CVN-79 – Design mistake

go with the harrier ramp. What im looking at is the F-35B working of CVN without causing much disruption. Also aiding F-35C with a full load.

Watched the Carrier series episode where they are taking off and landing on a pitching enterprise, I bet every one of them would say hey if I can take off from a ramp that is throwing me up straight away, rather than the dip you get with a flat top, I’ll take it. Especially when the ship is pitching like that, dont wanna get fired into the water now!

I saw that as well, didn’t one of the pilots say that he’d be thinking he was about to launch but the deck crew would wait another 5 seconds so they didn’t shoot him into the water. That’d be quite disconcerting. At least with a ramp you’re guaranteed to be leaving the deck in the right direction for sure.

go with the harrier ramp. What im looking at is the F-35B working of CVN without causing much disruption. Also aiding F-35C with a full load.

Watched the Carrier series episode where they are taking off and landing on a pitching enterprise, I bet every one of them would say hey if I can take off from a ramp that is throwing me up straight away, rather than the dip you get with a flat top, I’ll take it. Especially when the ship is pitching like that, dont wanna get fired into the water now!

The EMALS system they’re bringing in for the new class CAN be curved. And are you sure that the ramp would be 30 metres long? seems a little excessive when you consider an RN ski jump, that 30m would be a fifth of the flight deck.

Yeah, I don’t know about the EMALS. Linear motors can certainly be curved, but I’m not sure what the minimal radius is for one with the power requirements of EMALS. Also I’m not sure how the shuttle – launch bar interaction looks under more than 1g when the aircraft is loaded while going up the ramp.

The 30 meters are deducted from Kuznetsov’s ramp dimensions. The Harrier ramps are of course shorter.

Theoretically yes. But you can’t really build a curving cat, I think. Meaning the cats would have to end before the ramp starts curving upwards, which in my estimation would mean around 30 meter further aft, which in turn screws your whole deck arrangements. The other option would of course be to launch fighterbombers over the bow up the ramp, and heavies like the E-2 via the cats on the angled deck.

Edit: Talking about heavy waether. Impressive every time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gGMI8d3vLs

The EMALS system they’re bringing in for the new class CAN be curved. And are you sure that the ramp would be 30 metres long? seems a little excessive when you consider an RN ski jump, that 30m would be a fifth of the flight deck.

still believe that a ramp on cat 1 and 2 wouldnt cause an issue to the carrier. You might even find that the carrier could launch in more extreme weather situations?

Theoretically yes. But you can’t really build a curving cat, I think. Meaning the cats would have to end before the ramp starts curving upwards, which in my estimation would mean around 30 meter further aft, which in turn screws your whole deck arrangements. The other option would of course be to launch fighterbombers over the bow up the ramp, and heavies like the E-2 via the cats on the angled deck.

Edit: Talking about heavy waether. Impressive every time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gGMI8d3vLs

still believe that a ramp on cat 1 and 2 wouldnt cause an issue to the carrier. You might even find that the carrier could launch in more extreme weather situations?

What about using the whole length of the angled deck for F-35B take-offs?

This is probably how such deployments will be done anyway, and indeed Harriers often use the angled deck for takeoffs when visiting Large deck carriers. The forward deck (fly 1) is usually used for deck parking anyway so the angle is most likely to be kept clear for both recoveries and launches (there are two catapults on it).

What about using the whole length of the angled deck for F-35B take-offs?

Who’s arguing? :confused: I merely pointed out that LHAs are primarily helicopter carriers first and Harrier carriers second. That’s why they don’t have a ramp. The reason the CVNs don’t have a ramp is it’s deck space you can’t use and when you have catapults you don’t need them anyway.

I think my point was that I wasnt ever talking about LHA’s they have the reason that they take up landing spots for Helicopters.

My point is that with a Ski Jump and I quote obi from another thread

As we are into calculations for takeoffs, I thought this might be of use. I get asked to explain the ski jump regularly, since many seem unable to grasp the point. When you leave the end of the ramp, you will only be at about 80 knots and you aren’t actually flying yet. But you are still accelerating and the ramp has converted some of your forward momentum into vertical thrust so you gain altitude whilst you are accelerating. Before you reach the top of the arc you will have reached true flying speed (about 130knots, and you will be at about 200ft). If there is a problem on takeoff such as engine failure, the pilot will have several extra seconds to decide what to do (eg eject) compared to the flat trajectory of a catapult launch. In the latter case a pilot coming off the end of a catapult with a serious malfunction will be lucky to have two seconds to join the Martin Baker appreciation society. EMALS offers the possibility of combining the two systems, gaining the extra safety of the ski jump and the extra payload of the catapult…;)

Also if the CVN does embark F-35B’s which I think they will due to the fact that as I said before the Marines will only buy this model, they will only be able to take off from the mid point blast deflectors aiming at the deck end of Cat 1 and 2 causing issues. With the ramp they could launch from Cat 1 and 2 positions without using the cats.

Also juding by this picture http://www.bluejacket.com/usn/images/sp/cv/cvn70_carlvinson.jpg the only thing i can think that you might lose is 2 plane parking spots . and even then only just.

Also sferrin i enjoy most of your posts but dicussion here doesnt mean arguement it means just considering decisions e.t.c

Who’s arguing? :confused: I merely pointed out that LHAs are primarily helicopter carriers first and Harrier carriers second. That’s why they don’t have a ramp. The reason the CVNs don’t have a ramp is it’s deck space you can’t use and when you have catapults you don’t need them anyway.

It was just a thought. And even though the Marines will only operate the F-35B the US navy looked at Ski Jumps before, it seems to help in all situations and since emals work on ramps why not do everything you can do to increase efficiency?

For the chap that said the F-35 B is less able than the C I agree but at the moment the marines already operate a less capable plane as sea by using the F/A-18 rather than super hornets

Also sferrin i enjoy most of your posts but dicussion here doesnt mean arguement it means just considering decisions e.t.c

The F35B will be a rare visitor to a CVN as is the Harrier now, no reason why they can’t.

Just do a rolling take off from the deck.

OK not an AV8B but here is a pic of a Seaharrier operating from the Eisenhower:

Can you make that a little bigger, I can’t see it very well on this little monitor. 😀

The F35B will be a rare visitor to a CVN as is the Harrier now, no reason why they can’t.

Just do a rolling take off from the deck.

OK not an AV8B but here is a pic of a Seaharrier operating from the Eisenhower:

Obviously the USMC doesn’t agree. 😉 I’d guess the deck space is required for helicopter ops FAR more than it would be for the Harriers.

We could assume that, but the argument could be made that the Admirals don’t want the LHAs making their CVNs look obsolete (not my opinion, i’d much rather have a CVN than an LHA).

I guess we won’t know for sure unless there are stats somewhere breaking down deck usage.

Also important to note that the one helo deck spot given over only becomes a problems when the deck is very busy with launches/landings, which I assume isn;t that frequent compared to how often Harriers will have to fly off the decks.

In my opinion, the one helicopter spot that the ramp takes up can be justified when the LHA is frequently used for STOVL ops, bonus or not.

Obviously the USMC doesn’t agree. 😉 I’d guess the deck space is required for helicopter ops FAR more than it would be for the Harriers.

Sure, but the greater percentage leans towards the helicopter ops. That’s the reason for the LHA’s existence. STOVL ops are a bonus.

In my opinion, the one helicopter spot that the ramp takes up can be justified when the LHA is frequently used for STOVL ops, bonus or not.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that all the LHAs should have ramps, but a mix might be more useful, meaning only a couple of helicopter spots are lost across the entire fleet in return for significantly improved STOVL ops spread throughout the fleet.

If the emphasis is on helicopter ops yes, but there must be plenty of occasions where the focus is on Harrier ops, then the ramp makes a world of difference.

Sure, but the greater percentage leans towards the helicopter ops. That’s the reason for the LHA’s existence. STOVL ops are a bonus.

LHA’s are primarily used to support amphibious assaults and for that the extra deckspace available for operations is more valuable than a ramp.

If the emphasis is on helicopter ops yes, but there must be plenty of occasions where the focus is on Harrier ops, then the ramp makes a world of difference.

But would it hurt for the USMC to be able to operate off the CVN’s well?

The ramp also addresses some of the payload problems (see the payloads that a Harrier can take when launching from RN ships compared to the USN).

On the question, I guess the admirals would make the same silly arguments they make for not putting ramps on the LHA’s.

LHA’s are primarily used to support amphibious assaults and for that the extra deckspace available for operations is more valuable than a ramp.

Just wondering this.

Why on earth if the USN are committed to EMALS and the fact that they will work, hasnt the USN included a ramp at the end of the ship?

There is a real possibility that the CVN-79 will operate F-35B from the Marines on board in the future and we know that even with all the extra space they have they could take off without a ramp but why would you want to?

We have been told as well that EMALS will work in conjunction with a ramp… so why not stick one in?

Where’s the design mistake? Why the hell would you want to waste deck space with a ramp when you have catapults?