Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It could be the contractor, General Atomics, has a very effective lobbyist? Much of our Defense (?) spending is decided on which contractor or Congressional District need the money. Why do you think Navy shipbuilding was moved to Mississippi and other southern locations?
I am concerned that the defensive capability of our Carrier groups may be overestimated.
It could be the contractor, General Atomics, has a very effective lobbyist? Much of our Defense (?) spending is decided on which contractor or Congressional District need the money. Why do you think Navy shipbuilding was moved to Alabama and other southern locations?
Our shipbuilding is diversified. Rather than have one or two yards building, we have several from Maine to the Gulf coast. Some build amphibs while two build submarines and one builds carriers and others destroyers.
Al new technologies have teething issues. I would wait on this decision until it has to be made. The benefits of the electric launch system are too large to throw away in advance.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I agree. Until new technology has been proven to be superior (which this hasn't) it shouldn't be used. This sounds like a decision made by the Obama administration without regard to recommendations of military experts familiar with the systems.
Al new technologies have teething issues. I would wait on this decision until it has to be made. The benefits of the electric launch system are too large to throw away in advance.
Not being thrown away. The Ford has the new system but it is twitchy. Better to have the bugs worked out before putting lives and aircraft at risk.
The new system has many advantages over the old. Including the fact that a steam catapult has problems launching lightweight vehicles. The best way to work out technology issues is to work them on - and IMO it might as well be worked out now on a live system while the US is not at war and while there are many carriers in service as backup with steam catapults that can be used while the kinks are worked out of the new technology.
Basically, you can try to fix the old technology that is bulky and expensive, or fix the new system that is smaller and more versatile. I would choose the latter.
The new system has many advantages over the old. Including the fact that a steam catapult has problems launching lightweight vehicles. The best way to work out technology issues is to work them on - and IMO it might as well be worked out now on a live system while the US is not at war and while there are many carriers in service as backup with steam catapults that can be used while the kinks are worked out of the new technology.
Basically, you can try to fix the old technology that is bulky and expensive, or fix the new system that is smaller and more versatile. I would choose the latter.
I wouldnt want to live test such systems with pilots in the planes until it has been fully tested on a shore facility on a variety of aircraft weight. Not enough force and the jet hits the water. Too much force and it could rip off parts of the jet. Inconsistent force in too high a range would make it unreliable. And the shore testing facility should be near saltwater and receive occasional artificial saltwater showers I addition to the real showers. Test the system through the same amount of launches as a normal 6 month deployment followed by a month or two of down time maintenance and inspections of the system before doing another 6 month type deployment testing. If after a minimum of 5 years of consistent and reliable testing like this then consider building the system into a new carrier.
The new system has many advantages over the old. Including the fact that a steam catapult has problems launching lightweight vehicles. The best way to work out technology issues is to work them on - and IMO it might as well be worked out now on a live system while the US is not at war and while there are many carriers in service as backup with steam catapults that can be used while the kinks are worked out of the new technology.
Basically, you can try to fix the old technology that is bulky and expensive, or fix the new system that is smaller and more versatile. I would choose the latter.
EMALS uses a linear induction motor from around 1947-49, I remember discussing these with Eric Laithwaite in the 80's for a school project, he was mostly retired but still at Imperial College and I hadn't left high school at the time. That's pretty old tech in fact older tech than the standard steam cats used on current CATOBAR systems that date from the 50s.
So if they can't get this working by now either they're incompetent, or ripping off the tax payer, either one has the same potential for accuracy.
Further there may be advantages, but, are those advantages significant enough to delay deployment of new equipment? If your carrier cats don't work, you've just got a floating gin palace with lots of tarmac for tennis and basketball courts. It's certainly not going to function as designed nor fulfill it's operational requirements.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
