Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 15 2026 11:33 dyhb wrote: You seriously say electromagnetic catapults have less moving parts than steam catapults? And electromagnetic launch systems have less things that must be maintained? The rest looks correct, but those things need revision.
1. Fewer 2. Electromagnetic fields have very few moving parts. You get a coil and you put a current through it.
On August 15 2026 11:33 dyhb wrote: You seriously say electromagnetic catapults have less moving parts than steam catapults? And electromagnetic launch systems have less things that must be maintained? The rest looks correct, but those things need revision.
Yes, far far less moving parts, just imagine for a moment all the different pipes, valves, tanks, that are involved. You need an entire system to superheat the water-air mix. To keep it maintained at the right mix, the right temperature. You need an entire complex of pipes to manage all of these things, some of which involve extreme heat and the pressures needed to push the aircraft at high velocity. You are constantly moving air and water into the tank, and you need swaths of tools to monitor and manage this. The tubes go through hundreds of feet throughout the ship. You need to be able to change the amount of force you use for each launch, as every plane has different weights. That means you need to have the ability to control how much steam is being put out, you need probes and monitors to make sure that the valves are operating correctly under such heat and pressure.
Meanwhile, an electromagnetic catapult "just" needs electricity. It has spinning rotors, and the energy is taken out of them in pulses as the shuttle goes down and each section turns on and off, then it just spins those rotors up in between launches. These however are our good friend the brushless motor, and so has the lifespan and reliability we don't appreciate enough of. A computer basically flips the switches of each section, and high-powered wires travel to each section. Wires are easily manufactured inside of a supercarrier, and replacements for the sections can be stacked and shipped easily. The nature of these electronics means that they can be tested easily and constantly. The only moving part is the shuttle itself and even this is used to harvest electricity back.
On August 15 2026 15:32 dyhb wrote: If you’re talking about EM fields in theory, then I suppose we should talk about steam in theory.
Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast.
But people are once again missing the wood due to the trees.
This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision.
On August 15 2026 15:32 dyhb wrote: If you’re talking about EM fields in theory, then I suppose we should talk about steam in theory.
Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast.
So true. This is exactly what was meant. For the same reason, we must oppose the installation of 2 liter Coca-Cola bottles on US fleet carriers. Each one contains upwards of Avogadro's Number of molecules moving around.
On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote: But people are once again missing the wood due to the trees.
This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision.
This would be convincing if 1) there weren't a proven history of 11 nuclear carriers using steam catapults for decades 2) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" weren't also people you hate appointed by Trump 3) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" didn't have a record of genius successes like designing and making the Zumwalts and then immediately canceling them
"Make a plan to continue using steam in the next generation by putting it in one carrier that hasn't started construction yet" is completely reasonable.
It was used for decades because the newer better system hadnt been invented yet Trump didn't appoint the engineers The people who actually know this kind of thing are not the people who make decisions about cancelling ships or imposing insane requirements on designs.
Isn't it fun having to twist yourself into insane contortions to justify the supreme leaders insanity? Always worth a good laugh.
On August 15 2026 15:32 dyhb wrote: If you’re talking about EM fields in theory, then I suppose we should talk about steam in theory.
Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast.
So true. This is exactly what was meant. For the same reason, we must oppose the installation of 2 liter Coca-Cola bottles on US fleet carriers. Each one contains upwards of Avogadro's Number of molecules moving around.
On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote: But people are once again missing the wood due to the trees.
This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision.
This would be convincing if 1) there weren't a proven history of 11 nuclear carriers using steam catapults for decades 2) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" weren't also people you hate appointed by Trump 3) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" didn't have a record of genius successes like designing and making the Zumwalts and then immediately canceling them
"Make a plan to continue using steam in the next generation by putting it in one carrier that hasn't started construction yet" is completely reasonable.
1) Yes, and they are very expensive to maintain so the navy looked for a cheaper and better way to do it. They found one. The navy overall wants to reduce the amount of people required to run a ship, this is one of many changes to do that. 2) ?? What point are you trying to make? 3) Zumwalts is part of the US navy deciding they want everything in one ship. It reminds me of the new battleship design, which is even less economical and will instantly get cancelled by any new admin due to cost per mission. The main problem is usually design creep, people are allowed to tag in new features after the project has started. Then do it again and again until the project fails. 100% agreed that there needs to be MUCH harsher stops to adding things to a ship once the target is set. The navy has failed 3-4 projects in the past few decades on this. 3 continued, luckily the new carriers are actually designed and passed that previous stage.
