Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Of course I meant the Gerald Ford class. No need for the history lecture.
No lecture given...just pointing it out. We have a lot of people on SD from all sorts of countries who easily might not know and could easily make that honest mistake. Mine was an honest attempt at providing correct information. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Well, the current C-13 cat requires 55 seconds between launches to build up steam pressure. In the Falklands the RN most definitely launched and recovered aircraft similtaneously. When the RN did it's studies of daily sortie rates for the CVF, STOVL was shown to allow a higher daily sortie rate than CATOBAR. The ship is designed to accept cats if the F-35B version turns out to be a dud. The RN can adopt some other aircraft in a pinch. In practice in the Falklands the RN was able to recover their Harriers in worse weather than the USN could recover their aircraft, and winds were far less critical than they are with arrested landing where the wind must be directly down the angle deck. Even a few degrees off center increases the aircraft's sink rate at the ramp dangerously. One of the stated reasons for the new flight deck configuration on the Gerald Ford class is to improve the ability to conduct similtaneous launches and recoveries.

Not disputing those figures at all, I was referring to the earlier generation of cats on the British CVs and the French Clemenceaus. The BS4 and BS5 types of catapult could cycle once every thirty to forty seconds depending on the ship, and that cycle rate is per catapult, independent of the other catapult fitted to the same ship. To be fair the British catapults were shorter stroke than the modern US cats and launched lighter aircraft by comparison, so the amount of steam needed per cat shot is smaller hence the faster cycle time. I'd imagine after forty years of service Sao Paolo's two BS5 cats would have a slower cycle time due to wear and tear, so probably closer to a minute for each (so as not to put too much strain on the system). With her current reduced fixed wing component (1 sqn of no more than 15 Skyhawks as opposed to about forty aircraft in french service) the cats won't be pushed very hard anyway.

I am well aware of the faster launch rate for STOVL types off a ski jump compared to CATOBAR, a figure often quoted after the Falklands War was that an Invincible could launch four Sea Harriers in 50 seconds whereas no US carrier could launch four fighters in less than two minutes (and possibly longer). The flipside is that if this scenario is referring to launching the alert fighters to intercept a bogey detected by AEW, the four F-14s by virtue of their supersonic speed could still intercept the bogey several minutes before the subsonic Sea Harriers could reach that same target. Standing CAPs under AEW control are still the best solution whatever the aircraft and carrier type. Alert fighers are of course, reinforcements for the CAP rather than the first line of defence it should be remembered. Also statements about the weather conditions in the South Atlantic preventing CTOL ops out of bounds are to a degree an exagerration, principally put about by the RN themselves to try and confirm the validity of their decision to switch to the SHAR (when it was in truth an act of desperation to prevent the extinction of fixed wing flying in the FAA). RN CTOL CVs frequently operated in weather conditions as harsh as the South Atlantic during the 40s 50s 60s and 70s, I've seen the film and the pictures to prove it! When the bow is pitching heavily, you just wait until it is rising before firing the catapult. The aircraft then leave the deck at an upward angle (away from the sea) and climb away safely. CTOL aircraft have longer range than Harriers also so the carrier has a greater choice in it's operational area, and can go looking for calmer weather if need be to recover it's aircraft more safely. Don't get me wrong, I love the Sea Harrier and still believe it was probably the best dogfighter of the last thirty years and by all accounts, never lost in DACT against the RAF! Scored pretty well against the USAF's F-15s and F-16s too... small airframe, big engine, well trained pilot.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Have you gents ever heard of the USN X47B? It's a UCAS..Check it out.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


X-47B scheduled to launch at sea in 2011

SAN DIEGO — It will be a much-watched but close-hold event in the Mojave Desert north of Los Angeles in November, when the unmanned bomber drone takes to the air for its first real flight sortie.

That maiden flight of the X-47B at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., will be a key milestone in its test program. Its next critical test will be landing on an aircraft carrier at sea.

The batwing X-47B is Northrop Grumman’s design for a tailless, pilotless autonomous aircraft that can remotely launch and recover aboard aircraft carriers. The aircraft, which Northrop Grumman and the Navy in December unveiled as the UCAS-Demonstrator — short for unmanned combat air system — will go “wheels up” in early November.

Sea trials are planned to begin in 2011 on the East Coast aboard the carriers Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, said Tim Beard, a retired rear admiral and pilot who is leading Northrop Grumman’s X-47B program on carrier integration.

In 2007, Northrop Grumman got a $636 million Navy contract to build a carrier-based aircraft and inherited a UCAS program worth $809 million that “all of a sudden got sea legs,” Beard said.

Starting this fall, the aircraft will spend six to eight months flying at Edwards. It will then go to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., for testing and flights through November 2011, as well as additional testing at Naval Air Engineering Station in Lakehurst, N.J., Beard said. Contractor crews plan to put the aircraft aboard a carrier at the Norfolk, Va., naval base to evaluate “all the stuff you have to do to get ready to get aboard a ship,” he said.

Simulated sea duty

Even before it encounters the salty sea air and swells for real, the X-47B is launching and landing on simulated Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, events computed and conducted by designers and technicians at Northrop Grumman’s desert plant in Palmdale, Calif. Computer simulations and F/A-18 Hornets configured with software to fly like the X-47B have done 10,000 successful virtual landings, grabbing the same wires that trap piloted aircraft on a deck busy with personnel in shifty sea conditions, Beard said.

It’s not just about building an aircraft with systems able to withstand the rigors and harsh conditions at sea.

“We have to get an aircraft that is survivable in the at-sea” environment, Beard said, and one that fits well with sailors in the hectic work environment of the flight and hangar decks.

So aircraft designers and technology developers will use simulation and shore-based testing, at-sea flights and input from sailors to answer questions such as how a crew would refuel, service or move the aircraft.

“Have we designed them well so the kids can service them on the flight deck?” Beard said. “We have worked at the enlisted level and we’ve worked at the junior officer level. We had to sell them. They’re not sold yet. This is a huge leap.”

While the military’s fleets of unmanned aerial vehicles continue to grow, the X-47B, with twin bays to carry two precision-guided munitions, would be the Navy’s first unmanned strike aircraft. It also would be the first to launch and recover at sea, on carriers that for generations have been the bastion of manned aircraft. Beard said the pilotless aircraft, with its “cranked kite” design, is planned to complement manned aircraft and ultimately will fit into a carrier air wing populated by F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

The unmanned bomber, unencumbered by flight-hour restrictions, is designed to fly farther and have a longer loiter time — to tackle multiple targets or perform multiple duties in combat zones — than manned aircraft.

Recent simulations have shown that the aircraft completed about 17.5 hours “time on station” during a 47-hour flight that included six aerial refuelings, he said. A manned jet would get 30 minutes of time on station during an 11-hour mission.

“We are fairly confident that we can get 50 hours out of the existing aircraft,” Beard said. “You get a massive increase in mission endurance.”

The X-47B will be less burdensome on maintenance as well, Beard said.

The X-47B is a unique aircraft, but it won’t be totally unfamiliar to some experienced sailors.

The X-47B is designed and built with the same hook used on the now-retired F-14 Tomcat jets, Beard said, and it borrows other elements of the Navy’s manned-jet heritage, with S-3 tires, F/A-18 tires and brakes and F-22 generators.

With weight similar to an F/A-18C Hornet and a wingspan two feet short of the Tomcat’s, it has a wider but shorter footprint than existing aircraft and wings that “fold just like an EA-6B,” Beard said.

1qodir.jpg


About UCAS

The X-47B unmanned combat air system is designed for aerial reconnaissance, surveillance and targeting, all without a pilot aboard. Flight testing begins in November, with the first carrier landing set for 2011.

• Power plant: Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 turbofan engine.
• Top speed: High subsonic.
• Combat radius: 1,500 nautical miles.
• Top altitude: 40,000 feet.
• Payload: 4,500 pounds internal.
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
A glimpse of Tomorrow's World Today! In the next few decades UCAVs like this will become more and more a commonplace sight on flight decks worldwide, though I think it will also be several decades before they replace manned aircraft completely. I was pleased to see so much common sense in the program, by which I mean the utilisation of off the shelf components to save time and money. Why spend millions on the design of new undercarriage and arrestor hooks when existing tried and trusted components work fine. An example of Evolution over Revolution in design, only change that which needs changing (ie the 'unmanned' aspect of the aircraft), and keep those parts which, "if they ain't broke, don't fix!". The F-117A Nighthawk 'Stealth Fighter', saved years of development time and milions of taxpayers dollars by using many off the shelf components in it's design, including it's undercarriage and avionics. The latter saved on pilot training too as the systems were common to other air force types, so pilots could be transferred to the Stealth sqns from other frontline units quickly if necessary.

