Trump wants to reduce capability of newest aircraft carrier.

[Ranb]

Trump orders the Navy to return to an older system of launching jets off aircraft carriers

Trump orders the Navy to return to an older system of launching jets off aircraft carriers

President Donald Trump is ordering the U.S. Navy to remove the advanced system used to launch fighter jets from its newest type of aircraft carriers and return to using older steam catapults that he has long said he prefers.

apnews.com

President Donald Trump is ordering the U.S. Navy to remove the advanced system used to launch fighter jets from its newest type of aircraft carrier and return to using older steam catapults that he has long said he prefers, according to a directive issued Thursday.

The new mandate would likely cost billions of dollars and revert the Navy’s most advanced ships to a system that takes more sailors to operate and is more difficult to maintain.

The memo directs the Pentagon and the Navy to present Trump with plans to remove the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, also known as EMALS, within two months. It also says the Ford-class carrier’s electromagnetic weapons elevators should be replaced.

However, redesigning an already finalized ship for such a major system change will not be an easy task.

General Atomics, the company that makes EMALS, told The Associated Press in an email that the decision not to proceed with the system on the USS Doris Miller “warrants careful reconsideration.”

Rebuilding the United States Navy and America's Shipbuilding Industrial Base

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF WAR THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

www.whitehouse.gov

Sec. 2. Restoring Steam and Hydraulic Systems to Carriers. Within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of War, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, shall provide to the President, through the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), a plan on the required measures to replace the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and Advanced Weapons Elevators with steam and hydraulic systems for the construction of CVN-81, including timelines and resourcing requirements.

Hopefully the SecNav will have the balls to tell Hegseth and Trump to go jump in the lake.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

They will tell him that they will get right on it, but it will take a couple of years.
Then do nothing until some level of sanity has returned at the top of the country

 

[Ranb]

Reliability is still an issue, but I think the improved system is still the way to go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System#Reliability

 

[Flo]

Trump orders the Navy to return to an older system of launching jets off aircraft carriers

Trump orders the Navy to return to an older system of launching jets off aircraft carriers

President Donald Trump is ordering the U.S. Navy to remove the advanced system used to launch fighter jets from its newest type of aircraft carriers and return to using older steam catapults that he has long said he prefers.

apnews.com

Rebuilding the United States Navy and America's Shipbuilding Industrial Base

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF WAR THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

www.whitehouse.gov

Hopefully the SecNav will have the balls to tell Hegseth and Trump to go jump in the lake.

It sounds a lot like the war against solar or wind power vs the return to "beautiful, clean coal", and potential better kickbacks from the latter.

 

[PitPat]

It sounds a lot like the war against solar or wind power vs the return to "beautiful, clean coal", and potential better kickbacks from the latter.

I'm half-expecting a return to a good-old fashioned segregated military.

 

[PitPat]

dupe

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Hegseth is already doing that at the Leadership level

 

[Segnosaur]

They will tell him that they will get right on it, but it will take a couple of years.
Then do nothing until some level of sanity has returned at the top of the country

Maybe they can install a cheap fog machine on the deck of carrier. Keep the magnetic launch systems, but every time they launch a plane they can release a puff of smoke to make it look like its steam. Trump will never know the difference.

 

[ahhell]

They will tell him that they will get right on it, but it will take a couple of years.
Then do nothing until some level of sanity has returned at the top of the country

One hopes. I heard about this last night, my first question is why does he even have an opinion about what catapults to use? Turns out he talked to some ex-sailor who convinced them the magnetic catapults aren't as good for some reason. WTF? I can't imagine he's anyone who's ever been near a steam catapult during launching. Among the stupid things he has done, this is relatively minor, it won't kill anyone, but it is very very stupid. I had a friend who said there was a saying in Russia that amounts to, its ok to be stupid just don't be stupid and have initiative.

 

[ahhell]

Reliability is still an issue, but I think the improved system is still the way to go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System#Reliability

I don't actually have a strong opinion on which is better* but there is some information that I didn't see in passage on reliability. Mostly, how does it compare to steam. I guarantee they aren't 100% reliable. Also, what does a failure look like. Fizzles and nothing happen, it explodes killing everyone with 50 yards, or it launches at half power throwing the planes into the sea?

*I do have a strong opinion as to whether the President has any idea as to which system is better.

There is a grain of salt in this in that the US Military has a history of getting overly enamored with shiny new toys, except the marines, they seem to like the old tonka trucks and matchbox cars.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't actually have a strong opinion on which is better* but there is some information that I didn't see in passage on reliability. Mostly, how does it compare to steam. I guarantee they aren't 100% reliable.

Supposedly steam is seen as 99.5% reliable (according to google AI). Right now, EMALS is seen as around 98%.

Also, what does a failure look like. Fizzles and nothing happen, it explodes killing everyone with 50 yards, or it launches at half power throwing the planes into the sea?

I think its seen as "this catapult is available to launch a plane".

Another issue though, is time to repair. If something breaks on a steam catapult, it can potentially be a much more difficult problem to fix than a magnetic launcher.

 

[Norman Alexander]

They will tell him that they will get right on it, but it will take a couple of years.
Then do nothing until some level of sanity has returned at the top of the country

I suspect the military does that with all Trump/Heggie orders. Slow marching orders is an art.

Maybe they can install a cheap fog machine on the deck of carrier. Keep the magnetic launch systems, but every time they launch a plane they can release a puff of smoke to make it look like its steam. Trump will never know the difference.

