SinoDefence Forum

Obi Wan Russell · 07-11-2009

I don't think there will be any new pics of PA2 for a while since President Sarkozy put it on the back burner for the next three years. However progress with the British side of the project (CVF) may help kick start things once more.

bd popeye · 07-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambivalent

Ooooh, here is an excellent comparison of the French and UK versions of their respective new carriers.

Navy Matters | French deuxième porte-avions, PA2 (CVF FR) - Part 1

What I see as the major, indeed huge, drawback of the French ship is that both catapults intrude into the landing area. Similtaneous take offs and landings will not be possible, limiting the daily sortie rate.

I agree.

On a similar note I explained once why a ship with two bow cats could out launch a ship with four.

Posted by me on 05.14.2007

Quote:

Aircraft Carriers II

This all seems possible on paper but it just does not work that way. I was on CVA-19 and CVA-41. Also CVA-67 & 66. And the mighty Nimitz.. A person would think that "well our ship has four cats and that little old Hancock has only two ergowe can out launch them". Nope. Does not work that way. In my experience CVA-19 & 41 could launch aircraft faster than any of those other ships with 4 cats. Why? Superior flight deck crew in the case of the Hancock and a simple case of the A-4's being so reliable. If an A-4 was on the cat it was going off the bow. Period. And A-4's being smaller were easier to handle.

On the Midway the case was a superior flight deck crew as on the Hancock. . The Midway's flight deck was unique. It was as large as a CVA-59 class but had only two cats. When you respot with only two bow cats on a deck that big no need to worry about blocking the angle. The respot is much faster. Just leave room for the helo.

There are all sorts of factors that occur when you have 4 cats. Say an aircraft breaks down on the port bow cat. You have to re-spot it somewhere. And believe you me when you do you will disrupt those waist cats. If that happens with two bow cats you just turn the aircraft around and spot it on the angle or elsewhere without mucch disruption of the launch.

During "Desert Storm" in 1991 the Midway , with only two cats, launched more stories than the other 5 USN CV(N) on station. I.E. Kennedy, America ,Ranger, Roosevelt & Saratoga.

I wish I could meet all of you in San Diego and take you aboard the Midway. It is now a museum. And demonstrate what I am posting about.

Jeff Head · 07-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

I did post larger versions of these pics on the previous page...

Thank you too Obi Wan. I have now seen the larger/higher-res pics and have put them to good use tonight on my:

QE CVF PAGE on WORLD WIDE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

bd popeye · 07-12-2009

Jeff, You posted the same picture twice in your QE CVF page.

Nice page however!

Scratch · 07-12-2009

Outside the USN, I can't think of any current carrier right now were the cat does not intrude into the landing area, as all the other CVs are probably just not big enough. There's only the SaoPaulo and CdG anyway, I think.
But I would argue that the advantage of cat launch outweights the drawback of alternating launch and recovery.

Obi Wan Russell · 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scratch

Outside the USN, I can't think of any current carrier right now were the cat does not intrude into the landing area, as all the other CVs are probably just not big enough. There's only the SaoPaulo and CdG anyway, I think.
But I would argue that the advantage of cat launch outweights the drawback of alternating launch and recovery.

Agreed. Many commentaters seem to think that the ability to conduct simltaneous launch and recovery is of paramount importance, but most carriers in history have been incapable of this yet they operated without noticeable difficulty. Comment I have read from officers of the RN FAA who served aborad carriers indicate careful forward planning eliminates the need for simltaneous operations anyway. If the Carrier is in the middle of a launch cycle, it is very unlikely that an aircraft in need of immediate recovery is going to turn up out of the blue. Certainly there will be enough advance notice of an inbound aircraft needing to make an emergency landing that thos planes on deck awaiting launch can be put into the air and/ or re spotted out of the way, assuming the deck crew is well trained and efficient. Most Steam catapults can launch an aircraft every thirty to forty seconds, so assuming the carrier gets ten minutes notice of a returning plane having declared an emergency, the carrier (again assuming two cats, eg Sao Paolo, CdG, Ark Royal IV etc) can potentially get twenty aircraft off the deck, a significant proportion of their respective air groups. Any remaining aircraft can be re spotted to fly one leaving the angle clear for recovery. Take a look at these pictures and see how many aircraft are actually fouling the landing area during typical launch operations; these all could easily be cleared by launch or respotting in ten minutes or less.

bd popeye · 07-12-2009

The USN launches and recovers simultaneously only when doing FCLPs. Fleet Carrier Landing Practice also known as Carrier qualifications i.e. CQs.

As Obi Wan stated as long as flight ops are well planned simultaneously launch and recoveries are not necessary.

Scratch · 07-12-2009

Another question that comes to my mind. Can the F-35B be cat launched ? Does it have the appropriate nose gear strength and configuration?
I mean if the CVFs are retrofitted with cats at some point, wich they are apparently capable of, what consequences does it have on the airwing. The RN will have STOVL SQs by then. Would GB have to purchase C variant planes for CATOBAR ops? Or can the Bs by CATOBAR launched / recovered?
In any case, they'd still be less capable then the C.
I assume the installation of cats / arrestor wires would be that expansive / complex when the infrastructure is already on the ship.(?)

bd popeye · 07-12-2009

Quote:

Another question that comes to my mind. Can the F-35B be cat launched ? Does it have the appropriate nose gear strength and configuration?

Nope. It's STVOL aircraft. But an F-35C can be cat launched.

F-35C ? Lightening II ? Joint Strike Fighter

Quote:

Given that there are three different variants of the JSF operating in the US alone, you may ask what makes the F-35C unique. The C-version is the carrier based variant. It is designed to take off from a catapult system and land using an arresting hook. The United States Navy will acquire almost 500 C’s to replace the aging F/A-18 fleet. The C-variant has enlarged wing flaps to allow for more precise adjustments during a carrier approach. The wings will be able to fold up so as not to take up as much space on a cramped ship deck. Re-enforced landing gear will be used to handle the load of a high angle landing. This version will have longer and thicker wings than its sister models to provide better stability at the low speeds required during a carrier landing. The larger wing also generates a greater range which allows the fighter to reach inland targets from a carrier without the need to re-fuel. The F-35C will carrier the greatest payload of all the variants to fit the huge multi-role demand on the aircraft. Carrier based aircraft often have to be able to take on several missions in a single flight due to the limitations of carriers. Large bomber aircraft cannot launch or be recovered from the deck of a carrier, so it is left to smaller aircraft, like the F-35, to take on the deep strike missions.

Jeff Head · 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Jeff, You posted the same picture twice in your QE CVF page.

Nice page however!

Fixed it. When you click on those pics it takes you to a high res version and I had forgotten to link that last pic when I was cut and pasting html code. OK now though. Thanks!

Wolverine · 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

...and BTW, th new CVN-78 aircraft carrier class is the USS Gerald Ford class...not the Henry Ford class. Gerald Ford was the 38th President of the United States and had a very distinguished U.S. Naval service record during World War II.

Of course I meant the Gerald Ford class. No need for the history lecture.

Ambivalent · 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

Agreed. Many commentaters seem to think that the ability to conduct simltaneous launch and recovery is of paramount importance, but most carriers in history have been incapable of this yet they operated without noticeable difficulty. Comment I have read from officers of the RN FAA who served aborad carriers indicate careful forward planning eliminates the need for simltaneous operations anyway. If the Carrier is in the middle of a launch cycle, it is very unlikely that an aircraft in need of immediate recovery is going to turn up out of the blue. Certainly there will be enough advance notice of an inbound aircraft needing to make an emergency landing that thos planes on deck awaiting launch can be put into the air and/ or re spotted out of the way, assuming the deck crew is well trained and efficient. Most Steam catapults can launch an aircraft every thirty to forty seconds, so assuming the carrier gets ten minutes notice of a returning plane having declared an emergency, the carrier (again assuming two cats, eg Sao Paolo, CdG, Ark Royal IV etc) can potentially get twenty aircraft off the deck, a significant proportion of their respective air groups. Any remaining aircraft can be re spotted to fly one leaving the angle clear for recovery. Take a look at these pictures and see how many aircraft are actually fouling the landing area during typical launch operations; these all could easily be cleared by launch or respotting in ten minutes or less.

Well, the current C-13 cat requires 55 seconds between launches to build up steam pressure. In the Falklands the RN most definitely launched and recovered aircraft similtaneously. When the RN did it's studies of daily sortie rates for the CVF, STOVL was shown to allow a higher daily sortie rate than CATOBAR. The ship is designed to accept cats if the F-35B version turns out to be a dud. The RN can adopt some other aircraft in a pinch. In practice in the Falklands the RN was able to recover their Harriers in worse weather than the USN could recover their aircraft, and winds were far less critical than they are with arrested landing where the wind must be directly down the angle deck. Even a few degrees off center increases the aircraft's sink rate at the ramp dangerously. One of the stated reasons for the new flight deck configuration on the Gerald Ford class is to improve the ability to conduct similtaneous launches and recoveries.

Jeff Head · 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Of course I meant the Gerald Ford class. No need for the history lecture.

No lecture given...just pointing it out. We have a lot of people on SD from all sorts of countries who easily might not know and could easily make that honest mistake. Mine was an honest attempt at providing correct information. Nothing more, nothing less.

Obi Wan Russell · 07-13-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambivalent

Well, the current C-13 cat requires 55 seconds between launches to build up steam pressure. In the Falklands the RN most definitely launched and recovered aircraft similtaneously. When the RN did it's studies of daily sortie rates for the CVF, STOVL was shown to allow a higher daily sortie rate than CATOBAR. The ship is designed to accept cats if the F-35B version turns out to be a dud. The RN can adopt some other aircraft in a pinch. In practice in the Falklands the RN was able to recover their Harriers in worse weather than the USN could recover their aircraft, and winds were far less critical than they are with arrested landing where the wind must be directly down the angle deck. Even a few degrees off center increases the aircraft's sink rate at the ramp dangerously. One of the stated reasons for the new flight deck configuration on the Gerald Ford class is to improve the ability to conduct similtaneous launches and recoveries.

Not disputing those figures at all, I was referring to the earlier generation of cats on the British CVs and the French Clemenceaus. The BS4 and BS5 types of catapult could cycle once every thirty to forty seconds depending on the ship, and that cycle rate is per catapult, independent of the other catapult fitted to the same ship. To be fair the British catapults were shorter stroke than the modern US cats and launched lighter aircraft by comparison, so the amount of steam needed per cat shot is smaller hence the faster cycle time. I'd imagine after forty years of service Sao Paolo's two BS5 cats would have a slower cycle time due to wear and tear, so probably closer to a minute for each (so as not to put too much strain on the system). With her current reduced fixed wing component (1 sqn of no more than 15 Skyhawks as opposed to about forty aircraft in french service) the cats won't be pushed very hard anyway.

I am well aware of the faster launch rate for STOVL types off a ski jump compared to CATOBAR, a figure often quoted after the Falklands War was that an Invincible could launch four Sea Harriers in 50 seconds whereas no US carrier could launch four fighters in less than two minutes (and possibly longer). The flipside is that if this scenario is referring to launching the alert fighters to intercept a bogey detected by AEW, the four F-14s by virtue of their supersonic speed could still intercept the bogey several minutes before the subsonic Sea Harriers could reach that same target. Standing CAPs under AEW control are still the best solution whatever the aircraft and carrier type. Alert fighers are of course, reinforcements for the CAP rather than the first line of defence it should be remembered. Also statements about the weather conditions in the South Atlantic preventing CTOL ops out of bounds are to a degree an exagerration, principally put about by the RN themselves to try and confirm the validity of their decision to switch to the SHAR (when it was in truth an act of desperation to prevent the extinction of fixed wing flying in the FAA). RN CTOL CVs frequently operated in weather conditions as harsh as the South Atlantic during the 40s 50s 60s and 70s, I've seen the film and the pictures to prove it! When the bow is pitching heavily, you just wait until it is rising before firing the catapult. The aircraft then leave the deck at an upward angle (away from the sea) and climb away safely. CTOL aircraft have longer range than Harriers also so the carrier has a greater choice in it's operational area, and can go looking for calmer weather if need be to recover it's aircraft more safely. Don't get me wrong, I love the Sea Harrier and still believe it was probably the best dogfighter of the last thirty years and by all accounts, never lost in DACT against the RAF! Scored pretty well against the USAF's F-15s and F-16s too... small airframe, big engine, well trained pilot.

Obi Wan Russell · 07-14-2009

Latest video of the CVFs incorporating many of the images recently posted. Enjoy!

All news : RN Live : News and Events : Royal Navy

SinoDefence Forum

Aircraft Carriers II

Aircraft Carriers II

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/aircraft-carriers-ii-3125.html

vBulletin Tweet Poster