisation and Fire Safety

The hangars of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are constantly at risk of uncontrolled fire due to thousands of gallons of highly flammable JP -5 aviation fuel, munitions and hot engine components, are constantly at risk of an uncontrolled fire. The loss of the USS Lexington (CV-2) during the Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942 occurred because petrol vapour leaking from damaged fuel lines could not be ventilated, accumulating inside the ship and causing an explosion. This tragic experience led to the adoption of the open hangar concept in American ship design; the massive metal shutters on the hangar’s side walls are closed only during stormy weather, whilst under normal conditions they remain open to ensure natural ventilation. In contrast, Japanese aircraft carriers during the Second World War featured a fully enclosed hangar design; a situation that led to inadequate ventilation, the accumulation of petrol vapour, and created the conditions for the entire ship to explode upon a single bomb hit.

In the Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford classes, the hangar deck is divided into three independent compartments by heavy fire doors to prevent the spread of fire. In the event of damage, these doors are closed to prevent the fire from engulfing the entire hangar. The massive side tanks on board, meanwhile, house millions of cubic metres of JP-5 fuel, aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) and fresh water, serving both as armour and providing an uninterrupted supply to the fire-fighting systems.

The Reliability Philosophy of Hydraulic and Electromagnetic Systems

The redundancy logic in the Nimitz-class hydraulic aircraft elevators relies on the physical redundancy of mechanical components such as multiple pump units, spare hydraulic lines and cross-bypass valves. However, hydraulic systems are extremely vulnerable to high-pressure oil leaks caused by shrapnel perforating the piping, and to the oil catching fire and initiating secondary fires (Class-B fires).

In the Advanced Weapon Elevators (AWE) of the Gerald R. Ford class, however, cables and high-pressure hydraulic oil lines have been completely eliminated. The redundancy philosophy of the AWEs is based on the principle of ‘graceful degradation’:

-Modular Power Distribution: The lifts’ electromagnetic coils are powered by independent modules. Even if some coils are damaged due to shrapnel or an explosion, the remaining intact electromagnetic modules redistribute power, ensuring the lift continues to operate, albeit at a lower speed.

-Distributed Electrical Architecture: Unlike traditional centralised hydraulic systems, the AWE’ is powered via independent circuits from generators and local battery banks located in different sections of the ship. Consequently, flooding of one section of the ship or a power outage does not result in the complete failure of all lifts.

Maintenance and Repair Cycles and Sustained Maintainability & Lifecycle Logistics

In modern aircraft carrier design, the flight deck sortie generation rate (SGR) is as critical as the logistics and hydraulic/electrical architecture required to sustain this rate continuously over a 50-year service life. The transition from the Nimitz class to the Gerald R. Ford class is not merely a change in propulsion and launch systems; but also represents a shift from a reactive/scheduled maintenance paradigm to a predictive and condition-based (Condition-Based Maintenance – CBM).

Below, the engineering and logistical approaches of these two classes are analysed comparatively, specifically regarding the Advanced Weapon Elevators (AWE) and flight deck support systems that will operate continuously throughout the ship’s service life.

1. Hydraulic and Electromagnetic Maintenance Paradigms

The transition from the Nimitz class’s conventional hydraulic systems to the Ford class’s fully electric/electromagnetic architecture has fundamentally altered labour intensity and the logistical footprint.

Comparison of Maintenance, Sustainment and Reliability Criteria for Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford Class Elevator Systems

Parameter Nimitz Class (Hydraulic Architecture) Ford Class (Electromagnetic Architecture)

System Infrastructure Thousands of metres of high-pressure hydraulic piping, accumulators, valve blocks and sealing elements (O-rings/seals). Linear Synchronous Motors (LSM), vertical rail systems, frequency converters and PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) units.

Corrosion and Wear Monitoring Continuous monitoring of hydraulic fluid quality in a saltwater and high-humidity environment, monitoring of cavitation and galvanic corrosion in pipes. High labour requirements. Solid-state electronic components, electromagnetic coil insulation and rail systems where mechanical contact is minimised.

Failure Modes Leakage, pressure losses, valve sticking and hydraulic fluid contamination. Unplanned downtime is high. Software errors, transient voltage fluctuations, PLC communication failures and thermal stress.

