• 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!

The Hill: Trump wants 'goddamned steam’ catapults on new aircraft carriers

Jredbaron96 said:
Sure you do.



That's not going to happen. The Ford was designed with EMALS in mind exactly. There's no feasible way to remove the system and put in place a steam powered catapult system without destroying the ship and American naval power for the next few decades along with it.
Click to expand...

I don't?

Not only Ford sailors but many of the shipyard reps that work on her.

Destroying the ship? Ships are "mach alted" all the time. If the system never reaches combat readiness reliability, then it will be losing jets over the side. At 60-90 million apiece, it won't take long.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
This all goes back to Rummy wanting to make tech leaps....this tech was not ready, may never be ready, but they decided to go with it. I am still not clear on what the advantage was supposed to be, this sure looks like another example of "We can so we should" ignoring that the tech was not ready as I already mentioned.
Click to expand...

To me, this is both yes and no.

Should this ship have been built with this system, I am going to say yes. Long-term, we do need a test bed for advanced and future technology. And the advantages are large. No more reliance on steam, which is very dangerous.

But should the entire class of ships be made around this technology? No freaking way in hell, not until those bugs are worked out.

Jredbaron96 said:
And your evidence for this?
Click to expand...

You can start here. I will spoon-feed you more information as you think you can handle it.

How not to build a ship: the USS Ford - The San Diego Union-Tribune
 
Oozlefinch said:
And that is a single problem solved. There are a great many more. Most important is the MTBF.

You say most bugs, then give proof to only a single one. I would call that a failure.
Click to expand...

This is how you fix bugs and issues. You test and test and test. This isn't rocket science or some new theory; this is literally the basis by which technology has developed for thousands of years. Yet every time something new comes out we get the same luddites damning it.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
This is how you fix bugs and issues. You test and test and test. This isn't rocket science or some new theory; this is literally the basis by which technology has developed for thousands of years. Yet every time something new comes out we get the same luddites damning it.
Click to expand...

And tell me, how do you continue? Build an entire class of ships based on systems that still need to have all the bugs worked out, or by using the single ship already completed and use that for the testing and fixing?

Because there are 2 more Ford class ships under construction.

And yes, technology advances. But that does not mean all technology works.

And BTW, I am not a luddite. You apparently have no idea what my career is, you are simply lashing out because I do not agree with you.

Here, I will say is clear and concise. Keep the Ford, and the system in place. This is the test bed, use this to work out all of the bugs and kinks so we really have a system of the future.

For the rest of the ships under construction, go back to steam. But leave the space available for a future retrofit to convert to the new system when it is fixed.

You know, we have had high power missiles and the like on our ships for over 50 years now. But we still have M2 .50 machine gun mounts on the rails. Why? Because if one thing fails, we can revert to older, proven technology. The military really does not like being forced to only use unproven equipment.
 
Oozlefinch said:
To me, this is both yes and no.

Should this ship have been built with this system, I am going to say yes. Long-term, we do need a test bed for advanced and future technology. And the advantages are large. No more reliance on steam, which is very dangerous.

But should the entire class of ships be made around this technology? No freaking way in hell, not until those bugs are worked out.



You can start here. I will spoon-feed you more information as you think you can handle it.

How not to build a ship: the USS Ford - The San Diego Union-Tribune
Click to expand...

My understanding is that steam catapults have done the job very well, they are reliable and they dont overly stress the airframes.

Why change what works?

Plus the Ford has the EMALS system for a reason: It confers a whole bevy of advantages over its steam-powered predecessor, said Andrew Holland of the American Security Project, a think tank. It has fewer points of failure, it’s lighter, and it’s more energy efficient with up to 30 percent more energy behind each launch — perfect for heavy fighters. And unlike the steam-powered catapult, the Navy can calibrate each launch’s speed to whatever type of plane (or drone) is taking off of its deck.
Click to expand...
Trump Wants New Aircraft Carriers to Turn Back to ?Goddamned Steam? Power Catapults | Foreign Policy

Steam has fantastic reliability so "Fewer points of failure" is irrelevant.

