It's a big change from a conventional steamer launch plant. Nuke CVN's are also steamers as well as conventional. When the Navy built it's first super carrier Forestall it had the old design propulsion #600PSI with 8 boilers. The next CVA was Saratoga which was the first 1200 PSI 8 boiler propulsion plant. When Enterprise was built a CVN she was designed with 8 Reactors. Later the next carrier the Nimitz had two Reactors to generate steam.
I was skeptical when I heard the Gerald R Ford was going to a non steam catapult launch system and I still am. Steam is a certainty and is fairly basic. I've seen a conventional CV loose an entire Main Machinery Room {2 boilers a generator and a key switchboard} due to a pipe rupture above the switchboard. I've seen way too many power failures where a generator tripped off at sea.
I'll be flamed but with our situation strength wise and training issues to get an operational and qualified carrier or two back in fleet I say build two conventionals on on KH or JFK Class design. Home port one or both in Mayport, Florida.
I need to clarify there were two conventionals carriers built between Enterprise CVN 65 and Nimitz CVN 68.
Thank you all for the info.
“Home port one or both in Mayport, Florida.”
Ah, yes, Mayport, where I reported to the USS Saratoga in 1964 with Hurricane Dora roaring in. Nearly got wiped off the Earth by a rogue wave while retrieving sandbags that had been knocked down by waves. Amazingly I am still strong enough to lift sandbags now. Probably not for as long though.
Did I see Evel Knievel in one of those carriages ? :^)
A few of those catapult shots looked puny. Would love to see an equivalent steam shot. Bet it’s way better.
Basically this new catapult is a glorified rail gun isn’t it?
To produce the magnetic field to accelerate a multi ton plane to flying speed must take enormous electrical reserves.