The Navy continues to celebrate its new Ford class of aircraft carriers as a glorious addition to the nation's defense. Unfortunately, the facts keep proving the Navy wrong.

As first reported by Bloomberg, the inaugural ship of the Ford class, the USS Gerald R. Ford, failed its latest Pentagon evaluation. The Ford continues to suffer from system failures that prevent it from operating effectively in conflict. With the Ford already years behind schedule and over budget (now standing at $13.2 billion), this is a big deal.

The evaluation begins with the heartwarming assertion that the "assessment of [the Ford] remains consistent with previous assessments. Poor or unknown reliability of systems critical for flight operations including newly designed catapults, arresting gear, weapons elevators, and radar, could affect the ability of [the Ford] to generate sorties."

But the evaluation's details are what should really concern us. Consider a few of these gems.

Out of the four systems "critical for flight operations," i.e., that which turns a $13 billion floating city into an aircraft carrier, the reliability of the catapult and arresting gear systems is rated "poor" and "well below" requirements. The arresting gear problems are further exacerbated because of design flaws that do not allow electricity isolation and thus effective maintenance.

The Ford's command and sensor systems fared better but "failed to maintain detections and tracks" against targets in a "multi-target raid" training exercise. While the evaluation acknowledges that the "raid presented a scenario that was more challenging to the combat system than originally planned," that's no excuse. The Navy remains delusional about the threat of Chinese and Russian anti-ship ballistic missile saturation strikes. To operate with survivable credibility against those adversaries and perhaps even more capable unidentified adversaries, the Ford must flourish under the toughest tests.

Another not-so-slight problem is the "poor reliability of key systems that support sortie generation on [the Ford] could cause a cascading series of delays during flight operations that would affect [the Ford's] ability to generate sorties." In short, the Ford must be able to get many planes and drones airborne and refuel and relaunch them rapidly. If it can't manage that, then it's just a big target for the enemy, packed with nearly 5,000 American souls.

Next up are the Ford's "significant electromagnetic radiation hazard and interference problems." The evaluation says that the "Navy continues to characterize and develop mitigation plans for the problems, but some operational limitations and restrictions are expected to persist into ... deployment." Oh, great.

Could the Ford survive a torpedo near miss?

We don't know because "the potential vulnerability of [the Ford's] new critical systems ... to underwater threat-induced shock has not yet been fully characterized."

Could it survive a Chinese DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile slamming into the flight deck?

That information is classified, but the evaluation says the Navy has identified the "specific equipment that most frequently would lead to mission capability loss," aka the flight deck, catapult, and arresting gears.

To top it all off, the ship doesn't have enough beds for its expected crew complement. Oh, and the Navy "has conducted only one of the four planned [Ford] operational test events and has not resourced the remaining testing. This is because the Navy knows the Ford would fail those tests too. All of this means that the Ford is highly unlikely to achieve initial operating capability by the Navy's target of fiscal year 2021.

So what should be done?

First off, Chief of Naval Operations Mike Gilday should take some command responsibility and stop the spin. As an example, a Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman responded to Bloomberg's report with the platitude that the Navy "continues to operate and to test an aircraft carrier that has dramatic advances in propulsion, power generation, ordnance handling, and aircraft launch systems that will bring significant efficiencies and cost savings."

The evaluation and threat of near-term conflict mean that this is total crap. It offends any rightful expectation of value for money and the efficient delivery of national defense. Were this project the responsibility of a Roman legion, decimation would be the order of the day. Were it a private company, mass firings of top officials would occur. As of yet, however, only one person has paid any price for this debacle. And it was coincidental.

To be clear, this is a ridiculous situation. The U.S. Navy's aircraft carrier strategy belongs in the 20th century. Submarines, drone warfare, and stand-off, long-range weapons are the future of sea control. But even if the Navy won't accept that truth, it should accept that the Ford's current status amounts to unacceptable failure.