How Much Does the Navy’s EMALS Catapult System Cost?

Published on August 15, 2026 | Written by Alec Pow
This article was researched using 16 sources. See our methodology and corrections policy.

The Navy buys EMALS as a complete carrier launch shipset rather than as one standalone catapult. The cleanest public EMALS-only procurement figure is $532.6 million for the USS Enterprise CVN-80 shipset, awarded in 2017 under the CVN-80 EMALS contract.

Newer numbers can look much higher because their scope is different. The Navy awarded General Atomics $1.204 billion in 2023 for both EMALS and Advanced Arresting Gear on USS Doris Miller CVN-81, including engineering changes, installation, support, and certification under the CVN-81 systems award.

EMALS pricing is best read per carrier shipset. Whether the figure includes arresting gear, spares, testing, engineering changes, software, installation support, or certification can change the contract value by hundreds of millions of dollars.

How Much Does the Navy’s EMALS Catapult System Cost?

A publicly documented Ford-class EMALS shipset cost $532.6 million (at $30 per hour, earning that amount would take about 8.5 thousand years of full-time work, before taxes), while broader launch-and-recovery packages can pass $1 billion.

Important numbers

• EMALS-only CVN-80 shipset $532.6 million
• Combined CVN-81 EMALS and AAG award $1.204 billion
• Historic CVN-78 carrier estimate $12.9 billion in GAO’s 2017 Ford-class cost review

What this is

EMALS is the electromagnetic aircraft-launch equipment built into Ford-class aircraft carriers. It replaces the steam-driven launch machinery used on Nimitz-class ships with linear motors, power conversion, energy storage, controls, software, and flight-deck launch equipment. A complete shipset supports four launch tracks, but the purchase is not four identical machines sitting independently beneath the deck.

Shared electrical equipment, control systems, testing hardware, technical data, spares, and carrier integration surround those launch tracks, as described by the Navy’s EMALS system description. EMALS launches aircraft. Advanced Arresting Gear stops them after landing. The two systems perform different jobs even though Navy contracts sometimes buy them together. Carrier aircraft such as the F/A-18 Super Hornet depend on this launch-and-recovery infrastructure during carrier operations.

EMALS vs steam catapults

The Ford class was designed around electric launch equipment from the start. EMALS replaces steam pistons and associated steam plumbing with an electrically driven system tied to the carrier’s much larger electrical architecture. The Navy said in February 2026 that preliminary sortie testing showed Ford’s flight deck, EMALS, and AAG contributing to a higher sortie-generation rate than a Nimitz-class carrier, and reported that the systems were operating as designed in its Ford deployment update.

Personnel requirements also enter the economic comparison. Associated Press reported in August 2026 that operating a Ford catapult can involve two sailors instead of roughly a dozen associated with the older steam system in its steam-catapult policy report. That does not establish a published dollar saving per launch. It does show why purchase price alone cannot settle the steam-versus-EMALS argument. Crew, maintenance, spare parts, power infrastructure, reliability, and redesign work all sit beside procurement expense.

CVN-80 EMALS shipset

The USS Enterprise CVN-80 contract remains the clearest public answer to the EMALS price question. General Atomics received an award reported at about $533 million (about 8.5 thousand years of full-time work at $30 per hour) in January 2017 to supply EMALS for the third Ford-class carrier, according to the Enterprise procurement report. The work covered manufacturing, assembly, inspection, testing, checkout, spares, repairs, technical data, and drawing changes.

Dividing the more precise $532.6 million award by four launch tracks gives about $133.15 million per launch-track equivalent. That figure is useful only for scale. It is not a price tag for one bare catapult because common electrical equipment, control hardware, spares, testing, and technical support serve the shipset rather than one track. General Atomics also described the CVN-80 procurement as part of a strategy that combined material purchasing across carriers in its CVN-80 production announcement. The scopes are different.

Beyond four launch tracks

The launch rails are only part of the contract. A carrier system needs power-conversion equipment, launch controls, software, sensors, cable runs, installation spares, checkout spares, repair material, documentation, engineering support, ship testing, and certification work. Long construction schedules can also require component changes when electronics become obsolete before a carrier reaches service.

The separate arresting-gear procurement shows how quickly another flight-deck system can add to the bill. In May 2017 the Defense Department announced a $195,180,206 (about 3.1 thousand years of full-time work at $30 per hour) CVN-80 Advanced Arresting Gear contract covering manufacture, assembly, inspection, testing, checkout, spares, repairs, technical data, and drawing changes in the Defense Department award. Adding that cited AAG amount to the cited $532.6 million EMALS figure gives about $727.78 million across the two separate 2017 awards. That arithmetic still does not create a fully installed carrier launch-and-recovery total because shipyard integration and later modifications can sit elsewhere.

CVN-81 contract reaches $1.204 billion

The future USS Doris Miller CVN-81 produces a much larger headline because the procurement combines two systems and more support work. NAVAIR describes the $1.204 billion award as covering EMALS and AAG production, shipset deliveries, engineering change orders, obsolescence work, program support, installation, and certification through 2032 on its launch-system program page.

Calling that entire $1.204 billion the cost of EMALS would overstate the catapult system. AAG is a separate aircraft-recovery system, and the contract also carries engineering and integration work that an equipment-only comparison would miss. The older CVN-80 award is narrower and remains a cleaner public EMALS-only price marker. This difference also explains why defense procurement numbers can appear contradictory when two articles quote the same carrier program. One may cite a production shipset, another a combined systems package, and another the full ship. Contract scope has to match before the dollar amounts can be compared.

