The directive targets technology built into the Navy’s newest generation of aircraft carriers, reopening a costly debate over reliability, modernization and shipbuilding delays. The immediate requirement is a 60-day plan for CVN-81, not a completed conversion.
Donald Trump has directed the U.S. Navy to restore older technology on future aircraft carriers by replacing electromagnetic catapult systems with steam catapults. The shift, which also calls for replacing advanced weapons elevators with hydraulic systems on CVN-81, is expected to cost billions of dollars.
Trump orders the Navy to return to steam technology as part of a broader push to curb shipbuilding delays and complexity. But the White House memorandum requires a plan within 60 days; it does not provide a public final price tag, schedule or engineering decision for the conversion.
The order centers on CVN-81
The White House memorandum directs the Secretary of War, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, to submit a plan for CVN-81 within 60 days. That plan must spell out the measures, timetable and resources needed to replace the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, and Advanced Weapons Elevators.
CVN-81 is a future Gerald R. Ford-class carrier. It is not an abstract proposal for some distant fleet: the order focuses on a ship already part of the Navy’s planned carrier program, where major changes can affect design work, suppliers and construction sequencing.
The directive uses broader language about restoring steam and hydraulic systems to carriers, but its explicit near-term planning requirement is for CVN-81. Whether the administration will pursue equivalent changes on later carriers, or seek to alter ships further along in construction, remains unclear.
Why steam is back on deck
Steam catapults were used on the Navy’s Nimitz-class carriers. They draw on steam generated by the ship’s nuclear propulsion plant to help launch aircraft from the flight deck.
EMALS, installed on the Ford class, uses electromagnetic power rather than steam. Its supporters have argued that the system can provide more precise control and reduce stress on aircraft while offering potential long-term operational advantages.
Trump has publicly criticized the newer systems and said new carriers should use steam. In remarks published by the Pacific Fleet, he said, “When we build a new aircraft carrier, we’re going to use steam.”
The policy reflects a familiar defense-procurement divide. One side sees proven equipment as the safer answer when ships are delayed and expensive. The other argues that stepping back from newer systems can lock in older constraints and create a fresh round of redesign costs.
The elevator change matters too
The proposed reversal is not limited to aircraft launches. The White House also calls for replacing Advanced Weapons Elevators with hydraulic systems on CVN-81.
Weapons elevators move bombs, missiles and other ordnance from magazines below deck to the flight deck. On a carrier, their reliability has direct implications for how quickly aircraft can be armed and returned to operations.
The Ford-class elevators have been a prominent symbol of the difficulties involved in integrating multiple new systems into an exceptionally complex warship. A move back to hydraulic technology could simplify some elements of the design, but it would also require engineers to determine how legacy-style equipment fits a carrier designed around newer architecture.
That is why the directive’s demand for timelines and resourcing requirements matters. The cost is not simply the price of catapults or elevators; it can include redesign, testing, installation, supplier work, labor and the effects of disruption across the construction program.
Billions are a forecast, not a public estimate
The reported cost of the change is billions of dollars, according to the Wall Street Journal’s reporting on the directive. The White House memorandum itself does not state a specific dollar amount.
That distinction is important. A formal Navy plan could produce a more concrete estimate, but the final total may depend on choices that have not been made public: whether equipment must be redesigned, how much completed work must change, and whether the schedule is extended.
Supporters of Trump’s approach could argue that a large upfront bill is justified if it reduces maintenance headaches, training burdens or operational uncertainty over decades. Critics could counter that changing systems after a class has been designed and built around them risks repeating the very cycle of cost growth and delay the memorandum says it wants to stop.
The White House frames the order as part of a response to “overly complex designs” and iterative changes that it says have contributed to shipbuilding setbacks. That makes the carrier decision a practical test of a broader policy: simplify the fleet without destabilizing its production.
A wider shipbuilding reset is underway
The memorandum is not solely about carrier equipment. It describes backlogs across six major Navy shipbuilding programs, limited capacity and competition among shipbuilders, and a weakened supplier base.
It calls for the Department of War to use “proven, reliable, and affordable technologies and ship designs” while expanding maritime industrial capacity. The document also directs plans for a new competitive acquisition approach for certain surface combatants.
Its language points to a larger concern than any one catapult: the United States needs ships delivered on time, at predictable cost, with suppliers able to sustain them. Carrier technology has become a visible example because a carrier is so expensive, so long-lived and so central to U.S. power projection.
Still, proven technology is not automatically easy technology. Steam and hydraulic systems come with their own maintenance demands, training needs and integration questions. The Navy’s eventual assessment will need to weigh those tradeoffs against the performance and reliability record of the systems it would replace.
The next answer comes in 60 days
The administration has ordered a plan, not released a finished conversion blueprint. The Secretary of War and Navy Secretary must provide the president with timelines and resource requirements for CVN-81 through the Office of Management and Budget and the national security adviser.
That submission should clarify the first practical questions: how much work would have to be undone or changed, when a modified carrier could be delivered, and whether the industrial base can supply the required systems without creating new bottlenecks.
Congress will also be central. A multibillion-dollar alteration to a carrier program would invite scrutiny from lawmakers responsible for authorizing and funding Navy construction, particularly if the plan affects fleet size or delivery dates.
For now, Trump’s directive has put a clear choice before the Navy: preserve the Ford class’s modern launch and elevator systems, or absorb the cost and disruption of bringing steam and hydraulics back to a future supercarrier. The 60-day plan will show whether that choice can be translated into an executable program.
Leave a Reply