The directive reaches beyond a debate over old versus new technology. It puts a major Ford-class carrier redesign, its potential price tag and the Navy’s staffing pressures under fresh scrutiny.
President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. Navy on August 13, 2026, to remove EMALS from the USS Doris Miller and return to older steam catapults for launching aircraft from the carrier. The change could cost billions of dollars, and the Pentagon and Navy have two months to provide plans for carrying it out.
For the Navy, the issue is not simply whether steam or electromagnetic power launches jets more reliably. Replacing EMALS on a Ford-class ship already under construction could reshape its staffing needs, supporting systems and delivery timetable.
A major change for Doris Miller
The USS Doris Miller is the fourth Ford-class aircraft carrier and the first vessel identified for the changes in the White House directive described by The Associated Press. The memo also calls for replacing the ship’s electromagnetic weapons elevators.
The order does not currently require the same overhaul on every Ford-class carrier. AP reported that the USS Gerald R. Ford, USS John F. Kennedy and USS Enterprise would remain unchanged under the present direction.
That distinction matters because the Doris Miller is not a blank-sheet design. Work on its launch and recovery equipment has already advanced, making the order a substantial redesign rather than a simple choice between two systems before construction begins.
Steam and EMALS solve one job differently
Both systems are designed to send aircraft down a carrier’s flight deck with enough speed to take off. Steam catapults have performed that role on U.S. carriers for decades, using steam pressure to accelerate aircraft.
They are proven technology, but they are also mechanically demanding. Steam catapults require extensive supporting equipment and trained personnel to run them.
EMALS, short for Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, uses electromagnetic force instead. The Navy designed the system to provide more precise launch control, occupy less shipboard space and reduce the number of sailors needed for catapult operations.
In a February release cited by AP, the Navy said the USS Gerald R. Ford could launch and recover aircraft at a higher rate than older Nimitz-class carriers. The practical disagreement is whether the newer system’s intended gains outweigh Trump’s stated preference for the familiar steam approach.
The manpower tradeoff is central
The staffing gap is one reason this equipment decision has consequences beyond carrier engineering. AP reported that EMALS on the Ford reduced the catapult operating crew from roughly a dozen sailors to two.
Returning to steam would reverse at least part of that labor-saving design. The Navy would need personnel for work EMALS was intended to streamline.
That comes as the service is trying to fill vacancies throughout the fleet. AP reported that the Navy had about 20,000 unfilled positions across its ships at the beginning of 2026, even after recruiting improved.
Supporters of a steam conversion can point to an established system with a long operating history. Critics can point to the need for more sailors, more supporting infrastructure and the loss of some benefits the Ford class was built to deliver.
Costs and construction questions remain
General Atomics, the EMALS manufacturer, told AP that abandoning the system on the Doris Miller warrants “careful reconsideration.” The company said the ship’s catapults and arresting gear were already about halfway complete.
Its warning centered on integration, cost and schedule risk. A steam catapult cannot simply be swapped in as a deck-mounted replacement because steam systems require different supporting infrastructure within an aircraft carrier’s closely connected design.
AP reported that the mandate would likely cost billions of dollars. Public reporting did not provide a price estimate or an implementation schedule, leaving major questions about the ultimate expense and whether the redesign would delay the ship.
The Navy’s forthcoming plan may also show whether effects extend beyond the Doris Miller, including implications for future carrier designs, supply chains, maintenance and training.
Trump’s long-running objection meets reality
Trump’s opposition to the electromagnetic system predates this directive. In a 2017 interview with Time magazine during his first term, he criticized the magnetic launch system and said the older approach had more power. He has raised the issue again at public events.
The White House memo places the decision in a broader critique of naval shipbuilding, including cost growth, delays and cancellations associated with changing designs. That creates a clear tension: the administration is warning about design churn while directing a major change to a ship designed around EMALS.
The wider international picture also complicates any suggestion that electromagnetic launch technology has been discarded. According to AP, China’s newest carriers use electromagnetic catapults, and France has said it plans to use the technology on its next carrier. Those choices do not settle the reliability argument, but they show the system remains central to other carrier programs.
Congress will face the price question
The directive arrives as Congress considers funding sought by the Trump administration for Pentagon priorities and the Iran war. AP reported that the Senate was still expected to act after returning in September.
That makes the Navy’s two-month plan more than an internal assessment. Lawmakers may have to weigh the cost of changing the Doris Miller against competing shipbuilding, readiness and personnel needs.
Trump has established the desired direction, but not a completed engineering blueprint. The next test is whether the Navy can turn a return to steam catapults into a workable redesign—and identify what it would require in money, time and operational tradeoffs.
Leave a Reply