benroethigAs in…
I’m talking about the other end of the runway fore to port. Also, that’s an older model. They made changes to the final STOVL design to penny pinch.
benroethigA flawed concept then, flawed concept now.
Modern submarines are designed around stealth and the ability to stay submerged for extended periods of time. They are also designed to stay stealthy while undertaking operation s. On the other hand aircraft carriers have to be on the surface to launch and recover aircraft almost all of the time to commence operations.
Unless aircraft can be launched and recovered without losing stealth then I fail to see how it is a credible modern concept.
That only that, but they’d be really really inconvenient for aviation operations. If you scaled the Typhoon design up to 1000ft You could theoretically have one that in the small class as a smaller STOVL design, but there are some issues. First off, where do you but the ballast tanks? The hanger would have to double for deck parking with one or two aircraft being operated at a time. Then we have the need for a pressure sealed elevator. Lastly, the STOVL aircraft themselves, they’d be close to 100ft lower in the water. As such, they’d really have to take off at as high an angle as possible which would limit their payload. Not a good situation at all.
benroethigLooking to the future when the RN would want QEC to accomodate UAVs…
How frequently do the CVFs go through refit?
USN conventional CVs went through refit approximately every 5 years. It would be during refit that EMALS and AAR could be added to the angle deck to accomodate future UAVs. It would be a tight squeeze, but two EMALS could be added to the angle in a manner similar to catapults 3 & 4 on USN CVs.
Depends on what kind of refit. There’s going to basic yard work every couple of years.
benroethigJonesy;
Completely agree. My point being so many posters seem to think the sponsons aren’t going to be fitted in STOVL configuration, ar at least that’s the impression they give. As you said, it won’t be a big deal to install the deck lighting and DAPS, so it should be an idea given worthy consideration if it improves the safety of SRVLs.
There would have to be some changes like the additional runway overhang and the moving of the port bow CWIS mount.
benroethigAnother reason to keep angled deck might be if you have an a/c with a little technical glitch 😉
That too. The reason the angled deck was developed was to keep an aircraft with a problem from barreling into other jets. An angled with a barricade might actually save an F-35B in the event some of the jazillion moving parts required to get it into a hover malfunction.
benroethigso it can land vertically but not take off vertically?
I assumed it could since the X-35 could
It can if you can do without unimportant things like fuel and weapons. The X-35 had no mission systems and provisions for weapons. To make the demonstrator into an actual combat aircraft, it gained about 2500kg of weight. The Harrier I, which was designed for VTOL, could barely do it with more than a pair of sidewinders, so the whole VTOL concept was retired in favor of STOVL and with the F-35B its more like STOL if at all possible.
Well I thought it interesting that they have emphasised that the B would carry the same weapons as the C would have in UK service, and that they felt the need to say we would use UK weapons.
Hopefully soon we will see what that means. Are the AMRAAM we use compatible with the B bay? Would they initially shift the stocks over from Typhoon to the B in order to make room for Meteor on Typhoon first?
On another note. My misspelling in the title of this thread is really bugging me. can i change it or shall i just suck it up and learn to spell?
MBDA are proposing a clipped-fin Meteor similar to the AMRAAM-C for internal carriage, but so far the only organisations throwing money into weapon integration are the U.S. Air Force and NAVAIR.
benroethigSRVL approach is roughly 60knts at about a 6 degree glideslope if memory serves. Ship will be steaming at 20-25knts so actual rolling speed on deck will come in at about 35-40knts. Qinetiq state that touchdown point will be about 150ft beyond the round down and, worst case, braking distance wont exceed 400ft.
SRVL, it should be pointed out, will only be employed when heavier than normal bringback is occuring and, under benign conditions, braking roll should be around 200ft. So, with the most extreme combination of factors, free deck of about 550ft will be required and at the end of the 550ft, if the brakes are working at all, the aircraft should be at a rate of knots completely unsuited to a bolter in any understood use of the term!.
That said I think its safe to say that, with nearly 4 acres of flight deck, marking up a shallow angled run to at least partially deconflict landing and takeoff events cant be a bad idea!.
