Navys new toy

ltgbrown · Post by **ltgbrown** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:52 pm

Ok, let me be more verbose. While the catapult is not weight limited, the current structural capacities and aerodynamic qualities of today's non-Navy developmental and operational UAVs cannot handle the minimum settings on today's steam catapults. However, the Navy's UAV has been and will be launched from a steam catapult. In addition, those UAVs that are below the weight limit for the catapult can simply do a deck run (think the old days before catapults). Because of the ability to do deck runs for light aircraft, there was/is no need to modify the catapults to launch lighter aircraft. They could be, but there is no need.

So, the catapults can launch UAVs. (I seriously doubt Wikipedia about catapults had an ABE writing it. ABEs are the guys who run and maintain the catapults.)

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:38 pm

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I was merely reporting what wiki says. I'm sure there are folks here who are better authorities on supercarrier capabilities than those who write wiki articles for free. That is one of the huge problems with wiki--they are so often wrong.

Those X47B's don't look like they need to be going very fast to fly. I'd expect they can be launched without the cat, which is not IIRC, true of the F-18 varients.

However, launch is half the trouble. The other half is arrest and the article is pretty straight forward that the UCAV's can't be normally arrested either.

It's not in the current Ford-class piece on wiki but I believe I read a year or two ago that the plan is to retrofit the Nimitz class as they come in for sceduled overhaul with the new EM launch and recovery systems, as well as better power generation. I think they're keeping the older reactors however.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:15 am

Did anybody listen and read the article. Deployment of the craft is expected in the next two years. they must have something worked out. Them navy boys are good for something besides giving us marines a ride.In June 2012, AV-2 arrived at Patuxent River to begin a series of tests, including arrested landings and catapult launches, to validate the ability of the aircraft to conduct precision approaches to an aircraft carrier

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:02 am

Yes, but I think they'll want to put the new craft into use even if the recovery system damages them. That doesn't mean they intend to always so damage them. It means they have a less than optimal plan for now and a better one for later. The point is, they need the new EM launch and recovery systems because of the new craft and the Ford class was designed around them.

Stubby · Post by **Stubby** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:25 am

If a C-130 can do a deck run take off, UAVs should be able also. Why over stress the UAV?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:37 am

Launch is less an issue than recovery. Even a plane that will fly <100mph would have difficulty always landing safely on a carrier without the restraints.

BTW, not to sound a broken record on the issue, but note that the X-47 is still under $1B total development cost whereas the F-35 is passing $40B. Given the UCAV has twice the operational range of the Lightning II, I again have to wonder why we would bother with the Lightning II at this point. That's a remarkable disparity that again shows the end of manned fighters is on the horizon. If Congress allows F-47 sales overseas, I would not be surprised if there is a rush to cancel F-35 purchases.

Stubby · Post by **Stubby** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:55 am

The C-130 tests showed it could land and stop in under 250 ft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

cuddihy · Post by **cuddihy** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:39 am

GIThruster wrote:Launch is less an issue than recovery. Even a plane that will fly <100mph would have difficulty always landing safely on a carrier without the restraints.

BTW, not to sound a broken record on the issue, but note that the X-47 is still under $1B total development cost whereas the F-35 is passing $40B. Given the UCAV has twice the operational range of the Lightning II, I again have to wonder why we would bother with the Lightning II at this point. That's a remarkable disparity that again shows the end of manned fighters is on the horizon. If Congress allows F-47 sales overseas, I would not be surprised if there is a rush to cancel F-35 purchases.

Because in the areas where you'd need an F-35 the adversary you'd want it for is very capable of preventing any satellite signals including GPS or telemetry from getting through. A UCAV that can't ask to fire is no better than a fire and forget missile, and possibly a lot more dangerous to own team.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:04 pm

Learn something new every day. I had no idea we had every op tested C-130's for Deck Land/Launch.

I wonder how cycling a 130 affects spotting.

What a great capability!

If you can do it on Forrestal, you can do it on a Nimitz Deck. And with 30K Pounds of cargo inbound. I wonder what the launch wieght is?

Thanks for the link.

I wonder why we don't use that capability today? Spotting seems to be the only thing I can think of.

In any event, GIT, I think you are needlessly worried about UCAVs and the abilty to launch/recover. That is what OPTEV folks are validating now.
So far no issues. And everything gets testing on dirt before alfoat.