OK... a few comments from the "other side of the pond"...
Originally Posted by snagged1
Am not up to speed on the carrier program - would an F18 be able to take off and operate from the current design/is the deck lond enough (if catapaults and arrestors were fitted - can this be done?)? Are the lifts big enough?
Yes, CVF is large enough.
Yes, the design set aside both space & weight to enable catapults and arresting gear to be fitted.
Yes, the Super Hornet is smaller than F-35B when its wings are folded, and the lifts on CVF are sized to run F-35B with room to spare.
Originally Posted by pulse1
Where will the steam come from for the cat?
As previously mentioned, neither the USN's EMALS (which is to be installed on CVN-78, currently under construction and due to enter service in 2015) nor the EMCAT that the UK is developing, need any steam. Both are powered by electricity.
CVF has a purely-electric ship propulsion system, provided by four Wärtsilä 38 diesel engines (~ 40MW total) for cruising and low-speed maneuvering, and two Rolls-Royce Marine MT30 gas turbine (36MW each, 72MW total) for high-speed power.
The design allows for 1 or 2 more MT30s to be installed easily, thus providing all the power needed for EMALS/EMCAT.
Originally Posted by david parry
Pulse 1 auxiliary boilers
No donkey boilers (see above).
Originally Posted by david parry
BGG.. Dont need Cats!!! (or do you mean the steam for them) as in EMCAT/ Suppose you mean the Rampy thing??? So how will you get the AWACS airborne if we get them?
The USN will be launching/recovering E-2D Hawkeye "AWACS" aircraft with their EMALS... just like they currently do with their "old-tech" steam cats & hydraulic arresting gear.
Originally Posted by andyy
What effect will an EM catapult have on the safety case for the a/c munitions?
None whatsoever. EMALS is designed to have no effect on the aircraft, munitions, or flight deck personnel (other than to throw the aircraft & munitions off the "pointy end" at a high rate of speed).
If properly designed, neither will EMCAT.
{
edit: on the "future carrier" thread, there are those questioning whether CVF will be fast enough to generate enough "wind over the deck" to use catapults.
Let me reassure everyone that speeds above 25 knots won't be needed... only the underpowered F-14A had any trouble being launched from the USN's older, weaker catapults... the C-13s aboard all of the USN's current carriers were capable of launching any aircraft in the inventory at full-load at well below top speed and in "0-wind" conditions.
EMALS will be at least that powerful, and from what I have read, probably more powerful (capable of launching aircraft at full load while anchored). }
Originally Posted by wokawoka
What BGG may mean is that today magnetic technology is available to launch cats as opposed to steam? Though to be fair since when as UK (plc) ever bought something up to date or ahead of its time. I believe the French are having them fitted to their carriers. Ours are the same as theirs, fitted for not with. Though they have opted for Nuke power which may help generate the power to operate those cats??
The French have only one carrier, with nuclear power & modified USN steam catapults.
Their plan for PA2 (which would be their second current carrier) was a modified CVF (with the same CODLAG propulsion as CVF), but with donkey boiler(s) and steam catapults... no EMALS and no nuclear power.
Originally Posted by SCAFITE
Good enough for the USN/USMC should be good enough for us.
The USMC plans on replacing all its current "early model" Hornets with F-35B... they do not have, nor do they intend to buy, Super Hornets.
One thing that deciding on installing "cat&trap" now would do is to enable a decision later (once costs are more fully understood) to make a later buy (2020 perhaps?) of F-35C to augment the F/A-18E/F purchase, to "upgrade" the RN's aircraft to enable more tactical/strategic options.