Personnel and Labour Intensity A large ship repair department (A-Division) is required for pipe replacement, welding work, system bleeding and fluid replenishment. Modular hardware replacement (LRU – Line Replaceable Unit) and software calibration. Physical labour is reduced by nearly 30%.

Hydraulic lifts and catapult support systems on the Nimitz class pose a constant risk of fire and corrosion due to their tendency to leak. A single O-ring can literally take the entire system out of action, and locating the source of such a leak in maritime conditions can take hundreds of man-hours.

In the Ford class, however, the linear motors used in the Advanced Weapons Elevator (AWE) systems eliminate the need for cables and hydraulic pressure. Power is transmitted directly via electromagnetic coils on the rails. This drastically reduces mechanical wear whilst enhancing the system’s mechanical efficiency. However, the system’s fully electric nature brings with it a reliance on high-precision electronic spare parts (boards, sensors) during overseas operations.

2. Predictive Maintenance and Digital Twin Infrastructure

The greatest logistical revolution brought by the Ford class is the transition from reactive (post-failure) or scheduled (periodic) maintenance to the Condition-Based Maintenance (CBM) model.

-Distributed PLC Architecture and Data Collection: Ford-class lift lines and deck systems are equipped with thousands of smart sensors (current, voltage, vibration, temperature) and distributed PLC units. Millisecond-level current irregularities in lift coils or micro-degree temperature increases are monitored in real time.

-Digital Twin Integration: The ship’s integrated management system runs a real-time ‘Digital Twin’ for each lift and motor. The collected sensor data is analysed using AI-based algorithms to predict with high accuracy when a component will fail (MTBF – Mean Time Between Failures) before the failure actually occurs.

-Impact on Operational Availability: In the Nimitz class, when the scheduled maintenance period arrived, components had to be removed and inspected even if the system was operational; which could lead to ‘human-induced failures’ (infant mortality). In the Ford class, however, intervention is limited to modules that are signalling issues or showing a decline in performance. This approach minimises unplanned downtime, theoretically increasing the ship’s operational availability during combat by over 20%.

3. Overseas Logistics Support and Life Cycle Management

Given that these ships will be deployed far from US home bases (e.g. the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf or the South China Sea) throughout their 50-year service life, sustainability depends on the flexibility of the logistics chain.

-The Logistics Lesson from AWE Certification Crises: The AWE certification delays experienced in the early years of the Ford class demonstrated the risks posed by deploying the ships before the systems had ‘matured’ . In an overseas operation, a certified PLC software error or a specific electromagnetic coil failure cannot be resolved using a traditional naval supply chain (standard cast parts delivered by logistics ships).

-Reducing the Logistical Footprint: Electromagnetic systems reduce parts variety. Whereas a hydraulic system requires the stockpiling of hundreds of different sizes of pipes, valves, seals and litres of specialised hydraulic fluid; logistics management on the Ford-class is based on standardised line-replaceable units (LRUs). These modules can be easily delivered to the ship via aircraft or vertical resupply helicopters and can be brought online quickly using a ‘plug-and-play’ -and-play) principle.

-Advanced Remote Technical Support (Reach-back Capability): Should an unsolvable electromagnetic algorithm or PLC error occur on a Ford-class ship on an overseas mission, Digital Twin data is transmitted via a satellite channel (satcom) to the main logistics centre on the mainland and to the manufacturer’s engineers. This enables system downtime to be reduced through ‘remote diagnosis and patching’ methods without the need to dispatch personnel to the ship.

In summary; whilst the Ford-class’s automation and electromagnetic initiative caused serious crises during the initial installation and certification phases; it is an inevitable engineering transformation aimed at reducing life-cycle costs (LCC) in the long term, eliminating human error, and ensuring an uninterrupted munitions/aircraft transfer flow over a 50-year period.

Network-Centric Warfare and Cyber Security Layer

The digitalisation of military aviation and naval platforms, whilst geometrically increasing operational efficiency, has given rise to a new asymmetric front not found in traditional warfare doctrines: the Cyber Battlefield.

