Trump wants 'god****ed steam’ catapults on new aircraft carriers

[PirateMk1]

clearly you did not understand what I said.

I said that the MTBF of the emal or mag cat system, is 1000X worse than the competing tech, the steam cat.

As to how they test it, it is being tested on several platforms which are not fully commissioned ships. One I know of is a runway on a military base on an island just off the coast of NC. It is a good Naval test bed, because it is close to infrastruction but outside of civilian traffic patterns, and puts the hardware in a 24/7 harsh salt spray environment.

There is a robotic, warehouse test facility just running the hardware over and over and over as well.

Beyond that, I don't know, its been years since I did that kind of work.


I think you misunderstand my position.

I love high energy magnetic circuit design. It is a very challenging and esoteric type of technical work. That said, it is a tech in its early stages, and it is currently very unreliable, and due to its inherent nature, may never become highly reliable or durable.

Ferites are brittle, always.

Anyway, Trump did the right thing in demanding we go back to steam cats for the time being.

I can say that with confidence, because I've personally worked with the tech for years, and know its quirks.

I love playing with high voltage, high energy, magnetic field driven, ion pulsers. That doesn't mean there will every be much of a demand for them.


-

Out of curiosity why are they have problems with temp rise and the ability to control the launch parameters. With an electric catapult which is a linear motor, you should be able to control precisely the amount of force applied to the aircraft at any given point of the track such that you could do logarithmic acceleration curves or even more complex optimized force application to each individual aircraft. Theoretically you should have far more control that a simple pressure system would.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

This isn't actually related to the thread, but did you know that steam turbines are a perfected and still-utilized technology for the creation of electricity in power plants? True story.

Burn coal, create steam.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Burn coal, create steam.

Actually, even our most modern nuclear powered ships are really just steam ships.

 

[Aberration]

Out of curiosity why are they have problems with temp rise and the ability to control the launch parameters. With an electric catapult which is a linear motor, you should be able to control precisely the amount of force applied to the aircraft at any given point of the track such that you could do logarithmic acceleration curves or even more complex optimized force application to each individual aircraft. Theoretically you should have far more control that a simple pressure system would.

Thats not necessarily true. I have worked on both linear motors and pneumatics that controlled to the picometer. In both it was the position measuring system, and air gap bearings that provided the accuracy. When looking at a plane catapult I cant see why such accuracy would be needed. And the only benefit I ever witnessed with linear motors was dynamic breaking and a better ability to change direction. Still just a matter of engineering. In the end it was easier to run power cables than pneumatic lines. The downfall of the linear motors I worked on was always cooling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ludin]

They said the same thing with the nuke sub force which took 25 years to develop while they were still in use. (noise)

This isn't 25 years ago.

 

[ludin]

The Ford class is not going to enter service for a couple years. The idea that since new technology doesn't work perfectly 100% of the time we should just shelve it is ridiculous.

Since no one has said that I don't know what your point is.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Out of curiosity why are they have problems with temp rise and the ability to control the launch parameters. With an electric catapult which is a linear motor, you should be able to control precisely the amount of force applied to the aircraft at any given point of the track such that you could do logarithmic acceleration curves or even more complex optimized force application to each individual aircraft. Theoretically you should have far more control that a simple pressure system would.

Lets assume for the sake of manufacturing and mounting simplicty, all of the magnetic modules, each about 22 cm long, along the 60 m track, are identical. That is usually the case.

As the aircraft accelerates along its path, the dwell time on each 22 cm cell gets shorter and shorter. Which means the corresponding expansion and contraction of the pulsed magnetic field, at first attacting, as the shuttle (piece which is pulling the plane) approaches, and then repelling, as the shuttle passes and moves away, out of field coupling distance...

With the rapidly decreasing timing, each cell needs to fire at an increasing rate of pulse rise and fall, and ever shortening pulse width. Well, magnetic fields of any significant strength do NOT like to change rapidly!

Another approach is to have the cells, in groups, get ever smaller, which works up to a point, but significantly smaller cells, will not produce high power fields, they cannot handle the throughput at the interfaces, over heat and burn up. So, with this design approach, the tail end of the mag cat's fling gets exponentially less effective and worth the trouble of even attempting to continue to pump energy into the system.

So, in most designs it is a bit of both, ever shortening pulse width, and physically shrinking cell size. But the Shuttle half of the paired field coupling mechanism is fixed, or at best, has a selection of a few cell sizes, used in turns, at different phases of the run.

So, you can only get so much from the system, and at the tail end of the run, things fall apart.

Now, in a rail gun, all of the early accel is done by a separate section of "Barrel" with completely different scales and core materials. In the really high speed sections, it is all done air-core, with no core magnetic permiability enhancements... energy expensive, that is...

There is no simple answer, which is what makes the tech so damn interesting.

Probably the biggest mistake people make, who say things like, "its just a linear Motor, Don't make it damn complicated"...

Their biggest mistake, they're thinking in terms of a constant speed linear motor... this isn't !


-

 

[DA60]

They said the same thing with the nuke sub force which took 25 years to develop while they were still in use. (noise)

Exactly.

And jet engines were in development for a LONG time (many years) before they got them working more-or-less properly without sucking an INCREDIBLE amount of fuel.

Are people suggesting they would rather take 10-12 hours to fly to London from NYC via internal combustion, prop engines, rather than the current 7 or so...with a LOT more engine failures along the way (jets fail far, FAR less than internal combustion prop engines do).
And remember (I know you know all this stuff RetiredUSN - this is for others), a turboprop engine is NOT an internal combustion engine...it is more like a jet engine with a propeller on the front.


Patience people. Let the Navy work the bugs out of this new technology.

And what is the big deal anyway? The Navy has TEN other aircraft carriers in service - ALL of them with that 80+ year old technology, steam catapults many of you seem to love SO much. This is just on ONE carrier...that is not even in service yet.
It's not like America will be defenseless on the waves if this technology does not work.

Sheesh...talk about over reacting.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Exactly.

And jet engines were in development for a LONG time (many years) before they got them working more-or-less properly without sucking an INCREDIBLE amount of fuel.

Are people suggesting they would rather take 10-12 hours to fly to London from NYC via internal combustion, prop engines, rather than the current 7 or so...with a LOT more engine failures along the way (jets fail far, FAR less than internal combustion prop engines do).
And remember (I know you know all this stuff RetiredUSN - this is for others), a turboprop engine is NOT an internal combustion engine...it is more like a jet engine with a propeller on the front.


Patience people. Let the Navy work the bugs out of this new technology.

And what is the big deal anyway? The Navy has TEN other aircraft carriers in service - ALL of them with that 80+ year old technology, steam catapults many of you seem to love SO much. This is just on ONE carrier...that is not even in service yet.
It's not like America will be defenseless on the waves if this technology does not work.

Sheesh...talk about over reacting.

The Freak'n Arrogance, Calousness, and Illogic of this statement is astounding.

I wouldn't want my wife/husband/son/daughter deployed into the Aircraft Carrier Task Force which cannot consistently launch planes... would you!?

This isn't a Carnaval Cruise Ship!!!

People DIE when a Carrier cannot launch planes.

-

 

[DA60]

The Freak'n Arrogance, Calousness, and Illogic of this statement is astounding.

I wouldn't want my wife/husband/son/daughter deployed into the Aircraft Carrier Task Force which cannot consistently launch planes... would you!?

This isn't a Carnaval Cruise Ship!!!

People DIE when a Carrier cannot launch planes.

-

Hello!?!

Is the U.S.S. Pardon Nixon/Gerald R. Ford in service yet?

No...DUH.

And she is not to be first deployed until 2019!!! That is what 'trials' are for.

Again...DUH.

So stop screaming until she is in service AND you have reports AT THAT TIME that the launch system is working BADLY.

Now please go and hyperventilate on someone else.

 

[bluesmoke]

Yet again you are clueless - I don't care about your unneeded verbiage.