Just tell him the new steam launchers use new invisible steam but are super effective. Like his farts.

 

[Flo]

I suspect it goes together with his particular form of illiteracy that make him misapply words like "asylum", "transgenic", and now "Maglev" …

 

[Tero]

Nobody understands magnets! They are so misunderstood.

Even Faraday played with his wire and magnets for years. Till he discovered you had to move the wire.

 

[Helen]

Magnets are green, just like wind and solar power, so we hatessss them.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Magnets are green, just like wind and solar power, so we hatessss them.

*paints magnet gold, watches a Trump son launch a crooked business selling Trump Magnets*

 

[JayUtah]

As should be obvious, the question is not whether Method X is more reliable than Method Y, but whether X is reliable enough for the job. If you can tolerate a lower reliability in X where X offers other advantages, then it may still be the better overall choice. This is more true when you have evidence to support the notion that X's reliability will only increase with effort. Understanding this is a big part of what engineers do, and why engineers scream in frustration when no-nothings like Pres. Trump try to overrule them.

The problem is that some of the materials cited to in this thread suggest that magnetic catapults do not meet the required threshold of reliability. As a supplier of technology that must meet arbitrary standards of reliability, I'm acutely aware of the artificially binary condition that imposes. You either testably meet the contractual requirements or you go fish. It's not always possible or advisable to try to negotiate a lower requirement.

There are always details and corner cases, however. For example there may be the notion that the last bit of desired reliability can only be achieved under production conditions. The contracting agency might approve a limited deployment for that purpose.

Honestly I doubt whether Donald Trump has the slightest idea what an aircraft carrier catapult is. This is almost certainly a decision being made by others.

I'm half-expecting a return to a good-old fashioned segregated military.

Under this regime that's a possibility. The carrier in question is the USS Doris Miller, a ship notably named for the African American mess steward Dory Miller who distinguished himself at Pearl Harbor by manning a machine gun and attempting to shoot down enemy airplanes—something that he had not been trained to do and which put him in mortal danger. The right has been seething at the thought of a Ford-class aircraft carrier being named after a Black man. Because renaming the ship is still a political third rail, tying the Miller up indefinitely for a refit and not letting it take to sea would seem in line. Originally the justification for the seethe was that Ford-class carriers should only be named for U.S. Presidents. But then they went and named one Enterprise, so no.

 

[ahhell]

Supposedly steam is seen as 99.5% reliable (according to google AI). Right now, EMALS is seen as around 98%.

I think its seen as "this catapult is available to launch a plane".

Another issue though, is time to repair. If something breaks on a steam catapult, it can potentially be a much more difficult problem to fix than a magnetic launcher.

Maintenance on the steam system is also a bear. I suspect EMALS is superior in many ways that outweigh the drawbacks, I'm not certain in anyway and like I said, the US military tends to be overly optimistic regarding new tech.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

there is no real problem with magnetic catapults, unless you want to launch planes at extremely short intervals. The idea being that a carrier would have to oppose an incoming fighter/bomber fleet.
Since every destroyer now has the anti-air capability of many, many fighter jets, this is no longer a serious scenario: planes are used primarily against ground, not air targets.
The number of planes in the air at any given moment is no longer the bottleneck, the number of available missiles and militarily relevant ground targets is.

 

[ahhell]

As should be obvious, the question is not whether Method X is more reliable than Method Y, but whether X is reliable enough for the job. If you can tolerate a lower reliability in X where X offers other advantages, then it may still be the better overall choice. This is more true when you have evidence to support the notion that X's reliability will only increase with effort. Understanding this is a big part of what engineers do, and why engineers scream in frustration when no-nothings like Pres. Trump try to overrule them.

The problem is that some of the materials cited to in this thread suggest that magnetic catapults do not meet the required threshold of reliability. As a supplier of technology that must meet arbitrary standards of reliability, I'm acutely aware of the artificially binary condition that imposes. You either testably meet the contractual requirements or you go fish. It's not always possible or advisable to try to negotiate a lower requirement.

There are always details and corner cases, however. For example there may be the notion that the last bit of desired reliability can only be achieved under production conditions. The contracting agency might approve a limited deployment for that purpose.

Honestly I doubt whether Donald Trump has the slightest idea what an aircraft carrier catapult is. This is almost certainly a decision being made by others.


Under this regime that's a possibility. The carrier in question is the USS Doris Miller, a ship notably named for the African American mess steward Dory Miller who distinguished himself at Pearl Harbor by manning a machine gun and attempting to shoot down enemy airplanes—something that he had not been trained to do and which put him in mortal danger. The right has been seething at the thought of a Ford-class aircraft carrier being named after a Black man. Because renaming the ship is still a political third rail, tying the Miller up indefinitely for a refit and not letting it take to sea would seem in line. Originally the justification for the seethe was that Ford-class carriers should only be named for U.S. Presidents. But then they went and named one Enterprise, so no.

I really do have to object to "the right" in that. I have no doubt that some on the right are that racist, I have significant doubts bout the right in general or even a majority of folks that could be described as on the right. A bit of reading tea leaves there, literally the only reason to think this is because of racism is because Trump is racist therefore this must have racists motives.

As for naming, carriers were battles and previous which includes the enterprise, since the enterprise, presidents, admirals, and congressmen associated with the navy in some way. Miller is a departure from convention, a perfectly fine one but a departure.