sorted
Should The Naval Typhoon Concept Be Taken More Seriously?
- Thread starter Pingu
- Start date
Very interesting discussion which leads to the idea of a possible future CATOBAR LPH able to cross deck F-35C and future UCAV as required. Then again which would have less impact on the platform (whose primary role would remain amphibious warfare) a ramp or an EMAL, considering that either option would still require arresting gear?
superficially, at the engineering level you'd have to say that the ski ramp is the better option if your intent is to maximise bunkerage options
the punchline for catobar, stobar is that it's the sortie and form up rates which have to be considered - assuming that the mission intent is to get the strongest package off deck, inbound and launched at a distance where the principle fleet is at less risk from land based air, and where the packages don't have to form up with an early top up/ refuel dependancy on organic tanking to then maximise approach and return (ie time on target issues, load out etc...)
there is a difference between the package types, and mission flexibility tolerances etc....
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
Well, my idea has been comprehensively destroyed by you guys and I must say, having thought about it, I agree. (Didn't take much convincing, did I?)
Interesting to see that we managed to gain access to the relevant source codes. I didn't realise that that was the case. I wonder why the FCS is more sensitively guarded than anything else.
Swerve, I understand the benefits of the ramp and think it will offer a nice niche for the USMC in future. However, I just thought that in light of the future proofing intentions of the design, they'd have made a trade off.
Speaking of USMC, I am always a little dismissive of the "interoperability" arguement for the CATOBAR path. I tend to find that the RAF and RN are much more suited to interoperability with the USMC anyway and can build on an existing relationship.
Interesting to see that we managed to gain access to the relevant source codes. I didn't realise that that was the case. I wonder why the FCS is more sensitively guarded than anything else.
Swerve, I understand the benefits of the ramp and think it will offer a nice niche for the USMC in future. However, I just thought that in light of the future proofing intentions of the design, they'd have made a trade off.
Speaking of USMC, I am always a little dismissive of the "interoperability" arguement for the CATOBAR path. I tend to find that the RAF and RN are much more suited to interoperability with the USMC anyway and can build on an existing relationship.
This was more or less how CVF was envisaged as operating much of the time, until the decision* to switch back to F-35B. It could be a full-on CATOBAR carrier, or it could operate with a reduced fast jet complement & carry extra helicopters, to operate alongside an LPD & LSD or two, providing helicopter lift for their troops.
That modus operandi is still planned, AFAIK, but with STOVL instead of CATOBAR.
*Not yet confirmed officially, but the reports yesterday were so widespread, & phrased in such a way, that I think it will be when Hammond speaks to Parliament today.
I had always been told that Ski Jumps still do not allow the take off load that a flat deck, catapult launch allows. The angle of the Ski Jump puts tremendous pressure on the gear in the transition to flight. The purpose of the jump is to allow STOL aircraft a larger payload, true, when taking off of shorter flight decks over that of a vertical launch. It is also safer as launching can be done at lower speed and still maintain a positive atitude at takeoff. Also, launching from a flat deck in high seas, with the flight deck is in a downward pitch angle is a BAAAAD thing when you're only 60 feet off the water to start with. Only the U.S. and France currently use catapult launches with STOVL aircraft but I feel it is because only these nations actually built a CV with a long enough deck to really allow for it. Shorter deck means smaller vessel, meaning lower cost to build, but suffers from a deck too short for catapults. Since the mission of these ships is flight ops to protect a battle group or project air power, you have to get them into the air with a heavy weapons load out and on smaller CV's, the ramp is the only way to do that.
LHA and LHD are not intended to support large scale air attack and CAP operations and that means Helo's are their primary aircraft; not the Harriers, or eventually F-35's. The decks would be completely utilized for the supply and transport of ground forces. Clearing them to launch a pair of interceptors in the middle of an amphibious operation wouldn't be possible. If the F-35's need to carry large stores, they would be removed to land bases, loaded up, and take off from there.
Again, just my opinion.
OK, I am wrong. Now, can you please show me where I am wrong? Not saying you are not correct. But If I am wrong, I'd like to see the correction, for my education if for no other reason.
If you really want to learn, go over to the Second Line of Defense website and read up on how the F-35B STOVL jet is going to be employed by the USMC. Lots of informative articles to be found there.
Sure, I will do that, although specifically what I wanted was to know was, what other nations are "currently" using catapult equipped aircraft carriers, and how the LHA/LHD's would be able to handle rolling takeoff's during an amphib assault operation simultaneously? As apparently my information was incorrect.
Added: OK, I did see that the EX French CV Foch, was purchased by Brazil and is now the São Paulo, and does use a catapult.
Added: OK, I did see that the EX French CV Foch, was purchased by Brazil and is now the São Paulo, and does use a catapult.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Note the bolded text, that is where the error is. The US certainly uses catapults for CTOL, but catapults are not used for STOVL.
-Cheers
Also, there is a third country that has a carrier using catapults,,right?
OK, I see your point. That was an error. Thank you.
Yes, mentioned earlier, Brazil is also operating an EX French CV that is equipped with catapults. Is there another?
Also, IIRC France does not operate STOVL airframes.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
In point of fact, I believe that USMC MAG's are the only ones which operate all three types of manned aircraft from carriers.
The USN and France operate CTOL & rotary, Spain and Italy operate STOVL & rotary IIRC, with India and Russia operating STOL & rotary.
It remains to be seen what form of fixed-wing naval aviation China will decide on.
-Cheers