Jump to content

Carrier Porn (SFW)


Recommended Posts

Quite the boat.   I had no idea it takes so long after it is finished to deploy.  

 

And this poor guy looks like his room and gear was lifted from a Vietnam era ship.  Asbestos and all.

$

 

cnet-ford-carrier-communications.jpg

 

Ok... I give up... the photo doesn't seem to work for some reason.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this video will work in here or not, but the HMS Queen Elizabeth paid a visit to Annapolis this past week.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

here's another

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend that was the #2 guy on the Abraham Lincoln that gave me a tour as they prepared for their last deployment before it was rebuilt about 10 years ago.  He said that the captain thought that he had command of the ship, but my friend said that he actually had the command of 5,000 employees. On our tour, he said to talk to people and let them tell you what they do.  It was an amazing experience talking with people that actually liked what they we doing.  I'm a guy from the late '60's where most "inductees" were disaffected.  I talked with a  young woman in the flight control center and I noticed the 1+" thick glass that was cracked, and also wire nuts were used on electrical connections.  She said:  You don't want to know about the cracked glass, and also mentioned that the head-liner was missing.  We use wire nuts to quickly disconnect things that smoke, and the head-liner just got in the way of seeing where the smoke came from.  They were doing an amazing job with what the had to work with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

first vessel with electronic catapult system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System

 

Not really needed for the Ford which is a nuke, but if one wants to build a carrier with jet engines, there is no other way as there is not enough heat to operate steam catapults.

Initial test system was set up in NJ at Lakehurst.

All the VIPs showed up for the first test including a senior admiral who parked his rental behind test.

As they fired the wheeled concrete block , they found a major issue.  The system was decrementing instead of increamenting causing the unit to shoot the block of concrete backward destroying the Admiral's rental.

The program manager immediately handed in his resignation, but the Admiral refused to accept it, saying FIX THE SYSTEM.

Fixed the code and had it running 2 weeks later...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/12/emals_backfire/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember last May Trump visited Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan, home port of the 7th Fleet.  Trump was talking about the new catapult system on the Ford class carriers.  The President insisted in his usual style that steam was far superior for launching aircraft off of a ship.  Ironically, Trump was speaking to Marines aboard an amphibious assault ship which carries helicopters but no airplanes.  Steampunk Trump   Trump seems to be obsessed with steam catapults, that wasn't the only time he went on a rant about the issue.  Goddamn steam

In 1990, there was a fire and 2 explosions on the Yokosuka based carrier USS Midway that killed two sailors from a damage control party and seriously injured nine more.  The second, fatal explosion was probably caused by a high pressure steam pipe for the catapult system.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford is an amazing set of technologies. Much like the first Nimitz class carrier (Nimitz), a lot of new systems were developed for this next class of aircraft carriers.  When we only build them once at a time, a new class and the new tech that goes into it only comes around once in a generation.  

Getting rid of all steam outside of the main machinery spaces is a huge maintenance cost and safety improvement.  Generating the power was one thing, but EMALS was a huge program in its own right. Steam was a big improvements over hydraulic cats but EMALS is another jump into the future with much better and easier control of the launch impulse and adjustments for different aircraft, aircraft weight and wind conditions.  It’s companion system, Advanced Arresting Gear, replaces a Rube Goldberg collection of pennants, purchase cables, tackles and metering to safe.y stop an aircraft. Both steam cats and conventional arresting gear are finicky and maintenance intensive, both in labor and cost. 

Ford also has a lot of new thought in laying out combat systems, operations spaces, damage control approaches and maintenance capabilities. In the late 90’s, we looked at the demographics and what we were spending on technically savvy people in an all volunteer world it was pretty clear that people were a high and growing part of the cost of the service. A tremendous amount of effort has been spent to justify each body on a ship or in a squadron. The old school approach of just throwing more people at a problem is going away. Some this that were tried didn’t work.  A big part of LCS and DD-1000 costs have been in designing systems to allow them to deploy with a much smaller crew than traditional ships. Ford benefits from a lot of that effort with a crew size about 20% less than previous classes. 

As to the time it takes from commissioning to first deployment?  A whole lot of shakedown of the new systems and training of crews to operate all that new tech gets added to the normal “turnaround training” cycle for the crew and the associated air wing. Because the crew averages a 3 year tour on sea duty, (roughly 1000 days), an average of 4 trained sailors leave each day and 4 new crew requiring training arrive.  
 

Anyway it’s good to see Ford join the fleet. As said at a commissioning, “god bless this ship and all who sail in her.”   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is saying it for a reason.

There is a report from Pentagon that the electromagnetic system still has a lot of teething issues, the worst being it can rip the launch system clean off the plane being launched.

They need to be able to dial  the force in for the plane's weight, bomb load, wind conditions etc.  A heck of lot more precision to pull off at 0-300 mph than launching 40 fat fucks to 30 mph on a roller coaster. The Navy pushed a technology not ready for prime time on a vessel that costs 13 billion bucks a copy..

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26478/donald-trump-emals-steam-catapult-aircraft-carrier/

 

It has had a serious impact on operational readiness, which is a key metric for any aviation squadron. 

The Navy has to solve the problem stat.

 

Same issue with the f-35 or the new the littoral combat vessels.  They built super expensive super complex technology platforms without sorting out the problems first and that is expensive way to debug.

Contrast with the US Marine's unofficial procurement mantra "if it doesn't smoke or leak oil, we don;t want it"  (eg we want proven designs)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Foreverslow said:

 

Contrast with the US Marine's unofficial procurement mantra "if it doesn't smoke or leak oil, we don;t want it"  (eg we want proven designs)

......i.e. if it is free we will take it. One of my jobs was to scan the DOD surplus lists for items of interest.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, warbird said:

......i.e. if it is free we will take it. One of my jobs was to scan the DOD surplus lists for items of interest.....

Not to stir any shit but if DoD want to save a lot of money, it's time to say goodbye to the Marine Corps.  They did a fine job, even magnificent but having a subordinate arm of the Navy, but with it's own planes, and competing with the Army which has plenty of infantry, armor and artillery, in today's warfighting environment is wasteful duplication of effort, tradition be damned.  The chances that we need a force that specializes in amphibious landings are close to zero.  The last major amphibious landing was in 1950 at Inchon, which was carried out by the Army's 7th Infantry Division.  The landing was a brilliant success although the outcome of the war left a bit to be desired (not the Marines fault, anyway).  

President Truman wanted to eliminate the Marines at the end of WWII.  Obviously that didn't happen.  The idea was considered again about 10 years ago to no avail. 

The Marines are good at getting by on low budgets, and often scrounging for gear.  Unfortunately they also have insisted on questionable decisions such as insisting on obtaining AV8B Harrier aircraft and the over priced, over hyped V-22 Osprey, and using up valuable dollars on questionable assets.  

If anyone can give a convincing argument as to why we need the Marines in the 21st century, I am skeptical but willing to listen.  I would like to hear facts and not emotion based arguments.  

The Jarheads have done so much, often with so little but I think it's time to say goodbye.  The Army could use a few good men, so the current Marines will not go to waste.  So you don't think I just don't like the Corps, while DoD is cleaning house it is also time to get rid of airborne forces as well.  Talk about an anachronism!  The so called 'combat jump' into Northern Iraq in the last war there is a subject all its own.

Fire away Leathernecks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Not to stir any shit but if DoD want to save a lot of money, it's time to say goodbye to the Marine Corps.  They did a fine job, even magnificent but having a subordinate arm of the Navy, but with it's own planes, and competing with the Army which has plenty of infantry, armor and artillery, in today's warfighting environment is wasteful duplication of effort, tradition be damned.  The chances that we need a force that specializes in amphibious landings are close to zero.  The last major amphibious landing was in 1950 at Inchon, which was carried out by the Army's 7th Infantry Division.  The landing was a brilliant success although the outcome of the war left a bit to be desired (not the Marines fault, anyway).  

President Truman wanted to eliminate the Marines at the end of WWII.  Obviously that didn't happen.  The idea was considered again about 10 years ago to no avail. 

The Marines are good at getting by on low budgets, and often scrounging for gear.  Unfortunately they also have insisted on questionable decisions such as insisting on obtaining AV8B Harrier aircraft and the over priced, over hyped V-22 Osprey, and using up valuable dollars on questionable assets.  

If anyone can give a convincing argument as to why we need the Marines in the 21st century, I am skeptical but willing to listen.  I would like to hear facts and not emotion based arguments.  

The Jarheads have done so much, often with so little but I think it's time to say goodbye.  The Army could use a few good men, so the current Marines will not go to waste.  So you don't think I just don't like the Corps, while DoD is cleaning house it is also time to get rid of airborne forces as well.  Talk about an anachronism!  The so called 'combat jump' into Northern Iraq in the last war there is a subject all its own.

Fire away Leathernecks!

78051602_10217381910153355_6382883724744196096_o.thumb.jpg.57a2bcb3c77dd5088272d6a7c99895f1.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

I remember last May Trump visited Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan, home port of the 7th Fleet.  Trump was talking about the new catapult system on the Ford class carriers.  The President insisted in his usual style that steam was far superior for launching aircraft off of a ship.  Ironically, Trump was speaking to Marines aboard an amphibious assault ship which carries helicopters but no airplanes.  Steampunk Trump   Trump seems to be obsessed with steam catapults, that wasn't the only time he went on a rant about the issue.  Goddamn steam

In 1990, there was a fire and 2 explosions on the Yokosuka based carrier USS Midway that killed two sailors from a damage control party and seriously injured nine more.  The second, fatal explosion was probably caused by a high pressure steam pipe for the catapult system.

 

Too bad the shitstain wasn't there at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Foreverslow said:

Contrast with the US Marine's unofficial procurement mantra "if it doesn't smoke or leak oil, we don;t want it" 

I didn't realize that the Marines used British technology. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Foreverslow said:

Trump is saying it for a reason.

There is a report from Pentagon that the electromagnetic system still has a lot of teething issues, the worst being it can rip the launch system clean off the plane being launched.

They need to be able to dial  the force in for the plane's weight, bomb load, wind conditions etc.  A heck of lot more precision to pull off at 0-300 mph than launching 40 fat fucks to 30 mph on a roller coaster. The Navy pushed a technology not ready for prime time on a vessel that costs 13 billion bucks a copy..

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26478/donald-trump-emals-steam-catapult-aircraft-carrier/

 

It has had a serious impact on operational readiness, which is a key metric for any aviation squadron. 

The Navy has to solve the problem stat.

 

Same issue with the f-35 or the new the littoral combat vessels.  They built super expensive super complex technology platforms without sorting out the problems first and that is expensive way to debug.

Contrast with the US Marine's unofficial procurement mantra "if it doesn't smoke or leak oil, we don;t want it" (eg we want proven designs)

Proven designs save tax dollars and don't tend to create new problems. An electromagnetic launch system, seems like a headache with marginal benefit over a conventional system. It can work, but maybe after it proves itself in industry for a few years, where it can be serviced and upgraded easily, rather than shoehorned into a mission-critical tool.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Proven designs save tax dollars and don't tend to create new problems. An electromagnetic launch system, seems like a headache with marginal benefit over a conventional system. It can work, but maybe after it proves itself in industry for a few years, where it can be serviced and upgraded easily, rather than shoehorned into a mission-critical tool.

Sure Mike.  That's what people said to Thomas Edison, the Wright bros, Einstein, Henry Ford, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, among others.  Wait, scratch that last one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Not to stir any shit but if DoD want to save a lot of money, it's time to say goodbye to the Marine Corps.  They did a fine job, even magnificent but having a subordinate arm of the Navy, but with it's own planes, and competing with the Army which has plenty of infantry, armor and artillery, in today's warfighting environment is wasteful duplication of effort, tradition be damned.  The chances that we need a force that specializes in amphibious landings are close to zero.  The last major amphibious landing was in 1950 at Inchon, which was carried out by the Army's 7th Infantry Division.  The landing was a brilliant success although the outcome of the war left a bit to be desired (not the Marines fault, anyway).  

President Truman wanted to eliminate the Marines at the end of WWII.  Obviously that didn't happen.  The idea was considered again about 10 years ago to no avail. 

The Marines are good at getting by on low budgets, and often scrounging for gear.  Unfortunately they also have insisted on questionable decisions such as insisting on obtaining AV8B Harrier aircraft and the over priced, over hyped V-22 Osprey, and using up valuable dollars on questionable assets.  

If anyone can give a convincing argument as to why we need the Marines in the 21st century, I am skeptical but willing to listen.  I would like to hear facts and not emotion based arguments.  

The Jarheads have done so much, often with so little but I think it's time to say goodbye.  The Army could use a few good men, so the current Marines will not go to waste.  So you don't think I just don't like the Corps, while DoD is cleaning house it is also time to get rid of airborne forces as well.  Talk about an anachronism!  The so called 'combat jump' into Northern Iraq in the last war there is a subject all its own.

Fire away Leathernecks!

Your argument fails. You state (pp) "if DoD wants to save money " then later acknowledge that the Corps (Semper Fi) "have done so much with so little".:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

Your argument fails. You state (pp) "if DoD wants to save money " then later acknowledge that the Corps (Semper Fi) "have done so much with so little".:lol:

"So little" in respect to a 750 billion $ defense budget is still a lot of dough!  But if it hadn't been for the Corps cashing in a year's worth of empty beer cans, they wouldn't have been able to buy 10 more of those V-22s!   ;)

When I worked at GE assembling rapid transit commuter train cars, my work station's motto was:  We the unwilling led by the unknowing have been doing the impossible forever.  We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.

To give you some idea, we worked on a group bonus plan, each task had a time goal, do it in less time, make a bonus over our hourly pay rate.  They continually would cut the times as we got more proficient, thereby not making the amount of money we though we deserved.  We were always finding clever ways to work faster.  So one day after yet another cut in the task time one of my co-workers said, "They can't keep cutting the time on this task, I'm only putting in one screw now!  :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Sure Mike.  That's what people said to Thomas Edison, the Wright bros, Einstein, Henry Ford, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, among others.  Wait, scratch that last one.

It's a remarkably difficult problem, moving varying masses with electrodynamics, if you don't know why, then maybe trust me, it's hard. The payload becomes magnetized to the degree so shielding is needed, the hysteresis changes, loops need constant tuning as the system heats up and cools down.

I'm not saying that President Trump necessarily knows the hurdles with electromagnetic launch systems, but he did pick the right horse in this particular battle, at least for the next few years ... the old school catapults work as they are designed. The new stuff needs more work before it's ready for prime time.

