Yes. They finished the ground testing of the EMALS with ACT Phase 2 after the carrier was launched in 2013. And you consider this normal?!
So you make a system and start installing it on the ship before knowing with ground tests if it will work reliably?
It is just like I said, they started building the carrier without launching anything on the ground test site.
Wiki also says this: In the test configuration, EMALS could not launch fighter aircraft with external drop tanks mounted. "The Navy has developed fixes to correct these problems, but testing with manned aircraft to verify the fixes has been postponed to 2017"
First of all, your post in 8434 did not say anything about when EMALS land testing was finished.
What you wrote was "There was a lack of testing to iron out issues and moving forward with the programs regardless of what happened. Take the EMALS. They never launched an aircraft with EMALS on a land based test harness. Not even a mass payload simulator of similar bulk."
You suggested there was no land testing of the EMALS at all.
My point is to first establish that there was extensive land testing of the USN EMALS on land before they began shipboard testing.
Now, to address your question here. Yes, the USN finished land based testing in 2014, after the carrier was launched in 2013.
I think that's fairly reasonable.
After all, for the PLAN, they've just launched Fujian a week ago -- we only have evidence that they've tested the dedicated catapult testbed frame J-15T from the land based EM catapults. We have no evidence of them having begun EM catapult launch testing of J-XY/35, or KJ-600. Heck, we can't even confirm if the service-intended J-15B catapult compatible variant has begun EM catapult testing.
So if you want to talk about concurrency, the PLAN right now as actually in a slightly worse position than the USN was back in 2013 when Ford was launched -- because at least the USN at that period already had E-2C/D be mature and in service, with F-18E/F and F-18C/D mature and in service in large numbers, and with F-35C's flight test program well underway (first flew mid 2010, which is three years before Ford was launched, whereas J-XY/35 only first flew a year before Fujian).
Now, this isn't to say I expect that Fujian and its airwing will suffer issues, because I think the PLAN has probably managed its programs fairly well in a stepwise manner.
But to suggest that the Ford and its EMALS and airwing was an example of the failure of concurrency is the pot calling the kettle black because Fujian and its EM catapult and its airwing is in someways as concurrent if not more concurrent in their development -- and it is also categorically incorrect to suggest that the EMALS did not have extensive land based testing prior to shipboard testing.