An Independent Website Considering the Future Royal Navy and Promoting Naval Affairs

 

  Astute
  Carrier Strike
   Future Carrier - CVF
   Pre-Downselect
   Pictures
   Design
   Deck Layout
   Propulsion
   CVF Statements
   JCA
   JCA Statements
   CVA-01
  FMCMC
  FRC (Lift)
  FRC (MSA)
  JCA
  JCTS
  JSF
  LPH(R)
  LSD(A)
  MARS
  MARS (FT)
  MASC
  Merlin CSP
  MUFC
  OMAR
  OPV(H)
  S2C2
  Type 45
  Vanguard(R)
  Site Index
  Email the Editor

 

Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)

Queen Elizabeth Class
 

Part 25

             Article Parts 

 1. Current Project Status and
     Graphics

  2. Specification

  3. The Project and its Origins

  4. Role

  5. Smart Procurement

  6. Project Schedule

  7. Procurement Process I
      (until Jan 2003)

  8. Procurement Process II  
      (until July 2007)

  9. Procurement Process III
      (latest situation)

10. Management and Industry
       Structures

11. Aviation Operations

12. STOVL or CV F-35?

13. Platform Design ...

14. ... and Redesign

15. C4ISR Facilities

16. Operational Concepts

17. Crew, Accommodation &
       Habitability

18. Propulsion and Engineering

19. Manufacture

20. Build Problems and UK
      Content

21. Basing and Support

22. Costs

23. Air Group

24. Aviation Requirements and
       Facilities

25. Catapults and Arresting Gear

26. Armament and Armour

27. Operations

28. Names

29. CVF Links



 


 

This schematic of CVF shows the CTOL Delta configuration, deck plan clearly shows the two long catapults and four arrester wires.  (This graphic is often credited as DPA - but is probably unofficial)

 

The CVF design is being developed as adaptable from a STOVL to CATOBAR configuration, two catapults (bow starboard side and angled deck port side) and arresting gear can be fitted if required, indeed the French PA2 variant will have these from build.  (Source: Thales)

 

Catapults

One of the central engineering and design problems posed to the rival CVF design teams in AP1 & early 2 was how best to power and integrate the aircraft catapults in a CTOL CVF configuration.  The selection by the MOD of an adoptable CVF design which will initially only operate STOVL aircraft has allowed for a postponement of this catapult dilemma, which was a significant challenge for both consortia in their CTOL CVF designs.  While electro-magnetic catapult (EMCAT) systems are slowly maturing (see below), if a decision had had to be made in a 2002-3 time scale then a traditional steam design would have been reluctantly selected for any CTOL CVF design.

General Atomics and Northrop Grumman are both currently developing electro-magnetic prototypes which are destined to support the US Navy's CVN-21 programme (which will be a contemporary of CVF) but the Royal Navy was reluctant to commit itself to an unproven technology. 

Officials from both competing CVF teams made it clear during 2002 that given the development risks still associated with EMCAT technology, steam catapults in the form of the C13 system employed in all current US Navy carriers represented the only proven, reliable, low-risk solution for CVF at Main Gate. "Steam exists, and the C13-2 catapult is the launch system against which the JSF CV variant is being built," said a senior member of the BAE Systems ship/air interface team. "Its performance characteristics are going to be matched around that technology".  A Thales source concurred. "Today's steam-catapult technology is very, very reliable. There are still a lot of unknowns concerning EMCAT technology, such as pulse effects on other ship systems."


A UK concept for a UCAV of  flying wing design capable of fighter, strike and reconnaissance missions. It would need to operate from a conventional aircraft carrier fitted with catapults and arresting gear.

However there was also a strong disinclination towards steam within the RN given its through-life cost implications, while requirements for high volumes of steam and water present problems for a non-nuclear carrier like CVF, indeed the large amounts of water and steam required may have an adverse effect upon the carrier's electrical systems.  Another problem facing designers was that a traditional steam catapult is not compatible with the IFEP system planned for the CVF, a separate and expensive auxiliary steam plant with considerable output would therefore be required. 

There remains a small possibility that the CVF's will be completed with one or two catapults, e.g. for the operation of Hawkeye AEW aircraft or because of serious problems with the STOVL variant of the F-35 Joint Strike.   It would seem that the CVF Platform Design Team has had considerable problems retaining this capacity despite the reduction in ship size since May 2003, and this has not been helped by a problem obtaining information on the EMALS catapult from General Atomics in the USA because it is classified information.   It's acknowledged that generating steam aboard an IFEP ship is not ideal, but the consensus is that modern oil-fired auxiliary boilers with an auxiliary steam plant powering two 90m length track C13-2 or C13-3 catapults offers a sound engineering solution - if it comes to the crunch.

 

EMCAT/EMALS/EMKIT


The EMALS concept uses linear electric motors to accelerate aircraft along the flight deck (Source: General Atomics)

If the CVF carriers are ever converted  to a "cat and trap" CV (aka CTOL) configuration, this will require the addition of a catapult launching system. 

The "Future Carrier Alliance"  propose that the CVF will be built to accommodate a potential electromagnetic catapult (EMCAT) backfit.  This will incur some additional costs at build, but will help 'future proof' the carrier design to accommodate new aircraft and air vehicles through its life - as is required by the MOD.

Compared with traditional steam catapults, EMCATs offer the prospect of significant life-cycle cost benefits (in terms of reduced maintenance and crew workload) and would also offer benefits for aircraft operations and flight-deck operability.   EMCAT's should increase launch performance and make significant reductions in installed weight, volume, and manning workload requirements. 

Early studies by DERA in the late 1990's indicated that a 90MW 300ft long linear motor EMCAT able to accelerate every 45 seconds a 100,000 lb. airplane to over 130 knots, or a lighter aircraft (such as UAV's) to 200 knots, would seem to be viable. 

The DPA announced in June 2000 a planning and test programme to examine whether EMCAT technology was a viable catapult option for CVF.  The solicitation for the technology demonstration stated: "The electromagnetic technology is considered to be available, but has never been built to the anticipated scale or integrated into a warship system.  [The] MoD wishes to develop and de-risk the technology in support of the FCBA programme, through the design, construction, integration and test of a system at a suitably representative scale.  ... The two-phase programme whilst reducing the technological risk aspects of the system, shall also provide unit production cost, through life cost and [availability, reliability and maintainability] information to allow objective comparisons to be made with alternative steam catapults."

The programme was never backed by BAE Systems and Thales who in October 2000 both expressed considerable concern at being tied down in their CVF proposals to commitments made by the DPA - indeed they preferred low risk and proven steam catapults for their CTOL design concepts.  However Alstom won the DPA study and the EMCAT technology programme continued and completed in March 2003, having de-risked demonstrated the core technologies needed for an EMCAT capable of launching manned aircraft from CVF.  Further development work was not pursued as with the selection of the STOVL but "adaptable" CVF design in September 2002 the programme was no longer considered necessary. 


An F-35C Carrier Variant moves on the catapult for launching... 

 


... and comes in for an arrested landing

Separately, across the Atlantic, the USN is actively planning for an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) to enter service aboard the projected CVN-21 class from 2014 - a comparable timeframe to CVF.

EMALS promises to deliver better performance and launch control that is tailored for a broader range of aircraft. It will accelerate aircraft weighing roughly 4500 to 45,000 kg to launch speeds of 100 to 370 km/h, with a controlled deftness that the inflexible, brute-force steam cats can't manage. Adjusting to the weight of the craft will mean less stress on the airframe. This will be especially crucial as the military adopts unmanned aircraft (UAV's) for surveillance as well as combat.

The heart of the USN EMALS is the 103-meter-long linear induction motor, which propels an armature, with the aircraft attached.  The linear motor of the EMALS is powered by energy from rotational storage devices that draw electric power from the ship's electrical distribution system. Initial EMALS design concepts included flywheels and pulse disk alternators, later eschewed in favor of more traditional systems that store energy in the rotors of generators, according to Richard Bushway, the U.S. Navy's EMALS program director.  Kinetic energy from the rotating system is converted into electric energy, and a solid-state power-conditioning system delivers a tremendous 2- to 3-second pulse of power to the stator.  The system must deliver the pulse as often as every 45 seconds to match the capability of the current steam catapult.