The radical transformation experienced in the transition from the Nimitz class to the Gerald R. Ford class has taken place not only in the lifting mechanisms of the elevators but also in the control architecture that manages these mechanisms. Whilst the Nimitz class’s analogue and isolated structure provided a secure environment completely shielded from cyberspace, the Ford class’s network-centred architecture has transformed aircraft carriers into massive floating data centres and, consequently, potential cyber targets.

1. The Control Architecture Paradox: The Nimitz’s Isolated Analogue Structure and the Ford’s Network-Centric PLC Infrastructure

The difference in control infrastructure between the two classes is the most concrete example in military aviation logistics of the ‘Air-Gap’ (Physical Isolation) concept in the world of cyber security.

Comparison of Control and Cybersecurity Architectures

In modern aircraft carrier architecture, digitalisation has fundamentally transformed not only launch and recovery systems but also the control infrastructures managing vertical logistics between decks. As detailed in Table Y, the Nimitz-class’s hardware relay logic—which was completely sealed off from cyber threats via an ‘Air-Gapped’ system—has been replaced in the Gerald R. Ford-class by a network-centric ecosystem comprising smart sensors and distributed PLC units. Whilst this takes operational traceability and efficiency to new heights, it introduces risks of cyber sabotage, Stuxnet-like ICS/SCADA malware, and mechanical failure caused by the manipulation of limit sensors.

Comparison of Cyber Security, Data Integration and Threat Models in Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford Class Lift Control Infrastructures

Parameter Nimitz Class (Air-Gapped Architecture) Ford Class (Integrated / Network-Centric Architecture)

System Flow Diagram Physical Switch… → Wired Signal… → Electromechanical Relay… → Hydraulic Valve… → Mechanical Movement Wi-Fi/Wired Sensor… → Distributed PLC… → Ship’s Main Data Network (CAN-Bus/Ethernet)... → Digital Twin / Command and Control

Control Infrastructure Hardware relay logic (hardwired relay logic), analogue signals and physical limit switches (limit switch). Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs), industrial smart sensors and microprocessors.

No Data Integration. Systems are completely isolated; operational status data is neither generated nor transmitted to the centre. Fully Integrated. Real-time sensor data flows to the ship’s main computer network (TSCE) and the Digital Twin platform.

NO Cyber Vulnerability. No software, software updates, operating systems or external data connections are present. Wireless (Wi-Fi) networks, PLC firmware updates, supply chain (third-party software/hardware) and data lines.

Sabotage / Threat Type: Only physical intervention, cable cutting, valve tampering or direct manipulation of components (Physical Sabotage). Stuxnet-like industrial control system (ICS/SCADA) malware, spoofed packet injection, data manipulation (Cyber Sabotage).

Potential Damage Mode Local system shutdown due to mechanical wear or sabotage. Damage does not spread to surrounding systems. Mission Kill. Mechanical failure or locking of lifts via false alarms caused by software manipulation of limit sensors.

Resilience and Recovery: Identification and physical replacement/repair of the faulty component is straightforward. In the event of a cyber attack, the system must switch to ‘Cyber Safe Mode’, which requires a software patch or the installation of clean firmware.

-Nimitz Class (Electromechanical Isolation): In the generation preceding the Advanced Weapon Elevators (AWE), the elevators’ limit switches, door locks and hydraulic pressure values were controlled by physical limit switches and hardware relay logic . The system contained no operating system, firmware or data network. This made it impossible for the system to be remotely compromised or manipulated via software. Physical sabotage of the system was required to cause a failure.

-Ford Class (Distributed PLC and Wi-Fi Sensor Infrastructure): In the Ford class, each lift shaft is managed by smart actuators, distributed Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) and industrial wireless (Wi-Fi) sensor networks integrated to reduce data transmission load and increase flexibility. These sensors and PLCs are directly connected to the ship’s main computer network, the TSCE (Total Ship Computing Environment) architecture, and consequently to the Digital Twin infrastructure performing real-time logistics analysis.

2. Industrial Control Systems (ICS/SCADA) Threat Matrix and “Mission Kill” Risks

The integration of Ford-class elevator software into the ship’s network implies that sophisticated cyber weapons, such as Stuxnet—developed for industrial facilities—could also be used to paralyse an aircraft carrier’s munitions supply chain. This scenario represents a ‘Mission Kill’ scenario, where the ship is rendered combat-ineligible without a single kinetic munition (missile or torpedo) striking the ship’s hull.

Potential Cyber Sabotage Scenarios and Engineering Implications:

-Software Limit Manipulation (Mechanical Failure): The data from the physical limit sensors determining the lift’s upper and lower stopping points can be manipulated via a cyber intrusion into the PLC firmware (e.g., a man-in-the-middle attack). The PLC may continue to supply full power to the motors, misinterpreting that the lift has not yet reached its stopping point. This situation leads to the structural failure of the lift platform, which weighs several tonnes, the bending of the rails, and the permanent blockage of the lift shaft.

-Thermal Sensor Spoofing (False Alarm / Lockout): By tampering with the data from wireless sensors measuring the coil temperatures of Linear Synchronous Motors (LSMs), the system can be made to display a constant ‘critical overheating’ condition. Safety software will automatically lock the lifts to protect the hardware. If ammunition lifts are locked in this way during an intensive air operation, it halts the loading of weapons onto aircraft on the flight deck, reducing the ship’s sortie generation rate (SGR) to zero.

-Wireless Network Jamming and Packet Injection: Although the Wi-Fi protocols used for in-lift communication comply with military standards (WPA3 -Enterprise variants or custom encrypted protocols), jamming the wireless network in a heavy electronic warfare (EW) environment or during an internal breach can lead to signal loss. PLCs will, as a fail-safe measure, lock the lift at the nearest stop.

3. Cyber Security Layer and Defence Architecture in the Ford Class

In response to these threats, the US Navy has developed Operational Technology (OT) Cyber Security Layers and ‘Cyber Survivability’ standards for the Ford class, distinct from traditional Information Technology (IT) security.

Cyber Defence Layers, Implementation Methods and Operational Objectives in the Gerald R. Ford Class Network-Centric Lift Infrastructure

Cyber Defence Layer Implementation Method Operational Objective

Network Tree &

Micro-Segmentation TSCE (Total Ship Computing Environment) backbone, rigid hardware firewalls and unidirectional data diodes have been installed between the main network and the elevator/launch PLC networks. This prevents malware that might infiltrate from the ship’s administrative network or external communication lines from spreading to kinetic systems (AWE, EMALS) (lateral movement).

Cryptographic Authentication Every data packet between Wi-Fi sensor networks and PLCs is end-to-end encrypted using specialised hardware cryptographic chips that do not exceed (latency) budgets. To definitively prevent interception (spoofing/man-in-the-middle) and the external manipulation of lift movements through the injection of fake data packets.

Software Flexibility &

‘Safe-Mode’ Algorithms: In PLC software, should inconsistencies arise between sensor data (e.g., a Wi-Fi sensor indicating ‘in motion’ whilst a redundant wired sensor indicates ‘stationary’), the system automatically switches to safe mode. To prevent mechanical failure caused by manipulated cyber/sensor data; to switch the lift system to a safe protective speed and transfer control to a manual/physical operator.

Whilst the Nimitz class’s analogue architecture provides 100% immunity against cyber attacks thanks to the ‘absolute isolation from the cyber world’ (Air-Gap) advantage; the Ford class has relinquished this isolation to optimise logistical speed and predictive maintenance, shifting the defence line to strict network micro-segmentation and encrypted OT (Operational Technology) firewalls.

This layered defence architecture (Defence-in-Depth) aims to ensure that even if the ship’s command and control computers come under cyber attack, kinetic elements such as weapon lifts and catapults remain isolated and continue to function safely.

Conclusion and General Assessment

The vertical logistics architecture on nuclear aircraft carriers has undergone a fundamental technological revolution in the transition from the Nimitz class to the Gerald R. Ford class. The Nimitz class’s proven but high-maintenance hydraulic systems have been replaced by the Ford class’s high-efficiency electromagnetic technologies, which, however, caused challenging integration processes.

