CVA01 and CVV compared

bump

What would the name of CVA-01 have been?

Vague memories only I’m afraid and without a source, but I think she would have been Queen Elizabeth. And 02 would have been Duke of Edinburgh. At one time there was a plan for 3 so imagine the last would have been Prince of Wales.

What would the name of CVA-01 have been?

Thanks for digging up this thread. I have just re-read the whole thing.

I really miss Obi Wan Russell. He was a never ending well of information. I have learned so much from him.

I’ve just checked David Hobbs’ “The British Carrier Strike Fleet After 1945” and as I suspected, it was exactly 50 years ago today that the Cabinet formally agreed to cancel the CVA-01 program :stupid:. A moment of silence is in order :(.

Wonder if the would have put Speys in them? Tomcat F.1? Sounds great!

Almost certainly

Look at the history of Corsair and Tomcat problem engines and engines which actually worked

I’m sure that we’d have had the designation Tomcat FGR1 and ideally for RAF as well as RN
Which to my mind brings images of two rocket pods under each wing glove (for no logical reason)

Would we have bought Phoenix as well? I suspect an opportunity to save money by sticking to Skyflash myself

ok

I thought it was the other way round, with the Advanced Arresting Gear being more able to be back fitted than the EMALS. Thats why there are only 3-4 potential EMALS sets with the Ford, the PoW, Kennedy and possibly QE to get the sets so far.

Errr? Thats what I said!

EMALS no…AAG yes.

EMALS no AAG yes I think.

As for older conversation about hydraulic chocks to hold back F35b on QE class…mute point since SSDR.

I thought it was the other way round, with the Advanced Arresting Gear being more able to be back fitted than the EMALS. Thats why there are only 3-4 potential EMALS sets with the Ford, the PoW, Kennedy and possibly QE to get the sets so far.

Any plans to retrofit any of the Nimitz class with EMALS?

Would be rather difficult and extremely expensive to do so. Nimitz-class are steam driven ships with some of that steam diverted to the cats. You’d have convert them to electric drive ships and harness all the steam for electric power then have a way to store that power.

EMALS no AAG yes I think.

As for older conversation about hydraulic chocks to hold back F35b on QE class…mute point since SSDR.

Any plans to retrofit any of the Nimitz class with EMALS?

Indeed yes! My bet is on the retractable chocks/JBD solution, despite their apparent absence from some artist’s impressions. They are a low cost solution relatively, and very low tech too. We shall see…

Harriers of all flavours can run up to ful thrust on deck prior to launch held back only on their brakes, even in the wet. Good brakes, Good tyres and very good anti skid coating on the deck. The Russians use hydraulic chocks in front of the main wheels, which retract very quickly when the aircraft launches. They serve the same function as the holdback bar on a steam catapult. A holdback bar uses a special ‘weak link’ that can hold the aircraft under full thrust but will break when the catapult is fired. The Russian STOBAR system only has the aircraft thrust and a ski jump to get the aircraft airborne, so a holdback bar wouldn’t work (no extra thrust to break the link). It’s possible the retractable chock method could be used on the QE class in front of the JBD, otherwise the brakes will have to be REALLY good!

Indeed that is my thinking Very good brakes would be needed! Considering that the F35 has over twice the thrust of the Harrier even with its greater weight your asking alot of the brakes and deck surface.

How do the FAA deal with problem with SHARs and GR9s?

Harriers of all flavours can run up to ful thrust on deck prior to launch held back only on their brakes, even in the wet. Good brakes, Good tyres and very good anti skid coating on the deck. The Russians use hydraulic chocks in front of the main wheels, which retract very quickly when the aircraft launches. They serve the same function as the holdback bar on a steam catapult. A holdback bar uses a special ‘weak link’ that can hold the aircraft under full thrust but will break when the catapult is fired. The Russian STOBAR system only has the aircraft thrust and a ski jump to get the aircraft airborne, so a holdback bar wouldn’t work (no extra thrust to break the link). It’s possible the retractable chock method could be used on the QE class in front of the JBD, otherwise the brakes will have to be REALLY good!

I presume its less of an issue with Harrier as it hasn’t got the same thrust potential.

Thrust to weight. Total thrust is less important.

How do the FAA deal with problem with SHARs and GR9s?

I presume its less of an issue with Harrier as it hasn’t got the same thrust potential.

Once an F35B runs up to full power prior to take off how are they going to stop it skidding down the deck especially if its wet?

How do the FAA deal with problem with SHARs and GR9s?

2.19 and 2.55 for reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1bSe3HQj0Q

I have pondering an interesting problem with launch operations on the QE class.

Once an F35B runs up to full power prior to take off how are they going to stop it skidding down the deck especially if its wet? The Russians use a red hold back bar just ahead of the JBD to allow the aircraft to run up to full reheat without going for an unplanned journey down the deck. I presume the solution will be carried over to INS Vikramaditya and whatever the Chinese will call the Varyag. Seems like a good solution for the QE class to my mind along with some JBD.