President Donald Trump has ordered the Pentagon to prepare for a return to steam catapults on future American aircraft carriers, directly challenging one of the principal innovations introduced aboard the Navy’s newest generation of warships. The decision particularly affects plans for the future USS Doris Miller, currently under construction for the United States Navy. The administration considers the electromagnetic systems used aboard the Gerald R. Ford class excessively complex and costly. The debate now pits two different philosophies against each other over which technology is truly more effective when an aircraft carrier enters combat.
Aircraft carriers require catapults because a modern combat aircraft fully loaded with fuel and weapons must quickly reach enough speed for its wings to generate lift. At a land-based airfield, a fighter has a long runway where it can accelerate using its own engines, but an aircraft carrier provides considerably less distance. The catapult delivers enormous acceleration in only a few seconds and allows the aircraft to leave the deck safely. In this way, part of the energy required for takeoff comes from the ship itself rather than exclusively from the aircraft’s engines.
For decades, the U.S. Navy relied on steam catapults, a technology extensively developed during the period following World War II and refined across generations of aircraft carriers. The system uses steam produced aboard the ship to rapidly move a mechanism connected to the aircraft’s front landing gear and launch it from the flight deck. Thousands of operations conducted during different conflicts demonstrated that the technology could function under extremely demanding conditions. Its greatest advantage has always been decades of operational experience, well-understood maintenance requirements and procedures thoroughly mastered by carrier crews.
The Gerald R. Ford class changed that philosophy with the introduction of the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, commonly known as EMALS. Instead of relying on large quantities of steam, the newer mechanism uses electromagnetic energy to progressively accelerate an aircraft along the flight deck. In theory, it provides more precise control over each launch and allows power to be adjusted for aircraft of different sizes and weights. It was also designed to reduce certain structural stresses on aircraft and prepare carriers for a future generation that will include increasing numbers of unmanned aircraft. Trump has criticized the technology for years, arguing that its sophistication can become a disadvantage when technical problems arise far from a naval base.
His fundamental argument is that a military system must not only perform correctly but must also be repairable quickly when something fails during an operation. From that perspective, familiar and mechanically simpler technology may offer certain advantages over systems dependent on numerous sophisticated electronic components. For the president, the experience accumulated over decades of steam-catapult operations continues to have considerable military value. Returning to the previous system, however, would not necessarily be simple or inexpensive.
New aircraft carriers were designed from the beginning around electrical systems fundamentally different from those installed aboard earlier generations of ships. Modifying a vessel already under construction could require significant changes involving engineering, internal layout, energy generation and numerous components associated with flight operations. Some electromagnetic equipment intended for the USS Doris Miller is already in production. Reversing course could therefore create additional costs and delays for a naval program that already represents an enormous investment.
Supporters of EMALS also argue that its initial problems must be considered in the context of developing and deploying an entirely new technology that continues accumulating operational experience. The USS Gerald R. Ford has already completed tens of thousands of aircraft launches using the electromagnetic system, providing the Navy with information that could never have been obtained during the early development stages. Every operation contributes to improving procedures, maintenance practices and technical knowledge among carrier crews. Abandoning the system now could mean walking away from part of the investment made over many years to bring the technology to its current level.
The debate becomes even more interesting because other naval powers increasingly view electromagnetic launch systems as part of the future of carrier aviation. China has developed its own electromagnetic launch technology for newer aircraft carriers, while other countries are studying similar solutions for future generations of warships. The United States could therefore find itself partially returning to an older technology while some competitors move toward systems Washington helped pioneer. Yet in military operations, possessing the newest technology does not automatically mean possessing the most effective solution during an actual war.
The discussion also raises a broader question about the future of naval aircraft themselves. Aircraft such as the F-35B have demonstrated that it is possible to combine characteristics associated with helicopters and fighters through short takeoffs and vertical landings. Achieving that capability, however, requires additional systems that increase weight, complexity and energy consumption. For large fighters carrying substantial quantities of fuel and weapons, a catapult remains an extremely efficient solution.
The carrier provides the initial acceleration while the aircraft preserves fuel and payload capacity for a much longer combat mission. Trump’s decision therefore opens a discussion extending far beyond a simple choice between electricity and steam. The United States must determine whether to continue refining electromagnetic technology designed for the coming decades or return to an older system whose reliability was demonstrated through generations of naval operations.
The answer will depend on cost, maintenance, combat effectiveness and the evolution of future aircraft and drones. In warfare, the most advanced technology can provide enormous advantages, but only when it is sufficiently durable, repairable and reliable to continue operating when it is needed most.
