EPTOn August 15 2026 23:03 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Can the powerplant on the Nimitz class even produce enough electricity for EMALS?
Show nested quote +
On August 15 2026 21:20 micronesia wrote:
On August 15 2026 20:23 oBlade wrote:
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.
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. On August 15 2026 18:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
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 10:40 Sermokala wrote:
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.
On August 15 2026 05:31 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
More thrust. Proven system (decades). Saltwater resistant. Easy repairs. Low tech. Less electrical peak load.
On August 15 2026 05:25 EnDeR_ wrote:
So... It sounds dumb but what's the argument 'for' steam launchers?
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:
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 17:40 oBlade wrote:
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.
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.
On August 15 2026 17:14 Simberto wrote:
Steam in theory has a lot of moving parts. Namely, all of those very hot water molecules which are moving very fast.
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.
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.
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
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?
EMALS takes less electricity to use than Steam launchers, the only thing that the ship itself needs to do is to get the rotors to speed, and then can harvest electricity on the backend.
The issue with refitting older carriers to use EMALS is that you would have to rip out all the Steam infrastructure, or just cut open the room needed to operate EMALS just under the deck. Its definitly possible and would result in about a billion a year in savings but the savings wouldn't justify the cost to do the work.
There is also again, no one making steam powered launchers or anything of the sort on the scale that a carrier needs. Its an entire field that would need to be revived, redesigned, retooled to be in production. They make the parts for EMALS across the globe in a similar manner beacuse high speed rail is a big deal in developed countries.
