Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Old 1st Mar 2012, 21:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 652
No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Good solid journalism - "Cats and Flaps"

UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one | UK news | The Guardian
JFZ90 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 06:53
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,852
What a joke.


Should have stuck with the handy, relatively inexpensive Invincible class and an updated Sea Harrier.
stilton is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 07:01
  #3 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 78
Posts: 3,511
1 billion to 're-design' the carrier? someone's taking the pi$$
green granite is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 07:34
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Their Target for Tonight
Posts: 547
That's what you get when so-called Defence journalists such as Norton-Taylor make their money by simply repeating leaks with no understanding of what they're talking about.
Red Line Entry is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 08:41
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
That's what you get when so-called Defence journalists such as Norton-Taylor make their money by simply repeating leaks with no understanding of what they're talking about.
Can you elaborate? I only ask because Jane's is also reporting the same story, and they do know what they're talking about.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 09:00
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Their Target for Tonight
Posts: 547
"Cats and Flaps" (as opposed to the variant change)
Red Line Entry is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 09:19
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Ahh, a mistake so blindingly obvious I read right over it! Ta
melmothtw is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 10:18
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 68
Something to do with the F35's undercarriage-to-tailhook length problem perhaps?
Grumpy106 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 14:42
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
It's not the worst mistake a journo could make. "Traps" doesn't inherently make sense - and it's confusing that we also use "arrested landing", "CATOBAR" and "STOBAR", which themselves are odd because the B for "but" is meaningless* - while at least "flaps" is an aviation term.

When we mangle the language we can't blame people for getting it wrong.

* It should be "catapult take off AND arrested recovery" because there is no opposition between the two, and arrested recovery does not qualify catapult take-off.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 14:49
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,653
CTOL - means it has cables and catapults as per real carriers of the good old days.

STOVL - means it can accept vertical landings, but needs to be big enough to allow short take-offs. Similar concept to the little Invincible class Harrier carriers.

Who invented this stupid 'cats and traps' bolleaux? It had to be the same Spam numpty who came up with ridiculously oo-rah gung-ho term 'Warfighter' .
BEagle is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 15:19
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Indeed, BEags. Probably the same bloke that invented terms such as "oo-rah" and "gung-ho".
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 15:37
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 787
LO and Beags,

Perhaps I can help you out here.

'Cat and trap' has been an accepted bit of naval aviation terminology for around 40 years. Yes, it's an in-house term (I could, offhand, come up with many used by the RAF - so could you) but it's not especially confusing. Not to those who know about the subject - admittedly not many of us. Our bad, I guess. But it's not 'bolleaux'. Nor is it 'stupid'.

The 'B' in CATOBAR and STOBAR doesn't stand for 'But', it stands for 'Barrier'. So, it's Short Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery, and 'CAtapult Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery'. I think both are a bit clunkier than 'cat and trap', but it's personal choice, I reckon.

STOVL was what the Harrier did - the Invincible class carriers just provided the operating base for them. And they were small, not little. Unless, of course, your definition of a 'little' airfield is one that could support and operate 9 Harriers every day in all weathers for 6 months.

Bottom line, if you don't understand the acronyms, it doesn't mean they are 'stupid', or any other term you want to throw around. It just means you need to get a bit more informed. hopefully, this post has helped you do just that.

Best Regards as ever

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 15:46
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,865
9 Harriers every day
Only nine? I thought that they had a lot more on board than that.
Fareastdriver is online now  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 15:48
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,653
'Cat and trap' has been an accepted bit of naval aviation terminology for around 40 years.
Well, OK if it's some form of jackspeak, that's one thing. But as bandied about by politicians and chip-wrapper scribblers, it IS bolleaux!
BEagle is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 15:51
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
Engines - Thanks for the comments.

I think what I meant to say about "cats and traps" was that the term has seriously not made its way into the mainstream and while "cat" can be understood as short for "catapult" the link between "traps" and arrester wires and hooks is not as clear.

And if as you say it's been around for 40 years, that's not long before the UK got out of that game.

As for barriers... I admit to a gap in my knowledge, but (again) the term does some violence to the English language, bringing up images of running into a big net, or as the poet puts it:

When you come o'er the round-down and you see Wings' frown
You can safely assume that your hook isn't down.
A dirty great barrier looms up in front,
And you hear Wings shout, "Switch off your engine, you


fool
LowObservable is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 16:09
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,653
Well, OK if it's some form of jackspeak, that's one thing. But as bandied about by politicians and chip-wrapper scribblers, it IS bolleaux!
Or, if I might put it another way, use of the rich, historical argot of jackspeak is to be greatly encouraged amongst naval folk, but should not be hijacked by ignorant politicians and journalists who have never served in the Royal Navy.
BEagle is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 16:22
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
I always understood that it was common parlance to 'trap a wire' back in the day, hence where the term came from.

Whilst maybe not in common usage on the streets I would have expected a Defence correspondant to have got it right

RE: Harriers on the deck: The record was set on HMS Invincible in 2004 with a mixed package of FA2s and GR7s, 18 jets in all, op launched off the deck in under 5 minutes.

HMS Ark Royal in 2010 on the Auriga deployment before decommissioning had 12 AV8Bs working the deck.

Back to the subject:

Just because it's being looked at again does not mean the decison will change, however it's all driven by the Treasury, not MOD, so the decision will not be capability or strategy based
WhiteOvies is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 16:40
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 787
LO,

You are most welcome. As I said, the fact that 'cat and trap' isn't in the 'mainstream' is probably down to general public ignorance of naval aviation (and defence matters in general).

'9 Harriers' referred to the Falklands, an extended period of operational flying. I forgot to mention the 11 Sea Kings and the Lynx that were on board at the same time, and also forgot to mention that the Sea Kings flew non-stop, 24/7, three in the air plus more for load lifting for over 70 days.

All this from a small (perhaps 'not so 'little'?) deck. All down to great airmanship, organisation, world class maintainers and one of the best Captain/Cdr(AiR) combos ever to go to sea. And that, in a nutshell, is what naval aviation is all about. It's something the FAA does. No one else does it quite like that. It's not land based air power, nor does it try to be. That's the RAF's job and damn good they are at it. It's the FAA's speciality, and the country needs it, in my view.

Best Regards as ever

Engines.
Engines is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 16:59
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Engines,
Absolutely, I wasn't trying to black cat you, just putting some other figures up there

Ark also had 3 Merlins and 2 Lynx on board at the time, which was crowded but not unduly so. As I recall Invincible only had a 771 SAR cab on at the time.

That's what you get with a small carrier, you trade off number of jets vs number of helos as required, hopefullly with QE and POW that will be a less arduous task!

BEagle - If you want to see a 'little carrier' I'd suggest the Italians, but they use it to very good effect when required.
WhiteOvies is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 17:34
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 56
Posts: 903
and there was me thinking "cat flap" could refer to someone who swung both ways....
November4 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.