U.S. Navy Carriers: Return to Steam Catapults Reshapes Fighter Operations
The U.S. Navy has always prided itself on operating the most advanced warships on earth. So when President Donald Trump issued a directive in August 2026 ordering the Navy to rip out cutting-edge electromagnetic launch technology and replace it with a system that has been in use for over 50 years, the military world took notice. The decision — ordering a return to steam catapults on future Ford-class carriers — ignited a fierce debate between technological ambition and operational pragmatism.
At the heart of the controversy is a fundamental question every military procurement officer eventually faces: does newer always mean better? The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), developed by General Atomics, represented a generational leap in how fighter jets are flung off carrier decks. Steam catapults, by contrast, are the rugged, battle-tested workhorses of naval aviation. Trump’s order doesn’t just change which hardware sits below the flight deck — it reshapes how fighters launch, how often they fly, how many sailors it takes to keep them airborne, and how the U.S. Navy competes with a rising China that has already embraced the very technology Washington is now walking away from.
This isn’t simply a political story. It’s an operational one. Understanding what this directive actually means for carrier air wings, deck crews, pilots, and America’s global naval posture requires going well beyond the headlines.
The Catalysts of Change: How Steam and EMALS Actually Work
To understand why this decision matters so much, you need to understand how fundamentally different these two systems are — not just in design, but in what they demand from the ships and crews that use them.
Steam Catapults: The Proven Workhorse
The C-13 Mod 2 steam catapult has been the standard launch system on U.S. carriers since the 1950s. The principle is straightforward: steam pressure builds up in large below-deck accumulators, then releases explosively to drive a piston down a track, hurling a shuttle — and the aircraft attached to it — from zero to flying speed in about two seconds.
That raw simplicity is both its greatest strength and its biggest limitation.
Strengths of steam catapults include:
– Decades of proven reliability in combat and peacetime operations
– Well-understood maintenance procedures familiar to generations of Navy technicians
– Lower initial unit cost compared to EMALS
– Robust performance in harsh maritime environments
The drawbacks, however, are significant:
– Steam systems require enormous amounts of freshwater, adding logistical complexity
– The launch force is difficult to fine-tune — it hits hard regardless of aircraft weight
– Higher stress on aircraft airframes shortens the operational life of jets
– More mechanical components mean higher maintenance demands
– Larger physical footprint and heavier installation weight
EMALS: The Next-Generation Launch System
The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System works on an entirely different principle. Rather than steam pressure, EMALS uses a linear induction motor — essentially a very long, very powerful electric motor laid flat — to accelerate a launch carriage down the track. A sophisticated computer system controls the electromagnetic force in real time, allowing crews to dial in the exact amount of energy needed for any given aircraft.
This level of precision is a genuine operational game-changer. EMALS can gently but effectively launch a lightweight unmanned drone one minute and a fully loaded F/A-18 Super Hornet the next, adjusting the launch profile for each. Steam catapults lack that flexibility — calibrating them for a lighter aircraft risks a dangerously rough launch.
The operational advantages of EMALS include:
– Smoother launches that reduce cumulative stress on airframes, extending aircraft service life
– Precise energy control enabling launches of diverse aircraft types including UAVs
– Higher potential launch frequency, directly boosting sortie generation rates
– Fewer moving parts translating to lower long-term maintenance demands
– Reduced personnel requirements for operation and maintenance
– More efficient energy usage integrated into the ship’s power grid
The disadvantages that drew Trump’s ire are equally real: EMALS carried enormous initial development costs, suffered significant software and reliability problems during the USS Gerald R. Ford’s early operational period, and requires substantial electrical power generation capacity that had to be engineered into the ship’s design.
President Trump’s Directive: The “Why” Behind the Order
Trump’s skepticism toward EMALS is not new. As far back as 2017, he was publicly voicing frustration with the technology, famously telling Time magazine that the Navy should “go back to goddamned steam.” His argument was consistent: EMALS was expensive, complicated, and troubled — and proven steam technology existed as a perfectly functional alternative.
The August 2026 National Security Memorandum made that preference official policy. The directive ordered the Navy to halt EMALS installation on future Ford-class carriers and engineer a return to steam catapults. Critically, the memo also extended to advanced weapons elevators — the electromagnetic systems that move munitions from below-deck magazines to the flight deck — ordering those to be replaced with hydraulic alternatives as well.
From Trump’s perspective, the case was straightforward. EMALS’s development was plagued by cost overruns and delays that contributed to the USS Gerald R. Ford’s troubled early years. The carrier experienced repeated equipment failures that degraded its readiness, giving critics a concrete example to point to when arguing the technology wasn’t worth the trouble.
Navy officials, however, privately hoped the push would never materialize into a formal order. Their position reflected a belief that the teething problems were solvable — and that abandoning EMALS at this stage would cost more money in the long run, not less, while surrendering a critical technological advantage.
Impact on Ford-Class Carriers: Which Ships Are Affected?
The directive draws a clear line between carriers already built or in advanced construction and those further down the production pipeline.
Carriers unaffected by the order:
– USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78): Already commissioned and operational with EMALS. Stays as is.
– USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79): Advanced in construction with EMALS installed. Stays as is.
– USS Enterprise (CVN-80): Also designed and under construction with EMALS. Stays as is.
The carrier at the center of the change:
– USS Doris Miller (CVN-81): This is the first carrier targeted for the switch back to steam. The redesign work required here will be substantial — the ship was designed from the ground up around EMALS. Ripping that out and engineering a steam system into a hull that was never intended to hold one is an enormously complex undertaking.
The cost estimates circulating around the decision are described simply as “billions of dollars” — but that figure encompasses redesign engineering, physical retrofitting, potential construction delays, and the logistical cascade of switching from one technology ecosystem to another. Every month of delay on a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier carries a price tag that runs into the tens of millions.
General Atomics, the California-based defense contractor that developed and manufactures EMALS, stands to lose a significant contract. The company had positioned EMALS as the future of not just U.S. carrier aviation but potentially allied navies as well.
Reshaping Fighter Operations: The Real-World Consequences
This is where the debate stops being abstract and starts affecting the people who actually operate these ships. The shift back to steam catapults doesn’t just change what hardware is installed below deck — it directly alters how fighter operations are conducted every single day at sea.
Sortie Generation Rates Take a Hit
One of EMALS’s most significant operational advantages is its ability to launch aircraft at a faster rate with greater consistency. In sustained combat operations, sortie generation — how many missions a carrier’s air wing can fly per day — is a direct measure of combat power. Steam catapults, with their longer reset cycles and greater maintenance downtime, can limit how quickly aircraft cycle through launches.
In a high-intensity conflict, that difference could matter enormously. A carrier that can launch 20% more sorties per day is effectively a more powerful weapon, regardless of what aircraft it carries.
Aircraft Versatility Shrinks
The U.S. Navy’s future air wing isn’t just F/A-18 Super Hornets and F-35Cs. Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs) are already in development, and the Navy’s vision for future carrier air wings includes a significant mix of crewed and uncrewed platforms. Many of these next-generation drones are lighter aircraft that benefit directly from EMALS’s ability to calibrate launch energy precisely.
Steam catapults are blunter instruments. They can be adjusted, but not with the fine-grained precision that launching a lightweight UAV safely requires. This limits operational flexibility precisely when the Navy is trying to expand it.
Airframe Wear and Aircraft Lifespan
Every steam catapult launch subjects an aircraft to a harder, less controlled jolt than an EMALS launch. Over hundreds of launches, that cumulative stress adds up in ways that matter to maintenance crews and budget planners. It accelerates structural fatigue, increases inspection requirements, and shortens the operational lifespan of expensive fighter aircraft.
For jets like the F-35C — which costs roughly $100 million per aircraft — any reduction in service life translates directly into accelerated replacement costs.
Manning and Crew Requirements
Steam catapults require significantly more sailors to operate and maintain than EMALS. In an era when the Navy is already grappling with serious manning challenges across the fleet, adding personnel requirements to one of the service’s most complex platforms compounds an existing problem.
Those extra sailors need to be recruited, trained, housed, fed, and paid. They need specialized knowledge of systems that had been phasing out of the Navy’s institutional knowledge base. Rebuilding that expertise — training a new generation of steam catapult technicians — takes time and money that can’t be recovered once spent.
Pilot and Deck Crew Training Adjustments
The transition back to steam also means changes in how pilots experience launches and how deck crews operate. Steam launches have a characteristic “kick” that experienced naval aviators know well. As the fleet has shifted toward EMALS, newer pilots have trained primarily on the smoother electromagnetic launch profile. Reverting to steam means retraining, or ensuring that new pilots receive training on a system that exists only on specific carriers.
Deck crews face their own adjustment — operating and coordinating steam catapult launches involves different procedures, timing, and safety protocols than EMALS operations.
The Strategic Picture: A Technological Retreat While Rivals Advance
Perhaps the most consequential dimension of this decision is what it signals about America’s trajectory in naval technology at a moment when strategic competition is intensifying.
China’s newest aircraft carrier, the Type 003 Fujian, uses electromagnetic catapults. Beijing invested heavily in developing its own version of the technology that the U.S. is now stepping back from, and the Fujian represents a generational leap over China’s previous ski-jump carriers. France is planning to equip its next-generation aircraft carrier with EMALS as well — a system it would license from the same General Atomics now watching its U.S. Navy contracts shrink.
The picture that emerges is a significant one: the United States, which pioneered electromagnetic carrier launch technology, is reverting to steam while its primary peer competitor accelerates in the opposite direction. Those who follow naval power the way enthusiasts at List25 track the most surprising military facts will recognize this as one of the more counterintuitive pivots in recent defense history.
This divergence has real implications:
– Technological leadership: The U.S. has long maintained a decisive edge in carrier aviation. That edge narrows when competitors adopt the technology being abandoned.
– Interoperability: Allied navies looking to develop or upgrade their own carriers may find EMALS more attractive, creating a technology gap between U.S. and allied systems.
– Industrial base: Reducing EMALS procurement volumes makes the technology more expensive for everyone who still wants it, potentially weakening the industrial base needed to maintain it.
A Step Back or a Pragmatic Choice?
The honest answer is that this decision reflects genuinely competing priorities, and reasonable people disagree sharply about which one should win.
The case for returning to steam has real merit: EMALS’s troubled introduction on the USS Gerald R. Ford was not a minor inconvenience. It delayed the carrier’s deployment, drove up costs, and created real operational readiness problems. The argument that a reliable older technology beats an unreliable new one is not unreasonable — military history is littered with expensive advanced systems that failed when it counted.
The case for staying the course with EMALS is equally compelling: the technology’s problems were identified and addressed, subsequent carriers have benefited from lessons learned, and the long-term operational advantages in sortie rates, aircraft versatility, crew requirements, and airframe life are real and measurable. Walking away now means paying the costs of transition without reaping the full benefits that were always on the horizon.
What’s clear is that the decision to switch USS Doris Miller and future carriers back to steam will cost billions of dollars, take years to implement, reduce operational flexibility in important ways, and complicate the Navy’s efforts to integrate next-generation unmanned aircraft into carrier air wings. Whether those costs are worth the perceived benefits of reliability and simplicity is a question that will be debated for years — and answered only by how these carriers perform in the decades ahead.
—
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did President Trump order a return to steam catapults on Navy carriers?
Trump has expressed skepticism about EMALS since at least 2017, citing cost overruns, technical complexity, and reliability problems experienced during the USS Gerald R. Ford’s early operational years. His August 2026 directive made that preference official policy, ordering future Ford-class carriers to revert to steam catapults and hydraulic weapons elevators.
Which carriers are affected by the directive?
The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), and USS Enterprise (CVN-80) retain their EMALS systems. The USS Doris Miller (CVN-81) is the first carrier targeted for the switch back to steam, along with any subsequent Ford-class hulls.
How much will the switch back to steam catapults cost?
Current estimates describe the cost as running into the billions of dollars. That figure encompasses redesigning ships that were engineered for EMALS, physical installation of steam systems, potential construction delays, and the broader logistical transition from one technology ecosystem to another.
How does EMALS differ from steam catapults in terms of fighter operations?
EMALS provides more precise launch energy control (enabling launches of diverse aircraft including UAVs), smoother launches that reduce airframe stress, higher potential sortie rates, and lower crew requirements. Steam catapults are more mechanically robust and proven but deliver less precise launch forces, require more sailors to operate, and limit the range of aircraft that can be safely launched.
What are China and France doing with carrier launch technology?
China’s newest carrier, the Type 003 Fujian, uses electromagnetic catapults — the same type of technology the U.S. is now moving away from. France is also planning to equip its next-generation aircraft carrier with an electromagnetic launch system. This means the U.S. is diverging from the direction major naval powers are heading.
Who manufactures EMALS?
General Atomics, a California-based defense contractor, developed and manufactures the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. The company stands to lose significant future Navy contracts as a result of the directive.
—
The return to steam catapults on U.S. Navy carriers is one of the most consequential defense procurement decisions in recent memory. It will cost billions, reshape how fighter operations are conducted, complicate the integration of unmanned systems, and raise hard questions about America’s technological leadership at a moment of intensifying great-power competition. Whether it ultimately proves a pragmatic course correction or a costly step backward depends on factors that won’t be fully visible for years — but the operational consequences for the sailors and pilots who serve aboard these carriers begin the moment the welding torches start cutting.