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: The next innovation in naval aviation
kirby1    8/3/2007 6:57:32 AM
Nothing is static in the military world, designs are always improving, equipment is always improving, capabilities are always improving. Wonderweapons are unvailed, and methods to counter them are quick to follow. So my question is simple, What do you think the next big innovation in naval aviation is going to be? Perhaps it will be revolution in propulsion or ship design, allowing for smaller crew sizes, increased range or a more stable deck. Imagine Azipods on CVs,(They're on the latest 100Kplus cruise ships, why not on CVs?) Perhaps a revolution in electronics, allowing for safer if not nearly autonomous landings. Perhaps the introduction of cheap and reliable UCAV style technology, Allowing for safer air operations, and smaller CVs, whose entire combat airwing is unmanned. Each individual combat aircraft will have a smaller payload, but with precision munitions, is there really a need for planes capable of carrying dozens of bombs or A2A missiles when a couple of SDBs, or a pair of Sidewinders or AMRAAMS and an internal cannon can usually get the job done? Perhaps it will be something that I can't even think of at the moment, either way, what do you think will be the next big thing?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
french stratege       8/5/2007 10:41:29 AM
3. Coriolis effect.
It is neglectible Herald! LOL
 
And perhaps it would be easier to create a 40kt air current with fans, than it would be to build a 40kt hull design. 
The problem with this idea already investigated, is that if aircraft abort at the last moment or miss correct landing trajectory, it could hit the fans protubering on the deck,
USA have already investigated a very fast small carrier with a top speed of 70 knts which would allow landing on a small track to supplement big carrier.Indeed it would only need a sky jump for take off .It would be like a very fast Invicible carrier.
 
The best innovation is obviously automatic landing.In fact with that you could maybe even suppress angle deck like in WW2 carriers.
Indeed with very precise (few meter precise)  and 100% safe landing, fighters could land with reduced speed (no need to get full engine power to retake off in case of abort) on a 120 meter track with arresting gear.Also it could compensate from the roll of carrier in the case of little carriers.We could also imagine an active arresting cross which would never miss the first arresting cable.
You could make 200 meters long carriers only.Or even less with a fast ship.
We could imagine some "escort" 150 meters long only carrier with fast speed of 45/50 knts using STOBAR or CATOBAR  fighters (and UAV).
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/5/2007 9:17:47 PM
You know less physics than BW.

Endit.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/5/2007 10:18:57 PM
Justify your point on an example, Herald, and anybody will judge.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/5/2007 10:32:28 PM
You are the one who said Coriolis effect effect from fan generated updraft would be negligible. Prove it.
I don't write to prove your case. You have that privilege.

All I have to point out is that angular momentum is a transferred inertia/momentum  property EVEN THROUGH GASES, cretin. Hence why I said you know less physics than  BW.

Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/6/2007 6:57:45 PM
Effect of Coriolis force is neglictible for carrier operations as described above .Prove otherwise with calculus on an example.You raised the point, now prove it!
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/6/2007 7:16:47 PM

Effect of Coriolis force is neglictible for carrier operations as described above .Prove otherwise with calculus on an example.You raised the point, now prove it!


I don't have to prove a thing.

I gave a specific as to why you are full of it. You are the one left in the position of negation.

You want to prove that the Coriolis effect doesn't hold-you do the math.  I want to see if you are up to it.

Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    FS   8/6/2007 7:44:22 PM

Hint:  what is margin for error as between hook and an arrestor cable on trap?  acor = (2ωg cos λ)t  Integrate twice.  Not so neglible, hence power landing ;>)

 

v^2
 
Quote    Reply

rossarron    unmanned aircraft   2/16/2010 5:52:19 PM
Unmanned aircraft will change war completly, any small country can launch armed craft without the need for training or risk to the lives of expensive aircrews from thousands of miles away or from the deck of submarines no need for expensive aircraft carriers even a small rubber boat can act as the launch platform.
 
take a basic model aircraft from a toy shop add a security camera or observer in a skyscraper with high power binoculars ,
fill the body with explosives chemical or atomic waste and crash it in to a convoy or presidental parade and you have an effective weapon.
 