Specify what I am clueless about and why. Back up your own words. You refute what I say without a single fact. Please, give me something to dispute, to argue, to debate. What are your facts to support "unneeded verbiage" and "clueless" terms that you claim? Let alone, give an honest and direct response to the whole of my last post to you. Which you conveniently skip over.

 

[bluesmoke]

Another painfully stupid post devoid of common sense.

Do you have any evidence to bring to this debate? I can't decide what is put in play to be stupid or of common sense until it has been put into play. You, have put nothing into play of fact or evidence. Try.

 

[bluesmoke]

Many people here are going to have to raise their ballcap visors or your post will sail right over their heads! Well played, Sir/Madam!

Thanks for the Sir/Madam part, Sir/Madam.

 

[beerftw]

No it hasn't. It had a rocky development because it was quite literally a brand new concept, but anyone who expects new technology to work perfectly right off the bat is stupid.




The AAG issues have largely been sorted out thanks to extensive testing Lakenhurst, and either way, there's still a couple years before the Ford actually enters service.

Steam catapults were around for so long because there was no better alternative, even though by it's down design it was an expensive, difficult to maintain, and dangerous piece of equipment.

Rocky devopement is a fancy way of saying it failed to work in the short time frame given.

I personally think the system will do well in the future, I am just against pushing it before it has worked out it's bugs. If it gets pushed back a decade to correct those problems so be it, I would rather wait a decade and have a groundbreaking system that is reliable rather than pushing it out half tested and having the russians laugh at us because we were in such a hurry to one up everyone.

Oh and the generators on the ford class a while ago had a turbine blow up, not too big an issue as they could just replace the rubines, but they realized then there was no way to remove a generator without dosmantling a ship, meaning a much greater generator failure would require ripping the ship apart, as the engineers never thought about having to replace them during their design phases.

 

[Nilly]

But we didn't take our Diesel-Electric Boats out of service until long after the Rickover Pile Nuke boats were a decade into proven service!

We only have a few Aircraft Carriers, and they are the quintessential tool of projecting military power into foreign countries, without invasion.

-

If they are the quintessential tool then why do we have 13 and no-one else has more than 1.

Air carriers are a relic of the past. They are huuuuge money sinks and provide high value targets that these days they can be sunk relatively easily.

 

[beerftw]

Yes, and they need to work out a way to have a single carrier with both systems as side by side redundant backups to each other.


And there is yet another issue, no one here has touched on.

We KNOW how steam cat systems fair under BATTLE-STRESS conditions...

Damage to disable, repairtimes, reliability after battle damage, volume and type of spares required... the works.

We've only got projections about the electric system.

We can TEST the system under simulated battle conditions, but it ain't near the same!

Nobody knows how well the electric system is going to work, under Battle-Stress.

It might work allot better... or not!

-

I do not think side by side systems will work, they just need to push back emals until it is perfected, and maybe have 1 or 2 ships with it for feild testing.

When I was a kid I used to go on the uss inchon a lot, my father was on that ship and they had a lot of tours and family events there. I can tell you now space is a premium on a carrier or any navy ship. It is like a city floating on the ocean, depending on the size can carry around 6000 people, supplies and food for those 6000 people for much longer than their states sea fare, fuel to far exceed what they need for their planned trip, backup parts for aircraft, generators, tools, computers etc.

They are out at sea often 6 months at a time between ports, and they need to store far longer in supplies incase of emergency or bad weather or even extra food if a freezer fails. Those ships are already pushing the limits of what they can hold. I saw where my father would sleep as a chief petty officer, and man privates in the army got way more room, I am talking a prison style fold out bed, a foot locker and not much else.

So as you can see, a carrier is already stuffing 10 pounds into a five pound sack, trying to throw an extra 5 pounds in it is a bad idea.

 

[beerftw]

Pretty much my thoughts as well. Why give up because something isn't functioning perfectly?

I do not say give it up, rather just push it back so it can be perfected.

 

[VanceMack]

In reading some of the history of this system, it seems the Brits cancelled orders for the EMALS system for a couple of reasons. Primarily...1, the cost is double what was anticipated and 2, the problems noted with EMALS system from 2014...3 years ago...are still unresolved.

Yes...emerging technology takes time to perfect. Take the F35, for example.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I do not think side by side systems will work, they just need to push back emals until it is perfected, and maybe have 1 or 2 ships with it for feild testing.

When I was a kid I used to go on the uss inchon a lot, my father was on that ship and they had a lot of tours and family events there. I can tell you now space is a premium on a carrier or any navy ship. It is like a city floating on the ocean, depending on the size can carry around 6000 people, supplies and food for those 6000 people for much longer than their states sea fare, fuel to far exceed what they need for their planned trip, backup parts for aircraft, generators, tools, computers etc.

They are out at sea often 6 months at a time between ports, and they need to store far longer in supplies incase of emergency or bad weather or even extra food if a freezer fails. Those ships are already pushing the limits of what they can hold. I saw where my father would sleep as a chief petty officer, and man privates in the army got way more room, I am talking a prison style fold out bed, a foot locker and not much else.

So as you can see, a carrier is already stuffing 10 pounds into a five pound sack, trying to throw an extra 5 pounds in it is a bad idea.

The Inchon never carried 6000, even when the Marines were packed in. I retired off the "CHON"

 

[beerftw]

The Inchon never carried 6000, even when the Marines were packed in. I retired off the "CHON"

I said up to depending on the ship, I have no actual idea how much the inchon carried, I knew it had a lot, The largest ones carry around 6k people, but the inchon was not one of the super carriers.

 

[eohrnberger]

Stream vs the new electromagnetic system?

I'll leave it to those in the Navy that have to live with the decision to make that decision, so that'd be the admirals and the captains of the aircraft carriers.

Common sense would dictate that those closest to the actual use of the thing would have the greatest insight as to the most correct decision.

 

[sookster]

I'm confused on what the big deal is about. I'm not in big favor for Trump, but I actually agree with him on using a steam based system. It's been around for decades, we have perfected the technology - what are we to gain on a new "digital" system?

 

[RetiredUSN]

If they are the quintessential tool then why do we have 13 and no-one else has more than 1.

Air carriers are a relic of the past. They are huuuuge money sinks and provide high value targets that these days they can be sunk relatively easily.

They are not relics of the past. They, in combination with other class ships are superb platforms for projecting offensive actions without a land base. They can reach out 800-900 miles.

When SHTF, our carriers are the first on scene.

And, No.............. they cannot be sunk relatively easy, as they are the most compartmentalized ships on the ocean and it would take many torpedoes to get the job done. Perhaps you should learn what compartmentalization is and how it works before you make a claim about being easily sunk.

THE US Navy has the best ASW capabilities in the world and it would be hard for a enemy sub to get close enough to get off a shot before they are killed.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I said up to depending on the ship, I have no actual idea how much the inchon carried, I knew it had a lot, The largest ones carry around 6k people, but the inchon was not one of the super carriers.

You did.....and I stand corrected.

 

[Rexedgar]

I do not think side by side systems will work, they just need to push back emals until it is perfected, and maybe have 1 or 2 ships with it for feild testing.

When I was a kid I used to go on the uss inchon a lot, my father was on that ship and they had a lot of tours and family events there. I can tell you now space is a premium on a carrier or any navy ship. It is like a city floating on the ocean, depending on the size can carry around 6000 people, supplies and food for those 6000 people for much longer than their states sea fare, fuel to far exceed what they need for their planned trip, backup parts for aircraft, generators, tools, computers etc.

They are out at sea often 6 months at a time between ports, and they need to store far longer in supplies incase of emergency or bad weather or even extra food if a freezer fails. Those ships are already pushing the limits of what they can hold. I saw where my father would sleep as a chief petty officer, and man privates in the army got way more room, I am talking a prison style fold out bed, a foot locker and not much else.

So as you can see, a carrier is already stuffing 10 pounds into a five pound sack, trying to throw an extra 5 pounds in it is a bad idea.

That's exactly why a carrier sets sail with a 'group' of support vessels, kinda like an 'armada.'