Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The next innovation in naval aviation
kirby1    8/3/2007 6:57:32 AM
Nothing is static in the military world, designs are always improving, equipment is always improving, capabilities are always improving. Wonderweapons are unvailed, and methods to counter them are quick to follow. So my question is simple, What do you think the next big innovation in naval aviation is going to be? Perhaps it will be revolution in propulsion or ship design, allowing for smaller crew sizes, increased range or a more stable deck. Imagine Azipods on CVs,(They're on the latest 100Kplus cruise ships, why not on CVs?) Perhaps a revolution in electronics, allowing for safer if not nearly autonomous landings. Perhaps the introduction of cheap and reliable UCAV style technology, Allowing for safer air operations, and smaller CVs, whose entire combat airwing is unmanned. Each individual combat aircraft will have a smaller payload, but with precision munitions, is there really a need for planes capable of carrying dozens of bombs or A2A missiles when a couple of SDBs, or a pair of Sidewinders or AMRAAMS and an internal cannon can usually get the job done? Perhaps it will be something that I can't even think of at the moment, either way, what do you think will be the next big thing?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3
Nichevo       2/17/2010 2:45:35 PM
Howdy, Hamilcar!  So how was France?
 
Frankly your comments are a little too inside-baseball for me so unless someone else likes to take up the cudgels I should probably let it go,but talk is cheap, so:
 
 
Won't work. vortices off the hull, separation of flow from flight deck (there is one). CAT from intersecting flow "tubes", etc.

 
Vortices - perimeter vented deck could create a curtain wall of air negating these vortices, or remove them with negative pressure.  Perhaps this would make carrier landings simpler by eliminating this variable.  Of course we see winglets on actual a/c so one could always surround the deck with fins.
 
Separation of flow - I don't quite understand this objection.  If there is a circumstance where the benefit is compromised by complexity, and this cannot be managed, do not use it at that time.  Say, to enhance V/STO; or to help a COD with greater weights, so you can have aerial resupply of engines.  I don't say it would double your sortie rate.  Maybe you would just have a particular section of the deck blown for this particular purpose.
 
CAT from intersecting...you lost me entirely.
 
 
CATOBARs work already, this would merely enhance their function - allow a greater MTOW or bringback, shorter T/L rolls, possibly allowing occasional use of land-based a/c.  I do not propose to eliminate the catapult nor the arresting wire.  I was not thinking of enabling 25kT carriers, either, just to extend the capabilities of CVX and maybe the Marine amphibs.
 
Has any such notion been tried?  I do seem to recall that Harriers have been tried off a grating over a pit of some 20-40ft depth, which for some reason enhances their ground effect.  An actively blown deck could yield a like effect without requiring 20' of additional hull depth.
 
 
BTW, what do you look like?  No - what I mean is, I've been watching the new cable show Spartacus:  Blood and Sand.  One of the characters, a gladiator, is evidently 'last of the Carthaginians.'  He looks like a Maori warrior.  I'm just wondering about the physiognomy of you ancient Carthaginians ;>
 
Quote    Reply

LB    The real innovation   2/17/2010 5:34:41 PM
The next "real" innovations will include both ship and aircraft design.  For ships the biggest innovation will be EMALS to replace steam catapults.  Beyond F-35B/C fighter size UCAS operating off carriers will be a huge innovation.  The ability of carrier aviation to strike at longer range and/or maintain much longer loiter time of strike and recon assets will be tremendous.  
 
The intent of the USN is for it's carrier air wings mid term to operate 1 sqdn of F-35C, 1 Sqdn X-47B (or another aircraft that fills the UCAS-D requirement), and 2 of F/A-18E/F.  Note the X-47B is powered by an F100 engine.  If the X-47B performs well one should expect the USN to either increase the number embarked or look to develop a larger and even more capable UCAS.
 
A continuing innovation will be the recognition that carriers need to be large for myriad reasons- see QE class and future French considerations.  The number of nations operating real carriers will continue to rise as well to include China, Japan, and South Korea.  More than half a dozen nations could be operating the F-35B from carriers in a dozen years with more down the road.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Nichy reply.   2/17/2010 10:00:52 PM

Howdy, Hamilcar!  So how was France?

 The les contemptibles are in hiding now, so the French people breath free. It was wonderful to see the REAL France on display and at work, and not the fools I dealt with a few years ago.

Frankly your comments are a little too inside-baseball for me so unless someone else likes to take up the cudgels I should probably let it go,but talk is cheap, so:


Won't work. vortices off the hull, separation of flow from flight deck (there is one). CAT from intersecting flow "tubes", etc.
 
Vortices - perimeter vented deck could create a curtain wall of air negating these vortices, or remove them with negative pressure.  Perhaps this would make carrier landings simpler by eliminating this variable.  Of course we see winglets on actual a/c so one could always surround the deck with fins.

Separation of flow - I don't quite understand this objection.  If there is a circumstance where the benefit is compromised by complexity, and this cannot be managed, do not use it at that time.  Say, to enhance V/STO; or to help a COD with greater weights, so you can have aerial resupply of engines.  I don't say it would double your sortie rate.  Maybe you would just have a particular section of the deck blown for this particular purpose.
 
CAT from intersecting...you lost me entirely.

CATOBARs work already, this would merely enhance their function - allow a greater MTOW or bringback, shorter T/L rolls, possibly allowing occasional use of land-based a/c.  I do not propose to eliminate the catapult nor the arresting wire.  I was not thinking of enabling 25kT carriers, either, just to extend the capabilities of CVX and maybe the Marine amphibs.
===============================================================
The aircraft carrier is a moving pitching corkscrewing runway. That makes it a dynamic surface in an airflow. The air that flows across that flightdeck tends to treat it, the flightdeck  like the upper surface of a wing that presents different angles to the flow. That is the reason for the current designs to make that airflow stick (Example: the first British HMS Ark Royal was the first actual attempt to applu these principles.).  
 
What happens to that air flow?  
 
 
 Introduce fences or boundary flow barriers and you make the problem worse, not better.
 ==============================================================================

Has any such notion been tried?  I do seem to recall that Harriers have been tried off a grating over a pit of some 20-40ft depth, which for some reason enhances their ground effect.  An actively blown deck could yield a like effect without requiring 20' of additional hull depth.
==============================================================================
Yes. On the first USS Langley when the Navy wanted to try to increase lift force on that slow carrier to help their  crashing planes so they tried to blow air down the deck with a clumsy fan setup. Didn't work.
==============================================================================
BTW, what do you look like?  No - what I mean is, I've been watching the new cable show Spartacus:  Blood and Sand.  One of the characters, a gladiator, is evidently 'last of the Carthaginians.'  He looks like a Maori warrior.  I'm just wondering about the physiognomy of you ancient Carthaginians ;>
I look like a mongrel bulldog.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics