This is a discussion on Assisted takeoff from STOBARs? within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I was pondering the costs and benefits of STOBAR carriers to include the major shortcoming of a skiramp being the ...
I was pondering the costs and benefits of STOBAR carriers to include the major shortcoming of a skiramp being the limitation in aircraft weights and loadouts that can be launched from them
so my question is: does anyone know of the use (planned, historical, or otherwise) of RATO pods as a form of assisted takeoff from a skiramp to increase either takeoff weights of typical STOBAR capable aircraft or to increase the available airframe types for greater flexibility of the airwing (AWACS, COD etc)
I was pondering the costs and benefits of STOBAR carriers to include the major shortcoming of a skiramp being the limitation in aircraft weights and loadouts that can be launched from them
so my question is: does anyone know of the use (planned, historical, or otherwise) of RATO pods as a form of assisted takeoff from a skiramp to increase either takeoff weights of typical STOBAR capable aircraft or to increase the available airframe types for greater flexibility of the airwing (AWACS, COD etc)
Are you talking about JATO? Something like this: Neptune taking off a carrier,circa 1951?
I remember a Hercules taking off a carrier, I guess also with JATO. Never heard off the combination of JATO and a sky-ramp combo ever been used, sure would be one hell off a takeoff!
I remember a Hercules taking off a carrier, I guess also with JATO. Never heard off the combination of JATO and a sky-ramp combo ever been used, sure would be one hell off a takeoff!
So what kind of modifications would STOBAR aircraft require in that case ?
Well realistically what is the intention of the carrier ? what aircraft ? are you talking hypothetically or practically ? There are many different factor's that would determine what mix you would/could use and the practicality of those choices
So what kind of modifications would STOBAR aircraft require in that case ?
Eurofighter have a navalised version of the Typhoon that can operate from a STOBAR carrier with a full fuel and weapons load without assisted take off. For landing they utilise the thrust vectoring to increase the AOA and reduce the approach speed. Think that's how it works. JATO packs are ok but from what I've heard they stress the airframe to much. Personally I don't think would be viable option on a carrier because of the airframe stress, costs, safety etc.
Well realistically what is the intention of the carrier ? what aircraft ? are you talking hypothetically or practically ? There are many different factor's that would determine what mix you would/could use and the practicality of those choices
Sorry, i wasn't clear enough with my question. If a particular country "A" has a STOBAR carrier and naval aircrafts designed for STOBAR operations, and somewhere down the line they develop EMALS which can be retrofitted to their carrier, in that case what specific modifications are we looking at in the STOBAR airframes to make them compliant to CATOBAR ? What kind of performance gain/penalty are we looking at in that case ?
Sorry, i wasn't clear enough with my question. If a particular country "A" has a STOBAR carrier and naval aircrafts designed for STOBAR operations, and somewhere down the line they develop EMALS which can be retrofitted to their carrier, in that case what specific modifications are we looking at in the STOBAR airframes to make them compliant to CATOBAR ? What kind of performance gain/penalty are we looking at in that case ?
In all likelyhood they would have to purchase new aircraft, but if there was enough life left in the airframes it would probably only need mods to the nose gear to attach to the emals system, maybe ? depends on the design of the plane, the nose section may not be designed for such forces as tolerences would have been designed for the short take off, but with a strengthened aft section of the airframe to cope with arrested landings. Performance gains and penalty's in general terms would be to hard to predict, way too many factors and variations to take into concideration without specifics, but from an airframe point of view definately better take off weights, depending on the carrier design maybe better sortie rates ? But then depending on the size and design of the carrier retro-fitting an emals system to it may take up valuable space in the ship, the size of the power generation unit alone would probably loose you ullage of jet fuel, ammo etc
If you have not already a good read on different carrier designs, mods etc is discussed in fairly great detail in the closed "Hypothetical Carrier for the RAN"
In all likelyhood they would have to purchase new aircraft, but if there was enough life left in the airframes it would probably only need mods to the nose gear to attach to the emals system, maybe ? depends on the design of the plane, the nose section may not be designed for such forces as tolerences would have been designed for the short take off, but with a strengthened aft section of the airframe to cope with arrested landings. Performance gains and penalty's in general terms would be to hard to predict, way too many factors and variations to take into concideration without specifics, but from an airframe point of view definately better take off weights, depending on the carrier design maybe better sortie rates ? But then depending on the size and design of the carrier retro-fitting an emals system to it may take up valuable space in the ship, the size of the power generation unit alone would probably loose you ullage of jet fuel, ammo etc
If you have not already a good read on different carrier designs, mods etc is discussed in fairly great detail in the closed "Hypothetical Carrier for the RAN"
V launch CVB-42 1951.jpg - Wikipedia
