"President Condemns Digital Catapults" Topic

In an interview with Time magazine link President Trump said,

"You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we're going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don't use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn't have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam's going all over the place, there's planes thrown in the air."

It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it's very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we're staying with digital." I said no you're not. You going to ed steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it's no good."

Obviously, the president is confused about the technology because these are electro-magnetic catapults. Yes, they are computer-controlled (they would have to be), so there is a digital component. The catapults are really powerful linear accelerators.

You don't have to be Albert Einstein to understand how they work: you can go to many amusement parks to see the technology in action propelling roller coasters.

The quote reveals that the president doesn't know much about engineering or defense contracting. Unless you intend to cancel the procurement of any other Ford-class carrier and design a new class, the engineering change orders to convert the Ford's design to steam catapults will cost billions of dollars, if it is even possible. A new model of catapult might need to be designed because the physical layouts are very different. High-pressure steam lines need to run from the heat exchangers to the catapults. Figuring out where to run those line safely in a ship not originally designed for them would be … difficult.

So, would a change to steam save any money? In terms of development and construction, almost certainly not. The Navy claims that the EM catapults will be much easier and cheaper to maintain, saving $4 USD billion in maintenance costs over 50 years. Based on the history of claims of reduced maintenance costs and man-hours in weapon programs over the last 55 years, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Every system that's more complex than its predecessor is sold to Congress as reducing maintenance costs, but the cost increase with each generation, instead.

That's not to say that the catapults aren't needed. If they work properly, they have some enormous advantages. First, they can provide a much softer launch with constant acceleration instead of a sudden impact that flings the aircraft forward. This reduces the strain on the airframe (a very good thing) and also makes it just a bit easier for the pilot to control the aircraft immediately after launch. Second, the more powerful EM catapults allow the carriers to launch larger aircraft, which is likely to become essential.

I should say that I was opposed to the EM cats when they were proposed, and I've been disappointed by the expense and development problems (but not surprised). That said, we're way too far down the road.

And we know how well it always works out when national leaders micro-manage weapon development …

During the Obama years, I always said to his supporters, "What if George W. Bush had done this? How would you have reacted?" During the Bush years, I asked Republicans whether the Clintons having comprehensive surveillance systems and the ability to use them without warrants would have worried them.

So, if you support the President, I ask: How would you have reacted if Obama had micro-managed weapon development this way, while clearly demonstrating that he did not understand the technology in question?

The quote reveals that the president doesn't know much

Yeah but the EM catapults don't work

Oh gee someone doesn't know about a piece of technology buried in a naval ship they never worked on nor set foot on. Gasp. The shock and horror.

Well I am told that you have to understand the intent of what Trump says, rather than what he actually says. So what he was trying to say is that electro-magnet catapults don't work. Point is that they need to work because of the varying weight of the aircraft that a modern carrier needs to be able to launch these days.

So yes sir, the EM catapult is coming, cos the steam catapults don't cut it anymore.

So someone told the POTUS that EM catapults lack sufficient power and are no good and he believed it. Big deal.

The POTUS had the same "negative attitude" towards the F-35 when he announced that he's pitting the Superhornet against it in a bidding contest. Lockheed-Martin slashed the prices soon after that and case closed. If the POTUS likes to take a business approach and shoot off his mouth to save American taxpayers a few dollars, I say "more power to him."

And they said that the LCS vessels were going to be great also…

"Oh gee someone doesn't know about a piece of technology buried in a naval ship they never worked on nor set foot on."

The president learned about it when he visited the Gerald R. Ford and was shown the system.

It's a bigass coilgun. They work, but they eat power and need careful tweaking to keep the acceleration down to a safe/manageable level. Else the beast will rip the landing gear out of the aircraft!

I usually assume my elected officials are not designing the weapons my armed forces use. That is not their job. Then again Hitler liked big tanks for some reason, that just meant when he needed lots of perfectly fine Mark IVs, he wasted production on Panthers and Tigers, that lost more units to mechanical failure then enemy fire or being over run in the repair depot for lack of spare parts, due to having too many types in the supply chain.

So yeah lets let a someone with no military experience redesign our latest Air Craft carrier. I am sure someone with a business degree, I think he has a business degree, and no mechanical or electrical engineering experience would be an ideal choice. Actually when was the last president to actually have some real military experience beside Ford or Bush senior?

Actually, the Panther was largely better than the pzIV, certainly cheaper to build (which would have been good for the Reich). Still needed a transmission designed for a 45ton tank, however.

Actually when was the last president to actually have some real military experience beside Ford or Bush senior?

Jimmy Carter was a US Navy nuclear-trained officer (best man to have in the Oval Office during Three Mile Island!). Nixon served in the Navy during WW2, though as an admin officer. LBJ didn't serve, but Kennedy did and saw combat.

Time I don't think that is real News Maybe someone misquoted him or misremembered….besides its not like the aircraft carriars during the Civil War used good steam is better now much hotter now its GREAT almost 212F not like the old steam that was only 100C.
Yes I am sure the steam is better now. The main thing with the new steam is you have to "Prime the Pump".

LBJ did serve in WWII in the navy reserve.

Aaaand it's cosmicbank for the win!

BTW--"Prime the Pump"--where did that expression come from? Is it new? Don't think I ever heard it before. . .

"Prime the pump" is from FDR, probably.

Just another hysterical reaction to an off-hand quote.

Sounds like he doesn't want to waste taxpayer dollars to me. A sensible approach.