Now scale up the aircraft to US milliatry standards with long range 360.degree vision the ability to travel faster than 6 gees far beyond the human frame can stand and the modern pilot is redundant along with his over priced aircraft
and carrier,  launch from an airship the aircraft can stay over a target area for weeks or months guarding or enforcing a no fly zone while  the cheaply trained aircrew sit safely miles from danger with there feet up.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Wow - Herald-FS fight - shocking ;>   2/16/2010 9:56:59 PM
Did not mean to start that hare.  Cast thy bread upon the waters...
 
Let's see...
I had pricing on Patton fans so used that as it seemed to get decent velocity.  What I actually meant was not to mount fans on the deck with wind force normal to deck, what I meant was:  whole upper deck is a grate, a series of ventilation louvers. 
 
Actual condenser/compressor blower plant (I am thinking of HVAC paradigms but assume there is no benefit to hotter or colder air - then again perhaps this could help with V-22, F-35 heat) down safely in guts, or distributed at some remove from top level - no significant plant weight topside. 
 
What runs topside, under deck surface or replacing deck surface, is a lot of sheetmetal ducting, which could have armor value (esp as spaced armor and floodable, ventable, Halon-able), and is vented upwards with these dirigible grates - so can blow forward, back, straight up, variable angles, or be closed.  Each square meter, say, is independently dirigible from the next; or finer if needed.  Edges of louvers are rounded off so as not to cut tires; and reinforcing bars going orthogonal to the louvers can be load bearing as well.
 
So:
 
1)  Topside weight:  negligible; subtract armor to taste.  Plus some valves, solenoids, etc.  Damaged pieces easily replaced as tiles.
 
2)   Can't direct vents - I don't see why not; maybe not perfectly, but substantially.  cos 30 = .866 * 40kt airflow = 34kt net.  Not bad.
 
3)  Coriolis is irrelevant as airflow has been in effect "polarized"  or de-rotated or whatever by flow through ducts.  Louvers could possibly be warped surfaces if there is some desirable attribute to be had, but I expect it to come out straight.  Please get notion of lots of room fans strapped on deck blowing at the incoming craft, or blowing up the takeoff's butt, out of your heads.
 
4)  You are not catting, DEWing, EWing, etc., at every moment.   Nor would you be blowing the deck at all times.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       2/17/2010 12:44:56 AM

Did not mean to start that hare.  Cast thy bread upon the waters...


 

Let's see...

I had pricing on Patton fans so used that as it seemed to get decent velocity.  What I actually meant was not to mount fans on the deck with wind force normal to deck, what I meant was:  whole upper deck is a grate, a series of ventilation louvers. 

 

Actual condenser/compressor blower plant (I am thinking of HVAC paradigms but assume there is no benefit to hotter or colder air - then again perhaps this could help with V-22, F-35 heat) down safely in guts, or distributed at some remove from top level - no significant plant weight topside. 

 

What runs topside, under deck surface or replacing deck surface, is a lot of sheetmetal ducting, which could have armor value (esp as spaced armor and floodable, ventable, Halon-able), and is vented upwards with these dirigible grates - so can blow forward, back, straight up, variable angles, or be closed.  Each square meter, say, is independently dirigible from the next; or finer if needed.  Edges of louvers are rounded off so as not to cut tires; and reinforcing bars going orthogonal to the louvers can be load bearing as well.


 

So:

 

1)  Topside weight:  negligible; subtract armor to taste.  Plus some valves, solenoids, etc.  Damaged pieces easily replaced as tiles.


 

2)   Can't direct vents - I don't see why not; maybe not perfectly, but substantially.  cos 30 = .866 * 40kt airflow = 34kt net.  Not bad.


 

3)  Coriolis is irrelevant as airflow has been in effect "polarized"  or de-rotated or whatever by flow through ducts.  Louvers could possibly be warped surfaces if there is some desirable attribute to be had, but I expect it to come out straight.  Please get notion of lots of room fans strapped on deck blowing at the incoming craft, or blowing up the takeoff's butt, out of your heads.

 

4)  You are not catting, DEWing, EWing, etc., at every moment.   Nor would you be blowing the deck at all times.


 





Won't work. vortices off the hull, separation of flow from flight deck (there is one). CAT from intersecting flow "tubes", etc. Hello!, Nichy.
 
H.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics