Obi Wan, I also have more questions for you:
Do you know already if JSF with a standard combat load will have to deflect their nozzle when launching from a CVF, or will the length of the TO run and the skyjump be enough to get them flying?
Will vertical recovery be possible while other A/C launch from the normal position?
And at what rate might a CVF be able to launch aircraft? I think I've seen Harriers take off from ships while lined up straight in a row and the jet blast hasn't hurt the ones behind. I'm wondering if that's possible on a CVF, that would allow a really fast launch rate. The aircraft don't even need to hook up, they can just join the line and get full power once it becomes their turn.
Specificly, I'm wondering wether the thumbnail below has any merrit to it, or not.
That's done fast and lazy, but you get the idea. I'm aware that use of the outer launch positions would restrict available parking space severely.
Sorry for not replying sooner, I was called in to work over the weekend to cover for someone else. Nice to be wanted! Re: the thumbnail. The auxilliary takeoff positions illustrated either side of the runway are not realistic IMHO, because the aircraft launching from these positions run the risk of veering off the ramp if the deck is slippery. Better to line up all the aircraft on the runway itself, after all that's what it is there for. As long as the JBD is included there shouldn't be a problem launching five or six in quick succession, as only the one at the front of the line will be throttling up to full power, and that's what the JBD is for. Harriers line up four or more deep on current carriers without the need for a JBD because the Pegasus engine doesn't have an afterburner for one thing and often the nozzles are rotated down at about 45 degrees at the start of the takeoff roll. The biggest danger is hot air ingestgion for the second aircraft in line from the first aircraft as it accelerates away, which is why there is a ten second minimum pause between launches, to allow the exhaust air to dissipate. With the F-35B I think this will be much the same pattern, though as said previously, the higher thrust and afterburner available to the Lightning necessitate the JBD. It's a low tech solution to the problem, tried and tested and not particularly expensive either.
Much has made by some commentaters about the Maximum Takeoff Weight of the Lightning, but it should be remembered in it's primary stealth mode the aircraft will be operating much lighter than that as it will have no underwing stores, only internal fuel and weapons. In this mode I believe the Lightning will be able to takeoff from the Ski Jump ramp without vectored thrust, ie keeping the nozzle angled straight aft and not engaging the lift fan (henceforward known as the 'Blower'), so the takeoff is similar to the Russian SU-33. That aircraft cannot takeoff from a carrier at maximum load, but the F-35B is designed to operate at far less than max load anyway for 'first strike/ first day of the war missions. Once stealth is no longer required and max payload becomes important then vectored thrust takeoffs with the Blower engaged and the aft engine exhaust angled downards at about thirty to forty degrees.
Trning now to the hybrid Destroyer/carrier, I lean towards DK Brown's assessment, which was that the costs/impact on the design of operating a small air group pushes the number to a minimum of six aircraft, as the level of maintenance crew and support infrastructure remains the same below this figure. To put it another way it costs about the same to operate six aircraft aboard a small ship as two or three. Studies were carried out in the early 80s along these lines for alternative configurations for the type 43 DDG, which included proposals for a small amidships flightdeck and ski jump to see if it would be feasible to embark a couple of Sea Harriers, and these showed that in order to achieve a minimum effective capability at least six aircraft were required rather than two, whilst the costs of embarking two were not noticeably less than the cost of embarking six. This was pushing the ship into mini carrier territory, at which point why not just build a carrier? Now with the advent of UCAVs as weapon systems, the balance is shifting and the embarkation of several UCAVS no longer seems outlandish or beyond the definition of an escort warship like a destroyer. The exact requirements of the UCAV selected will dictate it's 'ship impact', or exactly how much flight deck/hangar will be needed and how much of the Ship's conventional weapon's and sensor will be displaced to accomodate them. For example it could well be possible to launch a UCAV vertically like a missile, so a VLS silo rather than a flight deck/ ski jump/ mini emcat could be the preferred option for installation, with recovery either vertically to the aft heli deck by means of a deployable rotor in the nose (I'm thinking along the lines of the Roton space vehicle, which although a commercial failure did prove the concept of landing vertically with a deployable nose rotor). If such a UCAV was developed, then the resulting Ship to deploy it will look much more conventional and depending on the size of the UCAV, could even be deployed aboard existing ships with VLS silos and heli decks.
To illustrate my last point, for many years I like many others on forums such as these pondered the possibilities of rebuilding the RN's County clas DLGs, handsome ships handicapped by the relative failure of their primary weapon system, the Sea Slug. I finally came to the conclusion that the most cost effective solution was to re engineer the missiles themselves, producing a nominal Sea Slug mk 3 utilizing seeker technology from the Sea Dart SAM system, so that major rebuilds of the ships became unecessary (beyond replacing the awkward helicopter hangar with something more conventional to maintain two Sea Kings, and replacing the type 901 radar with two type 909s. It's always a problem, when the aircraft dictates ship design or vice versa, and to bring about compatibility one or the other has to compromise itself significantly. Carrier aircraft are often said to suffer in this respect compared to land based aircraft, but I disagree. Making a land based design suitable for carrier operations essentially involves producing a much more rugged airframe, surely a positive move in a military aircraft that goes in harm's way on a regular basis. Compare the relative success of the F/A-18 family with the F-17 which preceded it. This was offered for export as the F-18L (Land based) with all the same systems as it's naval brother; customers worldwide unanimously chose the beefier Naval variant for land based operation.
59616f49070b61a3486599471327f4ee41894989.jpg