Engineering analyses reveal that the performance gains in aircraft and weapon elevators directly determine the ship’s overall combat tempo. Whilst the integration and certification crises experienced on the Ford class clearly demonstrate the risks posed by the concurrent use of systems whose Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) are not yet fully mature in military projects; these challenges have been overcome and the systems made fully operational thanks to established land-based test facilities, digital twins and expert committees. Consequently, the developed electromagnetic lift infrastructure and the redesigned flight deck aim to ensure that the US Navy’s aircraft carrier fleet maintains its operational flexibility and overwhelming sortie production capacity for the next half-century.

Our Naval Aviation series will continue.

Reading the first five articles that form the foundation of our Naval Aviation series will enable you to understand the technical details and doctrinal background in this article much more clearly. I have provided the link below where you can access the relevant publications.

Take-off and Landing Configurations on Naval Aviation Platforms: CATOBAR, STOBAR and STOVL

https://strasam.org/savunma/deniz-silah-ve-sistemleri/deniz-havaciligi-platformlarinda-inis-kalkis-konfigurasyonlari-catobar-stobar-ve-stovl-4160

The Evolution of US Navy Jets from an Engine Architecture Perspective

https://strasam.org/savunma/deniz-silah-ve-sistemleri/motor-mimarisi-perspektifinden-abd-donanma-jetlerinin-evrimi-4166

Structural and Technical Evolution of US Navy Aircraft Carrier Aircraft: 1945–1965

https://strasam.org/savunma/deniz-silah-ve-sistemleri/abd-donanmasi-ucak-gemisi-ucaklarinda-yapisal-ve-teknik-evrim-19451965-4168

Structural and Technical Evolution of US Navy Aircraft Carrier Aircraft: 1965–2025 https://strasam.org/savunma/deniz-silah-ve-sistemleri/abd-donanmasi-ucak-gemisi-ucaklarinda-yapisal-ve-teknik-evrim-19652025-4172

Logistics in Confined Spaces in Naval Aviation and Maintenance Engineering on Aircraft Carriers: The Process of Returning to Operational Service from the F-4 to the F-35

https://strasam.org/savunma/deniz-silah-ve-sistemleri/deniz-havaciliginda-dar-alan-lojistigi-ve-ucak-gemilerinde-bakim-muhendisligi-f-4ten-f-35e-harekata-geri-donus-sureci-4173

References

1. Aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier
2. _Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier Grokipedia, https://grokipedia.com/page/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier
3. Modern Supercarrier damage control : r/WarCollege Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/ppwo7i/modern_supercarrier_damage_control/
4. New Technologies Improve Ford-class Carrier Sortie Rate Naval ..., https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/11/new-technologies-improve-ford-class-carrier-sortie-rate/
5. USS Gerald R. Ford: Inside the Most Advanced Aircraft Carrier Ever ..., https://militarymachine.com/uss-gerald-ford-aircraft-carrier
6. USS _Nimitz_ — Grokipedia, https://grokipedia.com/page/USS_Nimitz
7. Gerald R. Ford-class Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers, US Naval Technology, https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gerald-r-ford-class/
8. USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) Department of War, https://media.defense.gov/2021/Mar/08/2002662808/-1/-1/0/210308-N-ZY219-0133.pdf
9. Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier
10. FINAL AIRCRAFT ELEVATOR INSTALLED ON GERALD R. FORD (CVN 78) | HII Newsroom, https://hii.com/news/photo-release-final-aircraft-elevator-installed-on-gerald-r-ford-cvn-78
11. USS Lexington (CV-2) - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)
12. USS Saratoga (CV-3) - Museum of Military Models, https://mommtx.org/uss-saratoga-cv-3
13. Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group Returns from Historic Deployment - U.S. Fleet Forces Command, https://www.usff.navy. mil/Press-Room/Press-Releases/Article/3647965/gerald-r-ford-carrier-strike-group-returns-from-historic-deployment/
14. Aircraft Elevators and Ship Lifts for Surface Combatants | L3Harris® Fast. Forward., https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/aircraft-elevators-and-ship-lifts-surface-combatants
15. Marine Elevators and Lifts - Jered, LLC, https://www.jered.com/products/marine-elevators-lifts/
16. Aviation Boatswain's Mate Course Overview | PDF | Drill | Nut (Hardware) - Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/7841122/US-Navy-Course-NAVEDTRA-14311-Aviation-Boatswain-s-Mate-H
17. ABH Manual Chapter Review Questions — Flashcards - Cram, https://www.cram.com/flashcards/abh-manual-chapter-review-questions-6924979
18. ABH Exam Questions — Flashcards - Cram, https://www.cram.com/flashcards/abh-exam-questions-2300805
19. Navy Shipboard Cargo and Weapons Elevator Controller and Sensor Subsystem Problem Analysis. - DTIC, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA110443.pdf
20. Navy Full Court Press on USS Gerald R. Ford Weapons Elevators ..., https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2238301/navy-full-court-press-on-uss-gerald-r-ford-weapons-elevators/
21. Why were Japanese carriers less effective at damage control compared to American carriers? - Quora, https://www.quora.com/Why-were-Japanese-carriers-less-effective-at-damage-control-compared-to-American-carriers
22. DOT&E FY2025 Annual Report - Navy - CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford-class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier - Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, https://www.dote. osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2025/navy/2025cvn78.pdf?ver=0eJ608EMZGeBtqrgvKOxoA%3D%3D
23. Modern United States Navy carrier air operations - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_United_States_Navy_carrier_air_operations
24. The U.S. Navy's New Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Looks Powerful – But It Has Major Problems, https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/02/the-u-s-navys-new-nuclear-aircraft-carrier-looks-powerful-but-it-has-major-problems/
25. US Navy completes final weapons elevator on aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford - Defense News, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/12/23/us-navy-completes-final-weapons-elevator-on-aircraft-carrier-gerald-r-ford/
26. CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford-class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier - Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2019/navy/2019cvn78.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115502-643
27. Flight Deck Operations - WELCOME TO THE HOME OF THE REAPERS, https://taskforcereaper.weebly.com/flight-deck-operations.html
28. Landing signal officer - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_signal_officer
29. Forrestal-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrestal-class_aircraft_carrier
30. Aircraft Carrier Flight Deck Design Guidelines | PDF - Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/61731993/Flight-Deck-Design-Guidelines
31. Modern Aircraft Carrier - Boat Design Net, https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/modern-aircraft-carrier.6602/
32. How would a ‘middle’ elevator be used on WW2 aircraft carriers? Some have only 2, some have 3. Some, like the Essex, have the middle elevator moved to the side. How does this improve the efficiency of flight deck operations? : r/Warships - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/Warships/comments/1ga75bh/how_would_middle_elevator_be_used_on_ww2_aircraft/
33. Side-mounted aircraft elevators - NavWeaps Forums - Tapatalk, https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/side -mounted-aircraft-elevators-t21606.html
34. F6F-3 Hellcat 27 of VF-1 launches from the hangar deck catapult on board the carrier USS Yorktown (CV-10) 3 June 1943. - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WWIIplanes/comments/1ox9z3q/f6f3_hellcat_27_of_vf1_launches_from_the_hangar/
35. IJN vs USN damage control : r/WarCollege - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/13s3r4p/ijn_vs_usn_damage_control/
36. [2010 × 3036] Aircraft Elevator of the former HMS Illustrious : r/WarshipPorn - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/a9g3d8/2010_3036_aircraft_elevator_of_the_former_hms/
37. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA110443.pdf
38. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article-View/Article/2161277/fifth-advanced-weapons-elevator-certified-aboard-uss-gerald-r-ford-cvn-78/
39. https://www.airpac.navy. mil/Organisation/Distinguished-Visitor-Info/Important-Links-and-Info/
40. https://www.waru.edu/sites/default/files/Migrated/CopDocuments/FY22DOTEAnnualReport.pdf
41. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/these-photos-of-uss-gerald-r-ford-and-uss-harry-s-truman-operating-together-highlight-the-differences-between-a-ford-class-and-a-nimitz-class-aircraft-carrier/
42. https://www.seaforces.org/usnships/cvn/Nimitz-class.htm
43. https://www.seaforces.org/usnships/cvn/CVN-78-USS-Gerald-R-Ford.htm
44. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forrestal-class_aircraft_carrier_deck_plan_1962.png