The EMALS system will use a 103 metre long linear electric motor to accelerate aircraft over the flight deck, employing rotational energy storage alternators to supply high-frequency power to the linear motor through a PWM inverter. The linear motor takes the average power from the inverter and releases it in a short pulse, which accelerates the aircraft for launch.

A closed-loop system, it constantly monitors itself, continuously adjusting the speed and power to create a launch profile tailored to each type of aircraft. Steam catapults are open-loop systems, with no sensors or feedback once the launch sequence is initiated.  In addition to allowing greater control flexibility, EMALS should eventually be half the size and weight of steam cat systems. Eliminating the maze of high-pressure, high-temperature steam pipes and valves will also lessen the risk to the crew during routine operations and battle.  It's also expected that with its electric and electronics subystems, EMALS could be serviced and maintained by an estimated 30 percent fewer crew members. Further, the EMALS is modular, so that components and subsystems can be swapped in and out both for maintenance and if,


Diagram of an Electro-Magnetic Catapult

Under parallel programme-definition and risk-reduction contracts awarded in December 1999, teams led by General Atomics and Northrop Grumman have each built full-scale, reduced length (c.50m) prototype systems, which were delivered to delivered in September 2003 to the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command site in Lakehurst, N.J. for testing and evaluation.  Following the hardware demonstrations, in April 2004 General Atomics was downselected and awarded a $145 million System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract included the design, fabrication, delivery, integration, test and support of one full scale, full length, shipboard representative Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for NAVAIR Lakehurst, at the Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, N.J.
 

It's expected that the first USN carrier to be fitted with EMALS catapults will be CVN-78, the lead ship of the new CVN-21 class, and expected to enter service in 2015.  She will fitted with four EMALS systems, each costing about US $26.5 million. 

The USN has held talks with the MoD over possible UK participation in the EMALS programme.  Apparently in 2004 the CVF platform design team asked General Atomics for technical information on their EMALS catapult so that appropriate provision could be made in the CVF design, but GA refused - in compliance with US laws.  The USN's EMALS programme and associated information is classified and the UK government had to negotiate with the US government to establish arrangements relating to the disclosure, transfer, and use of technical information. In late 2005 UK MOD sources disclosed that there had indeed been a recent joint study with the US Navy to examine the feasibility of fitting EMALS to CVF.   Given programme and risk issues, and projected equipment availability, EMALS catapults  would not be available for delivery to the UK prior to 2015.


The Hermes 450 (WK450 Watchkeeper in British Army service) provides Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) services. The aerial vehicle weighs 450 kg on take-off.  (Source: Elbit Systems/ Thales)

Meanwhile, in April 2006 Converteam (as Alstom had been renamed) was awarded a further MoD Research Acquisition Organisation for the design, build and testing of an Electro-Magnetic Kinetic Integrated Technology (EMKIT) unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV)  technology demonstrator to demonstrate electromagnetic launch technology through the testing of a high-speed high acceleration demonstrator using advanced linear motor technology.  The system commissioned in December 2006 with land-based trials to commence in early 2007.  The demonstrator builds on the previous EMCAT project.  With two 3.2 MJ energy stores and a 14 metres launch length, it can launch UAV's of up to 500kg at a speed up to 50 m/sec.  The notional operation requirement is for a production  EMKIT system that will be able to launch UAV's such as the Hermes 180, Hermes 450, Eagle 1 and Predator A from ships as small as a frigate.

 

Arresting Gear

Like the catapults, it seems likely that any CTOL conversion of CVF will be fitted with US made arresting gear engines. 

The current USN standard is the Mark 7 Mod 3, however starting with the USS Ronald Reagan the USN is moving to a new three-wire Mark 7 Mod 4 arresting gear design (actually four arresting gear engines but with two of them interchangeable as the barricade engine).  The new system uses polycore cables designed to withstand more traps than steel cables and extra-large pulleys to reduce maintenance and man-hours, and provides the capability to land potentially larger and heavier aircraft.  It is hoped that the new design will reduce maintenance requirements by half by increasing the time interval between inspections and overhauls, in addition, the costs associated with replacing these high-wear components will be reduced.  Another benefit of this system will be that the arresting gear engines will be more accessible to flight line crews.

 

                                                                           Back to top                                       |<   <  Part 25  >   >|






 © 2004-8 Richard Beedall unless otherwise indicated.