Posted on 01/14/2009 4:36:29 PM PST by jmcenanly
Current steam catapults use about 615 kg/ 1,350 pounds of steam for each aircraft launch, which is usually delivered by piping it from the nuclear reactor. Now add the required hydraulics and oils, the water required to brake the catapult, and associated pumps, motors, and control systems. The result is a large, heavy, maintenance-intensive system that operates without feedback control; and its sudden shocks affect airframe lifespans for carrier-based aircraft.
(Excerpt) Read more at nextbigfuture.com ...
The world is full of improvements to existing tech. It just may be that there may be a better way to catapult aircraft than steam.
Clearly, you're not an expert on the subject, so your emotional response in favor of steam catapults is puzzling.
Nope he’s still sticking with the horse and buggy, it works he’s sticking with it.
Seems to this civilian, without all the heavy mechanical hydraulic machinery the current launch systems need, you could actually convert one or more submarines into an aircraft launch platform - the landings would probably need to be back onto a traditional carrier.
Imagine being able to pop up out of nowhere - and suddenly there are 10 F-35’s in the air.
Wasn’t one of these featured in a Dirk Pitt novel?
Plus do you really want to cut a 1500 sqft rectangular hole in the pressure hull? Think any sailors would be willing to crew it? I predict an operational lifetime of one dive sequence.
Nope, will be used on CVN-21.
Not so, they have dedicate two reactors to generate steam for launch operations.
Yep. I was on her in 75. Thanks for the link it brought back memories.
Hi JVB
Of course it’s not free. And, I am not an expert. But, stop me when I go astray. The reactors are always running. They run for years between refueling. Always making steam. The incremental increase in reactor output to generate the steam for a launch is so small compared to running the ship’s stationary systems, or propulsion systems, that it can be considered ‘free’. These are all assumptions of mine, and I would welcome you or anyone to tell me if my assumptions are in error.
Yes, systems can be hardened against EMP. I think the other poster was talking about signals radiated from the electromagnetic launcher, not the launcher’s suceptibility to EMP. It makes sense that a giant linear electric motor like this would send out an electromagnetic signature that could be detected from a long, long distance.
I see your point. Um, how about a big giant Faraday cage?
As for the electromagnetic catapult, check out the new rides at your local amusement part next time you go. Most use an electromagnetic launch so the technology has been is in use and proven.
Thanks for the info. I’d have never thought that the steam demand would be close to even one reactor output.
Linear motors are used to propel passenger trains, also. So linear motors on very large scale are already developed. Thanks again for the knowledge.
Since the whole system is contained below deck, it is effectively in a Faraday cage already. Only the slot where the hook sticks out might need shielding. But the magnetism is another story. The ship structure might shunt it quite a bit, might not.
Then we should design electromagnetic swing launchers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.