Posted on 01/24/2020 11:57:18 PM PST by Spktyr
-content is video at link above or below-
U.S. Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler, T-45 Goshawk, assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23, and E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, C-2A Greyhound, assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 20, flight operations test on USS Gerald R. Ford's (CVN 78) flight deck, Jan. 2020.
Ford is currently conducting Aircraft Compatibility Testing to further test its Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch Systems (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG).
Before you guys get off on other subjects, I’d like to point out that the pilots of these airplanes were having more fun than we are.
HST, carrier landings are the most fun I have ever had with my clothes on!
“First thing i notice straight away is at the moment the aircraft starts moving the EMALS is more gentle with the aircraft than a steam catapult, it doesn’t yank the aircraft forward like a bully wanting it’s lunch money.”
This is supposed to be a big selling point. The planes might last a LOT longer or could be built to save a lot of weight.
We didn’t always have the BEST stuff in WWII; but we had lots of it. Same with the Russians.
I do remember the Rockin’ Rollercoaster, very smooth launch but you were flyin’ real quick.
First thing i notice straight away is at the moment the aircraft starts moving the EMALS is more gentle with the aircraft than a steam catapult, it doesn’t yank the aircraft forward like a bully wanting it’s lunch money.
—
With electromagnetic launch, acceleration is controllable and it can be ramped up from a more gentle start than a steam catapult. Conversely, a conventional steam catapult expends its most force at the start and then loses velocity during runout; the exact opposite of what is needed.
I had a sailor who worked on it tell me they can switch between different types of a/c much faster too.
I bet those naval aviators have a moment of trepidation when that softer accel begins thinking (for a split second) that they’re going in the drink.
But yes, the whole point of EMALS is to extend the life of the airframes and to allow more varied load-outs.
Also the lack of steam on the flight deck.
Looks much safer in many aspects
“But the PLAN operates in the same area and they *don’t* run into merchant shipping.”
Our Navy has a lot of manning issues, no doubt. But the fact that we suddenly can’t rely on our satellite-base NAV systems in THAT part of the world suggests localized jamming. Especially when you realize that there are no reported close-calls with PLAN vessels.
The jamming *post-dates* the incidents where the US Navy rammed merchant vessels and is (IIRC) currently confined to the Hong Kong vicinity, not anywhere near the incidents in question. It also doesn’t explain why people weren’t looking out the windows to see what’s there - GPS doesn’t tell you where *other* ships and vehicles are.
Further, one reason the PLAN isn’t having problems despite what is presumably their own jamming is that their vessels do not use the US GPS system, or at least do not rely on it entirely. Which makes sense as the US GPS is under US control and subject to being turned off if the US wishes it. Which is why there’s the Russian GLONASS system, the European Galileo system... and of course, the Chinese have their own BeiDou Navigation Satellite System.
No steam explosions possible when there’s no steam, yup.
Yup, aware of that. I just copied the guy’s comment as it was interesting and saved me some typing. :D
...considering we GAVE the Russians a lot of it.
Unfortunately, right now we’ve adopted the German approach of “a few superhightech systems” and then not built enough of any of them. China’s gone the other way.
Actually, quite a few were here because the Germans took over or were about to take over their former countries and came to the Allies because they had no other choice than enslavement or death - go look at Bohr’s bio, for example. Or Enrico Fermi - he used the Stockholm trip to accept the Nobel Prize as a way to get out of an Italy that was likely to shoot him due to new laws. He hopped the first flight out and ended up in New York.
Watching the video of various aircraft being launched, what really shines is how smooth the launch is. Really a nice technological advancement.
Well, that and the EMALS system has a lot less moving parts, plus doesn’t have the high maintenance caused by steam scouring the system every launch.
The French and British would disagree with you on the “only country to build aircraft carriers” thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle
I would point out that the Chinese have learned logistics very well from us, due to us giving them that knowledge in the private sector - it’s how smartphones and computers are made there and shipped here in literal hours.
As for the Sherman, there *were* diesel Shermans during the war. The M4A2, which was very popular with the British, was powered by twin GM diesels. The M4A6 was powered by a Caterpillar/Wright diesel radial engine.
In US service, the diesel tanks were officially confined to use by the US Marines in the Pacific. The reason the European US Army Shermans were all gasoline powered was simple logistics. The gas powered ones were good at their mission and the US Army was at the end of a very, very long supply chain subject to interruption by U-Boat. Britain could not supply sufficient fuel for US forces in Europe, so all of their fuel had to be imported down that long chain from the US. By being gasoline powered, the Army’s Shermans could use the same fuel everything else in the army and airforce used, thus decreasing logistical complexity. The radial engine gas powered Shermans that were our most common variant even shared parts with numerous aircraft. The Marines’ diesel versions made sense as they would simply refuel from the LSTs - which were themselves diesel powered as diesel is a common naval fuel.
The Sheridan wasn’t developed until after Korea, not WW2. Were you perhaps thinking of the Pershing? If so, the Pershing was *not* just an upgraded Sherman - it was a hugely different design, starting with the fact that it was the first issued US tank with the modern ‘transmission in the back’ powerpack-type layout that we still use today; Shermans have the engine in the back and the trans in the front. Great for crew protection in the day, but adds complexity and eats up room that could be given to the crew or more ammo.
Correct, but only because Congress cut the budget and hasn’t paid for the F-35 ‘carrier’ (the name escapes me at present, but this is the thing that the front landing gear attaches to on a cat shot and is different for every aircraft type even on steam catapaults) and the software to launch it. The article even admits that right at the end. It’s not an inherent problem with the EMALS system but an inherent problem with Congress.
Because it’s been observed at sea?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a25714579/chinas-railgun-gone-to-sea/
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/12/article/chinas-supergun-worries-pentagon-watchers/
Yes.
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.