Trump Orders Steam Catapults Restored On Ford Class Carriers

I’ll explain the directive President Trump signed to alter Ford-class carriers, what it means for EMALS and steam catapults, how the USS Doris Miller figures in, the 60-day planning requirement, and the broader shipbuilding changes including the so-called Finland Model.

President Trump has used blunt language about the Navy’s electromagnetic aircraft launch system for years, and his latest memorandum puts a formal plan on the table to revert new carriers to steam catapults where practical. The order directs the secretary of war to produce a roadmap for replacing EMALS on ships still under construction and to detail timelines and resources needed to move back to proven steam or hydraulic systems. This is not a casual gripe turned into press copy; it is an explicit call for the Pentagon to map out how to redesign platforms already in the shipyard.

The immediate focus is the USS Doris Miller (CVN-81), the fourth Ford-class carrier that remains under construction. That ship becomes the pilot case for evaluating whether EMALS can be swapped for conventional steam catapults and whether advanced weapons elevators should be replaced with hydraulic alternatives. The administration wants a clear, accountable plan for that swap, including labor, parts, and schedule details the Navy must follow if the plan proceeds.

The memorandum does not order the Navy to strip electromagnetic launchers off carriers already operating at sea. Instead, it gives the secretary 60 days to present a path forward, forcing an examination of cost, industrial capacity, and timeline. The task is specific: lay out what it would take to replace the Doris Miller’s EMALS with steam catapults and swap its advanced elevators for hydraulic systems, with quantified resource lists and deadlines. That level of detail is meant to prevent vague recommendations and to ensure the Pentagon can be held to a concrete implementation schedule.

https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2088049216127971792

President Trump has long argued that steam catapults are battle-tested and reliable, and he raised the issue publicly in 2019 when he said, “I’m going to just put out an order. We’re going to use steam.” Now he has moved from rhetoric to policy direction, pressing the Navy to justify continued reliance on cutting-edge systems that have experienced problems. In his critique he also highlighted cost overruns tied to these systems, noting a significant price surprise that upped skepticism about the technology’s value relative to proven alternatives.

“Steam’s only worked for about 65 years perfectly. And I won’t tell you this because it’s before my time by a little bit, but they have a $900 million cost overrun on this crazy electric catapult. They want to show — next, next, next. And we all want innovation, but it’s too much.”

The administration’s position is straightforward: innovation is valuable, but not at the expense of reliability, cost control, or operational readiness. EMALS promised reduced stress on airframes, fewer sailors to operate the system, and greater launch flexibility, but the real-world rollout has included reliability shortfalls and cost surprises. The memorandum demands the Navy provide honest, quantified tradeoffs so policymakers can decide whether the benefits of EMALS justify continued investment.

Beyond the catapult debate, the memo points to a bigger shipbuilding strategy that tolerates unconventional approaches to quickly rebuild U.S. capacity. The so-called Finland Model would let an experienced foreign shipbuilder build initial ships while investing in and training American yards, with the idea that future vessels migrate to American production. That is a pragmatic acknowledgement that some capabilities might be accelerated by temporary foreign participation while American industry scales back up.

From a conservative standpoint, the memo reflects two priorities: restore proven military capabilities and rebuild America’s industrial base. Reintroducing steam catapults where they make sense is framed as restoring reliability and avoiding costly, unproven tech failures. At the same time, using foreign partners as a bridge to rebuild domestic yards is treated as a targeted, short-term tactic to expand American production and jobs.

Practically speaking, any move to swap EMALS for steam will be complex. Ships under construction are engineered around specific systems, and changing launch systems affects weight distribution, internal layouts, maintenance regimes, and spare parts pipelines. The 60-day planning window is meant to force the Navy to quantify those impacts so civilian leaders can weigh whether reversing course is worth the tradeoffs in cost and schedule.

For supporters of the president’s approach, this is a welcome correction: insist on reliability, demand detailed plans, and use industrial policy to promote American workers. For skeptics, it raises questions about disrupting advanced programs and whether reverting to older tech may hamper future capabilities. The memorandum compels a sober assessment of risk, cost, and readiness rather than leaving decisions to inertia or vendor promises.

Ultimately, the move is about accountability: the White House wants a clear plan with numbers and dates so Congress and the public can judge whether to continue with cutting-edge systems or return to tested methods. That scrutiny is deliberate, and it aims to force concrete choices about how the Navy should balance innovation, cost, and dependable performance in the years ahead.