Liberal Forum

Beekeeper » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

14 minutes ago

Yet, the STEAM CATAPULT had been used for DECADES and the failure rate is far below the electtro-magnetic crap and it's been around for a few decades as well. The bottom line is, USE SOMETHING THAT WORKS on an aircraft carrier, not the crap that doesn't and has such a poor reliability factor it's not funny. I can tell you that FAMILY onboard one with the new crap will tell you, it works ABOUT 1/2 the time and is being worked on the OTHER half. In the heat of battle, you need to be able to launch aircraft at a rate these new systems can't keep up with if they are broken down and under repair.

AMD the part you seem to forget- there is NO FIXING THIS EM SYSTEM since it has WAY too many parts susceptible to failure. The Steam catapults don't and any thing needing fixed can be done without OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS. Seeing how Steam has only a handful of moving parts, fixing it is simple in most cases and can be done in FAR less time that the EM systems require.

It was wrought with FAILURE from the start and ALMOST got scrapped totally in the beginning!!! It's still not much better, especially when it dumps a billion-dollar plane overboard because it failed to hit proper speed!! Steam RARELY IF EVER did that.

 

Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, called the decision to revert to steam catapults “illogical, inefficient and a waste of money,” and he said EMALS “reduce wear and tear on aircraft by providing smoother acceleration.”

 “They weigh a lot less, they use significantly less energy and water — which are in short supply on ships — require significantly less maintenance, and manpower,” Montgomery, a former commander of Carrier Strike Group 5 aboard the USS George Washington in Japan, told The Hill on Thursday. 

 Bryan Clark, a senior fellow and director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute, said the memo is a “mixed bag,” noting that putting steam catapults and hydraulic arresting gear and elevators back onto carriers will make them “less capable and more expensive.” 

 “The Navy is saving about $100M a year on the Ford because it requires fewer people and less maintenance. Redesigning the carriers to replumb them for steam piping to the catapults will take multiple years and cost billions of dollars,” Clark, a sea warfare expert, said in an email to The Hill on Friday morning. Steam catapults are no longer in production, and the Navy bought the last set 20 years ago, he said, adding that the service branch will need to “spend tens of millions and take years to stand up this production capacity again.”

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/6029 ... -reversal/

Also, the take off is smoother and their is less wear and tear on the aircraft.