FBWSeriously, You should quit while behind. And don’t cut and chop posts of mine to suit what your trying to say.
Quote Originally Posted by fbw
The CdG operated E-2C which are considerably larger and heavier. So, that would not be a limiting factor.
– Go back and read the post I was responding to then you will get it
FBW Said: The E-2C may (most likely does) have a lower take-off speed, but that is irrelevant. If a carrier can launch a E-2C, it can launch the Super at the same weight. The difference would be the WOD needed to get airborne. A catapult like the C-13-2 can accelerate a 60,000 lb load to 150 knts whether it be a E-2C, a Super, or a lead weight. The question was if the C-13-3 on the CdG could operate the Super, and the answer is yes, based on real evidence, and specs of the catapult
If you get don’t my above statement, I can’t help you. I’ll dumb it down for you…. Assume the E-2C has a stall speed of roughly 95 knts at combat loaded weight (90-100knts). The C-13-3 cat has no problem launching the aircraft even making little headway with light wind over deck. The Super has a stall speed depending on weight of between 125 and 160+ knots. We will go with 60,000lbs (MGTOW 66,000 lbs) on the Super, stall speed of 160 knts.
Now, HERE’s the key so try and keep up. On the C-13-3 cat of the CdG, the one in question, we see that even a 70,000 lb aircraft could be catapulted 140 knts (60,000 lb probably 150 knts). Could the cat launch the 60,000 lb Hornet? yes. The carrier would need to be generating 20+ knots wind over deck for the aircraft to get airborne with a margin of safety.
At their respective combat weights, you are looking a difference in stall speed of roughly 30 knots. The E-2C is roughly 7,000 lbs heavier at empty weight. The CdG could launch either because it will be able to generate sufficient wind over deck. If you took the Foch, as an example. The paper specs would suggest that it could cat a combat loaded E2-C or a lightly loaded Super. In reality, neither could probably safely operate from the Foch (Sao Paulo), but it ain’t because of the cats- the British launched Phantom FG1’s using (according to Badger) the same cats. EDIT- the cats on the French carriers were shorter than Bs-5 used to launch Phantoms on Ark Royal
Obligatory said:here, yet again, you claim respective stall speed is irrelevant,
but different a/c have different stall speed, a starfighter would have more issues at low speed than an A-10, and so on
– Don’t parse my post. Stall speed was irrelevant on whether the CdG could launch the Super or the E-2C. As you seem to not understand that the wind over the carrier deck is critical for aircraft to take-off (did it ever occur to you that fighters on a STOBAR carrier take off in a quarter or less of the distance than an airfield take-off?) Don’t take part of a post out of context to make some petty claim.
Your attempts are a fail, your constant harping on F=Ma for the catapult shows you don’t understand that the cat operator does not open steam valves 100% power for every type of aircraft, a fighter 1/2 the weight of another is not catapulted at twice the speed because the stress placed on pilot and plane would be too much. It just get embarrassing having to explain how Carrier cats work when all you need to do is google every once in awhile. In trying to trip me up, your making a fool of yourself.
FBWabsolutely NO consideration as to how 65 planes could possibly do all that was likely going to be asked of them, counting Air policing/Defence, Overseas deployments and aircraft down for maintenence / training etc…..
Probably the same way that 70 odd CF-188’s meet the requirements.
FBWCarrier trials due to start today-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/02/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSKBN0IM0S820141102?feedType=RSS
FBWhalving the weight halves the pressure, -or doubles the speed at the same pressure
Bager posted specific weights & speeds
You are arguing basic physics, we all get it. I got your point, three posts ago because I posted the same thing. I think you missed the crux of what I was saying: F/a-18C lightly loaded does not get launched with the same force as a fully loaded A-6, it would damage the plane. A C-13-2 cat that can accelerate 80,000lb aircraft to 140 knts, they cannot use the same pressure and accelerate a 40,000 lb aircraft to 280knt! The pilot would be red mush in the cockpit.
One of the issues with steam catapults is the uneven forces they apply, the aircraft gets hit with the full force of the piston expanding pulling on the shuttle. One of the benefits of EMALS is that the force can be applied in a gradual manner.
Back to more on topic, I would doubt that Brazil would replace Sao Paulo’s cats given the age of the ship. That would not present a problem perhaps, for launching a Sea Gripen. It will be interesting to see the future carrier plans of Brazil given that the Sao Paulo could be gone (ship will be near 60) before Brazil begins receiving Gripens.
Edited original post- trying to be polite
FBWThe French carriers Clemenceau (now scrapped) and Foch (now São Paulo) were/are equipped with British BS5 catapults (the same as the short catapults of the Royal Navy carriers Eagle & Ark Royal).
Here are the specs of those catapults and of the C-13-3s of CdG:
Type___Shuttle Run___Length___Capacity
BS5____50m (164ft)___220ft___50,000lb@91kt; 42,000lb@110kt; 35,000lb@126kt
C13-3__75m (246ft)___270ft___~70,000lb@140kt
As you can see Рthere is no possibility of Super Hornets operating in a combat capacity from Ṣo Paulo. This is important because of the uncertainty over when (or if) Brazil can build/buy a replacement carrier.
Me? I never thought a Super could, we were off on a tangent. F/a-18A/C might have been able to operate off the Foch. (Sao Paulo)
FBWno, a catapult with x amount of power can accelerate y weight to z speed,
if they both weigh 10.000 kg, they will launch at the same speed, say 100 km/h,
if one has enough lift at this point, but the other doesnt, -then one will fly and the other will dive.
If one weigh 5000 kg, it will be catapulted to 200 km/
Your wrong, it is that simple, in a carrier launch several things come into play: first, the cat will launch an aircraft at roughly 150-140 knts, that aircraft will be at full power ( or in the case of a lightly loaded Super-mil power), the carrier will be generating wind over the deck ( over 30 knots in the case of a Nimitz class at full speed), that is figured into speed needed for take-off, in some cases the aircraft actually drops some ten feet before the plane achieves positive climb. Your understanding of a Cat launch is lacking. Halving the weight will not double the speed, because too much pressure applied would damage the aircraft. The carriers do not launch aircraft based on the power of the Catapult alone.
Again, a cat can accelerate an 80,000 lb load to 140 knts on a modern Nimitz. It will accelerate a lighter load faster but there are limits ( the cat officer has to be careful to set pressure on the steam cat based on what he is launching). Too much pressure will actually tear the front gear off. There are many cases where the aircraft on deck were unable to launch from smaller carriers with heavily loaded aircraft. Perhaps the best know example was during the Falklands war, the A-4’s were heavily loaded on the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo. The carrier was unable to generate enough wind over the deck for the launch.
I posted the F-18 E/F NATOPS on the above link, look it over. Also, read a bit about carrier ops.
Here is a video of an F-14 taking off with a heavy load, look at what the aircraft does at the end of the deck – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyA3282mlkM
FBWFBW – F=Ma. Regardless of WOD, the E-2 requires less A from the cat to get it to flying speed so the fact that a certain cat can launch an E-2 does not mean it will launch a Super Hornet.
Whether the Sao Paulo cats can do so, and at what WOD, I don’t know. However, it is well known that the Midway class had gone by the time the Super Hornet was flown and that even the non-nuclear CVs were on their way out, so the design case was the Nimitz class.
No crap, again you didn’t read the post. A cat is set by weight, soooooo again, at the same given weight the Super will be accelerated to the same speed as the E-2C. The E-2C may (most likely does) have a lower take-off speed, but that is irrelevant. If a carrier can launch a E-2C, it can launch the Super at the same weight. The difference would be the WOD needed to get airborne. A catapult like the C-13-2 can accelerate a 60,000 lb load to 150 knts whether it be a E-2C, a Super, or a lead weight. The question was if the C-13-3 on the CdG could operate the Super, and the answer is yes, based on real evidence, and specs of the catapult. Obviously a Super has a higher MGTOW, that would become a factor on a smaller cat, but not at combat weights.
