|
Post by jeb94 on Jan 9, 2019 21:26:42 GMT -6
Great video. It shows perfectly why angled decks became essential for jet operations. Today's carrier ops would be impossible without it, unless you go VTOL/STOVL. I can also see how it would've benefited carrier ops in WWII if it had been available. I'd be curious to see how it would've changed CVE and CVL design and if it would've been possible on such small hulls.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 9, 2019 23:06:27 GMT -6
Great video. It shows perfectly why angled decks became essential for jet operations. Today's carrier ops would be impossible without it, unless you go VTOL/STOVL. I can also see how it would've benefited carrier ops in WWII if it had been available. I'd be curious to see how it would've changed CVE and CVL design and if it would've been possible on such small hulls. Well, I am not a naval architect so its difficult for me to assess the effects of the weight of angled deck. However, I am betting that an examination of the width of the Antietam versus the width of the light carriers might reveal something. I know that the angled deck on the Antietam was resting on a sponson on the port side. The Antietam had a beam of 93 feet. The beam of the CVL-Independence was 71.5 feet. Would a ship with that small beam and with the raised flight deck cause some instability. I don't know the answer yet.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jan 10, 2019 5:47:46 GMT -6
a few nasty landings shown - ouch
neat there were 3 different barriers designed to handle different aircraft types
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 10, 2019 9:46:24 GMT -6
a few nasty landings shown - ouch
neat there were 3 different barriers designed to handle different aircraft types
I am glad you enjoyed that movie. Here is a website that has many aircraft video's for you and others to enjoy and learn with - www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 10, 2019 18:55:30 GMT -6
As far as I understand it, one of the greatest advantages of the angled deck is the safety net if a pilot misses the arresting gear. He can just throttle up and take off for another go. On a non-angled deck, there cannot be any planes on bow catapults when a plane comes in as they could end up a scrap metal. This in turn increased the sortie rate and the efficiency of the carrier.
As a result, most of the 'fleet carriers' at the moment have this configuration. One notable exception though is the new Queen Elizabeth class carrier which is a carrier exclusively configured for STOVL. Because of the vertical or rolling landing, the safety advantage of an angled deck is unnecessary. With the advances in ATC and munition handling, the QE can generate a significantly higher sortie rate than other carriers (even the Gerald R Ford class - rather embarrassing considering the $6bn extra the US carriers cost). Although, this does mean that the QE can only really operate the F35 and rotary aircraft.
So I suppose I can derive a game-related question from this rambling: is there any way in RTW 2 that one can explicitly design a carrier for one type of aircraft for improved sortie rates and/or safer operations? (Perhaps a dedicated fighter carrier or TB carrier)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 10, 2019 19:06:43 GMT -6
As far as I understand it, one of the greatest advantages of the angled deck is the safety net if a pilot misses the arresting gear. He can just throttle up and take off for another go. On a non-angled deck, there cannot be any planes on bow catapults when a plane comes in as they could end up a scrap metal. This in turn increased the sortie rate and the efficiency of the carrier. As a result, most of the 'fleet carriers' at the moment have this configuration. One notable exception though is the new Queen Elizabeth class carrier which is a carrier exclusively configured for STOVL. Because of the vertical or rolling landing, the safety advantage of an angled deck is unnecessary. With the advances in ATC and munition handling, the QE can generate a significantly higher sortie rate than other carriers (even the Gerald R Ford class - rather embarrassing considering the $6bn extra the US carriers cost). Although, this does mean that the QE can only really operate the F35 and rotary aircraft. So I suppose I can derive a game-related question from this rambling: is there any way in RTW 2 that one can explicitly design a carrier for one type of aircraft for improved sortie rates and/or safer operations? (Perhaps a dedicated fighter carrier or TB carrier) In my opinion, you could just design a carrier for say, an air wing of just fighters. The problem with that concept is that fighter technology will evolve. They will get bigger, faster and most likely heavier. You cannot build a carrier for a single type of aircraft without considering the future. This is true of all carriers, and this idea also restricts the aircraft designers also. So, you design a carrier for fighters with a carrier lift of fifty years. How many different types of carrier aircraft will you have designed and built in that time and what is the technological advancements that have changed the fighters characteristics. Can you predict that, and build the carrier to be able to adjust to that. Maybe, maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jan 15, 2019 8:48:59 GMT -6
In my opinion, you could just design a carrier for say, an air wing of just fighters. The problem with that concept is that fighter technology will evolve. They will get bigger, faster and most likely heavier. You cannot build a carrier for a single type of aircraft without considering the future. This is true of all carriers, and this idea also restricts the aircraft designers also. So, you design a carrier for fighters with a carrier lift of fifty years. How many different types of carrier aircraft will you have designed and built in that time and what is the technological advancements that have changed the fighters characteristics. Can you predict that, and build the carrier to be able to adjust to that. Maybe, maybe not. That is true for the RTW2 period (WW1-WW2) and maybe even cold-war era, but not when talking about modern Carriers planes ( since Gerald R Ford & Queen Elisabeth class Carriers were mentioned ). Compare some sizes of Carrier fighters here: F9F Panther - 1949 - 11.3m length - 7.4 ton max takeoff F-8 Crusader - 1957 - 16.5m length - 15.0 ton max takeoff F-4 Phantom II - 1960 - 19.2m length - 28 ton max takeoff F-14 Tomcat - 1974 - 19.1m length - 33.7 ton max takeoff F-18 Hornet - 1983 - 17.1m length - 24 ton max takeoff F-35 Lighting II - 2018 - 15.5m length - 31.8 ton max takeoff As you can see for the last 50 years or so fighters have not really been growing larger, and with costs being so high already I think it's unlikely they will do so in the future either.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 15, 2019 9:25:39 GMT -6
In my opinion, you could just design a carrier for say, an air wing of just fighters. The problem with that concept is that fighter technology will evolve. They will get bigger, faster and most likely heavier. You cannot build a carrier for a single type of aircraft without considering the future. This is true of all carriers, and this idea also restricts the aircraft designers also. So, you design a carrier for fighters with a carrier lift of fifty years. How many different types of carrier aircraft will you have designed and built in that time and what is the technological advancements that have changed the fighters characteristics. Can you predict that, and build the carrier to be able to adjust to that. Maybe, maybe not. That is true for the RTW2 period (WW1-WW2) and maybe even cold-war era, but not when talking about modern Carriers planes ( since Gerald R Ford & Queen Elisabeth class Carriers were mentioned ). Compare some sizes of Carrier fighters here: F9F Panther - 1949 - 11.3m length - 7.4 ton max takeoff F-8 Crusader - 1957 - 16.5m length - 15.0 ton max takeoff F-4 Phantom II - 1960 - 19.2m length - 28 ton max takeoff F-14 Tomcat - 1974 - 19.1m length - 33.7 ton max takeoff F-18 Hornet - 1983 - 17.1m length - 24 ton max takeoff F-35 Lighting II - 2018 - 15.5m length - 31.8 ton max takeoff As you can see for the last 50 years or so fighters have not really been growing larger, and with costs being so high already I think it's unlikely they will do so in the future either. The modern aircraft has changed and are heavier even with the use of titanium and boron-epoxy for the structure. But we have improved the launching and recovery systems to compensate for that but it still a problem. Aircraft bring-back weight has always been something the Navy has been trying to solve. They don't like wasting ordnance. They have higher landing speeds. The new jets do have a 1.1 thrust to weight ratio but that doesn't help too much launching and recovering. This is why the launch with partial fuel loads and then top off their tanks with the airborne tanker. Bomb loads are greater, especially with smart bombs and missiles combined on the new aircraft. The new birds are have to protect themselves since they are now multi-role aircraft. F4E weighed about 61,000 lbs. fully loaded F14 weighed about 74,348 lbs. Approach speed about 125 knots. F-18 C/D at maximum weight weighs about 56,000 lbs. F-18 E/F at maximum attack weight weights about 63,934.056. This aircraft has an approach speed of about 134 knots. She has to be launched with a 35 knot wind over the decks.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 15, 2019 12:42:18 GMT -6
I do not know when the change happened but I very much applaud the improvement to the name of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 15, 2019 17:51:42 GMT -6
That is true for the RTW2 period (WW1-WW2) and maybe even cold-war era, but not when talking about modern Carriers planes ( since Gerald R Ford & Queen Elisabeth class Carriers were mentioned ). Compare some sizes of Carrier fighters here: F9F Panther - 1949 - 11.3m length - 7.4 ton max takeoff F-8 Crusader - 1957 - 16.5m length - 15.0 ton max takeoff F-4 Phantom II - 1960 - 19.2m length - 28 ton max takeoff F-14 Tomcat - 1974 - 19.1m length - 33.7 ton max takeoff F-18 Hornet - 1983 - 17.1m length - 24 ton max takeoff F-35 Lighting II - 2018 - 15.5m length - 31.8 ton max takeoff As you can see for the last 50 years or so fighters have not really been growing larger, and with costs being so high already I think it's unlikely they will do so in the future either. The modern aircraft has changed and are heavier even with the use of titanium and boron-epoxy for the structure. But we have improved the launching and recovery systems to compensate for that but it still a problem. Aircraft bring-back weight has always been something the Navy has been trying to solve. They don't like wasting ordnance. They have higher landing speeds. The new jets do have a 1.1 thrust to weight ratio but that doesn't help too much launching and recovering. This is why the launch with partial fuel loads and then top off their tanks with the airborne tanker. Bomb loads are greater, especially with smart bombs and missiles combined on the new aircraft. The problem of aircraft bring-back rate is something that the Royal Navy has had solved for years. However, the downfall is that the technique can only be used with STOVL or VTOL jets. The technique is called Shipbourne Rolling Vertical Landing. This uses both the wings and the lift fan to generate lift. The aircraft does need room to roll but much less than a conventional plane. This allows planes to land at pretty much their take-off weight as well as reducing the wear on the lift fan and the deck plating. The Russians experimented with it but I think that only we Brits used it operationally. The US Navy hasn't, off the top of my head, but is reportedly considering it. Here is a clip of the first F35b SBVRL on the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth. m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti_QOyYyUG0
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 15, 2019 18:35:33 GMT -6
The modern aircraft has changed and are heavier even with the use of titanium and boron-epoxy for the structure. But we have improved the launching and recovery systems to compensate for that but it still a problem. Aircraft bring-back weight has always been something the Navy has been trying to solve. They don't like wasting ordnance. They have higher landing speeds. The new jets do have a 1.1 thrust to weight ratio but that doesn't help too much launching and recovering. This is why the launch with partial fuel loads and then top off their tanks with the airborne tanker. Bomb loads are greater, especially with smart bombs and missiles combined on the new aircraft. The problem of aircraft bring-back rate is something that the Royal Navy has had solved for years. However, the downfall is that the technique can only be used with STOVL or VTOL jets. The technique is called Shipbourne Rolling Vertical Landing. This uses both the wings and the lift fan to generate lift. The aircraft does need room to roll but much less than a conventional plane. This allows planes to land at pretty much their take-off weight as well as reducing the wear on the lift fan and the deck plating. The Russians experimented with it but I think that only we Brits used it operationally. The US Navy hasn't, off the top of my head, but is reportedly considering it. Here is a clip of the first F35b SBVRL on the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth. m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti_QOyYyUG0Thank you for the clip. This test on the QE was conducted by an integrated test development team at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland which is the US Navy's primary test and development center. When a country with carriers buys one of our aircraft, they are always represented in the test and development of the aircraft and any additional developments in the future. That is how it works. The BAE simulator was at the forefront of the development of this new procedure for STOVAL aircraft and it will help other nations immeasurably. The F-18E/F has a bring-back weight of 9000 lbs. The F-18C bring-back weight is 7600 lbs. The US Marines are interested in the project and they were present aboard the ship to witness the trials. The officer representing them was a Major who was a test pilot. Currently, the British are the only nation interested in the project however, I am certain that there maybe others who might sign on at a later date. Many nations just wait to see it is really going to work. It is one thing to test, another to perform this landing in a real live situation.
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Jan 15, 2019 20:24:00 GMT -6
Re max takeoff weight... the F-35 and the Hornets, probably the Tomcat, and possibly even the Phantom were designed within then limits of what could be launched, recovered, and moved around on a US supercarrier. So they all ended up being roughly the same size.
If you want to know what happens when you forget about (or ignore) catapult and elevator max weights, look up the A-12.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 15, 2019 20:34:11 GMT -6
Re max takeoff weight... the F-35 and the Hornets, probably the Tomcat, and possibly even the Phantom were designed within then limits of what could be launched, recovered, and moved around on a US supercarrier. So they all ended up being roughly the same size. If you want to know what happens when you forget about (or ignore) catapult and elevator max weights, look up the A-12. Well, the A-12 had a gross takeoff weight of about 120,000 lbs. however, it's later follow-on, the SR-71 had a gross weight of 152,000 lbs. BTW, when being refueled, she leaked until she got up to speed. It was the tanks that had to heat up, if I remember, and seal up properly. If you are interested, I watched them on radar and have seen them land and head right into the hangar and doors were closed immediately. It was fun to watch.
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Jan 15, 2019 20:51:30 GMT -6
Re max takeoff weight... the F-35 and the Hornets, probably the Tomcat, and possibly even the Phantom were designed within then limits of what could be launched, recovered, and moved around on a US supercarrier. So they all ended up being roughly the same size. If you want to know what happens when you forget about (or ignore) catapult and elevator max weights, look up the A-12. Well, the A-12 had a gross takeoff weight of about 120,000 lbs. however, it's later follow-on, the SR-71 had a gross weight of 152,000 lbs. BTW, when being refueled, she leaked until she got up to speed. It was the tanks that had to heat up, if I remember, and seal up properly. If you are interested, I watched them on radar and have seen them land and head right into the hangar and doors were closed immediately. It was fun to watch. Heh...sorry, i wasnt clear. This completely unrelated A-12: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_IIFun fact about the Skunk Works A-12 (and it's more famous cousin): built almost entirely of Soviet titanium, sourced through CIA shell companies.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 15, 2019 20:57:38 GMT -6
Well, the A-12 had a gross takeoff weight of about 120,000 lbs. however, it's later follow-on, the SR-71 had a gross weight of 152,000 lbs. BTW, when being refueled, she leaked until she got up to speed. It was the tanks that had to heat up, if I remember, and seal up properly. If you are interested, I watched them on radar and have seen them land and head right into the hangar and doors were closed immediately. It was fun to watch. Heh...sorry, i wasnt clear. This completely unrelated A-12: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_IIFun fact about the Skunk Works A-12 (and it's more famous cousin): built almost entirely of Soviet titanium, sourced through CIA shell companies. No problem, I had a feeling you were going the wrong direction, we all do, no worries. I've read about the Rutile ore, very sandy soil and only available in a few parts in the world. Interesting way they did it through third world nations. Interesting.
|
|