If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by Skipjack »

From the video I posted earlier, it seems like the Avenger C can take off from an aircraft carrier too. But that might just be marketing.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by GIThruster »

All of them can take off and land on carriers of all kinds. The question is whether this does damage to the airframe. If you'll read back in this folder, I posted the info on why the X-47b cannot trap on a CVN. It is too light and stops too quickly. That is the official story from the Pentagon. This does not mean they will not have one so land. Whether they really are too light to land or not, I'm sure they'd do it just to know they could do it. This doesn't make it operationally advisable. There do seem to be very good reasons for the new EM system, for stuff both lighter and heavier than fighters; in addition to the fact the new system is lighter, smaller, cheaper, lower maintenance, lower manpower, etc.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

No, they all can't "take off and land from Carriers of all kinds."

I don' t know what you are thinking here. Some yes, all no.

As for the X-47B, please cite a source from the Pentagon saying what you are saying.

The X-47B was purpose built for CVN ops.

X-47B Operations

Nice (Large) Photo of X-47B conducintg Arrested Landing on CVN
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by GIThruster »

I don't need to cite it. Read back in this thread. I'm pretty sure we had this conversation six months ago when it first landed on a CVN, and I did cite the source.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

I posted the info on why the X-47b cannot trap on a CVN. It is too light and stops too quickly. That is the official story from the Pentagon.
This is not true. Please provide the citation.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by paperburn1 »

Perhaps what GIT was thinking was the program was shelved for a spell when they had software problems. It had nothing to do with air frame issues.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/56f18a9fc6e2
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

Speaking of Drones at Sea:
I don't remember talking about this here.
From December:
The drone, or unmanned aerial system, was launched from a torpedo tube on the USS Providence
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/us/submar ... le_sidebar
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by Skipjack »

ladajo wrote:Speaking of Drones at Sea:
I don't remember talking about this here.
From December:
The drone, or unmanned aerial system, was launched from a torpedo tube on the USS Providence
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/us/submar ... le_sidebar
Groovy!

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by GIThruster »

ladajo wrote:
I posted the info on why the X-47b cannot trap on a CVN. It is too light and stops too quickly. That is the official story from the Pentagon.
This is not true. Please provide the citation.
The last time someone said this was not true, I posted that I had already posted to this effect, then went and found another source that said the same thing. How many times do you suggest I do the same search?

Please go to page 18 in this thread and read the post copied from defense-update.com. All UAV's are below the minimum weight for both steam cats and steam arrest systems. This means they do damage to those airframes because they stop and start too quickly. This does not mean one can't stop and start too quickly, but if DOD is reporting the actual facts here (always in doubt) then repeated use of steam will cause failures on all UAV's.

I think the first time we looked at this issue was when the first X-47b landed on a CVN. No report whether they ever launched it again, nor even if there was enough left to launch.

Personally, I think it would have been silly for N-G to have built a UAV that can't repeatedly land on a CVN, but this is what DOD says. Could be they just want to push for more Ford class, but could be they're misreporting the facts, or several other things.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

Git,
You are just wrong here about the catapults.

You are citing a website that is not government and saying it is.

http://defense-update.com/20131109_cvn- ... nched.html
Increased control means that EMALS will be able to launch both heavier and lighter aircraft than the steam catapult. Also, the use of a controlled force will reduce the stress on airframes, resulting in less maintenance and a longer lifetime for the airframe. The current system is unable to capture UAVs without damaging them due to extreme stresses on the airframe. UAVs do not have the necessary mass to drive the large hydraulic piston used to trap heavier manned planes. By using electromagnetics the energy absorption is controlled by a turbo-electric engine. This makes the trap smoother and reduces shock on airframes.
They are wrong. The X-47B has multiple shots and traps. And continues its test program. The navy is even considering expanding the test program to explore additional thoughts.

You glossed over, almost completely ignoring content from a guy who actually worked as mini-boss. (Who is a Commander by the way, not an LT.)

You also ignore what I have said, and I am not speaking from a vacuum either.

Here is what Gary said (on page 18):
Concerning the steam catapults and launching drones. Currently, the T-45 Goshawk trainer jet is launched all the time and has an empty weight of 10k and max of 14K. The X-47B Avenger has an empty weight of 14K and max of 44K. (Numbers from wiki) When warming up the catapults and testing them, we shoot what are called "no-loads". Basically, exactly what it sounds like, shoot the catapult with nothing attached. The setting on the catapult when shooting no loads is higher than the setting used to shoot the T-45 on many occasions.

