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)

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|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 Btype would not be catapulted 81.110.29.8 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)