By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to the Navy’s Pacific Fleet, a fighter jet and a helicopter from the USS Nimitz crashed into the South China Sea within 30 minutes of each other, with all five crew members recovered safely. Investigations are underway to determine the cause of the incidents. President Trump suggested that “bad fuel” may be a factor and ruled out foul play. The USS Nimitz is returning to its home port after deployment and is on its final mission before decommissioning.
Read the original article here
Navy loses two aircraft from USS Nimitz aircraft carrier within 30 minutes, and the immediate thought that comes to mind is… wow. Just… wow. That’s a significant event, even in the context of a carrier, which is a massive piece of naval real estate capable of handling a lot. To have two aircraft go down, seemingly in quick succession, raises a lot of questions. The fact that the President himself addressed it, even while aboard Air Force One, speaks volumes about the gravity of the situation. Initially, it sounds like there’s a quick effort to dismiss foul play and point to a potential cause, “bad fuel”, but that explanation alone doesn’t really cut it. It feels like there’s more to the story.
To lose one aircraft is, as someone wisely put it, a misfortune. To lose two, within such a short time frame, looks like something else entirely, doesn’t it? It suggests a deeper problem, one that goes beyond a simple mechanical failure. Someone, somewhere, is likely facing a very uncomfortable moment. And the phrase “bad fuel”, well, that opens a whole can of worms, doesn’t it? Do all the aircraft on a carrier even *use* the same type of fuel? It seems unlikely. Different aircraft, different missions, likely different fuel requirements. That’s just common sense.
Considering the recent string of aircraft incidents, it’s difficult to shake off the sense that there’s a pattern emerging. Remember the F/A-18 that went down after slipping off the Truman’s hangar deck into the Red Sea? Or the one that failed to catch the arresting cables during landing? These aren’t isolated incidents. They start to add up, and when you put them all together, it gets a lot more concerning. They are certainly not “typical.”
This situation does raise legitimate concerns about the safety of our aircraft carriers. And it’s hard not to imagine the kind of scrutiny and controversy this would generate if the roles were reversed. It’s the kind of situation that would likely prompt an immediate, high-level investigation. There would be a full-scale effort to identify the root causes. Congressional hearings, potential changes in leadership, and a deep dive into every aspect of operations.
One thing that immediately comes to mind, and it’s a bit of a cynical thought, is the potential for assigning blame. This is the nature of a large organization, and a military one at that. There’s almost always a search for accountability. But what we need to see is a proper assessment of the facts.
There’s the unfortunate history that’s already been provided of the USS Gettysburg mistakenly shooting down an F/A-18 from the Truman, and the aircraft that failed to catch the cables. It highlights this troubling trend of aviation mishaps within the Navy. It’s a reminder that these are complex systems, operating in demanding environments, with incredibly high stakes.
Going back to the Nimitz incident, the investigation needs to be thorough. The fuel, the maintenance, the operational procedures, the pilot training, the leadership structure… all of it needs to be examined. And, crucially, the findings need to be transparent. Public trust is important, especially when dealing with the military.
The discussion about who is to blame is almost a guarantee in these situations. It’s human nature to want to assign responsibility. But it is important that the search for someone to blame doesn’t overshadow the need to find the actual causes and to prevent future incidents. A culture that prioritizes safety and learning from mistakes is absolutely crucial in an environment like this.
It’s also worth noting the sheer cost of these incidents. Not just in terms of the aircraft themselves, which are incredibly expensive, but also in terms of human capital. Pilots are highly trained and skilled individuals. Losing them, or putting them at risk, is a serious matter. And in the wake of all of these events, there is a risk that the investigation becomes less about fact finding and more about saving face.
As the Ian Fleming quote reminds us, “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Whether the enemy action here is simply the universe being cruel or something else remains to be seen. But the Navy absolutely needs to get to the bottom of this. And quickly. Because the longer these incidents continue, the more serious the consequences will become.
Ultimately, these types of incidents are a stark reminder of the inherent risks involved in military aviation and operations. It requires more than just high-quality equipment. It also requires rigorous training, diligent maintenance, and a leadership culture that prioritizes safety and accountability. The fact that the fuel is suspect could be the cause. It could also just be a convenient scapegoat. The investigation will need to consider all these possibilities. I sincerely hope that it does.