(3) Britain Abandons The Catapult Again. Strategy Page, Sept 28, 2013.
http://strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20130928.aspx
("While the Harriers could land and take off like a helicopter, they often took off (via a "ski jump" flight deck) so they could carry more weight (especially bombs) into action")
Note:
(a) "The [two Queen Elizabeth-class] new carriers were originally (since 2002) going to have the American F-35B which, like the Harrier, can take off like a helicopter or by rolling down a carrier flight deck. But that has been changed in 2010, for economic reasons, to the F-35C, which operates like the F-18E (no vertical takeoff). The Queen Elizabeths were to have a catapult, like current American carriers do (and pre 'ski jump' British carriers did as well). Then it was concluded that the catapult option was more expensive than the original concept and the carrier design reverted to the original F-35B/ski jump model."
(i) Firstly, this article from Strategy Page is OLD news. The second /last change of mind (back to F-35B and skip-jump) occurred on May 10, 2012 (two year after the first change of mind).
Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Que ... ss_aircraft_carrier
("10 May 2012;" "Then in August 2009, speculation mounted that the UK would drop the F-35B for the F-35C model, which would have meant the carriers being built to operate conventional take off and landing aircraft using US-designed Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS)")
(ii) Secondly, the first change of mind, in 2010, from F-35B to F-35C was NOT "for economic reasons." See
James Kirkup, About-Turn on New Variant of Carriers’ Fighter Plane. Daily Telegraph, May 10, 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ ... -fighter-plane.html
("The Daily Telegraph earlier this month disclosed a secret Ministry of Defence paper showing military planners considered the jump-jet to be less useful and powerful than the conventional variant")
(iii) Thomas Harding, New Warplanes 'Less Capable', Secret Paper Shows. Telegraph, Apr 21, 2013.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ ... et-paper-shows.html
Quote:
“'The conventional variant is more effective than jump jet in almost all cases,' the paper says.
"The 'key issue' is that the jump-jet can carry much less fuel than the conventional plane, meaning it can carry fewer weapons and fly less far.
(iv) "The Queen Elizabeths were to have a catapult, like current American carriers do"
It is correct to say the new British carriers were to have a "catapult." Strategy Page implies it would be steam catapult ("like current American carriers"), which at design stage was true but became incorrect--Americans invented EMALS in 2010 and Britons that year desided to adopt that (thus to retrofit the ships stll under construction). See
Lewis Page, The Truth on the Navy Carrier Debacle? Industry Got Away With Murder. Sold 'adaptable' ships which couldn't be adapted.
The Register, Feb 6, 2013.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/201 ... ee_carrier_badness/
Quote:
"Regular readers will recall the basics of the story. The ability to add catapults and arrester gear to the ships had been specified from the earliest stages of their design. The only difficulty in doing so was that the vessels have gas-turbine propulsion, not nuclear, in order to reduce costs. Gas propulsion cannot furnish the steam required by normal naval catapults. Cash-strapped Blighty also felt itself unable to cough up to develop new electric catapults, and so it was planned that at least to start with the ships would have no launch or recovery kit beyond a "ski-jump" ramp and would carry jumpjets and helicopters only.
"But by 2010 the US had invented electric catapults to put on its next supercarrier, now nearing completion, and was happy to sell some to old Blighty. In perhaps the only good call in the entire 2010 defence review, the Prime Minister and the MoD team decided that they would purchase the US electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) and fit it to at least one of the British carriers. * * * F-35B will be more expensive to buy and run and less capable in the air [than F-35C]. * * * But with a catapult ship, none of that matters as it would then be possible to use many other kinds of plane.
* Blighty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blighty
* whirlybird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlybird
(may refer to "Slang term for a helicopter")
(b) "The size of the ships has also grown, from 40,000 tons in the first plan (late 1990s), to 58,000 tons when construction started, to 70,000 tons now. There won’t be much more weight increases because the first ship has had its hull largely completed and will leave dry dock next year. * * * These are the largest warships ever built in Britain"
(i) list of aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis ... s_of_the_Royal_Navy
After World War II, UK bult, in 1970s and 1980s, only three aircraft carriers of a single Invincible class. Displacement of each ship is somewhat larger than 20,000 tons.
(ii) list of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis ... _United_States_Navy
(A) The Midway-class aircarft carrier, whose lead ship (USS Midway) was commissioned in September 1945 and decommissioned in 1992, had displacement of 45,000 tons.
(B) The next was Forrestal-class aircraft carrier, designed and built in 1950s and whose lead ship was commissioned in 1955, "was the first completed class of 'supercarriers' of the Navy, so called because of their then-extraordinarily high tonnage (60,000 tons, 25% larger than the post-World War II-era Midway class).
(iii) displacement (ship)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(ship)
(c) "The current steam catapult was designed by a British naval officer in the 1950s and were essential for launching the heavier jet aircraft. The British eventually abandoned the large carriers, and steam catapults, because of cost."
aircraft catapult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult
(section 1.3 Steam catapult)
|
发表于 9-29-2013 15:08:14
收藏
分享
支持
反对
楼主