President Donald Trump has ordered the U.S. Navy to return future aircraft carriers to steam catapults and hydraulic arresting gear, a move that could reshape carrier design just as China and France advance with electromagnetic launch systems and as U.S. defense contractors tied to naval aviation and shipbuilding trade on the policy risk.
Trump Orders Navy to Return to Steam Catapults
The directive matters because catapult choice is not a cosmetic engineering debate: it affects aircraft weight, sortie rates, maintenance burdens and long-term carrier costs. It also lands in the middle of a broader naval modernization contest, with Washington trying to keep pace with China’s expanding carrier force while preserving the industrial base that builds and equips the fleet.
EMALS, the electromagnetic aircraft launch system now used on the U.S. Navy’s newest carriers, is designed to launch a wider range of aircraft more efficiently than steam, but it has been dogged by reliability and cost concerns. A reversal would favor established legacy systems and suppliers, but it could also force redesign work and inject fresh uncertainty into carrier procurement at a time when the U.S. and its allies are racing to field more capable decks.
Investors are watching closely because the policy shift could alter contract timing, margins and backlog across the defense complex. Huntington Ingalls Industries, which builds the Navy’s Ford-class carriers, was last at $325.76 and has risen well above its 50-day moving average of $294.94, while Boeing, the prime contractor for EMALS and related carrier systems, closed at $230.33, also above its 50-day and 200-day moving averages. Lockheed Martin, a broader defense bellwether, ended at $598.01 after a sharp run higher this summer.
The market has already priced in heightened defense spending and carrier demand, but a return to steam would create winners and losers inside the naval supply chain. Legacy hardware and shipyard execution could gain if the Navy shifts course, while EMALS-related technology spending and the contractors tied to it could face slower growth or redesign costs.
The bigger narrative is strategic as much as financial: Trump’s order signals an effort to prioritize proven mechanical systems over newer but less battle-tested technology, even as foreign rivals move the other way. The next flashpoint will be whether the Navy and Congress accept the change, and how much it would cost to rework carrier programs already built around electromagnetic launch.
| Entity | Gains | Losses |
|---|---|---|
| Legacy steam catapult suppliers | ▲More demand for proven systems | ▼Less relevance under EMALS |
| Huntington Ingalls Industries | ▲Carrier design continuity | ▼Redesign uncertainty |
| Boeing EMALS programs | ▲Nothing immediate | ▼Launch-system exposure |
| U.S. Navy procurement | ▲Potentially lower technical risk | ▼Higher retrofit and transition costs |
