Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Future Indian Navy and French Navy Aircraft Carriers Likely to be Fitted with EMALS & AAG

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by layman, Apr 27, 2017.

  1. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,301
    Likes Received:
    6,255
    Country Flag:
    France
    Now they just need to improve reliability, if they don't want unbearable plane losses
     
  2. smestarz

    smestarz Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    EMALS is expensive but it has many advantages,.
    a) the maintenance of EMALs system is easier and cheaper, Steam catapults on other hand take a long time to maintain.
    b) Since Steam Pressure is required for steam catapults, sometimes the delay is there if a heavier plane is to be launched to get the steam pressure, with EMALS, Take off can be ensured almost after every 30 seconds no matter it is F/A-18 or E-2D

    Thus EMALS have a long term benefits and advantages.

     
  3. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    352
    Country Flag:
    Canada
  4. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,301
    Likes Received:
    6,255
    Country Flag:
    France
    http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/military-reform/2017/the-militarys-leadership-problem.html?referrer=http://disq.us/url?impression=211436ea-9319-11e7-9cfe-002590f38886&product=email&object_type=thread&variant=active&forum_id=3912794&utm_source=digest&thread=6121761213&verb=click&event=activity&threadrank=2&user_id=140245577&adverb=internal&zone=digest&url=http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/military-reform/2017/the-militarys-leadership-problem.html:Xy93yy4-xrqqnJbFGSxbbVqMZY4&section=thread-footer&object_id=&experiment=digests

    Another example of this is the USS Ford aircraft carrier. In order to secure significant new funding, the Navy promised the new design would outperform existing carriers and save money in the long-term. Both claims remain dubious. The Service scrapped the long-proven technology of steam-powered catapults and hydraulic arresting gear and replaced them with the brand new and wholly untested EMALS and “water twister” arresting-gear technology. Those two systems, in turn, required an all-new ship design to support their radically different space and electrical requirements. Because of the massive electrical charge and the reduced steam supply the EMALS requires, the Ford-class ships needed a newly designed nuclear reactor, new turbine generators, and a new electrical distribution system. And the water twister arresting gear required the entire aft end of the carrier to be reconfigured. In the event of failure, neither the EMALS nor the water twister can be replaced by their steam or hydraulic predecessors without tearing the entire carrier apart. But the Navy committed to all of that while EMALS and the water twister were still only engineering sketches. The Service took an enormous gamble by building a $13 billion ship around technology that had never been demonstrated.

    That is an incredibly and unnecessarily risky acquisition strategy. There is the question about whether the advertised performance improvement of 25 percent improved sortie rate, which would be marginal at best (it is still an aircraft carrier), is worth the investment. The last Nimitz-class aircraft carrier cost $6.9 billion. The Navy claims it will save $5 billion over the lifetime of the Ford due to manpower savings that may never be realized. So the American people are paying upfront an extra $6 billion before overruns to save an unproven $5 billion over 50 years.

    That is not a technology problem. That is a leadership problem. No admiral and no senior civilian in the acquisition chain of command stood up to put a stop to such a risky scheme or to even raise an objection to the kind of arithmetic that only makes sense to a defense contractor looking for business.
     

Share This Page