Carrier U turn
12 May 2012, 12:57 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
They really should have kept the Harriers in operation until the F35 could be proven to be an genuine, cost effective improvement over it, highly unlikely in my opinion 
Even the US Marines don't want the VTOL version of the F35, they don't even own an assault carrier with a deck strong enough to take it. They had it forced upon them by the Bush administration, probably in an effort to disperse the spiralling costs
Slightly off topic; The USMC bought our remaining supposedly worn out Harriers for a pittance last year, allegedly as a source of spares for their own. Turns out that they have been so well maintained throughout their lives that most are going to be returned to flight status, allowing near life expired AV8s to be retired. Nice one Dave
Even the US Marines don't want the VTOL version of the F35, they don't even own an assault carrier with a deck strong enough to take it. They had it forced upon them by the Bush administration, probably in an effort to disperse the spiralling costs
Slightly off topic; The USMC bought our remaining supposedly worn out Harriers for a pittance last year, allegedly as a source of spares for their own. Turns out that they have been so well maintained throughout their lives that most are going to be returned to flight status, allowing near life expired AV8s to be retired. Nice one Dave
12 May 2012, 01:03 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For us the CATOBAR is not an off the shelf product as we are not using a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Nuclear power makes use of a steam turbine, which in turn can power steam powered catapults. This is the normal way of doing things.
However, since we are going diesel electric (I think) and definitely have no steam on ship, we have to come up with another way of launching aircraft. I believe they were thinking of using a magnetic launch system similar in concept to the maglev systems for trains. However, this has never been done before, so the costs are unknown.
I think a better option is the SU-32, that uses a ski ramp to take off, no catapult assistance required. Its also not a VTOL aircraft, rather a "proper" fighter that lands using an arrester wire.
However, since we are going diesel electric (I think) and definitely have no steam on ship, we have to come up with another way of launching aircraft. I believe they were thinking of using a magnetic launch system similar in concept to the maglev systems for trains. However, this has never been done before, so the costs are unknown.
I think a better option is the SU-32, that uses a ski ramp to take off, no catapult assistance required. Its also not a VTOL aircraft, rather a "proper" fighter that lands using an arrester wire.
How did our old carriers create steam BTW? They sure were no nuclear powered.
12 May 2012, 01:29 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
For us the CATOBAR is not an off the shelf product as we are not using a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Nuclear power makes use of a steam turbine, which in turn can power steam powered catapults. This is the normal way of doing things.
However, since we are going diesel electric (I think) and definitely have no steam on ship, we have to come up with another way of launching aircraft. I believe they were thinking of using a magnetic launch system similar in concept to the maglev systems for trains. However, this has never been done before, so the costs are unknown.
I think a better option is the SU-32, that uses a ski ramp to take off, no catapult assistance required. Its also not a VTOL aircraft, rather a "proper" fighter that lands using an arrester wire.
However, since we are going diesel electric (I think) and definitely have no steam on ship, we have to come up with another way of launching aircraft. I believe they were thinking of using a magnetic launch system similar in concept to the maglev systems for trains. However, this has never been done before, so the costs are unknown.
I think a better option is the SU-32, that uses a ski ramp to take off, no catapult assistance required. Its also not a VTOL aircraft, rather a "proper" fighter that lands using an arrester wire.
12 May 2012, 01:38 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
The only essential difference between between the two is how the water is boiled.
It's easy to see the attractions of the electro-magnetic catapult systems over a steam driven one, they will in theory be easier to position, install, operate and maintain, and will undoubtedly be easier on the airframes. But in terms of development, the costs, as I said in my previous post, have the potential to be astronomical
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