I do get your politics on this I think ... regular catapults represent Trump and the Marines, neither of which you like, but I don't see the need to replace something trustworthy with something prone to regular failure. Maybe putting on on the deck of an aircraft carrier will help, but I'll does anyone know if the Gerald Ford has a backup conventional catapult on it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, mikewof said:

 

I do get your politics on this I think ... regular catapults represent Trump and the Marines, neither of which you like, ...........

Nobody likes the Marines.......until they need them:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

It's a remarkably difficult problem, moving varying masses with electrodynamics, if you don't know why, then maybe trust me, it's hard. The payload becomes magnetized to the degree so shielding is needed, the hysteresis changes, loops need constant tuning as the system heats up and cools down.

I'm not saying that President Trump necessarily knows the hurdles with electromagnetic launch systems, but he did pick the right horse in this particular battle, at least for the next few years ... the old school catapults work as they are designed. The new stuff needs more work before it's ready for prime time.

I do get your politics on this I think ... regular catapults represent Trump and the Marines, neither of which you like, but I don't see the need to replace something trustworthy with something prone to regular failure. Maybe putting on on the deck of an aircraft carrier will help, but I'll does anyone know if the Gerald Ford has a backup conventional catapult on it?

You either run steam up to the catapults or you don’t. You can’t have both steam cars and EMALS. So, no there is not a conventional cat as a backup. 

How many years is enough to wait?  At some point, you make a decision to move to the new tech. Enterprise is scheduled to be delivered in 2028 which means first deployment in 2032 or so. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

You either run steam up to the catapults or you don’t. You can’t have both steam cars and EMALS. So, no there is not a conventional cat as a backup. 

How many years is enough to wait?  At some point, you make a decision to move to the new tech. Enterprise is scheduled to be delivered in 2028 which means first deployment in 2032 or so. 
 

Was there that much of a problem with the old way that planes were getting damaged and distorted from the catapult?

How long should they wait? IMO, they should wait until the new electromagnetic system has the same or better MTBF as the system it replaces. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump canned the Sec of the Navy today.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/navy-secretary-fired-over-seal-controversy

 

Part was for going around his boss (eg breaking the chain of command).

The other is not getting budgets under control.  Status quo of just keep giving us money and we will figure it out is toast as the numbers are gettign mind boggling, as are our deficits.

Not the way to run a real business.

We shall see if the Pentagon pays attention the next time he says he is not happy with the cost of a new weapons system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mikewof said:

It's a remarkably difficult problem, moving varying masses with electrodynamics, if you don't know why, then maybe trust me, it's hard. The payload becomes magnetized to the degree so shielding is needed, the hysteresis changes, loops need constant tuning as the system heats up and cools down.

I'm not saying that President Trump necessarily knows the hurdles with electromagnetic launch systems, but he did pick the right horse in this particular battle, at least for the next few years ... the old school catapults work as they are designed. The new stuff needs more work before it's ready for prime time.

I do get your politics on this I think ... regular catapults represent Trump and the Marines, neither of which you like, but I don't see the need to replace something trustworthy with something prone to regular failure. Maybe putting on on the deck of an aircraft carrier will help, but I'll does anyone know if the Gerald Ford has a backup conventional catapult on it?

 

8 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

You either run steam up to the catapults or you don’t. You can’t have both steam cars and EMALS. So, no there is not a conventional cat as a backup. 

How many years is enough to wait?  At some point, you make a decision to move to the new tech. Enterprise is scheduled to be delivered in 2028 which means first deployment in 2032 or so. 
 

I get what you are saying Mike, you understand the physics of the EMALS better than I do.  But IB was a Navy pilot and has a lot of experience and knowledge of the issue.  As he said, how long do you want to wait.  Carries are an extremely complex system and changing any technology used on them is not a simple process.  It takes years to design, refine, test and build them.  At some point they need to commit to a change and inevitably there will be problems.  What do you suggest?  That they build a very expensive mock up of the flight deck and spend years working each and every bug in the EMALS before they actually build it in to a new carrier?  That would probably take 25 years or more given the cycle of design, development, budgets, etc.  And it would probably cost far more than the $800 million budget overrun on the Ford EMALS.  As IB said, at some point you have to make a decision, and I don't think the decision that was made was a bad one.  Eventually you have to actually use the new system in an operational environment to work out all of the bugs, no matter how much head scratching, how many endless meetings, and prototyping and testing you do.  It's not like they haven't been working for years on this problem, and just decided on a whim to install this new, untested technology on a very expensive toy.   You might know the physics of the problem but I have about 20 years experience working as a soldier and Dod civilian employee in different military environments, from the lowest levels up to a major Army HQ and I have a pretty good knowledge of how it all works.  In my experience, like any large, complex bureaucracy, mistakes are made, budgets get out of control, a certain amount of fraud waste and abuse occur, but overall it usually gets the job done quite well in most cases.  

 I don't like Trump for sure, I despise the man actually.  As Trump himself says, he trusts his gut.  The autodidact Trump thinks his guts know more than very smart people that have spent their entire careers solving complex problems.  There is ample evidence that Trump often ignores his many expert advisers, acts on impulse and sometimes he gets lucky, but that's no way to run a country.  I think my negative feelings about President Gut are well founded.

As an Army vet,  I do like and admire the Marines (one time while on emergency call I had to deal with a psychotic Marine in Japan, but that's another story), but in my opinion modern warfare has rendered their primary mission (amphibious landings) obsolete, and there is unnecessary duplication in every other area.  The Air Force, the Navy and the Marines, and to some extent the Army all use complex and expensive aircraft to perform many of the same missions, is that really necessary?  In 1947 the Army Air Corps became an independent Air Force, which was a good decision, but often inter service rivalries about who gets to do what have gotten out of control.  In the military they often refer to Green Suiters, Blue Suiters, etc. to refer to the different services.  The trend in the last 30 years or so is to refer to Purple Suiters (a mixture of all of the colors), to encourage the separate services to blend common tasks, such as medical care, and logistics and procurement, and to stop drawing hard lines around each service's missions to increase efficiency which can save a lot of money.  When I attended my Army training in mental health in 1988 in San Antonio, TX, we had Air Force personnel in our class so the Air Force could eliminate their separate and essentially identical training that they operated at a different base in Texas.  There were 3 Army bases and 3 Air Force bases, in San Antonio (and 15 military bases in Texas), four of which were consolidated into Joint Base San Antonio in 2010, to create efficiencies and avoid duplication of effort.  There are now 12 joint military bases in the US, a concept that was unthinkable not so many years ago.  I think the creation of the new Space Force is a stupid one, creating another military branch, with it's own cumbersome, power hungry bureaucracy, with all of the problems that come with it.  It should be a part of the Air Force, which is well suited to that mission.  It's a long hard battle to fight emotions, history, and tradition, but it's slowly happening.  Each branch of the military fights fiercely in Congress for their budgets to maintain their power and status, and while necessary to a certain extent it also leads to a lot of expensive and unnecessary waste for the sake of ego.  As I heard repeatedly in the Army, "The mission comes first."  Like many, I agree that the Marines have the coolest, spiffiest dress uniform in the military, and the Marines have well deserved reputation for laudable accomplishment and heroism.  But keeping a small, budget constrained, often make do force with a questionable primary mission for the sake of tradition is just wasteful, no matter how good they look and how tough they are.  Many military experts in the DoD share my thoughts.  

I am surprised that as a scientist you have such a strong resistance to this relatively new technology and a desire to stay with the tried and true 'because it works 'well enough'.  And steam catapults, while they have done the job almost since carriers have been in existence have their fair share of problems as well.  A large amount of manpower on a carrier is devoted to running, and maintaining a very old system that occupies a lot of space, to launch aircraft by cumbersome brute force.  Look at NASA.  They really pushed the envelope to put a man on the moon in a relatively short amount of time and luckily 'only' lost 3 astronauts in the process.  The space shuttle program incurred a couple of spectacular, fatal failures indeed but it also provided a lot of useful technology to push the drive to eventually open space to untold opportunities.  How far would the space program have advanced if they had the 'let's test endlessly until everything is perfect' attitude that you appear to endorse?  To borrow the British Special Air Service (SAS) motto, "Who dares wins".

Yeah, I know, it's a long post.  It's what I do, if you ask me for the time, I might tell you how a watch is made.  Get over it and get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

Was there that much of a problem with the old way that planes were getting damaged and distorted from the catapult?

How long should they wait? IMO, they should wait until the new electromagnetic system has the same or better MTBF as the system it replaces. 

Mike,  the useful life of a carrier based aircraft is governed by fatigue life of the landing gear and longitudinals  (absorbs the energy of an arrested landing), the nose landing gear, torque box (where it attaches) and longitudinals connecting it to the primary structure and the wing carry through bulkheads. Steam cats have a limited low  power range (minimum setting) and aren’t really adjustable beyond a “total power” approach. Since 1964, when the British invention of steam cats started replacing hydraulic cats on US  Aircraft Carriers, we refined an imperfect technology. Lots of moving parts, seals and valves, all with significant maintenance expense, including manpower. Just as significant is the design, installation, maintenance and risk of pumping large volumes of  high pressure steam throughout the ship. For some time, keeping the steam in the main machinery rooms has been a Navy goal. In the last 40 years, there has been a huge investment in replacing “secondary steam” systems with electric systems to further that goal.

Not sure how you mature a technology without building it. Decision to put EMALS in Ford wasn’t a simple one and the early development issues with EMALS made it pretty hard. I was part of the “air-ship integration” team and a good friend was the EMALS PM ((who got fired) during those days (roughly 2003). Pretty much an irreversible decision once made as a Carrier structure is largely built around the cats and arresting gear. 

Certainly a lot more difficult to design and build than folks thought it would be but “wait a few years” means major ship redesign and waiting 15 or more years at the rate that we build carriers. Easy to find fault today with decisions made 15 years ago but that is par for this place. 
 

Jeff,

Not sure why Ford was chosen. Probably better than Nixon. Other than America and Enterprise (the starship, of course), Carriers are named after Presidents and only rarely are names reused.  You have to admit, some of the development issues with Ford are consistent with the man’s golf skills and pratfalls.....
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

 Carriers are named after Presidents and only rarely are names reused.  You have to admit, some of the development issues with Ford are consistent with the man’s golf skills and pratfalls.....

President Nimitz?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Mike,  the useful life of a carrier based aircraft is governed by fatigue life of the landing gear and longitudinals  (absorbs the energy of an arrested landing), the nose landing gear, torque box (where it attaches) and longitudinals connecting it to the primary structure and the wing carry through bulkheads. Steam cats have a limited low  power range (minimum setting) and aren’t really adjustable beyond a “total power” approach. Since 1964, when the British invention of steam cats started replacing hydraulic cats on US  Aircraft Carriers, we refined an imperfect technology. Lots of moving parts, seals and valves, all with significant maintenance expense, including manpower. Just as significant is the design, installation, maintenance and risk of pumping large volumes of  high pressure steam throughout the ship. For some time, keeping the steam in the main machinery rooms has been a Navy goal. In the last 40 years, there has been a huge investment in replacing “secondary steam” systems with electric systems to further that goal.

Not sure how you mature a technology without building it. Decision to put EMALS in Ford wasn’t a simple one and the early development issues with EMALS made it pretty hard. I was part of the “air-ship integration” team and a good friend was the EMALS PM ((who got fired) during those days (roughly 2003). Pretty much an irreversible decision once made as a Carrier structure is largely built around the cats and arresting gear. 

 

I guess my perspective on this is just skewed away from the difficulties of moving things with electromagnetics because it seems as soon as you engineer one solution with them, a previously solved problem comes back.

I get that the steam systems might seem more complicated, but to me, anything is simpler and more reliable than moving serious mass with electromagnetics. Sure, the valves and seals in the steam system wear out and need replacement. But with electromagnetics, it's shifting hysteresis and self-magnetising, Curie points that appear all of sudden.

You worked a carrier, so maybe it's not a big deal, but when I think of all these things that can go wrong with an electromagnetic system, it doesn't seem like a carrier is the right place for it with existing magnetic materials. But again, that's my desire to make things failproof when people's lives are on the line. If a failure of that launch system is little more than a few minutes of downtime, I guess it isn't a big deal, shove 'em in there!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

 

I get what you are saying Mike, you understand the physics of the EMALS better than I do.  But IB was a Navy pilot and has a lot of experience and knowledge of the issue.  As he said, how long do you want to wait.  Carries are an extremely complex system and changing any technology used on them is not a simple process.  It takes years to design, refine, test and build them.  

It's the complexity of these carriers and the critical nature of these launch systems that unnerves me with electromagnetics. But obviously your approach here is the approach taken, so my reservations are academic at best, essentially worthless.

Hopefully it will work as designed.

But if it doesn't, that nasty old greasy steam system is going to look mighty attractive to all involved. I would be surprised if there are even five physicists in the USA who can get security clearances and have the engineering experience to retrofit a long term fix with electromagnetic launch systems. Guys like me, we aren't even smart enough to know where to start, we are simply smart enough to know how complicated is the problem, and keep our distance from it because it will make us look like idiots.

I'll add this last thing ... moving mass with electromagnetics is really weird because our collective knowledge of magnetic materials is in its infancy. Maybe only one scientist out of a thousand can give a rational explanation of how a fridge magnet works, let alone something of that scale. I've seen electromagnetic feedback and control systems work perfectly in the morning and become irreparably damaged by that same afternoon ... not "we can't fix that," but more like "we can't even understand why it doesn't work."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mikewof said:

It's the complexity of these carriers and the critical nature of these launch systems that unnerves me with electromagnetics. But obviously your approach here is the approach taken, so my reservations are academic at best, essentially worthless.

Hopefully it will work as designed.

But if it doesn't, that nasty old greasy steam system is going to look mighty attractive to all involved. I would be surprised if there are even five physicists in the USA who can get security clearances and have the engineering experience to retrofit a long term fix with electromagnetic launch systems. Guys like me, we aren't even smart enough to know where to start, we are simply smart enough to know how complicated is the problem, and keep our distance from it.

I get Mike's point. Is 9 out of 10 successful launches acceptable? 4 out of 5? 1 out of 2?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Navy puts nuclear reactors on ships and makes them, almost literally, bulletproof. They do the same with the hideously complicated and dangerous steam catapult. That doesn't mean it's easy, inexpensive, or that they're able to tolerate wartime attack from a determined enemy with comparable capabilities.

Not to downplay the challenges associated with electromotive launching but the fact of the matter is that it's at least an order of magnitude less complex than a steam catapult and being a largely solid state device, once the thing is properly designed and built, the in-field headaches and maintenance requirements will be far lower. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I did and saw race pics on the first link.  I didn't bother with the rest.  

