I believe RN carriers had more powerful cats than the USN supercarriers due to their shorter run. American Pilots cross opperating would commont on the extra kick given by the British cats.

It depends on what you mean by “more powerful”.

USN catapults could launch heavier aircraft at higher speeds.

I would say that the “instantaneous” power generated by the RN catapults was greater, but the total power was less.

The RN catapults apparently tended to accelerate the aircraft faster at the start, but ran out of “push” near the end.

Note the following data… and the difference in length.

Type….Shuttle Run..overall Length………Capacity………..Classes
USN:
C11-2…..150ft………..203ft………39,000lb@136kt….Essex, Midway & FDR waist cat 1960s
………………………………………….70,000lb@108kt

C11-1…..215ft ……….240ft………45,000lb@132kt…Kitty Hawk 1960s, Oriskany, Coral Sea (all),
………………………………………….70,000lb@108kt…Midway & FDR bow cats

C13……..250ft ……….285ft………78,000lb@139kt ..Enterprise, America 3, Kitty Hawk 1970s

C13-1…..310ft………..345ft………?@?…………………Nimitz, America 1

RN:
BS5……..151ft………..220ft………35,000lb@126kt…Eagle 1964 (bow), Ark Royal (bow) 1970
………………………………………….50,000lb@91kt

BS5A……199ft………..268ft………35,000lb@145kt…Eagle 1964 (waist), Ark Royal (waist) 1970
………………………………………….60,000lb@95kt

BS6……..250ft………..320ft………70,000lb@100kt…CVA01

The likely cause is the difference in operating pressure of the respective nations’ ships’ steam systems.

The USN had 600 psi boilers in the Essex class, the Midway class, and Forrestal, and 1,200 psi boilers in Saratoga/Ranger/Independence, the Kitty Hawk class, and the CVNs.

The British had 400 psi boilers in all of their classes of carriers, except for the planned CVA-01… I am not sure what they were planned for.

Really? I have not heard this before, do you have any sources with more information on this?

Unfortunately, the link no longer works, but I’m sure some Googling will find something more:

On call Convoy requests on the rise
Justin Stares Brussels – Tuesday 4 November 2008

THE European Union anti-piracy cell is already receiving five requests a day from ships looking for protection from pirates in the Gulf of Aden, writes Justin Stares in Brussels.

Shipowners were initially reluctant to join the Brussels convoys but have since changed their mind, said piracy cell chief Andres Breijo.

The convoys, led by two French frigates and overseen by a Spanish reconnaissance aircraft, began offering transits to commercial shipping last month and have already been swamped by requests.

“Shipowners did not initially welcome the service because it meant adjusting their schedules and waiting for the warships to depart,” said Cap Breijo, right. “This costs money. “But since then they have changed their minds and we are now receiving five protection requests a day.”

The demand has created “asset problems” for the EU because the two frigates can only “fully” protect two ships each. Given the fortnightly sailings in each direction across the gulf, this is wholly inadequate for the 300 ships, which are in the gulf on any given day, Capt Breijo said.

But frequencies will be improved once the EU’s first armada arrives in the region in December. Separate and complementary Nato forces are also expected to take part in the convoy operation and a Russian vessel is also co-ordinating with the EU operations, Capt Breijo said.

While a frigate can only fully protect two ships, other vessels are reported to have tagged along. The French frigates have already seen off several attacks, said the EU chief, without giving details. “Other ships can stay close,” he said. “It can be a deterrent. It is better than being on the outside [of the convoy].”

Ten nations have pledged support for the EU’s first joint naval operation, scheduled to last a year. EC Audiovisual Library

http://www.lloydslist.com…n-call-…d=1225729774221

This entry didn’t have a link:

Fairplay 6 May 2009 Pirates seize escorted ship

A GERMAN-owned ship with 11 crew members has been seized by pirates from within a warship-escorted convoy in the Gulf of Aden transit corridor, EU naval forces reported today.

“The vessel … was sailing within the transit corridor and was picked out of a group transit within only a few minutes,” an official statement from EU NAVFOR said.

“A helicopter from the closest warship was too late to prevent the ship from being hijacked,” the statement continued, adding that the crew was believed to be unhurt.

Victoria – a 10,500dwt general cargo vessel flagged in Antigua & Barbuda that is owned and managed by Haren of the German group Intersee – was taken yesterday afternoon about 120 n-miles north of the Somali port of Boosaaso, EU anti-piracy officials told Bloomberg.

Lieutenant Nate Christensen, spokesman for the Bahrain-based US Fifth Fleet, told the Associated Press that the entire crew is Romanian. An Intersee executive confirmed the attack today and told Bloomberg the vessel was carrying 10,000 tonnes of rice to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

These two were from two of the long-running discussion & news threads on Somali piracy on the Warships1 board:
EU/NATO antipirate fleet now fighting pirates

Somalia pirates

Checking locations of the incidents over time shows a steady movement of the incidents from the Gulf of Aden to the south and east, out into the larger ocean off the African coast.