One interesting scenario for the deployment of UCAVs in combat I read about some time ago was the linking of up to four UCAVs to a single two seat strike fighter, whose back seater would be the controller for the drones. The idea is that the drones, which could fly independently on preset flight plans or under direct control of "the Guy in the baggage compartment" as pilots often refer to them, would fly ahead of the manned strike fighters to clear the way (SEAD for example) and provide advance targetting info in real time, reducing the risk to aircrew over enemy territory. This means each manned strike fighter (eg F/A-18F two seater) increases it's own payload by another 400% potentially, whilst presenting the enemy air defences with five targets instead of one, meaning the survival chances of the crew are also increased by 400%. In the near future, US carrier strike will be based around a mix of F-35Cs and F/A-18Es and 'Fs, with the latter types being considered 'second strike' types whilst the Lightnings handle the first strike duties. Adding the 'offspring' of the X-47Bs into the mix will increase the first strike capability of the carrier air wings, and if employed as outlined above allows the Super Hornets to rejoin the first strike capability. Interestingly, when the USN retired it's F-14s from service their sqns mostly re equipped with two seater F/A-18Fs rather than single seat 'Es. Potential for the future perhaps?
 

Ambivalent

Junior Member
Wide passageways and wide ladders are common enough in USN ships built from the late 1970's on. The seeming "wasted space" what harshly criticized at the time by supposed experts such as Norman Polmar. A couple of major underway replenishments makes the reasoning for these features clear. Instead of human chains moving freight hand over hand you can use pallet jacks, and freight dissappears quickly down the wide ladders. Speedy unrep is as important as any combat capability.
 

Ambivalent

Junior Member
A glimpse of Tomorrow's World Today! In the next few decades UCAVs like this will become more and more a commonplace sight on flight decks worldwide, though I think it will also be several decades before they replace manned aircraft completely. I was pleased to see so much common sense in the program, by which I mean the utilisation of off the shelf components to save time and money. Why spend millions on the design of new undercarriage and arrestor hooks when existing tried and trusted components work fine. An example of Evolution over Revolution in design, only change that which needs changing (ie the 'unmanned' aspect of the aircraft), and keep those parts which, "if they ain't broke, don't fix!". The F-117A Nighthawk 'Stealth Fighter', saved years of development time and milions of taxpayers dollars by using many off the shelf components in it's design, including it's undercarriage and avionics. The latter saved on pilot training too as the systems were common to other air force types, so pilots could be transferred to the Stealth sqns from other frontline units quickly if necessary.

One interesting scenario for the deployment of UCAVs in combat I read about some time ago was the linking of up to four UCAVs to a single two seat strike fighter, whose back seater would be the controller for the drones. The idea is that the drones, which could fly independently on preset flight plans or under direct control of "the Guy in the baggage compartment" as pilots often refer to them, would fly ahead of the manned strike fighters to clear the way (SEAD for example) and provide advance targetting info in real time, reducing the risk to aircrew over enemy territory. This means each manned strike fighter (eg F/A-18F two seater) increases it's own payload by another 400% potentially, whilst presenting the enemy air defences with five targets instead of one, meaning the survival chances of the crew are also increased by 400%. In the near future, US carrier strike will be based around a mix of F-35Cs and F/A-18Es and 'Fs, with the latter types being considered 'second strike' types whilst the Lightnings handle the first strike duties. Adding the 'offspring' of the X-47Bs into the mix will increase the first strike capability of the carrier air wings, and if employed as outlined above allows the Super Hornets to rejoin the first strike capability. Interestingly, when the USN retired it's F-14s from service their sqns mostly re equipped with two seater F/A-18Fs rather than single seat 'Es. Potential for the future perhaps?
Obi Wan, the true reason the F-117 program used existing production components to the maximum extent possible was to disguise the program from foreign intelligence. If a new landing gear design was discovered in production by a component subcontractor and this gear was not associated with any known existing program, the Soviets would have been very interested. Ditto the avionics. Off the shelf parts were used to avoid raising suspicions.
There are a lot of interesting proposals for networking manned and unmanned systems in combat, some of which involve man in the loop and some that do not. Johns Hopkins University has done a lot of research in this field.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
although It's coming along it's alos not alone there is one UAV that's already in flight that might prove some competition remember the General Atomics Avenger is fitted with a Tail hook for carrier operations and the Company's CEO is quite ambitious.
And the X47B is also the same shape as Northrop's Entry concept For the Air Forces next bomber.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top