During his visit to Japan, U.S. President Donald Trump stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier at the U.S. military base in Yokohama, and announced in the face of Japan's new prime minister, High-Market Mornington, and thousands of U.S. troops that he would sign a presidential decree requiring the U.S. aircraft carrier to abandon high-tech electromagnetic bombardment and return to the old era of steam bombardment!

Before announcing the decision, he twice asked the US military who had been in arrears for months and were still applauding him on the deck: "Which is better, steam ejection or electromagnetic ejection?"

When he heard someone answer "steam ejection", he immediately received a treasure and dismissed the electromagnetic catapult as a "stupid and absurd" design.

The president, who claimed to be ¡°very knowledgeable in shipbuilding¡± in his speech, gave a remarkable explanation:

In addition to complaining that the electromagnetic ejection project cost more than 900 million dollars, but it still failed frequently, and the performance of the steam system has been perfect for 50 years, he actually said that he "likes to see the beautiful scene on the deck during steam ejection".

I have to say, this is indeed what Trump can say.

However, reality is far more complicated than speech.

For example, Trump's dissatisfaction with the new generation of Ford-class aircraft carriers does have a reason.

The $13 billion super aircraft carrier, which has been in service since 2017, has not been able to form an effective combat force for several years, and the electromagnetic launching system is more and more stagnant.

According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, the average fail-to-failure period of the Ford's electromagnetic ejection system is much lower than the design indicators, which seriously affects the aircraft carrier's core combat effectiveness indicator-the carrier-based aircraft dispatch rate.

What is even more embarrassing is that this aircraft carrier, known as the future pillar of the U.S. Navy, has so far been unable to carry the most advanced F-35C fighter jets. These questions have convinced Trump that it is wise to return to the 50-year-old steam catapult.

But the development of military technology has never been simply a "return to the past."

U.S. military experts were dumbfounded on the spot, saying that Trump's proposal was almost technically unfeasible. The company that produced steam catapults for the Nimitz class has long since gone bankrupt, and the production line and skilled workers no longer exist.

More importantly, the overall design of the "Ford" class - from the power system, deck layout to the internal structure - is all tailored around the electromagnetic bullet shooting. Forcing to replace the steam launchers is no different than redesigning an aircraft carrier, whose cost and time are unbearable for the U.S. Navy.

To say the least, even if the modification is successful, the performance of the "Ford" class will be greatly reduced, and there will be no advantage compared to the "Nimitz" class.

Some analysts pointed out that Trump's decision to make this "mistake" should largely be stimulated by the Chinese Fujian ship.

Just as the U.S. for the choice of steam or electromagnetic debate is ongoing, China's Fujian Ship has completed the electromagnetic launches test of the three vessel aircraft Air Police-600 early warning aircraft, J-15T and J-35, this is the world's first country to simultaneously complete the three vessel aircraft electromagnetic launches and recycling.

Moreover, China's chosen technical route is completely different from that of the United States: the Fukushima ship adopted the medium-pressure direct current system developed by the Ma Wei Ming academician team, while the "Ford" used the exchange electromagnetic launch system.

From a technological perspective, the direct current system has natural advantages in terms of structural simplification, power density, response speed, etc., which means that the Fukushima launch technology has actually led the "Ford" generation.

If the U.S. really returns to steam launches, as Trump said, there will be a whole two-generation gap compared to China.

Behind this dispute over technical routes is the deep contest between the scientific and technological innovation systems of the two countries.

The United States has chosen a relatively conservative exchange technology route on electromagnetic shelling, although it has reduced theoretical risk, but has fallen into trouble in system complexity and reliability; China has boldly adopted more advanced direct-stream technology, and has achieved curve overcarriage.

This difference is not only reflected in the choice of technology, but also reflects two different innovation cultures: one party is trapped by relying on existing technological paths, and the other party travels lightly and dares to break through.

In this context, Trump's proposal to return to the steam era may be that he feels that he is technically inferior to China, so it is better to break the jar.

On the surface, this is the pursuit of technological reliability, but at the deeper level, it exposes the systemic crisis of the US military-industrial system.

More than US $900 million in R&D investment has been wasted, the supply chain of core military enterprises has been broken, and major project management and technical evaluation mechanisms have failed... These problems cannot be solved simply by "going back to the past".

At the same time, the top officials of the U.S. Navy clearly expressed their opposition to Trump's proposal. This difference between the military and civilian leadership on major technical routes will further aggravate the confusion of U.S. military equipment construction.

Next, whether Trump's executive order can be truly implemented, the United States has reached a crossroads in the development of aircraft carrier technology.

Continuing to stick to the troubled electromagnetic launches means investing more time and money to solve reliability issues; retreating to steam launches not only acknowledges the failure of major technological projects, but will also make the United States lose the naval technological advantage that lasted for more than half a century.

For China, the success of the Fujian ship is only the beginning. How to improve the stability and maturity of the system while maintaining technological leadership will be the key to the next step.

For Trump's decision, the Chinese military fan is a good voice, thinking that he "does well", after all, this external-dominated internal situation, usually the result will not be good.

In the future, as long as Trump is in office, this situation will inevitably be less, not knowing what U.S. military experts feel now.

In short, Trump¡¯s decision is not just an individual¡¯s decision-making preference, but it¡¯s also a deep difficulty for a superpower in technological innovation and management.

In China, which is regarded by the United States as an "adversary," new naval forces based on scientific decision-making and technological breakthroughs are rapidly emerging. This comparison in itself is enough to explain many problems.

Historical experience has proven that competition in military technology will never wait, either individual or national. Will Trump sign this presidential decree, we'll wait!