Trump targets the Navy’s new aircraft catapult

(NOTE: Trump used vulgar language, and the news story reports on it without modification)

Another "unintended consequence" of Trump's skipping security briefings and preferring to get his information from his favorite news sources -- he often appears very ill-informed about things in the country that he's charged with running. While his advisors (businessmen and bankers) are presumably experts in their businesses and banking, it would seem that nobody is giving him updates on new technology and cybernetics; issues that affect the performance of many sectors within the US government and the economy.

‘You have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out’: Trump targets the Navy’s new aircraft catapult


President Trump set his sights on the Navy in a new interview, calling the service’s new electromagnetic catapult to launch planes off aircraft carriers “no good” and saying that the Navy needs to go back to “goddamned steam,” the method used for decades.

The comments, published Thursday by Time magazine, came during an interview Monday evening at the White House. Trump recounted a conversation he had March 2 while visiting the yet-to-be-commissioned aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford in Newport News, Va., and said he was told that the catapult on it does not have enough power.

Aboard the Gerald R. Ford in Newport News, Va., President Trump spoke about defense spending and the military, March. 2. Here is the full speech. (The Washington Post)
“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,” Trump said, according to Time.

Source: Washington Post

Trump is way behind the ball here, since this was discussed on ATS over two years ago, with members describing and discussing EMALS, including smoother launches and heavier aircraft launching. ATS members (unlike Trump) were also aware of which carriers it affected as well as some of the issues with both steam and with electromagnetic (Trump has renamed it, erroneously, "digital")

The ATS thread is quite an interesting read... Trump's monologue is his usual painful meandering.

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 going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.'"

www.9news.com...


The Pentagon, rather politely, said he was full of hot air:

“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.”

Source

Additional sources:
thehill.com...


If you'd like to find out more about these catapults and the steam catapults, The Slate's blog has an EXCELLENT guide to them

I don't get it. He said it would cost more money and isn't that what all the retarded no more military spending people want? No matter what he does it is always wrong.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

I don't really care if these catapaults are upgraded or not, but I expect my President to be informed as to the reasoning behind the decisions he's making. There is more to this OP than being upset that Trump doesn't support these new catapults. He's also being a moron and showing that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Which is the REAL concerning issue here. Why is he making a decision on how the Navy should be ran if he doesn't even understand the technology he is making judgement calls on?

Besides, who in their right mind would pitch going backwards on the technology tree? Part of newer technology is decreasing costs. Going back to steam as Trump wants would likely be more costly.

Digital. They have digital. What is digital?

Coming from the man who finally mastered Twitter.

hehe

I wonder which is easier to fix?

The eagles must slow their advancements so the bears can catch up

Hey you watch your mouth, Byrd.

Dadgum steam catapults have been good enough for almost 70 years and there's no reason to spend money on something that requires less maintenance and downtime and provides a better capability.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would imagine he's been told that they're crap from active servicemen.

I got an idea, dump the carriers period. What are they good for besides unlawfully and unjustly bombing foreign nations into submission ?

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would imagine he's been told that they're crap from active servicemen.

You'd imagine? Got any evidence of this? It's funny how when a liberal says something that Trump says we have to have all sorts of evidence or its fake news, but you can just "imagine" and suddenly that is the likely truth.

im curious how so many people are experts on the EMALS system? its really hard to find any good information on it. even the few tests done dont give any real data to the common person. the benefits of it are projections of what they hope to achieve with it in time. as it is right now its a very large cumbersome system that is very expensive to try and implement. i believe we should continue testing with it and advancing the technology but at this time im not so sure its a good idea to implement on our carriers till the technology is improved.

a reply to: Byrd

Trump is a MORON! Now he thinks he knows what's better than engineers who designed the launching systems? Common sense people have realized this guy was an idiot since he started putting his foot in his mouth since the start of his campaign. The guy doesn't understand digital and we're in the computer age. Maybe he should google it and educate himself.

i believe we should continue testing with it and advancing the technology but at this time im not so sure its a good idea to implement on our carriers till the technology is improved.

I would think having it on the Ford would accomplish just that task.

originally posted by: roadgravel

i believe we should continue testing with it and advancing the technology but at this time im not so sure its a good idea to implement on our carriers till the technology is improved.

I would think having it on the Ford would accomplish just that task.

why put it on an operational ship when the system in place is still going through iterations? we could put this in a test facility like they allready have and keep running tests until they have a system that is combat ready. the biggest issue with it right now is how big the system is on the deck. would if in 5 years weve built a system that is less then half its size and now u have to retrofit an entire deck along with bringing the ship into port off and on to integrate each new iteration along the the way. thus why id rather them keep on testing it and developing the technology until its fully ready.

How else are real world tests for carrier operations carried out.

originally posted by: roadgravel
How else are real world tests for carrier operations carried out.

we have places for that right now that doesnt affect a ships ability to carry out its role

shore based test facility

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: roadgravel
How else are real world tests for carrier operations carried out.

we have places for that right now that doesnt affect a ships ability to carry out its role

shore based test facility

But that doesn't test in under operations at sea, does it?

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: roadgravel
How else are real world tests for carrier operations carried out.

we have places for that right now that doesnt affect a ships ability to carry out its role

shore based test facility

But that doesn't test in under operations at sea, does it?

its designed to simulate it as closely as possible. would u rather our military go into combat testing out new technologies that could possibly fail, put them at risk, and leave them unable to carry out their role? if you question the efficacy of these tests id ask u to look at our red flag exercises, our military training for soldiers, etc etc.

So, this is something a reporter overheard at a dinner? Right? This is simply amazing.

Here is an article where he 'praises' the new carriers and the technology but the media said his backing them was not worth it since they are vulnerable.

www.reuters.com...

However, an overheard conversation that is not reported in its entirety is the lead story on just about every media outlet to make him look dumb.

The media sucks....and you guys keep lapping it up.

a reply to: matafuchs

on top of that its stated in this quote from the op that the information the president was given could have been old information. if thats the case the blame rests on the people giving old outdated information to the president.

“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.”