Shock Reversal: Navy Dumps High-Tech Launchers

President Trump ordered the Navy to draft a plan to rip out new launch gear on its next carrier and go back to steam power, even if it costs billions and years of delay.

Story Snapshot

The White House memo directs a plan to replace electromagnetic launch gear and advanced elevators on CVN-81 with steam and hydraulic systems.
Defense testers say reliability of the current electromagnetic system remains below required targets years into service.
General Atomics warns the switch mid-build on Doris Miller could add major cost, delays, and integration risks.
Government watchdogs have long flagged Ford-class cost growth and immature tech, feeding today’s pushback.

What the Presidential Order Requires

The White House issued a memorandum instructing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to produce, within 60 days, a detailed plan to replace the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and Advanced Weapons Elevators on the future USS Doris Miller (CVN-81) with steam and hydraulic systems. Reporting across outlets describes the order as binding policy, with estimates that revising the ship’s design could drive significant new costs and push delivery to the right by years.

The directive focuses on the fourth Ford-class carrier, which is early in construction, not on the three earlier ships already built around the electromagnetic system. Outlets covering the memo say the instruction reflects President Trump’s long-stated view that simpler, proven gear is easier to fix at sea and cheaper to keep running, even if reversing course now is disruptive. The order sets timelines and seeks resource plans, signaling a fast decision cycle by the Pentagon.

Why the Navy’s New Tech Is Under Fire

The Defense Department’s test office reported this year that reliability of the electromagnetic launch system on the lead ship remains below goals and still needs support from shore-based experts, despite upgrades. Earlier testimony to the Senate showed the system far below its required mean cycles between failure, reinforcing concerns about sortie generation in high-tempo combat. These results have fueled arguments that high-tech promises outran real-world performance at sea.

General Accountability Office reports for more than a decade documented cost growth, schedule slips, and immature technologies across the Ford-class, from catapults to arresting gear and elevators. Those findings shaped today’s debate: supporters of the reversal cite a pattern of big bets that did not mature fast enough to meet fleet needs. Critics counter that changing design midstream can create its own spiral of waste and delay that taxpayers will bear.

Cost, Schedule, and Industrial Impacts to Watch

General Atomics, which builds the electromagnetic launcher, says work on Doris Miller is nearly halfway complete and warns that switching now brings “significant cost, schedule, and integration risks”. Reporters also note resistance among naval officers who argue the fleet has begun to work through early bugs and should not reverse course now. Either path has risk: staying the course with lower reliability, or reengineering a complex ship after construction has started.

🇺🇸 Trump Wants to Bring Steam Power Back to America’s Newest Carriers

President Donald Trump has directed the U.S. Navy to redesign the fourth Ford class carrier, Doris Miller, and future carriers around traditional steam catapults instead of EMALS, according to U.S. officials… pic.twitter.com/dQFlKVxUGv

— Defense Intelligence (@DI313_) August 15, 2026

For taxpayers, the stakes are high. Reuters and Bloomberg report the redesign could cost billions and delay the carrier’s entry into the fleet. For sailors, the question is uptime: which system delivers more dependable launches in real operations over years at sea. For both left and right, the episode fits a bigger worry: a defense system that spends more, delivers late, and then spends again to undo past choices. That cycle feeds distrust in leaders across parties.

What This Says About Power, Priorities, and Readiness

Defense procurement often swings between new tech promises and the safety of proven gear. Here, test data and watchdog reports gave the White House an opening to demand a reset. But the same records also warn about the cost of mid-course changes. Voters who fear a cozy circle of contractors, lobbyists, and officials will see this as another bill for earlier mistakes. The next 60 days will reveal whether the Pentagon can chart a clear, affordable path that puts sailors and readiness first.