Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System

Discussion
I am planning on adding quite a bit more to this article, including more information about the components of the system, the pros and cons of the EMALS compared to the steam catapult, and a little bit about the history of the system. Any suggestions for more content that would be relevant to this article? –bl7904


 * That all sounds good. Just do what you can to cite your sources, so that the information you add doesn't get challenged as original research.  I look forward to your work.--Father Goose (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Goose, thanks for the feedback. And I know all of my footnotes reference the same source at the moment; I do have other sources but haven't included them yet in the article.  Bl7904 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Steam catapults also suffer from salt corrosion, as seawater must be boiled to produce the steam for their operation, a problem not present in electromagnetic catapults." - I would have to say this comment is not true. The steam used in steam catapults on Nimitz class carriers, for example, comes from the ships supply of engineering fresh water. It's the same water used to generate steam for the ships main propulsion. I know this because I was responsible for the Nimitz's four catapult steam systems for over 2 years. The main feed water lines come from the engineering spaces, where it is dumped into a highly pressurized tank. The actual steam that goes into the catapult cylinders is generated by flash boiling as a result of a change in pressure when the launch valve is operated. Any salt water corrosion problems they have are related to their external exposure to the elements of the sea and the water brakes (which use seawater), and not to the method by which their steam is generated, since the salt has been removed long before that water reaches the catapult. I would imagine the exposure problem would not go away for EMALS. However, I would think that EMALS would take up a heck of a lot less space!Zogblog (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the sentence. You could have as well (be bold!), but thanks for the explanation here as well.--Father Goose (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the USS Enterprise photo is relevant to this article, since the Enterprise has steam catapults. Tom Hubbard (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's no skin off my nose but... this system will also generate a massive electromagnetic signature, not so? Why is this not seen as a disadvantage? Or do the plenitude of observation/tracking satellites make this a moot point? If so, then I must conclude that all this "stealth" navy tech is simply a waste of hard cash and time. 41.13.68.95 (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Help on references
Could someone please help me with my second reference? The url is displaying as text instead of a link, and I can't figure out what's wrong with it. Thanks. Bl7904 (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You apparently needed an http: in front of it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
There very much needs to be a section on criticisms of EMALS and the problems the Navy is having with the system. There have been multiple test failures, most notably the Jan 2010 accident that damaged the system and set testing back for months. Rep. Gene Taylor has noted in hearings that the Navy basically has no Plan B if this system isn't ready on time, and that the CBO says that EMALS is alone responsible for over $1.3 billion in the Ford's cost overruns. This article is lacking without these kinds of details. DesScorp (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Advantages
I've heard, steam catapults may have problems, caused by low temperatures in nothern seas - frozen water can block and damage catapult's tubes and track. That is why Russian carrier has no catapults (Russian's said it). Is it true? Ходок (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Electromagnetic pulse?
I ran across this article by accident and a section that seems useful would be discussion of the launch systems' electromagnetic pulse signature and its affect on launch personal, avionics plus weapons electronics. A quick search finds Carrier Launch System Passes Initial Tests which says "So far, tests show no signs that the powerful electrical surges cause electromagnetic interference with aircraft, ammunition or ejection seats." --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 19:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

cat- boom
Is there still a large shake and boom below deck foward ship with the electromag launch sys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul kindle (talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul the answer to that question will be answered when the USS Gerald Ford CVN-78 starts her flight deck quals after she gets commisioned. That is still at least 3 or 4 years away.Jhunph (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Israel Pineiro Jr 12/12/2011

F-35B or C
I believe there's a small error in the section where the article states that the catapult successfully launched an F35C. I believe it should be F35B. There's a picture in the article about the F35 where what appears to be an F35B is launched. Both versions are intended for carrier-use, but the C-version is supposed to be launched from a conventional carrier while the B is supposed to be launched from LHDs.

07:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)85.19.145.110 (talk)


 * The article linked to clearly calls the aircraft the F-35C. Only the C model is capable of using catapults and arresting gear, even EMALS. Also, the aircraft in both the photos and the video is clearly marked with "CF" on the tail; the B models carry a "BF" prefix, and the USAF A models are marked with "AF". -BilCat (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

C is the Naval Catapult Variant, B is the STOVL / VSTOL variant a B type would not be catapulted 81.110.29.8 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Broken link to EDN article
Reference [2] was:

http://www.edn.com/contents/images/207108.pdf

Is now found at:

http://www.edn.com/Pdf/ViewPdf?contentItemId=4341471

(Apologies -- have never made a Wikipedia entry, and don't want to mess up the page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banchang (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have fixed it SwiftingSpeed (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ship ready, launcher not?
Just came across a news article, putting it here for reference. It also suggests that the arrestor system is not ready for use, yet. June 19, 2015. and same at "Icebergs ahead for expensive US, UK aircraft carrier projects" - 220  of  Borg 06:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Requests.
1. Does EMALS rely on super-conductivity, like maglev railways do or is is it a room-temperature system? The article could clarify this detail.

2. If understand correctly, EMALS uses juice from fission reactors to spin up 3-4 giant unipolar generators to very high RPM, which are then tapped for insanely large electric currents for ~3 seconds of launch. However, should any of those rotors fail catastrophically in the axle at max RPM, the disc will run amok and grind down the ship's foward secion in circular-saw style? What measures prevent sinking in that case? (The motor-generators of diesel electric locomotives, while slower RPM, sometimes break free and wreck the vehicle down to chassis and then run across the field, collapsing structures they encounter, spinning around like a pop diva, before coming to rest.)

3. The article doesn't say if EMALS is planned for civilian use as well? (The newest generation of jetliners, e.g. B787, A350 appear to have unreasonably long take-off runs, up to 3100 meters at maximum weight. This leaves pilots with a tiny margin of safety, should any mishap requiring stopping occur during the dash. Note that most airstrips are 3750 meters long or less. But very central airports, e.g. New York, London, Tokyo could possibly install an EMALS-derived system under the runway to lessen take-off run distance and save fuel while increasing safety.) 92.52.233.232 (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ground carriage
Hi BilCat, can you explain why you think there should be no link between the two articles?Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am reinserting the link. See the above question about a civilian application of this concept. --Gnom (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Trump Criticisms quote
Someone just took the Trump Quote this out of the article. When the commander in chief of the US forces criticizes this system, it's relevant.104.163.158.183 (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I took it out per WP:NOTNEWS. Trump criticizes almost everything, and most of them are just negotiating ploys. By regurgitating everything he says, you just play right into his hand. - BilCat (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This does not have anything to do with presidential negotiating. Wikipedia is not a site whose content varies depending on what we think the speaker meant: We are not here to interpret the value of a quote on the article subject by the 'leader of the free world.' Set up an RFC if you do not think it should be included. 104.163.158.183 (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * An RFC isn't needed,just a consensus here to readd it. Till you get it, keep it out. - BilCat (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're the only one objecting, because you did not like my edit summary about Trump's "word salad", which is actually a term that is widely used to refer to his speech. (See "President Trump’s wilted word salad on helping urban communities" (Washington Post), "Donald Trump’s Chilling Language, and the Fearsome Power of Words" (Vanity Fair) and "2016: the year of anger, Trump’s ‘word salad’ and anti-rhetoric" (Financial Times), for example.) A half-dozen editors before you and I were fine with the quote. More voices are needed here.104.163.158.183 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm objecting because it's much ado about nothing, and because WP is not news. Trump isn't the first person to criticize EMALS, and no policy decision has been made either, as EMALS hasn't been canceled. - BilCat (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * He's the head of the US Military-- the organization that ordered the system that the article is about. Sure, he looks, talks and thinks like a fool, but what he says about anything while he is president is a matter of importance and part of a lasting public record that will be repeated for decades, if not centuries. It has been that way with every president: what they say matters. You do not get to pick and choose which statement you like. He made a blistering and long comment about this system in a major magazine (Time), and that belongs in the article. I added four more good sources to the quote. 104.163.158.183 (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * We all get to pick what belongs in WP every day. It's how we apply WP:NOT. I'm not objecting to it on the basis of whether or not I like the statement. It's just way too soon, as no decision has been made. - BilCat (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Trump's statement is clearly incorrect, but since he is both a significant public figure and the commander-in-chief of the US military, I can't really buy the argument that the criticism is not relevant to the article. - Brouhaha (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the comments should remain in the article at this time. Incoherent blatherings in a newspaper or magazine interview may well be newsworthy and make great copy for the media.  This is not the media.  Before such pronouncements warrant inclusion in this article, at the very least there needs to be some official announcement and subsequent discussion by relevant and informed sources that we can cite so as to gain an appreciation of the real importance of the position.  Trump has form for saying all sorts of outrageous things then neither following up on them or changing them in the implementation so that they become unrecognisable.  Is this one of those cases?  Too soon to tell.  This is not a news service and there is no deadline here.  We should wait until the true situation becomes clear before bursting into print. -  Nick Thorne  talk  08:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discussion moved to the RFC below.104.163.158.183 (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed Trump's even familiar with the name of a rocket scientist such as Albert Einstein.  E Eng  16:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC
Should the "Criticisms" section contain the following recent quote on the article subject by President Trump? 104.163.158.183 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC) "'It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–'Sir, we’re staying with digital.' I said no you’re not. You're going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.'"


 * Don't need quite so many citations that all depend on the same source. More important, didn't Senator McCaine call the project something like "bloated, overpriced" a couple years ago? Of course, he's a bit more interested in subtleties such as the distinction between a bad proposal and a bad execution. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No one is doubting that Trump said this: one reference, from Time, will suffice for that purpose. The question however, is not whether he said it but rather whether it should be included in this article at this time.  As I stated above and is well known Wikipedia is not a news service and there is no need to cover events as they happen.  It is far too early to determine whether Trump's statement has any lasting significance.  This may just be another one of those things he says that come to nothing or that get so changed in the implementation that they become unrecognisable.  We should wait until it becomes clear what if any change in actual policy and construction plans are made and then we can include the issue here if necessary citing the appropriate reliable sources discussing that decision (if it is made) in the usual way.  Now is far too soon to determine the importance and thus relevance of these comments. -  Nick Thorne  talk  00:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of people would say that US presidential statements and actions are notable and important by default. Do you think the Trump presidential library will omit or include his tweets?104.163.158.183 (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and a lot of people think the world is flat. An appeal to popularity is not very convincing. ' Nick Thorne  talk  03:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, you are conflating two different things. Presidential statements on specific programs are by their very nature significant. You're trying to say some are and some are not. If the head of Apple suddenly came out and said that the Mac should go back to G4 processors, would you ignore that too?104.163.158.183 (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But this was not a presidential statement, it was incoherent waffle given in a magazine interview. Until at the very least a formal policy statement is made on the subject and that is examined and discussed by relevant experts that we can cite, there is no way any of us here can judge the importance of this quote.  To suggest anything else is straight out original research. -  Nick Thorne  talk  05:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything Trump says as president is a presidential statement. I can see the pragmatic side of your position: we should ignore this as it is similar to a little kid running into a room saying "Mommy, electric launchers are dumb!". That should be ignored. However this is not a little kid-- this is the most powerful person in the world. All of his statements are significant. Everything a US President says publicly gets recorded, archived, reproduced and is written about in books... even the stupid stuff.  104.163.158.183 (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, and once it's been "recorded, archived, reproduced and is written about in books" we will have something with proper context about which we can write and from which we can cite. At the risk of repeating myself there is no rush, Wikipedia is not a news service, there is no compulsion to include everything as it happens.  We simply cannot possibly know at this point whether this statement will have any impact whatsoever on the use of EMALS in American carriers.  This is not an article about the sayings of the US President, it is about an aircraft carrier aircraft launching system and it is far from clear what effect, if any, Trump's statement will have on it. The comment does not belong here at this time (if it ever will). -  Nick Thorne  talk  06:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Section should be expanded. The program has been, umm, steaming along for years and attracting attention pro and con from various interests. The recent statement will attract more public attention, thus making the question one we should handle properly. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Presidential attention - negative or positive - can be critical in terms of project success or failure. It's a "pretty bad thing" (for procurement chances) when the commander in chief says he doesn't want a system.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. (Invited by bot) Jojalozzo (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete While Donald Trump maybe President of the United States, he is not a subject matter expert. A large quote from the current POTUS gives undue weight to his opinions, also see WP:QUOTEFARM. Moreover, criticism of the subject, not that there should be a section named that WP:CSECTION, can be better handled by use of prose referencing several individuals, to include, but not limited to the current POTUS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment True, he's "not a subject matter expert", but he is the CEO of the military that ordered the project, and can easily order it cancelled should he desire.104.163.158.183 (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The Navy said Thursday that it was developing a response. A Pentagon official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of speaking about the president, said that Trump’s comments caught defense officials off-guard and are inaccurate.
 * Keep Trump is critisizing a particularly expensive upgrade to the career fleet' regardless of how you feel about trump he is voicing concern here about the money to be spent on this. Accordingly, it should stay. 174.237.5.212 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep President Trump wants to inject his opinion into this technology decision. This is his right as Commander-in-Chief. This is highly relevant to the weapons system selection process, as his action casts light on the nature of the process. 02:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)″ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgmusselman (talk • contribs)
 * Don't quote verbatim: It's worth mentioning that Trump criticised it, but the whole quote is a bit much. Also add some rebuttal. For example, the Washington Post article has the following:

“You can see elements of reality in what he said, but I think he may have spoken without having all of the information in front of him,” the official said. “I think he either has time-late information, or the information he has is not correct.” and Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and defense analyst with the Center for a New American Security, said Thursday that Trump’s criticism “has merit” but that many of the issues that initially were raised about the catapult already have been resolved. Now would not be a good time to go back and install steam systems on the new carriers, he said: The Ford is all but finished, and construction of the Kennedy is already underway. --Slashme (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- comments by the US president about a US military apparatus are very relevant to that apparatus. CapitalSasha ~ talk 00:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, but redact -- While comments from a serving US president, who has a large amount of authority over military officials, are useful, implanting the entire quote is a clear case of WP:QUOTEFARM. Additionally, this was not through an official presidential channel. Personal comments are WP:NOTNEWS. Due to the large media attention to this, and the Navy's developing a response, I would say that a brief mention of his comment, but not the whole quote, is merited here. Keira  1996  01:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mention "god-damned steam" because that has been highlighted in every news story but shorten the quote. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or shorten. The article is on EMALS, a subject on which Trump is not a well-informed and reliable source. His decision (if that is in fact a decision) should be mentioned, but not his "justification" for it. Maproom (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, or Move I can understand that the statements of the US president about a key piece of technology being deployed by the US Navy are significant but it doesn't really seem like a valid criticism.  It's more of a policy opinion.  How will this statement fit if other countries deploy an EMALS system or considering it?  The statement as currently used seems to detract from the encyclopedic tone of the article. Klaun (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with foregoing suggestions along the lines of keep but edit. The criticism and its tenor should be mentioned because of the standing of the source, though I agree that a single citation should suffice in spite of the natural scepticism that some readers might feel. The rest of the quote however is not relevant to the topic, though I see no reason why it shouldn't be included whole in a more directly Trump-related article, given the scarcity of tributes to the acumen of the nation's leader. JonRichfield (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trump babbled. Again. We don't need to include it everywhere. It borders on WP:Coatracking. Including the Trump quote does not help the reader understand the topic. If there is criticism of the system then include technically-competent and specific descriptions of what the problems are. Alsee (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but edit: Agree that the entire quote is a case of WP:COATRACK, and also agree that a comment made by the Commander in Chief about a weapons system is relevant. I suggest recording the the CinC made the comment without quoting the comment itself. --Rob Kelk 15:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but edit into an indirect quote, for all the reasons given by those above. And by an indirect quote, I mean simply saying "President Trump criticized the program..." without including any direct quote about "steam," since even that would be WP:Coatracking. As to what influence the President can make on policy, since this is not specifically earmarked by Congress (unlike many big-budget military programs) I think his Secretary of Defense could just decide to not fund it if they really wanted to. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210192404/http://www.ga.com/atg/EMS/m1346.php to http://www.ga.com/atg/EMS/m1346.php
 * Added tag to http://carcamal.ele.cie.uva.es/CEM/articulos/Catapult.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028144554/http://www.janes.com/article/39799/emals-to-start-sled-trials-on-cvn-78-in-late-2015 to http://www.janes.com/article/39799/emals-to-start-sled-trials-on-cvn-78-in-late-2015

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

UK References
There is a problem with the UK references, in that they don't mention procurement of an Electromagnetic aircraft launch system. A quick Google search only returned a press release which is not suitable as a reference. If no references for UK development of an EM launch system can be found perhaps the section should be deleted. --Klaun (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Pentagon report on EMALS
The Pentagon released a scathing report about EMALS earlier this year, that for some reason hasnt been picked up on in this article. I've included that in the Criticism section and included a reference.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.137.160 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

EMALS image


How do we actually know the image depicts what it says? There isn't a source on what it is based on in its description, and I am not sure if it would be worth my time trying to vectorise it. The author Tosaka last uploaded in 2010, and I haven't a clue where to find their English Wikipedia account to contact them. Seloloving (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)