Well the Govan yard on the Clyde is building T45's I am sure they could have managed a patrol boat or two.

According to the Sunday Times, there is now serious discussion about abandoning the JSF options and buying the much cheaper Super Hornet.

That would give some breathing space for the government and allow purchase of the F-35 at a later date but how much money has been sunk into the F-35B by the UK so far? Would it be cheaper to buy say 60 (or whatever number is required) Super Hornets or to stick with the F-35? I suppose the MoD is on the phone to the RAAF this week.

Nice idea but how much longer is the super hornet line open for and they had better hurry up and order the cat option for the carriers or the hornets will be pretty deck fixtures.

If they do go down the Super Hornet (or F-35C ) track I would suggest fitting bog standard USN catapults and arrestor gear. They are well proven and probably much cheaper than designing a new system from scratch.

C13-2 cat system is far from "bog-standard" and is even now being replaced in new-build by the Gen Atomics EMALS system. The Mk7 arrester gear is also due to be replaced over the next few years as well. Biggest problem is not the steam plant required, although that's fairly tricky, but the number of bods required to run the C13s and a "steam-trained" set of engineers - currently submariners only. There are reasons the CVN run around with 5000 people on them..........

If PoW is to have EM cats, then best bet is to buy the US EMALS system and have done with it.

Somebody will probably come up with the idea of an electro-magnetic catapult and want to spend billions developing it. :ugh:

Isn't there also a problem with the top speed of our new wonder carriers if they go down the route of having to cat launch fixed wing? My understanding was with the 'new' electric engines they wouldn't be able to reach the required speed (ship Vmax + Cat V did not equal Vmin for modern F18 style jet), which was why they HAD to go down the STOVL path.

Never heard that one before.

Converteam develops catapult launch system for UK carriers


Converteam develops catapult launch system for UK carriers


By Tim Fish
26 July 2010

Article Tools
Full Article for Subscribers
Product Homepage
Contact Our Sales Team
Print This Page

Industry Links
Helping you navigate the 21st century, Hyundai Heavy Industries
Jane's is not responsible for the content within or linking from Industry Links pages.
The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is investing in the development of an electromagnetic catapult system for the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers in case procurement of the F-35B short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike Fighter is abandoned.

Power conversion specialist Converteam UK announced on 20 July that in 2009 it was awarded a GBP650,000 (USD1 million) follow-on contract to continue the design, development and demonstration of high-power electrical systems for its EMCAT (electro-magnetic catapult) system and that work on the contract was nearing completion.

The naval director at Converteam UK, Mark Dannatt, told Jane's on 22 July that a small-scale EMCAT system had been completed in 2007 to prove the operation of modern linear motor, energy stores and control systems. Since then, extensive testing of the system has been successfully undertaken, as well as further work at the request of the MoD to enable Converteam UK to scale the system up to a full-size catapult suitable for the RN's new aircraft carriers.

"The EMCAT is designed to fit in the space envelope that has been allowed within the aircraft carrier for a catapult. The intention of building and designing a small electromagnetic catapult and then developing the technology so that it could be scaled up was always a de-risking exercise in case the MoD did not choose the STOVL aircraft or it was considered necessary to launch other types of aircraft from these ships. The option would then exist to fit a catapult and operate conventional carrier-borne aircraft," Dannatt said.

255 of 525 words
Copyright © IHS (Global) Limited, 2010

Shackman

The aircraft was chosen before the ship speed (let alone the machinery fit) was finalised. There will be enough grunt in the combined ship speed plus cat to get an F35C aboard with the required bring-back. It's Dave B that's having issues, hence the extremely safe, operationally feasible and in no way desperate Rolling Vertical Landing......

Would personally have put more grunt into the ship, but with a twin-screw, you're loading the props fairly heavily anyway. Any potential Foos looking at QE/PoW should be aware that their cabins are largely well away from the flightdeck and tie-down points. Unfortunately, their cabins are separated from two of the most highly loaded props in the world by some nice large water ballast tanks...........

I can only hope...
 

...that there is a purchase order for E, F & G model Rhinos.

If there was one truly amphibious force, they could support the Green (or Black for that matter) army wherever and from whichever airfield / CV is best suited.

Ironically the idea of them being 'akin' to the Royal Marines and being equally capable fighting from sea or land is not a bad operational concept. Clearly what was envisaged for JHF.

Their 'rough' field capability has sold enough frames to the Swiss for example - I would conclude that the operational & logistics footprint is nowhere near as big as other FJs.

(It would be nice to see 809 NAS Phoenix tail markings a la Op Corporate)

"It's Dave B that's having issues"

Naysayer! The F-35B executed a vertical landing on March 18th, and has even done it again since then.

This of course has nothing to do with Boeing's choice of Farnborough to pitch a new Super H version with lots more thrust, added fuel and new stealth tricks.

The Treasury's abacuses are doubtless running hot, figuring out whether F-35B cost, minus F-18 cost, times 70, is greater or less than the cost of some very hasty ship modifications.

Their Lordships at the Admiralty, meanwhile, may have twigged that the current budget will buy carriers or Dave B, but not both.

Back at the Air Ministry, people may be thinking that the Ultra Hornet will cost less than Dave B and save a few Phoons from retirement.

A few things have changed in this sphere recently, by the way. They include scary cost estimates for Dave B and the fact that the EMALS program in the US seems to have turned the corner.

Anyone around here read the story of the HS.1154 and the Phantom?

Super H engine upgrades........
 

There has been several comments about only buying enough airframes for 1 air wing. This would be normal as the normal navy procudure would be for 1 of the ships to be in refit at any one time. Of course this really needs 3 ships, 1 in refit, 1 working up and 1 doing operations but 2 is all we get.

My comment re carrier speed is from a statement a long time ago to the effect that with the STOVL and ski jump the electric engines would only need to make approx 20-25kts (into wind). If you are now considering a cat launch for F18 or similar (unless the g loading really is phenomenal) you need a carrier with considerably more grunt - iirc Ark, Eagle, Victorious et al were about 10kts faster, and what is the normal launch speed for US carriers at the moment? I won't even raise the redesign of the flight deck assuming angled operations are considered essential.

EM Cat with mini ski jump may be a very interesting way forward. We will still need tanker or buddy-buddy tanking available for cat /trap. Will Merlin AEW go as well and the RN look at Hawkeye? Should look at launch rate for cat/trap against ski jump but STOVL has so many penalties for payload/range and effectiveness that reverting to cat/trap may mean we need fewer airframes.
I hope that some one has already done the analysis.

Over a decade ago all sorts of options were looked at; options for the aircraft and options for the ship/equipment. The fact that Rafale had been tested with a ramplet on the end of the catapult was not ignored. Neither was all the UK corporate knowledge of ski-jumps in general. Nor, indeed, was a completely blind eye turned to US studies. Too much like hard work to ignore what the Russian Navy was up to as well. The net for options for getting the aircraft back was also, initially anyway, very widely cast. Quite a lot of in depth 'looking at' was done actually.

As well as this of course, sight was not lost of the purpose of these aircraft which is to go places and look at and if required 'influence' stuff. In other words, launch and recovery is not what you buy the things for or employ pilots for, except as a tedious necessity. Not surprisingly, some time later, an invisible aircraft that was cheap to run, trivial to launch and recover from anywhere (in conditions including 'not great') and needed the cheapest ship was chosen.

Shackman

I won't even raise the redesign of the flight deck assuming angled operations are considered essential.

You don't have to. Both STOVL and cat n trap options can be accommodated (and have been laid out) in the current design. There is below decks provision for catapults and arrester gear.

Remember that the cats on Vic, Eagle and Ark were also a lot shorter than the C13. G limit is normally 4 - 4.5 for launch from HF considerations