'You going to goddamned steam': Trump rails against the Navy's new catapult system

SN Ramsey Abbott - I've been working Army acquisition the last 4 years and I agree mistakes are made; i.e. JLTV, F35, M2 Bradley, Commanche, etc. Yes, the article focuses on rash judgment by Trump; something we're all too familiar with. No one would question him bring the Navy and the other SMEs to discuss this technology more in depth but I will be critical of a leader who quickly embraces the need to use old technology and scrap innovative designs.

MAJ James Woods - I completely understand your point. However, with all the precedents and long-term effects of them (one LCS having to remain on station for MONTHS because of another boats issues; J35, the examples you've mentioned), the statement might not be quite as rash as perceived. The rush on trying to field new tech before it's even really viable is a tremendous waste of funds, especially when repairs / replacements WILL have to be made, often multiple times. I don't think he was wanting innovation scrapped, but without the full context, I can't speak to it much.

My biggest gripe: why was a ship built around unproven technology? BILLIONS committed to making what could very well be that mobile airplane hangar. What I think would have been better would have been something like maybe installing one or two EMALS cats, leaving 2 or 3 steam-powered cats, and have a retrofit plan (to either install new tech or re-install steam cats) along with that. That way, once the EMALS were proved viable, the old tech could have been pulled, new tech inserted (or vice versa), and THEN we'd have a viable ship that is fighting-fit.

In the interim, having a couple EMALS actually being tested by ships on-station while conducting flight ops ISO combat operations WOULD mean a reduced capability to launch, which is infinitely better than NO capability to launch, but at least we'd have a ship being no-BS tested.

PO1 (Join to see) The ship wasn't built around unproven technology. Ford class carriers would have been built regarding of EMAL prototypes. That's not how this works. There's other technology on the carrier that is also prototype experimental. Too bad Trump and the press were too focused on one thing and one rash comment.

All due respect, Sir, but if it's proven to NOT work as intended, then it is, for all intent and purposes, unproven, and your own statement seems to contradict itself (". . . not built around unproven tech"; "there's other tech that is prototype experimental"). Again, look at the LCS issues, also built around "prototype" and "experimental" technologies and design. Imagine an ACR, where all the tracks were built with rail guns, and they were delivered, supposedly "combat ready". Rail guns have been proven to work: in static labs and controlled experiments.

We lose capability and effectiveness if the systems and weapons aren't performing at 100%. Introducing new capabilities to existing ships would have allowed thorough, operational-level testing, and bugs could have been worked out on multiple systems spread throughout the fleet.

Look at the issues around the Zumwalt, another ship built around unproven, experimental and prototype technology. To create an entire platform based on that, trying to field it, and then finding out that, "Whoops! Think there's an issue here. . . ' is NOT the way to conduct business, especially in our profession, where lives are at stake, and where combat power is the difference between success or failure, any reduction in operational capability degrades our CP, and where it costs billions to rectify.

I'm not averse to new tech, but I AM wary of such huge leaps where everything is so radical, so new, so problematic, that it's the basis for new design entirely.

All I know is I've never had to pay several hundred dollars to have manual windows and manual seat positions in my farm truck fixed. But with all the money I've spent fixing power windows and power seats in my wife's car, I could fly with my grandkids to Disney world for a week.

Maj John Bell - It all depends on the manufacturer right. I have a 2004 4Runner and never had a serious mechanical or electrical problem in 13 years. Not saying Toyota rules cause I have a Ford for the last 8 years and no serious electrical problems, just the starter. If the developer and manufacturer manage to produce trustworthy and reliable technology with a long life span then great. It has to start somewhere.
PO1 (Join to see) As for backup systems for the EMALS, don't know. This article doesn't go in depth and that should be a question for the developer to answer. What we do know is Trump's comments to the Naval officer suggested rash conclusions and an unwillingness to get to know more about the system (as perceived by this article).

MAJ James Woods - Based on what the article presents, the officer in charge of the system is not happy with the electromagnetic system and the electromagnetic system is more expensive, by millions. Throw in the known vulnerabilities of electronics to electromagnetic pulses. I am not so sure that their has been a rash conclusion. Were I in charge, there would be a lot of explaining why steam catapults were not being used.

I am well aware of the SNAFU that produced the MV-22 Osprey. I know that outside forces turned a simple, relatively low cost, tactical transport into a golden toilet bowl that delayed the bird entering the service by years. More expensive and technologically superior does not in an of itself inherently make a wise spending decision. Very often military acquisition spends a dollar, to get a dime's worth of improvement.

Maj John Bell - Trump's statement after one conversation with one person as per this article would be considered a rash conclusion. We don't make rash conclusions or statements about a prototype based feedback from one user. So yes, how this article portrays the comments is irresponsible. So yes it has issues that needs to be addressed and like everything else the DoD justifies increased budgets, it's expensive to produce with hopes the savings comes from long term efficiency in O&M. As for vulnerabilities to EM pulses, you just described 90% of our digital inventory.