tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-276057499002903761.post3746783285144516958..comments2022-03-02T06:13:50.102-08:00Comments on Eurofighter-Typhoon: Euro CarrierUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-276057499002903761.post-49694848600816731312016-09-19T02:23:59.376-07:002016-09-19T02:23:59.376-07:00Very interesting stuff.
Never having worked on o...Very interesting stuff. <br /><br />Never having worked on or around aircraft carriers I do nevertheless have some friendly criticism:<br /><br /><br />1. I'm pretty sure the strange deck layouts developed over the years for the USN super-carriers is primarily intended to maximize sortie rates, not fulfill some other design requirement. They have the most experience in Carrier operations and I really doubt a single runway 2 elevator system can generate higher sortie rates. The angled flight deck was a very important development in carrier operations.<br /><br />2. Another important reason the USN uses Catapults is they allow you to launch aircraft that would otherwise be too heavy because they are so loaded with weapons and other payloads. A ski jump limits combat load and endurance.<br /><br />3. Your typical Typhoon combat load sounds great but per point 2 it is probably unrealistic. I would have to check if that load-out is possible with on the Typhoon hard-points. Also most combat loads include external fuel tanks, which extend range/endurance at the cost of weapons/non-weapon pods.<br /><br />4. I believe having all above flight deck structures on the starboard side is accepted as crucial for flight ops safety.<br /><br />5. Arming and fueling aircraft below decks is expressly forbidden in the USN (I assume in other navies as well) because it is exponentially more dangerous in an enclosed space than on the open flight deck.<br /><br />6. Your design seems way to cramped, especially in the hangar. Just cause it "fits" doesn't mean it is a sufficient space to work in. For one, there is not enough room to perform significant maintenance on planes in the hangar. Imagine trying to remove an engine or other large component from a plane packed in that parking lot! Then you have to move the removed parts to a space to work on them; you need workshop space. Also, I wouldn't want to try moving the planes around in that hangar, even with cool mag-lev toys. A single track in the aisle would severely limit your flexibility as two trolleys could never move past each other. So they would effectively have to wait for each other in various situations.<br /><br />7. In peacetime operations you will need more than two AEW and Helos, not to mention war-time demands. Assuming you can operate two AEW platforms for 12 hours each perpetually is a recipe for disaster. They will have problems and need maintenance, sometimes these problems will develop while one is in the air, it will have to land (if it even survives) and the second platform may not be available for a long time due to it's own maintenance needs. In addition you need to be able to fit both AEW and Helos in the hangar so they can be stored and maintained, the flight deck will not cut it for either.<br /><br />8. Making the escorts dependent on the Carrier for their basic needs like power/propulsion and water is very limiting. It means both that they can only operate in close proximity to such a mother ship and if their mother ship is destroyed they are sitting ducks with a limited water supply.<br /><br />9. I can't comment on most of the intriguing engineering you have proposed but I think the design suffers from waaay too much abstraction. The scientific principles very well may make it possible to build, but without loads of design input from the operational side you will end up with a vessel that doesn't do it's job well. In my experience this is a major pitfall in the engineering world.<br /><br />-CheersAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08883185739420798269noreply@blogger.com