US Navy Aircraft Carriers

India may not be able to afford it, unless the price is reduced & the US looses $Bs on it. Therefore, the USN will keep them as training & experi/developmental ships &/ use them as LHAs until if/when all the problems r fixed.

Bad news for EMALS fans!

Why would you say that?

I am an EMALS fan and I couldn't care less if the Americans can't get one right... it means nothing to me.

Perhaps they could install a rump so the lightly armed F-18s can use it! Their AWACSs can fly off a different CVN. Otherwise, it would be super LHAN with 2x+ the aircraft.

The whole purpose of a carrier is awareness and reach... and AWACS provides the visibility and supports air operations which provide the reach... which pretty much makes these carriers big white elephants... with the inside made of solid gold so they are super expensive but still look cheap on the outside...

Have never seen the F-18 use a ramp for takeoff alternatives without cat support...

India may not be able to afford it, unless the price is reduced & the US looses $Bs on it. Therefore, the USN will keep them as training & experi/developmental ships &/ use them as LHAs until if/when all the problems r fixed.

I doubt India would buy it any time within the next two decades... because that is how long the discussions on price would last and even if they got it for free they would find some reason to complain...

I am an EMALS fan and I couldn't care less if the Americans can't get one right... it means nothing to me.

If they (who used CAT for decades, after Brits invented it, & sold it to France & Brazil) can't, what r the odds that Russia & China can?

..AWACS provides the visibility and supports air operations which provide the reach... which pretty much makes these carriers big white elephants... with the inside made of solid gold so they are super expensive but still look cheap on the outside...
Have never seen the F-18 use a ramp for takeoff alternatives without cat support...

Well, they r too expensive to fail & some use will be found for them in the meantime. F-18s can be given some modifications; they already have strong landing gear & airframe. Tilt-rotors can be made into AWACS. Future high speed attack/transport helos & UAVs can also be based on those Ford CVNs.

If they (who used CAT for decades, after Brits invented it, & sold it to France & Brazil) can't, what r the odds that Russia & China can?

Ahhh, because of course if the Brits and Americans can use steam cats then they can immediately overcome the problems involved in EM cats, but the fact that they clearly are not means no one can.

So I assume you will claim that not only will China not be able to develop EM cats but also wont be able to develop steam cats either and that of course carrier borne fighters will also elude them as a technology... because clearly they need to start with biplanes and work their way up.

The facts are that steam cats are complicated and difficult to perfect and require time and energy and experience to develop into a mature system... and EM cats are not different, they require completely new technologies and materials and will require time and energy to develop and then experience to perfect into a mature and effective system.

The Russians are not disadvantaged by not having had a working steam system... because they are totally different and require completely different technologies and materials.

Given the choice of a perfected system in steam or EMALS the latter is clearly superior in every way... why would the USN even consider EMALS if it wasn't better?

So if it is better why would Russia waste time and money and effort developing a clearly inferior system... it would be like developing a new pistol to compete with the Boa... but the new pistol will be a flintlock pistol...  reliably unreliable...

Well, they r too expensive to fail & some use will be found for them in the meantime.

Fill them up with plastic waste and dump them offshore around enemy countries.... solves multiple problems all at once...

F-18s can be given some modifications; they already have strong landing gear & airframe.

They probably could but would get a huge drop in operational performance because operational weights will drop leading to reduced payload and reduced fuel load...
Making them less capable than aircraft operating from much older carriers...

Tilt-rotors can be made into AWACS. Future high speed attack/transport helos & UAVs can also be based on those Ford CVNs.

Yeah... Funnies testbed... for the next D Day. Two Ford carriers... 26 billion dollars well spent...

So I assume you will claim that not only will China not be able to develop EM cats but also wont be able to develop steam cats either and that of course carrier borne fighters will also elude them as a technology...

They had decades to study them from ex-RAN Melbourne they were supposed to scrap & other info. obtained by their Intel. I agree it's not a problem in series but it may take them many years to master EMALS tech, & I doubt they'll want to repeat the USS Ford saga, not having 10 other CVNs like in the USN.

If the S400 detectes the F35 at 35km compare to 200km for f16/f15/f18/su35 like the Turkish say, then the F35 is certainly worthwhile.

How would Turkey know yet?

They have trained on the S-400 system in Russia and they have trained on the F-35 in the US, but these two systems have never met in Turkey.

After flying at supersonic speeds it seems the RAM on the tail area bubbles and falls off so I am not so sure how stealthy an F-35 would remain in a combat situation anyway... sounds like it will be subsonic only till they fix that...

They had decades to study them from ex-RAN Melbourne they were supposed to scrap & other info. obtained by their Intel.

They have had decades to study Su-27 engines but still buy them from Russia for new aircraft... do you think the Soviets didn't get hold of the full specs for US steam cat systems? There have been lots of breaches of security during the cold war regarding secrets like that...

I agree it's not a problem in series but it may take them many years to master EMALS tech, & I doubt they'll want to repeat the USS Ford saga, not having 10 other CVNs like in the USN.

From the Russian perspective it does not matter whether they develop steam cats or EM cats... no one will actively help them so they need to learn how to produce mature effective systems on their own with their own money... going for steam cats means a less capable result... it is like developing a new sniper rifle... do they start with a flintlock or percussion cap?

Why invest money in a deadend obsolete technology?

And they can't repeat the USS Ford saga because their fighter aircraft don't need EMALS to operate from a carrier... it will just be their heavy aircraft types... AWACS and inflight refuelling tanker and transport type.

Navy preps its new USS Ford carrier for massive ocean warfare

The # of areas/countries they can go in/against is dwindling. It's a race against time!

US and French aircraft carriers conduct cross-deck exercises

https://usa-newnews.com/new-news/us-and-french-aircraft-carriers-swapped-fighters-during-an-exercise-in-the-mediterranean/

Tsavo Lion wrote:US and French aircraft carriers conduct cross-deck exercises

https://usa-newnews.com/new-news/us-and-french-aircraft-carriers-swapped-fighters-during-an-exercise-in-the-mediterranean/

Bit like "show me yours and I'll show you mine" when we were kids. Two sitting ducks touching each other up. Bet French wasn't spoken much

The evolution of the US Navy aircraft carriers