Steam catapults as industrial insurance against EMALS

How could the US Navy use money assigned to a steam-catapult return without abandoning EMALS?

Clarke proposes a study or limited steam installation as an industrial fallback while EMALS matures, and interprets it as potential pressure on the supplier.

Clarke interprets the steam-catapult discussion as an investigation and describes an industrial fallback if EMALS difficulties persist. In that proposal, one carrier not yet laid down could preserve steam-catapult design and construction skills while they still exist. Mixing catapult systems within a class would be awkward; earlier American battleship classes with different machinery provide his historical analogy. He regards further EMALS development and changes in supplier performance as the preferable outcome within that argument. The suggestion of retaining steam capability to pressure a sole supplier is his interpretation of the procurement problem, not evidence that a particular government motive has been established.