• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump wants 'god****ed steam’ catapults on new aircraft carriers

Just going through google. the selling point of emals over steam was vastly less maintenance on aircraft and the catapult system, estimated at 4 billion over 50 years. One of the biggest issues was the steam catapults wear on aircraft frames.

In actual testing so far emals has been a failure. Actual runs shown far mor stress on airframes than steam catapults, cost a crapload more, and ended up being vastly more expensive and labor intensive to repair, as isolating electrical faults in the system is extremely difficult.

It is basically like the f-35 of the aircraft carrier world, it keeps promising but so far always falls short and needs to go back to the engineers. In theory this system would be better if perfected, however it seems to be quite a ways off from being perfected rather than just useable. The united kingdom canceled their ships from moving to the same system for the same reasons.

Sounds like the engineers went for perfect and over engineered what should be a fairly simple linear motor. Somehow they managed to **** up a very simple device.
 
Trump remains confused between the definitions of going steam and blowing smoke up people's asses.
 
Pretty much my thoughts as well. Why give up because something isn't functioning perfectly?

Because the catapults ARE THE PRIMARY weapons delivery system on the aircraft carrier. A carrier is worthless without them functioning properly a majority of the time. An aircraft carrier that cant launch aircraft is pointless. I would be with if it was NOT a primary system function, but the catapults are a primary function on a an aircraft carrier.
 
Yes, and they need to work out a way to have a single carrier with both systems as side by side redundant backups to each other.


And there is yet another issue, no one here has touched on.

We KNOW how steam cat systems fair under BATTLE-STRESS conditions...

Damage to disable, repairtimes, reliability after battle damage, volume and type of spares required... the works.

We've only got projections about the electric system.

We can TEST the system under simulated battle conditions, but it ain't near the same!

Nobody knows how well the electric system is going to work, under Battle-Stress.

It might work allot better... or not!

-

I disagree with having BOTH systems on a carrier. One or the other. Having both just increases the complexity of BOTH systems exponentially. They just need to keep working the bugs out of the electro cat and install them when they are ready and the bugs are minor and minimized. Till then stick with steam. The only concession I would make for a electric cat is set the new carriers up so the electric cats can be installed at a later date easily.
 
You are the resident aircraft carrier operations guru, have they got the bugs worked out on the Electromagnetic Cats yet? Last I heard they were have problems throwing the larger weights and wiring issues.

Still issues, being worked out. They are not as overall serious as beerftw's links, but there are certainly issues, and will be issues for years to come. That is kinda normal for new technology. The issue with overstressing airframes is serious, but is mostly a matter of getting the details worked out. The cats are proving capable of handling the load and getting aircraft airborne. There is an issue with the power generators for each cat, but they are frantically working on getting that sorted out. The new arresting gear system is going well and almost as exciting as new cats.

Summary: there are issues, it is normal for any evolutionary increase in technology(and even smaller improvements, see note at end of post for a funny/stupid story), it is needful to go to the new system(heavier aircraft and loadouts mean more power needed). It is worth a certain amount of concern, but not to the point any one would talk about scrapping them(which it is kinda too late to do anyway).

Note: an example of the silly things that turn up: when I first arrived at my squadron, they had the oldest F-18s in the fleet, lot 7s. They where getting old, and lots of issues where showing up that was going to limit how much more these old jets where going to last(cracking stress panels is bad). We got the word during my first cruise that when we got home, we would ****can our old birds and get brand new, newest in the fleet, lot 13 F-18Cs. First one was flown in, and immediately downed. Turned out the newest, greatest stealth aspects where a little too good. Tower could not see them. And so, for the first few months, we flew our aircraft with one ordnance pylon taken up on each aircraft by a pod whose whole purpose was to be visible to radar...

**** happens with new technology. Every single ****ing time.
 
Sounds like the engineers went for perfect and over engineered what should be a fairly simple linear motor. Somehow they managed to **** up a very simple device.

The cats have to be over engineered(side note, why is it so hard to type the word engineer?). Full failure = some one dying. The maintenance crews are going to be a bunch of 19 year old kids with high school educations. They will get the **** beat out of them. And they are going to have what is required of them increased regularly.

Because the catapults ARE THE PRIMARY weapons delivery system on the aircraft carrier. A carrier is worthless without them functioning properly a majority of the time. An aircraft carrier that cant launch aircraft is pointless. I would be with if it was NOT a primary system function, but the catapults are a primary function on a an aircraft carrier.

The problem with the new cats is not that they cannot launch aircraft. They can, and with some force. The problem is that they tend to have a little too much oomph, and that oomph tends to increase too quickly, resulting on too much wear and tear on the aircraft, shortening their lifespan.
 