Three Ford-class procurement examples

Public records give three useful scales for the program. They should not be read as three competing quotes for the same item. One covers EMALS alone, another combines launch and arresting systems, and the third covers an entire nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

Procurement case	What the figure covers	Public amount
USS Enterprise CVN-80	EMALS shipset and associated production support	$532.6 million
USS Doris Miller CVN-81	Combined EMALS and AAG package with integration support	$1.204 billion
USS Gerald R. Ford CVN-78	Full carrier procurement estimate in GAO’s 2017 review	$12.9 billion

The carrier figure puts the launch equipment in scale. EMALS is an unusually expensive subsystem, yet a Ford-class ship also contains nuclear propulsion, radar, weapons, aviation facilities, electrical generation, crew spaces, command systems, and the shipyard labor needed to build a supercarrier. Readers comparing those layers can see the broader U.S. aircraft carrier cost. A subsystem contract measured in hundreds of millions can still represent only a fraction of the ship.

The August 2026 steam order

EMALS pricing became a current budget issue on August 13, 2026, when President Donald Trump directed the Pentagon to prepare a plan to replace EMALS with steam catapults on the future USS Doris Miller. Reuters reported that the change is expected to add hundreds of millions of dollars and that General Atomics says production of the CVN-81 launch-and-recovery equipment is already nearly 50% complete in its August 13 policy report.

The expense would not come only from buying steam hardware. A carrier designed around electric launch equipment may need new steam-generation connections, piping, machinery spaces, controls, structural changes, shipyard rework, testing, drawings, training material, and certification.

Work already completed on EMALS can also become sunk procurement expense if equipment is removed from the ship’s plan. USNI reported that the first three Ford-class carriers will retain EMALS and that the Doris Miller change creates cost, schedule, and integration risk in its carrier redesign coverage.

Worked cost comparison

A simple scale calculation uses the historical CVN-80 EMALS award and GAO’s historical CVN-78 carrier estimate. Dividing $532.6 million by $12.9 billion produces about 4.13%. That does not mean EMALS accounted for exactly 4.13% of Enterprise, since the numerator and denominator refer to different ships and procurement records. It shows the relative order of magnitude.

The same $532.6 million shipset is equivalent to roughly 7.9 public F/A-18E/F aircraft figures if compared with the $67.4 million Super Hornet figure listed in current Navy pricing research. The comparison is only a scale check, because aircraft and launch systems have different contracting structures.

A half-billion-dollar EMALS package can buy the machinery needed to launch an air wing, yet it remains one subsystem inside a carrier whose procurement runs into the tens of billions. That is why Navy budget readers need the contract scope before judging whether a quoted catapult number is large or small.

Who this procurement cost makes sense for

EMALS spending makes the strongest acquisition case on carriers already engineered around electric launch equipment, where power architecture, deck design, crew training, spares, software, and shipyard work have been built around the system. Changing launch technology after production starts adds another procurement problem rather than simply substituting one machine for another.

GAO has repeatedly linked Ford-class cost control to design stability, realistic estimates, and technology maturity. Its more recent shipbuilding work continues to flag carrier cost growth and the need for stronger cost visibility in the 2025 shipbuilding assessment.

Makes sense if

• The carrier is already designed around EMALS electrical and control architecture.
• Production, spares, training, and ship integration are already funded.
• The Navy compares acquisition and operating effects across the same scope.

Doesn’t make sense if

• A combined EMALS and AAG contract is labeled as an EMALS-only price.
• A shipset is divided by four and presented as four independent hardware purchases.
• A redesign estimate ignores work already completed on the carrier.

What we verified

• Checked the documented $532.6 million CVN-80 shipset against the 2017 procurement record.
• Confirmed that EMALS and AAG are separate launch and recovery systems through the General Atomics fleet record.
• Cross-referenced the current steam-catapult directive and nearly 50% production status through the August 2026 carrier report.

Article Highlights

• The cleanest public EMALS-only shipset figure is $532.6 million.
• A four-way allocation equals about $133.15 million per launch-track equivalent, not a hardware-only unit price.
• The $1.204 billion CVN-81 contract includes both EMALS and AAG plus support work.
• Separate 2017 CVN-80 EMALS and AAG awards totaled about $727.78 million.
• The August 2026 steam-catapult change could add hundreds of millions of dollars, with wider estimates reaching billions of dollars.

Answers to Common Questions

How much does one Navy EMALS catapult cost?

There is no clean public price for one standalone catapult. Dividing the $532.6 million CVN-80 shipset by four gives about $133.15 million per launch-track equivalent, but shared equipment and support make that an allocation rather than a unit quote.

Does EMALS cost $1.204 billion?

No. The $1.204 billion CVN-81 award combines EMALS, Advanced Arresting Gear, engineering changes, installation, program support, and certification.

How does EMALS compare with the price of an aircraft carrier?

EMALS is measured in hundreds of millions of dollars, while a Ford-class carrier is measured in the tens of billions. The launch system is a major subsystem rather than the dominant share of the entire ship.

Is the Navy replacing EMALS with steam catapults?

A directive issued August 13, 2026 calls for a plan to use steam catapults on USS Doris Miller CVN-81. The first three Ford-class carriers are expected to retain EMALS.