EMALS Launches Super Hornet

EMALS Launches Super Hornet

The U.S. Navy’s next-generation electromagnetic catapult performed its first ever live aircraft launch on Saturday when an F/A-18E Super Hornet was shot from the system at the Navy’s Lakehurst Air Engineering Station in New Jersey.

This marks the first time that a Navy plane has been launched by anything other than a steam catapult in over half a century.

“Today we answered the question — will EMALS work,” said Kathleen Donnelly, Director for Support Equipment and Aircraft Launch and Recovery at Lakehurst. “Now we’ll work toward answering the question, will EMALS be reliable?”


The California-based General Atomics makes the electromagnetic launch system (EMALS) being developed for the upcoming Gerald Ford class of U.S. supercarriers.

The Navy and General Atomics are now expected to plan similar launch tests using everything from portly, prop-driven C-2 Carrier Onboard Delivery plane to the T-45 Goshawk trainer. General Atomics, who recently signed a $676.2 million fixed-price contract to build the system, expects to begin delivery of EMALS parts for the U.S.S. Gerald Ford in 2011.

While EMALS has not been without its problems, electromagnetic catapults can have their power more easily adjusted to launch a wider range of aircraft (including smaller UAVs), take up far less room below deck and be less maintenance intensive than steam catapults.

Join the Conversation

OK neat but not really needed — @ 676.2 mil each we could actualy pay for some of the F35’s or other items in the pipeline that are saught after (no I’m no fan of the 35 — just making a rational point).

This is a VAST improvement over steam cats. Having full energy at the end of the launch rail means you can reverse the current (steam) launch; instead of a peak starting speed which bleeds off steam, you can now accelerate along the rail, reducing the launch “jerk” that taxes so much of men and aircraft, yet having more than enough ‘throw weight’ for launch.

It improves safety, increases launch (fuel/weapon) weights and reduces wear on airframes.

Next up — railguns!

OK, that works. Now can they capture the energy from the arresting wires to help power the cat?

Shouldn’t be that big an issue. F1 cars use energy in braking to provide extra hp. The energy created under breaking is quite substantial. A couple different systems exist including a fairly simple flywheel arrangement that Williams pioneered and now Porsche is developing further.

Expect the Brits to buy a couple for their new carriers.

Energy conservation isn’t really a problem with a ship powered by nuclear power. A lesson for tree huggers everywhere.

I would venture to guess that this investment pays for itself between fewer repairs and much higher up time.

+!

Some folks comments always make me think “where have all the rationale thinkers gone?”.

Skinner: This is a development contract. In designing ANYTHING (phones, cars, whatever) you will always have a bigger dollar amount spent to develop the technology. That doesn’t translate directly into a unit price for the product. Also, as others pointed out, there are considerable savings in the room saved below deck, the number of man hours (including their MOS training) involved with maintaining the old steam system. Bascially they will be able to launch a wide variety of a/c in a shorter period of time with less down time.

That is good for this Marine.

Boomer, don’t miss an opportunity to shill for the JSF.……

already testing them.…

the time it took to get our boys in the air i would is shorten by a lot but this new system like any other system is going to have problems but for now we get those boys in the air faster and that could potentially save more lives

If they remember how to pay for things.

Nothing electrical is cheaper or easier to maintain than a manual system. As for the rail guns mentioned expect ship building to go up because you will need to start building Nuclear cruisers again or modern BB to power them, Ok with me but I know many will complain when it comes about.

$676.2 mil is for a total of 3 or 4 systems so it will actually be around $225.4 to $169.04 mil per system. Remember a modern carrier has either 3 or 4 catapults onboard.

Opine
Maintenance of Steam Cats: Corrosion, lubrication, remove and replace massive pistons, multiple systems integration maintenance, personnel training on an old fashioned technology, coordination with the Shooters on deck, all aspects of a technology that is ages old. We have been shooting birds off the pointed end with steam since the USS Langley days.
Time to use the technology of the future.
EMD costs are always front loaded. Build one set, test it, improve, test, and production build, watch the cost curve come down.
End
Semper Fi

‘Nothing electrical is cheaper or easier to maintain than a manual system…’ !!!!

You have to be kidding RIGHT or was your Degree in Liberal Studies!!! A Solid State System is ALWAYS easier to maintain… Good God Man, stop while you are ahead!

Derek
OGA — Angola
1985, 87 — 89

Is that 676.2 million over what we pay for the steam catapult system? We still pay for those too (at least on the new upcoming carriers). Interesting point about the smoother acceleration range.

All I want to know is two things.

When is General Atomics going public and when can we use a derivative of this thing to hurl a guided 1 ton tungstun slug 200 miles.

The Langley had Compressed air catapults and the Saratoga and Lexington had electric flywheel cats

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement