Trump: carriers will revert back to using catapults

>Pres. Donald Trump has weighed in on the future configuration of the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carrier fleet.
>Trump is insisting that the service return to installing steam catapults in place of the state-of-the-art >Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, that was developed for the Gerald R. Ford–class super carriers.
>The president is explicit in his directive—all future U.S. Navy carriers will revert to steam catapults.
>“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,’” Trump told Time magazine in an interview.
>“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 goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

warisboring.com/trump-said-all-future-u-s-navy-carriers-will-use-goddamned-steam-catapults/

Other urls found in this thread:

time.com/4775040/donald-trump-time-interview-being-president/
google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/526386/
usdefensewatch.com/2015/10/us-navy-carrier-aircraft-have-less-range-than-their-wwii-predecessors/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

so this is the famous serbian humour i heard about.

He doesn't make those kinds of decisions.

So how does the digital catapult work and why do they need to spend so much money on it?

Great source you got there

>Some random blog
>no official Navy Department statement
You really think I'm going to believe this?

It's technology for technology's sake. Buy a $3000 washing machine with a super computer in it and it's a piece of shit. Buy a $300 analog machine and it works beautifully.

Instead of a steam powered piston, they use electromagnetic linear accelerators. In theory this could be a more compact and reliable system (the reactor power plant can supply that energy plus less mechanical parts and possible leaks), but what is happening in practice is that the designers ran into some unforseen problems.
Overall, even if Trump did make this kind of choice, he's probably right in terms of saving cost and ensuring reliability. It would be a shame if that brand new "digital" accelerator broke down during the second batlle of midway now, wouldn't it?

Ignore faggot OP's bait. The question you should be asking is, "are carriers still relevant?" I would argue the age of the carrier is over.

>expensive as fuck
>big as fuck (floating cities)
>can be taken out with relevantly cheap missiles

The loss of even one carrier would send the US navy into chaos. If you can risk losing even one, what is the point of keeping/maintaining them?

time.com/4775040/donald-trump-time-interview-being-president/

>inb4 fake news

>He souldn't make those kinds of decisions

Putin probably told him it was a good idea.

Based trump preparing for the crusades 2.0

If you take a look at the battle for the Mediterranean, you will find that the british carriers were able to screen surface combat vessels effectively from landbased attack because of the short reaction time. If there is a war, the carriers will be able to project power all over the globe, protect logistics and allow other vessels to operate in otherwise hostile dominated areas. These boats are worth every penny.

Don't they have submarine carriers now?

It's true, every single word of it.

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 goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

time.com/4775040/donald-trump-time-interview-being-president/

Can't make that shit up.

>more carriers
Fucking yes

Why not make the carrier go really really fast so the fighters can take off directly :)

>inb4 fake news

It's Time ffs. It was fake news before you posted it, faggot.

WW2 carrier fleets didn't have to deal with supersonic missiles (think Chinese navy). The Ageis anti-missile defense systems can counter them, but the US do not have nearly enough to cover all their carriers.

Jesus christ. I thought it was satire.

HE KNOWS ABOUT THE EMPS

No?

>age of the carrier is over
>modern warfare is dictated by who holds control of the skies
>carrier offers literal global force projection of air fire superiority at will
>all other Naval vessels vulnerable to attack from the air
>the only vessel capable of bringing more firepower to bear in a combat theater is a nuclear-armed submarine which is attackable by surface vessels when at launch depth

The Carrier is the cornerstone of military superiority and will remain as such for as long as control of the skies dictates the course of warfare.

>using needlessly complicated machinery for situations that have an influence on life or death

Setting aside the fact that carriers are fucking retarded,

>You have to be albert Einstein to figure it out

I'm sorry Trump, but clearly you have no idea what you are talking about and making emotional judgements because 'wooow look at all that steam that's badass don't change it'

Linear electric drives, once properly designed and built will save a fucking huge amount of space, machine components and complexity. But hey Trump doesn't like it so fuck you, time to sign in some more laws to limit your internet privacy.

Also
>What is digital?

Jesus Christ we helped this guy get elected.

To be fair, you have to know the submarine is there to be able to attack it. The ocean is pretty fucking big, and the best subs make less noise than you do in a kayak.

fpbp

>More carriers for cheaper
>a bad thing

In fact, didn't Russia declare to have developed good tier electronic warfare weaponry lately? Downgrading systems for reliability seems sane to me

Sinking a aircraft carrier is not easy, you have no clue what you are talking about. They can take multiple hits and still dont sink. And hitting a carrier even once is difficult, because obviously it is guarded by several ships with top notch anti-missile capabilities. It is literally way easier to take out an airport, than a carrier.

So what, USS Sonic the Hedgehog?

I'm not saying that carriers dont offer an immense strategic advantage. I'm saying that when the Chinese sink a couple with their cheap missiles, the cost in material, lives and capital will not have been worth it.

he probably saved tax payers $200 million easy

>You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

Trump believes that it's wasteful to implement expensive technology on important platforms that need to be as combat ready as possible.

