History, Politics And Current Affairs

warshipadmin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2026 10:25 pm The steam catapults are a lot bigger than the EMALS and need a steam buffer, and a lot of pipework. So retrofitting steam catapults is essentially a complete redesign between the flight deck and the keel. So 10 years. Fun factoid each launch uses the same energy as 4 gallons of diesel. The steam is desalinated water so you vastly increase the water usage. The catapults are only 5% efficient.

Wasn't one of the reason for going to EMALS that it allows you easily vary the catapult force from a unmanned drone to a fully load Super Hornet?

brovane wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2026 2:53 am

warshipadmin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2026 10:25 pm The steam catapults are a lot bigger than the EMALS and need a steam buffer, and a lot of pipework. So retrofitting steam catapults is essentially a complete redesign between the flight deck and the keel. So 10 years. Fun factoid each launch uses the same energy as 4 gallons of diesel. The steam is desalinated water so you vastly increase the water usage. The catapults are only 5% efficient.

Wasn't one of the reason for going to EMALS that it allows you easily vary the catapult force from a unmanned drone to a fully load Super Hornet?

so can steam

Steam catapults are okay, but the plumbing 'tail' is horrendous.

Bit like pneumatic 'dynamite' guns, their time seems to have passed.

Especially with so many systems now demanding more and more electrical power, ranging from Radar, via anti-drone 'microwave' and 'laser' zappers to electric-driven CIWS turrets and their feed systems, to possible future rail-guns...

MilSpec seems to shun electric side-thrusters and 'podded' drives, but their time will come.

Snark:
I'm surprised 'King Coal' hasn't had a word in that trumpet-like ear to suggest reversion to trad stokers...
/

Nik_SpeakerToCats wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2026 1:51 pm Steam catapults are okay, but the plumbing 'tail' is horrendous.

Bit like pneumatic 'dynamite' guns, their time seems to have passed.

Especially with so many systems now demanding more and more electrical power, ranging from Radar, via anti-drone 'microwave' and 'laser' zappers to electric-driven CIWS turrets and their feed systems, to possible future rail-guns...

MilSpec seems to shun electric side-thrusters and 'podded' drives, but their time will come.

Snark:
I'm surprised 'King Coal' hasn't had a word in that trumpet-like ear to suggest reversion to trad stokers...
/

Oh yea….

A better solution than King Coal that would avoid all of those plumbing and fuel issues would be -

Sails and galley oars

Nightwatch2 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2026 3:01 am

brovane wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2026 2:53 am

warshipadmin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2026 10:25 pm The steam catapults are a lot bigger than the EMALS and need a steam buffer, and a lot of pipework. So retrofitting steam catapults is essentially a complete redesign between the flight deck and the keel. So 10 years. Fun factoid each launch uses the same energy as 4 gallons of diesel. The steam is desalinated water so you vastly increase the water usage. The catapults are only 5% efficient.

Wasn't one of the reason for going to EMALS that it allows you easily vary the catapult force from a unmanned drone to a fully load Super Hornet?

so can steam

Is this not accurate?

For low-weight drone aircraft, the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) is vastly superior to traditional steam catapults. EMALS uses a software-controlled linear induction motor that allows precise, low-end thrust tuning, whereas steam systems deliver a violent, rigid power surge that can tear apart or over-stress lightweight, fragile unmanned airframes.

brovane wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2026 10:29 pm

Nightwatch2 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2026 3:01 am

brovane wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2026 2:53 am

Wasn't one of the reason for going to EMALS that it allows you easily vary the catapult force from a unmanned drone to a fully load Super Hornet?

so can steam

Is this not accurate?

For low-weight drone aircraft, the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) is vastly superior to traditional steam catapults. EMALS uses a software-controlled linear induction motor that allows precise, low-end thrust tuning, whereas steam systems deliver a violent, rigid power surge that can tear apart or over-stress lightweight, fragile unmanned airframes.

I think that’s accurate. My point was/is that steam catapults are also dialed up or down for the aircraft weight and desired end speed.

It does, however, give it a “jolt” rather than EMALS smooth acceleration.

I am not arguing in favor of steam! (Caveat about EMCON still stands)