Why is it so hard to carrier-ize an aircraft?
In the Falklands the UK had to station vulcan bombers on ascension island, miles away from where the carrier was.
Couldn't they have just scooped out non-essential equipment and stuck some JATO bottles on it?
Also, the fleet air arm is completely plane-less. Why is it so hard to make a eurofighter carrier-capable?
>>29824346
are you serious ?
Are you fucking retarded?
Consider the differences between launching from a carrier to launching of a runway.
>>29824346
Do you have any idea how massive a Vulcan is?
Are... Are you soft in the head?
>>29824362
I'm asking because I don't know what it takes to make an aircraft carrier-capable. I give the vulcan example to drive home the question of why its unfeasible, not because I think it is feasible. You family guy watching, skrillex listening valley girl teenage cunt.
>>29824346
At the moment the fleet is also short of anything able to launch conventional aircraft. You could operate VTOL from Ocean I think, but that's about it.
Why bother having carrier capable aircraft when you have no carriers in the first place?
>>29824385
>I give the vulcan example to drive home the question of why its unfeasible
No, nothing there is presenting it as unfeasible. You pitched it as an example because you're a fucking moron.
>>29824385
A wingspan wider than the entire deck of the carrier is a pretty hard limit for aircraft size...
>Couldn't they have just scooped out non-essential equipment and stuck some JATO bottles on it?
Do you huff paint in lieu of a job?
>>29824385
Well looks like you've something to learn, if you don't want to be called a moron don't say moronic things.
>>29824346
>weight limits
>wingspan for both the deck and storage
>landing gear and frame strengthened for the high stress of carrier landings, plus the tailhook
There are planes that cannot operate onna carrier, ever. Then there are some that would be very expensive considering the potential gains, so they never convert them.
>>29824385
> You family guy watching, skrillex listening valley girl teenage cunt.
ohh look at us, we are edgy
alright cunt
first of all uk at falklands had only jump carriers so there was no way possible for a strategic bomber ta take of from it, lets leave this stupidity at it
what it takes for aircraft to be navalized ?
your entire frame has to be significantly more rugged to take take off landing stresses
handling at nearly stall speeds is extremely important as well (as having low stall speed) and this fact will easy dismiss half of the world aircraft from becoming carrier capable
in other cases frames have to be completely re-engineered and this is expensive and time consuming
>>29824403
I meant this, and it was meant as hyperbole which is a common thing you see when you read an article or a book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-length_launch
>heaviest aircraft on carriers I can find, Douglas A3 @ 82000 lbs max takeoff weight
>OP chooses a bomber that weighs 339,000 lbs.
>with a 121 foot wingspan...
>Doolittle did it with something that had a 68 foot wingspan and weighted 20,000
>>29824346
>Why is it so hard to make a eurofighter carrier-capable?
because
A) The Typhoon is unsuitable for modification into a navalised carrier capable aircraft. Even if it proved feasible, markedly cheaper and more multi-role aircraft are available now (Annex C.)
D) In the context of current financial constraints as well as the role and the capability of current Typhoon aircraft, the procurement of further aircraft must be considered operationally unadvisable and unjustified. This is particularly so in the light of:
i) The cost of true multirole, 4.5 generation, carrier capable aircraft such as the F-18 Super Hornet which is approximately £37 million
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/writev/860/m3a.pdf
If you even bothered to a little tiny bit of research you'd know exactly why.
>>29824462
Right, so is there anything that presents this can be integrated on a Invincible class carrier and Vulcan bombers?
>>29824491
What is actually happening is
>Why cant you do extreme wacky workaround in the middle of a war, gives hyperbolic example
>"hurr de flurf can u even into are u even serious git gud nothin personell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRvCvsRp5ho
>>29824499
Nope. I thought of sticking the tailpipe on the side of the carrier and lighting some JATO bottles as a hyperbolic example
>>29824462
>I...It was just hyperbole!
Don't say stupid shit and you won't be taken for an idiot. It's not a hard concept.
>>29824512
>>Why cant you do extreme wacky workaround in the middle of a war, gives hyperbolic example
Jesus the fact that you're still trying to defend your idiotic OP is so sad
>>29824569
Its very easy to get the point of the post and say 'this is why its so hard to navalize an aircraft' but because of the high edgy quotient of /k/ you have to signal your ultimate tactical knowledge and take it really seriously
>>29824346
Believe it or not, probably the easiest part of carrier operations is taking off. Most anything STOL capable could take off from the full length of a carrier deck, though a full-sized strategic bomber might still have issues even with JATO assistance.
The real problem comes with making things operationally feasible. You want something you can fit in the hangar, because you don't want your planes sitting out in the open on the deck during bad weather. That means you're restricted by size and weight to the capacity of the deck elevators, even if you don't have catapults to worry about for takeoffs. You also want to make sure that the aircraft in question isn't just capable of flying from the carrier, but that it can do so without disrupting the rest of operations. They've landed U-2s on carriers multiple times, and the C-130's demonstrated the ability to both take off and land from carriers as well. The reason it never saw significant operational use, however, was that doing this required you to completely clear the carrier deck, making it completely impractical for any real operations.
Then you've also got landings. CATOBAR landings take a huge toll on airframes, requiring massively strengthened landing gear and airframes compared to a conventional land-based aircraft. While that sounds trivial, it really isn't - the strengthened structure adds weight and often takes up more space, compromising performance.
Jesus Christ OP next time spend ten seconds on Google before you make a thread
You'll look slightly less of a window licker
>>29824593
You said something stupid. Now you're trying to backpedal.
Al-right you dumbfuck.
Plane needs to be hardened against salt water.
Take up little room in storage.
Easy to repair/replace parts.
Easy to make.
Relatively small.
Short take off distance.
Needs to be able to withstand fuck tons of g's and stress during the FUCKING CATAPULT ASSISTED LAUNCH.
Multiple times.
This leads to carrier birds being designed from the ground up for that role.
Aside from that other aircraft such as F15's have emergency arresting hooks. I believe they can be used to land on a carrier, although not repeatedly and not launched and would probably render the bird useless.
>>29824621
I don't care if its stupid. I'm not backpedaling if the post was actually hyperbole, im not saying that so i can appear less stupid as i have already gone ahead with autistic outbursts.
Im saying it to get across the point that you guys are edgy gamer dudes who act like tripfags
>>29824512
>>29824385
>>29824346
>>29824621
holy shit kill yourself
>>29824660
>I don't care if it's stupid
>I've just spent the thread trying to say it's not stupid, it's "hyperbole" and you're all just too stupid to understand me
>>29824702
This but unironically. I'm saying it for your benefit so the quality of your posts will increase in future.
>>29824465
Technically, the heaviest carrier aircraft was the C-130.
>>29824475
>>29824643
I just love of the EF consortium had the balls to tell the Indians they could develop a naval EF2000 in 2 years only with CAD design
>>29824346
>Why is it so hard to make a eurofighter carrier-capable?
Exactly what this guy said: >>29824595 In fact, back before WWII it was assumed that no carrier borne plane could ever compete with a land-based plane, because it would always suffer performance sacrifices a land-based plane wouldn't. They can be engineered around, as it turns out, but it's quite expensive to do so. Like >>29827094 said they actually managed to take off AND land from a carrier with a C-130 (which can reverse engine thrust for short-field landings) which was an interesting thing to know they could do - in case they ever needed to, in an emergency - but from a pragmatic, sane standpoint, it's kind of, no thanks, not worth the hassle.
From a practical standpoint if the Britbongs or whoever had need of a conventional fixed-wing carrier aircraft, we'd sell them F-18 Super Hornets in a heartbeat.
>>29828545
>I just love of the EF consortium had the balls to tell the Indians they could develop a naval EF2000 in 2 years only with CAD design
... what. More info? Did this happen? This sounds like a hoot.
>>29824660
>Im saying it to get across the point that you guys are edgy gamer dudes who act like tripfags
Well... he's not actually wrong about this.
Main reason is that we get questions like yours all the time that are either trolling, or from deluded dinkfucks who already looked up the answers and don't want to believe them. If you want to see the shit we put up with, pop into an F-35 thread sometime. We don't often get people who know diddly shit about X topic and pop in with an honest to god question about it.
You're basically a fucking unicorn around here.
>>29824385
>You family guy watching, skrillex listening valley girl teenage cunt.
Also, this, I had a fuckin giggle. Saved.
>>29828708
Super Hornets were actually on the table as a cheaper stand-in for the F35, thankfully MoD and RN was forward thinking and stayed the course.
>>29824475
>because A), D), i)
what the hell man
>>29828747
I removed the points that weren't relevant.
>>29828746
>Super Hornets were actually on the table as a cheaper stand-in for the F35, thankfully MoD and RN was forward thinking and stayed the course.
Heh, no shit. Yeah, F-35 was the right choice; considering the small size of British naval forces (and air wing size per carrier,) picking airframes that maximize potential-per-unit is vital. Americans can afford to lug around shitloads of Growlers to back up their Hornets, British carriers just won't have the numbers for that kind of thing.
>>29828779
That's the thing with the maximum 36 F35 number, there's some seriously doubt within the bong internet defence sphere that's this is the actual max fixed wing capacity.
I've seen far smarter people than me say that the air fixed wing can be surged around 50, but Royal navy doctrine forbids it from been written.
Anyway, the QE class will be a fantastic opportunity for interoperability across the board for all F35B users. I can't wait for the QEs to become a center point for F35Bs.
>>29824346
It's not. It's all a scam by the aeronautics companies to sell different brands.
>>29824465
>Doolittle
And they couldn't land on the carriers, only take off.
saved
>>29830206
And they had to literally strip off nearly everything to be light enough to take off.
>>29828880
>I've seen far smarter people than me say that the air fixed wing can be surged around 50, but Royal navy doctrine forbids it from been written.
That sounds perfectly understandable. Fuck, we're operating air wings of 60 or so on ships designed to operate 110. The 36 plane figure is likely an operational figure, not a maximum. I'd keep my top surge capacity secret, too.
>>29831134
It is likely the RN can't provide the number of aircraft across both carriers, really I wouldn't be suprised if the USMC was providing a part of the air wing during a us-uk collision.
>>29828714
I don't remember the exact promise they made, but yes during the early stages of the MMRCA program when it was thought the Indian would go for the same plane for their STOBAR carrier (they took Mig-29K) they said something among those lines which nobody with the slightest modicum of knowledge about engineering believed they could hold.
>>29824346
>In the Falklands the UK had to station vulcan bombers on ascension island, miles away from where the carrier was.
Turns out it's really fucking hard to carrier-ize an aircraft. Easier to just do what they did.
>>29824595
Wow, I didn't know C-130 could do that. Found a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5AI3YSV3M
>>29824385
>You family guy watching, skrillex listening valley girl teenage cunt
if you weren't one of these yourself you would have got off your dumbass and found out for yourself
>>29824346
Carrier capability was one of the reasons that the French split off to make the Rafale.
They wanted something carrier capable for their planned CdG, while the rest of the Eurofighter consortium didn't have/want CATOBAR carriers and though the compromises to make Eurofighter carrier capable would hurt it's other capabilities too much.
>>29831573
Vulcans have pretty good speed and range, why would you want to plop them on a carrier?
>>29824346
Jesus fucking Christ.
>>29824859
Clearly the thing to do would be to secretly make an aircraft carrier/landing ship out of a cargo freighter (disguised) and then launch the Vulcan off of that, then beach the ship to offload the troops.
[spoiler]:^)[/spoiler]
>>29824465
yfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84
of course tbf it was just an experiment
I wonder if everyone on a carrier can feel it when a plane lands.
the Vulcan and Victor did have a RATO pod using de Havilland Spectre rocket motors to help with taking off before soviets IRBM could destroy bomber command staging airfields
but they are far too big to ever takeoff from a tiny carrier like Invincible and if the RN had a catapult carrier at that time then they could have just loaded a squadron of buccaneers onto the carrier which could do the same mission but much better(not to mention giving the british carrier group more long range anti-ship striking power to kick the everloving shit out of the argie carrier)
shit would have been so based if the RN had a CATOBAR carrier with phants and buccs during operation corporate
>>29833850
You forgot to include battleships and gliders.
>>29828545
>>29828545
i love when indians have the balls to tell me their name is "john from texas" when i call to troubleshoot the office copy machine problems
>>29831573
Jesus, this is absolutely insane. I'm surprised nothing went wrong.
>>29824346
If you want to strip down a bomber to the point where it's carrier-capable you're probably better using a gunship anyway.
As in - similar range, better accuracy, more economical.
