The Navy's Next-Gen Electromagnetic Catapult System Hurls its First Planes Skyward

this story just add to my confusion as to why popsci.com would post the story about launching space ships using a rail gun. That idea is 50 years old. And this idea of launching airplane has been in the works for 10 years. it is very cool though. this is at least news because it is a working prototype.

Because it's very interesting and a first of it's kind? That seems like a good reason to post this article. I'm glad they did.

"a battle-ready technology does not a handful of test launches make."

Good point there. Just because you already have a battle-ready technology, that doesn't mean you can just run out and test it.

I just find myself shying away from the idea of slaving U.S. force projection to a launch system that is new and untried over something that is extremely durable, and has been shown in battle conditions, to just plain work. This launch system, if used, and this carrier certainly, will see the advent of EM ordnance specifically designed to take out electrical systems. This puts the idea in my head that if we are so damm sure that electronics are so trustworthy, why don't we just put a holographic navy, army, and air force out there? What's the 'no fail' backup for this thing? We just assume that no one will ever get a hit on something the size of a supercarrier? To do away with dependable technology just to accommodate very fragile wargear is madness. UAV's could easily be designed to launch using a drop-rocket.

you all seem to miss the point, if this tech becomes reliable it will be better than steam powered cats, ever hear of progress, if we intend to continue to be the leader militarily than we must push forward with these new techs

@SLNuke87 I wasn't talking about THIS article. I was talking about the the article using railguns to launch space ships.

@quasi44 these EM ordinances you are talking about are just science fiction. They do not exist yet. And when they do, we will have counter measures. In fact we already do. We have EM shielded devices.
YOUR tried and true trusty technology uses OIL!!! They are trying to turn the navy into a 100% electronic unit. The ships will all have nuclear engines. using electronic rail guns, rail gun launching systems, and electronic engines. What would be a better advantage than an army that doesn't NEED OIL?!?!?!??!
you make a bullet. I make a bullet proof vest. You make a nuke, we make a army base inside a mountain. you make an "EM Ordinance" we make a an EM ordnance proof vest super mountain base. so yeah! take that.

complete with a video from the 80s to show how out of date it is! oh and thanks for the captcha popsci!

Thank you for helping make part of my point, drchuck1. IF it can be made reliable...by delivery date in 5 months. Thank you also for helping me make part of my point, inaka_rob. As you say, a new bullet for a new vest, right? Right now we are in the field against foes who are VERY low tech, and if it weren't for them being stupid and choosing to engage us in numbers occasionally, our body count against them wouldn't be nearly as favorable. Creative use of guerrilla tactics has us spending more than two million a head, and that's just what's declared. What adds to that is the undeclared cost of the billions in equipment we have lost. And the billions in logistics costs. We are probably spending 50 million or more per head. While I have confidence in our capabilities, I don't share your blind faith that technology will save us, time after time after time. A ship the size of this supercarrier will NEVER be able to operate without oil and MANY other petrochemicals. EVER. I see greater risk in rushing headlong into a totally unexplored new era of warfare without critical components having no-fail backup. If this system does prove so bulletproof and reliable as to never need the backup, then fine; remove the backup once we KNOW we don't need it. The blind faith that you exhibit in tech that has never seen a concerted attack against it is probably quite a morale builder for our enemies.

Oh, yeah, one more thing...aren't our existing cats steam powered? Same as many other systems on a nuclear powered carrier?

Quasi44:

You seem to be assuming quite a bit that is not in this article. Do you have another source for your objections?

In particular, you refer to this technology as "fragile". There is nothing in the article to suggest that it is fragile in anyway.

As for EM interference, the metal deck lying above the catapult can easily serve as a faraday cage, so the only way that this cat could be affected by enemy fire is with a hit on the carrier itself.

Now if it is a fragile tech, then that reduces the power of the blow that must be struck to put the cat out of commission. However, steam cats have long had problems in this area - it is one of the reasons that they are being replaced. It is currently difficult but possible to knock out the cat without tearing up the flight deck. With the electric cat, it is hoped that only a force sufficient to injure the flight deck itself will disable the cat.

This tech is supposed to be a step forward in reliability/"fightability" (a popular term in naval circles). Movement to solid state workings has -in nearly every product- generated more reliability & longer lifetimes...up until only recently when cheap-@$$ electronics began to be produced w/ bad solder.

I think that you are assuming that this tech is fragile because they haven't gotten it to work reliably yet. But that could be a software issue (managing power levels & distributing charge) or other issues that have nothing to do with fragility. The easiest to explain is a manufacturing issue.

Imagine producing a solid, 1/2inch-thick-steel trash can. It isn't fragile, but if your manufacturing plant occasionally turns out trash cans without bottoms, then you don't have reliable trash cans yet. So you go back to work trying to make them right, but once they actually have a bottom, nobody is worried about reliability or durability of the actual product, the actual trash can.

Connections between the power supply and a solid state cat are much easier to make...and easier to make more reliable...than with a steam cat.

Don't fret about durability. Just worry about whether or not they can make it right to begin with.

I think this is the concern that others have with your posts. You seem to be saying we shouldn't ** try** to install this on the Ford because it's a new tech.

No one is arguing that we should install bad tech. We're arguing that the effort should be put in. And with solid state tech, getting it to work the 2nd time, even the 10,000th time, is easier than getting it to work the 1st time. So now that they have successful tests they should *definitely* forge ahead. Even if it's late, if it's less than a year late, that's better than would be accomplished by switching to a steam cat at this late date.

--)->

@ bicrip; Thanks for the comeback. I was not suggesting that this tech is fragile. Our Navy knows what they have to have to throw these aircraft off of the flight deck. I would expect it to be very robust in launch capability and selectivity. What I was referring to as fragile wargear are the drones.

I am currently employed by a company with a fully-functional EM catapult with a system -although still on solid ground - having long ago solved software issues with the implementation of our sensorless system along the linear induction motor rails.(feedback is from the induction and phase angle in the motors themselves) Newly designed motors also add to the elimination the "end-effects" that EMALS is suffering from(bumpy ride during launch)like a blender for pilots really...(reducing airframe life and sortie rate).
Our system self-compensates for cross-winds, deck movement, engine speed, thrust and payload variables, including total failure of one of the LIM modules during launch, or failure of the energy stores during an engaged launch sequence. It is constructed utilizing technology that is well-proven and readily available globally. Already launch capable for large UAV's (over 3,000 launch payload trials)it can be scaled up or down in size without changing fundamentals of the design.
The scaled up version, ready for full-load test in May/June of this year is designed to provide an impulse thrust power magnitude of >120 megajoules, and utilities an EM brake for stopping the shuttle at end-of stroke.
I wonder the effectiveness of throwing hundreds of thousands of greenbacks at a project requiring expertise in magnetic systems and motion control, being executed by a company specializing in airframe technology(UAV)?
The further scary thought here is that they are building a custom piece here - and what of spare parts or repair expertise?
PS nothing fragile about this technology - at least not ours - I cant speak for others though...