More launch energy is relevant if steam can launch everything we need it to, which I believe is the case

Lighter is irrelevant

"energy efficient" is irrelevant

Do carriers use drones and do drones need catapults? Maybe, but then maybe this is a case of new tech solutions in search of a problem.

I have also heard that when the system is working the new catapults can launch more aircraft per hour, but I am not aware that launch capacity has been a problem....so again if there is no problem then we dont need a new solution.



Note: I am not an expert in this area. I am looking for guidance from experts.


tyvm
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
My understanding is that steam catapults have done the job very well, they are reliable and they dont overly stress the airframes.

Why change what works?
Click to expand...

The arrow was more effective than guns for centuries, so why develop guns farther?

Steam trains, diesel power trains, batteries, fuel cell batteries, why try to advance anything if what you have now works?

The current generation has worked well for half a century, and we have a chance now to test and improve a new system that may prove to be even better. Or it may prove to simply be a dead end that is tested then discarded. But we will not know the final result until after we at least try the newer system.

This is where I actually end up in the middle of both extreme camps.

Some rush to embrace anything that is "new". That is why a "Newer Product" generally outsells the older version. Even if the only change is a new scent or a change in the coloring. People just assume newer is always better.

Then there is the camp that thinks that if something works leave it alone. That is the path to stagnation. Because if we do not improve something, somebody else will.

I am in the middle. Test and improve technology, but keep using the older stuff until the new stuff is perfected. After all, we did not stop making and improving conventionally powered ships simply because we got the nuclear power plant.
 
Oozlefinch said:
And tell me, how do you continue? Build an entire class of ships based on systems that still need to have all the bugs worked out, or by using the single ship already completed and use that for the testing and fixing?
Click to expand...

You continue by keep testing. You don't abandon a principle just because the first couple of times it doesn't work perfectly. You keep testing and you keep trying. EMALS is the way of the future. There's an engineering principle that would be good to keep in mind whenever new technology “The initial version of a superior system is always inferior to a mature version of an inferior system.”


You apparently have no idea what my career is, you are simply lashing out because I do not agree with you.
Click to expand...

You're right, and I don't give a **** what you do either.

Here, I will say is clear and concise. Keep the Ford, and the system in place. This is the test bed, use this to work out all of the bugs and kinks so we really have a system of the future.
Click to expand...

We agree on this.

For the rest of the ships under construction, go back to steam. But leave the space available for a future retrofit to convert to the new system when it is fixed.
Click to expand...

We can't revert to steam with the Ford class.

You know, we have had high power missiles and the like on our ships for over 50 years now. But we still have M2 .50 machine gun mounts on the rails. Why? Because if one thing fails, we can revert to older, proven technology. The military really does not like being forced to only use unproven equipment.
Click to expand...

We keep M2s because small craft used by asymmetrical forces like pirates and water borne insurgents are usually too small to target with anti-ship missiles. .50 cal won't do jack **** against an incoming supersonic anti-ship missile beside make the demise of said crewmen look a bit more badass.
 
Oozlefinch said:
The arrow was more effective than guns for centuries, so why develop guns farther?

Steam trains, diesel power trains, batteries, fuel cell batteries, why try to advance anything if what you have now works?

The current generation has worked well for half a century, and we have a chance now to test and improve a new system that may prove to be even better. Or it may prove to simply be a dead end that is tested then discarded. But we will not know the final result until after we at least try the newer system.

This is where I actually end up in the middle of both extreme camps.

Some rush to embrace anything that is "new". That is why a "Newer Product" generally outsells the older version. Even if the only change is a new scent or a change in the coloring. People just assume newer is always better.

Then there is the camp that thinks that if something works leave it alone. That is the path to stagnation. Because if we do not improve something, somebody else will.

I am in the middle. Test and improve technology, but keep using the older stuff until the new stuff is perfected. After all, we did not stop making and improving conventionally powered ships simply because we got the nuclear power plant.
Click to expand...

