By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In the latest incident, an F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jet crashed into the Red Sea after a failed landing on the USS Harry Truman, marking the second such incident in as many weeks. Both pilots ejected safely and were rescued. This followed a Houthi attack on the carrier hours after a ceasefire announcement, raising questions about the agreement’s effectiveness. These incidents, alongside previous mishaps including a collision with a merchant vessel and accidental friendly fire, have prompted concerns about the prolonged and challenging deployment of the USS Harry Truman.
Read the original article here
Two $70 million fighter jets have sunk to the bottom of the sea, marking a significant loss for the U.S. Navy and raising serious questions about the leadership and operational readiness of the Truman aircraft carrier. This isn’t just a matter of unfortunate accidents; this pattern of costly incidents points toward a deeper, more systemic problem within the fleet.
The second jet loss comes on the heels of a similar incident just weeks prior, again involving an F/A-18 Super Hornet. These losses aren’t due to enemy action; they’re occurring during routine operations, suggesting significant lapses in training, maintenance, or perhaps even command oversight. The sheer cost, totaling $140 million, is staggering and underscores the gravity of the situation.
Adding to the concerning trend, a third fighter jet was accidentally shot down by a fellow Navy warship in the Red Sea earlier, highlighting a possible breakdown in communication and coordination within the fleet. Furthermore, the Truman has already been involved in a collision with a merchant vessel, leading to the dismissal of the ship’s commanding officer. These repeated incidents paint a picture of an aircraft carrier seemingly plagued by misfortune, potentially reflecting underlying issues within the naval fleet.
These events coincide with a double extension of the Truman’s deployment by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a decision that’s now coming under intense scrutiny. Prolonged deployments invariably lead to fatigue and reduced vigilance among personnel, potentially contributing to the rise in mishaps. The extended operational period increases the likelihood of errors, especially when paired with the already evident operational challenges.
The criticism extends beyond just operational fatigue. The repeated mishaps are prompting inquiries into the overall competence of the leadership responsible for the Truman’s operation and, by extension, the Defense Department itself. Questions abound about whether the extended deployment was a wise decision given the already apparent issues within the fleet and whether better oversight could have prevented the losses.
The sheer number of costly incidents raises concerns about resource allocation and potential waste within the Navy. The loss of two fighter jets alone represents a significant financial burden, potentially diverting resources from other crucial areas. The financial implications, compounded by the operational disruptions, require a thorough investigation into the root causes.
Beyond the financial consequences, the recurring accidents raise profound questions about the operational readiness of the U.S. Navy. A fleet that is constantly embroiled in accidents and experiencing costly equipment losses cannot be considered fully prepared for its responsibilities, and the implications for national security are not to be understated.
The pattern of incidents is sparking significant public discussion and debate, focusing heavily on the role of Defense Secretary Hegseth. Critics question his qualifications for the position and raise concerns about his leadership style and decision-making abilities. The extended deployment, despite a clear pattern of concerning incidents, only serves to fuel these criticisms.
The implications extend beyond the immediate consequences of the jet losses. These events highlight a broader need for a thorough review of training protocols, maintenance procedures, and command structures within the U.S. Navy. The loss of such expensive equipment is not only a financial setback, but potentially a sign of deeper, more systemic problems.
Ultimately, these incidents serve as a stark reminder that even the most technologically advanced military forces are vulnerable to mistakes and operational challenges. The response to this crisis should not only focus on immediate damage control and investigations but should also include a comprehensive reform of training, leadership, and operational procedures to ensure the prevention of future accidents. Ignoring these issues would only put the national security of the U.S. at further risk.