Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Hypothetical; best idea?
Hugin2    7/22/2007 5:22:53 PM
Assume a ship 480m. (1575ft.) long, much like the biggest containerships built today only streched another 20%. It will be built with a center-line runway ending in a ski-jump. Also assume you'd want to land a fighter aircreft on that ship without assistance from arrester wires. Vectored-thrust (VL) aircraft designs are ruled out too, since it compromises aircraft performance too much. Now, what would be the best way to achieve the shortest possible conventional landing-run with a fighter-type aircraft, having a centerline runway 480m. long. I assume the actual landng-run from first wheel contact to complete stand-still could be approx. 80% of total runway lenght = 384m. (1260ft.) I also assume 20 knots wind-over-deck could be guaranteed, but dramatically higher speed for such a huge ship is unlikely. I have a few ideas, but no clue as to which could make the biggest difference: - Variable geometry (swing wings as on F-14) to increase low speed lift, thereby lowering approach speed. - Air bleed, as used on C-17, also to increase low speed lift. I have no idea if this is feasible on a fighter type aircraft? - Aerobraking to shorten stopping distance. - Powerfull mechanical brakes on wheels. Same effect as above? - Brake Parachute (another variant of aerobraking). Probably not practical, but who knows? - Reversing enginethrust at touchdown. Possible at all? Maybe compromising aircraft performance and mechanically complicated? - Forward firing rockets integral with airframe, provides short but poverful one-shot thrust to stop aircraft. Which of the above would be practical and do most to shorten the landing-run? Any other ideas?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
kirby1       7/28/2007 11:02:17 AM
 
With a hull 60m. wide you could potentially have a hangar deck up to 55m. wide. This will allow you to support the flight deck above with support columns at, say, 25m. intervals down the centerline of the ship (or slightly offset) AND still have enough clearance in the hangar to move aircraft around. Support of the flightdeck will be enen less of an engineering problem than on the much smaller Nimitz class.
 
First off, your engineering on the whole flightdeck strength question is still kinda weak. Admit it, you pulled those figures on support structure spacing out of some theoretical asshole in sky. No idea whether or not thats good enough.
 
Secondly, such a ship sounds like it would suffer from a low sortie rate. From all appearance your not planning on launching and catching at the same time. You've already stated that your aircraft will spend most of thier time belowdecks, and thats where all the arming and refueling will take place. The ship may be good for launching massed waves of aircraft for a strike, but continually sending up and recovering ripples of aircraft (such as a continuous CAP) it sounds like your ships launch and recover rates are going to slow down. Or your going to wind up with parked aircraft back up on deck where you don't want them.  
 
The bigger ship will have more damage absorbtion capability, not less! There will be fewer critical systems, that can be taken out and there will be a lot more steel to absorb the damage.
You have some iffy ideas concerning damage control. First off, if steel thickness was the write all end all of damage control, we'd still be rolling around in 45K ton battleships with armor belts. Secondly, that nice big hangar is going to become a nice big barbecue if an Exocet punches through into a a massive enclosed and ventilated space full of fueled and armed fighters. Flight deck fires aren't nearly as bad as hangar deck fires. The Forrestal became a raging inferno because a misfired zuni struck another aircraft, detonating a 500 pound bomb on its wing. The bomb punched a hole in the flight deck, burning avgas ran down the hole, catching the flight deck on fire. In the event of a fire your hangar deck becomes a raging inferno for the exact same reasons that its already a bit of a fume trap. I'd much rather have my fueled and armed planes topside, next to the runway or cats, where I can minimize thier time on deck. If nothing else, should any iffy situations arise, I can chuck them overboard in a hurry.
 
I like the size, bigger is better as far as carriers are concerned. I like the airwing capability, I'd definitely use the hangar to pack on a good (60-70+) airwing including a small number of good sized AWACS and ASW aircraft. I like the versatility, in that you can carry some pretty big planes and a heck of alot of really big choppers. Maximize that versatility by throwing in some berthing for about a battalions' worth of airmobile infantry, a large and modern infirmary, and some good cargo storage for such things as humanitarian ops and you have a well rounded out boat.
 
