have only Great Britain and Russia used ramped deck carriers?
Is this design only for the use of jump jets? The Squadron link below shows the russian carrier with Mig-29's and am wondering how well they take off on such a deck....and if it is a better way than why has the USA not tried it....
Just curious btwn bites of Doritos and a bologna sandwich at my desk at work.
Craig
Im sure the RN we modified to allow SHARs to take off with its heavier load, could be wrong, i usually am
The ramp deck concept is a limited design in comparison to the traditional angle deck flattop. USN big carriers are expensive and time consuming expenditures of national resources requiring stable and ample political support. They are also indispensable weapons systems as has been proven time and time again since WWII.
The RN abandoned big carrier doctrine for their own reasons and the Soviets never fully embraced naval air power. Between the two, one with limited funds and the other with limited interest, was born the V/TOL carrier. A gap design? You betcha. Better than a traditional flattop in one respect I suppose -- I'd cry considerably less if I lost one of those as opposed to one of my Nimitz class floating airbases.
I wonder if the Euros will return to the carrier fold with their own version of carpooling. Seven captains for seven rudders? ;-)
WmB
To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net
Well the RN is planning two "real" carriers and France has one and is planning a second. Also Brasil has an ex French carrier.
Is France going to build the second one before or after the first one is serviceable?
The US still has the USS Constitution from the early 1800s - doesn't make the USN a sailing navy. ;-)
WmB
To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net
Hi Craig,
I'm by no means an expert but I believe the principle of the ski jump allows a greater load to be carried without the need for steam catapults, it allows the aircraft to leave the deck in an upward direction in a ballistic trajectory, it also gives the pilot more time to eject in the event of a mishap.
In the British / Indian / Italian / Spanish & Thai Navy's ski jump carriers are used for STO runs by Harriers, that then recover vertically after the mission, whereas in the Russian navy the Mig 29 and Su 27 use their massive take off thrust and launch without catapults, but then recover aboard via traditional arrestor hooks / wires just as in the traditional carriers.
The Russian carriers were / are significantly larger than the Harrier carriers, but are not as large as the US supercarriers.
HTH
Ant 'Standing on the shoulders of giants'
In article , who me? writes
India fitted one to "Vikrant", I think, and inherited one on "Viraat" (ex-"Herpes"), I think the Spanish have one on "Principe de Asturias", and maybe the Thais on their Harrier Carrier, but not the Italians on theirs.
It's not a better way than a catapult, but a catapult is a complex piece of kit - if you can get your fixed-wing assets off the deck with a useful load without a catapult, so much the better. The Harrier is little different to a normal aircraft on a rolling take-off, and not only Fulcrums but Flankers and Frogfoots used the Russian ski-jump, but I don't think the Forger could - IIRC, it was straight up-and-down only.
Regards,
About the only nations not using ski-jumps are the U.S. and France.
The whole idea is to "toss" the airplane into the air, buying more time for its own engines to accelerate it. Doing this lets you get rid of catapults - which are expensive, and only the U.S. Navy has the know-how to make them - but ties you down to airplanes with high thrust-weight ratios. Which plays hob with your choice of AEW, ASW, COD, tanker, etc. assets.
V/R: Mike McDaniel
Which ski-jump carriers have any of those assets apart from limited heliborne ASW capability?
I believe the Italians have one as well. I think...
I think it's the other way around - the requirement for high gross takeoff weights (due to high stores count) leads to high thrust requirement which obviates any kind of VSTOL incorporation.
Just look at how much more an F/A-18 (of any kind) can both carry and/or bring back than a Harrier.
"The steam catapult was invented in 1952 by Britain's Royal Navy to improve the launch of the era's new jet airplanes from carriers. Steam catapults draw their power directly from the heat of the ship's engines."
RN also invented the angled flight deck and landing mirror.
BTW steam catapults are to be phased out in favour of electric gizzmos
Running one of the best naval fighters ever!
Even though it is not supersonic the Sea Harrier is still one of the best naval fighters ever built
RN only non copter is the Harrier
AEW Seaking ASW Seaking and Merlin COD ????? tanker none
Too bad they're all prematurely headed for the scrap heap. :(
The Ski-jump was invented by Doug Taylor to increase the maximum take-off weight for the non-catapult-stressed Harrier from the non-catapult-equipped "through-deck cruisers" that are the RN's carrier force. The Harrier can carry less load in a VTO that it can from a land base using CTO. Doug's idea was to get the best advantage out of a short take-off from the carrier deck. The technique only works with vectored thrust, because the aircraft is still well below flying speed when it leaves the ramp. The nozzles are set fully rearwards to start the manoeuvre, so as to gain maximum foreward speed while the deck is holding you up. The ski-jump adds some vertical speed, and the nozzles are snapped down (to about 70 degrees, I think, to keep the forward acceleration going) to give jet lift until wing-borne flying speed is reached. The link below has some more information, near the bottom.
The Russians used a ski-jump on their Kuznetsov class carriers with the non-vectored-thrust Su-27K, apparantly because they had no experience with building steam catapults. The last of the Kiev-class, Admiral Gorshkov, has been sold to India with Su-27K's and a ski-jump is to be fitted.
The STOVL version of JSF is designed for ski-jump launch, or, to put it another way, is not stressed for catapult launch.
I suspect it's because the Marines always intend to deploy their Harriers ashore as soon as possible in order to keep them in close proximity to their ground forces.
The Russians proposed using steam catapults on some of their carrier designs such as the Project 1160 (3 x catapults) and the Project 1153 (2 x catapults).
The predecessor design to the Admiral Kuznetsov (Project 1143.5) had provision for two bow cats.
To gain experience, the Soviets actually built a working steam catapult.
The aircraft > An >
Your guess is as goos as mine Al, maybe they have learned how to make the propeller blades stay on the propellor this time! It seems that they intend to cooperate with the brits and build a conventional fueled one now.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.