The new electromagnetic launch system has a failure rate like a 1000 times higher than steam. They're also much heavier.

If I were to choose a particular technology right now I'd probably go with the steam. But these carriers are meant to be operational for decades. Also, retrofitting back to steam now would be even more expensive.

The real issue at hand here is spending $13bn on carriers that won't even be operational when we finish them.

Based on the latest report for FY16, EMALS failure rate is at 400 Mean Cycles Between Critical Failure. Way below the 4,166 requirement. It has 7% chance of completing 4 day operation, 67% chance of one day sustained operation. The report also said, “Absent a major redesign, EMALS is unlikely to support high-intensity operations expected in combat.”

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/other/2016DOTEAnnualReport.pdf

CVN 78 is the lead ship in the Navy’s newest class of aircraft carriers. USS Gerald R. Ford
is scheduled to be delivered in 2017. The design incorporates several new systems
including a new nuclear power plant, weapons elevators, radar, catapult, and arresting
gear.

In the last two CVN 78 OAs, DOT&E examined the reliability of new systems onboard
CVN 78 and noted that the poor or unknown reliability of the Electromagnetic Aircraft
Launch System (EMALS), the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), the Dual Band Radar
(DBR), and the Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE) is the program’s most significant
risk to successful use in combat. These systems affect major areas of flight operations
– launching aircraft, recovering aircraft, air traffic control, and ordnance movement.
DOT&E noted that unless these reliability problems are resolved, which would likely
require redesigning AAG and EMALS, they will significantly limit CVN 78’s ability to
conduct combat operations.

CVN 78 is intended to support high-intensity flight operations. The CVN 78 Design
Reference Mission (DRM) specifies a 35-day wartime scenario. The DRM includes a
4-day surge with round-the-clock flight operations and 270 aircraft sorties per day.
The DRM also includes 26 days of sustained operations with flight operations over a
nominal 12 hours per day and 160 aircraft sorties per day.

Based on AAG reliability to recover aircraft, CVN 78 is unlikely to support high-intensity
flight operations. AAG has a negligible probability (<0.0001 percent) of completing
the 4-day surge and less than a 0.2 percent chance of completing a day of sustained
operations without an operational mission failure.


EMALS has higher reliability than AAG, but its reliability to launch aircraft also is likely
to limit flight operations. EMALS has less than a 7 percent chance of completing
the 4-day surge and a 67 percent chance of completing a single day of sustained
operations without a critical failure.


DBR’s unknown reliability for air traffic control and ship self-defense is a risk to the
IOT&E and for combat operations. The Program Office does not have a DBR reliability
estimate based on test data. Because CVN 78 will be delivered soon and DBR hardware
is already installed in the ship, it will be difficult to address any significant reliability
issues should they arise.

[...]

As of April 2016, the program estimates that EMALS
has approximately 400 Mean Cycles Between Critical
Failure (MCBCF) in the shipboard configuration, where
a cycle represents the launch of one aircraft. While this
estimate is above the rebaselined reliability growth curve,
the rebaselined curve is well below the requirement of
4,166 MCBCF. At the current reliability, EMALS has
a 7 percent chance of completing the 4-day surge and a 67 percent chance of completing a day of sustained
operations as defined in the design reference mission.
Absent a major redesign, EMALS is unlikely to support
high-intensity operations expected in combat.

Emphasis mine.
 
Last edited:
There goes our tax dollars, which they'll take anyway.
 
Yes, and they need to work out a way to have a single carrier with both systems as side by side redundant backups to each other.

So you want to double the width of an aircraft carrier. I am sure that will work well...

Note also that that is only the beginning of the problem with your idea, but most of the rest of the problems also involve a lack of space to make it applicable.


And there is yet another issue, no one here has touched on.

We KNOW how steam cat systems fair under BATTLE-STRESS conditions...

Damage to disable, repairtimes, reliability after battle damage, volume and type of spares required... the works.

We've only got projections about the electric system.

We can TEST the system under simulated battle conditions, but it ain't near the same!

Nobody knows how well the electric system is going to work, under Battle-Stress.

It might work allot better... or not!

-

It is precisely because we know how steam cats work that we want to replace them. And we actually have pretty much no data on steam cats and battle damage. It really, really, really helps to have some knowledge of a topic you want to talk about...
 


The new electromagnetic launch system has a failure rate like a 1000 times higher than steam. They're also much heavier.

If I were to choose a particular technology right now I'd probably go with the steam. But these carriers are meant to be operational for decades. Also, retrofitting back to steam now would be even more expensive.

The real issue at hand here is spending $13bn on carriers that won't even be operational when we finish them.



http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/other/2016DOTEAnnualReport.pdf



Emphasis mine.