I have nothing against a study to check the economics of the two concepts for future ships to be built. Once the hull is started you either cancel it or go ahead. Large changes during build makes it more costly than a so-so platform being deployed. As stated a steam platform can't be fitted into the design without major overhauls, which is too late to do once construction started. The navy has done that a few times to horrific cost, designing as it was being built is proven to be a bad solution with US ship yards.
On August 15 2026 17:45 Gorsameth wrote: It was used for decades because the newer better system hadnt been invented yet Trump didn't appoint the engineers The people who actually know this kind of thing are not the people who make decisions about cancelling ships or imposing insane requirements on designs.
Isn't it fun having to twist yourself into insane contortions to justify the supreme leaders insanity? Always worth a good laugh.
One thing i wonder: Has there been any thing Trump said or done that our local conservatives have not defended ferociously?
Because i can not think of any politician where i agree with 100% of what he says or does. There are always some things where i have a different opinion. But people like the guy you answered to defend literally every single thing Trump ever does. It feels so weird. Do they really think Trump is the messiah who is divinely infallible, or is this some weird tribal instinct?
On August 15 2026 17:45 Gorsameth wrote: It was used for decades because the newer better system hadnt been invented yet
They aren't "better" in every single dimension. It's taken like a decade of breaking in to get Ford to usable levels of reliability. (And that's debated, too.) Pipes and steam are straightforward and the US is good at them, believe it or not.
On August 15 2026 17:45 Gorsameth wrote: Trump didn't appoint the engineers The people who actually know this kind of thing are not the people who make decisions about cancelling ships or imposing insane requirements on designs.
The people who design wheels and engines are not the people who decide what wheels and engines need to be built and how many and why. That's never their job. Similarly, it's not the decision of someone who made a new catapult to say whether to preserve heritage technology or how to maintain steam capability. So you're correct in way you probably didn't even realize.
On August 15 2026 17:45 Gorsameth wrote: Isn't it fun having to twist yourself into insane contortions to justify the supreme leaders insanity? Always worth a good laugh.
On August 15 2026 05:25 EnDeR_ wrote: So... It sounds dumb but what's the argument 'for' steam launchers?
More thrust. Proven system (decades). Saltwater resistant. Easy repairs. Low tech. Less electrical peak load.
These are not true, the new launchers can be dialed in for more weight than any plane they'd have land on a carrier. The system that it uses is identical to high speed rail. You can protect the rails very easily from salt water, and simply clean them. Steam power has a lot more moving parts and various things that need to be maintained while useing mag rails There are almost no moving parts in comparison and the ones that are can be easily machined on a super carrier.
At this point they would have to effectively design a new system from a white page, have factories build up from scratch to make these parts because no one makes large steam-powered launches, redesign the carrier to fit this new system, and surprise it takes up more space, test it to make sure that it works, then install it into the in-process carrier.
Meanwhile getting mag rail lines is very easy as high speed rail tech as well as parts can be found across the globe. It would be like a railroad company wanting to bring back a steam-powered train when they all run on Diesel-Electric ones now.
I was asked for the theoretical ways steam launchers are better and the ones listed are correct.
You however are also correct these are not real advantages.
The new launchers does have enough power to launch anything they need too, they don't need more. The problem with saltwater corrosion has been solved (but I remember reading about it early on with the teething problems. The new system requires considerably less maintenance completely negating the theoretical advantage that it's lower tech to fix a broken pipe. Electrify is a thing super carriers are good at generating. Decades of use is nice but the new systems have some time with excellent results and it's not like time compounds anything. The problems were found and solved, now they run fine.
So in practice the theoretical advantages mean nothing.
The advantages are huge: You can set launch power reducing wear on aircraft. You can launch low weight aircraft like drones without the risk of tearing them apart. Faster recharge compared to steam (that has to build up pressure) so theoretical higher launch cadence (can be important, especially for things like drone swarms). Much lower maintenance and thus crew requirements. Simplified power plant requirements. Etc etc.
There is a reason the French and the Chinese are also switching.
On August 15 2026 15:32 dyhb wrote: If you’re talking about EM fields in theory, then I suppose we should talk about steam in theory.
Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast.
So true. This is exactly what was meant. For the same reason, we must oppose the installation of 2 liter Coca-Cola bottles on US fleet carriers. Each one contains upwards of Avogadro's Number of molecules moving around.
On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote: But people are once again missing the wood due to the trees.
This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision.
This would be convincing if 1) there weren't a proven history of 11 nuclear carriers using steam catapults for decades 2) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" weren't also people you hate appointed by Trump 3) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" didn't have a record of genius successes like designing and making the Zumwalts and then immediately canceling them
"Make a plan to continue using steam in the next generation by putting it in one carrier that hasn't started construction yet" is completely reasonable.
Trump has already proven himself retarded with his love for steam launchers. If you also want to prove that you are a retard by defending them that's a choice I guess.
On August 15 2026 05:25 EnDeR_ wrote: So... It sounds dumb but what's the argument 'for' steam launchers?
More thrust. Proven system (decades). Saltwater resistant. Easy repairs. Low tech. Less electrical peak load.
These are not true, the new launchers can be dialed in for more weight than any plane they'd have land on a carrier. The system that it uses is identical to high speed rail. You can protect the rails very easily from salt water, and simply clean them. Steam power has a lot more moving parts and various things that need to be maintained while useing mag rails There are almost no moving parts in comparison and the ones that are can be easily machined on a super carrier.
At this point they would have to effectively design a new system from a white page, have factories build up from scratch to make these parts because no one makes large steam-powered launches, redesign the carrier to fit this new system, and surprise it takes up more space, test it to make sure that it works, then install it into the in-process carrier.
Meanwhile getting mag rail lines is very easy as high speed rail tech as well as parts can be found across the globe. It would be like a railroad company wanting to bring back a steam-powered train when they all run on Diesel-Electric ones now.
I was asked for the theoretical ways steam launchers are better and the ones listed are correct.
You however are also correct these are not real advantages.
The new launchers does have enough power to launch anything they need too, they don't need more. The problem with saltwater corrosion has been solved (but I remember reading about it early on with the teething problems. The new system requires considerably less maintenance completely negating the theoretical advantage that it's lower tech to fix a broken pipe. Electrify is a thing super carriers are good at generating. Decades of use is nice but the new systems have some time with excellent results and it's not like time compounds anything. The problems were found and solved, now they run fine.
So in practice the theoretical advantages mean nothing.
The advantages are huge: You can set launch power reducing wear on aircraft. You can launch low weight aircraft like drones without the risk of tearing them apart. Faster recharge compared to steam (that has to build up pressure) so theoretical higher launch cadence (can be important, especially for things like drone swarms). Much lower maintenance and thus crew requirements. Simplified power plant requirements. Etc etc.
There is a reason the French and the Chinese are also switching.
China may simply have a better system than we do for all we know. It's not simply a matter of "muh tech" steam vs. EM but the specific engineering solution. Also, China went for EM catapults irrespective of nuclear. Their carriers are conventional.
France is literally just going to buy US EMALS, it's not a separate system. Besides which, France only has one aircraft carrier.
The US roughly can deploy about a third of its fleet at any time. So of 11 fleet carriers, maybe 3-4.
Respectfully to France's defense needs, and the reputation of their professional, experienced military, including FFL, when it comes to the navy, the aircraft carrier specifically, while not theoretical, is partially performative. It spends most of its time not being deployed and is not critical because when deployed it supports whatever the US is already doing in NATO. I mean it's impossible for it to be critical if it has deployment gaps. They have it but it's something of a luxury.
China's bet, while interesting, is not determinative. They never used steam catapults to begin with and have never used an aircraft carrier in a war. US defense has to be practical because we actually use it.
On August 15 2026 15:32 dyhb wrote: If you’re talking about EM fields in theory, then I suppose we should talk about steam in theory.
Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast.
So true. This is exactly what was meant. For the same reason, we must oppose the installation of 2 liter Coca-Cola bottles on US fleet carriers. Each one contains upwards of Avogadro's Number of molecules moving around.
On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote: But people are once again missing the wood due to the trees.
This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision.
This would be convincing if 1) there weren't a proven history of 11 nuclear carriers using steam catapults for decades 2) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" weren't also people you hate appointed by Trump 3) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" didn't have a record of genius successes like designing and making the Zumwalts and then immediately canceling them
"Make a plan to continue using steam in the next generation by putting it in one carrier that hasn't started construction yet" is completely reasonable.
Trump has already proven himself retarded with his love for steam launchers. If you also want to prove that you are a retard by defending them that's a choice I guess.
Thank you.
I will continue to defend the... 40 steam catapults in the US Navy. Against reactionists who suddenly know EMALS is the greatest thing since sliced bread when mere months ago they thought the USN couldn't even get a toilet to work and the USS Ford was burning down at sea.
There's nothing wrong with steam which you agree with me on because you aren't here advocating actually tearing out 40 steam catapults in the Nimitz carriers and retrofitting EMALS. It's conversely not necessary to go ALL in on EMALS.
The system has been war-tested all of ONE TIME in the world. By the US, in the USS Ford's deployment at the beginning of the Iran War. The decision to make a plan to build out CVN-81 (one ship that hasn't even been laid down yet) with steam was only made AFTER that. After seeing Ford and Lincoln both in action. Make of that what you will.
On August 15 2026 05:25 EnDeR_ wrote: So... It sounds dumb but what's the argument 'for' steam launchers?
More thrust. Proven system (decades). Saltwater resistant. Easy repairs. Low tech. Less electrical peak load.
These are not true, the new launchers can be dialed in for more weight than any plane they'd have land on a carrier. The system that it uses is identical to high speed rail. You can protect the rails very easily from salt water, and simply clean them. Steam power has a lot more moving parts and various things that need to be maintained while useing mag rails There are almost no moving parts in comparison and the ones that are can be easily machined on a super carrier.
At this point they would have to effectively design a new system from a white page, have factories build up from scratch to make these parts because no one makes large steam-powered launches, redesign the carrier to fit this new system, and surprise it takes up more space, test it to make sure that it works, then install it into the in-process carrier.
Meanwhile getting mag rail lines is very easy as high speed rail tech as well as parts can be found across the globe. It would be like a railroad company wanting to bring back a steam-powered train when they all run on Diesel-Electric ones now.
I was asked for the theoretical ways steam launchers are better and the ones listed are correct.
You however are also correct these are not real advantages.
The new launchers does have enough power to launch anything they need too, they don't need more. The problem with saltwater corrosion has been solved (but I remember reading about it early on with the teething problems. The new system requires considerably less maintenance completely negating the theoretical advantage that it's lower tech to fix a broken pipe. Electrify is a thing super carriers are good at generating. Decades of use is nice but the new systems have some time with excellent results and it's not like time compounds anything. The problems were found and solved, now they run fine.
So in practice the theoretical advantages mean nothing.
The advantages are huge: You can set launch power reducing wear on aircraft. You can launch low weight aircraft like drones without the risk of tearing them apart. Faster recharge compared to steam (that has to build up pressure) so theoretical higher launch cadence (can be important, especially for things like drone swarms). Much lower maintenance and thus crew requirements. Simplified power plant requirements. Etc etc.
There is a reason the French and the Chinese are also switching.
China may simply have a better system than we do for all we know. It's not simply a matter of "muh tech" steam vs. EM but the specific engineering solution. Also, China went for EM catapults irrespective of nuclear. Their carriers are conventional.
France is literally just going to buy US EMALS, it's not a separate system. Besides which, France only has one aircraft carrier.
The US roughly can deploy about a third of its fleet at any time. So of 11 fleet carriers, maybe 3-4.
Respectfully to France's defense needs, and the reputation of their professional, experienced military, including FFL, when it comes to the navy, the aircraft carrier specifically, while not theoretical, is partially performative. It spends most of its time not being deployed and is not critical because when deployed it supports whatever the US is already doing in NATO. I mean it's impossible for it to be critical if it has deployment gaps. They have it but it's something of a luxury.
China's bet, while interesting, is not determinative. They never used steam catapults to begin with and have never used an aircraft carrier in a war. US defense has to be practical because we actually use it.
On August 15 2026 15:32 dyhb wrote: If you’re talking about EM fields in theory, then I suppose we should talk about steam in theory.
Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast.
So true. This is exactly what was meant. For the same reason, we must oppose the installation of 2 liter Coca-Cola bottles on US fleet carriers. Each one contains upwards of Avogadro's Number of molecules moving around.
On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote: But people are once again missing the wood due to the trees.
This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision.
This would be convincing if 1) there weren't a proven history of 11 nuclear carriers using steam catapults for decades 2) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" weren't also people you hate appointed by Trump 3) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" didn't have a record of genius successes like designing and making the Zumwalts and then immediately canceling them
"Make a plan to continue using steam in the next generation by putting it in one carrier that hasn't started construction yet" is completely reasonable.
Trump has already proven himself retarded with his love for steam launchers. If you also want to prove that you are a retard by defending them that's a choice I guess.
Thank you.
I will continue to defend the... 40 steam catapults in the US Navy.
