Trump wants 'goddamned steam’ catapults on new aircraft carriers

[ABX]

Riddle me this; why is he weighing in on and/or micromanaging things like this? Leave it to the military and nautical engineers who know best.

President Trump said he has told the Navy to return to decades-old steam-powered catapult technology to launch aircraft from the new Gerald Ford-class aircraft carriers, rather than use a new digital launch system.

Trump’s comments came during an interview with Time magazine, released in excerpts Thursday, where he bashed the new Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and said the Navy would instead be “going to goddamned steam.”.....

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/333040-trump-wants-goddamned-steam-catapults-on-new-aircraft-carriers

[XenaLee]

Riddle me this; why is he weighing in on and/or micromanaging things like this? Leave it to the military and nautical engineers who know best.

I know nothing about either system.... but maybe he is concerned about an EMP issue.  Maybe someone in the military voiced such a concern to him.  Who knows?

[r9etb]

Riddle me this; why is he weighing in on and/or micromanaging things like this? Leave it to the military and nautical engineers who know best.

He's a guy who latches on to things he hears, and won't let go.  Doesn't matter if he doesn't know a damned thing about it -- he needs to sound like he's in charge.

All he's really doing when he does things like this, is ensuring that nobody says anything unscripted in his hearing.

[goodwithagun]

Somebody with Photoshop skills can do something with this.

[Cripplecreek]

I want jets fired off the decks with nuclear splosions dammit!

[Wingnut]

The problem with "going (back) to g*ddamned steam" is that it would require a major reworking of the ship's innards. Ford was designed without steam piping running from the steam turbines all the way to the catapults. The Navy and shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries would be forced to rip out the miles of electrical cabling in the ship and lay down a complex new network of steam pipe. They would also have to rip out the EMALs system itself, which is smaller and lighter than the steam catapult system. Going back to steam would force the Navy to reassign space inside the ship, tossing something overboard to make room for the steam system.

EMALS is a poster child for immature technologies sent to the field too soon. That said, by all accounts the principles behind it are sound. Like any new technology the problems will eventually be worked out. It will almost certainly be cheaper and less time-consuming to debug the new system than to reintroduce the old one. While the President may be Commander in Chief, and the Navy has not done a good job managing the Ford program, micromanaging complex engineering programs is a bad idea. The President needs to make the Navy fix its own problem instead of handing it a new one.
More:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26478/donald-trump-emals-steam-catapult-aircraft-carrier/

[endicom]

"But some experts say Trump’s comments, already being widely mocked among defense types, aren’t without merits, lauding in particular his push to name-and-shame vast defense cost overruns on systems like EMALS.

“The president’s critique of the program is correct. He’s right to be frustrated and he’s right to step in and tell the Navy to pay greater attention to these overruns,” said Jerry Hendrix, a navy expert at the Center for a New American Security."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-aircraft-carriers-turn-202133053.html


He wants the military budget to be determined other than in Palm Springs.

[geronl]

The new catapult, when it is made to work properly (it's a new technology)

will save space, launch aircraft faster, need less maintenance (hopefully, as stated it is new tech)

[ABX]

Somebody with Photoshop skills can do something with this.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I cannot wait until Trump wants to build a giant robot.

[EC]

I cannot wait until Trump wants to build a giant robot.

You just had to give him ideas, dincha?

[Frank Cannon]

Donny isn't talking out of school here. The EMALS system is a money pit and sucks. Why in the hell are we putting garbage tech into our new high tech boats before it is ready? Granted there are about 2 more years till the Ford is shaken down and put to full use, but what if that isn't enough time to get this system running?

Then we are shit out of luck with a big ass boat that cost a fortune and has a deck only usable for outdoor luncheons.

[anubias]

Donny isn't talking out of school here. The EMALS system is a money pit and sucks. Why in the hell are we putting garbage tech into our new high tech boats before it is ready? Granted there are about 2 more years till the Ford is shaken down and put to full use, but what if that isn't enough time to get this system running?

Then we are shit out of luck with a big ass boat that cost a fortune and has a deck only usable for outdoor luncheons.

It's Donny, Frank.  They just gotta whine.  It's all they have.

[LonestarDream]

I know nothing about either system.... but maybe he is concerned about an EMP issue.  Maybe someone in the military voiced such a concern to him.  Who knows?

Steam catapults work.  The electromagnetic catapults are new technology- NT, which sometimes means 'Not There'.

Perhaps Trump has feedback that the new catapults are having issues-  which I have seen in articles about the new carriers. 

[Frank Cannon]

You just had to give him ideas, dincha?

I wouldn't laugh if I were you. You guys are building boats without any launch system at all which is strange for an aircraft carrier....

Britain's new aircraft carriers have no catapult system at all. The only fast jets capable of flying from them are Harriers (as operated by the US Marine Corps) and the F-35B. HMS Queen Elizabeth, whose sea trials date keeps slipping back to later and later this year, is planned to carry about 20 F-35s on her first operational deployment to the South China Sea in 2021.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/11/us_navy_emals_woes_uss_gerald_r_ford/

[montanajoe]

It's Donny, Frank.  They just gotta whine.  It's all they have now.

It's Donny..unfortunately

He has zero credibility with the majority of the country. Although I tend to agree with the view he is expressing he is the wrong guy to express it....

Mathis should be saying this...

[LonestarDream]

Donny isn't talking out of school here. The EMALS system is a money pit and sucks. Why in the hell are we putting garbage tech into our new high tech boats before it is ready? Granted there are about 2 more years till the Ford is shaken down and put to full use, but what if that isn't enough time to get this system running?

Then we are shit out of luck with a big ass boat that cost a fortune and has a deck only usable for outdoor luncheons.

The price tag for the three Ford-class aircraft carriers ballooned from $27 billion to $36 billion in the past decade, and the project is behind schedule in part because of the EMALS system, as the Atlantic reported. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, slammed the carrier project as “one of the most spectacular acquisition debacles in recent memory” in 2015.

-----------

From the yahoo article above.  The new technology is not just about ONE carrier.  IF a dud, the EMALS tech would cripple MANY carriers built in the future.  Perhaps a case for open architecture whether either system could be used.  OR at least have the option to build future carriers with steam catapults so we dont cripple the whole fleet....

[LonestarDream]

ouch

I wouldn't laugh if I were you. You guys are building boats without any launch system at all which is strange for an aircraft carrier....

Britain's new aircraft carriers have no catapult system at all. The only fast jets capable of flying from them are Harriers (as operated by the US Marine Corps) and the F-35B. HMS Queen Elizabeth, whose sea trials date keeps slipping back to later and later this year, is planned to carry about 20 F-35s on her first operational deployment to the South China Sea in 2021.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/11/us_navy_emals_woes_uss_gerald_r_ford/

[LonestarDream]

It's Donny..unfortunately

He has zero credibility with the majority of the country. Although I tend to agree with the view he is expressing he is the wrong guy to express it....

Mathis should be saying this...

Even when Donny is right , he is wrong!!!!

@Frank Cannon  @don-o

[Frank Cannon]

It's Donny..unfortunately

He has zero credibility with the majority of the country. Although I tend to agree with the view he is expressing he is the wrong guy to express it....

Mathis should be saying this...

Not so sure about that. When Donny says stuff like this the MSM jumps on it like it is a major gaff forcing the issue into the daylight. It would be nice if an issue like this got some attention.

[LonestarDream]

This stress "will preclude the Navy from conducting normal operations of the F/A-18A-F and EA-18G from CVN 78", according to DOTES, which said the problem had first been noticed in 2014.

In addition, EMALS could not "readily" be electrically isolated for maintenance, which DOTE warned "will preclude some types of EMALS and AAG (Advanced Arresting Gear) maintenance during flight operations", decreasing their operational availability.

The Gerald R. Ford is supposed to be able to launch 160 sorties in a 12-hour day – an average of one takeoff or landing every 4.5 minutes. She is supposed to be able to surge to 270 sorties in a 24-hour period.

Britain considered fitting EMALS to its two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers right back at the design stage. Indeed, the ability to add catapults and arrester gear to the ships was specified right from the start.

Lewis Page, late of this parish, summed up what happened when the government tried to exercise that option: "... it later got rescinded, on the grounds that putting catapults into the ships was not going to cost £900m – as the 2010 [Strategic Defence and Security Review] had estimated – but actually £2bn for [HMS] Prince of Wales and maybe £3bn for Queen Elizabeth. This would double the projected price of the two ships."

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/11/us_navy_emals_woes_uss_gerald_r_ford/

Lots of issues and very expensive even if it *were* to work.  Maybe just try on ONE carrier at first.

Seems risky....

I wouldn't laugh if I were you. You guys are building boats without any launch system at all which is strange for an aircraft carrier....

Britain's new aircraft carriers have no catapult system at all. The only fast jets capable of flying from them are Harriers (as operated by the US Marine Corps) and the F-35B. HMS Queen Elizabeth, whose sea trials date keeps slipping back to later and later this year, is planned to carry about 20 F-35s on her first operational deployment to the South China Sea in 2021.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/11/us_navy_emals_woes_uss_gerald_r_ford/

[EC]

I wouldn't laugh if I were you. You guys are building boats without any launch system at all which is strange for an aircraft carrier....

Britain's new aircraft carriers have no catapult system at all. The only fast jets capable of flying from them are Harriers (as operated by the US Marine Corps) and the F-35B. HMS Queen Elizabeth, whose sea trials date keeps slipping back to later and later this year, is planned to carry about 20 F-35s on her first operational deployment to the South China Sea in 2021.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/11/us_navy_emals_woes_uss_gerald_r_ford/

True. She's designed that way - no catapults gives more room for VTOL aircraft to provide an up close and personal punch and support. Our military stance, rightly or wrongly (I think both, on alternate days) is designed to go in close, not stand off.

Thanks to the Commonwealth's military co-operation clauses, theres only about two places on the planet that aren't an hour or so flight time from an existing airbase we can use for conventional aircraft, so why waste that capacity where it's not needed? Shortsighted, in my opinion - alliances change - but I'm not sat in the MOD.

[Frank Cannon]

Lots of issues and very expensive even if it *were* to work.  Maybe just try on ONE carrier at first.

Seems risky....

I'll tell you why this is being done. Because General Atomics promised this tech would be flawless but internally knew it was pie in the sky......so they could balloon the budget and live fat. What do they care. It's all govt' money anyway.

[LonestarDream]

I'll tell you why this is being done. Because General Atomics promised this tech would be flawless but internally knew it was pie in the sky......so they could balloon the budget and live fat. What do they care. It's all govt' money anyway.

The Potential:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-ford-class-aircraft-carrier-will-soon-undergo-shock-19692

Unlike steam catapults which use pressurized steam, a launch valve and a piston to catapult aircraft, EMALS uses a precisely determined amount of electrical energy. As a result, EMALS is designed to more smoothly launch aircraft while reducing stress and wear and tear on the airframes themselves, he added.

On the ship, EMALS will be engineered such that any of the ship's four catapults will be able to draw power from any one of three energy storage groups on the ship, developers said.

[edpc]

EMALS is a poster child for immature technologies sent to the field too soon. That said, by all accounts the principles behind it are sound. Like any new technology the problems will eventually be worked out.

Yes, but the steam powered catapults are known to fail at the worst times.  Hasn't anyone learned that from Top Gun?