Trump Orders Navy to Scrap Advanced Carrier Launch Systems on CVN-81, Establish Fifth Shipyard

The United States Navy's ability to project power across the Pacific relies heavily on two critical nodes of infrastructure: the launch systems that hurl fighter jets from carrier decks, and the drydocks that keep nuclear submarines from rusting in port. Both are now slated for a massive, multi-billion-dollar overhaul that will fundamentally alter how America builds and maintains its fleet. For taxpayers and strategic planners alike, the stakes are immense. Re-engineering a supercarrier mid-production threatens to introduce severe cost overruns, while the push for new heavy infrastructure attempts to solve a readiness crisis that currently leaves critical warships undeployable.

On August 13, President Donald Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Defense to abandon the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, commonly known as EMALS, on the future USS Doris Miller. The directive orders the Navy to revert to the traditional steam catapults and hydraulic weapons elevators that have powered American supercarriers since the 1950s. The Doris Miller, designated CVN-81, is the fourth ship in the Navy's advanced Gerald R. Ford class and is currently under construction in Virginia.[3][6]

The same memorandum mandates the creation of a fifth public Navy shipyard, which would be the first new facility of its kind established in the United States in more than 80 years. Planners have been given 120 days to submit a comprehensive proposal for a new yard located near the Pacific Fleet. The facility is explicitly designed to clear a severe maintenance backlog that has consistently kept fast-attack submarines tied to the pier, degrading the military's operational capacity in the Indo-Pacific.[1][5]

The catapult reversal strikes at the heart of the Navy's $13 billion-per-ship Ford-class carrier program. EMALS was designed to replace traditional steam pistons with a linear induction motor buried beneath the flight deck, using a massive pulse of electromagnetic energy to accelerate a 30-ton fighter jet. The system was intended to provide smoother acceleration, reduce wear and tear on expensive airframes, and significantly increase the rate at which a carrier can generate combat sorties compared to legacy steam systems.[3][6]

However, the technology was plagued by severe reliability issues during the early testing and shakedown years of the first-in-class USS Gerald R. Ford. Trump has frequently criticized the system as overly complex, unnecessarily expensive, and prone to failure, arguing that the Navy should rely on proven, dependable steam technology that sailors already know how to operate. The August 13 order gives Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 60 days to draft a concrete plan for installing hydraulic catapults on the Doris Miller.[3][6]

Executing that pivot mid-production presents severe industrial and financial challenges. General Atomics, the defense contractor building the EMALS and Advanced Arresting Gear for the Doris Miller under a $1.2 billion contract, noted that production of the systems is already nearly 50 percent complete. Discarding half-finished electromagnetic components to pivot back to steam represents a massive sunk cost for the Department of Defense.[6]

Naval architects and defense analysts warn that redesigning the carrier to accommodate high-pressure steam piping and hydraulic reservoirs will introduce significant cost overruns and schedule delays. The Doris Miller is currently scheduled for delivery in 2034, but stripping out its core launch architecture and re-engineering the hull's internal geometry could easily push that timeline back by several years, leaving a gap in the Navy's deployment schedule.[2][4][6]

The decision also permanently fractures the Ford-class into two distinct variants. The first three ships—the Ford, the John F. Kennedy, and the Enterprise—will retain their electromagnetic systems. The Doris Miller and subsequent carriers will operate on steam, meaning the Navy will be forced to maintain two entirely separate supply chains, training pipelines, and maintenance protocols for a single class of ships for the next fifty years.[6]

While the catapult directive alters the Navy's future fleet, the push for a fifth shipyard attempts to salvage its current one. The Navy currently relies on four public shipyards located in Virginia, Maine, Washington, and Hawaii. The youngest of these facilities is over a century old, and their aging infrastructure has become a severe bottleneck for the modern nuclear fleet.[2]

These legacy yards are struggling to service the growing fleet of nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly cited workforce shortages and outdated drydocks as primary drivers of deep maintenance delays, leaving critical attack submarines unavailable for deployment in the Indo-Pacific just as tensions with China continue to rise.[5]

Trump's memorandum requires the new shipyard to feature up to three drydocks capable of holding every current and projected class of submarine. By mandating a location proximate to the Pacific Fleet—potentially in the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or a U.S. territory—the administration is explicitly aligning its maintenance infrastructure with the strategic demands of a potential conflict in the Pacific.[2][5]

Yet, much like the carrier redesign, the shipyard initiative faces a steep reality check regarding cost and human capital. Analysts estimate that building a nuclear-capable shipyard from scratch is a decade-long endeavor that could ultimately cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The environmental reviews, dredging, and concrete work alone represent a monumental civil engineering challenge.[1][2]

"You don't snap your fingers and open a new shipyard," noted one global security analyst, emphasizing the massive hurdles involved. Furthermore, a new facility only increases fleet readiness if the Navy can recruit and retain thousands of specialized nuclear engineers and welders—a workforce that the existing four shipyards are already struggling to maintain due to high attrition rates.[1][2][5]

To bridge the immediate gap, the memorandum also opens the door to foreign assistance. It temporarily allows foreign shipbuilders to construct up to two U.S. Navy vessels in their home shipyards and seeks foreign direct investment in the domestic industrial base under the "Finland Model," a framework previously used to procure icebreakers.[4]

Together, the directives represent a profound, forceful intervention into naval procurement. By prioritizing proven legacy systems over troubled next-generation technology and demanding new heavy infrastructure, the administration is attempting to brute-force a solution to the Navy's readiness crisis—even if it means tearing up the blueprints of its most advanced warships and spending billions to rebuild the industrial base.