They are good when paired with A4W reactor plants, like what you see on Nimitz Class.
Against reactionists who suddenly know EMALS is the greatest thing since sliced bread
I am also here, and I was literally in the room when the commanding officer of the Ford returned from deployment and gave his opinion on sortie performance (granted, it was probably like the third or fourth time he was doing it--my office was not first on his list).
It's conversely not necessary to go ALL in on EMALS.
It doesn't make sense to pursue steam catapults on Ford class in 2026.
The system has been war-tested all of ONE TIME in the world. By the US, in the USS Ford's deployment at the beginning of the Iran War. The decision to make a plan to build out CVN-81 (one ship that hasn't even been laid down yet) with steam was only made AFTER that. After seeing Ford and Lincoln both in action. Make of that what you will.
I think we've all already made of it exactly what we will.
On August 15 2026 05:25 EnDeR_ wrote: So... It sounds dumb but what's the argument 'for' steam launchers?
More thrust. Proven system (decades). Saltwater resistant. Easy repairs. Low tech. Less electrical peak load.
These are not true, the new launchers can be dialed in for more weight than any plane they'd have land on a carrier. The system that it uses is identical to high speed rail. You can protect the rails very easily from salt water, and simply clean them. Steam power has a lot more moving parts and various things that need to be maintained while useing mag rails There are almost no moving parts in comparison and the ones that are can be easily machined on a super carrier.
At this point they would have to effectively design a new system from a white page, have factories build up from scratch to make these parts because no one makes large steam-powered launches, redesign the carrier to fit this new system, and surprise it takes up more space, test it to make sure that it works, then install it into the in-process carrier.
Meanwhile getting mag rail lines is very easy as high speed rail tech as well as parts can be found across the globe. It would be like a railroad company wanting to bring back a steam-powered train when they all run on Diesel-Electric ones now.
I was asked for the theoretical ways steam launchers are better and the ones listed are correct.
You however are also correct these are not real advantages.
The new launchers does have enough power to launch anything they need too, they don't need more. The problem with saltwater corrosion has been solved (but I remember reading about it early on with the teething problems. The new system requires considerably less maintenance completely negating the theoretical advantage that it's lower tech to fix a broken pipe. Electrify is a thing super carriers are good at generating. Decades of use is nice but the new systems have some time with excellent results and it's not like time compounds anything. The problems were found and solved, now they run fine.
So in practice the theoretical advantages mean nothing.
The advantages are huge: You can set launch power reducing wear on aircraft. You can launch low weight aircraft like drones without the risk of tearing them apart. Faster recharge compared to steam (that has to build up pressure) so theoretical higher launch cadence (can be important, especially for things like drone swarms). Much lower maintenance and thus crew requirements. Simplified power plant requirements. Etc etc.
There is a reason the French and the Chinese are also switching.
China may simply have a better system than we do for all we know. It's not simply a matter of "muh tech" steam vs. EM but the specific engineering solution. Also, China went for EM catapults irrespective of nuclear. Their carriers are conventional.
France is literally just going to buy US EMALS, it's not a separate system. Besides which, France only has one aircraft carrier.
The US roughly can deploy about a third of its fleet at any time. So of 11 fleet carriers, maybe 3-4.
Respectfully to France's defense needs, and the reputation of their professional, experienced military, including FFL, when it comes to the navy, the aircraft carrier specifically, while not theoretical, is partially performative. It spends most of its time not being deployed and is not critical because when deployed it supports whatever the US is already doing in NATO. I mean it's impossible for it to be critical if it has deployment gaps. They have it but it's something of a luxury.
China's bet, while interesting, is not determinative. They never used steam catapults to begin with and have never used an aircraft carrier in a war. US defense has to be practical because we actually use it.
On August 15 2026 18:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
On August 15 2026 17:40 oBlade wrote:
On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote:
On August 15 2026 15:32 dyhb wrote: If you’re talking about EM fields in theory, then I suppose we should talk about steam in theory.
Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast.
So true. This is exactly what was meant. For the same reason, we must oppose the installation of 2 liter Coca-Cola bottles on US fleet carriers. Each one contains upwards of Avogadro's Number of molecules moving around.
On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote: But people are once again missing the wood due to the trees.
This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision.
This would be convincing if 1) there weren't a proven history of 11 nuclear carriers using steam catapults for decades 2) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" weren't also people you hate appointed by Trump 3) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" didn't have a record of genius successes like designing and making the Zumwalts and then immediately canceling them
"Make a plan to continue using steam in the next generation by putting it in one carrier that hasn't started construction yet" is completely reasonable.
Trump has already proven himself retarded with his love for steam launchers. If you also want to prove that you are a retard by defending them that's a choice I guess.
Thank you.
I will continue to defend the... 40 steam catapults in the US Navy.
They are good when paired with A4W reactor plants, like what you see on Nimitz Class.
Against reactionists who suddenly know EMALS is the greatest thing since sliced bread
I am also here, and I was literally in the room when the commanding officer of the Ford returned from deployment and gave his opinion on sortie performance (granted, it was probably like the third or fourth time he was doing it--my office was not first on his list).
The system has been war-tested all of ONE TIME in the world. By the US, in the USS Ford's deployment at the beginning of the Iran War. The decision to make a plan to build out CVN-81 (one ship that hasn't even been laid down yet) with steam was only made AFTER that. After seeing Ford and Lincoln both in action. Make of that what you will.
I think we've all already made of it exactly what we will.
Can the powerplant on the Nimitz class even produce enough electricity for EMALS?
On August 15 2026 05:25 EnDeR_ wrote: So... It sounds dumb but what's the argument 'for' steam launchers?
More thrust. Proven system (decades). Saltwater resistant. Easy repairs. Low tech. Less electrical peak load.
These are not true, the new launchers can be dialed in for more weight than any plane they'd have land on a carrier. The system that it uses is identical to high speed rail. You can protect the rails very easily from salt water, and simply clean them. Steam power has a lot more moving parts and various things that need to be maintained while useing mag rails There are almost no moving parts in comparison and the ones that are can be easily machined on a super carrier.
At this point they would have to effectively design a new system from a white page, have factories build up from scratch to make these parts because no one makes large steam-powered launches, redesign the carrier to fit this new system, and surprise it takes up more space, test it to make sure that it works, then install it into the in-process carrier.
Meanwhile getting mag rail lines is very easy as high speed rail tech as well as parts can be found across the globe. It would be like a railroad company wanting to bring back a steam-powered train when they all run on Diesel-Electric ones now.
I was asked for the theoretical ways steam launchers are better and the ones listed are correct.
You however are also correct these are not real advantages.
The new launchers does have enough power to launch anything they need too, they don't need more. The problem with saltwater corrosion has been solved (but I remember reading about it early on with the teething problems. The new system requires considerably less maintenance completely negating the theoretical advantage that it's lower tech to fix a broken pipe. Electrify is a thing super carriers are good at generating. Decades of use is nice but the new systems have some time with excellent results and it's not like time compounds anything. The problems were found and solved, now they run fine.
So in practice the theoretical advantages mean nothing.
The advantages are huge: You can set launch power reducing wear on aircraft. You can launch low weight aircraft like drones without the risk of tearing them apart. Faster recharge compared to steam (that has to build up pressure) so theoretical higher launch cadence (can be important, especially for things like drone swarms). Much lower maintenance and thus crew requirements. Simplified power plant requirements. Etc etc.
There is a reason the French and the Chinese are also switching.
China may simply have a better system than we do for all we know. It's not simply a matter of "muh tech" steam vs. EM but the specific engineering solution. Also, China went for EM catapults irrespective of nuclear. Their carriers are conventional.
France is literally just going to buy US EMALS, it's not a separate system. Besides which, France only has one aircraft carrier.
The US roughly can deploy about a third of its fleet at any time. So of 11 fleet carriers, maybe 3-4.
Respectfully to France's defense needs, and the reputation of their professional, experienced military, including FFL, when it comes to the navy, the aircraft carrier specifically, while not theoretical, is partially performative. It spends most of its time not being deployed and is not critical because when deployed it supports whatever the US is already doing in NATO. I mean it's impossible for it to be critical if it has deployment gaps. They have it but it's something of a luxury.
China's bet, while interesting, is not determinative. They never used steam catapults to begin with and have never used an aircraft carrier in a war. US defense has to be practical because we actually use it.
On August 15 2026 18:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
On August 15 2026 17:40 oBlade wrote:
On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote:
On August 15 2026 15:32 dyhb wrote: If you’re talking about EM fields in theory, then I suppose we should talk about steam in theory.
Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast.
So true. This is exactly what was meant. For the same reason, we must oppose the installation of 2 liter Coca-Cola bottles on US fleet carriers. Each one contains upwards of Avogadro's Number of molecules moving around.
On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote: But people are once again missing the wood due to the trees.
This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision.
This would be convincing if 1) there weren't a proven history of 11 nuclear carriers using steam catapults for decades 2) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" weren't also people you hate appointed by Trump 3) the "people who actually know this kind of thing" didn't have a record of genius successes like designing and making the Zumwalts and then immediately canceling them
"Make a plan to continue using steam in the next generation by putting it in one carrier that hasn't started construction yet" is completely reasonable.
Trump has already proven himself retarded with his love for steam launchers. If you also want to prove that you are a retard by defending them that's a choice I guess.
Thank you.
I will continue to defend the... 40 steam catapults in the US Navy.
They are good when paired with A4W reactor plants, like what you see on Nimitz Class.
Against reactionists who suddenly know EMALS is the greatest thing since sliced bread
I am also here, and I was literally in the room when the commanding officer of the Ford returned from deployment and gave his opinion on sortie performance (granted, it was probably like the third or fourth time he was doing it--my office was not first on his list).
It's conversely not necessary to go ALL in on EMALS.
It doesn't make sense to pursue steam catapults on Ford class in 2026.
The system has been war-tested all of ONE TIME in the world. By the US, in the USS Ford's deployment at the beginning of the Iran War. The decision to make a plan to build out CVN-81 (one ship that hasn't even been laid down yet) with steam was only made AFTER that. After seeing Ford and Lincoln both in action. Make of that what you will.
I think we've all already made of it exactly what we will.
Can the powerplant on the Nimitz class even produce enough electricity for EMALS?
From a quick google. With a lot of rebuild, probably. Would need to take the power output going into the steam system and turn it into electrical power instead. Likely rebuild the electrical turbine to use all that extra potential generation as the current system isn't built for it.
On August 15 2026 11:33 dyhb wrote: You seriously say electromagnetic catapults have less moving parts than steam catapults? And electromagnetic launch systems have less things that must be maintained? The rest looks correct, but those things need revision.
Yes, far far less moving parts, just imagine for a moment all the different pipes, valves, tanks, that are involved. You need an entire system to superheat the water-air mix. To keep it maintained at the right mix, the right temperature. You need an entire complex of pipes to manage all of these things, some of which involve extreme heat and the pressures needed to push the aircraft at high velocity. You are constantly moving air and water into the tank, and you need swaths of tools to monitor and manage this. The tubes go through hundreds of feet throughout the ship. You need to be able to change the amount of force you use for each launch, as every plane has different weights. That means you need to have the ability to control how much steam is being put out, you need probes and monitors to make sure that the valves are operating correctly under such heat and pressure.
The extent to which you talk about non-moving parts makes me think you already agree with me, but didn't know it yet. Or maybe you didn't read "The rest looks correct."
Meanwhile, an electromagnetic catapult "just" needs electricity. It has spinning rotors, and the energy is taken out of them in pulses as the shuttle goes down and each section turns on and off, then it just spins those rotors up in between launches. These however are our good friend the brushless motor, and so has the lifespan and reliability we don't appreciate enough of. A computer basically flips the switches of each section, and high-powered wires travel to each section. Wires are easily manufactured inside of a supercarrier, and replacements for the sections can be stacked and shipped easily. The nature of these electronics means that they can be tested easily and constantly. The only moving part is the shuttle itself and even this is used to harvest electricity back.
Yeah this is just special pleading from you. I didn't ask about the ease of shipping out replacement parts and testing failed parts (hinting at failure modes, maintenance issues, the sum of "things that must be maintained"). You're making tradeoffs and glossing over them because you believe the sum of tradeoffs favor the electromagnetic catapult. The systems of electromagnetic launch are generalized in an overview, the steam is minutely descriptive.
On August 15 2026 15:32 dyhb wrote: If you’re talking about EM fields in theory, then I suppose we should talk about steam in theory.
Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast.
If you're calling steam a lot of moving parts, try electrons.
This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision.
I'm indulging a digression from Kwark and elaboration from Sermokala. Everything regarding Trump was always correct.
On August 15 2026 17:45 Gorsameth wrote: It was used for decades because the newer better system hadnt been invented yet Trump didn't appoint the engineers The people who actually know this kind of thing are not the people who make decisions about cancelling ships or imposing insane requirements on designs.
Isn't it fun having to twist yourself into insane contortions to justify the supreme leaders insanity? Always worth a good laugh.
One thing i wonder: Has there been any thing Trump said or done that our local conservatives have not defended ferociously?
Because i can not think of any politician where i agree with 100% of what he says or does. There are always some things where i have a different opinion. But people like the guy you answered to defend literally every single thing Trump ever does. It feels so weird. Do they really think Trump is the messiah who is divinely infallible, or is this some weird tribal instinct?
Lots that conservatives have, none that MAGA has. One of the war bloggers I watch the most is a southern conservative Republican. It’s interesting to hear his perspective on lots of things even if we disagree on most things not Ukraine. He often talks about what things Trump pushes for that are populist and not conservative and where they came from. It is also kind of fun because he has a large republican following (as far as Ukrainian war bloggers get) so when he shows a meme of Trump looking lovingly at Putin he is like “I’m not shitting on Trump here but it’s funny because has anyone not seen Trump actually do this?”
The frustrating part is he sees what Trump is and what Trump is doing and he still calls himself a Republican and I’d bet my house still votes them. At the end of the day Americans appear to treat politics like sports fandom and they are cheering (and voting) for their team no matter what.
On August 16 2026 00:15 micronesia wrote: Putting EMALS on Nimitz? Not sure why that's even a point of conversation, but since the ships are already built, there's probably no practical way.
On August 16 2026 00:15 micronesia wrote: Putting EMALS on Nimitz? Not sure why that's even a point of conversation, but since the ships are already built, there's probably no practical way.
Well since the current president is known to change his opinion more often than the wind changes direction it is a reasonable concern. Since he is pro "steam powered" aircraft carriers (even if it is a worse solution) right now we should assume he would want to convert all "steam powered" aircraft carriers away from steam in 6 months or so. We can steal his talking point a bit early.
On August 15 2026 11:33 dyhb wrote: You seriously say electromagnetic catapults have less moving parts than steam catapults? And electromagnetic launch systems have less things that must be maintained? The rest looks correct, but those things need revision.
Yes, far far less moving parts, just imagine for a moment all the different pipes, valves, tanks, that are involved. You need an entire system to superheat the water-air mix. To keep it maintained at the right mix, the right temperature. You need an entire complex of pipes to manage all of these things, some of which involve extreme heat and the pressures needed to push the aircraft at high velocity. You are constantly moving air and water into the tank, and you need swaths of tools to monitor and manage this. The tubes go through hundreds of feet throughout the ship. You need to be able to change the amount of force you use for each launch, as every plane has different weights. That means you need to have the ability to control how much steam is being put out, you need probes and monitors to make sure that the valves are operating correctly under such heat and pressure.
The extent to which you talk about non-moving parts makes me think you already agree with me, but didn't know it yet. Or maybe you didn't read "The rest looks correct."
Meanwhile, an electromagnetic catapult "just" needs electricity. It has spinning rotors, and the energy is taken out of them in pulses as the shuttle goes down and each section turns on and off, then it just spins those rotors up in between launches. These however are our good friend the brushless motor, and so has the lifespan and reliability we don't appreciate enough of. A computer basically flips the switches of each section, and high-powered wires travel to each section. Wires are easily manufactured inside of a supercarrier, and replacements for the sections can be stacked and shipped easily. The nature of these electronics means that they can be tested easily and constantly. The only moving part is the shuttle itself and even this is used to harvest electricity back.
Yeah this is just special pleading from you. I didn't ask about the ease of shipping out replacement parts and testing failed parts (hinting at failure modes, maintenance issues, the sum of "things that must be maintained"). You're making tradeoffs and glossing over them because you believe the sum of tradeoffs favor the electromagnetic catapult. The systems of electromagnetic launch are generalized in an overview, the steam is minutely descriptive.
This is not about steam vs EM at its core. It is about why the fuck does Trump think the is personally qualified to make this decision, instead of relying on the knowledge and experience of people who actually know this kind of thing. Because i am pretty sure that Trump knows less about steam catapults or EM catapults than I do, and i don't feel qualified to make that decision.
I'm indulging a digression from Kwark and elaboration from Sermokala. Everything regarding Trump was always correct.
No I specifically don't agree with you, there is one moving part with EM launchers, that is specifically just the shuttle itself that is being launched. You think that there are more moving parts on EM launchers than a steam launcher. That is either you not knowing what a "moving part" is or not understanding the vast gulf in the things that need checking and mantaining between the two systems.
I'm calling the valves, tanks, pumps, moving parts because they move. Compared to electrons moving through copper wires thats night and day.
The tradeoffs are entierly on the side of the EM launchers though. I'm sorry for assuming that people were more aware of how steam power works than Electromagnetic fields.
EPT
