President Trump Orders U.S. Navy to Return to Steam Catapults
Washington, Friday, 14 August 2026.
President Donald Trump has directed the U.S. Navy to replace electromagnetic catapults with traditional steam systems on future aircraft carriers, a move experts warn will increase costs and delays.
Executive Order Shifts Naval Procurement
President Donald Trump has directed the U.S. Navy to replace the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) with traditional steam catapults on future Ford-class aircraft carriers, a policy shift announced on August 13, 2026 [1][4]. The directive specifically targets the USS Doris Miller (CVN-81), requiring the removal of electromagnetic systems in favor of steam-powered catapults and hydraulic weapons elevators [5]. This order marks a significant reversal in naval engineering strategy, aiming to overhaul launch technologies despite warnings from officials and experts that the move could significantly increase redesign costs and alter defense procurement timelines [1].
Executive Order Shifts Naval Procurement
The President’s opposition to electromagnetic launch systems dates back to 2017, citing concerns regarding system complexity based on conversations with Navy officers [4]. While the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) and USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) will retain EMALS, the administration argues that steam systems are proven, reliable, and affordable compared to the digital complexities of the new technology [3][5]. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been tasked with executing this transition, aligning with the administration’s broader goal to restore capacity and competition to the maritime industrial base [4].
Industrial Supply Chain and Cost Risks
General Atomics, the contractor responsible for EMALS production, reported that 50 percent of production for the affected systems is already complete [1][3]. With production half-complete, the remaining work represents 50 percent of the project, and the contractor warns that changing course now would introduce significant cost, schedule, and integration risks [5]. The Navy has not purchased a steam catapult in over 20 years, meaning restoring steam lines will require extensive ship redesign and significant investment to restart supply chains [2][3].
Industrial Supply Chain and Cost Risks
The USS Gerald R. Ford, which cost over $13 billion to build, currently utilizes EMALS, a system the President has criticized as overly complex and expensive [1]. Experts note that steam systems weigh more, use significantly more energy and water, and require more maintenance and manpower than their electromagnetic counterparts [1]. Despite the USS Ford demonstrating increased sortie generation rates with EMALS in preliminary testing reported in February 2026, the administration maintains that the transition is necessary for reliability [1][5].
Strategic Deadlines and Shipyard Expansion
Secretary Hegseth must submit a plan detailing the transition to steam and hydraulic systems for CVN-81 within 60 days of the memorandum’s issuance, with a deadline of October 11, 2026 [4][5]. Additionally, the memorandum requires a proposal within 120 days, by December 10, 2026, regarding the establishment of a fifth public shipyard to address submarine and aircraft carrier repair delays [2][3]. This expansion aims to accommodate fleet growth and reduce maintenance backlogs, although concerns remain regarding workforce availability and infrastructure costs [2].
Political and Operational Reactions
Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy pilot, publicly criticized the administration’s engineering interference via social platform X, stating he would not suggest how to engineer specific systems on ships [1]. Meanwhile, reports of deteriorating conditions on the USS Abraham Lincoln, including mental health concerns among sailors deployed for over 200 days, have drawn scrutiny from Senate Democrats requesting information from Defense leadership [4][5]. As the Pentagon prepares to implement these changes, the balance between industrial policy and operational efficacy remains a central point of contention [3][5].