Forum: General F-35 Forum

Can the dave c launch from a carrier without using a catapult.like the russian sukhois, or would it put to much stress on the airframes.

F-16.net Sponsor

Even if it could, it would likely not be able to do so with any meaningful fuel/weapons load. The Sukhois from my understanding have to top off after leaving the deck for any sort of long range mission profile.

Edit:
A quick google for the Su-33 shows that with 30,000kg max carrier TO weight (Jane's),

18,400kg empty (Wiki for all below)
+ 1,600kg notional AAM loadout (pilot + 2xR-73, 4xR-27)
-----------------------------------------------
Leaves 10,000kg for fuel and any additional weapons.

Doesn't sound terrible for CAP type missions but for strike/ long range escort or fighter sweeps, guessing they'd top off post-launch.

Since the F-35C has the additional weight of reinforced structure (the Su33 doesn't) for catapult launches, I would venture that the F-35C's profile for STOBAR type ops will be worse than the Su-33. Within that concept, STO ops on a CVN would probably involve rolling takeoffs using most of the deck length, leaving additional deck area aft of the catapults unusable for those periods.

Carriers usually have rear take-off spots with longer runway.
In that way they can utilize most of Su-33's load I believe.
But that's less efficiency in term of flight deck managing.

warwolf1 wrote:

can the dave c launch from a carrier without using a catapult.like the russian sukhois, or would it put to much stress on the airframes.

Actually, airframes have to be stronger for catapults than they do for ramps.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

warwolf1 wrote:

can the dave c launch from a carrier without using a catapult.like the russian sukhois, or would it put to much stress on the airframes.

Actually, airframes have to be stronger for catapults than they do for ramps.

It will be interesting to see what impact EMALS has on this. You can't design specifically for it yet as there are tons of steam-cats out there but it should be more of a smoother acceleration with less peak force exerted than the steam-cats are.

bigjku wrote:

It will be interesting to see what impact EMALS has on this. You can't design specifically for it yet as there are tons of steam-cats out there but it should be more of a smoother acceleration with less peak force exerted than the steam-cats are.

Should modify EMALS to allow it to launch missiles.
Now we have a Rail Gun.

USN wants a proper railgun as per:

Navy Aims for 5,600-mph Bullet To Shoot Down Missiles 02 Aug 2012

http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/navy-bul ... /id/447414

"The U.S. Navy is trying to develop an electrically fired, GPS-guided, 5,600-mph bullet that can shoot down missiles coming at a warship, Wired.com reported.

The hypersonic bullet would be used with a cutting-edge cannon known as the Electromagnetic Rail Gun..."

MORE at the URL.

megasun wrote:

bigjku wrote:

It will be interesting to see what impact EMALS has on this. You can't design specifically for it yet as there are tons of steam-cats out there but it should be more of a smoother acceleration with less peak force exerted than the steam-cats are.

Should modify EMALS to allow it to launch missiles.
Now we have a Rail Gun.

There is work on electromagnetic launchers for vertically launched missiles. Launching them off of carriers doesn't really get you much.

How is this supposed to work for Sukhoi 33s? Without a catapult or STOVL, typical distances to launch modern fighters are in multiple thousands of feet, and a ship is only around one thousand at most. That's actually closer to F-35B's STOVL requirements than to the runway that an F-35A or unassisted F-35C would use. What gets a Sukhoi 33 down to such a small fraction of what would otherwise be expected? And if that plane can do it without being modified to point its engine thrust down instead of back, then why do Harrier and F-35B need to do that?

delvo wrote:

How is this supposed to work for Sukhoi 33s?

Headwind, ski jump, power. FF to 30sec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZwM-xQL ... ata_player

For one, the Su-33 is restrained during engine run-up, which I do not believe to be the case for the AV-8B/F-35B. Secondly, the SU-33 has available to it a fair deal more thrust, which I'd imagine gives it a far higher T/W ratio at take-off. Combined with the ramp AOA boost, and voila, flight.

Simplistic, yes, but the 3 aircraft are far different conceptually.

spazsinbad wrote:

USN wants a proper railgun as per:

Navy Aims for 5,600-mph Bullet To Shoot Down Missiles 02 Aug 2012

http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/navy-bul ... /id/447414

"The U.S. Navy is trying to develop an electrically fired, GPS-guided, 5,600-mph bullet that can shoot down missiles coming at a warship, Wired.com reported.

The hypersonic bullet would be used with a cutting-edge cannon known as the Electromagnetic Rail Gun..."

MORE at the URL.

haha, it doesn't sound like a serious military news, I don't think GPS guided bullet is for anti-air.

handyman wrote:

delvo wrote:

How is this supposed to work for Sukhoi 33s?

Headwind, ski jump, power. FF to 30sec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZwM-xQL ... ata_player

0:31 LOL, going sideways and leaving skid marks on TO.

There's a youtube video I came across sometime back with a rail gun guy describing the envisioned kill mechanism for a rail gun projectile vs. missiles.. the projectile would dump a swarm of metal fragments in the missile's path.. at those velocities, any impact should be sufficient to get the job done..

Last edited by popcorn on Aug 04, 2012 - 03:22 PM; edited 1 time in total

#%@!!!!&!!#!!!*!* Sad

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Can the F35C launch without catapults?