In a significant move that reflects his long-standing preferences, former President Donald Trump has instructed the Pentagon to revert to steam catapults for the upcoming USS Doris Miller aircraft carrier, abandoning the current electromagnetic launch system. This directive, issued through a national security memorandum, marks a departure from modern naval technology and raises questions about fiscal prudence and operational efficiency within the US Navy.
A Shift Back to Tradition
On 13 August, Trump signed a memorandum mandating Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao to devise a plan within 60 days to replace the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Weapons Elevators with traditional steam and hydraulic systems. This initiative aligns with Trump’s repeated critiques of the EMALS, which he has described as overly complex and costly, a sentiment he has echoed annually since 2017.
The USS Doris Miller, a Ford-class aircraft carrier already two years behind schedule, is at the centre of this redesign. Trump has consistently raised concerns about the digital systems employed on modern carriers, arguing that they are more prone to failure and exponentially more expensive than their steam-powered predecessors.
Trump’s Consistent Message
Trump’s fixation on steam catapults has remained a fixture of his public discourse. He has recounted conversations with Navy personnel, claiming their preference for steam due to its simplicity and reliability. In his interactions, Trump has highlighted anecdotes from various Navy officers, often framing them as endorsements for his views on naval engineering.
In recent months, Trump reiterated these points at several events, including the Army War College in Pennsylvania, where he expressed his disbelief regarding the financial implications of modern aircraft carrier construction. “We built an aircraft carrier for £15 billion, which is crazy,” he remarked, underscoring his belief that traditional methods would yield more cost-effective and manageable systems.
Resistance from the Navy and Industry Experts
Despite Trump’s enthusiasm for steam catapults, there is significant pushback from senior Navy officials and industry leaders. The Wall Street Journal reported that concerns over the financial and logistical ramifications of dismantling the EMALS are substantial. General Atomics, the firm responsible for the EMALS, cautioned that Trump’s directive could introduce major risks related to cost, schedule, and overall integration of the ship’s systems.
Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona and a former astronaut, offered a pointed critique of Trump’s intervention. With a background in aeronautical engineering, Kelly expressed disbelief that a civilian could effectively dictate engineering choices for the Navy, urging Trump to focus on areas where he possesses greater expertise.
Mental Health Crisis on the USS Abraham Lincoln
This naval overhaul directive coincides with reports of a significant mental health crisis aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. As the carrier and its crew of 5,000 face an unprecedented extended deployment linked to the ongoing conflict with Iran, the implications of such a directive take on added urgency.
The mental strain on sailors, coupled with the pressures of prolonged deployment, raises questions about the Navy’s operational readiness and the welfare of its personnel amidst sweeping changes proposed by political leaders.
Why it Matters
Trump’s insistence on reverting to steam catapults not only reflects a nostalgic approach to naval warfare but also underscores the tensions between military innovation and traditional practices. As the Navy grapples with modernisation efforts while addressing pressing operational realities, the implications of such a shift could reverberate throughout the military community. This decision raises critical questions about the future of US naval capabilities, fiscal responsibility, and the impact of political influence on military engineering. With the Navy at a crossroad, it remains to be seen whether this direction will enhance operational effectiveness or merely complicate an already challenging landscape.