Failure rates are misleading, and many failures can be cleared in seconds to minutes. It is a problem, but not outside the norm for this point in the development cycle.
 
So you want to double the width of an aircraft carrier. I am sure that will work well...

Note also that that is only the beginning of the problem with your idea, but most of the rest of the problems also involve a lack of space to make it applicable.

Because doubling the width of the Carrier is the ONLY Possible way to have the two systems mounted on the same ship...



It is precisely because we know how steam cats work that we want to replace them. And we actually have pretty much no data on steam cats and battle damage. It really, really, really helps to have some knowledge of a topic you want to talk about...

lol... I helped DESIGN some of the components of the Mag system...
 
Whether Trump is right or wrong about catapults, the way he talks about it is absolutely inane. If he was recalling a truthful interaction (yeah, yeah, I know we can't count on that with Trump), then it shows just how ridiculous his management style is.
 
Most proponents of the Mag system understand that the tech is still immature.

There was allot of talk about a dual system, with an over/under arrangement, like a shotgun. The mechanical linkage of the under system uses, in common, the rail shuttle of the upper system, with a mechanical "Reach around".

It was more complex, but estimates were it would be more reliable than either single system. However, the MTBF of the steam system were so good, from a pragmatic perspective, given costs, and weight, it still made no sense.

Just go with the proven, viable technology!

I have spent the better part of my adult life designing high power magetic coupling systems, ion accelerators, railguns, cats, trains, battle armor limb actuators, and the like.

Nobody wants to see the Mag system work more than me! But, our Nation's defense and the lives of our servicemen must always come first!

-
 
From what I've read, EMALS is technologically superior - but it's expensive and its development has been plagued with problems.

The advantage is that it could be more reliable in battle conditions, because it won't spring leaks like steam. But there's a reason we still fire bullets with hot gases and not with rail-guns. Thermo-mechanical pressure still provides more efficient power coupling compared to electromagnetism - so in that respect, Trump's actually right that steam flings stuff very efficiently. Electromagnetism can ultimately achieve higher acceleration - but to accomplish that within a short-distance gradient, means huge efficiency-losses and a lot of wasted energy.

How come the USS Ford is the most behind-schedule and most over-budget aircraft carrier ever? All that high-technology comes at a price.
 
Because doubling the width of the Carrier is the ONLY Possible way to have the two systems mounted on the same ship...

You have never been on a carrier, have you?

lol... I helped DESIGN some of the components of the Mag system...

Suuuurrrrrrreeeee you did, right after you cured ebola, right?
 
You have never been on a carrier, have you?

Yes... but not doing that work. I've done a great many different things in my career. I've spent more than enough time aboard a number of odd ships.

In my design work for the Mag system, I ran a computer in a lab, projecting magetic field patterns and field expansion and collapse rates, which were then turned by other people, into working models of linear magnet drive systems.

Nobody works on such a complex system from end to end, not even the project manager. Its too big a task for a single person to encompass.

Suuuurrrrrrreeeee you did, right after you cured ebola, right?

You've got a real problem with Kurmugeon Obsession... Let it go.

-
 
Yes... but not doing that work. I've done a great many different things in my career. I've spent more than enough time aboard a number of odd ships.

In my design work for the Mag system, I ran a computer in a lab, projecting magetic field patterns and field expansion and collapse rates, which were then turned by other people, into working models of linear magnet drive systems.

Nobody works on such a complex system from end to end, not even the project manager. Its too big a task for a single person to encompass.



You've got a real problem with Kurmugeon Obsession... Let it go.

-

I'm flabbergasted that a poster of so many halfbaked threads about Muslims and Liberal fascists is able to string together enough terminology, to even appear to have an advanced understanding of mechanical engineering.
 
Remember, this is the same buffoon who clearly had NO IDEA what the nuclear triad was - which is only THE MOST important part of being POTUS.



Trump has shown time and time and time again that he has NO CLUE about military matters. NONE.


And those of you Trumpbots who agree with him - are you serious?

The technology is BRAND NEW. It has NEVER been deployed onto an aircraft carrier before. And the one carrier it IS on - the U.S.S. Pardon Nixon - er - the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford - has been operating under her own power for less than a MONTH!!!
Sure, before launching, it had some bugs...but nothing huge.

Jeez...ALL new tech needs time to work the bugs out of it. Especially military equipment. But no, on one word from your messiah; you are ready to dump a brand new system and revert to technology that is over - what - 80 years old? Because of a few bugs?

Steam catapults have LOTS of shortcoming's and Magnetic launch catapults have the potential to have huge advantages. It is safer to work with, far more precise, more versatile and far more efficient.

Give the friggin' technology at least a couple of years AT SEA to work the bugs out before you automatically dump it...sheesh. Or do want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to rip this untried technology from the USS Pardon Nixon just to put INCREDIBLY old tech in it's place?
That is ridiculous, imo.

This is nothing but Trump blathering - once again - about something he knows little/nothing about.

Donald Trump's Problem With the Navy's Electromagnetic Airplane Catapult, Explained

GIVE THE NEW TECH A COUPLE YEARS AT SEA FIRST BEFORE YOU WRITE IT OFF.
 
Last edited:
Remember, this is the same buffoon who clearly had NO IDEA what the nuclear triad was - which is only THE MOST important part of being POTUS.



Trump has shown time and time and time again that he has NO CLUE about military matters. NONE.


And those of you Trumpbots who agree with him - are you serious?

The technology is BRAND NEW. It has NEVER been deployed onto an aircraft carrier before. And the one carrier it IS on - the U.S.S. Pardon Nixon - er - the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford - has been operating under her own power for less than a MONTH!!!

Jeez...ALL new tech needs time to work the bugs out of it. Especially military equipment. But no, on one word from your messiah; you are ready to dump a brand new system and revert to technology that is over - what - 80 years old? After less then a MONTH?

Steam catapults have LOTS of shortcoming's and Magnetic launch catapults have the potential to have huge advantages.

Give the friggin' technology at least a couple of years to work the bugs out before you automatically dump it...sheesh.


What this guy said lmao...
 
I'm flabbergasted that a poster of so many halfbaked threads about Muslims and Liberal fascists is able to string together enough terminology, to even appear to have an advanced understanding of mechanical engineering.

Don't be too surprised, he's good at typing. That's about it.
 
The cats have to be over engineered(side note, why is it so hard to type the word engineer?). Full failure = some one dying. The maintenance crews are going to be a bunch of 19 year old kids with high school educations. They will get the **** beat out of them. And they are going to have what is required of them increased regularly.



The problem with the new cats is not that they cannot launch aircraft. They can, and with some force. The problem is that they tend to have a little too much oomph, and that oomph tends to increase too quickly, resulting on too much wear and tear on the aircraft, shortening their lifespan.
You sound fairly knowledgeable on this topic so maybe you can answer my question.

What superior capabilities does the new system offer and how much more expensive is it?

Im wondering if staying with steam is the pragmatic choice from an econimical standpoint. I fully support giving our military what they need to function at full preparedness i do not support overspending on things that offer little advantage over other technologies.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
I'm flabbergasted that a poster of so many halfbaked threads about Muslims and Liberal fascists is able to string together enough terminology, to even appear to have an advanced understanding of mechanical engineering.

"Catapults?" Jimmy Doolittle didn't need 'no stinkin' catapults!' Twin engine, propeller driven and a smaller carrier deck and the year 1942. Why can't a jet engine gin up enough thrust to get off a carrier today. There is also VTOL and STOL technology available. 75 years ago, what have the engineers been up to?
Besides DJT has a new USN Gerald Ford Carrier Jacket, just slip into it and instant admiral!
 
Sounds like the engineers went for perfect and over engineered what should be a fairly simple linear motor. Somehow they managed to **** up a very simple device.

It was messy because engineers have egos, and the EMALS is a perfect example of too many cooks in the kitchen.

It's new, and it will have bugs for a while until the deckplate sailor has a say in it's operational flaws. It almost always comes down the the catapult operators and ships force maintenance when working out the bugs.

In the long run, it will be a much better system than steam because it won't have to rely on the machinery spaces to provide the 2 sources of power required to launch. (steam & electricity) EMALS can be used directly from the emergency diesel generators in the event that the machinery plant suffers a casualty

EMALS is the future.
 
You sound fairly knowledgeable on this topic so maybe you can answer my question.

What superior capabilities does the new system offer and how much more expensive is it?

Im wondering if staying with steam is the pragmatic choice from an econimical standpoint. I fully support giving our military what they need to function at full preparedness i do not support overspending on things that offer little advantage over other technologies.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

The EMALS can run independently of the engineering plant (reactor & steam loop).

EMALS only needs electrical power instead of steam & electric.

EMALS can be calibrated precisely for the weight of the aircraft frame that is is launching, lowering the stress on the lighter framed aircraft and extending service life of the aircraft.

EMALS can be directly powered from any of the ships emergency generators. I believe the new carriers still have 4 EDG's......I haven't seen the schematics.

EMALS can be powered by portable generator sets sitting on the flight deck in extreme cases.

EMALS eliminates the need for miles of steam piping, and hydraulics. If you have ever been in a catapult room, you would see what looks like a big giant bowl of metallic spaghetti with hundreds of pressure gauges and indicator lights to a civilian.
hires_090121-N-3946H-122.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom