Hacker News Reader

Comment by nimbius | Hacker News Reader

The question Ive been wondering is not whether the Ford is a total dud, but were its changes even reasonable? or were they just tacked on as some misplaced future-chasing value-add.

For example, the electromagnetic launcher. Why have a launcher at all? the USSR's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier solved the aircraft launching problem ages ago and for far cheaper. just slope the deck.

and Magnetic elevators? why? was there a specific concern or reason behind using magnets instead of tried-and-true cables? why were we redesigning doors and hatches when the old ones ostensibly performed fine?

View on HN

STOBAR[1] carriers like the Kuznetsov are vastly less capable than CATOBAR[2] carriers, they're the budget option. Using a ramp rather than a catapult means that the types of aircraft you can operate are more limited and the weapons and fuel loads they can actually get into the air with are significantly reduced.

As for the new systems in the Ford class. The EMALS system replaces conventional steam powered catapults because it can be more finely tuned to individual aircraft types. This means less stress on airframes which translates to longer operational lifespans. It also allows for easier launching of a wider variety of aircraft weights.

In the case of both the catapult and the elevators, the new systems are mechanically much simpler than the old ones leading to reduced operating costs.

All of the changes mentioned exist for a good reason, the issue is that they weren't implemented competently.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOBAR

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CATOBAR

People are gonna say "how hard is it to send a marine down there with a grease gun" or "how hard is it to R&R a major system every 20yr"

Wartime operations beat the shit out of things. Stopping a system so some marine with a grease gun can do preventive maintenance is a low priority and gets skipped when you have to go from bombing dirt farmers one day to fighting a peer the next. Systems like this is what you get when you're expected to be running a decade long low intensity conflict yet still be ready for a peer adversary.

Ski ramp carriers are a prime example of penny wise and dollar foolish. Actual capabilities are a tiny fraction of a real carrier and costs are only slightly less.

They can't launch aircraft with heavy fuel loads. US Navy carriers always put up an aerial tanker during flight operations so that other aircraft can refuel in an emergency. One fighter in the Kuznetsov air wing crashed because it simply ran out of fuel.

https://news.usni.org/2016/11/21/russians-blame-mig-29k-cras...

Ski ramp carriers are also incapable of handling larger aircraft like the E-2 Hawkeye. Without AWACS capability the carrier is essentially operating blind.

I don't know enough about the elevators to comment there, but with regards to the Admiral Kuznetsov, ski-jump runways aren't a silver bullet. Ski-jumps cause the planes to leave the runway slower and at a higher angle of attack. Certain types of aircraft can recover from that just fine but it limits both in the type of aircraft that can use the runway and the payload they can carry.

That is true but the US is also building aircraft designed to use a ski-jump, the F-35B, it could choose to have a different mix of carrier types.

The US already has a mix of different carrier types such as the LHDs that can operate F-35Bs. Those don't have ski jumps, but they make only a marginal difference anyway. So what are you proposing exactly?

The F-35B has very limited range and payload so it can't do much compared to a real carrier air wing.

> Why have a launcher at all? the USSR's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier solved the aircraft launching problem ages ago and for far cheaper. just slope the deck.

Catapults permit heavier payloads, higher takeoff rates, aircraft that wouldn't be able to take off under their own power from such a short runway, and a number of other major benefits.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/32828/what-is-t...

should've gone with trebuchets for optimal performance

Reply on news.ycombinator.com