I don't like the way your running your flightdeck. Too slow, and just plain different from what I consider good. I don't like the idea of putting that much  into one ship. Unless you build three or four of these ships, your risk making a ship that is too valuable in and of itself to risk putting in harms way. I still think that this idea will cost a crapload of money, for a ship that is still, at best, only equal to an American CVN.  I doubt the Indians would spring for it, I even doubt the Chinese would spring for it. I don't like the lack of arresting wires. I think the ship would be best served if it was a Stobar carrier.
 
Before you implemented this carrier, it is absolutely critical that first you have
-The appropriate aircraft. Fighters and bombers are easily acquired, land  based aircraft with some minimal mods will be necessary. ASW and AWACS aircraft will have to be developed. I hear the Isrealis have a small AWACS on the market thats based on a Learjet. Something similiar for ASW work would be nice too. Helos can be embarked in the interim for ASW, but a fullfledged AWACs plane is a must.
-Appropriate escort warships. Your  going to want some top of the line airdefense destroyers, ASW ships, and hunterkiller subs. escort ships have to the endurance and seaworthiness necessary to stay on station with the carrier.
-Appropriate resupply fleet. Even with your ships large fuel bunkerage and ammo stores, your escorts are still going to need resupply. If your carrier provides fuel for them, then that just shorts out your carriers
 
Quote    Reply

Hugin2       7/28/2007 7:11:28 PM
First off, your engineering on the whole flightdeck strength question is still kinda weak. Admit it, you pulled those figures on support structure spacing out of some theoretical asshole in sky. No idea whether or not thats good enough.
 
Actually, it was an attempt to illiustrate that the engineering problems in regards to flightdeck strenght would not be any worse than they are for a Nimitz class, because the unsupported width would not need be any larger, as there is adequate space to move aircraft around on a Nimitz hangar deck. It's an all things else being equal thing. Just because your hangar deck is 50-55m. wide doesn't mean the entire width will be without support structures. The exact layout of support structures is of cause pure speculation at this point.
 
Secondly, such a ship sounds like it would suffer from a low sortie rate. From all appearance your not planning on launching and catching at the same time.
 
The concept allows - as far as I can ascertain - near-simultaneous take-offs and landings (to me, launching and catching implies involvement of catapults and arresting gear) insofar aircraft could await take-off to starboard near the stern. As soon as a landed aircraft reaches the forward end of the runway it clears the runway to starboard, whereupon a waiting aircraft could (provided another landing was not in immediate progress) roll onto the runway and take-off right away. Experience would show how much time would have to lapse between landings and take-offs, but we're talking seconds rather than minutes. Also remember the runway will be wide enough that two fighters can roll onto the runway simultaneously, using the right and left portion respectively, taking off with only a few seconds between them.
 
Simultaneous launch and trapping are not utilized on a Nimitz class except in rare circumstances anyway. While it is possible, it is also extremely impractical due to lack of deck space. 
 
You've already stated that your aircraft will spend most of thier time belowdecks, and thats where all the arming and refueling will take place.
 
I think, I said the hangar was for parking and maintenance. I'm not sure about arming (maybe it would be safe enough, as many weapons today are designed for absolute fool-proof handling?), but fuelling /refuelling is definitely intended to take place in the open; IOW, on the flight deck! Immediate rearming between sorties would certainly also be done on the flight deck.
 
The ship may be good for launching massed waves of aircraft for a strike, but continually sending up and recovering ripples of aircraft (such as a continuous CAP) it sounds like your ships launch and recover rates are going to slow down. Or your going to wind up with parked aircraft back up on deck where you don't want them.
 
OK, I've done a little sketching and a few calculations on this, since there have been several speculating about the appearant inefficiency of the deck layout.
 
