As expected. Trump-focused personal attacks, insults about intelligence, Epstein references, distractions, and sarcasm... Almost no discussion of actual catapult performance data, reliability numbers, maintenance realities, or the engineering trade-offs. What a surprise. I’m glad the ASEAN Now comment section isn’t running the Navy’s engineering department. Here's few arguments about the catapult itself. Proven combat reliability: Steam catapults on Nimitz-class carriers have delivered decades of operational service with a documented ~99.5% availability rate for at least one of the four catapults being ready. Battle-tested maturity: The technology has been refined over 70 years of continuous Navy use and is thoroughly understood by shipyard workers, maintainers, and crews. Easier at-sea repairs: Mechanical/hydraulic problems can often be fixed by the ship’s own engineering department with standard tools (hammers, welding, valves) without needing specialized shore-based software teams or contractors. Independent isolation: Each steam catapult can be physically isolated via valves, allowing maintenance or repair on one while the others continue launching aircraft. No shared high-voltage dependency: Steam systems do not rely on a common electrical power architecture that can cascade failures across multiple catapults if one subsystem goes down. Lower dependence on fragile electronics: Steam avoids complex power electronics, software control loops, and high-voltage components that have shown sensitivity in early EMALS operations. Established logistics and training pipeline: The Navy already has a deep, existing supply chain, spare parts inventory, and trained personnel for steam systems across the entire Nimitz fleet. Robust under damage: High-pressure steam plumbing and mechanical pistons have demonstrated resilience in real-world carrier operations; electronic systems introduce different vulnerability profiles (EMP, water intrusion on sensitive components, software faults). EMALS still lags its own reliability targets: Pentagon operational test data has repeatedly shown EMALS mean cycles between failures well below the required 4,166 (figures in the low hundreds in earlier reports, improving but still short of goal and still requiring off-ship technical support in some cases). Simpler recovery from casualties: When a steam system fails, crews can often return it to service with mechanical interventions; EMALS faults have sometimes required external contractor support or more complex diagnostics that interrupt flight operations longer.
Create an account or sign in to comment