New tech is not inherently better, new tech needs to do important things better, and not just that, the better must increase the effectiveness of the military campaign.

Nice speech, but where do computer controlled magnetic catapults help us to win wars, because at the end of the day that is all that matters given that the hoped for cost of daily operation (Crew hours) savings has yet to be proven ? Given that the old Cats worked great and Cats not working means that the damn ship is useless? The Navy clearly wants to cut down the number of people it needs to run ships and I can groove with that, but you for sure dont do that if the tech is not ready..... that's just dumb
 
Last edited:
Jredbaron96 said:
We keep M2s because small craft used by asymmetrical forces like pirates and water borne insurgents are usually too small to target with anti-ship missiles. .50 cal won't do jack **** against an incoming supersonic anti-ship missile beside make the demise of said crewmen look a bit more badass.
Click to expand...

We also keep them because they have no reliance upon ship power. Even if a ship is completely dead in the water, the M2 still works.

This is known as "belt and suspenders". The military thrives off of this approach.

Hawkeye10 said:
New tech is not inherently better, new tech needs to do important things better, and not just that, the better must increase the effectiveness of the military campaign.

Nice speech, but where do computer controlled magnetic catapults help us to win wars, because at the end of the day that is all that matters given that the hoped for cost of daily operation (Crew hours) savings has yet to be proven ? Given that the old Cats worked great and Cats not working means that the damn ship is useless? The Navy clearly wants to cut down the number of people it needs to run ships and I can groove with that, but you for sure dont do that if the tech is not ready..... that's just dumb
Click to expand...


That is why I think the Ford should be kept, to improve the tech. But use steam for all others until they can perfect this technology.

And even if the cats do not work at all, the ship is still not worthless. Hell, half of our "flat tops" do not have cats at all.
 
Oozlefinch said:
We also keep them because they have no reliance upon ship power. Even if a ship is completely dead in the water, the M2 still works.

This is known as "belt and suspenders". The military thrives off of this approach.




That is why I think the Ford should be kept, to improve the tech. But use steam for all others until they can perfect this technology.

And even if the cats do not work at all, the ship is still not worthless. Hell, half of our "flat tops" do not have cats at all.
Click to expand...

Names Bitte

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult
 
ludin said:
again research research research

Gerald R Ford: Ready or not? - Naval Technology

it was known back in june. all someone has to do is a 5 second google search.
how is it i can find this out and you can't?

again trump is right and you are not. it wasn't that hard to prove it either.

The navy is already incurring huge expenses and is once again over budget by billions of dollars.
for a non-working system in which repair times can take hours to fix.
Click to expand...


defending trump is embarrassing to most people.
 
Oozlefinch said:
We also keep them because they have no reliance upon ship power. Even if a ship is completely dead in the water, the M2 still works.

This is known as "belt and suspenders". The military thrives off of this approach.




That is why I think the Ford should be kept, to improve the tech. But use steam for all others until they can perfect this technology.

And even if the cats do not work at all, the ship is still not worthless. Hell, half of our "flat tops" do not have cats at all.
Click to expand...


the history of tech is improvement. Your comments show that you are not up to date. Your comment also shows that since the chinese are also developing the tech you have more faith in them. Why do you want the USN to be backwards?
 
katzgar said:
the history of tech is improvement. Your comments show that you are not up to date. Your comment also shows that since the chinese are also developing the tech you have more faith in them. Why do you want the USN to be backwards?
Click to expand...

*I* am not up to date?

*laughs*

God, how I hate the blatantly partisan idiots that come through here.

And no, the Chinese are not "developing the tech", they have yet to even build a single carrier, let alone put any kind of aircraft carrying ship to sea with actual aircraft aboard.

In fact, they could not develop either of those two parts, but bought-stole them from others.

And you can really spot the partisan idiots in this particular thread, because I am getting blasted by so many of them for both supporting the development of this technology, and in wanting to see it perfected before installing it into any more ships.

