Trump Orders US Carrier Back to Steam Catapults

And the latest change to the second in the Ford class of carriers:

Yes...and the genius forgot! A nationwide rail network in the USA, naturally only with the reliably operating, good old steam locomotives.............................

.

Low value posts have been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

    This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

36 minutes ago, Why bother said:

There is a huge loss in performance (launch cycles). wear and tear on aircraft, inability to launch fixed wing ROVs. about 400 more crew members required, speed of ammunition handling by removing the EM lifts etc.

The US have not built a carrier steam catapult in over 20 years.

Thank you. Understood.

Shark or magnet: you decide!

https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2024/user-clip-trump-shark-battery-rant/5120806

21 hours ago, Muhendis said:

Nah!

Leave things as they are and we get more than another two years of hilarious entetainment.

You have a point there, after all, 'murica is already FUBAR!

22 hours ago, banyanman said:

North Korea has such a leader.

What ,do yo mean Little Rocket Boy ??? He's sure gone quiet lately hasn't he ?

1 hour ago, wavodavo said:

What ,do yo mean Little Rocket Boy ??? He's sure gone quiet lately hasn't he ?

Ever see "I, Claudius"? I suspect his sister would like to speed things up.

Supposedly he recently handed arms (maybe troops?) over to Putin to use against the Ukrainians.

Catapults are not enough!

Ai

Electromagnetic systems (like EMALS) are technically superior on paper because they offer precise, computer-controlled acceleration for a wider range of aircraft weights and faster recharge times. However, steam catapults remain favored by many for their proven, decades-long reliability and mechanical simplicity under harsh combat conditions. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Electromagnetic (EMALS)

• Smooth control: Adjusts power dynamically for heavy fighters or light drones.

• Less airframe stress: Applies uniform force instead of a violent initial jolt.

• Fast recharge: Resets in about 45 seconds between launches.

• High complexity: Suffers from higher teething and reliability hurdles at sea. [1, 4]

Steam Catapults

• Proved reliability: Operates with a long-established track record and high uptime (~99.5%).

• Simpler maintenance: Relies on mechanical and fluid systems that ship crews understand deeply.

• Fixed power: Lacks real-time feedback adjustments during a stroke.

• Resource heavy: Consumes massive volumes of fresh water and high-pressure steam.

Edited August 16Aug 16 by dinsdale

I suppose we should all be grateful he's not demanding to use trebuchet to get planes launched.

Catapults apparently really aren't enough. The President has indicated that he prefers the aesthetic of a WW2 Aircraft Carrier over the design of the Ford class.

The U.S. Navy is considering a major redesign of its new aircraft carriers to better match President Donald Trump’s preferred aesthetic for the warships, according to seven current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The service is evaluating the feasibility of moving the multistory tower that acts as the carrier’s command center farther forward, toward the middle of the ship, to resemble older vessels, the officials said. The review, which has not been previously reported, is in response to Trump’s concerns about the “look” of the new Ford-class ships, where the tower is near the rear, these people said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/08/15/navy-weighs-major-warship-redesign-match-trumps-preferences/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzg2NzY2NDAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzg4MTQ4Nzk5LCJpYXQiOjE3ODY3NjY0MDAsImp0aSI6ImFjZWYwNDc1LTQxOGMtNGQ1ZC05OTZjLTVjODU3NDYxNzU4MSIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9uYXRpb25hbC1zZWN1cml0eS8yMDI2LzA4LzE1L25hdnktd2VpZ2hzLW1ham9yLXdhcnNoaXAtcmVkZXNpZ24tbWF0Y2gtdHJ1bXBzLXByZWZlcmVuY2VzLyJ9.GT8bP7_n_BRpYrwHWLXQ5YPx_6F7iwfRRqDTRgFBF4Q

Maybe get rid of the clumsy looking angled flight decks as well.

On 8/15/2026 at 12:47 PM, Mavideol said:

and that's the quote of the week, Trump is a specialist of stupidity and knows nothing about aircraft carriers or anything else, he should keep doing his preferred activity which is BS

Seems it's you that knows nothing about the pro's and cons of both aircraft launching systems on carriers. As it stands 10 out of the 11 active carriers (Nimitz Class) use steam launching systems. Only the Gerald A. Ford uses EMALS. As I posted above steam is reliable and easily maintained.

Sails don't require fuel like engines do. I am guessing that is the next initiative from the brilliant military mind.

14 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Seems it's you that knows nothing about the pro's and cons of both aircraft launching systems on carriers. As it stands 10 out of the 11 active carriers (Nimitz Class) use steam launching systems. Only the Gerald A. Ford uses EMALS. As I posted above steam is reliable and easily maintained.

BS. Steam is notorious for requiring large maintenance crews and having poor turnaround times. It also has to be reconfigured every time there is a weight change in the aircraft launched.

EMALS can handle a wide range of weights, and has faster recharge times than steam.

14 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Seems it's you that knows nothing about the pro's and cons of both aircraft launching systems on carriers.

33 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Seems it's you that knows nothing about the pro's and cons of both aircraft launching systems on carriers. As it stands 10 out of the 11 active carriers (Nimitz Class) use steam launching systems. Only the Gerald A. Ford uses EMALS. As I posted above steam is reliable and easily maintained.

and because you are a specialist we will have to trust you

Edited August 16Aug 16 by Mavideol

37 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Seems it's you that knows nothing about the pro's and cons of both aircraft launching systems on carriers. As it stands 10 out of the 11 active carriers (Nimitz Class) use steam launching systems. Only the Gerald A. Ford uses EMALS. As I posted above steam is reliable and easily maintained.

Seems it's you that knows nothing about the pro's and cons of both aircraft launching systems on carriers.

Steam is NOT easily maintained and requires a larger/additional crew. There are also lengthy periods on long deployments where only two of three cats are available due to lengthy maintenance on the non-operational one (sometimes two)!

Steam's launching rate is much slower than EMLS! Steam is not as variable in output as EMLS meaning that the wear and tear on aircraft is drastically reduced with EMLS and smalled fixed wing aircraft/UAVs can use the launchers.

The last steam systems installed were 20 years ago.

Even the latest Chinese and planned French Aircraft carrier use EMLS

Edited August 16Aug 16 by scottiejohn

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Proved reliability: Operates with a long-established track record and high uptime (~99.5%).

That figure does not represent the figure for all three systems on a US CVN but the availability of having at least one available!

I suspect that after the 60 day report lands on his desk Trump will ignore it and order the shipyard to revert to steam despite all the cost and delays that will be incurred. If so all the lower and higher courts will be inundated by all the bodies fighting the very high costs and delays involved, thereby incurring even more delays!

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Ai

Electromagnetic systems (like EMALS) are technically superior on paper because they offer precise, computer-controlled acceleration for a wider range of aircraft weights and faster recharge times. However, steam catapults remain favored by many for their proven, decades-long reliability and mechanical simplicity under harsh combat conditions. [1, 2, 3,

, 5, 6]

Electromagnetic (EMALS)

• Smooth control: Adjusts power dynamically for heavy fighters or light drones.

• Less airframe stress: Applies uniform force instead of a violent initial jolt.

• Fast recharge: Resets in about 45 seconds between launches.

• High complexity: Suffers from higher teething and reliability hurdles at sea. [1, 4]

Steam Catapults

• Proved reliability: Operates with a long-established track record and high uptime (~99.5%).

• Simpler maintenance: Relies on mechanical and fluid systems that ship crews understand deeply.

• Fixed power: Lacks real-time feedback adjustments during a stroke.

• Resource heavy: Consumes massive volumes of fresh water and high-pressure steam.

I hope you fact checked the Wikipage, the Canadian Youtuber "Not What You Think" and the German Youtuber "Sea Power Reports" that your AI cited as sources.

Of course, given your expertise on Naval engineering, explain why the President is against EMALS, which you consider irretrievably unreliable, but he is strongly supportive of so-called Rail Guns on his Golden Battle Ships

The problem with your reliance on AI is that it cherry picks statements to support your Prompt, which you have decided not to share with the group.

Here's another AI generated statement:

Claims that EMALS is inherently less reliable than steam catapults overstate the evidence by conflating the developmental problems of a new system with the reliability of the technology itself. Steam catapults are mature but mechanically complex systems requiring extensive high-pressure steam, piping, valves and machinery, whereas EMALS replaces much of that infrastructure with solid-state power electronics, linear motors and digital controls, offering fewer major moving components and potentially lower maintenance demands. Early Ford-class reliability problems were real, but they reflected integration and maturation issues in the first-of-class installation, not proof that electromagnetic catapults are intrinsically unreliable. As EMALS accumulates operating experience and subsequent carriers incorporate lessons from USS Gerald R. Ford, the more meaningful comparison is lifecycle reliability and maintainability—not the imperfect reliability record of an immature first installation versus decades of refinement in steam systems.

Prompt: Provide a concise argument, limited to one paragraph, addressing the perceived reliability issues of EMALS in comparison to steam catapults on aircraft carriers and why these are overstated

Now, same AI, different prompt:

EMALS’s reliability problems should not be dismissed as merely the inevitable teething troubles of a new technology: compared with mature steam catapults, it combines a large number of high-power electronic, electrical and control-system components whose failures can have cascading effects, while CVN-78’s shared power architecture can make isolation and repair during flight operations difficult. As recently as the 2025 assessment, DOT&E reported that EMALS reliability had not appreciably improved despite hardware and software upgrades, with 8,725 deployment launches still insufficient to demonstrate the required reliability and off-ship technical support remaining a problem. Earlier testing was substantially worse, and GAO repeatedly warned that the Navy's reliability-growth projections were optimistic. Thus, while EMALS offers genuine advantages, there is little basis for assuming that its reliability will automatically converge on that of a decades-mature steam system: its fundamental architectural complexity and maintenance constraints make achieving comparable operational reliability a continuing engineering challenge rather than simply a matter of accumulating more operating hours.

Prompt: Provide a concise argument, limited to one paragraph, addressing the perceived reliability issues of EMALS in comparison to steam catapults on aircraft carriers and why EMALS is unlikely to achieve operational reliability.

Highlighted are contradictory statements. One says that EMALS is inherently simpler and easier to maintain. The other says that EMALS is inherently more complex and difficult to maintain. The AI is goal focused; its goal is to support my leading question.

The problem with AI is that it is stupid. If you have a background in defence engineering and design, you can construct a prompt that can give a truly informative response. As the SME, you act as a conductor, reviewing, rejecting, assembling the response, often step by step. If you are using AI to tackle areas you know nothing about, then it runs into trouble, unless you possess inherent skills as a researcher.

In your prompt, the two substantive sources are a pair of anonymous Youtubers. If you provided a response saying this is what these Youtubers/Influencers are saying, that would be a reponse with low credibility. But when its an AI response, that's suddenly more credible.

AI changes the research process. You straight away start with lots of sources, which you now need to study each of, appraise, and it might take you down a rabbit hole. Conventional research though starts with no sources. Somewhere along the line you have to form your own hypothesis, and test that with available data.

Ultimately, when it comes to head to head comparisons of defence systems, the people that actually know are not talking. And that's because that is operationally sensitive information, and they likely would be prosecuted for divulging essentially state secrets, whether that's EMALS is terrible, but don't tell the other side, or that EMALS is fantastic, but don't tell the other side that.

2 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

he is strongly supportive of so-called Rail Guns on his Golden Battle Ships

A failed (cost/complexity/barrel wear/etc) system which Trump still waxes on about.

6 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

that EMALS is fantastic, but don't tell the other side that.

The other side - China know that already; China commissioned its 80,000-tonne aircraft carrier Fujian in November 2025. Unlike the ski-jump-equipped Liaoning and Shandong, Fujian is fitted with three electromagnetic catapults as will the French on their new carrier.

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

I hope you fact checked the Wikipage, the Canadian Youtuber "Not What You Think" and the German Youtuber "Sea Power Reports" that your AI cited as sources.

Of course, given your expertise on Naval engineering, explain why the President is against EMALS, which you consider irretrievably unreliable, but he is strongly supportive of so-called Rail Guns on his Golden Battle Ships

The problem with your reliance on AI is that it cherry picks statements to support your Prompt, which you have decided not to share with the group.

Here's another AI generated statement:

Prompt: Provide a concise argument, limited to one paragraph, addressing the perceived reliability issues of EMALS in comparison to steam catapults on aircraft carriers and why these are overstated

Now, same AI, different prompt:

Prompt: Provide a concise argument, limited to one paragraph, addressing the perceived reliability issues of EMALS in comparison to steam catapults on aircraft carriers and why EMALS is unlikely to achieve operational reliability.

Highlighted are contradictory statements. One says that EMALS is inherently simpler and easier to maintain. The other says that EMALS is inherently more complex and difficult to maintain. The AI is goal focused; its goal is to support my leading question.

The problem with AI is that it is stupid. If you have a background in defence engineering and design, you can construct a prompt that can give a truly informative response. As the SME, you act as a conductor, reviewing, rejecting, assembling the response, often step by step. If you are using AI to tackle areas you know nothing about, then it runs into trouble, unless you possess inherent skills as a researcher.

In your prompt, the two substantive sources are a pair of anonymous Youtubers. If you provided a response saying this is what these Youtubers/Influencers are saying, that would be a reponse with low credibility. But when its an AI response, that's suddenly more credible.

AI changes the research process. You straight away start with lots of sources, which you now need to study each of, appraise, and it might take you down a rabbit hole. Conventional research though starts with no sources. Somewhere along the line you have to form your own hypothesis, and test that with available data.

Ultimately, when it comes to head to head comparisons of defence systems, the people that actually know are not talking. And that's because that is operationally sensitive information, and they likely would be prosecuted for divulging essentially state secrets, whether that's EMALS is terrible, but don't tell the other side, or that EMALS is fantastic, but don't tell the other side that.

I know little about AI, but thank you for a fascinating insight into it's "thought processes".

For some it has been the indisputable arbiter of many discussions. You have blown that out of the water!

Thank you.