Aircraft Carriers

[Hobbes]

Catapults are big and and complicated. They require a steam plant, and the cat itself is a 100-m section of machinery you have to plan the rest of your deck and hangar around.

If you're going to include vertical landing ability in your aircraft, you might as well use that for takeoff too.
Vertical landings are safe, but you still need a >1.0 power-to-weight ratio, so it's not suitable for all aircraft (COD, tankers, AEW would be severely compromised by being vertical-landing capable).

[Sauragnmon]

Or use it as a means to supplement the launch methods.  Have a standard catapult or two on the side ramp, use the rocket-launches for emergency scramble.  Have the launch rails retract belowdeck and keep a standard ski-jump on the nose as well?

[Sauragnmon]

The problem with using vertical takeoff though, Hobbes, is you compromise not only range but payload in spades.  They chew a lot of fuel to go VTO, and you can't carry much of anything.  Catapults allow full takeoff weight.

For AEW, you could probably get away with a Tilt-Rotor design if you streamlined the dish and concept.

Tankers would more than likely be coming back empty, and again, a tilt-rotor would likely do better to allow refuelling operations.

Ok, so most of the non-combat aircraft are variants of the V-22?  Call me weird?

[dy031101]

Or use it as a means to supplement the launch methods.  Have a standard catapult or two on the side ramp, use the rocket-launches for emergency scramble.  Have the launch rails retract belowdeck and keep a standard ski-jump on the nose as well?

Like the World Navy carriers in Thunderbirds?

I've never actually watched the episode where the carriers are featured, but the illustration has launch rails behind the bow catapults.

If I have to venture a guess as to why...... maybe to maximize the number of launches in a short notice and to make launches possible in case of catapult damage/malfunction?

[jcf]

Vertical boosted launch of aircraft was a feature of some of the submarine aircraft carrier projects studied by the US Navy.

Volume 1 Number 6 Scott Lowther's Arospace Projects Review has an excellent article on the concepts.
http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/ev1n6.htm

Jon

[tinlail]

I think the idea has merit. I see two issues that work against it.
1) It requires all new crafts particularly for the support roles, the carrier itself. To get the full benefit requires a lot of new airplanes.
2) Carriers don't really seem to be deck space limited, which is what this design allows you to conserve. Hanger decks take up an entire lower deck they seem to limit the size of the air wing to the degree that standard practice is to keep aircraft stored on deck much of the time.

This suggest to me that you want your design to feature larger hanger space probably with two levels. Top level for operations, ready storage, bottom level for repair and maintenance. And you want to use that superstructure to support more defensive armaments, radar that conventional carrier offload to escorts.

[Spey_Phantom]

Like the World Navy carriers in Thunderbirds?

I've never actually watched the episode where the carriers are featured, but the illustration has launch rails behind the bow catapults.

If I have to venture a guess as to why...... maybe to maximize the number of launches in a short notice and to make launches possible in case of catapult damage/malfunction?

if you watch thunderbirds episode "the Imposters" there is footage there of fighters (F-104/F-101 hybrid) being launched from the deck.

i assume the planes have 4 wheel landing gear system like the the chinnook, that they just taxy under the lauchpad, then they are connected to the rail, the launchrail raises and the aircraft are being launched into the air like missiles (like the rescue fighter from multiple episodes)

[Mossie]

Here's a still shot of that World Navy Carrier:

[Joe C-P]

I have the Revell Graf Zeppelin, and will probably someday do it in Soviet service, with a small angled deck.

Brag brag brag

Ia Ia! You ever scratchbuilt 1/700 planes and helos? My eyes ain't what they used to be.  I swore off carriers for a few months after doing three of them, causing my orbs to fall out and roll around on the hobby table. 

And now I am actually doing it, for the Sovietize It group build. Photos will be posted soon!

[Weaver]

The problem with using vertical takeoff though, Hobbes, is you compromise not only range but payload in spades.  They chew a lot of fuel to go VTO, and you can't carry much of anything.  Catapults allow full takeoff weight.

For AEW, you could probably get away with a Tilt-Rotor design if you streamlined the dish and concept.

Tankers would more than likely be coming back empty, and again, a tilt-rotor would likely do better to allow refuelling operations.

Ok, so most of the non-combat aircraft are variants of the V-22?  Call me weird?

It's a myth that VTO uses a lot of fuel: it's no worse than a normal takeoff. The problem is simply one of weight: a Harrier with 21,500 lb of thrust can't take off vertically weighing more than about 20,000 lb. By contrast, a Mirage 2000 with 21,385 lb of thrust can take off at 37,480 lb. 17,000 lb is one hell of a lot of fuel and/or bombs.......

My split deck idea would also work with ski-jumps, but catapults give more boost and preserve more flat deck for other types.

Hobbes: the cats are only that big if you're launching big aircraft like F-14s or Vigilantes. A cat sized to launch a Harrier-sized aircraft at 35,000lb wouldn't be anything like so big.

[dy031101]

Interesting thought. The only problem is that it'd be very expensive to operate - you have to have a large supply of boosters on-board, which are going to be very costly themselves (both to build and maintain), and require a large volume inside the hull to store - taking away from fuel/magazine/hangar space.

Perhaps a smaller booster to launch a light fighter, mounted on a container ship or auxiliary escort carrier? Similar to what was done with Hurricats, for convoy defence?

Or use it as a means to supplement the launch methods.  Have a standard catapult or two on the side ramp, use the rocket-launches for emergency scramble.  Have the launch rails retract belowdeck and keep a standard ski-jump on the nose as well?

Perhaps we can divide the airwing according to roles with respect to the carrier: make those relatively vital to the safety of the carrier RATOBAR (air defense assets) or VTOL (AEW, ASW, etc.) and leave the catapults or skijumps for offensive (strike) and associated support (such as tankers) aircraft?

For timeframes prior to the advent of the V-22, would the Rotodyne have been a good choice?

[dy031101]

Here's a still shot of that World Navy Carrier:

Just saw the episode.

There are only a few camera angles, but here's another shot (not just two launch rails there):

[Spey_Phantom]

i was thinking, with china now building its own aircraft carriers and restoring the Varyag. i was thinking what if tthey build more and even manage to export a number of them 
knowing china, the most propably be promoting new-build carriers to interested nations at a low cost.
i think most likely customers for chinese ships would be:

-Venezuela (1 carrier with SU-33's and KA-27 AEW)
-Pakistan (1 carrier with navalised JF-17 and FC-20 (export J-10))

it could happen 

[dy031101]

Venezuela with the oil money...... probably.

Not sure if Pakistan would want to pick up the tab for navalizing the FC-1 or the FC-20 though......

[GTX]

Venezuela with the oil money...... probably.

Not sure if Pakistan would want to pick up the tab for navalizing the FC-1 or the FC-20 though......

I think in this case, the PLANAF might do the navalisation for the FC-20/J-10 at least.  A naval JF-17 would be nice though.

Regards,

Greg