USS Gerald R. Ford Conducts First Arrested Landing, Catapult Launch

>>34691119
lookit the slack on that arresting wire
might as well not even have it

>>34691119
neat

>>34691119
so what china will have 50 better carriers in 5 years.

>>34691119
is it just me or does the Gerald R Ford not have as many people on the deck compared to the old nimitz classes? is it just a matter of not having the 20 odd other planes there?

>>34691283
It's just a test run, they don't need that many people to catch and launch one plane.

>>34691286
oh, cool. will this new carrier have less sailors working on the actual ship compared to the old ones?

>>34691296
The ship's crew will have about 600 fewer sailors than a Nimitz, I don't know if the air wing is any smaller.

>>34691296
I think it's meant to be more efficient and have like 100 some less sailors.

File: 1398801972707.png (3KB, 379x426px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 379x426px

Just look at that sexy Hornet, I want to fug a bug!

>>34691144
The tower is a placed much further back than previous carriers. Its the visual impression due to the bridge's placement.

Its fine when you realize that.

>>34691119
America's so black even their aircraft carriers are arrested

so fuckin weird not seeing steam coming out the catapult
this is the coolest shit not gonna lie

File: nrdyY40.jpg (44KB, 468x895px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 468x895px

>>34691144

>>34691119
Software for airframe flight stress..
. Lol

>>34691119
I thought the catapult didn't work? When did that change?

>>34691119
Is it digital yet?

>>34692404

it's an electromagnetic catapult, so presumably it's the control software for that.

>>34692549
No, we are going with steam. Digital is bad and we need the steam to be uuuge

File: 1480426790968.gif (3MB, 256x199px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 256x199px

>>34691216
No, they'll have 2000 in 2 months

>>34692559
SAD! REPLACE IT WITH STEAM!

but can the land and launch a C-130?

>>34691119
DESIGNATED PISSING AREAS

>>34691303
>>34691321

It's literally nothing

>>34693511
it's ok. the carbon fiber sinks will double as urinals. so will the showers, any floor drains, and off the side of the ship.

>>34693515
wut

>>34693522
i used to shit in the shower and stamp it down the drain.

The barracks showers each had their own fully enclosed room but the toilets had half height cubicles for some reason.

I think they were built backwards.

I'm a nervous pooer so shitting in the shower was much more relaxing.

>>34693389
Yes. The capability to land and launch a C-130 is entirely and only a factor of flight deck length. The rest is only on the C-130.

So is this the EMALS in action?

>>34694381
Yes. The fuel tank issue was the last reported problem IIRC.

>>34694393
Any tests done, or going to be done with F35s?

>>34693648
What are you, fucking Indian?

>>34694405
I think not until 2019, as far as actually operating it from the deck. The Cs have done a crapload of test launches and landings on the Nimitz which have all been fine. They've also launched it from the land-based EMALS test site.

>>34693648
I thought the military didn't take the autistic?

>>34693515
600 sailors is alot

>>34696987
Not if you are a hooker in Phuket

>>34694393
Which was just solved with a software update.

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/28/emals-fix-finalized-reduce-stress-put-heaviest-airplanes-ford-class-carrier-launch

File: 1499691231946.gif (973KB, 285x171px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 285x171px

>>34697009

>>34691119
wait how does software cause excessive airframe stress??

>>34697642
The software decides on the force and acceleration required for an aircraft to take off based on what kind of aircraft it is and what it's current load is. The manner in which the aircraft was accelerated when external fuel tanks were attached caused excessive strain. It wasn't a short-term issue, it wouldn't have stopped the aircraft from taking off, but it would have shortened the lifespan of the airframe over the course of hundreds of launches.

File: 725987d1067b47270e0cd688009e3f2d.jpg (87KB, 564x863px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 564x863px

>>34693389
>>34694341
But can it land and launch this?

>>34694393
>>34697244
If it was so simple as a software patch, then how come this wasn't done in beta?

>>34698238
It's a software patch, but they still had to go out and launch planes from the land site to see if it worked. And I think the problem only got recognized in the last 6 months or something.

>>34698254
>>34698238
Actually went and looked, the problem was found in 2014 and the software fix was made in 2015. They just didn't test it until recently for...some reason. Maybe they were just confident it would work and wanted to test other shit instead.

>>34698274
>Maybe they were just confident it would work and wanted to test other shit instead.
Man, it would sure suck if the EMALS would promptly launch the plane so fast the pilot was turned into chunky salsa under the new software 'fix'.

>>34698238
I wouldn't call it simple. The upgrade is simple, but everything on the backside is very complex.

>>34693114
I heard they were rolling out 10K tomorrow.

>>34700725
that's a lot of washing machines

>>34700745
They'll wash the seas clean of American filth

>>34700745
Carriers, anon, carriers. Air conditioners, not washing machines.

>>34698225
I actually calculated how many JATO cannisters you'd need to take one of those vertically off a carrier at MTOW. The answer- bout tree fiddy. Seriously. 352.

File: DFRi0rRVwAEHBUn.jpg (205KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1200x1200px

>>34701604
I'm interested anon, do you have a worksheat for the calculations, could you possible give me a thought process?

>thanks

>>34702169
It's ridiculously simple math. Goal is to get the thrust/weight greater than 1. For the purposes of the math, we'll use the 15-KS-1000 JATO bottle. These weigh 60 pounds and deliver 1000 lbs of thrust.

First, take the MTOW of a B-52. We can safely assume that the weight of all JATO cannisters added will not bring the B-52 over its MTOW, as any overage can be exchanged for reduced bomb load. It just gives us a nice and simple number (488,000 lbs) to work with. I just used MTOW because I was lazy and didn't want to calculate any more than I had to. Then you take the thrust of its engines and subtract directly from it. We'll use the H's TF33-P-3, each with the thrust of 17,000 pounds of force. Given 8 engines, that's 136,000 pounds. That means that we still need to make up for 352,000 pounds before you reach a thrust/weight of 1.Then you just fill in the rest with nice and easy 1000 lb thrust of JATO canisters. That's simple math. Just 352. But it seems I was stupid and misremembered it, so you'll want to add one more JATO canister to make it greater than 1, so you'll actually go somewhere.

There you go, you've flown a B-52 vertically off a carrier. Now, this would be utterly ridiculous and I highly suspect the B-52 would never recover from this maneuver to normal flight, never mind the structural issues that come with having this much thrust attached into places it was never intended to be. Still, a fun thought exercise.

>>34702243
>Imperial measurements

discarded

>>34702342
You know the aviation world runs on imperial, right?

>>34697009
Top KEK

>>34692423
Donald Trump personally fixed it after he ripped out the no good digital and put in some goddamn steam.

Such a great man.

>>34702243
>We'll use the H's TF33-P-3, each with the thrust of 17,000 pounds of force. Given 8 engines, that's 136,000 pounds
Are these engines capable of directing their thrust vertically?

>>34691119
Aren't they supposed to hook the 1st cable?

>>34692423
there was a tranny in there that kept fucking it up. King Donny made sure Xe got out of there

>>34702488
They are if you stick the plane pointing upwards on some scaffolding.

>>34702499
Ideally, but there are multiple cables for a reason. It's not a bad landing.

>>34702459

File: Donald-Trump-smug-FB.jpg (29KB, 750x393px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 750x393px

>>34691119
Maybe you didn't hear me the first time, sailor. I said you're going back to goddamn steam. Digital is too much money. Clear?

>>34703504
#MAGA

>>34703946
Fun fact: With the amount of time, effort, and funding it would take to swap out the EMALS for a steamy pussy, the USN would find it more cost-efficient to build an entirely new carrier.

>>34693648
>shit that didn't happen.

>>34702459
This carrier SHOULD have been steam, EMALS delayed it for years

>>34708286
>This carrier SHOULD have been steam, EMALS delayed it for years
Why should it have been?

>>34708286

You mean the AAG.

>>34708286
Not really. At most it delayed it like a year and a half. And future carriers won't have that delay. I consider that worth it for having a far better system.

>>34692404
Software for airframe take-off stress.

>>34698238
>>34698274
Actually, a 3 year turn around time is about typical speed for the government in scenarios like this.

It would take a few months at to identify and clarify the problem. Then at least a year to make the fix, disclose it to the government, and request for more funding and additional testing. Then scheduling the test to happen would probably take 9 to 12 months (due to waiting for a window for an up to that point unplanned test and sorting out the crap involved), assuming that the government was happy with your test plan. Then another few months of reviewing the data and submitting the results to the government for their review and approval (which takes about 6 months).

~3+12+9+3+6 = 33 months or three years, roughly.
All together that is ~3+

>>34708193
i dunno. there as a phantom shower pooper in my AIT company. we kept it quiet to avoid trouble. until one of the hold overs found the suprise turd and told a drill sgt after cleaning it. thankfully for the company, the fact that this was the only one the drill sgts knew about, and the fact that an IET soldier already cleaned up. Was what kept us from getting punishment.