Carrier can't handle steam catapults

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by dublinclontarf, Sep 10, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Came across an audit that was done 18 months ago, and was discovered that they can't fit steam cats onto the new carriers. To do so would have required it to be built in from the hull up(which was not done).

    Now they're only left with the possibility of using ElectroMagnetic cats, which to say the least aren't exactly working as of yet.

    So where did this "built for but not with" claptrap come from when the carriers were first being mooted?
     
  2. Are you terminally bored?
     
  3. You're mistaken, CVF has been designed with HUGE empty compartments specifically for fitting steam catapaults.
     
  4. I thought Sea Harriers didn't need cats
     
  5. I didn't know they were coming back into service.
     
  6. Cheap alternative to the F35 :lol:
     
  7. [​IMG]
     
  8. [​IMG]


    Why go the the expense of mechanics. The original WAFU. :D
     
  9. [​IMG]

    How about training WAFUs to chuck these off the pointy end?
     
  10. This can be installed after construction. :roll:




    [​IMG]
     
  11. The issue with steam cats is the number of bods needed to look after them, for which there isn't accommodation. There is plenty of room to put in steam plant down below (and it can be shipped through the shell - just as done for Ocean's new pyrolysis plant) - the issue is the people. The design is probably too light on accommodation for the numbers of chockheads, bombheads etc needed to run a large CAG in any case, but that's not at the same scale as the number required to run 2 off C13 cats.
     
  12. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    My understanding is that steam cats are fairly inefficient, and were out to a clench for the Phantom in 1970, which is why the RN Phantoms had to be redesigned at vast cost. That's one reason why the US is going for a different type of cat. The other is that the steam cat is too brutal for unmanned vehicles and a type with a wider range of performance setting is needed. But discussion welcomed on all this.
     
  13. The BS6 cats on Ark were comparatively short compared to their US equivalents (C7 & C11 IIRC) at the time, which is why the F4K needed the extra nose gear extension. Lack of grunt is not a recognised problm for steam cats, particularly if you have an accumulator close to the cat, kept recharged by a nuclear steam plant! The US C13s happily got 33 ton F14s off the deck (without burner in the D-model).

    The controllability factor is valuable - the idea being you can reduce the load on the nose tow by gradually ramping up the acceleration, instead of opening the valves and pretty much getting 4-4.5 g straight away.
     
  14. Lets just hope we get two carrier decks to launch from, and that they get based in Pompey
    [​IMG]
     
  15. quoting from the official line: "The integration of an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) will be considered for the CVF as the technology matures." [​IMG]
     

Share This Page