 

Yer a Quitter

It was a race I was out to shoot

But the race was UpStaged by a departure

I received a Shipload of Thank Youz from across the country by Loved Ones who could not attend

The Pix ment Alot to thousands of people

you don't need to be one

you could say its mostly pix of guys on a Old Boat and ya can't argue with that

I didn't post that for YOU 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Dude, seriously WTF???

Woody is talking about the photos of the USS Stennis CVN-74.  You have to scroll through the photos of the race and you'll see them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

Woody is talking about the photos of the USS Stennis CVN-74.  You have to scroll through the photos of the race and you'll see them.

 

an Open Mind enjoys a Better World

from SA Archives -> http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/166965-stennis-ahoy/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never served in an aircraft carrier but I spent three days on exchange with HMS Ark Royal.  A magnificent experience! 

One of the biggest differences was that for the destroyers / frigates / escorts that carried a helicopter or two, the ship was at 'flying stations' for perhaps a few hours per day.  Aircraft carriers are almost always at 'flying stations'.  It has a big impact on operations - and that is their operation. 

By the way, having a cabin located more or less under the hangar of an aircraft carrier makes for difficult sleeping conditions.  The hangar is a busy and noisy place 24/7.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IStream said:

The Navy puts nuclear reactors on ships and makes them, almost literally, bulletproof. They do the same with the hideously complicated and dangerous steam catapult. That doesn't mean it's easy, inexpensive, or that they're able to tolerate wartime attack from a determined enemy with comparable capabilities.

Not to downplay the challenges associated with electromotive launching but the fact of the matter is that it's at least an order of magnitude less complex than a steam catapult and being a largely solid state device, once the thing is properly designed and built, the in-field headaches and maintenance requirements will be far lower. 

This attitude is the one that kind of worries me it. Electromagnetic launch might be appear to be "at least an order of magnitude less complex" in the same way that a desktop computer might appear to be less complex than a WWII-era projectile computers like the Mark 1. No need to worry about a cockroach crawling into the warm circuits, right? But the desktop computer's lack of complexity is an illusion, it's more complex than the old electro-mechanical range computers, it's just that the operator doesn't need to know anything about the semiconductors and quantum effects that allow a computer to work. So the operator declares it to be less complex.

The electromagnetic launch system is far more complicated than a catapult. Calling it "solid state" allows it to compare to devices that don't need to manage quantum interference, nonlinearities and hysteresis over hundreds of meters. That system has constantly varying operating conditions at every point on the linear induction circuit. Yeah, officially that's "solid state" but it shares close to none of the reliability of a solid state system.

The whole reason "solid state" became equivalent to "reliable" is because components that operated in the solid state (like transistors) were more reliable than components that operated in the fluid state (like vacuum tubes.) But that transistor shares close to the none of that reliability with a hundreds of meters long induction motor.

 

Okay, so if the future of the military is really one where aircraft carriers are more akin to giant floating billboards to the capabilities of a military-industry, then fine, shove all the advanced tech that you can into them. Because if that aircraft carrier isn't in fact a lynchpin in our future wars against asymmetric actions, computer attacks and economic attacks,  then it will serve as a jim-dandy demonstration of the electromagnetic launch technology which is soon going to be rolled into civilian airports around the world, and allow for safer, more cost effective take-offs and landings of a wide range of civilian aircraft.

Hey, it worked on an aircraft carrier on fighter jets, it will surely work in our regional airport with commuter planes and Cassna 182s, right?

But if the goal is really to create and use systems that can both defend the aircraft carrier and whatever mission the carrier is assigned, then it worries me very much when people think of these as "less complex" with a guaranteed reliability. I've seen linear induction go tits up on a shorter-than-one-meter length because feedback in  the system will distort it, create feedback loops, and even lead to the kind of failure where you wipe your brow as you look at the burned mess and say "fuck me dead, I'm lucky that thing didn't blow up in my face."

I have no idea how these systems can be shielded from EMP, or even if something that big and exposed can be shielded. I have no idea how many launches it can spit out when it starts getting hot, or when continued use doesn't allow cleaning and rebuild. I have no idea if these can be field repaired if damaged by eddy currents, or if the kind of submerged arc welding that they probably have to use to put them together will withstand feedback and thermal load from eddy currents. Anyone who works with long-path, high-load currents sees this stuff constantly, and they wipe their brow a lot and say "fuck me dead, I'm lucky that thing didn't blow up in my face."

I know next to nothing about steam launch, but there is no way that it can be more complicated than a linear induction system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, warbird said:

I get Mike's point. Is 9 out of 10 successful launches acceptable? 4 out of 5? 1 out of 2?

I read that they're at something like 98 out of a 100, MTBF, but I don't know if that means a failure is something that requires a repair, or just a quick reset.

I haven't seen anything about actually stressing these systems ... can they launch that many planes without a cool-down? Can a ship-mounted system bucking on ocean swells resist sufficient distortions over hundreds of meters in a way that a land-mounted system can just ignore?  If the ship is running low on juice with everything else pulling current, can the energy storage system stay robust? Beats me, they just say that it works, and that Luddites like you and I should just shut up and not sweat the details.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, mikewof said:

If the ship is running low on juice with everything else pulling current, can the energy storage system stay robust? Beats me, they just say that it works, and that Luddites like you and I should just shut up and not sweat the details.

The ship was designed for future uses that require electrons and in its current state uses less than half of what it makes of those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bugger said:

I never served in an aircraft carrier but I spent three days on exchange with HMS Ark Royal.  A magnificent experience! 

One of the biggest differences was that for the destroyers / frigates / escorts that carried a helicopter or two, the ship was at 'flying stations' for perhaps a few hours per day.  Aircraft carriers are almost always at 'flying stations'.  It has a big impact on operations - and that is their operation. 

By the way, having a cabin located more or less under the hangar of an aircraft carrier makes for difficult sleeping conditions.  The hangar is a busy and noisy place 24/7.  

I had a cabin under the round down. Before that I had a cabin with a 2 foot vertical tube next to my rack, arresting wire!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

I read that they're at something like 98 out of a 100, MTBF, but I don't know if that means a failure is something that requires a repair, or just a quick reset.

 

....or an SAR launch.......?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

You can argue that “we should wait until the technology has fully matured” on anything. The first jet powered fighters were pretty abysmal aircraft. The first steam ships were a lot more trouble prone than proven sail driven ships. All that, ad nasuem. My understanding is that failure are “system shuts down, fails to operate” more than “it works but not like we expected.”  I’d expect that as the down side of firing the cat with potential problems is pretty bad. it the documented failure are “more than 29l, keep in mind that a carrier in full operational operations can launch  100-200 aircraft/day.  

As to acceptable “type 1 failures” (aircraft attempts to launch but failed to reach flying speed.) the answers is any failure is unacceptable.  Flying off ships is dangerous work  although accident rates are a lot lower now, my life insurance when I was flying off carriers had a 4x multiplier based on occupation.  6 sigma performance isn’t acceptable for launch and recovery systems so I’m pretty sure that folks take every anomaly with the system very seriously.  

As to your “hundreds of meters” reference, a cat is about 100 meters long. Non trivial, but not “hundreds of meters.”  EMALS also connects to the aircraft with a conventional shuttle and launch bar so they are using the electromagnetic side to power the shuttle, not induce energy into the aircraft itself. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I get that, but there were so many other prezzies to choose from over Ford.  Makes no sense.  It's interesting, both the JFK and the Enterprise names are going to be refurbed into a Ford Class boat.  

And not to be pedantic, but there have been other names for carriers aside from Preznits.  Oriskany, Midway, Carl Vinson, Stennis, Langley, Ranger, Wasp, etc.  

I probably would have gone for the USS Obama before Ford.  Even the Jimmy Carter, but he's already got a sub named for him, which is more approps.  I think a great name for a new boat would be the Neil Armstrong.

Jeff,

Vinson, Stennis, Nimitz are all very significant to carrier aviation.  Congressman Vinson was the “father of a 2 ocean Navy.” John Stennis was the most senior senator and a staunch supporter of a Navy “Second to none.”  Both Democrats, by the way. Fleet Admiral Nimitz lead the transition from battleships “crossing the T” and sluggin it out with other battleships to Carriers and the Navy as a primary strike force.  All 3 had a pretty pretty significant impact on the development of carrier aviation. 

As to Obama?  Ford was named before the keel was laid in 2005 when he was no more more than a junior senator.  I suspect his name will adorn a carrier in time. 

USS Donald Trump?  Hope not. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Mike,

You can argue that “we should wait until the technology has fully matured” on anything. The first jet powered fighters were pretty abysmal aircraft. The first steam ships were a lot more trouble prone than proven sail driven ships. All that, ad nasuem. My understanding is that failure are “system shuts down, fails to operate” more than “it works but not like we expected.”  I’d expect that as the down side of firing the cat with potential problems is pretty bad. it the documented failure are “more than 29l, keep in mind that a carrier in full operational operations can launch  100-200 aircraft/day.  

As to acceptable “type 1 failures” (aircraft attempts to launch but failed to reach flying speed.) the answers is any failure is unacceptable.  Flying off ships is dangerous work  although accident rates are a lot lower now, my life insurance when I was flying off carriers had a 4x multiplier based on occupation.  6 sigma performance isn’t acceptable for launch and recovery systems so I’m pretty sure that folks take every anomaly with the system very seriously.  

As to your “hundreds of meters” reference, a cat is about 100 meters long. Non trivial, but not “hundreds of meters.”  EMALS also connects to the aircraft with a conventional shuttle and launch bar so they are using the electromagnetic side to power the shuttle, not induce energy into the aircraft itself.

Slow speed linear induction of hundreds of meters, not a big deal, there is a good bit of play in the rails. But high-speed, high-torque like an aircraft launch system, a hundred meters might as well be a hundred thousand meters compared to the catastrophic failures I've seen, where things went haywire with overheating welds and hysteresis and eddy currents above just a few meters.

Things fail in the linear induction when the heat can't be managed, and a launch every five minutes or so seems like that would accumulate a lot of heat in that system. I can only assume they've tested it to that duty cycle, I'm sure it works, but I haven't read anything to how well it will work when the rail is distorted, or unbalanced. I understand that the linear induction works through the rails and coils, not the aircraft itself, but induction isn't necessarily easy to shield against. Do you know what kind of shielding system they have (if any) on that launch to protect from EMP? I guess it might be possible, is the whole thing is wrapped in some kind of Faraday cage? Just the induction coils?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mikewof said:

Slow speed linear induction of hundreds of meters, not a big deal, there is a good bit of play in the rails. But high-speed, high-torque like an aircraft launch system, a hundred meters might as well be a hundred thousand meters compared to the catastrophic failures I've seen, where things went haywire with overheating welds and hysteresis and eddy currents above just a few meters.

Things fail in the linear induction when the heat can't be managed, and a launch every five minutes or so seems like that would accumulate a lot of heat in that system. I can only assume they've tested it to that duty cycle, I'm sure it works, but I haven't read anything to how well it will work when the rail is distorted, or unbalanced. I understand that the linear induction works through the rails and coils, not the aircraft itself, but induction isn't necessarily easy to shield against. Do you know what kind of shielding system they have (if any) on that launch to protect from EMP? I guess it might be possible, is the whole thing is wrapped in some kind of Faraday cage? Just the induction coils?

Mike, as I stated before, the physics behind this sort of thing are beyond my comprehension.  I took one physics class in college because I was required to take one science lab course or an advanced math course.  I majored in technical theater, and numbery disciplines are not my strong suit, even though I am a pretty intelligent guy.  Complicated calculations and equations scare the shit out of me.  I had a math teacher in 3rd grade that ruined me for life concerning numbers.  If you're out there Miss Krause, I still hate you I will never forgive you for the humiliation and pain you inflicted on me, rot in hell you red headed bitch!!  Sorry for the digression.  So I took a course in the 'Nature of Light and Color'.    It came in quite handy for my tech theater studies and I managed to pass the course and learned a lot of fascinating things.  Who knew that the primary colors of light are completely different than the primary colors of pigment?  And the best part is that the professor and a colleague were apparently experts in this area and were writing a text book on the subject.  We got xeroxed copies of the chapters as they were editing the book so we didn't have to spend $100.00 on the finished product.  At that time the GI bill payed a whopping $320.00 a month so any money I could save was welcome relief, and I could spend more money on hookers and blow beer.

Anyway, that being said the one thing that caught my eye was this hysterisis thing.  Are you saying that for one week a month this piece of ultra advanced technology turns into a raving, irrational, unstable monster that hemorrhages muons all over the place???  That's truly frightening!!!   Maybe this isn't ready for prime time until they can manage this problem.  I can just hear some wizened old chief petty officer ordering some hapless seaman basic to go shove a high tech, solid state tampon of some kind into a moist, throbbing induction coil.  I wouldn't want that job!  Science, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 6:54 AM, Innocent Bystander said:

Mike,  the useful life of a carrier based aircraft is governed by fatigue life of the landing gear and longitudinals  (absorbs the energy of an arrested landing), the nose landing gear, torque box (where it attaches) and longitudinals connecting it to the primary structure and the wing carry through bulkheads. Steam cats have a limited low  power range (minimum setting) and aren’t really adjustable beyond a “total power” approach. Since 1964, when the British invention of steam cats started replacing hydraulic cats on US  Aircraft Carriers, we refined an imperfect technology. Lots of moving parts, seals and valves, all with significant maintenance expense, including manpower. Just as significant is the design, installation, maintenance and risk of pumping large volumes of  high pressure steam throughout the ship. For some time, keeping the steam in the main machinery rooms has been a Navy goal. In the last 40 years, there has been a huge investment in replacing “secondary steam” systems with electric systems to further that goal.

Not sure how you mature a technology without building it. Decision to put EMALS in Ford wasn’t a simple one and the early development issues with EMALS made it pretty hard. I was part of the “air-ship integration” team and a good friend was the EMALS PM ((who got fired) during those days (roughly 2003). Pretty much an irreversible decision once made as a Carrier structure is largely built around the cats and arresting gear. 

Certainly a lot more difficult to design and build than folks thought it would be but “wait a few years” means major ship redesign and waiting 15 or more years at the rate that we build carriers. Easy to find fault today with decisions made 15 years ago but that is par for this place. 
 

Jeff,

Not sure why Ford was chosen. Probably better than Nixon. Other than America and Enterprise (the starship, of course), Carriers are named after Presidents and only rarely are names reused.  You have to admit, some of the development issues with Ford are consistent with the man’s golf skills and pratfalls.....
 

 

Another reason that the EMALs is importance is because the variety of aircraft we're launching is far different.  We're sending up small and large drones, all the way up to large aircraft.  The EMALs system is more adaptable to that - at least according to the article. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mikewof said:

Slow speed linear induction of hundreds of meters, not a big deal, there is a good bit of play in the rails. But high-speed, high-torque like an aircraft launch system, a hundred meters might as well be a hundred thousand meters compared to the catastrophic failures I've seen, where things went haywire with overheating welds and hysteresis and eddy currents above just a few meters.

Things fail in the linear induction when the heat can't be managed, and a launch every five minutes or so seems like that would accumulate a lot of heat in that system. I can only assume they've tested it to that duty cycle, I'm sure it works, but I haven't read anything to how well it will work when the rail is distorted, or unbalanced. I understand that the linear induction works through the rails and coils, not the aircraft itself, but induction isn't necessarily easy to shield against. Do you know what kind of shielding system they have (if any) on that launch to protect from EMP? I guess it might be possible, is the whole thing is wrapped in some kind of Faraday cage? Just the induction coils?

If heat is such an issue, don't you think they would have designed a cooling system in the design? The modern aircraft carriers have large A.C. plants that distribute chilled water throughout the ship. Also seawater is used for some cooling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Great White said:

If heat is such an issue, don't you think they would have designed a cooling system in the design? The modern aircraft carriers have large A.C. plants that distribute chilled water throughout the ship. Also seawater is used for some cooling.

On a ship, seawater is used for pretty much ALL cooling. The chillers which circulate water at ~3C (IIRC of course) are sewater cooled and they get their electricity from generators which are seawater cooled.

Considering that Navy ships are intended to operate in the tropics I would expect that the cooling systems are designed to not only handle rapid sequence launch loads but hot operating environments too. But then I'm one of those rare engineers that doesn't launch into a topic with the assumption that everybody else is an idiot

FB- Doug

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Great White said:

If heat is such an issue, don't you think they would have designed a cooling system in the design? The modern aircraft carriers have large A.C. plants that distribute chilled water throughout the ship. Also seawater is used for some cooling.

I assume so, but hysteresis is weird, the surface can be cool with enough phonon gas internally to poison a weld with magnesium.

Hopefully this is me being clinically paranoid of the Lorentz force. But I've seen shit go sideways, Yosemite Sam style, gun blows up in his face, that whole thing.

Coil guns are very efficient, so when something goes haywire, sometimes that energy doesn't get drained out with heat. And there are no steam releases in an electromagnetic system. If that energy can't go into moving something heavy kind of slow, it will go into moving something light with the same kinetic energy, and by mv^2, it means that it will move that shrapnel very fast. Back of envelope, a Super Hornet weighs about 50,000 lbs, so that's about 20,000 kg, and it launches at about 170 mph, about 100 m/s. The velocity of say 10 kg of shrapnel if even half of the launch energy goes into the debris is something like 6,000 m/s, about 15,000 miles per hour. A little less mass in the shrapnel and it's moving out of the guts of that carrier at literally escape velocity.

With less energy than in a watch battery, I've seen a metal ring go right through drywall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I assume so, but hysteresis is weird, the surface can be cool with enough phonon gas internally to poison a weld with magnesium.

Hopefully this is me being clinically paranoid of the Lorentz force. But I've seen shit go sideways, Yosemite Sam style, gun blows up in his face, that whole thing.

I thought that maybe you were making words up with that Fauxnon stuff but it seems to be real!

 

Image result for phonon gas

I can see now what you mean about blowing up Yosemite Sam style

 

Damn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Mike, as I stated before, the physics behind this sort of thing are beyond my comprehension.  I took one physics class in college because I was required to take one science lab course or an advanced math course.  I majored in technical theater, and numbery disciplines are not my strong suit, even though I am a pretty intelligent guy.  Complicated calculations and equations scare the shit out of me.  I had a math teacher in 3rd grade that ruined me for life concerning numbers.  If you're out there Miss Krause, I still hate you I will never forgive you for the humiliation and pain you inflicted on me, rot in hell you red headed bitch!!  Sorry for the digression.  So I took a course in the 'Nature of Light and Color'.    It came in quite handy for my tech theater studies and I managed to pass the course and learned a lot of fascinating things.  Who knew that the primary colors of light are completely different than the primary colors of pigment?  And the best part is that the professor and a colleague were apparently experts in this area and were writing a text book on the subject.  We got xeroxed copies of the chapters as they were editing the book so we didn't have to spend $100.00 on the finished product.  At that time the GI bill payed a whopping $320.00 a month so any money I could save was welcome relief, and I could spend more money on hookers and blow beer.

Anyway, that being said the one thing that caught my eye was this hysterisis thing.  Are you saying that for one week a month this piece of ultra advanced technology turns into a raving, irrational, unstable monster that hemorrhages muons all over the place???  That's truly frightening!!!   Maybe this isn't ready for prime time until they can manage this problem.  I can just hear some wizened old chief petty officer ordering some hapless seaman basic to go shove a high tech, solid state tampon of some kind into a moist, throbbing induction coil.  I wouldn't want that job!  Science, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

Red head explains it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 1:03 PM, mikewof said:

Hey, it worked on an aircraft carrier on fighter jets, it will surely work in our regional airport with commuter planes and Cessna 182s, right?
 

You are aware that the 182 is the preferred aircraft of the IDSPA (International Drug Smuggler Pilots Association) due to its short field fully loaded hostile environment/conditions capabilities.... 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, floating dutchman said:

Really?

Was this from the same Mikey that told us that container ships cruised around at, what was it? 50 knots?

30-some, if memory serves, we were discussing hull speeds of FAST ships. Their theoretical of a 1300-some meter ship is above 40 but the hulls are shaped for efficiency not speed.

Hopefully those coil launch systems that acted as JBSF's muse in his third-grade lampoon work fine and cause no problems.That you apparently think of them as trivial, solved problems shows a delightful, childlike innocence that tends to damage adult men who fuck around with coil guns.

When they go tits-up, you really don't want to be anywhere near them. But do continue, and perhaps ask yourself why the Navy has already thrown some $0.5 billion into electromagnetic launch weapons research with no actual combat weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Maybe don't quit your day job just yet?

Mike, I hope you realize that Jeff's post won the grand prize in the "Write like Mikey" contest last year.  There was stiff competition with more than 1,100 entries from all over the world. 

The WLM competition is kind of like the International Imitation Hemingway competition, only bigger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Mike, I hope you realize that Jeff's post won the grand prize in the "Write like Mikey" contest last year.  There was stiff competition with more than 1,100 entries from all over the world. 

The WLM competition is kind of like the International Imitation Hemingway competition, only bigger.

I'm told that he plagiarized it from the gal who works at his nail salon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mikewof said:
9 hours ago, floating dutchman said:

Really?

Was this from the same Mikey that told us that container ships cruised around at, what was it? 50 knots?

30-some, if memory serves, we were discussing hull speeds of FAST ships. Their theoretical of a 1300-some meter ship is above 40 but the hulls are shaped for efficiency not speed.

Hopefully those coil launch systems that acted as JBSF's muse in his third-grade lampoon work fine and cause no problems.That you apparently think of them as trivial, solved problems shows a delightful, childlike innocence that tends to damage adult men who fuck around with coil guns.

When they go tits-up, you really don't want to be anywhere near them. But do continue, and perhaps ask yourself why the Navy has already thrown some $0.5 billion into electromagnetic launch weapons research with no actual combat weapons.

No mike.  You were talking about the cruising speed with a complete lack of knowledge.

And, Do you thing being near steam when things go tit-up is a good thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, floating dutchman said:

No mike.  You were talking about the cruising speed with a complete lack of knowledge.

And, Do you thing being near steam when things go tit-up is a good thing?

I know the speed of displacement hulls, I've argued that shit here since the days of Reid, for some reason a few SAers have an hard time acknowledging the difference between contemporary hulls like a Melges and dirty-ass displacement hulls like a Westsail or a container ship. Container ships tend to have low Froude's coefficients, right around 1 because they pay the bills with efficient packing, which tends to lead to deep stern troughs. A typical container ship of 1000 feet, take the square root, multiply by 1.0, their cruising speed is around 30-some knots. If I mentioned 50-some knots, then it must have been an advanced hull, or I had a brain-fart when I did my grade-school math.

As for steam systems going tits-up, yeah, it's bad, but there are lots of places for that energy to be absorbed ... hundreds of fittings, joints, thermal sinks. A steam system failure makes explosions. A coil gun failure makes projectiles. If you''re more comfortable with the latter than the former, then you haven't been forced to work with a coil gun. I've seen a little ring launch through sheet rock with no more stored energy than was in a watch battery. Blame Lorentz force for that. And for the third or fourth time, I sincerely hope it's just me being paranoid, and everything works with the rail launch on President Ford's carrier, as designed, with no catastrophic failures.

But do ask yourself ... the U.S. Navy invested some $0.5 billion into coil guns on their ships and finally gave up, with the "honorable mention" of this low-speed rail launcher. Coil guns are remarkably energy efficient, and they do what they are designed to do. Why do you think the Navy just gave up on coil guns and stuck with gun-powder and propellants?

I have close to zero experience with solid propellants other than Estes Rockets. I have close to zero experience with liquid propellants other than water rockets. I have close to zero experience with chemical propellants other than plinking away at targets with rifles. But Lorentz Force, that's my thing. I can tell you from experience, we just don't have the engineering expertise, materials expertise, welding expertise and design expertise to handle the kind of forces that are generated from it. It's like Dr. Doolittle trying to harness the power of nuclear fission.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I know the speed of displacement hulls, I've argued that shit here since the days of Reid, for some reason a few SAers have an hard time acknowledging the difference between contemporary hulls like a Melges and dirty-ass displacement hulls like a Westsail or a container ship. Container ships tend to have low Froude's coefficients, right around 1 because they pay the bills with efficient packing, which tends to lead to deep stern troughs. A typical container ship of 1000 feet, take the square root, multiply by 1.0, their cruising speed is around 30-some knots. If I mentioned 50-some knots, then it must have been an advanced hull, or I had a brain-fart when I did my grade-school math.

As for steam systems going tits-up, yeah, it's bad, but there are lots of places for that energy to be absorbed ... hundreds of fittings, joints, thermal sinks. A steam system failure makes explosions. A coil gun failure makes projectiles. If you''re more comfortable with the latter than the former, then you haven't been forced to work with a coil gun. I've seen a little ring launch through sheet rock with no more stored energy than was in a watch battery. Blame Lorentz force for that. And for the third or fourth time, I sincerely hope it's just me being paranoid, and everything works with the rail launch on President Ford's carrier, as designed, with no catastrophic failures.

But do ask yourself ... the U.S. Navy invested some $0.5 billion into coil guns on their ships and finally gave up, with the "honorable mention" of this low-speed rail launcher. Coil guns are remarkably energy efficient, and they do what they are designed to do. Why do you think the Navy just gave up on coil guns and stuck with gun-powder and propellants?

I have close to zero experience with solid propellants other than Estes Rockets. I have close to zero experience with liquid propellants other than water rockets. I have close to zero experience with chemical propellants other than plinking away at targets with rifles. But Lorentz Force, that's my thing. I can tell you from experience, we just don't have the engineering expertise, materials expertise, welding expertise and design expertise to handle the kind of forces that are generated from it. It's like Dr. Doolittle trying to harness the power of nuclear fission.

 

Steam usually kills in a couple ways: asphyxiation,  burns. And it doesn't have to be high pressure steam. A few years before I retired, the Navy ships started having failures in 150 psi service steam piping. The copper pipe was annealing due to higher than anticipated steam temps. People died. One officer was asphyxiated in a shower. And when it burns, it burns deep. Millions was spent upgrading to a more durable material. 

After you have thourghly schooled us on EMALs on the carriers, now you need to address the other Navies of the world who are also working on a EMALs type catapult system on their carriers.

I am surprised that you have not unloaded on the electromagnetic weapons elevators on the Ford.

And when are we going to talk about AAG?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Great White said:

Steam usually kills in a couple ways: asphyxiation,  burns. And it doesn't have to be high pressure steam. A few years before I retired, the Navy ships started having failures in 150 psi service steam piping. The copper pipe was annealing due to higher than anticipated steam temps. People died. One officer was asphyxiated in a shower. And when it burns, it burns deep. Millions was spent upgrading to a more durable material. 

After you have thourghly schooled us on EMALs on the carriers, now you need to address the other Navies of the world who are also working on a EMALs type catapult system on their carriers.

I am surprised that you have not unloaded on the electromagnetic weapons elevators on the Ford.

And when are we going to talk about AAG?  

I fucked up a steam fitting once. Scary.

For now the fifth time, I hope that the Ford's system works as designed with no surprises.

As for linear induction elevators, those don't worry me for the same reason linear induction trains don't worry me; because the loading is consistent, the payload is locked into the rail and the speed is usually low compared to the mass.

But let's talk about AAG. Go ahead ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I fucked up a steam fitting once. Scary.

For now the fifth time, I hope that the Ford's system works as designed with no surprises.

As for linear induction elevators, those don't worry me for the same reason linear induction trains don't worry me; because the loading is consistent, the payload is locked into the rail and the speed is usually low compared to the mass.

But let's talk about AAG. Go ahead ...

Damn water twister is the problem apparently.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dorado said:

He's on a roll  . . .

 I can't remember. Did the Germans use steam or electromagnetic launching when they bombed Pearl Harbor ?

Slave labor on a giant treadmill.

 

To soon?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 3:41 AM, mikewof said:

30-some, if memory serves, we were discussing hull speeds of FAST ships. Their theoretical of a 1300-some meter ship is above 40 but the hulls are shaped for efficiency not speed.

Hopefully those coil launch systems that acted as JBSF's muse in his third-grade lampoon work fine and cause no problems.That you apparently think of them as trivial, solved problems shows a delightful, childlike innocence that tends to damage adult men who fuck around with coil guns.

When they go tits-up, you really don't want to be anywhere near them. But do continue, and perhaps ask yourself why the Navy has already thrown some $0.5 billion into electromagnetic launch weapons research with no actual combat weapons.

Stealth perfected

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I think the obvious answer to the dilemma of Steam vs EMALs is to have the deck launch officer sitting in a lawn chair in a pickup truck parked between CATs 1 and 2 so he can have the best long range view of the Super Hornets as they twitch their way off the deck.  

Won't work. Navy airmen don't tend to wear silk, paint their toenails and live in hotels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:

Won't work. Navy airmen don't tend to wear silk, paint their toenails and live in hotels.

Bravo Mike!  I'm so fucking proud of you for that one.  Well played son, very well played.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Bravo Mike!  I'm so fucking proud of you for that one.  Well played son, very well played.

JBSF's life is apparently pretty easy, we need to give him a little bit of the business down there, and take the fifteen yard penalty.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites