You're not factoring in size of carrier. How large does a carrier have to be before it can launch 3 or 4 aircraft simultaneously?
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
Let's not forget the recovery of VSTOL and CATOBAR aircraft. CATOBAR requires a sets of arresting gear and can handle only one aircraft trap at a time.
The Nimitz class and CDG also allows you to shoot with bow cats and trap aircraft at the same time.
The smaller VSTOL decks may not allow simultaneous ski jump and recovery ops due to space management.
A day at the office on the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)
The Nimitz class and CDG also allows you to shoot with bow cats and trap aircraft at the same time.
The smaller VSTOL decks may not allow simultaneous ski jump and recovery ops due to space management.
A day at the office on the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)
Any aircraft launching from a carrier will have systems checks just prior to launch. With the JSF B modal having a conventional jet exhaust flowing out of the back, the stacking up and take off without a blast shield or more separation (less aircraft on deck) is unlikely. Since all launch systems have flight control surface checks this is a wash. With CATOBAR launch there are weight checks with the pilot,shooter and cat operators below deck this takes about 30 to 40 seconds. With the EMALS it is possible that this will not be necessary. In the first few feet of launch the resistance can be calculated and a computer will adjust power accordingly. This is done daily on electromagnetic trains for smoother acceleration when passengers disembark.
30 seconds is 25%+/- increase in sortie rates.
Last edited:
The Queen Elizabeth Class should have room for at least two most likely three.One waist and two bow cats.I don't know if it will produce enough steam/electricity to operate all three at the same time while keeping speed. The problem with a small carrier is in how many aircraft you can have on deck while doing launch and recovery. Thats the reason the USN stays with the super carrier. having an extra acer of space makes a big difference.
However, with the Queen Elizabeths CVF, there is plenty of space to park aircraft to starboard, and land aircraft to port of the take off runway.... That runway should be available almost all of the time.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyFTaNppZiE]YouTube - Royal Navy CVF Queen Elizabeth Class[/ame]
Nice video. Thanks. Indeed there will be more flight deck (and hangar) real estate as compared to present day VSTOL carrier decks.
I find it interesting how the dual island superstructure is touted as unique. Actually these serve a more fundamental and essential purpose as uptakes/downtakes for the gas turbine engineering plants which move large volumes of air for their operation.
Last edited:
Yes, but this is, like much else, dependent on size.
One can't argue that because a 100000 ton ship can maintain a higher sortie rate than a 30000 ton ship, the launch & recovery methods of the larger ship are superior. One should compare two ships of the same size.
One may find that one method is superior at size A, & the other at size B.
The problem is getting an Apple's to Apple's comparison, Two ships around the same tonnage. One operating Fixed, one VSTOL, in the same sea state.Or even better the two operating side by side in all sea states. Similar crew capabilities, I googled this but found nothing.
nfloorl: Then of course when the JSF starts service we start all over?Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I thought i did with the "3 or 4 cat carrier" line., i.e. big enough to have 3 or 4 cats.
Any way i thought the QE's "CATOBAR" version had 3x cats? Surely its big enough, your talking a multi-squadron air wing! A HMAS Melbourne Majestic class carrier with a single cat is certainly inferior, but if you have the space for 3 or 4 cats the package generation rates will start to really improve. Aren't the Frenchies looking at a 3 cat version of the QE?
Not saying CATOBAR is best practice for the RN though, you probably get more bang for your buck with STOVL on a number of levels.
All the images have been two cat such as this image
If you can only get 2 cats 75000 ton ship the sortie generation is likely to be faster with STOVL
and its not just the cats look at how the ford class has been designed with 4 cats but a far more efficient flow of aircraft and equipment for the carrier. which gives it far more sorties despite being the same size and same amount of cats 130 sorties for a Nimitz and 160 for a Ford class EMALS makes the launching quicker but the design of the deck increases it more.
This is one of the reasons for the the increased sortie rate of QE class compared with CdG
their ends my rambling
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I disagree. In abstract terms you can say one method is superior regardless of the vessels size. You should be looking at what solution best fulfills your requirement, and if that means a bigger ship with more cats then that's the best option. You build your ship around the solution to your requirement, its pointless to examine the launch method alone. Of course that has to fit in a realistic budget, but still in absolutes one system will provide greater capability at the appropriate scale.
Absolutely. In the 20,000 ton range STOVL is definitely superior, but still a compromise compared to a proper carrier.
With a CATOBAR system you can support other large AC such as COD and AWACS. Plus, buddy refulers can takeoff with more fuel.
How about a COD AC like the C-2 with the engines from the E-2D and palatalized refueling?
Since the UK and France now have large carriers, maybe the US should resurrect the CSA (Common Support Aircraft) study with an eye to STOL performance for the non CATOBAR carriers.
Here is good PDF on the subject
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/Chimera.pdf
How about a COD AC like the C-2 with the engines from the E-2D and palatalized refueling?
Since the UK and France now have large carriers, maybe the US should resurrect the CSA (Common Support Aircraft) study with an eye to STOL performance for the non CATOBAR carriers.
Here is good PDF on the subject
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/Chimera.pdf
Hi everyone, I'm new to this forum. And I'm really impressed of your know how and courtesy towards eachother even towards flamers.
[ontopic]
Okay first I want to discuss page 40 of this discussion, where someone said that my country (the Netherlands) had selected the F-35 because it was the cheapest to operate and most suitable to our needs.
But I have to say that it was a decision of the Airforce and the Airforce alone. Even if the politicians had an ounce of intelect, and chose something that's not going to cost us all the clothes on our back. It wouldn't work, because the airforce had decided what they wanted when they first heard of the F-35. That's how it always works here, and the last time (AH-64 procurement) it cost us our indiginous aircraft production capability, because of the non existing offsets with the AH-64.
Also it was mentioned that the Gripen requires low trained personnell. And there was a whole discussion about it. I think the author of that message referred to the fact that the Swedish Gripens are maintained by conscipted personell, and thus are (supposedly?) easyer to maintain.
Now my main point, or rather question. There are a lot of rumors lately about the second F-35 engine (F-136 engine?) being canceled. And I was wondering how this reflects on the offsets in both the UK and the NL (which contributes to the F-136 engine).
I wonder what the English politicians think, and what impact this would have on the overall project for the UK?
[ontopic]
Okay first I want to discuss page 40 of this discussion, where someone said that my country (the Netherlands) had selected the F-35 because it was the cheapest to operate and most suitable to our needs.
But I have to say that it was a decision of the Airforce and the Airforce alone. Even if the politicians had an ounce of intelect, and chose something that's not going to cost us all the clothes on our back. It wouldn't work, because the airforce had decided what they wanted when they first heard of the F-35. That's how it always works here, and the last time (AH-64 procurement) it cost us our indiginous aircraft production capability, because of the non existing offsets with the AH-64.
Also it was mentioned that the Gripen requires low trained personnell. And there was a whole discussion about it. I think the author of that message referred to the fact that the Swedish Gripens are maintained by conscipted personell, and thus are (supposedly?) easyer to maintain.
Now my main point, or rather question. There are a lot of rumors lately about the second F-35 engine (F-136 engine?) being canceled. And I was wondering how this reflects on the offsets in both the UK and the NL (which contributes to the F-136 engine).
I wonder what the English politicians think, and what impact this would have on the overall project for the UK?
Welcome to the forum.
The F-35 is also designed for low maintenance compared to today's fighters. For instance in Norwegian service it's expected to require 62% less manpower resources at squadron level, about half the maintenance hours and 25% lower total ownership costs compared to the F-16.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Now my main point said:
Thats not what I meant, I was discussing this part of the thread:
Here I think the author of this comment meant to say conscripted, and reserve personell, which we dont really have in the Netherlands.
Back on the F-136, aren't the Brits going to be royally pissed off if Obama cuts the F-136?
I mean the US will have to offer some pretty juicy offsets to make up for a potential loss of the F-136. I wonder if the treatment of allies is even a consideration when scrapping a second engine, let a lone all the really good reasons like competition, employment and the spreading of risks between engines.
If this is how level 1 partners in the program can expect to be treated, I fear for the smaller partners.
Haavarla
Active Member
Have the F-135 engine suffered any delays worth mention?
Can GE/Rolls-Royce team keep funding the F-136 development all alone?
Thanks
perhaps,although i dont ee the point if its got no chance of an order...
The F136 was not part of the original MOU for any of the F-35 partner nations. The US Air Force did not request funding for the F136, and none of the industrial participation agreements were centered around the F136. The GE/Rolls-Royce engine was added as a Congressional earmark, sponsored by Senators and Representatives with GE or Rolls business units in their districts.
The UK already has the most comprehensive workshare agreement of any of the partner nations involved with the F-35. The UK is the only partner that will receive all of the necessary technology transfers needed to fully maintain their aircraft at the depot level - including the low observable features. All other partners will need to send components back to the US or UK depots for low observables maintenance. Rolls-Royce also has the contract for the lift fan that will equip all F-35B models - regardless of whether it is powered by the F135 or F136. That means that a piece of every F-35B work goes to Rolls-Royce, regardless if the aircraft is destined for the UK or USMC or anyone else for that matter.
Certainly the UK would like to see the F136 program continue. The F136 features a 40% Rolls-Royce workshare, in addition to the lift fan on the F-35B models. However, the Pentagon never asked for an alternate engine, and in the current economic crisis it is increasingly being viewed as a luxury item, fueled by pork-barrel politics. The US Senate voted to cancel funding for the F136. The US House of Representatives has voted to add the funding for the FY2010 budget. And the White House has vowed to veto any bill that includes funding for the program. Right now the House and Senate need to settle the differences between their respective budgets.
If the F136 is cancelled, the US is unlikely to offer any additional concessions to the UK. As I said, it was not part of the original plan for the F-35. If anyone thought it was, they were self delusional.
- Status