Conclusion, there are no limitations on today's (or soon to be yesterday's) steam catapults.
You are clinging to the airframe bit now, and that is not correct for X-47B either. It is true of UAVs NOT designed for CVN ops, as we have stated many times in agreement. X-47B was built for CVN ops, and it has been doing CVN ops. It was not a one shot wonder. The test program continues.

At this point, you either concede you are wrong, or I advise you go on your merry way and stop commenting on something you don't know about.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ltgbrown
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ltgbrown »

Just to further elaborate and clarify. First, I was a LT when I got my alias of LTGBrown. I was LT Glenn Brown. Now I am a CDR.

I will have to agree with GIT that non-carrier based UAVs are not capable of handling a carrier catapult launch or arrested landing. However, what was said is that all UAVs cannot handle it. With the X-47B, that statement is no longer true as Ladajo (and others) have made clear through photos and links.

What I was trying to show was that the statement "all UAVs" cannot be operated by today's steam catapults and arresting gear because of the catapults' and arresting gears' inability to handle such light aircraft was simply not true by comparing the weights of the (currently) smallest aircraft operated from a carrier regularly (T-45 Goshawk) and the X-47b; a purpose built demonstrator UAV for operating from a carrier. The combination of my weight comparisons and that my personal experience of operating the catapults and arresting gear was meant to puts this statement to bed. (By the way, GlobalHawk has a Gross Take-off Weight: 32,250 lbs. Approximately 3 times the Goshawk.)

Again, UAVs not designed to operate from carriers (which is all of them except the X-47b) cannot operate from a carrier (meaning use catapults and arresting gear) without (with a very high degree certainty) sustaining structural damage. That damage is not due to any limitation of current catapult or arresting gear performance/capability solely, but to the fact that the system of catapult-arresting gear and aircraft were not designed to operate together. All carrier based aircraft (including the X-47B UAV) are designed with the catapult and arresting gear in mind. If an aircraft wasn't designed for it, of course it is going to get damaged trying to do it.

Does EMALS lessen the strain on airframes because of smoother acceleration that is sustained during the entire stroke vice a steam catapult in which a majority is the first 25-50%? Yes, but not so much that today's UAVs (other than the X-47B) can suddenly be launched from EMAL equipped carriers. Does the AAG provide more control during the arrested landing and thus allow for programing the stress level on the airframe and thus reduce airframe fatigue? Absolutely. But again, not so much that today's UAVs (other than the X-47B) can suddenly do arrested landings on AAG equipped carriers without sustaining damage.

Notice I kept saying catapult launches and arrested landings. Not that long ago, we did deck runs. Taxi to the round down (back of the boat), align with the centerline of the landing area. Increase wind over the deck (i.e. make the boat go faster). Rev the engines. Release the brakes and go. 700 feet or so later, airborne. Chances are, most of today's UAVs could do this too. Put 50 knots of wind over the deck and good number can probably land without using the arresting gear. So, they probably could operate from a carrier without sustaining airframe damage. The problem is the margins of error would be pretty darn small and therefore unacceptable. We still have deck launching charts in the E-2 Hawkeye NATOPS, but it has been decades since any have ever done it.

So, today's non-designed-to-operate-from-carrier UAVs would be damaged by today's and tomorrow's catapults and arresting gear. Today's designed-to-operate-from-carrier UAVs (i.e. X-47B) would not be damaged by today's and tomorrow's catapults and arresting gear.
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

Glenn, I apologize for typing your name wrong. I said Gary by mistake. I was unconsciously thinking of an old friend Gary Brown, who has nothing to do with the topic or you.

I also have and will continue to agree with what you said. Especially your synopsis:
So, today's non-designed-to-operate-from-carrier UAVs would be damaged by today's and tomorrow's catapults and arresting gear. Today's designed-to-operate-from-carrier UAVs (i.e. X-47B) would not be damaged by today's and tomorrow's catapults and arresting gear.
I also avoided discussion of non-assisted take-off & recovery ops on purpose. It opens an entire world of discussion about what can/could operate (or not) from a CNV deck that I thought was not needed, nor in some contexts appropriate.
I don't know why Git is insisting that X-47B is not deck capable. Even after so much evidence to the contrary. I honestly think he made a Google mistake thinking he was reading DoD/DoN copy when he was not.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by GIThruster »

ladajo wrote:I don't know why Git is insisting that X-47B is not deck capable. Even after so much evidence to the contrary.
I didn't. I'm just reporting what the Pentagon has been saying for ages and what I have posted about here several times. Go back through the thread if you like or do your own search. The official DOD story is, the X-47b can't be operated from the CVN because of the steam system. As I have said, in this context, several times now, DOD routinely misreports their capability as a matter of policy. Wiki is almost NEVER right when it comes to the real stats of ships, for example. Since WWII, this has been DOD's method, and the Soviet method has been the opposite: to report capabilities they don't have. So don't make too much of the statements, and note too, that if indeed the X-47b were not designed to take the abuse of a steam cat, we would have one landing and launching on one anyway, just so see how long it lasts. So pointing to a single event does not reflect real operational capabilities.

And yes certainly, I bow to the Commander's superior knowledge. I was not disregarding nor glossing over what he said. I just noted that his prior analysis looked at weight only, and the issue is a combination of the weight of the vehicle and its structural integrity. Even Super Hornets suffer metal fatigue over time, primarily from trapping and launching. Everything wears out. It is inevitable. The real question for operations is, how long does it take for something like an X-74b to wear out.

BTW, so of the defense update wording is identical to that on wiki, which says this:

Control problems with the system results in minimum and maximum weight limits. The minimum weight limit is above the weight of all UAVs. An inability to launch the latest additions to the Naval air forces is a restriction on operations that cannot continue into the next generation of aircraft carriers. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) provides solutions to all these problems .[citation needed] An electromagnetic system is more efficient, smaller, lighter, more powerful, and easier to control. Increased control means that EMALS will be able to launch both heavier and lighter aircraft than the steam catapult. Also, the use of a controlled force will reduce the stress on airframes, resulting in less maintenance and a longer lifetime for the airframe. Unfortunately the power limitations for the Nimitz class make the installation of the recently developed EMALS impossible.

Electromagnetics will also be used in the new Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) system. The current system relies on hydraulics to slow and stop a landing aircraft. While effective, as demonstrated by more than fifty years of implementation, the AAG system offers a number of improvements. The current system is unable to capture UAVs without damaging them due to extreme stresses on the airframe. UAVs do not have the necessary mass to drive the large hydraulic piston used to trap heavier manned planes. By using electromagnetics the energy absorption is controlled by a turbo-electric engine. This makes the trap smoother and reduces shock on airframes. Even though the system will look the same from the flight deck as its predecessor, it will be more flexible, safer, and more reliable, and will require less maintenance and manning.[28]
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

BTW, so of the defense update wording is identical to that on wiki, which says this:
Git,
"Defence Update" is a prviate site, it is NOT DoD. That someone copied that article content into wiki is not surprising, and does not make it right.
Just to be clear, so I can check the wiki [28] cited reference for sourcing, I looked at both EMALS and X-47B wikis, and they are do not have what you say. Can you provide a link to the wiki you are talking about?
X-47B is just fine operating from CVNs. It is not a one time deal. They have done multiple recoveries and plan to do more. The test program continues this year.

I am glad you (at least partially) bow to Glenn's experience given he has put it right out there.
I too have some experience in this, not anything like Glenn's, but more than the average bear. I thought you might have figured that out by now.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by GIThruster »

ladajo wrote:Can you provide a link to the wiki you are talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._ ... ft_carrier

6th paragraph down under Launch and landing systems.

And yes, these defense rags are not the same as official DoD policy, but they are usually based on policy and the wiki piece does provide the link to the proper reference. But again just saying, DoD deliberately misreports stuff like this as a matter of standing policy. There are Navy sites online where all the guys do is complain that every ship they've served on is misreported on wiki. Wiki is almost never right, because we don't want folks to know how much power a reactor puts out, or how fast a ship really is. I think it's perfectly reasonable and likely that wiki says UAV's can't operate off CVN's as part of this ongoing strategy. I mean, why else would N-G build the X-47b the way they did when they know it will be 5 years for each new Ford class to go into service? They want to sell drones now, not 30 years from now. Also note they SAY these EM launch and trap systems supposedly cannot be operated without the new reactor for the Ford class, but do we really KNOW this, or is this again part of DoD's strategy? The CVN's are expected to serve for decades yet. Is it reasonable to presume they won't get a reactor upgrade or perhaps even just the EM launch and trap systems? And how much of this is what Newport News wants the Pentagon to think?

No way to know from here, that I can see. . .
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Post Reply