What we have here is essentially a square deck 480m. long and approximately 96m. wide; slightly cut corners and a ski-jump on the forward 30-40m. (which is therefore of no use as marshalling area). I've divided it into zones according to function:
 
The main runway: offset ca. 12m. to port. Lenght 480m. by 40m. wide = ~19200sq.m. ending in a ski-jump (the ski-jump will be usable for fighter type aircraft as well as navalized Spartans).
 
Deck park area: To port on the deck overhang. Roughly 340m. long by 15-16m. wide = ~5000sq.m. which should be enough for at least 40 aircraft and/or helicopters (remember, they can overhang the deck edge).
 
Take-off queueing area: Rear end to starboard, next to runway. Aircraft awaits take-off here. Area 48-50m. by 30-32m. = ~1500sq.m.
 
Marshalling area: To starboard, next to runway and between take-off queueing area and clearing area. Lenght 320m. by almost 40m. = ~12500sq.m. This area will include 2 forward and 2 aft elevators and the tower structure. There will be refuel stations and rearm stations. Aircraft will be processed towards the stern for take-off or taken below for storage. The area equates more than 2/3 of an entire Nimitz class flight deck; dedicated entirely to processing and movement of aircraft. No long-term parking, no maintenance, no take-offs, no landings, no queueing.........just refuelling, rearming and movement.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hugin2       7/28/2007 8:58:30 PM
You have some iffy ideas concerning damage control. First off, if steel thickness was the write all end all of damage control, we'd still be rolling around in 45K ton battleships with armor belts.
 
It's not the armor caracteristics of steel we're talking about here; it's an all things else being equal thing again. If you take 80 aircraft, a lot of equipment, a crew of 5000-6000 men and shoehorn it all into (or on top of) a box the size of a Nimitz class compared to the same number of aircraft, equipment and personnel put in a box with almost four times the volume, then all things else being equal, the likelihood that any damage inflicted by a hit will actually destroy aircraft and systems or kill personnel is much lower for the bigger box scenario. There are simply more space between the crucial/vulnerable items inside the box. A bigger box with higher allowance for extra weight also allows for a higher degree of compartmentalization, which - all things else being equal - will contain the effects of a hit, so that the average number of damaged/destroyed systems/items per inflicted hit is lower.
 
The bigger box can absorb more damage due to volume - and can control damage better due to higher weight allowance for compartmentalization (and possible built-in redundancy). It's not a return to the armored battleship days I'm advocating.
 
Secondly, that nice big hangar is going to become a nice big barbecue if an Exocet punches through into a a massive enclosed and ventilated space full of fueled and armed fighters.
 
Compartmentalization is the answer to this; more steel and more fire curtains. Besides, at least the fuelling of aircraft will take place on deck. Probably also most of the arming operations.
 
 Flight deck fires aren't nearly as bad as hangar deck fires. The Forrestal became a raging inferno because a misfired zuni struck another aircraft, detonating a 500 pound bomb on its wing. The bomb punched a hole in the flight deck, burning avgas ran down the hole, catching the flight deck on fire.
 
Seems to indicate bombed up and fuelled up aircraft parked on the flight deck above the hangar is the thing to avoid. My suggested deck layout will to a large degree place bombed up and fuelled up aircraft on the starboard deck overhang.
 
I'd much rather have my fueled and armed planes topside, next to the runway or cats, where I can minimize thier time on deck.
 
I agree the only appropriate place for bombed up and fuelled up aircraft awaiting take-off is on the flight deck (but fail to see how that arrangement will minimize their time on deck overall). I want to put aircraft in the hangar for maintenance as well as for all but the shortest term parking. This will protect the aircraft from the windy, wet, salty and often cold environment on the deck, thereby reducing the need for maintenance due to those same factors as well as improving overall life-expectancy of each airframe, as it will be protected from the wear and tear from the marine environment
 
I like the versatility, in that you can carry some pretty big planes and a heck of alot of really big choppers. Maximize that versatility by throwing in some berthing for about a battalions' worth of airmobile infantry, a large and modern infirmary, and some good cargo storage for such things as humanitarian ops and you have a well rounded out boat.
 
