Navy to Test Electromagnetic Catapult on Carrier

EMALSThe Navy is preparing to launch the first ship-board tests of a new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System designed to replace steam catapults and propel fighter jets and other aircraft off the deck of an aircraft carrier and into the sky over the ocean, service officials said.

The EMALS system, which uses an electromagnetic field to propel aircraft instead of the currently used steam catapult, is slated for the new Ford-class aircraft carriers. The first EMALS system has been under construction for several years aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the first in class of the new carriers expected to deliver to the Navy in 2016, Navy officials said.

This summer, the Navy will start incremental testing on board the USS Ford wherein “dead loads” placed on weighted sleds are catapulted by the EMALS system into the river, said Capt. Jim Donnelly, program manager for aircraft launch and recovery equipment.

“As things get connected they will increase the number of tests. The first aircraft launch will be after the ship gets to sea,” Donnelly said.

Ship integration and testing for the EMALS technology will mark a substantial milestone in a program which, until now, has largely been conducting land-based flight tests at a Navy facility in Lakehurst, N.J.

“We’ve conducted 452 aircraft launches and just finished up our second phase of aircraft compatibility testing,” Donnelly explained.

The ground-based EMALS catapult tests have launched EA-18G Growlers, F/A-18 Super Hornets, C-2 Greyhound planes and E2D Advanced Hawkeyes, among others. In fact, EMALS even launched an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Lakehurst, Donnelly added. The USS Ford has been under construction in recent years at Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls.

Equipment for the EMALS system has been in development on board the ship for several years, Navy officials said. General Atomics was awarded a $573 million deal from the Navy in 2009 for EMALS development.

“We’ve been making component deliveries to the ship in Newport News since 2011. It started early because for EMALS, some of the equipment such as the motor-generators are lower in the ship so they had to be part of the super-lift early on,” Donnelly added.  “At this point we’re delivering components to be installed in the catapult trough which is up on the flight deck.”

Metal decking is slated to be placed over the trough on the flight deck. Donnelly said cabling and linear induction motor sections are still being installed on board the USS Ford. The linear motors are engineered to help create a sequentially activated rolling magnetic field or wave able to thrust or propel aircraft forward, Donnelly explained.

“It is the same type of technology that you see in a rollercoaster except this one is designed for critical launch reliability. It has to work every time you press the launch button. You are getting an electromagnetic field by turning on linear motor sequentially so we don’t energize the whole field in one shot,” he explained.

The electromagnetic field acts on a large 22-foot long aluminum plate, he added. The aluminum plate runs in between stationary sections of 12-foot long linear motors. Electricity runs through the two sides of the motors, creating an electromagnetic wave, Donnelly explained.

“The aircraft motors are kicked in at the beginning. There’s a hydraulic piston that pushes a shuttle forward. The shuttle is what connects to the aircraft launch bar,” Donnelly said.

The EMALS system is engineered to be both steady and tailorable, meaning it can adjust to different aircraft weights and configurations, Donnelly said.  For example, EMALS is configured such that it could launch a lighter weight aircraft, such as an unmanned aircraft system, he added.

This is particularly useful because the amount of thrust needed to launch an aircraft depends upon a range of interwoven factors to include size, shape and weight of the aircraft, wind speed on the carrier deck and the speed of the aircraft carrier in the water, Donnelly explained.

“EMALS better supports the air wing now and in the future. As you may know we’ve changed the make-up of the carrier wing over the years. We’re getting to an air wing that requires higher energy launches and EMALS is much more capable when it comes to higher launch energy requirements,” Donnelly said.

About the Author

Kris Osborn
Kris Osborn is the managing editor of Scout Warrior.
  • Thought they tried this on the USS Ford and it isn’t working well in the salt air and high pitch of the Atlantic Ocean.

    • Mambo

      It hasn’t even been put to sea yet. A little early for the anti-US equipment fanboys to be making claims of failure.

      • Bob

        Excellent observation, Mambo. The same anti-US equipment fanboys were criticizing Reagan’s Star Wars Initiatives back in the eighties. Today, thanks to Reagan’s visions, we have ultramodern satellites, aircraft, and warships armed with laser weapons that can take down enemy objects with pinpoint precision.

        • Dfens

          Yes, who do these damn taxpayers think they are questioning how the Navy and their beloved defense contractors are spending their money? You didn’t earn that money, the government did. Just ask anyone in DC.

        • In fact we do have many more modern types of equipment specifically because of SDI as it was properly known. We have the only current laser weapons at sea at this time on the USS Ponce. The SM-3 misile systems are a direct result of SDI. Just because we aren’t using killer satellites doesn’t mean the program was unsuccessful. After all, the Soviet Union collapsed because of SDI.

          • Michael

            Haas, The 10 year war in Afganistan was a major factor in the Soviet Union break up. Our own little effort to form a democracy and rid the country of the Taliban cost our country over $4 trillion. To say one issue caused the Soviet problems is a day dream.

          • blight_

            It’s always a different myth. First it was the defense buildup, then it was SDI, then it was Iran-Contra, then it was Reagan giving Gorbachev the stink-eye.

        • Nah

          Bob must have forgotten to put a sarcasm tag at the end. Or the post will serve as an unintended sarcasm of the colossal ignorance of Reagan fans.

        • Zupdood

          …..none of it owing to any ‘Star Wars’ derived technology.

          The world looks so glossy and special through those revisionist sunglasses you’re wearing. Is the RNC passing those out?

  • tmb2

    Am I the only one not seeing a single paragraph indent in this article?

  • DLG

    Please reformat & resubmit – text has no paragraph breaks and is impossible to read.

  • Anyone want to venture a guess on how susceptible this system is to battle Damage ?

    • Bronco46

      Probably not anymore than a steam system would be.

      • Sean

        Steam relies on contained steam pressure. I would imagine something like a single shot in the right place could knock out the capability of steam

        • Dylan

          Seeing as how the steam system probably doesn’t require the precision placement of components that this new system does…yes, this system will be more susceptible to battle damage and will probably have longer downtimes if damaged- BUT these are the tradeoffs you make for such an enormous increase in capability. You can’t expect a maglev train track to have the same repair times as old fashioned rails and ties.

        • gritch38

          the same is true for this new system…

        • Yeah but its Pipe, cut out the damaged section and replace and you’re back in the fight. In my opinion the Carriers with the new system will have to leave the area of conflict for sometime (Months), because their Aircraft can’t take off without the Catapult .

          • Atomic Walrus

            Not really that simple – the pipe has to have proper straightness and internal profile, or else it’s not going to work.

          • Dylan

            If electromagnetic systems were as simple or simpler than steam to build and repair, I think we would have skipped steam engines a century or so ago. ;)

    • blight_

      Old muskets could be reloaded with gravel. Anyone want to venture a guess on how susceptible firearms are to running out of bullets?

      Old cannons could be fired by sending the enemy’s shot back at them and using books as wadding. Oh, for the old days…!

    • Actually, steam can be just as dangerous. If you ever seen a steam railroad engine explode it is pretty significant. I think both systems leave little room for battle damage repair we enjoyed in WW II. Having two sets of cats is the redundancy in the system.

  • Virgil Cuttaway

    The Chinese are working on similar technology. They’ve either stole the technology or working on it concurrently with US efforts. I bet they stole the tech.

  • blight_

    “As you may know we’ve changed the make-up of the carrier wing over the years. We’re getting to an air wing that requires higher energy launches”

    Translation: Our aircraft are getting heavier.

    • 009

      Or our pilots are getting heavy.LOL

    • John

      Not really. A-3D, F-14, A-6E and EA-6B were all heavy, often going over 60,000 on takeoff. The A-6’s were so heavy they sometimes launched them almost fuel empty then tanked them up to max for the trip to the beach. FA-18s, even the Superhornets, are not heavier than F-14s and A-6s.

      • blight_

        “The A-6’s were so heavy they sometimes launched them almost fuel empty then tanked them up to max for the trip to the beach”

        Wow, some things never change.

        Looks like the Super Hornet and the A-6 probably carry the same effective payload. A-6 at 25 kpounds empty, Super Hornet at 32 kpounds empty.

  • anthony

    Stay on the positive side it works!

  • Dfens

    Wow, this is so high tech. Maybe if they’d taken a cue from the RC glider industry we’d have had electric launch decades ago: Of course, that would defeat the real purpose of this device which is to get plenty of money in the hands of people who deserve it so very little.

    • xXTomcatXx

      I don’t believe you understand what EMALS does. EMALS isn’t a winch. It’s basically rail gun where the projectile in this case is the shuttle that accelerates the aircraft. A winch would be ineffective for this sort of work considering the the massive forces seen on a system that has to launch a large aircraft.

    • Dylan

      There is a reason why we are the only navy in the world to operate fixed wing aircraft off a carrier without a ‘ski ramp’. These systems need to handle enormous loads, and the space they consume aboard a carrier is massive and has to be planned out before the keel is laid. If it was so simple, I’m sure many other nations including Russia, India, China, and France would have been lining up to get their own launchers.

      • blight_

        Brazil and France are the only others operating catapults, and the general constraint is space, which competes with the desire to operate small vessels.

        Not many nations are in the business of mobile airfields of a size sufficient enough to put in catapults without cutting into volume meant to carry an air wing.

        • Dfens

          If the constraint is space, then why use the technique that takes up the most space? If I use an electric motor to launch an airplane, then all of the electromagnets are are in one place in one compact unit. If I stretch that motor out into a lengthy linear launcher, then I need hundreds of electromagnets, each one as strong as the few I would need in the electric motor to do the same job. Clearly this linear system has only one distinction, it is the obvious winner when it comes to cost and complexity. As usual, it makes sense for maximizing the income of the defense contractor building the system, but it makes none for the US taxpayer footing the bill.

          • Dylan

            You’re right! By god, this might start a revolution. Instead of carrying guns around full of bullets that have casings and gunpowder and primers and all sorts of unnecessary things, we can just use an electric motor and a winch to accelerate the bullets! Hell, apply the same thing to cannons…and rockets! The possibilities are endless when you ignore basic engineering principles!

          • Dfens

            Right, because we launch airplanes at Mach 2. Did you read about those “basic engineering principles” on the back of a cereal box, bozo?

          • 00 Del

            Dylan is not the bozo. You’re the one who doesn’t understand the purpose of this system, or any other for that matter, bolo.

          • Dfens

            Get a room.

          • 00 Del

            Another ad hominem argument, another failure to understand the situation, bolo.

          • Dylan

            Just some numbers for you-
            2 seconds
            150 feet
            Aircraft weighing up to 79,000lbs

            If you have an electric motor hooked to a cable that can do that, you could be a very rich man.

          • Dfens

            Well, I know where to get the electromagnets for it. There are hundreds, if not thousands of them strung across the deck of the Ford. All I would need is 6 of them, and a chain would work better than a cable here.

  • hibeam

    Very cool. You also end up with a very big power hammer suitable for your close in beam weapons.

    • Dfens

      Actually, I think they will use these catapults to sling vats of Greek fire onto Somali pirate boats.

      • blight_

        Of course they will spend lots of R&D trying to recreate the original recipe…using organic, naturally grown products as they did in the old days.

  • Barry

    This technology should be used for civilian aviation. Would help save a lot of jet-a, lower airport pollution, increase range, lower costs, etc. Possibly also for space launch.

  • Mitch S.

    That launcher you linked to is basically a winch operated by an electric motor.
    A different concept.

    This (EMALS) tech really isn’t new. As the article pointed out it’s been used on rollercoasters for decades also it’s been used on “MagLev” trains.
    The challenge is the detailed engineering to make a system that performs reliably on a ship.
    So I doubt there are any big secrets for the Chinese to steal, I figure they can get a system running for demonstrations but it’ll take them a while to get it working well for regular shipboard launches.

    BTW, speaking of winches and rollercoasters, I found it interesting that the designers of the “KingdaKa” giant coaster considered a magnetic launch system (already used on similar coasters) but ended up with a winch type system driven by hydraulic motors (it stores pressurized fluid in accumulators between launches).
    There is more than one way to give something the boot.

    • USS Gotcha

      Also china has a huge investment in maglev tech for there train systems. Last I read they still have the fastest normal operating train too. The technology transition should actually be easier for them to have made the catapult than it is for the US.

    • Dfens

      Most roller coasters use a motor (gas, electric or hydraulic) and chain system to drag the cars up to the top of the first hill because it makes a lot more financial sense to use that kind of system than a linear electric system or even a hydraulic ram.

      • Mitch S.

        The motor/chain coasters are pulling their train up a hill over an extended time.
        The coasters I’m talking about directly accelerate the train up to the speed needed to make it over the hill in a few seconds.
        Some of those use LIMs, others the hydraulic accumulator setup.
        Always interesting to see how different teams of engineers come up with different solutions.
        And as you said, cost is a major factor.

  • Demon76

    Surprising that the large magnetic field generated doesn’t interfere with the aircraft’s electronics. Hope the pilot’s credit card magnetic strip doesn’t get wiped out.

    • Dfens

      If they’d used an electric motor to launch these airplanes instead of this needlessly expensive and complex linear electromagnet system they could bury the motor below decks where the magnetic field would be easy to shield. A usual, this system only makes sense for the defense contractor’s bottom line. They could have built a better system for less money, but all the cost incentives were in place to build the most complicated system for the highest price.

  • spurlockda

    Having spent 10 yrs onboard carriers, the catapult troughs routinely get flooded with sea water, jet fuel and hydraulic fluids, AFFF and etc.. I worry that the corrosion in all of those cables and connectors!

    • Mitch S.

      I was thinking that is/was probably one of the toughest challenges.
      Being this was developed with the Navy (not just for it) the rigors of the shipboard environment should not have been underestimated.
      Hopefully it’s a modular setup with good self-diagnostic capability.

      Re above comments on battle damage, I don’t see that as a major issue.
      Drop a bomb through a steam cat and I doubt it’ll be back in use for quite a while.
      Carriers have more than one cat, there is redundancy.
      The concern is having the cats operating reliably during a sustained campaign when planes are being launched at a rapid pace over days.

    • Bernard

      Cables and connectors are nothing new to modern warships. The Navy already has tons of electronics on their ships that have been in service for decades.

      • Dfens

        They have steam catapults that have been in service for decades too.

        • Bernard

          Yea, we already know that…

  • TonyC.

    The reliability of this equipment in the real world is yet to be proven. The stresses on the shuttle assembly will be the key. The old steam catapults were more or less immune to salt air and water. There is going to be alot of tikering until they get it right.

    • Bernard

      It should actually be more reliable as there are fewer parts that can fail and fewer parts that will experience wear and tear from ordinary use. It’s like the difference between a kerosene lamp and a light bulb. The kerosene lamp was old tech but it required far more maintenance.

  • Chris

    I am sure it will be “hardened” against EMP…… But hopefully all variables were examined, costs versus benefits over steam, reliability, maintenance, and service life… BTW, since China is considering the same system, are we buying theirs….LOL

    • DLB

      Probably should… It would cost a tenth of what we can make it for.

  • CaptainDoc

    When a carrier is at sea for an extended time heat build up, all over the ship, pumps fail, electrical systems fail, electronics fail, hydraulics fail and lots of fires occur in electrical panels but nothing that can’t be repaired quickly. If this system is to be tested it would be a better test to use it under extended at sea period of more than 60 days. This will not be done. I have been on carriers on extended periods at sea serving as a damage control man, you know the ones on the nucleus fire party that puts fires out. and things break from that kind of usage. This magnetic system is going to generate heat and there will be failures so test the launch system in real atmospheres of heavy use. The loss of one bird will be a serious hit on the ships complement and they would shut the systems down while investigating is underway. This makes it hard for the carrier to complete their missions if the cats are out.

  • Tomato Juice

    What happens when there is an EMP attack near the carrier? I wonder if there is anything in place incase that happens.

    • mrlee

      Now that would be telling more than you are supposed to be privy to.

    • Mark

      If they did not harden it against such a threat, we have many terms for such failure.

    • Mitch S.

      EMP stands for Electro-Magnetic Pulse.
      The point of EMALS is to turn a huge jolt of electricity into a pulse(s) of magnetic field strong enough to launch an aircraft.
      It’s one of the last things likely to be bothered by an EMP (it creates it’s own every time its used)

      • Dfens

        What the hell are you talking about? TJ is right. Having these huge magnetic coils strung all over the ship is a big issue for EMP.

        • Mitch S.

