Aircraft Catapults

[Hood]

Having a better oxidizer seems to have been an issue too. But do you want to be storing too much stuff like LOX aboard a carrier? You have plenty enough combustible stuff aboard to keep safe from penetrating hits.

And of course one advantage of steam cats is that (assuming you are not just burning compressed air) is that steam doesn't run out as long as your boilers/reactor are going and you have sufficient pressure.

The C-14 seems pretty basic with JP-5 and air, but if you switched to more novel combustibles then you might run into supply issues at high sortie rates. Plus with more dangerous substances you might need to ensure good bore evacuation to prevent any pre-ignitions.

 

[Archibald]

Could the C14 ICC have been adapted to all those Colossus / Majestic in service with all those foreign navies ? France & The Netherlands, Brazil & Argentina, Australia & Canada & India... also the Saipans (2) and Independance (7 left, 2 to France & 1 to Spain) smaller-but-fast carriers ?
Any chance ?

 

[SSgtC]

Could the C14 ICC have been adapted to all those Colossus / Majestic in service with all those foreign navies ? France & The Netherlands, Brazil & Argentina, Australia & Canada & India... also the Saipans (2) and Independance (7 left, 2 to France & 1 to Spain) smaller-but-fast carriers ?
Any chance ?

In theory, yes. It was designed to be able to use existing steam catapult hardware and able to be backfit into any carrier currently equipped with steam cats.

 

[Lascaris]

So what's the actual improvement offered in practical terms here particularly for the smaller carriers? An EMALS today offers something around 30% more energy over the same length of catapult so are we talking about something similar? Less? More?

Also for the smaller carriers physical limitations are still there. At a quick calculation if you cap acceleration at 5g average/constant the top speeds you'd get would be something like this:

	Length (ft)	Acc (g)	Speed (knots)
Melbourne	103​	5​	108​
Hermes	151​	5​	131​
Foch	157​	5​	133​

Soo... for a Melbourne assuming a 30% improvement you'd be getting roughly the below table:

Length (ft)	Acc (g)	Speed (knots)	Weight (lbs)
103​	2​	68​	107282​
103​	3​	84​	71521​
103​	4​	97​	53641​
103​	5​	108​	42913​

For Foch/Centaur this:

Length (ft)	Acc (g)	Speed (knots)	Weight (lbs)
151​	2​	83​	129139​
151​	3​	101​	86093​
151​	4​	117​	64570​
151​	5​	131​	51656​

So what aircraft types are we talking about in practice at the above parameters?

 

[SSgtC]

For a 151' cat, you're talking Phantoms with regularity. Though Super Crusaders would probably be a better fit (bigger margin for error and less worry about hot and humid conditions)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 2.

Hermes could have launched Phantoms with regularity.

Would Victorious have been able to launch Phantoms with regularity as well?

 

[Archibald]

Victorious was a heavy carrier (more akin to a WWII smaller Audacious) with more power than Hermes - itself seen as a "light" - closer from a Colossus / Majestic.
So if Hermes can do it, so can Victorious.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Victorious was a heavy carrier (more akin to a WWII smaller Audacious) with more power than Hermes - itself seen as a "light" - closer from a Colossus / Majestic.
So if Hermes can do it, so can Victorious.

Hermes had that one longer Cat what is it 164 feet?.. Vic was IIRC 151 on both of them.. but she was also capable of giving you 3 more knots of WOD. From the ST thread it looked like depending on weights launching Phantoms wasn't much of a problem for either of them... parking enough of them onboard to matter a damn is a whole different kettle of fish lol

 

[zen]

Victorious would likely get the computer controlled IC catapult system during her protracted rebuild. Which would make her the most computerised carrier in the world in 1959.
Her 145ft stroke catapults would presumably cope with F4s.

This all rather shifts the Medium Fleet Carrier and CVA-01 processes. If nect generation aircraft can be launched by IC catapults if 151ft stroke length.

 

[red admiral]

So what's the actual improvement offered in practical terms here particularly for the smaller carriers? An EMALS today offers something around 30% more energy over the same length of catapult so are we talking about something similar? Less? More?

Max acceleration will be limited by the load into the aircraft through the tow or the longitudinal load on the airframe, which doesn't change with catapult type.

Stroke length / time to apply acceleration is a function of the available space on the ship, which doesn't change with catapult type.

So really we're talking about getting the average acceleration as close to the maximum/peak as possible.

Here suggests EMALs peak to mean acceleration of 1.05. I'd be amazed if the IC cat could do better than that. Peak accel about 4g, mean 3g (for a steam cat? What aircraft mass?) Whereas steam cat is 1.25 to 2.0 peak to mean acceleration. Its then relatively easy to calculate some endspeeds for different stroke lengths and aircraft masses.

 

[Archibald]

For a 151' cat, you're talking Phantoms with regularity. Though Super Crusaders would probably be a better fit (bigger margin for error and less worry about hot and humid conditions)

Weren't Clemenceaus cut-down BS-5A 171 ft long ? Ark & Eagle had a full length 199 ft ?

