00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Iron Man]

Actually on the Ford, 2 of the 4 cats are in the landing area, 1 is touching the foul line.

Only one (cat 3) is inside the landing strip. 2 and 4 are clearly outside; the jet blast deflectors "touching" the foul line doesn't mean anything, especially in the case of cat 2. The second foul line which cat 4 crosses is probably for E-2C/D landings, or some other purpose, but certainly in some or most situations cat 4 is usable. The clue which you missed is that cat 4's blast deflector sits on a semi-sponson, a protrusion that allows cat 4 to be positioned just slightly more outward from the rest of the flight deck. They wouldn't bother to do that unless the intention is to use that cat during landing ops.

 

[Iron Man]

It's reasonable to say that there may be benefits in very specific situations to having some launch positions which do not run afoul of the landing strip, but there is also no evidence to suggest that high intensity carrier operations would not also be cyclical (and thus, have few benefits to exploit the theoretical feature of being able to recover an aircraft at short notice even if an adjacent launch position is spotted with an aircraft).

Cyclical carrier operations matured during WWII, but they did not somehow pause during the Cold War (when high intensity air-naval conflict with the USSR was one of the major missions USN carriers of course trained for) and re-emerge in the post Cold War era to conduct low intensity sorties. Cyclical operations continued during the Cold War as well.

In time a different method of organizing carrier flight operations in all regimes (including high intensity conflict) might occur, but for now there should be every expectation that the PLAN will continue to emulate the proven method of cyclical flight operations for their current and future carriers (and to gain further efficiencies with a bigger flight deck and further iterative improvements of flight deck organization).
I consider the "is an adjacent launch position on the landing strip or not" as a "neat if present, but largely indifferent".

The very layout of the Nimitz and Ford flight decks suggests against this, with cat 1 and cat 2 skewed as far starboard as possible and cat 4's blast deflector sitting partially on a semi-sponson, all of which point directly and definitively to an intention to do simultaneous launch and recovery. You cannot justify these design choices any other way. While the majority of flight ops would be cyclical, there certainly are going to be conditions which require both takeoff and landing, and the ability to do this is baked like a bright fingerprint onto the very design of the flight decks.

 

[proelite]

Only one (cat 3) is inside the landing strip. 2 and 4 are clearly outside; the jet blast deflectors "touching" the foul line doesn't mean anything, especially in the case of cat 2. The second foul line which cat 4 crosses is probably for E-2C/D landings, or some other purpose, but certainly in some or most situations cat 4 is usable. The clue which you missed is that cat 4's blast deflector sits on a semi-sponson, a protrusion that allows cat 4 to be positioned just slightly more outward from the rest of the flight deck. They wouldn't bother to do that unless the intention is to use that cat during landing ops.

Are you talking about a catapult or just the takeoff spot with the blast deflector? Because catapult 4 clearly crosses into the landing strip.

 

[Iron Man]

Are you talking about a catapult or just the takeoff spot with the blast deflector? Because catapult 4 clearly crosses into the landing strip.

The takeoff spot is the key; it doesn't matter that most of the rest of the cat is inside the landing strip. You can have a fully prepped F-18 sitting there waiting for another fighter to land, and as soon as that fighter clears the landing strip, the waiting fighter can launch.

I doubt even cat 1 would literally launch at the exact same time as another fighter is trying to land on the carrier, as if there is an overshoot the landing fighter will have to touch and go and its subsequent flight path may interfere with the launch off of any of the cats. So simultaneous launch and recovery really means that a fighter can sit on a cat fully loaded and ready to go while another fighter is landing.

 

[Blitzo]

The very layout of the Nimitz and Ford flight decks suggests against this, with cat 1 and cat 2 skewed as far starboard as possible and cat 4's blast deflector sitting partially on a semi-sponson, all of which point directly and definitively to an intention to do simultaneous launch and recovery. You cannot justify these design choices any other way. While the majority of flight ops would be cyclical, there certainly are going to be conditions which require both takeoff and landing, and the ability to do this is baked like a bright fingerprint onto the very design of the flight decks.

I imagine there are very certain specific circumstances where it may be useful, but of the credible individuals I have encountered (some of which first hand experience, some who need to be aware of its details for their job), the idea of simultaneous recovery and launches are so out of the scope of conversation that it is essentially a "technically yes, but practically no".

 

[Iron Man]

I imagine there are very certain specific circumstances where it may be useful, but of the credible individuals I have encountered (some of which first hand experience, some who need to be aware of its details for their job), the idea of simultaneous recovery and launches are so out of the scope of conversation that it is essentially a "technically yes, but practically no".

If it were only "technically yes/practically no" the flight deck absolutely would not have been designed the way it was, which is literally to enable simultaneous launch and recovery in 3 out of 4 cats.

 

[Blitzo]

If it were only "technically yes/practically no" the flight deck absolutely would not have been designed the way it was, which is literally to enable simultaneous launch and recovery in 3 out of 4 cats.

I think "technically yes/practically no" is a very reasonable explanation for why it was positioned like the way it was.
It's a desirable configuration on a ship of sufficient which allows it, and its presence enables an extra little bit of flexibility in very specific situations that are likely to able to be averted or solved using other methods in the overwhelming majority of times, but it provides a bit of extra backup if those other methods fail.

 

[Iron Man]

I think "technically yes/practically no" is a very reasonable explanation for why it was positioned like the way it was.
It's a desirable configuration on a ship of sufficient which allows it, and its presence enables an extra little bit of flexibility in very specific situations that are likely to able to be averted or solved using other methods in the overwhelming majority of times, but it provides a bit of extra backup if those other methods fail.

I think we are now debating the nuances of exactly how often simultaneous launch and recovery is used by USN carriers when neither of us know with any certainty, and accordingly using terms which lack precision and are open to wide interpretation.

 

[Blitzo]

I think we are now debating the nuances of exactly how often simultaneous launch and recovery is used by USN carriers when neither of us know with any certainty, and accordingly using terms which lack precision and are open to wide interpretation.

That is fine.

For the purposes of general discussion here, it has been the consensus for some years now (including in some other online defense communities, some frequented by and informed by active and past USN naval aviators) that the value of simultaneous launch and recovery is marginal. While that is obviously free to be challenged, the end result is going to be the one we are at now.

(I suppose one could try and find one of them and pick their brains for the specifics of that nuance)

 

[Iron Man]

That is fine.

For the purposes of general discussion here, it has been the consensus for some years now (including in some other online defense communities, some frequented by and informed by active and past USN naval aviators) that the value of simultaneous launch and recovery is marginal. While that is obviously free to be challenged, the end result is going to be the one we are at now.

(I suppose one could try and find one of them and pick their brains for the specifics of that nuance)

You like to pull the "consensus" card alot, typically without citing others. Which other people are included in this so-called consensus??