Trump criticizes aircraft carrier EMAL system

[dilbert firestorm]

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4...esign-as-wrong


the EMAL system is a electric catapult system that is supposed to replace the steam catapult system. the system is said to be lighter and easier to use and can handle certain types of loads that steam catapult could not do.


the EMAL is a very expensive system. while it is a workable system, it has a high failure rate which impact the launch time for fighters.


I think the high failure rate is where Trump's issue with EMAL is at.

[friendly fred]

It does need to be reliable but I am willing to bet they will work it out.

If they can't then they can call me and I will fix'em up!

[Jackie S]

The steam catapult system has worked for decades. It is maintenance intensive, in that it requires constant attention. But it works.

In a war time situation, the catapult is the single most important piece of machinery on an aircraft carrier. Without it, you cannot launch the planes, making the multi billion dollar carrier worthless.

A combat vessel has to be able to stay operational under combat conditions, that being, when someone is shooting back. On paper, the electric launch system looks very good. However, it must be 100 percent reliable under the most extreme conditions.

[grean]

Well we have to keep up with tech. There isn't a practical way to test it with real conditions without installing it. Put it on one carrier and test the shit out of it. Make it break until they can't break it any more. Then push it out to the fleet.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The steam catapult system has worked for decades. It is maintenance intensive, in that it requires constant attention. But it works.

In a war time situation, the catapult is the single most important piece of machinery on an aircraft carrier. Without it, you cannot launch the planes, making the multi billion dollar carrier worthless.

A combat vessel has to be able to stay operational under combat conditions, that being, when someone is shooting back. On paper, the electric launch system looks very good. However, it must be 100 percent reliable under the most extreme conditions.

exactly Trumps point.

those 15 minutes is critical in launching all fighters into the air. if anyone one of the 4 catapults break down during launching, that stretches out to 20 -30 minutes to launch fighters.

EMALS has from what I've read poor reliablity rates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...em#Reliability

In 2013, 201 of 1,967 test launches failed, more than 10 percent.

Factoring in the then-current state of the system, the most generous numbers available in 2013 showed that EMALS has an average “time between failure” rate of 1 in 240. In other words, one out of 240 launches fail.

According to a January 2014 report, "Based on expected reliability growth, the failure rate for the last reported Mean Cycles Between Critical Failure was five times higher than should have been expected. As of August 2014, the Navy has reported that over 3,017 launches have been conducted at the Lakehurst test site, but have not provided DOT&E with an update of failures. The Navy intends to provide DOT&E an update of failures in December 2014."

the EMALS system apparently is very heavy. heavier than the steam system. Navy had no plans to install them on the Nimitz class. Claims that EMALS would erode CG doesn't really wash. However, the class does have limited electrical generation capacity. The nukes are of an old design.

[lustylad]

A 10 percent failure rate? Wtf! And what happens each time it fails? Does our pilot and our hundred million dollar aircraft wind up in the drink?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4...esign-as-wrong


the EMAL system is a electric catapult system that is supposed to replace the steam catapult system. the system is said to be lighter and easier to use and can handle certain types of loads that steam catapult could not do.


the EMAL is a very expensive system. while it is a workable system, it has a high failure rate which impact the launch time for fighters.


I think the high failure rate is where Trump's issue with EMAL is at.

This explains the hub hub. I agree with the President.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the EMAL system is a electric catapult system that is supposed to replace the steam catapult system. the system is said to be lighter and easier to use and can handle certain types of loads that steam catapult could not do.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the EMALS system apparently is very heavy. heavier than the steam system. Navy had no plans to install them on the Nimitz class. Claims that EMALS would erode CG doesn't really wash. However, the class does have limited electrical generation capacity. The nukes are of an old design.

I'm getting confused. Is it lighter and easier to use or is it heavier than the steam system?

Originally Posted by lustylad

A 10 percent failure rate? Wtf! And what happens each time it fails? Does our pilot and our hundred million dollar aircraft wind up in the drink?

Also, what is the failure rate of the current system and what does failure mean? It that the plane ends up trashed in the drink or is it simply failure to launch, which while detrimental, might be something problematic in the current system too.

I need to do some more research on this. I hadn't heard much about it previously.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I'm getting confused. Is it lighter and easier to use or is it heavier than the steam system?

the emals system is heavier than the steam system. I suspect it uses a bank of batteries stored from the nuke juices in parts of the ship.

the electric catapult design is probably heavier than the catapult used by the steam system.

Also, what is the failure rate of the current system and what does failure mean? It that the plane ends up trashed in the drink or is it simply failure to launch, which while detrimental, might be something problematic in the current system too.

I need to do some more research on this. I hadn't heard much about it previously.

I think its the failure to launch. they say its an software teething issue. article doesn't mention what type of failure

"Through the first 747 shipboard launches, EMALS suffered 10 critical failures. This is well below the requirement of 4,166 mean cycles between operational mission failures, where a cycle represents the launch of one aircraft."

Equally troubling, since EMALS is plugged into the shipwide electrical grid, maintenance crews cannot isolate the system during operations in order quickly to fix it. If EMALS failed during combat operations, the ship effectively would have to shut down for repairs.


that is a huge flaw!!! so this means 3 of 4 EMALS would be in operation.

oh yeah, It has cost over-runs due to the failures.

unless they get the teething issues ironed out, it shouldn't be on the carriers.

hmm.. this is an article from 2017. the fords have more problems in other areas of new technology its seems. New arresting gear system and new radar system

https://news.yahoo.com/u-navys-ford-...030000429.html

President Ford was known to be a clumsy klutz, has he jinxed the class????

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

A 10 percent failure rate? Wtf! And what happens each time it fails? Does our pilot and our hundred million dollar aircraft wind up in the drink?

press a button, no launch.


at least according a 2014 article that witnessed the first launch with a dead load.

[dilbert firestorm]

Time to fire the Secretary of the Navy!

[rexdutchman]

Lowest Bid ,,,,,,,,,

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Lowest Bid ,,,,,,,,,

equals cost overuns

[Jackie S]

One thing should be made clear. If the EMAL system functions as designed, it is superior to the steam catapult. And not by just a little.

The key words are "functioned as designed".

Navy ships have always kept things as simple as possible within the mandates of the mission. In real battle, a lot of bad things can happen very quickly.

I always wonder what will happen against a capable enemy that can counteract our high tech systems.

The people that make Radar Guns also make Radar Detectors.

[FriscoKiddo]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I always wonder what will happen against a capable enemy that can counteract our high tech systems.

This is great thinking, and I wish more would pay attention. I attended the US Army War College a decade ago...seminars and break out sessions conclude the next war has long started...kindling has been put down...lighter fluid has been squirted....all that remains is the crazy Serb who shoots an Austro-Hungarian prince. The next war, WW3 if you want...will be technological. It has long been determined no one can subjugate the US with 20th century weapons...the US has the most dominant military apparatus the world has ever known. What is its Achilles heel? Technology. Some speculate that unrelated "hacks" into various US databases are "trial runs"....much like the trial runs made by KSM/Al Queda in airport/airline security before 9/11. Once the confidence level that such an attack can blind us, or deny us access to critical systems...then it's just a matter of finding a crazy Serb.