How is this a problem?

sounds like the kind of thing they should equip only one carrier with and refine the technology before applying it to all of 'em, assuming they can ever perfect it to be better and as relyable as the steam system.

duh

How many supersonic ASMs can a carrier realistically get hit by/intercept before it is destroyed? I'll bet the number is a damn sight less than whatever monstrous amount of cash and time goes into making a carrier and all it's personnel/planes/missiles/equipment.

He has no fucking clue what he is talking about and should stop making judgements based on his very limited knowledge.

Who the fuck are you, again?

Any nation that sunk a US carrier would probably get a nuked.

Do you know how many (repetitively cheap!) missiles the Chinese could through at a carrier? You would not be able to stop all of them, and eventually it WILL go down. They are not invincible.

>bringing back catapults

Would you like to adjust the aim?

>muh supersonic missles
whoever fires one at us is getting glassed

But that would mean the company developing this can't get as much money and that would be bad for the military-industrial complex.
Hint hint.

It doesn't matter, the systems are modular in the new carrier class and can be replaced when the EM tech is mature enough. Just like the guns in the new battle cruisers can be replaced with rail guns when the time comes.

Fucking this thank you

US navy BTFO

>le ebin mainstream media conspiracy

In the future, a single Drone will be able to take out an entire carrier fleet

What's the point of this expensive shit

>TIME
You mean these guys?

Bruh everyone knows that carriers take 5 shots and the it doesn't matter how many missiles the Chinese have if you hide it at b4

It is totally real you lazy fools, you do have search engines so don't pretend you are smarter than Trump when you don't even know how to fact check.
google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/526386/
Also Trump is right - as usual. In battle you need the simplest workable system in case it gets hit and needs repairing.
In WW2 the allies were using wooden decks on the aircraft carriers while the Japs had metal. The advantage being we could quickly repair it after a bombing or a crash.
Now beg Trumps forgiveness lazy faggtards.

Person of the year isn't an award. Kim Jong Un has also been person of the year. (also mootykins)

Well, I'm part of the german Navy, and you?

Once again you show that you have not a clue what you are talking about. Locating and precisely shooting missiles at a boat is borderline impossible. The most likely scenario how a carrier get sunk is by using nuclear bombs or superior submarine technology. The french and germans have the best submarines in the world and might be able to take them out without the use of nuclear bombs, but i doubt anybody else could.

Don't be too hasty hans.
Knew a drag racer who only used carbie engines and kept blitzing his fuel injected competitors.

E M P
M
P

It's obviously an abstract excercise retard. If burgers are going to wank on about how their military is wow so good omg, everyone is going to get sick of your shit and point out how you are wrong.

Russia could glass you right back too.

>Borderline impossible

Are you retarded? It's a fucking floating target that sticks out like a sore thumb on top of a flat sea. You just fly a few AWACS around with powerful enough radar and oh look there it is. Also we have these things called satellites which can see where all your carriers are at all times, unless they are invisible now?

Just make them longer

>Instead of a steam powered piston, they use electromagnetic linear accelerators. In theory this could be a more compact and reliable system (the reactor power plant can supply that energy plus less mechanical parts and possible leaks), but what is happening in practice is that the designers ran into some unforseen problems.
>Overall, even if Trump did make this kind of choice, he's probably right in terms of saving cost and ensuring reliability. It would be a shame if that brand new "digital" accelerator broke down during the second batlle of midway now, wouldn't it?
Looking up the details it does seem Trump is correct. The reactor can't provide enough electricity for launch so they have a giant flywheel storing energy to feed into a generator, if one catapult breaks the other cannot be isolated electrically for repairs. 1 catapult broken = either operate only 1 catapult until combat is over or take them both offline to repair it. The main electrical generators already blew up after being installed once. If they have electrical trouble they aren't going to be launching planes with the electric catapult.

It was supposed to be easier on aircraft but for some reason it damages airframes instead. They probably wont unfuck them before the carriers are due to be built. Poor effort from the companies involved.

If you really are in the German navy you should know better than to underestimate a small-scale weapons systems at sea.

Are you retarded ?

sounds fine to me

whats the benefit of the more expensive system?
how much faster do you really need to throw the plane of the end of the damn thing?

if it's not broke don't fix it

>What is digital?
>Jesus Christ we helped this guy get elected.
It's a 3 phase linear induction motor with hall sensors spanning the length to determine where the catapult is and which electric coils to energize. Requires microcontrollers to operate the motor, if the sensors are damaged it will not work.

Steam catapult has no feedback you shove enough steam into it and it moves.

I love your classic Hungarian humour

>what is happening in practice is that the designers ran into some unforseen problems.

Yeah, rail degradation.

to be fair, the US will never go to war with a country that has any fighting capability at all

these carriers are there for glassing defenseless shitholes that don't obey commands from Washington, not to fight an actual war

Sinking carriers...
Carriers stay a very long way away from the enemy - think about it, how far do airplanes take people..?
They also have a screen of anti air ships, they don't travel in a dangerous zone without being screened.
The first targets are anything that can be used in an anti aircraft carrier attack.
They are destroyable of course but they are themselves the bringers of hell.

That's the attitude that's the reason niggers didn't develop.

The tech is there just not mature enough. The primary reason of going to the system is to save weight and space. Naval architecture is all about fitting as much people and equipment into the hull as possible, while keeping it's abilities to meet design objectives. The weight and space saved by deleting stream power to cats, eles etc is that many more people and equipment you can carry.

Last i heard failure rate was around 30% and improving. That's no ever near acceptable, but that was over a year ago, and Ford class is not operational it is in shake down stages. How important it is with the f35 vs f18 i couldn't tell you, I'm no aviation guy, but the Navy doesn't fuck around. They won't employ this system, as long as ir is necessary, without at least reaching the level of the previous stream systems.

BTW, it would literally cost billions of additional dollars to redesign the class for stream cats

T. retard in charge

Steam has a giant problem that "cyber" catapult has not. You dont need to wait for steam to build up. Trump just cuckt the US navy.

FOR TEMERIA!

>whats the benefit of the more expensive system?

More compact, no steam pipes, more reliable and cheaper to maintain.... at least in theory.

>Steam has a giant problem that "cyber" catapult has not. You dont need to wait for steam to build up. Trump just cuckt the US navy.

EMALS needs time to charge bunch fuck huge capacitors.

>Build battelship that was made to be part of a bigger fleet.
>send alone in to dangerus waters
>wonder why its damaged and later lost.

ever asked your self why battleship AAA could not depress so deep but other germans hip AAA can?

germany's fancy technology was shit stomped by armored up farm tractors with guns that may or may not work

jesus fucking christ most of the kills on german armor was from their own malfunctions, most of the kills on german airpower was from lack of fuel.

so yeah, going with low tech but effective means you can build more

and if you dont have steam you dont catapult anything. Happens quite often that you have to wait a long time. The money Safed on the catapult will be lost on fuel for loitering aircraft waiting for the squadren to take off.

>“American power and permissive environments were assumed following the end of the Cold War, but the rise of new powers, including China and its pursuit of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) strategies and capabilities to include the carrier-killing 1,000 nautical mile (nm) range Dong Feng-21 anti-ship ballistic missile, now threatens to push the Navy back beyond the range of its carrier air wings.”

usdefensewatch.com/2015/10/us-navy-carrier-aircraft-have-less-range-than-their-wwii-predecessors/

We have all grown up in the age of the carrier, and so think of them as invincible gods of war. That myth will be tested in the South China Sea.

We've had them since WW2, but you can't just make a big ass submarine

Steam is EMP-proof.

Lazers mah bruh. Ww3 aint tomorrow

Thoth agrees

Is the rest of the ship?

you can't emp a nuclear reactor

If we decommission your tech, will you die?

>Sinking a aircraft carrier is not easy, you have no clue what you are talking about. They can take multiple hits and still dont sink. And hitting a carrier even once is difficult, because obviously it is guarded by several ships with top notch anti-missile capabilities. It is literally way easier to take out an airport, than a carrier.
Yeah faggot I bet it's real easy to torpedo a fucking airport.

That is creative fiction, not news.

at first glance I thought he'd be putting like actual catapults and trebuchets on the decks and launching boulders at fat boy Kim. made me think of our navy, would be an upgrade to leaf carriers.

>%30 failure rate

No pilot or co is going to accept a system that has a 1/3 chance of either simply not working or potentially sending a jet into the ocean because it didn't provide enough power.

It seems like pretty sound logic to me. When digital fails, it fails completely. Analogue systems can be jerry-rigged or patched.

>South Africa having any clue about force projection
Yes you can send military transports and bombers literally anywhere without even needing midair refueling bit it increases the sortie time so you end up with 16 hour missions instead of 4 hour missions.

You can emp the control system bonehead.

100%. It was wasted by poor tactics. Damn shame.

>Burger education

>Analogue systems

Mate your carriers are loaded to the gills with high tech computers, without which, nothing on the carrier will work. Unless you think the Navy puts ever fucking electrical component into an earthed Faraday cage?

fsate rthen steam and guess what cybers dont do? corde the fucking very pipes they run thru.

Goddamn you are dumb.

>vehicles for to a $4 landmine
>Why do we use $50k vehicles?

if it's been hardened to prevent em and radiation from leaving the deck, it's not entering the deck either.

Why DO burgers piss away so much money on troop transports that handle mines and other explosives as well as the Hilux that Mohammed is using?

Come back and re-post when you have either:

1) An AWACS aircraft
2) A satellite
3) A submarine
4) A navy (pro-tip Te Mana and Te Kaha don't count)