 

[SSgtC]

For a 151' cat, you're talking Phantoms with regularity. Though Super Crusaders would probably be a better fit (bigger margin for error and less worry about hot and humid conditions)

Weren't Clemenceaus cut-down BS-5A 171 ft long ? Ark & Eagle had a full length 199 ft ?

I honestly can't remember at the moment. Though it does sound right.

 

[Lascaris]

For a 151' cat, you're talking Phantoms with regularity. Though Super Crusaders would probably be a better fit (bigger margin for error and less worry about hot and humid conditions)

Assuming a 30% improvement you do get into Spey Phantom territory yes its take off speed was 130 knots at 50,000 lb I understand? A 30% improvement gets you for 50,000 lb at 91 knots to 50,000lb at 104 knots, roughly the same with the BS5A of Eagle and Ark Royal. Now can you avoid the Spey Phantom completely? At a similar improvement you'd be getting 120 knots from the BS5A replacements

135 knots for 52,000 lb is indeed , take off speed after all. A more interesting question is whether you can avoid spey and stick to standard F-4J in Eagle and Ark Roayal and the answer is... probably still no? If there is a 30% power improvement you can launch a 50,000 lb aircraft at 120 knots up from 105 knots. F-4J needed 176 knots IMS?

 

[Archibald]

I'm digesting this into my alternate history & world building. Long story short - Lockheed gets in touch with Reaction Motors because they need their Bullpup and LR40 engines for Agenas and moar NF-104As. In the process Lockheed learns about the C-14 IC catapult and ask for a licence. And since Admiral Rickover tries to dump C-14 out of CVN-65 Enterprise, he jumps on the idea (Rickover POV was: CVN-65 is already grossly overbudget and packed full with innovations, better to tweak the nuclear reactors for the proven steam C-13 rather than pile up yet another troubled new tech like the C-14. And when Rickover wanted something... it happened.)

Lockheed then craft a four step plan to retrofit the catapult into existing carriers.

Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction Company - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Step 1: Bonaventure canadian aircraft carrier (with an eye on all the Colossus / Majestics in service)
Step 2: Lake Champlain, the one SBC-27 Essex that never got a SBC-125 / 125A upgrade. How about a SBC-125B standard ?
Step 3: Franklin & Bunker Hill (here we go again) SBC-125B for either the RN or RAAN. Eventually moar Essex converted.
Step 4: C-14s for the 3*Midways during their late 1960's refits (which OTL went very badly for Midway, ruining its stability)
(Or maybe FDR carrier is already a lost cause, and only Coral Sea & Midway are rebuild to the same intermediate, C-14 standard).

There is also the case of all those Crusaders rebuild during the Vietnam war (F-8A to F-8E, turned into F-8G to F-8L - 400 or more) because Phantoms were in high demand and a touch too big for the smaller and oldest carriers. C-14 can only help there, and Lockheed will jump on that.

I 'm quite sure than CNO Zumwalt will love the C-14 and its potential. In passing, Coral Sea & Midway rebuild with C-14s must be pretty close from the much maligned CVV... except they exist in the first place, no need to scratch build at precious Nimitz expense...

Same for the rebuild Lake Champlain / Bunker Hill / Franklin: they are in VSS territory or beyond, except with no need for VSTOL.

Yeah, Zumwalt with love this. So will Reagan and Lehman "600 ships navy" supporters. OTL they tried to bring back Oriskany, to no avail. And Lexington was still there until 1991 as the USN training carrier, although in pretty poor shape.

 

[bobtdwarf]

I'm digesting this into my alternate history & world building. Long story short - Lockheed gets in touch with Reaction Motors because they need their Bullpup and LR40 engines for Agenas and moar NF-104As. In the process Lockheed learns about the C-14 IC catapult and ask for a licence. And since Admiral Rickover tries to dump C-14 out of CVN-65 Enterprise, he jumps on the idea (Rickover POV was: CVN-65 is already grossly overbudget and packed full with innovations, better to tweak the nuclear reactors for the proven steam C-13 rather than pile up yet another troubled new tech like the C-14. And when Rickover wanted something... it happened.)

Lockheed then craft a four step plan to retrofit the catapult into existing carriers.

Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction Company - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Step 1: Bonaventure canadian aircraft carrier (with an eye on all the Colossus / Majestics in service)
Step 2: Lake Champlain, the one SBC-27 Essex that never got a SBC-125 / 125A upgrade. How about a SBC-125B standard ?
Step 3: Franklin & Bunker Hill (here we go again) SBC-125B for either the RN or RAAN. Eventually moar Essex converted.
Step 4: C-14s for the 3*Midways during their late 1960's refits (which OTL went very badly for Midway, ruining its stability)
(Or maybe FDR carrier is already a lost cause, and only Coral Sea & Midway are rebuild to the same intermediate, C-14 standard).

I 'm quite sure than CNO Zumwalt will love the C-14 and its potential. In passing, Coral Sea & Midway rebuild with C-14s must be pretty close from the much maligned CVV... except they exist in the first place, no need to scratch build at precious Nimitz expense...

Same for the rebuild Lake Champlain / Bunker Hill / Franklin: they are in VSS territory or beyond, except with no need for VSTOL.

Yeah, Zumwalt with love this. So will Reagan and Lehman "600 ships navy" supporters. OTL they tried to bring back Oriskany, to no avail. And Lexington was still there until 1991 as the USN training carrier, although in pretty poor shape.

I have read on a few forums over the years that the story going around that the FDR was in crap shape has little basis in reality. Mechanically she was in decent shape and a Coral Sea style refit would solve any and all issues with her... the problem mainly centers around the turbines were from a different manufacturer than Midway and Coral Sea and that has built in part supply problems long term.

They even looked at making her a Harrier test bed but the left hand of the navy had no clue what the right hand was doing and she was already being broken up... so it is totally possible that the stories about her being in horrible shape were to justify not keeping her. Midways last rebuild/refit is well known as flawed.. to be gentle.. a burning shi*show to be less so... I think the Coral Sea fit was the sweet spot for the hulls

 

[SSgtC]

For a 151' cat, you're talking Phantoms with regularity. Though Super Crusaders would probably be a better fit (bigger margin for error and less worry about hot and humid conditions)

Assuming a 30% improvement you do get into Spey Phantom territory yes its take off speed was 130 knots at 50,000 lb I understand? A 30% improvement gets you for 50,000 lb at 91 knots to 50,000lb at 104 knots, roughly the same with the BS5A of Eagle and Ark Royal. Now can you avoid the Spey Phantom completely? At a similar improvement you'd be getting 120 knots from the BS5A replacements

135 knots for 52,000 lb is indeed , take off speed after all. A more interesting question is whether you can avoid spey and stick to standard F-4J in Eagle and Ark Roayal and the answer is... probably still no? If there is a 30% power improvement you can launch a 50,000 lb aircraft at 120 knots up from 105 knots. F-4J needed 176 knots IMS?

For the F-4J, stall speed using approach power at 52,676 pounds is 147 knots. That is the most common weight in a fighter configuration (4xAIM-7, 4xAIM-9, and a 600 gallon drop tank). Even at it's maximum TO weight of 56,000 pounds when armed with 8xMk82 bombs and 2x370 gallon drop tanks, the stall speed when using approach power is only 151 knots. If you delete the drop tank and launch with just 4xAIM-7s, the F-4J stall speed drops to 138 knots.

 

[Archibald]

I'm digesting this into my alternate history & world building. Long story short - Lockheed gets in touch with Reaction Motors because they need their Bullpup and LR40 engines for Agenas and moar NF-104As. In the process Lockheed learns about the C-14 IC catapult and ask for a licence. And since Admiral Rickover tries to dump C-14 out of CVN-65 Enterprise, he jumps on the idea (Rickover POV was: CVN-65 is already grossly overbudget and packed full with innovations, better to tweak the nuclear reactors for the proven steam C-13 rather than pile up yet another troubled new tech like the C-14. And when Rickover wanted something... it happened.)

Lockheed then craft a four step plan to retrofit the catapult into existing carriers.

Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction Company - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Step 1: Bonaventure canadian aircraft carrier (with an eye on all the Colossus / Majestics in service)
Step 2: Lake Champlain, the one SBC-27 Essex that never got a SBC-125 / 125A upgrade. How about a SBC-125B standard ?
Step 3: Franklin & Bunker Hill (here we go again) SBC-125B for either the RN or RAAN. Eventually moar Essex converted.
Step 4: C-14s for the 3*Midways during their late 1960's refits (which OTL went very badly for Midway, ruining its stability)
(Or maybe FDR carrier is already a lost cause, and only Coral Sea & Midway are rebuild to the same intermediate, C-14 standard).

I 'm quite sure than CNO Zumwalt will love the C-14 and its potential. In passing, Coral Sea & Midway rebuild with C-14s must be pretty close from the much maligned CVV... except they exist in the first place, no need to scratch build at precious Nimitz expense...

Same for the rebuild Lake Champlain / Bunker Hill / Franklin: they are in VSS territory or beyond, except with no need for VSTOL.

Yeah, Zumwalt with love this. So will Reagan and Lehman "600 ships navy" supporters. OTL they tried to bring back Oriskany, to no avail. And Lexington was still there until 1991 as the USN training carrier, although in pretty poor shape.

I have read on a few forums over the years that the story going around that the FDR was in crap shape has little basis in reality. Mechanically she was in decent shape and a Coral Sea style refit would solve any and all issues with her... the problem mainly centers around the turbines were from a different manufacturer than Midway and Coral Sea and that has built in part supply problems long term.

They even looked at making her a Harrier test bed but the left hand of the navy had no clue what the right hand was doing and she was already being broken up... so it is totally possible that the stories about her being in horrible shape were to justify not keeping her. Midways last rebuild/refit is well known as flawed.. to be gentle.. a burning shi*show to be less so... I think the Coral Sea fit was the sweet spot for the hulls

Thank you. Wanted to ask, got an answer. I heard similar horror stories - that a mid-1970's rebuild was seen as a (yet another) threat to "precious Nimitz" already threatened by CVV and Carter obstination related to it.
I readily agree that Coral Sea seems to be the way to go. Midway went too far, FDR went nowhere.

So how about a Coral Sea like rebuild, except with C-14s ?

Midway class Aircraft Carrier US Navy

midway class aircraft carrier us navy uss cvw air wing franklin roosevelt coral sea

www.seaforces.org

SCB 110:
(Midway & Roosevelt) First reconstruction applied to this class, generally equivalent to the SCB 27C/125 combination. Additions included an angled deck, new catapults and arresting gear and a new electronics outfit; the gun battery was reduced and general improvements were carried out. Displacement was approximately 63,500 tons.

SCB 110A:
(Coral Sea) A more extensive version of the SCB 110 applied to the other ships of the class. Aviation features and electronics were further improved, and gun battery was further reduced.

SCB 101:
(Midway) A second reconstruction meant to be applied to all ships, to upgrade them beyond the SCB 110/110A configuration. This reconstruction included a longer flight deck, new catapults, and general all-around improvements. Due to the cost of this work, only one ship was upgraded under this program.

After SCB 110A Coral Sea was the most capable of the ships, but Midway surpassed her with the SCB 101 reconstruction. In addition to the SCB reconstructions, each ship received at least one major overhaul/upgrade, the details of which varied.

Seems we need something akin to SCB 110A, except with the C-14 catapults - let's call this SCB 110B and hope it buries SCB 101 forever.
Big question is: can C-14s negate or butterfly the rather stupid idea of putting a Forrestal-size deck on a too small Midway hull ? Because that wasn't a very good idea !!!

My gut feeling is, you don't need a Forrestal (bigger) deck if you can shoehorn / swap more powerful IC catapults in place of the old steam ones...

USS Midway - SCB 110 reconstruction at Bremerton Navy Yard started July 1955, completed and recommissioned 30 Sept 1957.

USS FDR - SCB 110 reconstruction at Bremerton Navy Yard 23 April 1954, completed and recommissioned 6 April 1956.

USS Coral sea - SCB 110A reconstruction at Bremerton Navy Yard 3/1957, completed and recommissioned 25 Jan 1960.

Ok, so according to this, I would suggest SCB 110B Midway first, then FDR, then Coral sea. If that can butterfly Midway butchering in 1966, then the better. And then if FDR becomes the "black sheep" of the lot (either because of poor shape or the wrong turbines, whatever) then go Coral Sea instead.

Note that four C-14s were manufactured for Enterprise and dropped in September 1961, merely two months before it was commissioned in November 1961.

http://www.willsonscott.biz/image/data/PDF/USS_E_1_chapter_1_Pages_from_Enterprise.pdf

It was initially felt that the reactors would not be capable of producing superheated steam for the now fleet-standard catapults and it was argued that her catapults should be an internal combustion type, the C-14, instead of the steam type introduced in the 1950s. Rickover had the insight to argue against this, suggesting Enterprise should not be jeopardized by experimental technology. He insisted that the reactors would supply plenty of steam at correct pressure and supply to simultaneously propel Big E and provide her with all necessary electricity and enough steam for safe and effective on-demand operation of four steam catapults. He redesigned the reactors to provide the required steam for flight operations simultaneous with full steam ahead in the propulsion plant. Really only one valve needed to be altered to bleed steam off for the catapult operation. As it was, the internal combustion catapult proved unreliable, the prototype exploding.

The navy’s Bureau of Weapons overseeing catapult installation nonetheless insisted on the combustion catapult and it was not until September 26, 1961, two days after launching, that both Bureau of Weapons and Bureau of Ships agreed to install the steam catapult system on Enterprise. Rickover was right – Enterprise’s reactors were more than capable of powering conventional C-13 catapults, and they were duly fitted.

Naval Aviation News

www.google.fr

(April 1960)



So the timing sounds pretty good to get some of these catapults on either Essex or Midway carrier(s).

 

[Archibald]

(and if you ever wonder about the detailed post crammed with research - I'm a trained librarian, presently in logistics because more job opportunities there - 200 per week versus 5 per month, now you understand why I branched into logistics. I'm born - and my brain is seemingly wired - to look for, and find, needles in haystacks. Lost books in libraries; lost documents in archives; bits of valuable information on the web ocean of mediocrity; lost packages in vast storage areas - exact same problem overall.)

 

[Lascaris]

For a 151' cat, you're talking Phantoms with regularity. Though Super Crusaders would probably be a better fit (bigger margin for error and less worry about hot and humid conditions)

Assuming a 30% improvement you do get into Spey Phantom territory yes its take off speed was 130 knots at 50,000 lb I understand? A 30% improvement gets you for 50,000 lb at 91 knots to 50,000lb at 104 knots, roughly the same with the BS5A of Eagle and Ark Royal. Now can you avoid the Spey Phantom completely? At a similar improvement you'd be getting 120 knots from the BS5A replacements

135 knots for 52,000 lb is indeed , take off speed after all. A more interesting question is whether you can avoid spey and stick to standard F-4J in Eagle and Ark Roayal and the answer is... probably still no? If there is a 30% power improvement you can launch a 50,000 lb aircraft at 120 knots up from 105 knots. F-4J needed 176 knots IMS?

For the F-4J, stall speed using approach power at 52,676 pounds is 147 knots. That is the most common weight in a fighter configuration (4xAIM-7, 4xAIM-9, and a 600 gallon drop tank). Even at it's maximum TO weight of 56,000 pounds when armed with 8xMk82 bombs and 2x370 gallon drop tanks, the stall speed when using approach power is only 151 knots. If you delete the drop tank and launch with just 4xAIM-7s, the F-4J stall speed drops to 138 knots.

The table here from the F-4J operation manual states takeoff speed to be 170 knots at 51,000 pounds and 180 knots at 56,000. AmI missing something?

 

[SSgtC]

Seems we need something akin to SCB 110A, except with the C-14 catapults - let's call this SCB 110B and hope it buries SCB 101 forever.
Big question is: can C-14s negate or butterfly the rather stupid idea of putting a Forrestal-size deck on a too small Midway hull ? Because that wasn't a very good idea !!!

My gut feeling is, you don't need a Forrestal (bigger) deck if you can shoehorn / swap more powerful IC catapults in place of the old steam ones...

IIRC, the "upgrade" for Midway was meant to relieve deck handling issues on what was increasingly seen as too small a deck. I think it was also part of preparing the ships to operate the F-111B, which was substantially larger than the F-4.

 

[SSgtC]

For a 151' cat, you're talking Phantoms with regularity. Though Super Crusaders would probably be a better fit (bigger margin for error and less worry about hot and humid conditions)

Assuming a 30% improvement you do get into Spey Phantom territory yes its take off speed was 130 knots at 50,000 lb I understand? A 30% improvement gets you for 50,000 lb at 91 knots to 50,000lb at 104 knots, roughly the same with the BS5A of Eagle and Ark Royal. Now can you avoid the Spey Phantom completely? At a similar improvement you'd be getting 120 knots from the BS5A replacements

135 knots for 52,000 lb is indeed , take off speed after all. A more interesting question is whether you can avoid spey and stick to standard F-4J in Eagle and Ark Roayal and the answer is... probably still no? If there is a 30% power improvement you can launch a 50,000 lb aircraft at 120 knots up from 105 knots. F-4J needed 176 knots IMS?

For the F-4J, stall speed using approach power at 52,676 pounds is 147 knots. That is the most common weight in a fighter configuration (4xAIM-7, 4xAIM-9, and a 600 gallon drop tank). Even at it's maximum TO weight of 56,000 pounds when armed with 8xMk82 bombs and 2x370 gallon drop tanks, the stall speed when using approach power is only 151 knots. If you delete the drop tank and launch with just 4xAIM-7s, the F-4J stall speed drops to 138 knots.

The table here from the F-4J operation manual states takeoff speed to be 170 knots at 51,000 pounds and 180 knots at 56,000. AmI missing something?

View attachment 689893

Here's the data from the F-4J Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheet.

And this is from the same SAC showing required Wind Over Deck for all 3 in service catapults in the USN (the C11-1 is at the top, C-7 in Ithe middle and C-13 at the bottom). Based on the required WOD requirements and the fact that at 56,000 pounds the C-11 can give you roughly 117 knots, I'd say the SAC is more accurate than that particular chart for carrier operations (I believe those figures are for operations from land)

 

[Archibald]

I keep reading "SAC" as Strategic Air Command. Which wasn't in best terms with the goddam USN, particularly in the early nuclear era (USS United States, cough).

 

[bobtdwarf]

The Navy has always been really good about testing stuff to destruction so it doesn't really surprise me that they blew up a prototype.. that IS kind of the point of TTD. That they built so many of them and were ready to install them says they didn't think it was flaky or junk.

 

[Archibald]

It blew my mind too. C-14 really came a hairbreadth from CVN-65, it took Rickover staunch and stubborn opposition to it to get C-13s instead. Shame they let that interesting technology rot for 50 years thereafter (before EMALS buried it definitively).

 

[bobtdwarf]

I also don't see a reason why could not mix the two cat types on like a Nimitz which has 4 IIRC replace 2 with C-14's and you reduce steam demand enough to be meaningful

 

[Archibald]

Rickover did not wanted to burden the Enterprise with more cost overruns and untested technologies. That was the core reason.

