4 ms·
A CATOBAR setup was included in the designs at one stage but later scrapped for cost reasons. Building a carrier with a ski-ramp is a lot cheaper. The disadvan
by agurk 8y ago
A CATOBAR setup was included in the designs at one stage but later scrapped for cost reasons. Building a carrier with a ski-ramp is a lot cheaper.
The disadvantage is as you point out, severely limited types of aircraft for operations. The advantage of the cheaper design was that two carriers could be produced - France, with a similar economy and military to the UK size-wise, has only one fixed-wing carrier.
Two carriers is a game changer, as it allows year round operational readiness. For the Charles de Gaulle it spent ~900 days at sea in its first six years[0] - less than half the time.
Always having a carrier ready with "compromised" aircraft has many advantages over a lower availability with better aircraft.
[0] https://www.copybook.com/fact-files/charles-de-gaulle-aircraft-carrier https://www.copybook.com/fact-files/charles-de-gaulle-aircra...
- gaius 8y agoA CATOBAR setup was included in the designs at one stage but later scrapped for cost reasons. I don't believe it was ever really included in the design. EMALS was undeveloped at the time, and where would you get the steam for a conventional catapult, with no reactor and no boilers? And where were the compartments to physically put the (huge) catapults and arrestor gear? And even if EMALS was available where would you get the electrical power to run it (no reactor remember) when the (gas turbine) engines full output would be needed to head into the wind for launches? It was a tickybox, that's all. Because BAe could never take the risk that the UK would chose Rafales or Super Hornets, they had to make the F35-B, which coincidentally they also have a finger in the pie of, the only option.