Exclusive | Trump Orders Navy to Restore Older Tech on Aircraft Carriers, Costing Billions
By Bram de Vries ·
The core principle of global trade, and indeed modern military power, is efficiency. We build systems that maximize throughput while minimizing friction. What President Trump has ordered the U.S.
Trading Technological Progress for Nostalgic Steam Power
The core principle of global trade, and indeed modern military power, is efficiency. We build systems that maximize throughput while minimizing friction. What President Trump has ordered the U.S. Navy to do—reverting advanced carrier technology from electromagnetic launch systems (EMALS) back to traditional steam catapults—is not a strategic decision; it is an expensive act of technological regression. The directive, formalized in a National Security Presidential Memorandum signed on August 13, 2026, demands that the new Ford-class carriers include "traditional steam and hydraulic systems" for construction (whitehouse.gov). General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., rightly pointed out that changing course now would introduce "significant cost, schedule, and integration risks," a warning that should ring alarm bells in any capital-conscious boardroom.
The Cost of Industrial Patronage: A Fifth Yard and Billions in Steam
This regression is not merely about catapults; it’s about the industrial base itself. Alongside the mandate to scrap cutting-edge EMALS, Trump has ordered the establishment of a fifth public shipyard—the first in over 80 years. This move, detailed by both breakingdefense.com and yahoo.com, requires addressing drydock capacity for submarine growth while promoting "innovative financing mechanisms like public-private partnerships." While Russ Vought noted that scale is "absolutely vital" for maintenance, the underlying message remains clear: state intervention is being used to protect yesterday's industrial champions. The Navy has not bought a steam catapult in more than 20 years; as Bryan Clark notes, establishing the necessary production lines requires substantial up-front investment and time. This isn't building capacity; it’s subsidizing inertia.
When Technology Trumps Doctrine: A Return to Principle
The mechanism at play here is one of decisive projection. The goal remains the same—the rapid, overwhelming force required to enforce international stability and secure global economic lifelines. We see a clear parallel in the Gulf War. Both scenarios demand the swift deployment of maximum technological advantage into a critical flashpoint. In both cases, the ability to project power decisively is paramount. To handicap the modern carrier by forcing it back to steam lines—a system that requires more sailors and adds complexity—is to hamstring the very capability needed for decisive action in today’s complex geopolitical environment.
This entire spectacle of expensive mandates and industrial nostalgia undermines the principle of maximizing output with minimal inputs. It is a costly, bureaucratic detour away from proven efficiency toward political theater. The U.S. must understand that modern power does not come from mandated redundancy; it comes from relentlessly applied technological superiority.