Oh, as for the other… here is a May 2009 report on that:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/11/somali-pirates-london-intelligence

Somali pirates guided by London intelligence team, report says
Document obtained by Spanish radio station says ‘well-placed informers’ in constant contact by satellite telephone.

Giles Tremlett in Madrid
Monday 11 May 2009 12.59 BST
Quote

The Somali pirates attacking shipping in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean are directed to their targets by a “consultant” team in London, according to a European military intelligence document obtained by a Spanish radio station.

The document, obtained by Cadena SER radio, says the team and the pirates remain in contact by satellite telephone.

It says that pirate groups have “well-placed informers” in London who are in regular contact with control centres in Somalia where decisions on which vessels to attack are made. These London-based “consultants” help the pirates select targets, providing information on the ships’ cargoes and courses.

In at least one case the pirates have remained in contact with their London informants from the hijacked ship, according to one targeted shipping company.

The pirates’ information network extends to Yemen, Dubai and the Suez canal.

A couple of points…

First: convoys have been being used in the area for years, by the International force… well before the Chinese sent warships.

The convoys were run through what had been at that time the hardest-hit area… the narrower waterways where lots of ships were in close proximity, making for easier hunting.

This significantly reduced incidents in the convoy area, but the pirates adapted.

They shifted their area of operations, operating further out to sea, and in areas beyond where the convoys had to break up, since the ships were heading in different directions.

Second: part of this shift in operational pattern includes evidence of contacts and connections far beyond Somalia… showing that Somali piracy is not just a bunch of poor fishermen trying to survive, but that they are working with outside elements.

The old pattern was for the “mother ships” to hang out in an area, pretending to fish, waiting for a likely target.

There are now increasing reports of pirates intercepting and targeting specific ships (some by name), using information on owner, cargo, course, speed, and so on, provided before they set sail, and updated by radio while they are at sea.

Additionally, they have developed effective sources of weapons and supplies that are coming from elsewhere in the world directly to the pirates.

It appears that terrorist organizations are only slightly involved here… the main influence seems to be criminal organizations from developed countries getting their fingers into a very lucrative pie.

I would doubt that any large aircraft could manage an intact ditching under the conditions I outlined… however one (or two) less point(s) where the sea could catch and spin/flip/twist the airframe could make a difference in the final outcome… the degree of disintegration of the airframe, and thus in the flotation times of the remains.

The discussion between both you and Fedaykin was kind of avoiding the fact that the conditions around the British Isles tend to be rough and with poor weather… unlike the Hudson river on a calm day.

In these conditions it would make little difference whether the aircraft was an under-wing-podded-engine design (MPA320 / MPA319 or P-8) or an in-wing-engine design (Nimrod)… the airframe is nearly certain to break apart upon impact, due to the near certainty of digging in a wingtip or of hitting a wave-face/top, and the rest of the weather conditions would make rescue of survivors a slow and uncertain process.

It is in how badly it breaks up, and whether the crew will be in condition to deploy and enter life-rafts that the difference in engine mounting is likely to make itself a factor.

Floating calmly on a flat surface while conveniently-near ferries come to pluck the crew off the wings just isn’t going to happen!

Here is a pic:

Certainly looks fixable, but given the current budget, it will likely be a “spares recovery & dump” operation.

4-6 fighters on each LHD or LHA for how many billions, surely the maximum the USMC can need with 11 LHDs and LHAs of the F35Bs is say 100. Allowing for the present 8 squadrons and an attrition reserve. The initial headline order figure was for 480 that included replacing all the USMC legacy F18s, as we know the B cannot operate off a CVN so the stupid question is how is the USMC going to get the rest of its fleet of F35Bs to somewhere that they can provide CAS?

Um… you ever hear of mid-air refueling?

Right now, the USMC deploys fighters direct from the US mainland to Japan by flying them there, with only a stop-over in Hawaii… they do multiple mid-air refueling to get them across the Pacific Ocean.

There will be many, many F-35B flown into the newly-established FOB once the “on-deck” aircraft and the landing force have secured the beachhead and set up an airstrip.

For improvised or smaller operations, as I have mentioned in a couple of threads here recently, the LHA/LHD amphib groups regularly operate in areas far from the USN’s CVNs… if a sudden situation occurs, the F-35Bs are on hand to provide protection for the several days (or longer) it would take for a CVN group to get within operational flight range of the situation.

I thought the Bs based on a Gator was a stupid idea in 1994 and nothing has changed my mind.

And you, of course, are a genius… and the professionals (Generals, Admirals, etc) who came up with the idea are all blithering idiots.

Right.

The two-seat, twin-engined tailless concept jet is being offered for F/A-XX, a notional US Navy strategy that has not yet become a formal requirement.

So, as of NOW… the USN is not going to replace the F/A-18E/F with anything specific… it just would like to start considering what might replace it sometime in the future… a far cry from benroethig’s assertion!

The Navy vehemently disagrees which is why it replacing the super hornet with a larger twin engine twin seat design and reserving the F-35C for life as a bomb truck.

So, any details about this new “post-F-35” aircraft?

Or it just “what we would like is something kinda like this” talk?