So after all, you agree it wont just be a Nimitz replicate? You agree my design will ADD useful new capabilities?
 
I don't like the way your running your flightdeck. Too slow, and just plain different from what I consider good. I don't like the idea of putting that much  into one ship. Unless you build three or four of these ships, your risk making a ship that is too valuable in and of itself to risk putting in harms way.
 
The flight deck layout have been dealt with in the previous post.
 
As for ressources/money into one vessel; my firm belief is this ship (once you've built the drydocks and prepared some facillities where the ships can homeport) will be cheaper to build and cheaper to operate than a Nimitz class CVN.
 
First off, steel is cheap, so adding a lot of steel isn't going to change procurement cost much. The structural hull of a Nimitz class, IIRC, accounts for less than 8 percent of total build cost - and that is even including the added cost using a very expensive type of steel (for weight saving reasons). Expensive weight saving steel w
 
Quote    Reply

Mechanic       7/29/2007 12:02:52 PM
"The problem with arresting wires and trap-landings as I see it is, that many pilots find it difficult and stressful to hook the wires. For various reasons, far from all pilots can do it. The trapping is also so brutal, that it essentially equals a controlled crash when the aircraft is slammed into the deck. The aircraft is strengthened for it, of cause, but never the less are the forces exerted on the airframe so huge, that over time it is essentially torn apart. I read years ago, that life expectancy for CV-based US aircraft is less than 7 years; which is less than half of other aircraft. This is partly because of the forces exereted on the airframes from trapped rcoveries, partly because the cats and arresting gear have a higher combined accident rate compared to a nice long runway ashore. There are IOW room for improvement."

Will you explain me how arrested landings stress an aircraft more than conventional landings if the aircraft is stopped at same distance?

A pilot who can not fly arrested landings can very well be sacked. It's a basic skill as an aerial refueling - even Air Force pilots can do it on runways. (And yes, I mean the carrier style fly-in catches).

I'm pretty sure that almost all pilots feel very much more comfortable landing on arresting wires than on clean deck. It's the carrier ops which cause stress.
 
Quote    Reply

Hugin2       7/29/2007 2:05:09 PM
Will you explain me how arrested landings stress an aircraft more than conventional landings if the aircraft is stopped at same distance?

I believe you must have gotten the concept wrong somehow. What I suggest is a landing procedure where the decelleration lenght (landing-run) is some 300-400m. long, whereas an arrested landing have a decelleration lenght just short of 100m. This implies that the rate of velocity change will need to be 3-4 times higher for the arrested landing method comparede to my suggested method (whatever the details work out to). A rate of velocity change 3-4 times more gives stress factors (G-load) potentially 9-16 times higher.

A pilot who can not fly arrested landings can very well be sacked. It's a basic skill as an aerial refueling - even Air Force pilots can do it on runways. (And yes, I mean the carrier style fly-in catches).

I'm pretty sure that almost all pilots feel very much more comfortable landing on arresting wires than on clean deck. It's the carrier ops which cause stress.
 
Phaid linked to an article about a blown tire accident with an F/A-18. Here's a few lines:
 
Lt. Jason Walker, low on fuel, was landing in San Diego at night after two unsuccessful landing attempts aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. The jet's brakes failed one second after touchdown, and, among other problems, Walker couldn't find the cockpit controls to engage emergency backup brakes. He ejected as the jet sped off the runway and into the bay at 60 mph. The Navy determined Walker shouldn't be disciplined.
 
It appears not all pilots are confortable making hooked landings - and it appears the USNavy doesn't hold that against their pilots. At least pilot Walker didn't get fired despite his two unsuccesfull attempts, so maybe the Navy brass is well aware the carrier arrestor gear is a pretty extreme thing to put their pilots through. It was in this case fortunate San Diego was within range; had it happened in the Persian Gulf or the like it would have forced the pilot into a situation he would not fully capable of handling.
 
