Catapults being produced for CVF

Tomahawk

Lantern Swinger
#1
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100726_1_n.shtml

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is investing in the development of an electromagnetic catapult system for the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers in case procurement of the F-35B short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike Fighter is abandoned.

Power conversion specialist Converteam UK announced on 20 July that in 2009 it was awarded a GBP650,000 (USD1 million) follow-on contract to continue the design, development and demonstration of high-power electrical systems for its EMCAT (electro-magnetic catapult) system and that work on the contract was nearing completion.

The naval director at Converteam UK, Mark Dannatt, told Jane's on 22 July that a small-scale EMCAT system had been completed in 2007 to prove the operation of modern linear motor, energy stores and control systems. Since then, extensive testing of the system has been successfully undertaken, as well as further work at the request of the MoD to enable Converteam UK to scale the system up to a full-size catapult suitable for the RN's new aircraft carriers.

"The EMCAT is designed to fit in the space envelope that has been allowed within the aircraft carrier for a catapult. The intention of building and designing a small electromagnetic catapult and then developing the technology so that it could be scaled up was always a de-risking exercise in case the MoD did not choose the STOVL aircraft or it was considered necessary to launch other types of aircraft from these ships. The option would then exist to fit a catapult and operate conventional carrier-borne aircraft," Dannatt said.
Interesting. Maybe we might get Cat + Traps and F35C after all.
 

instinct

Lantern Swinger
#2
Tomahawk said:
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100726_1_n.shtml

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is investing in the development of an electromagnetic catapult system for the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers in case procurement of the F-35B short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike Fighter is abandoned.

Power conversion specialist Converteam UK announced on 20 July that in 2009 it was awarded a GBP650,000 (USD1 million) follow-on contract to continue the design, development and demonstration of high-power electrical systems for its EMCAT (electro-magnetic catapult) system and that work on the contract was nearing completion.

The naval director at Converteam UK, Mark Dannatt, told Jane's on 22 July that a small-scale EMCAT system had been completed in 2007 to prove the operation of modern linear motor, energy stores and control systems. Since then, extensive testing of the system has been successfully undertaken, as well as further work at the request of the MoD to enable Converteam UK to scale the system up to a full-size catapult suitable for the RN's new aircraft carriers.

"The EMCAT is designed to fit in the space envelope that has been allowed within the aircraft carrier for a catapult. The intention of building and designing a small electromagnetic catapult and then developing the technology so that it could be scaled up was always a de-risking exercise in case the MoD did not choose the STOVL aircraft or it was considered necessary to launch other types of aircraft from these ships. The option would then exist to fit a catapult and operate conventional carrier-borne aircraft," Dannatt said.
Interesting. Maybe we might get Cat + Traps and F35C after all.
Plus we can sell it to the french and americans.
 
#3
Could save the MOD GBP650,000, The scousers will put the old Steam ones in :wink: Just like they did when building the old HMS Ark Royal at the Lairds :lol: :lol:
 

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#4
Correct me if I am wrong, you FAA types, but my understanding is that the old Ark's steam cats were at the very limit of their performance with the Buccaneer and the Phantom. I understand the Buc had to launch hands-off with very little window for any sort of underperformance and the Phantom had to have a completely different, longer nose oleo in order to achieve the necessary angle of attack, and more powerful engines to get it off. Plus no steam in QE2 and PoW unless a special kettle can be provided.
 
#5
Buccaneer would be much the heavier loaded weight aircraft... than the other two :wink: :wink: :wink: Built like a tank :lol:
 

nobby0919

Lantern Swinger
#6
I know at one point,1971 there was a problem with Arks catapault,piston chamber alignment between the bolted up sections.I got hauled from my pit to machine up a replacement set of piston rings.
 
#7
Seaweed said:
Correct me if I am wrong, you FAA types, but my understanding is that the old Ark's steam cats were at the very limit of their performance with the Buccaneer and the Phantom. I understand the Buc had to launch hands-off with very little window for any sort of underperformance and the Phantom had to have a completely different, longer nose oleo in order to achieve the necessary angle of attack, and more powerful engines to get it off. Plus no steam in QE2 and PoW unless a special kettle can be provided.

EMCAT uses electrickery, no steam required.
 
#8
Normong_Gruntham said:
Seaweed said:
Correct me if I am wrong, you FAA types, but my understanding is that the old Ark's steam cats were at the very limit of their performance with the Buccaneer and the Phantom. I understand the Buc had to launch hands-off with very little window for any sort of underperformance and the Phantom had to have a completely different, longer nose oleo in order to achieve the necessary angle of attack, and more powerful engines to get it off. Plus no steam in QE2 and PoW unless a special kettle can be provided.