          I am not an expert on EMP and am guessing based on my knowledge and common sense…
          … but it’s generally more delicate transistorized devices that are susceptible to EMP.
          Yes, large runs of wire can have currents induced in them (so large voltages can build up in power transmission grids) but EMALS itself puts large pulses through it’s wiring and it’s high current wiring is likely shielded to protect other devices on the carrier. Maybe an EMP might affect it during a cat launch but other than it’s control electronics (which have to be hardened like all MIL stuff) I’d be surprised if it’s vulnerable.

          • Dfens

            Think of how an alternator works. An alternator makes electricity by moving a magnetic field through a coil of wire. An EMP is a moving magnetic field. Anytime it hits a coil of wire it is going to generate electricity. Depending on the strength and speed of that field and the number of loops in the coil of wire it cuts across, that’s what determines the amount of voltage it will induce in the circuit. If you shield that coil of wire with a lot of steel, it’s going to act as a Faraday cage and route the energy of the EMP around the coil. When you move those coils up near the deck of a ship they can still be adequately shielded, but clearly their susceptibility to EMP is greater than it is down deeper in a ship’s hull.

          • Mitch S.

            Sure, a current is likely to be induced in the EMP coils but the issue is how susceptible the system is to damage by such energy.
            I wouldn’t like to be a guy servicing such coils when an EMP strikes but I doubt the coils themselves would care much.
            In the 1962 test it was delicate things such as filiments connected to long power lines or large windings that were affected. Breakers were tripped but AFAIK generators weren’t damaged.
            That’s why if “The Big One” hits your ’57 Chevy will likely start but your modern car with transistors running on at low voltages with microamps of current will probably not.
            Similarly our modern home with its microchipped appliances is much more vulnerable to lightening induced surges than that of our parents (That old Frigidaire would need a pretty close hit to be fried).
            And that’s the limit of my knowledge so I’ll leave any more comment to someone more expert.
            (Interesting topic, may we never get to test it directly!)

          • Dfens

            The control circuity is what you worry about, not the coils themselves.

  • swjdsmith

    The comment: “We’re getting to an air wing that requires higher energy launches and EMALS is much more capable when it comes to higher launch energy requirements,” really makes no sense. The carriers have essentially the E-2’s and various versions of the F/A-18. Weight wise these aircraft do not measure up to the aircraft of the 60’s-80’s. That is the A-3, A-6, F-4, F-14, and EA-6B. The laws of physics state that the greater the mass the more energy it takes to move the object. The F/A-18E/F/G certainly does not weigh more than these older aircraft. So how can the air wing of today require higher energy launches?

    • mrlee

      Well, they did land a C-130 on a carrier back in the 60s.

      • blight_

        C-130s did not arrest or catapult.

  • Richard

    I was the team leader for the contractor who built this prototype in conjunction with General Atomics. In my 40 years it is definitely one of my most memorable projects. Projects like this make me proud to be an American while doing my part for the US Military branches.

  • Richard

    In addition this doubles the number launches before performing an airframe inspection from 2,500 to 5,000. And it is much easier on the pilots as well.

    • Mitch S.

      Am I correct guessing that EMALS uses a feedback loop that monitors the launch and can adjust the cat energy?
      So if an aircraft hasn’t reached a determined speed halfway through the cat (perhaps because of low engine output or incorrect weight setting) the EMALS can boost the second half of the cat?

  • Jkoper

    Garrett/AiResearch built a linear induction motor powered rail test vehicle for the DOT in 1971. It set a new speed record for steel wheel on rail of 256 mph in the early ’70s. The testing was done at the test center in Pueblo, CO.

  • frenchie

    I find it funny about all the comments on this post. Many issues are easily fixed or address. As for battle damage just depends on how it is damage just like a steam catapult. But something says it will be easier to fix. Most roller costers being built now use this technology. Lower maintenance lower failure rate not as dangerous to work on. One thing this system does provide is longer lasting airframes. Steam catapults go full force from the beginning then need massive water brakes. This system can give a much smoother acceleration amd don’t need water brakes as the motor it self is the brakes.

  • Doug

    I like the idea of new tech like this, but one thing I wonder about, will this not
    generate a small EMP that could be tracked ?

    • Mike

      Better question is what if the ship is attacked by EMP! Do we have a carrier that cannot launch?