Qinetiq did those tests with a Harrier 1 which is pretty stable platform. No SRVL tests have been done with production model (which are heavier to keep the aircraft from ripping itself apart) with any kind of combat loads. Keeping the angled deck extension might be a good idea just in case. Plus, If you need a COD visit from an Osprey, you have space for it to do rolling take-off and landings without having to worry about the big rotors hitting the ski-jump.
benroethigNo PPP “C” is a highly serious issue with no real solution! Do you really trust an autonomous system armed with bombs and missiles to tell the difference between a mobile launcher and lets say a school bus?! That’s the problem you need a man in the loop because there is no way the politicians or public trust an automated system on a life and death issue. For that matter drones manned controlled from the ground are proving to be highly sensitive…
And just look at happened to that RQ-170 and Iran. They can be jammed, or hacked, or just plain loose their connection. Takes a lot more effort to compromise a pilot.
benroethigApparently the switch back to the B is on:
Unless he got some major assurances, doing this now instead of after U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections in November could be a major mistake. For both the far left dems and the far right tea party folks, the F-35B is on the top of the DoD waste agenda.
benroethigwasn’t the cvf designed to be modular to allow easy swapping of cats and ski jump configs? so where’s the problem coming from?
That got all lost in the seemingly quarterly redesigns of the ship to save money. They ended with the CATOBAR hull, but no place for cats in the final design.
benroethigPlus they’ve spent their entire lives in the desert where you don’t have a lot of corrosives.
benroethigAnd absolutely no shipboard time since they were Kuwaiti air force birds. As for re-enginging it wouldn’t be that easy. You’d after to lengthen and strengthen the airframe to accept the longer supersonic engine.
benroethigSeaGripen would only work if there was three way order agreement with Brazil, Italy, and Spain.
benroethigHi to all
I was reading the thread, and I must said that I have two questions
I know that, at this momento doesn`t existe a CATOBAR version of the MIg-29K, but if exist, this could operate from Sao Paolo carrier?
The lifts and cats, can handle it.?
thank you
Not without a major refit to increase cat and lift size. Her 50m cats are really geared towards single engine aircraft.
benroethigThat is not an accurate representation of the original requirement for the design of the carrier, nor of the reasons for it.
When BAES and Thales were competing they were asked to produce a design for CATOBAR and a design for STOVL. When the time came that the MoD promised to make a decision they delayed it. When the new time came they asked for a STOVL design that could be converted at any time before, during or after the build to an EM based CATOBAR. However as there was no design for EMALS at that point (or even a selection of which EM catapult) the industrial designers could not really do any more than leave space (an amount guessed at).
There has never been a time when the requirement was solely for a purely STOVL design. The option for conversion was not for future proofing. CATOBAR was always preferred, but steam cats were too expensive and EM catapults were not mature enough. Hence the ‘fudge’ to allow us to convert when they matured – a decision which the MoD/govt made at the appropriate time before working out the cost
CVF started out as a 40,000 ton pure STOVL design looking a lot like an America-class LPD. As things evolved, it got bigger, and concept designs were submitted by BAE and Thales, one each in STOVL and CATOBAR. The design eventually chosen was the Thales CATOBAR design. Steel is cheap and its a lot easier to bolt a ski-jump to a CATOBAR deck if you need a STOVL jet than it is to do a post WWII-style rebuild on a STOVL design. Pretty sensible thinking to that point. Then the politicians started to meddle and kept changing the design.
What happens if they pick the F-35B and go STOVL, then after the US elections the F-35 is canned? Are there any other planes on the planet that could be used with ski jumps and no arrestor gear…apart from buying back some third hand Harriers
Nope. Of all the STOVL projects, only the Harrier and the Yak-38 ever saw service and the Yak sucked enough where the Soviet Navy pulled it off of their ships.
F-35B gets canned, you either have the world’s largest helicopter ships or will have to end up paying more and waiting longer for EMALS conversion than you are now.
Sign In
