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
Why the Navy is switching from 'goddamned steam' catapults
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/333681-why-the-navy-is-switching-from-goddamned-steam-catapultsWhy 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 Trumps 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 Navys 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 builders 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 Trumps 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 ships 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 cant launch as many planes as electrical ones. Its 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 systems development was plagued with issues, which some attributed to the Fords three-year delay. The systems 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 vessels 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 Trumps goal of a 350-ship Navy. For example, the previous class of aircraft carrier, the Nimitz, cost about $7 billion compared to the Fords $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)
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1390 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
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
mahatmakanejeeves
(56,897 posts)1. But the EMALS!
Full disclosure: somebody did that at Foxtrot Alpha last week. I'll find the thread.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)2. I'm glad I'm not in this Navy
"The Navy still stands behind the new technology, which is expected to save the service an estimated $4 billion in maintenance costs over the vessels 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.
In the Navy I served in, the concern would be on how reliably it launched aircraft, not on saving money.