steve2267 wrote:Once the kinks have been worked out of EMALS, would there be any advantage for a Lightning Carrier along the lines of the America-class, to be able to EMALS launch a future version of the Bee but recover them with VL?
I'm thinking reduced deck space requirements for launch, heavier launch weights (i.e. more gas / bombs for the Bee), possibly higher launch tempo (if you could have a pair of EMALS catapults forward).
I thought the Brits had looked at EMALS for the Elizabeth-class, but don't know why they backed off.
While I don't think the Bee can be catapulted in it's present form, esp. off a steam catapult, I was thinking this might be doable with minimal modifications to a Bee given the 30% lower loads on an aircraft compared to steam catapults.
'steve2267' I would have to search back to approx. my first posts on this forum to find the discussion about this non-starting "catapult the F-35B" idea. We do not know under what circumstances - temp. & WOD at what all up weight a USMC F-35B can STO from a flat deck at what distance. However it does comply with the KPP Key Performance Parameter set by the program which is now 'full internal load at 600 feet' (used to be 550 feet but now more rounded out to 600).
Elsewhere we know from several quotes that the RN/RAF F-35B will be able to STO from approx. 850-900 feet give or take with what they call a full combat load which is described with external weapons - using the ski jump of course.
A very long thread about WHY the UK first required F-35Bs then did a sudden flop to the F-35C then quickly realised their error (a new UK guvmnt fckup) and flipped back to the F-35B for their CVFs is here:
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969 UK MOD IN A MUDDLEMethinks you misunderestimate the airframe strengthening and modifications required for an F-35B to be EMALSed or STEAMflung. And it is not necessary. You have forgotten that when the F-35B returns for a VL that is another KPP which requires full internal weapon load plus adequate fuel for a missed approach (in bad weather). Then an SRVL looms which cannot be done on an LHA & may never be carried out on a CVF - still early days on that but prospects look good for now.
May I suggest another PDF or 3?
You will find them on previous mentioned websites under 'ski jump' etc.
NEEDless to say there have been many discussions about WHY the USMC should have ski jumped also but THEY WON'T.