I doubt the Sao Paulo could operate anything much above the weight of the S-2 trackers without replacement of the Cats. That was one reason that the Fr. navy did not replace the F-8’s. The U.S. navy fighters were too heavy, at least until the debut of the F/A-18.
FBW@Hallow : Didn’t read the text of the link you’ve provided, but on th picture, that’s an Hornet (C) 😉
Both types landed on CdG: http://www.stripes.com/news/us-and-french-navies-complete-combined-strike-group-operations-1.265315
maurobaggio
Anyway Saab in the early 2000s had been proposed to develop a new version of the Gripen with variable nozzles engines , and those should come from Typhoon, however those engines were canceled as the idea was abandoned for the Gripen, since this time in its supply chain anyone has not interested in developing such variable nozzles engines for the Gripen.
As the Gripen NG and the F/A 18E/F Hornet as I recall has been using the same engine, would not this be an opportunity to develop to the Gripen NG and the F/A 18E / F Hornet themselves with variable nozzles engines?
After all if the proposal Sea Gripen is real this would be an ideal candidate to use those variable nozzles engines?
Using TVC was a proposal that was included in that India Navy briefing I put up: http://www.livefistdefence.com/2011/…n-navy-on.html
It has not been pursued to date, anyway TVC primarily aids take-offs on a STOBAR setup.
FBWlaunching it to sufficient speed for necessary lift,
i have power to throw a ping pong ball to 15 km/h, which is heavier than a proton,
but i dont possess the power of the Cern accelerator, NL, that has to accelerate their stuff to far higher speeds.Likewise, the force of decelerate an object depend on its speed x weight
hope this helps
That’s my point, the cat will launch a 55,000lb Super Hornet at the same speed as a 55,000 lb E-2C (I know your thinking of the speed required to provide needed lift for TO, in Carrier ops, wind over deck and thrust of the aircraft also come into play). The Super can launch off a C-13-1 catapult that launches at max 80,000lbs at 140 knots, at MGTOW with only 19 kts of wind over the deck.
The shorter (C-13-3) of the CdG have a lower max launch weight (Supers have a MGTOW of 66,000 lbs), but with sufficient wind over deck, a Super could be launched with a GTOW below 60,000 lbs. Second the approach speed of a Super is lower than that of a standard Hornet. At anything below 42,000 lbs, it’s approach speed is lower than 140 knots. The E-2C actually has an approach speed below 90 knots, so there is no doubt the Super would require more force to stop, the question is: is it within the CdG’s arrestor gear abilities? Considering the gear was from the U.S., and the fact that the Halloweene claims they did land on the CdG during Operation Bois Belleau, I would say yes.
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/2012-sars/13-F-0884_SARs_as_of_Dec_2012/Navy/F-A-18E-F_December_2012_SAR.pdf
http://63.192.133.13/VMF-312/LSO.pdf
https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-200.pdf
FBWThe E-2C, with its 140 kt approach speed? Srsly.
By the way, and thinking of the engine change: the fact that Gripen was designed from the ground up, based on considerable experience, for sustained small-unit ops with minimal support equipment is also useful for carrier ops. It’s not all about takeoff and landing.
Obviously, you didn’t read the post i was reponding to. The one above that quoted that the super was too heavy to be catapulted by the CdG. Aren’t we always harping on reading first?
FBWHornets (F/A-18A/C) – NOT Super Hornets (F/A-18E/F)!
The Hornets that “operated” (actually, did light-load landings & take-offs without significant external payload) from CdG are smaller and lighter than the Super Hornets Brazil was looking to buy – and weight is a major factor for carrier operations, as the catapults and arresting gear have to be able to deal with launching or stopping that weight to/from the aircraft’s flying speed – which is basically the same speed for both Hornet and Super Hornet.
Super Hornets require more powerful catapults and stronger arresting gear (as well as a stronger impact area in the flight deck) than do Hornets.
The CdG operated E-2C which are considerably larger and heavier. So, that would not be a limiting factor.
FBWObligatory -out of these options, the gripen has the best odds of intercepting PAK-FA,
but like the israelis & everyone else found out, it aint easy to intercept anything that’s faster
Just in case some of us forgot, let’s revisit the one “fly-off” the Gripen was in:
http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf
Given it’s design, the endurance, aircraft performances, and weapons load were among the main limiting factors of the Gripen
There was no sensor fusion between the Radar and EW suite
The Gripen has been rated unsatisfactory in the accomplishment of air to air and strike missions
The main weak points of the Gripen were in endurance and performance
For air policing missions, the Gripen was the only candidate which did not achieve the threshold of “meets minimum expected capabilities”
Defensive counter air:
The main weak points were endurance and performance
Offensive counter air:
The Gripen’s current capabilities for OCS are inferior to those of the swiss F/A-18C/D, which entered service with the Swiss Air Force 11 years ago.
( pretty damning, no comment needed here)
Wait for it, my favorite part:
The upgrades proposed with the new Gripen MS21 (read Gripen NG) have consequent impacts on all Mission Essential Tasks required for air policing operations. However, Gripen MS21 performances, endurance and QRA improvements which are part of the important air policing tasks, still have estimated effectiveness as rated medium to low.
That is in comparison to the F/A-18C, good luck spinning that one. The Swiss competition was as close to apples to apples comparisons that happen in the defense world.
FBWExcellent pictures with the external pylons, any word on the ratings of the externals? What is the max kg rating on the outer pair?
FBWBrazil has bogus GDP. Entire GDP was created around China and Iron Ore. Now China is looking at other places.
Fr/UK will become de industrialized countries. but investors still store money in there banks so currency value and GDP is maintained.
I beg of you, piiillleaaassseee stop talking about economics. Every time you quote some absurd theory of yours a baby dies of stupidity. France and UK have service economies with well established, government supported industries. The reason they have currency value and people are willing to invest is because the fundamentals are solid, and they pay on the bonds they issue, unlike un-named nations with currency issues.
FBWA few billion? The whole aircraft only cost a few billion to develop. SAAB is brilliant at doing such things at low cost, partly through efficiency, & partly by not re-inventing the wheel. If SAAB says it can do it for a few hundred million, I’m inclined to believe it. It’s not like Typhoon, where the basic aircraft is a poor basis for a carrier fighter. One can imagine someone setting out to develop a carrier fighter, & coming up with something very much like Gripen – & that’s not by accident. Look at the original design criteria, including the requirement for very short non-arrested landings.
strengthening of the landing gear, not replacement. It’s already unusually strong for an aircraft of its weight, because of Swedish landing requirements.
It already has most of the corrosion resistance needed.
Very true about the rough field ability. I was very careful to read what work Saab had done in preparation:
The Saab team, led by Tony Ogilvy, already has identified and mapped all the areas that need special attention and engineering that represent the greatest challenges in Gripen NG “navalization”. The focus of the work focuses primarily on correct sizing and positioning of a stop hook, as well as the necessary modifications so that the already robust Gripen’s undercarriage is able to withstand the high loads associated with landings on flight deck of an aircraft carrier, since, unlike a highway, it moves on all axes and prints a unique stress not only to the landing gear but to the whole structure of the aircraft.
This was Saab’s briefing to the Indian Navy during the MMRCA trials: http://www.livefistdefence.com/2011/09/saabs-official-brief-to-indian-navy-on.html
Pay particular attention to the slide that compares STOBAR to CATOBAR studies on the Gripen (-i.e. technical challenges). The Gripen is definitely more capable of being developed into a Carrier aircraft than most. I just doubt that it would be cheap enough to justify the small production run (at least for CATOBAR).
Edit- Oops forgot to add, the presentation specifically mentions that the Sea Gripen would need enhanced anti-corrosion and improved landing gear.
Sign In