I have read about many problems with the arrested recovery method, and the fact that I didn't have to look beyond this thread for an obvious example of the method's shortcomings speaks of itself. Arrested recovery is a kind of 'last resort' solution; acceptable only because there is no viable alternative when you tie heavy jetfighters to a tiny flight deck. Go to much larger flight decks and far better solutions to the landing problem becomes available.
 
Quote    Reply

Mechanic       7/29/2007 2:55:25 PM

Will you explain me how arrested landings stress an aircraft more than conventional landings if the aircraft is stopped at same distance?

I believe you must have gotten the concept wrong somehow. What I suggest is a landing procedure where the decelleration lenght (landing-run) is some 300-400m. long, whereas an arrested landing have a decelleration lenght just short of 100m. This implies that the rate of velocity change will need to be 3-4 times higher for the arrested landing method comparede to my suggested method (whatever the details work out to). A rate of velocity change 3-4 times more gives stress factors (G-load) potentially 9-16 times higher.

Nope, you don't understand how arresting gear works. I have been in an arresting wire crew. I have operate the arresting wire for many traps on a land base. The braking force of the arresting gear is adjustable - on a carrier it's adjusted for every trap depending on aircraft type (approach speed) and landing weight. If there is 400m available runway the arresting gear can be set to use the full length of the runway.

A pilot who can not fly arrested landings can very well be sacked. It's a basic skill as an aerial refueling - even Air Force pilots can do it on runways. (And yes, I mean the carrier style fly-in catches).

I'm pretty sure that almost all pilots feel very much more comfortable landing on arresting wires than on clean deck. It's the carrier ops which cause stress.

 

Phaid linked to an article about a blown tire accident with an F/A-18. Here's a few lines:

 

Lt. Jason Walker, low on fuel, was landing in San Diego at night after two unsuccessful landing attempts aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. The jet's brakes failed one second after touchdown, and, among other problems, Walker couldn't find the cockpit controls to engage emergency backup brakes. He ejected as the jet sped off the runway and into the bay at 60 mph. The Navy determined Walker shouldn't be disciplined.
 

It appears not all pilots are confortable making hooked landings - and it appears the USNavy doesn't hold that against their pilots. At least pilot Walker didn't get fired despite his two unsuccesfull attempts, so maybe the Navy brass is well aware the carrier arrestor gear is a pretty extreme thing to put their pilots through. It was in this case fortunate San Diego was within range; had it happened in the Persian Gulf or the like it would have forced the pilot into a situation he would not fully capable of handling.

Yes, it's hard to land on a carrier. You really do think that landing on you carrier concept would allow greater margins of error on landing. I'm lacking English words to describe how wrong you are.

I have read about many problems with the arrested recovery method, and the fact that I didn't have to look beyond this thread for an obvious example of the method's shortcomings speaks of itself. Arrested recovery is a kind of 'last resort' solution; acceptable only because there is no viable alternative when you tie heavy jetfighters to a tiny flight deck. Go to much larger flight decks and far better solutions to the landing problem becomes available.

The arrested landing is always the safer way. If we have a problem on one of our jets that might cause trouble at landing we always do the trap - on a land base which also have 3000m runway and net barriers! If a pilot misses the (single) wire (rare case) he executes a go around and tries again.

Making bigger carrier decks will help to make the landings safer. Why negate that by removing the arresting gear? It's NOT the ARRESTING GEAR that make ladings on a carrier difficult. It's the bloody dime rocking and bouncing on the sea where one is supposed to land.

Your logic is fouled:
Landing conventionally on a land base is safer than doing an arrested landing on a carrier: TRUE
But does this lead to:
Landing conventionally on a carrier is safer
than doing an arrested landing on a carrier? NO
Landing conventionally on a land base is safer than doing an arrested landing on a land base? NO

On a carrier the arrested landing has one very significant advantage: A clear signal when to go around. A bad approach for conventional landing on a 400m long deck would end more often to the sea or net barrier (which always damages the plane).

 
Quote    Reply

Hugin2       7/29/2007 6:39:32 PM
Nope, you don't understand how arresting gear works. I have been in an arresting wire crew. I have operate the arresting wire for many traps on a land base. The braking force of the arresting gear is adjustable - on a carrier it's adjusted for every trap depending on aircraft type (approach speed) and landing weight.

I do understand how arresting gear works and that it is adjustable. I also understand the US Navy is trying to develop a new electro-mechanical system to replace the hydraulic brakes, since a more finetuned adjustment option will lessen the stress on airframes. A new electro-mechanical arresting system will probably cost hundreds of millions just to develop, but the bean counterers expect to gain back the money in less wear and tear on the airframes (and from savings due to a less maintenance heavy system).
 
If there is 400m available runway the arresting gear can be set to use the full length of the runway.
 
Granted, I didn't consider that alternative. An 800m. long cable! It may be doable, but what would be the time required to rewind the cable for the next trap? What would it cost to manufacture and operate? How large will the cable drums be and do you still need 3-4 sets? That's the good thing about these hypothetical debates; you sometimes get a completely new perspective.
 
Phaid has provoked the inclusion of a safety barrier along the runway on my hypothetical design.......and the concept has gained in safety and practicability as a result. I'm still not sold on the 400m. long arresting wires, but it's always worth giving a new idea some thoughts.
 
Yes, it's hard to land on a carrier. You really do think that landing on you carrier concept would allow greater margins of error on landing. I'm lacking English words to describe how wrong you are. 

It's too hard to land on a carrier! It requires very specialized skills, a strong psyche and frequent training. The design I suggest will potentially also frequently welcome Army and Airforce pilots, so making the landing procedures more accommodating for these less specialized pilots is a priority. 
 
There are a number of reasons why a landing on my carrier concept would be easier for the average pilot, without sacrificing safety.
 
First, the vessel will be almost 4 times heavier than a Nimitz class CVN, which - all things else being equal - will provide a platform subjected to less rocking and bounching.
Second, the landing area is widened from approx. 25-30m. on a Nimitz class CVN to 40m. therby providing a lot more margins for error.
Third, the approach will be straight from astern rather than angled from starboard. This effectively remove two concerns from the mind of the pilot; course and timing (with an angled approach you need to time your approach to the speed of the carrier, granted the pilots get help but still.....). Using a straight approach from astern the pilot needs only concern himself with speed and height
 
Making bigger carrier decks will help to make the landings safer. Why negate that by removing the arresting gear? It's NOT the ARRESTING GEAR that make ladings on a carrier difficult.
 
Well, psychologically arresting wires DO make landings more difficult; the thought of a full-power touch-and-go, in case you miss the cables, is an extra stressfactor for pilots. Too dramatic and compressed in time, which is more than many pilots' stress-o-meter can handle.....at least that's what I've read. An unarrested approach onto a long runway provides more time for the pilot to apply power and go around for another try in a much less dramatic fashion. 
 
But that's not my main objection to arresting wires. The main point is that it is an economic and operational liability, that we don't need given the larger and much longer landing area. The equipment is expensive to manufacture and install, it requires extra deckpersonnel during landing ops and it requires many manhours' maintenance and it subject airframes to unnecessary structural stress (unless we go for the 800m. wire described earlier). Aircraft are getting more sophisticated and expensive all the time; finding ways to make them last longer is an increasingly important priority (another reason I want that huge, comfy, dry hangar deck for parking and maintenance).
 
On a carr
 
Quote    Reply

Mechanic       7/30/2007 11:20:34 AM

Nope, you don't understand how arresting gear works. I have been in an arresting wire crew. I have operate the arresting wire for many traps on a land base. The braking force of the arresting gear is adjustable - on a carrier it's adjusted for every trap depending on aircraft type (approach speed) and landing weight.

I do understand how arresting gear works and that it is adjustable. I also understand the US Navy is trying to develop a new electro-mechanical system to replace the hydraulic brakes, since a more finetuned adjustment option will lessen the stress on airframes. A new electro-mechanical arresting system will probably cost hundreds of millions just to develop, but the bean counterers expect to gain back the money in less wear and tear on the airframes (and from savings due to a less maintenance heavy system).


If there is 400m available runway the arresting gear can be set to use the full length of the runway.

 

Granted, I didn't consider that alternative. An 800m. long cable! It may be doable, but what would be the time required to rewind the cable for the next trap? What would it cost to manufacture and operate? How large will the cable drums be and do you still need 3-4 sets? That's the good thing about these hypothetical debates; you sometimes get a completely new perspective.

 Err... An arresting gear has only a runway wide long cable or wire. The rest is few millimeters thick cloth band. And it still is only 400m per cable drum.

Rewinding will not be a problem. If it can unwind fast it can rewind fast.

Phaid has provoked the inclusion of a safety barrier along the runway on my hypothetical design.......and the concept has gained in safety and practicability as a result. I'm still not sold on the 400m. long arresting wires, but it's always worth giving a new idea some thoughts.

 Aircraft catching the safety barrier with wing tip will be very badly damaged. Think of it. The safety barrier will turn the aircraft towards the other aircraft behind the barrier, and thus the barrier has to stop the aircraft hitting it almost instantly to prevent it from crashing into the others. Can even the pilot survive this?

Yes, it's hard to land on a carrier. You really do think that landing on you carrier concept would allow greater margins of error on landing. I'm lacking English words to describe how wrong you are. 


It's too hard to land on a carrier! It requires very specialized skills, a strong psyche and frequent training. The design I suggest will potentially also frequently welcome Army and Airforce pilots, so making the landing procedures more accommodating for these less specialized pilots is a priority. 

 

There are a number of reasons why a landing on my carrier concept would be easier for the average pilot, without sacrificing safety.

 

First, the vessel will be almost 4 times heavier than a Nimitz class CVN, which - all things else being equal - will provide a platform subjected to less rocking and bounching.

I agree

Second, the landing area is widened from approx. 25-30m. on a Nimitz class CVN to 40m. therby providing a lot more margins for error.

I agree

Third, the approach will be straight from astern rather than angled from starboard. This effectively remove two concerns from the mind of the pilot; course and timing (with an angled approach you need to time your approach to the speed of the carrier, granted the pilots get help but still.....). Using a straight approach from astern the pilot needs only concern himself with speed and height

Landing on an angeled deck is what Air Force pilots do every day. It's called cross wind.

Making bigger carrier decks will help to make the landings safer. Why negate that by removing the arresting gear? It's NOT the ARRESTING GEAR that make ladings on a carrier difficult.

 

Well, psychologically arresting wires DO make landings more difficult; the thought of a full-power touch-and-go, in case you miss the cables, is an extra stressfactor for pilots. Too dramatic and compressed in tim
 
Quote    Reply

Mechanic    Correction   7/30/2007 11:43:07 AM
Using deck length of 480m and accepting the fact that 4s times 60m/s is not 260m but 240m we got a new answer:

Time to initiate go around after touch down = 190m = little over three seconds.

A typical human reaction time is 1,5s... So there is whole 1,7s to evaluate if the landing is looking good.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       7/30/2007 2:56:43 PM
Your numbers look good to me,  Mechanic.

One question, why would you consider roll to be less on this hypothetical supertanker carrier Hugin? I know you've dampened pitch by lengthening the hull, but I'm confused. Do you propose to encumber that turkey with massive roll dampeners to handle the extra beam? or are you going to render its draft so deep that it will  not be able to dock in a naval base or undergo routine maintenance?

One more thing;

Oil tankers are tough, but they are commercial tough, not MILSTD. The Nimitzes are designed to near missed by ATOMIC BOMBS. At some point SIZE works against you. 

Herald

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics