Things have changed just a tad since 1962. Bridles are no longer used. All Navy aircraft now use a launch bar attached to the nose landing gear.
Posted on 05/12/2017 3:22:45 AM PDT by Krosan
The high velocity-wear and tear issue sounds real. I guess that’s why we don’t hear much about railguns these days. At least I don’t.
OTOH, the electromagnetic mechanism used in EMALS has to be similar if not identical to that used in railguns. Seems to me. In fact I would bet the engineers who are developing it are a bunch of old railguns guys. At least a few.
EMALS may also allow for more launches per hour verses steam.
**********************************
Not sure what you mean...
Using port and starboard catapults, we were launching an aircraft every 2 minutes (giving adequate time for the previous aircraft to clear the area). Steam pressure was not a problem, time-wise, as the taxiing, hold-back and hook-up took more time.
He's doing a very good job of doing that on his own.
They carefully ignore or hide the possibility that he was given sound advice by relevant experts that the new tech was a big mistake he should fight against.
Those "relevant experts" should have told President Trump that the Mk 13 steam catapult is no longer being manufactured. If he wants to switch now then it would mean a redesign of the carriers, find a new manufacturer for the steam cats and redesign it for the Ford class carriers. And while he is at it, those "relevant experts" should probably point out to the President that of the three new technologies introduced in the Ford class - EMALS, Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), and the Dual Band Radar - EMALS has been by far the most successful of the three.
You’d need a longer deck.
We aren't going back to steam catapults no matter how much the salty old dogs wish we would. EMALS allows for smaller crews which is where all Navy shipbuilding is headed but most importantly, EMALS allows for launching of lighter UAVs, which is where all of naval aviation is headed. Steam is too powerful for these lighter, unmanned aircraft.
President Trump kinda blundered on this a bit and it might have been preferable if he had expressed his criticism in a less public manner.
I think the EMALS issues will be solved before the rail gun issue, but I think they will nail that one too.
It’s a big change for carriers...
You are likely correct about the engineers...:)
Confusing people with actual knowledge of the subject, again? ;-)
Apparently I was right about the old railgun engineers. General Atomics engineers,
I found the following in the railgun and EMALS wikis:
The first weaponized railgun planned for production, the General Atomics Blitzer system, began full system testing in September 2010. The weapon launches a streamlined discarding sabot round designed by Boeing’s Phantom Works at 1,600 m/s (5,200 ft/s) (approximately Mach 5) with accelerations exceeding 60,000 gn.
The EMALS is being developed by General Atomics for the U.S. Navy’s newest aircraft carriers. A somewhat similar system, Westinghouse’s electropult, had been developed in 1946 but not deployed.[4]
The mechanism is designed to guarantee that steam pressure adequate to launch the plane exists before the launch is initiated. The result is an abrupt release.Seems to (naive?) me that it would be possible to have an auxiliary "hold back” mechanism whereby upon initiation of launch, the catapult would be dragging a large additional mass such that the initial acceleration over would be about half as high, but that mass would be detached after the catapult had traveled a foot or two so that the full acceleration capability would be delivered through the remainder of the throw of the catapult.
But you must understand the conservative instincts of someone who designs a machine to thrust a plane - costing many millions of dollars and containing a crew of one or more - to a speed adequate to assure safe takeoff. The failure rate must be very close to zero.
Things have changed just a tad since 1962. Bridles are no longer used. All Navy aircraft now use a launch bar attached to the nose landing gear.
I like steam catapult as the aircraft carrier goes chuga chuga woo! woo! as it launches aircraft vs electric catapult which just goes whiiirrr whoosh!
“...due to the high muzzle velocity at which projectiles leave a rail gun, there is abnormal wear and tear on the rail portion of the delivery system...”
“Abnormal” only in comparison to wear and tear in more conventionally propelled gun systems.
The current densities and EM field strengths required to accelerate the projectile to the stated velocities create plasma, which does erode various launch system components. Very short service life.
EM railgun systems are still developmental. Fuzing systems, bursting charges, and guidance systems cannot survive the g forces of launch. So we are currently limited to solid projectiles that cannot perform course corrections inflight. Makes the most severe demands on initial gunlaying precision. Cheerleading about how “devastating” the projectile is on impact via kinetic energy alone is making a virtue of the constraints.
The stresses and strains of launch are only a portion of the demands placed on carrier-launched aircraft. They are forced to give up significant percentages of range and payload capability because they have to be built to endure such great forces without falling apart. Puts them forever behind land-based aircraft.
There are very few ‘perfect’ weapons.
First time I heard a steam cat fire was on the bow cat as I was walking through a passageway right next to it. It was my first cruise, and I didn’t even know what it was (didn’t even know it was going to fire) I nearly spotted myself.
Of course, historically speaking, it has resulted in the production of aircraft that were very rugged due to that intentional overdesign.
The concept sounds good but from articles I've read reliability of the EMALS was a problem. Don't know if that has been ironed out.
The steam cats and arresting gear are both hellish places to operate and maintain, brutal but reliable, proven.
There are a myriad of benefits behind getting away from the steam cats. Problem is, whatever you replace it with has to be as reliable as the steam system.
Something else about the FORD, they have a new Arresting Gear system, which has had it's own problems.
Saw this article here, that touches on that subject.
Navy Sticking With Advanced Arresting Gear in Next Carrier
Development was delayed. Same contractor as the EMALS system?
That's probably what has Trump upset, cost overruns and delays!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.