EMCAT uses electrickery, no steam required.
Really :roll:
 
#9
Of course, unless they are extremely well shielded I think the magnetic field would create havoc with other magneto/electric sources. And would they be as efficient on a rolling/pitching deck? Course, I'm supposing similar constraints to maglev transport systems. 8)
 
#10
Here we go again. Another unproven technology that will cost millions and in all probability won't work. When will MoD learn to keep it simple/functional and buy in bulk? Instead they insist on cutting-edge kit that costs too much, the result of which is we don't get enough of it (12 T45 down to 6, Astute numbers cut, etc.)
 

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
#11
Good article on the subject in the Journal of Naval Engineering Volume 44 Number 1, December 2007. History, options and politics discussed. Some readers will have access.

Whatever we get - even if it is nothing - we'll get it wrong.

EMCAT uses electrickery, no steam required.
No shit Isambard.
 
#12
All pretty pointless speculation.Let's wait and see if any Carriers get built before arguing about the best method of firing the aircraft off the flight deck.Yes,I do know they've been started but time will tell if they ever get launched.
 
#13
fishhead said:
All pretty pointless speculation.Let's wait and see if any Carriers get built before arguing about the best method of firing the aircraft off the flight deck.Yes,I do know they've been started but time will tell if they ever get launched.
Might be just a big scam and we're actually building them for the yanks. I think they have a requirement for a light fleet attack carrier class. 8)
 

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
#14
All pretty pointless speculation.Let's wait and see if any Carriers get built before arguing about the best method of firing the aircraft off the flight deck.
Do you think so? The preferred launch method needs to be decided before the other machinery and systems are installed and the 'roof' put on, not after. A launcher of any type is not confined to the flight deck. Or am I just being a bluff old traditionalist ?

Read the article I referenced and maybe you'll understand.
 
#15
bollotom said:
Of course, unless they are extremely well shielded I think the magnetic field would create havoc with other magneto/electric sources. And would they be as efficient on a rolling/pitching deck? Course, I'm supposing similar constraints to maglev transport systems. 8)
:wink: :wink: The flight deck communication system on the old Strike carriers worked of a Electro/magnetic loop system, right round the flightdeck!!! and it didnt cause problems with any other, Electric or Magnetic sources.
 
#16
I would have thought that the first two priorities to consider when building an A/C carrier would be...

1. What do we need to get them off

2. What do we need to get them back on

Other things would then follow, on a good day

This Bl**dy thing was in design before I left the Andrew in '84
 
#17
Seaweed said:
Correct me if I am wrong, you FAA types, but my understanding is that the old Ark's steam cats were at the very limit of their performance with the Buccaneer and the Phantom. I understand the Buc had to launch hands-off with very little window for any sort of underperformance and the Phantom had to have a completely different, longer nose oleo in order to achieve the necessary angle of attack, and more powerful engines to get it off. Plus no steam in QE2 and PoW unless a special kettle can be provided.
:wink: The Buccaneer due to some handling problems during cat launch, "primarily pilot induced " a "hands off launching technique" was introduced where the pilot would not have control again until the aircraft was clear of the deck and in the air. his right palm being placed against the canopy before the FDO would gren flag him for clear to launch
 
#18
scouse said:
bollotom said:
Of course, unless they are extremely well shielded I think the magnetic field would create havoc with other magneto/electric sources. And would they be as efficient on a rolling/pitching deck? Course, I'm supposing similar constraints to maglev transport systems. 8)
:wink: :wink: The flight deck communication system on the old Strike carriers worked of a Electro/magnetic loop system, right round the flightdeck!!! and it didnt cause problems with any other, Electric or Magnetic sources.
Aye, Scouse, but I doubt it had to launch a shipborne aircraft :D
 
#19
WreckerL said:
Normong_Gruntham said:
Seaweed said:
Correct me if I am wrong, you FAA types, but my understanding is that the old Ark's steam cats were at the very limit of their performance with the Buccaneer and the Phantom. I understand the Buc had to launch hands-off with very little window for any sort of underperformance and the Phantom had to have a completely different, longer nose oleo in order to achieve the necessary angle of attack, and more powerful engines to get it off. Plus no steam in QE2 and PoW unless a special kettle can be provided.

EMCAT uses electrickery, no steam required.
Really :roll:

Your reading comprehension seems to be somewhat lacking therefore I shall highlight the part where the poster was questioning the lack of steam generation capacity in CVF.
 
#20
Seadog said:
Good article on the subject in the Journal of Naval Engineering Volume 44 Number 1, December 2007. History, options and politics discussed. Some readers will have access.

Whatever we get - even if it is nothing - we'll get it wrong.

EMCAT uses electrickery, no steam required.
No shit Isambard.

I refer to my reply to WreckerL
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
dublinclontarf The Fleet 14
K Current Affairs 1
P The Fleet 37

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top