Damned fools will only settle for 100%, and anything else is not to be tolerated.
 
Oozlefinch said:
*I* am not up to date?

*laughs*

God, how I hate the blatantly partisan idiots that come through here.

And no, the Chinese are not "developing the tech", they have yet to even build a single carrier, let alone put any kind of aircraft carrying ship to sea with actual aircraft aboard.

In fact, they could not develop either of those two parts, but bought-stole them from others.

And you can really spot the partisan idiots in this particular thread, because I am getting blasted by so many of them for both supporting the development of this technology, and in wanting to see it perfected before installing it into any more ships.

Damned fools will only settle for 100%, and anything else is not to be tolerated.
Click to expand...


your ignorance is wasting my time. you need to get some learning under your belt before you post again. Liaoning in Hong Kong: China gives world rare look at aircraft carrier - CNN http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...xplores-electromagnetic-carrier-launch-system
 
katzgar said:
your ignorance is wasting my time. you need to get some learning under your belt before you post again. Liaoning in Hong Kong: China gives world rare look at aircraft carrier - CNN China Explores Electromagnetic Carrier Launch System | Defense News: Aviation International News
Click to expand...

First of all, that is not an aircraft carrier. Even the Soviets when they made that design never called it an aircraft carrier. It was an "Aircraft Carrying Guided Missile Cruiser". And they still have these huge problems with aircraft for the ship.

Trust me, apparently I know much more about this than you do, try getting some real information next time, not just throw up a CNN story at me. Because if you look back, you will find I have been discussing this in depth in here for years now.

Now go away kid, you are bothering me.
 
Oozlefinch said:
*I* am not up to date?

*laughs*

God, how I hate the blatantly partisan idiots that come through here.

And no, the Chinese are not "developing the tech", they have yet to even build a single carrier, let alone put any kind of aircraft carrying ship to sea with actual aircraft aboard.

In fact, they could not develop either of those two parts, but bought-stole them from others.

And you can really spot the partisan idiots in this particular thread, because I am getting blasted by so many of them for both supporting the development of this technology, and in wanting to see it perfected before installing it into any more ships.

Damned fools will only settle for 100%, and anything else is not to be tolerated.
Click to expand...

katzgar said:
your ignorance is wasting my time. you need to get some learning under your belt before you post again. Liaoning in Hong Kong: China gives world rare look at aircraft carrier - CNN China Explores Electromagnetic Carrier Launch System | Defense News: Aviation International News
Click to expand...

The Laioning is a refurbished USSR carrier. Built by the USSR. To my knowledge the Laioning has gone out to sea with naval fighters aboard, but in general only for training purposes. Chinese carrier experience is very limited

But china just launched a domestic Chinese built version of it the Type 001A

Construction of a third carrier with a different design started in 2016
 
Oozlefinch said:
First of all, that is not an aircraft carrier. Even the Soviets when they made that design never called it an aircraft carrier. It was an "Aircraft Carrying Guided Missile Cruiser". And they still have these huge problems with aircraft for the ship.

Trust me, apparently I know much more about this than you do, try getting some real information next time, not just throw up a CNN story at me. Because if you look back, you will find I have been discussing this in depth in here for years now.

Now go away kid, you are bothering me.
Click to expand...


When you see a picture of a ship that has these broad massive flat areas on it that's not for soccer. Your unwillingness to learn is expected.
 
Oozlefinch said:
And tell me, how do you continue? Build an entire class of ships based on systems that still need to have all the bugs worked out, or by using the single ship already completed and use that for the testing and fixing?

Because there are 2 more Ford class ships under construction.

And yes, technology advances. But that does not mean all technology works.

And BTW, I am not a luddite. You apparently have no idea what my career is, you are simply lashing out because I do not agree with you.

Here, I will say is clear and concise. Keep the Ford, and the system in place. This is the test bed, use this to work out all of the bugs and kinks so we really have a system of the future.

For the rest of the ships under construction, go back to steam. But leave the space available for a future retrofit to convert to the new system when it is fixed.

