Trump Tells U.S. Navy to
Go Back to Steam Catapults
Popular Mechanics,
by
Kyle Mizokami
Original Article
Posted By: MattMusson,
6/20/2019 12:43:42 PM
Earlier this week, President Trump continued to press his attack on a U.S. Navy system that uses magnetism to launch aircraft from aircraft carriers. At an event on a Japan-based navy warship, Trump reiterated his claim that the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, is inferior to the use of steam catapults to get airplanes in the air.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
JunkYardDog 6/20/2019 1:21:42 PM (No. 102425)
If it ain't broke....
4 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
F15 Gork 6/20/2019 1:22:37 PM (No. 102426)
You gotta give PDJT credit - he knows “dicked up” when he sees it.
8 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Shadow722 6/20/2019 1:22:45 PM (No. 102427)
So "Popular Mechanics" popo's the POTUS idea of going back to steam Cats. Instead US Navy should wait maybe another 3 years to give the EMALS system another shot of the old college try. Meanwhile we will be launching another $11 billion white elephant that doesn't work to launch aircraft.
The best that PM can do is to say "By that time, permanent fixes for EMALS’ reliability fixes could be available...." could be available or maybe not could......We do know the old system does work. EMALS we are not sure of. So who made the decision to base an $11 billion weapon systems on technology that has not been fully proven?? Oh, yes that would be the savants in the Obama administration.......
5 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
toddh 6/20/2019 2:00:05 PM (No. 102465)
The new ships do not have boilers, piping, or berthing for the extra crew needed for steam catapults. In other words, *it won't happen* no matter who's president. Ford class will have EMALS, and EMALS will be more reliable than steam.
2 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
watlines 6/20/2019 2:07:11 PM (No. 102471)
Gee, I thought POTUS has mental defects?
Seems to me he knows a lot about almost everything, gets good advice when he doesn't, and keeps making smart decisions.
Steam is simple, reliable, durable, and powerful. What's not to like?
1 person likes this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
PlayItAgain 6/20/2019 2:08:14 PM (No. 102473)
I could not agree more with #3.
I fail to understand why we are putting our servicemen and women at risk for a system that we know has reliability problems.
While PM makes some good comments in questions POTUS incomplete remarks, we would be better served if PM would
1.) get more complete information from the White House,
2.) give us more information concerning the failures of EMALS,
3.) tell us who are the rocket scientists who produced the unreliable things in the first place.
1 person likes this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
bad-hair 6/20/2019 2:23:05 PM (No. 102483)
Electric works until the power goes out. Ships burn fuel and create heat. Heat makes stem. Planes launch.
Some genius please come up with a plane launching APP.
3 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
GoodDeal 6/20/2019 2:53:13 PM (No. 102512)
I worked on the flight deck of the USS Hancock CVA-19 during the Vietnam war. I made two cruises. I was an Aviation Ordnanceman of F-8J Crusader fighter jets. The steam catapults worked fine on every launch. Not once did they ever fail to accelerate the jets to perfect take-off speed, no matter what aircraft it was. Nothing better than the sights and sounds and smells of early morning aircraft launches. The smell of hot jet exhaust, hot cat steam mixed with fresh ocean air and the ear-busting sounds of an F-8 hitting the afterburner just before firing the catapult was something I will always remember. They worked fine then, they worked fine in WWII and they will work fine today.
9 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
DVC 6/20/2019 2:59:09 PM (No. 102520)
Steam cats replaced hydraulic cats, and were far better.
What idiot put and unproven, unreliable new PRIMARY system on an aircraft carrier?
Stupid, stupid, stupid......again. I want my competent, capable Navy back.
Damned Obama broke EVERYTHING.
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
mc squared 6/20/2019 3:57:57 PM (No. 102550)
With the magnetism necessary to accelerate a jet for take off, I hope they let those of us on the coasts know when it's being used so we put away any dangerous ferrous metal objects!
0 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
MattMusson 6/20/2019 4:12:59 PM (No. 102570)
Something that is rarely talked about is that the extreme jolt of magnetism sometimes fries circuits on the aircraft.
2 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
comstock 6/20/2019 4:35:17 PM (No. 102588)
Nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers use steam produced by the reactors to spin turbines for propulsion, so there is plenty of steam.
That said, the cost and time it would take to retrofit the USS Ford and the JFK to steam cats would far exceed the cost and time to work the bugs out of the EMALS cats.
What I'm worried about is the EMP produced by the cats. When I was on the USS Independence 50 years ago the main computers and the CIC were located directly below the start of the main cats and the end of the waist cats on the 03 level. We were constantly tracking down loose wires, connectors, broken solder joints, etc. from the jolt the equipment took with every launch. Believe me, you can feel it big time. Can't imagine what level of EMP those EMALS cats produce, along with the jolts.
1 person likes this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
red1066 6/20/2019 4:54:01 PM (No. 102614)
This seems to be an recurring problem with not only military, but with government run programs in general. Canceling the space shuttle program before there was a replacement for the space shuttle, was a monumental act of stupidity forcing the U.S. to have to hitch a ride on Soviet rockets in order for us to get to OUR space station.
1 person likes this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 6/20/2019 4:56:56 PM (No. 102616)
Legendary aircraft designer for Lockheed "Skunkworks," Mr. Kelly Johnson, who pioneered to concept of Engineering Program Management with all his successes fielding radically new aircraft had 14 rules of Program Management...
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/business-areas/aeronautics/skunkworks/kelly-14-rules.html
but he also had a 15th rule:
15. “Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy.”
1 person likes this.
EM cats look good on paper and are certainly worth exploring. Steam is dangerous and expensive to maintain - but it's reliable, and that trumps everything else when the objective is to sling $50 million aircraft over the water. However, in no way will keels already laid be switched to steam. If the bugs can't be resolved and reliability improved then the Navy can modify the ships' mission and swap the purchase of a handful of F-35C's for the STOVL F-35B variant. The Marines have increased the number of F-35B's on deployed LHA's from 6 to 10. Outside-the-box thinking that would never happen, though.
0 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
DVC 6/20/2019 6:15:04 PM (No. 102695)
Completely impractical #15. The STOVL variant, which a nephew is flying now, has far less range,
weapons load and capability than the F-35C. The C model has a 40% larger wing area, and almost
50% more fuel capacity than the B model.
Not even CLOSE in capability. That HUGE fan in the middle of the fuselage take up a LOT of
space which could be used for fuel, etc. and the B (STOVL) has the small wing of the Air Force
A model, and even shorter 'legs' than the AF A model by about 4,000 lbs of fuel. A model has
18K lbs of fuel, B model has 14K lbs and C model has over 20K lbs of fuel. And there are
other significant differences, too.
NOT interchangable aircraft by a long shot.
Without cats a big deck carrier is a disaster. The HAVE TO get the cats working. And it that
means retrofitting them, then JUST DO IT.
#12's comment on EMP is legit, but I would guess that the steel hull does plenty of
EM shielding.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "MattMusson"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
In Theory there is no difference between Theory and Practice. But, in Practice there is.