Otherwise, I readily agree with the above comment.

 

[Archibald]

Seems we need something akin to SCB 110A, except with the C-14 catapults - let's call this SCB 110B and hope it buries SCB 101 forever.
Big question is: can C-14s negate or butterfly the rather stupid idea of putting a Forrestal-size deck on a too small Midway hull ? Because that wasn't a very good idea !!!

My gut feeling is, you don't need a Forrestal (bigger) deck if you can shoehorn / swap more powerful IC catapults in place of the old steam ones...

IIRC, the "upgrade" for Midway was meant to relieve deck handling issues on what was increasingly seen as too small a deck. I think it was also part of preparing the ships to operate the F-111B, which was substantially larger than the F-4.

Oh geez, another consequence of Robert Strange McNamara criminal siliness... that F-111B obese pig of aircraft again ??!!!!

(First time I realized the "S" in Robert McNamara was for "Strange" I had a weird WTF moment. Aside Robert MILHOUSE Nixon - as in the Simpsons Milhouse van Houten - I can't think of a more unfortunate - appropriate ? - name. Which kind of parents called their kid STRANGE ? O RLY ? Can't think of any French kid called Robert-Étrange Dupont - WTH ??!!!!)

 

[Lascaris]

For a 151' cat, you're talking Phantoms with regularity. Though Super Crusaders would probably be a better fit (bigger margin for error and less worry about hot and humid conditions)

Assuming a 30% improvement you do get into Spey Phantom territory yes its take off speed was 130 knots at 50,000 lb I understand? A 30% improvement gets you for 50,000 lb at 91 knots to 50,000lb at 104 knots, roughly the same with the BS5A of Eagle and Ark Royal. Now can you avoid the Spey Phantom completely? At a similar improvement you'd be getting 120 knots from the BS5A replacements

135 knots for 52,000 lb is indeed , take off speed after all. A more interesting question is whether you can avoid spey and stick to standard F-4J in Eagle and Ark Roayal and the answer is... probably still no? If there is a 30% power improvement you can launch a 50,000 lb aircraft at 120 knots up from 105 knots. F-4J needed 176 knots IMS?

For the F-4J, stall speed using approach power at 52,676 pounds is 147 knots. That is the most common weight in a fighter configuration (4xAIM-7, 4xAIM-9, and a 600 gallon drop tank). Even at it's maximum TO weight of 56,000 pounds when armed with 8xMk82 bombs and 2x370 gallon drop tanks, the stall speed when using approach power is only 151 knots. If you delete the drop tank and launch with just 4xAIM-7s, the F-4J stall speed drops to 138 knots.

The table here from the F-4J operation manual states takeoff speed to be 170 knots at 51,000 pounds and 180 knots at 56,000. AmI missing something?

View attachment 689893

Here's the data from the F-4J Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheet.

And this is from the same SAC showing required Wind Over Deck for all 3 in service catapults in the USN (the C11-1 is at the top, C-7 in Ithe middle and C-13 at the bottom). Based on the required WOD requirements and the fact that at 56,000 pounds the C-11 can give you roughly 117 knots, I'd say the SAC is more accurate than that particular chart for carrier operations (I believe those figures are for operations from land)

It's from the NATOPS F-4J flight manual, page 11-32. Which is for a "hard dry runway"

 

[Lascaris]

It blew my mind too. C-14 really came a hairbreadth from CVN-65, it took Rickover staunch and stubborn opposition to it to get C-13s instead. Shame they let that interesting technology rot for 50 years thereafter (before EMALS buried it definitively).

What I'm not certain is whether my assumption of an ICCALS being as good as an performance wise EMALS ie roughly 30% more power. Ok I've seen claims of potentially having considerably better performance but still...

 

[SSgtC]

Oh geez, another consequence of Robert Strange McNamara criminal siliness... that F-111B obese pig of aircraft again ??!!!!

(First time I realized the "S" in Robert McNamara was for "Strange" I had a weird WTF moment. Aside Robert MILHOUSE Nixon - as in the Simpsons Milhouse van Houten - I can't think of a more unfortunate - appropriate ? - name. Which kind of parents called their kid STRANGE ? O RLY ? Can't think of any French kid called Robert-Étrange Dupont - WTH ??!!!!)

Well, it wasn't all McNamara. The Navy did want a bigger deck on the Midways to make them better aviation ships. I think they only used the F-111B as a way to sell it to Congress

 

[isayyo2]

I have read on a few forums over the years that the story going around that the FDR was in crap shape has little basis in reality. Mechanically she was in decent shape and a Coral Sea style refit would solve any and all issues with her... the problem mainly centers around the turbines were from a different manufacturer than Midway and Coral Sea and that has built in part supply problems long term.

They even looked at making her a Harrier test bed but the left hand of the navy had no clue what the right hand was doing and she was already being broken up... so it is totally possible that the stories about her being in horrible shape were to justify not keeping her. Midways last rebuild/refit is well known as flawed.. to be gentle.. a burning shi*show to be less so... I think the Coral Sea fit was the sweet spot for the hulls

Her crew seemed awfully proud of her to boot too. I've got their final cruise-book linked below, which included VMA-231's deployment of Harriers on a big deck. I would not be shocked if any Navy vessel post-Vietnam was in spectacular shape throughout the 70s. FDR's lack of deep modernization and unique supply-chain made her easy pickings for early retirement. Not too dissimilar when America was retired in 96 in-lieu of its planned SLEP.

USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV 42) Mediterranean Cruise Book 1976-77 -

 

[bobtdwarf]

I have read on a few forums over the years that the story going around that the FDR was in crap shape has little basis in reality. Mechanically she was in decent shape and a Coral Sea style refit would solve any and all issues with her... the problem mainly centers around the turbines were from a different manufacturer than Midway and Coral Sea and that has built in part supply problems long term.

They even looked at making her a Harrier test bed but the left hand of the navy had no clue what the right hand was doing and she was already being broken up... so it is totally possible that the stories about her being in horrible shape were to justify not keeping her. Midways last rebuild/refit is well known as flawed.. to be gentle.. a burning shi*show to be less so... I think the Coral Sea fit was the sweet spot for the hulls

Her crew seemed awfully proud of her to boot too. I've got their final cruise-book linked below, which included VMA-231's deployment of Harriers on a big deck. I would not be shocked if any Navy vessel post-Vietnam was in spectacular shape throughout the 70s. FDR's lack of deep modernization and unique supply-chain made her easy pickings for early retirement. Not too dissimilar when America was retired in 96 in-lieu of its planned SLEP.

USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV 42) Mediterranean Cruise Book 1976-77 -

she would have been great in place of Ticonderoga for a Museum ship in New York...

 

[red admiral]

What I'm not certain is whether my assumption of an ICCALS being as good as an performance wise EMALS ie roughly 30% more power. Ok I've seen claims of potentially having considerably better performance but still...

I don't really believe that. Peak to mean accel for EMALS is about as good as you're going to get (1.05) and peak accel is driven by aircraft design. So if you need to achieve higher endspeeds or masses then you need to increase stroke length. And i'd be surprised if ICCALS could get as good peak to mean as EMALS as there's inherently going to be more variation in the combustion process?

If navies really wanted to launch heavy aircraft off small ships, then just skip the catapult piece and mount the rocket to the airframe ZELL style...

 

[BlackBat242]

I have also read that there had been discussion between Congress and the Navy that, due to cost increases in Midway's modernization (in the process of increasing from $88 million to US$202 million) a similar modernization to FDR (which was to begin in 1968) would result in a cancellation of (or several year delay to) the CVN then under the approval process (CVN-68 Nimitz, ordered 31 March 1967, laid down 22 June 1968).

So FDR was instead given only an 11-month "austere overhaul" in 1968-69, which removed the waist catapult, moved the fore centerline aircraft elevator to starboard forward of the island, replaced the bow catapults with longer more-powerful ones, strengthened the arresting gear (in order to operate A-6 Intruders) and installed a completely new deck-edge firefighting system (along with crew space refurbishment).

The same process was repeated in the mid-1970s, when the USN contemplated retaining and refitting FDR as training carrier (to replace Lexington) so as to be able to keep Coral Sea (then slated to become training carrier) in the active fleet, this time concerning CVN-70 Carl Vinson (ordered 5 April 1974, laid down 11 October 1975) - the USN agreed to decommission FDR.

 

[BlackBat242]

I have read on a few forums over the years that the story going around that the FDR was in crap shape has little basis in reality. Mechanically she was in decent shape and a Coral Sea style refit would solve any and all issues with her... the problem mainly centers around the turbines were from a different manufacturer than Midway and Coral Sea and that has built in part supply problems long term.

They even looked at making her a Harrier test bed but the left hand of the navy had no clue what the right hand was doing and she was already being broken up... so it is totally possible that the stories about her being in horrible shape were to justify not keeping her. Midways last rebuild/refit is well known as flawed.. to be gentle.. a burning shi*show to be less so... I think the Coral Sea fit was the sweet spot for the hulls

Her crew seemed awfully proud of her to boot too. I've got their final cruise-book linked below, which included VMA-231's deployment of Harriers on a big deck. I would not be shocked if any Navy vessel post-Vietnam was in spectacular shape throughout the 70s. FDR's lack of deep modernization and unique supply-chain made her easy pickings for early retirement. Not too dissimilar when America was retired in 96 in-lieu of its planned SLEP.

USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV 42) Mediterranean Cruise Book 1976-77 -

she would have been great in place of Ticonderoga for a Museum ship in New York...

Ummm... CV-14 Ticonderoga was scrapped in 1975.
CV-11 Intrepid is the carrier located in New York Harbor.

I agree that FDR would have made a great museum ship, especially in the State where its namesake had been Governor. But as she was decommissioned 30 Sept 1977, and sold for scrap 1 April 1978, just after the start of the Carter Presidency (which had campaigned on reducing budgets and cutting the military), there was no way that the USN could justify forgoing the scrap payments - nor would the crippled economy allow the donations etc needed to create a major warship-centered museum.

 

[bobtdwarf]

I have read on a few forums over the years that the story going around that the FDR was in crap shape has little basis in reality. Mechanically she was in decent shape and a Coral Sea style refit would solve any and all issues with her... the problem mainly centers around the turbines were from a different manufacturer than Midway and Coral Sea and that has built in part supply problems long term.

They even looked at making her a Harrier test bed but the left hand of the navy had no clue what the right hand was doing and she was already being broken up... so it is totally possible that the stories about her being in horrible shape were to justify not keeping her. Midways last rebuild/refit is well known as flawed.. to be gentle.. a burning shi*show to be less so... I think the Coral Sea fit was the sweet spot for the hulls

Her crew seemed awfully proud of her to boot too. I've got their final cruise-book linked below, which included VMA-231's deployment of Harriers on a big deck. I would not be shocked if any Navy vessel post-Vietnam was in spectacular shape throughout the 70s. FDR's lack of deep modernization and unique supply-chain made her easy pickings for early retirement. Not too dissimilar when America was retired in 96 in-lieu of its planned SLEP.

USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV 42) Mediterranean Cruise Book 1976-77 -

she would have been great in place of Ticonderoga for a Museum ship in New York...

Ummm... CV-14 Ticonderoga was scrapped in 1975.
CV-11 Intrepid is the carrier located in New York Harbor.

I agree that FDR would have made a great museum ship, especially in the State where its namesake had been Governor. But as she was decommissioned 30 Sept 1977, and sold for scrap 1 April 1978, just after the start of the Carter Presidency (which had campaigned on reducing budgets and cutting the military), there was no way that the USN could justify forgoing the scrap payments - nor would the crippled economy allow the donations etc needed to create a major warship-centered museum.

FML... how could I screw up the name? I got to start remembering to take that ginkgo

 

[BlackBat242]

I have read on a few forums over the years that the story going around that the FDR was in crap shape has little basis in reality. Mechanically she was in decent shape and a Coral Sea style refit would solve any and all issues with her... the problem mainly centers around the turbines were from a different manufacturer than Midway and Coral Sea and that has built in part supply problems long term.

They even looked at making her a Harrier test bed but the left hand of the navy had no clue what the right hand was doing and she was already being broken up... so it is totally possible that the stories about her being in horrible shape were to justify not keeping her. Midways last rebuild/refit is well known as flawed.. to be gentle.. a burning shi*show to be less so... I think the Coral Sea fit was the sweet spot for the hulls

Her crew seemed awfully proud of her to boot too. I've got their final cruise-book linked below, which included VMA-231's deployment of Harriers on a big deck. I would not be shocked if any Navy vessel post-Vietnam was in spectacular shape throughout the 70s. FDR's lack of deep modernization and unique supply-chain made her easy pickings for early retirement. Not too dissimilar when America was retired in 96 in-lieu of its planned SLEP.

USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV 42) Mediterranean Cruise Book 1976-77 -

she would have been great in place of Ticonderoga for a Museum ship in New York...

Ummm... CV-14 Ticonderoga was scrapped in 1975.
CV-11 Intrepid is the carrier located in New York Harbor.

I agree that FDR would have made a great museum ship, especially in the State where its namesake had been Governor. But as she was decommissioned 30 Sept 1977, and sold for scrap 1 April 1978, just after the start of the Carter Presidency (which had campaigned on reducing budgets and cutting the military), there was no way that the USN could justify forgoing the scrap payments - nor would the crippled economy allow the donations etc needed to create a major warship-centered museum.

FML... how could I screw up the name? I got to start remembering to take that ginkgo

Well, she was named for the battles at Fort Ticonderoga, in New York State, during the Colonial revolt ( )... it is possible that somewhere deep in the back corners of your memory the name "New York" triggered that association.

 

[Arjen]

If I may offer some advice: taking ginkgo will improve your memory, thus helping you to remember to take your ginkgo... oh, wait... rats!

 

[Hood]

If navies really wanted to launch heavy aircraft off small ships, then just skip the catapult piece and mount the rocket to the airframe ZELL style...

Don't worry Gerry's got your back...

 

[Archibald]

If I may offer some advice: taking ginkgo will improve your memory, thus helping you to remember to take your ginkgo... oh, wait... rats!

And, as a bonus: ginkgo will allow you to survive nuclear explosions. Blew my mind as a kid, no idea if it is a true story, but - as I was told back then: one ginkgo tree survived being nuked in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

EDIT : checked gogole, https://hiroshimaforpeace.com/en/th...ple, located,damage inflicted by typhoons and

Dang. That Ginkgo tree are like Wolverine, though hard: it survived the blast less than 1 miles away !