Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

nitpicker

(7,153 posts)
Wed May 17, 2017, 06:37 AM May 2017

Why the Navy is switching from 'goddamned steam' catapults

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/333681-why-the-navy-is-switching-from-goddamned-steam-catapults

Why the Navy is switching from 'goddamned steam' catapults

By Ellen Mitchell - 05/16/17 04:17 PM EDT

A digital launch system installed on the new USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier has become President Trump’s newest defense industry target. Trump, who since December has bashed cost overruns in the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 fighter jet and the Boeing-produced Air Force One, recently turned his attention to the Navy’s Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). Rather than use EMALS, Trump said he told the Navy to return to “goddamned steam” catapult technology to launch aircraft from newly built aircraft carriers, according to an interview he did with Time magazine. But switching the catapult system would cost the Navy millions of dollars extra on a ship already pegged at $12.9 billion, the most expensive vessel in U.S. history, according to defense experts.
(snip)

EMALS, made by defense contractor General Atomics, is already installed on the Ford, the first of three new aircraft carriers made by Huntington Ingalls.
(snip)

A Huntington Ingalls spokeswoman said the Ford has been through its builder’s trials at the Newport News shipyard and has been sent to Norfolk, Va., where the ship is awaiting delivering to the Navy. “EMALS is fully functional at this point,” she told The Hill. Huntington Ingalls and General Atomics referred further questions on EMALS and Trump’s comments to the Navy.

EMALS will replace the more than 60-year-old steam-powered catapult systems used to launch aircraft. Developed in the 1950s, the catapults used steam piped from the ship’s turbines to reliably launch planes. The system does have its downsides. Steam catapults can damage or reduce the life of the airframe, take up more space on ships, are harder to maintain and can’t launch as many planes as electrical ones. It’s also difficult to control when launching different types of aircraft, such as drones versus a fighter jet.

EMALS has also had its fair share of problems. The system’s development was plagued with issues, which some attributed to the Ford’s three-year delay. The system’s first public launch on the Ford in June 2015 was notoriously unsuccessful. The Navy still stands behind the new technology, which is expected to save the service an estimated $4 billion in maintenance costs over the vessel’s 50-year lifetime, according to officials.
(snip)

Steam, meanwhile, has been a “reliable set of technology” and would lower the overall cost of building a ship, making it easier to reach Trump’s goal of a 350-ship Navy. For example, the previous class of aircraft carrier, the Nimitz, cost about $7 billion compared to the Ford’s $12.9 billion.

Seth Crospey, director of the Center for American Seapower at the Hudson Institute, argued in favor of the electromagnetic system, stating that “EMALS works.”
(snip)
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why the Navy is switching from 'goddamned steam' catapults (Original Post) nitpicker May 2017 OP
But the EMALS! mahatmakanejeeves May 2017 #1
I'm glad I'm not in this Navy JayhawkSD May 2017 #2
 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
2. I'm glad I'm not in this Navy
Wed May 17, 2017, 10:21 AM
May 2017
"The Navy still stands behind the new technology, which is expected to save the service an estimated $4 billion in maintenance costs over the vessel’s 50-year lifetime, according to officials."

In the Navy I served in, the concern would be on how reliably it launched aircraft, not on saving money.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»National Security & Defense»Why the Navy is switching...