Actually, its routine. Give you redundancy in case one of the pods fails.

Beats me.

No it wouldn’t. India isn’t going to buy SeaPhoon. Neither is anybody else. STOBAR aircraft will always be inferior to CATOBAR because despite what the salesmen claim, STOBAR means leaving either some fuel or payload behind on the deck. CATOBAR means taking everything including the kitchen sink with you!:diablo:

The ideal is the exact opposite of STOBAR; Catapult launch for max fuel and payload, followed by vertical landing. P1154 anyone?;):D

You’d only need cat attachments if you’re mixing with CATOBAR aircraft. It would provide no benefit to a large axial deck.

Re that computer graphic above: How much sense does it make to have an angled deck on a ski-jump carrier? Was wondering the same on the Russian carrier for a long time.

The What if it misses the wires? You’re sending the aircraft barreling towards aircraft ready for takeoff or parking on the bow. The Axial deck has nothing to do with catapults, it came into being because the Royal Navy and US Navy/Marines corps were losing planes when pilots boltered in jets. The Axial deck given them a place to power up and come back around or slide safely (for everyone else, the pilot not so much) into the sea.

BAE are really trying to make sure that the fact that the French offering is both land and Sea Based doesnt lose them the contract.

Otherwise there are no customers for this jet.

Basically, yes. India has been hinting that they would prefer to buy the same aircraft for their future carriers that they do for this Air Force contract. This puts the Eurofighter at a disadvantage. They basically had to come up with something, basically last minute, to stay in the running. They can always tell the Indians after the fact that it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually working.

If it’s caught in that position, it’s kinda screwed.

Once you fire that missile, other ships, airplanes, and submarines have a pretty good idea where you are. The best option for a sub is to play dead.

Have to say im opposed to anything other than last ditch defences on a carrier
area air defence weapons only take up deck space and hull space which is better utilised aircraft (hence sea darts removal from vince and co)

I think the french have erred installing aster on the CdG.

The French put the aster cells were planes aren’t. The starboard cell is deeper than the aircraft parking and the port cell is just forward of the waist cat.

The Italians wrong also?

Might have a point there since the aft port cells are taking up flight deck space. That being said it looks to be more than enough to take off with full load and with the F-35B using afterburner to takeoff, you’re not going to be able to have another jet behind it ready to launch anyway.

What :eek:?

They are there for a reason, they are not direct drive engines anymore but generate electricity so they don’t need to be buried in the bowels of the ship, located under the Islands means there is is less complex ducting that feed the air they need and exhaust their gasses with greatly impeding into the valuable hanger area. Also their location in the sponsons allows for an easy change of the engines without having to have access panels into the heart of the ship to gain access.

We learnt alot after designing and building the Invincibles and the CVF has been designed to avoid many of these pitfalls. Obviously some of members have no clue about the design process of the CVF. BTW hows your first GT powered avaiation vessel doing ?

Their drive system was influenced a lot more by the QM2 than the invincibles. They might have gas turbines, but they’re shaft powered, not electric.