QEII Class - CATOBAR or STOVL?

[swerve]

Originally Posted by StingrayOZ

A 4 degree ramp is hardly flung, maybe pointed. ....

Only GG has a 4 degree ramp. PdA & CN have 12 degrees, same as the Invincibles. And even 4 degrees makes a significant difference.

[harryriedl]

Originally Posted by swerve

Only GG has a 4 degree ramp. PdA & CN have 12 degrees, same as the Invincibles. And even 4 degrees makes a significant difference.

Any idea when we will know any idea when the F-35B is doing shipboard trials? because we then be able to know for sure what vessels are compatible to what extent. Also I thought the GG had only one lift compatible with the F-35

[t68]

Sorry for dredging up an old thread, I did not want to derail the RN thread.
AG perked my interest on aircraft carriers again with the proposed RAN Essex class carrier.

What has me perplexed at the moment is that with an Email equipped Queen Elizabeth; you have on cat on the bow and the other of the side with the landing area, all American carriers from the USS Oriskany (CV-34) have 2 cats on the bow. Comparing the stats from the Oriskany it is comparable to the Queen Elizabeth class carrier despite her increase in displacement, any idea on why QE is only having one shooter on the bow?

File:HMS Queen Elizabeth class port.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HMAS Australia - Essex Class replacement for HMAS Melbourne

[ProM]

Cost Benefit trade-off essentially.

Even the big USN super carriers only generally use 2 of the cats. The other 2 are essentially hot spares. Although in theory you can use more for concurrent launch & recovery, it is more efficient to use 2 for a launch cycle, the a recovery cycle. What limits the sortie generation rate is not the number of cats, but everything else (movements on deck, fuelling, re-arming etc).

Now EMALS should be much more reliable than steam cats, so 2 should be enough for QEC- and there are many other things to spend RN money on that are more important

[Abraham Gubler]

Originally Posted by t68

What has me perplexed at the moment is that with an Email equipped Queen Elizabeth; you have on cat on the bow and the other of the side with the landing area, all American carriers from the USS Oriskany (CV-34) have 2 cats on the bow. Comparing the stats from the Oriskany it is comparable to the Queen Elizabeth class carrier despite her increase in displacement, any idea on why QE is only having one shooter on the bow?

The Oriskany was originally built as a WWII axial deck carrier. Her class were later rebuilt with angled flight decks and the two bow catapults. Both catapults were on the bow because that was where they could be fitted. It is not good damage control or flight deck practice to have all your catapults side by side. All of the British fleet carriers designed as such had two catapults: one on the bow and one on the flight deck at the waist.

For normal flight operations aircraft are landed on and then catapulted off in cycles. The carrier will conduct landing operations and then park these aircraft on the bow. Once all the aircraft in the air have landed they are towed from the bow of the ship to the aft, refuelled and rearmed and then catapulted off. Using a bow catapult and a waist catapult is a better option because if an aircraft becomes unserviceable while on the catapult it can just be towed forward and to the side and parked there out of the way. If you are using side by side catapults you have to reverse the aircraft back and in the way of the remaining aircraft in the queue waiting to launch. Using bow and waist catapults also enables more flexibility in your parking and taxying arrangements.

[Tasman]

Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler

The Oriskany was originally built as a WWII axial deck carrier. Her class were later rebuilt with angled flight decks and the two bow catapults. Both catapults were on the bow because that was where they could be fitted. It is not good damage control or flight deck practice to have all your catapults side by side. All of the British fleet carriers designed as such had two catapults: one on the bow and one on the flight deck at the waist.

For normal flight operations aircraft are landed on and then catapulted off in cycles. The carrier will conduct landing operations and then park these aircraft on the bow. Once all the aircraft in the air have landed they are towed from the bow of the ship to the aft, refuelled and rearmed and then catapulted off. Using a bow catapult and a waist catapult is a better option because if an aircraft becomes unserviceable while on the catapult it can just be towed forward and to the side and parked there out of the way. If you are using side by side catapults you have to reverse the aircraft back and in the way of the remaining aircraft in the queue waiting to launch. Using bow and waist catapults also enables more flexibility in your parking and taxying arrangements.

Thanks Abe - a very clear and concise explanation of the reasons for a British catapult layout that has had me perplexed for ages.

Of course the USN super carriers have 2 on the bow and 2 on the waist so there is a redundancy built in if either becomes unserviceable. I guess in a hot combat situation with the ship under direct threat and both bow catapults being used the WW2 practice of pushing an unserviceable aircraft overboard could be resorted too in an extreme emergency. Obviously not a peacetime option or even a war option unless the safety of the ship required it...


Tas