You know, we have had high power missiles and the like on our ships for over 50 years now. But we still have M2 .50 machine gun mounts on the rails. Why? Because if one thing fails, we can revert to older, proven technology. The military really does not like being forced to only use unproven equipment.
Click to expand...

Re the bold section

I expect going back to the steam cat system would require significant redesign of the ship internally to provide the space for the boilers, pipes etc. I would expect the space requirement for steam is quite a bit more than that for the EMALs system. (not familar with either on a design basis just estimate. So to avoid the mass redesign on the Ford, could not the Nimitz class be modernized with the same control systems as the Ford class. If I recall correctly the size of the two classes is very close (Ford just a tiny bit bigger)
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The Laioning is a refurbished USSR carrier. Built by the USSR. To my knowledge the Laioning has gone out to sea with naval fighters aboard, but in general only for training purposes. Chinese carrier experience is very limited

But china just launched a domestic Chinese built version of it the Type 001A

Construction of a third carrier with a different design started in 2016
Click to expand...

Which is pretty much what I have been saying in here for years.

But once again, even the Soviets-Russians did not call it a "Carrier". They never did, because that is not what it was, that was not it's mission.

katzgar said:
When you see a picture of a ship that has these broad massive flat areas on it that's not for soccer. Your unwillingness to learn is expected.
Click to expand...

So what? Obviously you know nothing about how Naval ships are classified, and why.

Tell you what, here is a little test for you, since you are such an expert. I am going to post several pictures of ships. Tell me which one is the Aircraft Carrier.

united%20states%20uss%20iwo%20jima%20(lhd%207)%2001.jpg


140809-N-AC979-316.jpg


220px-Kiev_1985_DN-SN-86-00684r.jpg


1-image-01.jpg


SHIP_LPH_ROKS_Dokdo_Frontal_lg.jpg


Only one of the above ships is an "Aircraft Carrier". Obviously you are such an expert, you should be able to point it out in a heartbeat. Just because a ship can carry aircraft, that does not make it a carrier. If that was all that was needed, the Battleship USS New Jersey was also an "Aircraft Carrier", since throughout WWII it was able to launch planes.

Trust me, I know what I am talking about here. In fact, I actually served aboard one of the ships I just pictured above. And no, it is not a carrier. Go up to any sailor that served on it or it's sister ships and call it a carrier, and you they would probably have a stroke laughing.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Which is pretty much what I have been saying in here for years.

But once again, even the Soviets-Russians did not call it a "Carrier". They never did, because that is not what it was, that was not it's mission.



So what? Obviously you know nothing about how Naval ships are classified, and why.

Tell you what, here is a little test for you, since you are such an expert. I am going to post several pictures of ships. Tell me which one is the Aircraft Carrier.

united%20states%20uss%20iwo%20jima%20(lhd%207)%2001.jpg


140809-N-AC979-316.jpg


220px-Kiev_1985_DN-SN-86-00684r.jpg


1-image-01.jpg


SHIP_LPH_ROKS_Dokdo_Frontal_lg.jpg


Only one of the above ships is an "Aircraft Carrier". Obviously you are such an expert, you should be able to point it out in a heartbeat. Just because a ship can carry aircraft, that does not make it a carrier. If that was all that was needed, the Battleship USS New Jersey was also an "Aircraft Carrier", since throughout WWII it was able to launch planes.

Trust me, I know what I am talking about here. In fact, I actually served aboard one of the ships I just pictured above. And no, it is not a carrier. Go up to any sailor that served on it or it's sister ships and call it a carrier, and you they would probably have a stroke laughing.
Click to expand...


you are confusing the US Navy with the chinese navy...different countries. already post a pic of the chinese ACC for you.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Which is pretty much what I have been saying in here for years.

But once again, even the Soviets-Russians did not call it a "Carrier". They never did, because that is not what it was, that was not it's mission.
Click to expand...

Would you call the HMS Illustrious an air craft carrier?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom