Old 27th Aug 2008, 18:43
  #37 (permalink)  
Engines
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 771
Glad Rag and others,

The JSF team are definitely considering deck conditions, including coefficient of friction. The USN take quite good care of their landing areas, incidentally, with frequent washes and prompt removal of fuel and oil. UK should do the same with CVF.

JSF has a very advanced braking system, large wheels and substantial brake units. Braking performance at 40 to 50 knots is good, and the system is designed to handle wet surfaces as best as laws of physics will permit.

ME, landing aircraft on CVNs with wires at 140 knots is a hazardous undertaking and not at all simple. The USN keeps accident rates low with very good aircrew, lots of very good training, lots of practice at sea, closely managed authorizations (takes a while to get night qualified and hard work to keep it) and well worked up CVN crews to run the ATC, approach, autoland and arresting systems. They are the masters at it, but it costs a fortune to do it.

JJ - Rafale performance off CdG is rumoured to be not good. The cats are a shortened version of the USN pattern, giving lower launch speeds. A problem, especially as CdG is not a fast ship. Spey buy - the F-4K buy had to equip the RN's complete fleet, a lot more than one squadron. In the end, the F-4K/F-4M split was about 50/50. Yes, it was a job creation scheme for RR - but as I said, the only real way to get F-4s to sea on UK ships. The USN had already learned that trying to convert WW2 ships to handle F-4s and larger (A-3 and A-5) was not a good way to go. Sadly, the UK just could not afford Forrestal class ships.

Best Regards

Engines
Engines is offline