The United States is attempting to accelerate its naval buildup while simultaneously taking a remarkable step backward in one area of aircraft-carrier technology.
President Donald Trump has ordered the US Navy to return to steam-powered catapults for future aircraft carriers, abandoning the electromagnetic launch system installed on the Navy’s newest Ford-class carriers. At the same time, his administration has opened the door for some US Navy ships to be built overseas in an effort to increase production capacity and get vessels into service faster.
Taken together, the two decisions reveal an unusual strategy: move faster by expanding where ships can be built, while replacing a newer technology that Trump considers unnecessarily complicated with an older system he believes is more reliable.
But the changes could create their own problems — particularly because the electromagnetic system is already deeply integrated into the Ford-class programme.
A dramatic U-turn on aircraft carriers
The most striking part of the new policy concerns the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS.
The technology was developed to replace the steam catapults that had been used on US aircraft carriers for decades.
Instead of using steam pressure to propel aircraft from the carrier deck, EMALS uses electromagnetic forces to accelerate them.
It was designed to provide more precise launches and reduce some of the stresses placed on aircraft. The system can also accommodate different aircraft weights more flexibly than traditional steam technology.
Yet Trump has long criticized the system, arguing that it is too complicated and expensive.
His latest directive now instructs the Navy to move back to steam catapults for future carriers.
The timing creates a major engineering headache
This is where the decision becomes much more complicated.
The Navy’s Ford-class carriers were designed around EMALS and other advanced technologies.
The fourth ship in the class, USS Doris Miller, is already under construction, and work on its electromagnetic launch system is reportedly well advanced.
That means switching back to steam is not simply a matter of installing an older piece of equipment.
The carrier’s design, machinery, plumbing, power requirements and internal systems would all have to be reconsidered.
Reuters reported that the change could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and create significant schedule and integration challenges.
In other words, replacing new technology with old technology may actually make the shipbuilding process more complicated in the short term.
Why Trump wants steam back
Trump’s preference for steam catapults is not new.
He has criticized electromagnetic launch technology for years, arguing that traditional steam systems are simpler and more dependable.
His position has remained remarkably consistent since his first presidency.
In 2019, Trump publicly questioned sailors about whether they preferred “steam or electric,” reflecting his longstanding skepticism toward the Navy’s move toward electromagnetic launch technology.
The new memorandum turns that longstanding preference into policy.
The administration’s argument is essentially that a proven system is preferable to a sophisticated system if the latter introduces too much complexity or reliability risk.
Critics, however, argue that modern military technology cannot simply be judged by whether it looks more complicated.
EMALS was designed for the next generation of naval aviation
The electromagnetic system was introduced precisely because the Navy wanted to overcome some limitations of steam catapults.
EMALS can launch aircraft more precisely and is designed to reduce stress on airframes.
It also requires less manpower than traditional steam systems and avoids some of the infrastructure associated with generating and handling steam.
The system has also accumulated substantial operational experience.
Reuters reported that EMALS has conducted more than 36,000 launches, and the technology is being used by both the United States and France.
That makes Trump’s decision particularly significant.
The United States is not abandoning an untested laboratory experiment.
It is abandoning a technology that has already entered operational use.
The Navy now faces a difficult choice
The immediate challenge will be determining how to redesign future carriers without creating even larger delays.
A presidential directive requires the Pentagon to develop a plan for replacing EMALS with steam systems on the relevant future carrier. Another advanced technology, the Advanced Weapons Elevators, is also being targeted for replacement with hydraulic systems.
That could force naval engineers to revisit decisions that have already been incorporated into the carrier’s architecture.
And aircraft carriers are among the most complicated machines ever constructed.
Changing one major system can affect many others.
The question is therefore not simply:
“Is steam better than electricity?”
The more important question is:
“What will it cost, how long will it take and what capability will the Navy gain or lose by making the switch now?”
Then comes the even bigger announcement: ships may be built abroad
While Trump is ordering the Navy to revert to older technology in one area, he is taking a much more unconventional approach to shipbuilding in another.
The new policy allows certain foreign shipbuilders with significant US investment to temporarily construct up to two US Navy ships overseas.
The reasoning is straightforward.
America needs more ships.
US shipyards have struggled with capacity, workforce shortages, maintenance backlogs and long construction schedules.
If foreign facilities can help increase production, the administration wants to use them.
That represents a major departure from the traditional assumption that American warships should be built entirely in US shipyards.
Why would Washington take such a step?
Because the US Navy faces a serious capacity problem.
The United States wants a larger fleet while simultaneously dealing with limitations in domestic shipbuilding infrastructure.
The administration is therefore attempting to attack the problem from both ends:
increase domestic capacity while temporarily using overseas capacity where necessary.
The memorandum also calls for the establishment of a fifth public Navy shipyard, aimed at expanding the country’s ability to repair submarines and aircraft carriers. It also directs the creation of a new component repair centre intended to reduce delays.
That suggests the overseas construction provision is not intended to replace American shipbuilding permanently.
Instead, it appears designed as a short-term pressure valve while the US tries to expand its own industrial base.
The contradiction at the heart of the policy
This creates one of the most interesting aspects of Trump’s announcement.
The administration wants to strengthen America’s domestic industrial base.
Yet it is simultaneously allowing some warships to be constructed abroad.
At first glance, those policies appear contradictory.
But the strategic logic is easier to understand if viewed as a race against time.
Building new American shipyards could take years.
The US Navy needs additional capacity much sooner.
So Washington is effectively saying:
Build at home for the future — but use trusted overseas capacity to fill the gap today.
Whether that approach can work without weakening the American defence-industrial base will be closely watched.
China is an important part of the background
The broader context is the growing naval competition between the United States and China.
China has rapidly expanded its naval fleet and is investing heavily in shipbuilding.
Its commercial shipbuilding industry gives Beijing an enormous industrial capacity that the United States has struggled to match.
China has also developed its own electromagnetic aircraft launch technology, notably on the Fujian aircraft carrier.
That creates an uncomfortable comparison for Washington.
While China is moving forward with electromagnetic launch technology, the United States is preparing to remove the same technology from future carriers.
The strategic question is therefore larger than one piece of equipment.
Does returning to a mature technology improve American readiness — or does it risk slowing technological progress at precisely the moment competition is intensifying?
Reliability versus innovation
That debate sits at the heart of the controversy.
Military technology involves an unavoidable trade-off.
New systems can offer major advantages, but they may introduce technical risks.
Older systems have decades of operational experience, but they may be heavier, less efficient or less capable.
Trump’s decision clearly prioritizes the second philosophy.
The administration appears to be saying that the Navy needs reliable, familiar technology that can be deployed without unnecessary complexity.
Supporters may see that as common sense.
Critics may see it as abandoning technological advantages that took years and billions of dollars to develop.
The cost question could become decisive
Changing the launch system will not be free.
The Navy has already invested heavily in EMALS, and the technology is deeply connected to the Ford-class design.
Switching systems at this stage could require expensive redesign work and potentially delay construction. Reuters reported that taxpayers could face hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs.
That creates an unusual situation.
Trump’s goal is to make America’s military more efficient and powerful.
But the transition itself could temporarily make the Navy’s shipbuilding programme more expensive and complicated.
The administration will therefore have to demonstrate that the long-term benefits justify the immediate disruption.
A broader attempt to rebuild American sea power
The carrier decision is only one piece of the larger strategy.
Trump’s memorandum also addresses America’s shipbuilding infrastructure, repair capacity and industrial workforce.
The planned fifth public shipyard is particularly important because maintaining existing ships is just as critical as building new ones.
A Navy can have hundreds of ships on paper.
But if too many are waiting for repairs, their numbers mean little operationally.
That is why expanding repair capacity could ultimately be just as important as ordering more vessels.
What this really means for the US Navy
The most interesting way to view Trump’s announcement is not as simply a battle between steam and electricity.
It is a battle between two philosophies of military modernization.
One approach says:
Use the newest technology available and improve it over time.
The other says:
Use technology that has already proven itself and eliminate complexity wherever possible.
Trump has clearly chosen the second approach for carrier launch systems.
At the same time, his administration is embracing an unconventional approach to shipbuilding by temporarily allowing overseas construction.
That combination shows how urgently Washington wants to expand naval capacity.
The road ahead
The immediate consequences will be closely watched.
The Navy must determine how to redesign future Ford-class carriers, how much the changes will cost and whether they will affect construction schedules.
At the same time, officials will need to decide which foreign shipyards could participate in the temporary overseas construction programme and how to protect sensitive military technology and supply chains.
The long-term question is even bigger.
Can the United States build enough ships quickly enough to maintain its naval advantage while simultaneously rebuilding the domestic industrial base needed to sustain that fleet?
The bigger picture
Trump’s latest Navy directive may look like two unrelated decisions — one about steam catapults, the other about foreign shipyards.
But they are connected by a single objective:
Washington wants more usable naval power, and it wants it faster.
The return to steam reflects Trump’s belief that proven technology can deliver greater reliability.
Allowing limited overseas ship construction acknowledges that America’s domestic shipbuilding capacity is currently insufficient for the administration’s ambitions.
And the creation of another public shipyard shows that Washington knows the deeper problem cannot be solved by shortcuts alone.
The real test will come over the next several years.
If the Navy receives more ships, repairs them faster and maintains high operational readiness, the strategy may prove effective.
If the carrier redesign produces delays and escalating costs while other countries continue advancing their naval technology, the decision could look very different in hindsight.
Leave a Reply