For those that haven't seen it, here is a video of the EMCAT prototype in operation.

Electromagnetic Catapult

It seems to work. Maybe they have a different approach to General Atomics?

Interesting that this technology can be used for recovery as well as take off.

One could argue that Converteam is being groomed to co-develop an EMALS with GA-ASI. One paper notes that the UK has a more advanced motor concept and both sides would eventually like to move to solid-state power storage.

Meanwhile... orders for CVF components are still being placed with £1.5bn spent so far.

Aircraft Carrier Alliance awards sub-contracts | News | The Engineer

NAB

Thanks for that - I'm happy to say I stand corrected, and after reading other entries on the F18 thread I will now retire to the coffee bar much enlightened!

(Although it felt a darn sight more than 4g when I was launched off Ark!)

NHS
If fewer cat/trap airfraft were required than STOVL for the same effectiveness wouldn't that mean that the whole weapons system with cat/trap may have been significantly cheaper over full life than "the cheapest ship"?

WaD - True. Ships cost less than airplanes so if you have an expensive aircraft it runs the acquisition cost. People, however, drive the operating cost, which is why NaB and others are unenthused about steam cats.

15 years ago everyone hoped (and were promised) that the STOVL jet would provide minimally compromised capability at an acquisition and operating cost comparable to today's jets. The reality is a jet much more expensive to buy than SH, with a 450-mile radius with two 1000 pounders and two AMRAAMs (and no gun) and with undetermined operating cost, although with an extra propulsion system and (thus far) a short-life engine, it doesn't look good.

So the equation is the same but the inputs have changed.

Yeeuuuukkk. So that the cousins can claim the credit for yet another piece of evolution that they had nothing to do with? Next time we come up with something they want, maybe in return they'll let us have . . . ooooh I dunno, EMALS?

I bloody well hope not. I'd rather we didn't continue to pimp our booty (intellectually and otherwise) to the yanks for a thruppeny bit and say 'Thank you sir!' afterwards, thank you very much.

HP - I'd have thought that a best-of-both might have worked, since the US appears to be ahead of the UK in terms of full-size hardware.

Well that could fill the hole in the programme for the USMC, and they can just pass them over to the UAF if (and when) they transition to either the B (or the C :hmm: ) . Not sure about the FAA though.....

Ares: Marines Could Fly CTOL JSF

The US Marine Corps could declare initial operational capability with the Air Force's F-35A variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, as delays and a major review cast more doubt on the feasibility of meeting a late-2012 IOC date with the F-35B short take-off, vertical landing variant.

The change is one of the options emerging from an in-depth review of the JSF program, covering the path from now until initial operating capability and full production, Lockheed Martin F-35 general manager Tom Burbage said Monday at the Air Force Association convention at National Harbor, Maryland. This is the review that underlies recent discussions about "rephasing" the F-35 program.

The technical baseline review (TBR) was commissioned after the JSF's Nunn-McCurdy breach earlier this year and supports a Defense Acquisition Board review in November. Burbage characterizes the TBR as featuring a different role for Air Force Materiel Command and Naval Air Systems Command, which have hitherto delegated the management of the program to the JSF Program Office.

The syscoms "are taking a much stronger role as we get to introducing the aircraft to operations", Burbage said on Monday. Although the TBR also includes an independent manufacturing review, a major focus is on the critical path towards IOC.

In the case of the F-35B, there are three major items on the critical path, Burbage says. The most important, underpinning the others, is the vertical landing test program. Since March, F-35 BF-1, the only jet instrumented for vertical landings in the initial test phase, has accomplished about half as many vertical landings as scheduled, performing a dozen flights. Burbage says that 42 flights are "the magic number" after which the other F-35B test assets can start flying in vertical mode. BF-2 is being modified with the necessary instrumentation to share BF-1's role and reach that point more quickly.

The second key critical path item is the "ready for training" date, which indicates that enough testing has been done to allow the aircraft to be flown safely by operational pilots rather than test pilots, and without the constant monitoring in the test environment. The Marines' IOC criteria include the availability of 20 trained pilots.

The third big critical item is ship qualification, which was due to start in the first half of 2011, and Burbage adds that "there is a myriad of other things to be done."

The Marines have continued to insist that they will declare IOC in late 2012, and Burbage stresses that it is the operator's role to make that call. However, he says, one of the options being floated as the TBR continues is "why don't the Marines fly the CTOL aircraft?"

The F-35As have so far proven more reliable than the F-35Bs, and the Marine IOC plan has always called for training to start on the F-35A. The Marine inventory also includes combat aircraft such as the F/A-18D and EA-6B, which are for practical purposes land-based in Marine service.

Therefore, an F-35A IOC could form a bridge to the definitive F-35B - while taking some pressure off the program and giving it more time to fix what are still characterized as component-quality issues with the STOVL jet.

lotsa flat tops
 

Off the subject of the aircraft; I thought this article was quite interesting. There's also a link on the same page to another article saying that the Russians are to buy two Mistral class ships and build another two under licence.

cheers
Russian aircraft carrier blueprint to be ready by yearend - Navy chief | Defense | RIA Novosti

oops forgot the link

USN Press Release: EMALS Readies for Launch with Super Hornet

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) completed catapult commissioning testing for its system functional demonstration at NAVAIR Lakehurst, N.J., last week.

“The team has successfully completed no-load and dead-load launches in all areas of the required performance envelope,” said Capt. James Donnelly, Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment program manager. “The program’s test performance and data supports moving from SFD commissioning to full SFD testing.”

Among the test points accomplished, the team recently completed a 154-knot dead-load launch equivalent to the weight of an F/A-18E Super Hornet, the first platform to be launched by EMALS scheduled this fall.

Moving into SFD marks the opening of the test program window for the F/A-18E launch and future launches. The F/A-18E is currently being instrumented and test data is being analyzed in order to obtain flight clearances and launch approval for later this year.

“Full SFD demonstrates the significant progress the EMALS program is making in Lakehurst,” said Ms. Lisa Nyalko, program executive officer for tactical aircraft programs (Acting). “Completing commissioning testing brings us one step closer to our first aircraft launch this fall and more importantly, to our on-time delivery of EMALS to CVN 78.”

SFD testing began Sept. 12 and will continue to demonstrate system operation and hone software development/maturation simultaneous to hardware production on the first ship set.

“The production and delivery of EMALS and SFD are two distinct efforts,” said Cmdr. Russ McCormack, deputy program manager for future systems. “Hardware production is occurring independently from the system functional demonstration as component operation was previously proven in the High Cycle Testing and Highly Accelerated Life Testing phases of the program.”

The EMALS program will begin delivery of the first ship set to CVN 78 in 2011.

[QUOTE
Off the subject of the aircraft; I thought this article was quite interesting. There's also a link on the same page to another article saying that the Russians are to buy two Mistral class ships and build another two under licence.

cheers
Russian aircraft carrier blueprint to be ready by yearend - Navy chief | Defense | RIA Novosti

oops forgot the link
][/QUOTE]

Isn't it amazing how, with a smaller defence budget than Rule Britannia, the Russians don't ppear to be having much difficulty fathoming out how they're going to manage to fly Blackjacks and launch new-build Aircraft Carriers.:cool:

FB

Assuming we do adopt a conventional flat top .
Could we not do what the Aussies have done.Buy a "stop gap" off super hornets but have them pre-wired for Growler configuration ???
So when the F-35 comes on line we have a eletronic countermeasure option ?

Which bit of "up to 25% cuts in public spending" do you not get? We are broke. We can't afford what is in the pipeline / order books so what makes you think we can afford Super Hornets and F35?:ugh:There is no 'new' money, not now and not for the forseeable future! We should cross our fingers and hope we get at least one of the carriers with, hopefully, some F35s to put on the deck! Whether we can afford the fuel for them is another thing....;)

I was meaning a reduced buy of F-35's AND F18's
witch as I sayed could be pre wired to be used as growlers

The Russians have a far superior interface with their defence industry. The design bureaus have remained just that : bureaus where only design is conducted. Once the design has been tested and approved by the government it is then hived off to the now privatised production plants, and comes under close government supervision which effectively turns production into a government project.

If it's late, at least two heads will roll. If it doesn't work, at least one.

So we may have a Carrier with no aircraft and the Aussies have a Carrier aircraft but no Carrier, mmmmmmmmmmmmm.....................

Maybe we could get together and meet somewhere in the middle?

Gan is nice...:)

Which brings up another point.

If we have been a net importer (on a small scale) of oil for the past couple of years and will inevitably increase the amount of oil imports as the years go on, Why are we building two oil burning carriers?

It seems to me that the French had a better idea building the Charles de Gaulle around a nuclear kettle. Less dependence on imported commodities such as oil can only be seen as improved national security. Or are we either missing something, or are we about to embark on further round of gunboat diplomacy / empire building?

http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/a...g?t=1285494609



Arthur Daley(Cheap Solutions Division).....;)

(Ark Royal 1965).