In case you missed it, the Navy and General Atomics made history this past weekend when they launched an aircraft from the new electromagnetic launch system, or EMALS, for the first time.
As we reported yesterday over at sister site DoDBuzz, the sea service successfully launched an F/A-18E Super Hornet using the new system on Dec. 18 at Lakehurst Air Engineering Station in New Jersey.
The breakthrough is pretty big news for the Navy, considering this was the first time the service has launched an aircraft using anything other than a steam catapult in more than 50 years.
Now, the service plans to conduct test launches of everything from the old C-2 Greyhound turboprop cargo plane to the T-45 Goshawk trainer to make sure the system really works, and will keep on working.
“Today we answered the question — will EMALS work,” said Kathleen Donnelly, Director for Support Equipment and Aircraft Launch and Recovery at Lakehurst. “Now we’ll work toward answering the question, will EMALS be reliable?”
If those tests go well, General Atomics will begin shipping EMALS parts to the Navy for installation aboard the under-construction U.S.S. Gerald Ford by 2011. In fact, as a statement of confidence in the system, General Atomics recently signed a $676.2 million fixed-price contract to build the system.
We’ve noted earlier that, while EMALS has had its teething problems, it should be able to launch a wider range of aircraft (including UAVs), take up far less room below deck and be less maintenance intensive than steam catapults.
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
No picture? Is it classified?
Showing a picture of a F18 going off a carrier (via steam , no doubt) is a bit misleading.
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/17937_large_ca…
Thanks- although it basically is a plane on a tarmac.
Maybe we should stick with the (steam) carrier launch-
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=5…
Basically says a few paragraphs down that heavier planes need more force to launch, which EMALS can provide but steam can't, so this thing should allow for greater aircraft payloads or cargo sizes.
DON'T THINK THE F/A-18 WAS SITTING ON THE TARMAC. NAEC HAS A RAISED PLATFORM WITH CAT UNDERNEATH THAT SHOOTS THE PLANES OUT AND UP. THINK CATHY AND THE GANG DID A FANTASTIC JOB………………..JAS
Im happy they got the EMALS working, but ive seen it work before (i live near six flags new england and most of the coasters use magnetic rails to launch), so its impressive but would like to see more progress. Our military needs to get back on the forefront of technology, its 2011 almost the EMALS should be launching x wings by now ( or at least the JSF )
Time for the reintroduction of the Battleship. Rail guns able to send shells from the carrier group to the battlefield in seconds. That technology is coming along nice but itll be 50 years before we have battleships back = (
Video here:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/21/us-navys-elect…
Frickin' sweet. Glad to see a success.
Bravo zulu US Navy and General Atomics!
Couldn’t the Air Force use this, too?
Humor me. Take
1) Truck with a beefy generator and a battery
2) A second truck with the catapult in parts
3) Some guys that assemble the catapult and nail it to the runway (the load on a single “nail” wouldn’t be that large because there space for a lot of them. You’d need a safety mechanism to keep nails from getting loose though)
4) Do something similar for the arresting cables (perhaps anchor them to the trucks that themselves are anchored to the ground)
5) Voila, short takeoff, short landing.
Problem with that is that naval aircraft must weight ALOT more than their land based brethren because of the extra strength encorperated into their designs. This is nessesary for them to withstand the pressures of stopping and starting.
That is why airforce jets can seem to "dance" in the sky compaired to navy ones.
Good idea though.
For land based launches, you might be able to make the EMALS quite a bit longer, but with lower acceleration. I wonder how low acceleration you need to not rip the undercarriage off though.
Gotta keep in mind how much juice this system requires.
The Ford class is designed with much more electrical generating capacity than earlier carriers (and those don't have trouble keeping the light bulbs bright) – even so the EMALS system incorporates massive flywheels to store and release energy.
A truck full of batteries? Fuggetaboutit!
A second reason is that the landing gear on air force jets are built very light compared to the Navy jets. Basically, any type of catapult would ripe the "legs" right off of a air force jet.
Also I believe that even with catapults, carriers require a certain windspeed over the deck in order to launch, and they turn into the wind or increase speed as required to facilitate this. Doesn't write off your idea of course, as it would still reduce the overall takeoff run, just not as much.
I'd love to see this technology applied in combination with a Sea Shadow type design plus the x-47… A stealth boat that can launch and retrieve stealth drones FTW.
Now retro fit for all carriers & have model on the USS Midway to show how it works for the Public & the USS Hornet, Intrepid alone for PR, Neat.
Look ma, no steam!
Here is the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLsg_viWW0&fe…
They stole the idea from Superman: The Escape roller coaster lol.
Every time I see that picture my mind forms the image of a magnetized Hornet stuck to the end of the carrier deck like an old-fashioned bowsprit ;-)
Cranky
LOL!
This is AWEFUL. Now England, Spain, Italy, Thailand, Brazil and any other country that has small carriers can cancel their impending F-35B buys. With these planned purchases gone the F-35B will be too expensive for the USMC. All these foreign Navies will just get Rafale Ms or the new proposed Naval Gripen in response to all the crap we have talked about everyone, now exposed by Wiki-Leaks. I can see the Italian Cavour with about 35 of those tiny Swedish planes and a 900 man Marine landing force. Thats cool.
In reality this is totally cool and I want to see EMALS used in conjunction with a big radical ski jump like the Russians use. There may be no need for the F-35B at all.
Should have left it on the roller coasters though, I once saw the ABs on the Kitty Hawk( affectionately the "sh#&ty kitty") launch a 1970 Dodge Demon about 200 yards thru the air, now thats the cats pajamas!
Brazil already has a CTOL carrier so they were never looking for a F-35B. Britian has already planned on changing to a F-35C, and there is no way you can add EMALS to any carrier that Spain, Italy, India, or Thailand currently have, especially since EMALS also requires some type of angled flight deck and arrested landing gear, This of course requires a much more robust flightdeck than any straight STOVL carrier has. So basically, you either have CTOL now or you are not converting a STOVL carrier. The new British Carriers were designed to be able to be CTOL or STOVL, no one elses were.
Soon battleships will make a comeback and all these big aircraft carriers will be ob so lete. The big gun is not dead yet.
Does anybody know for sure – but in the video of the takeoff, it appeared that the F18 was not using afterburners. Does this mean that the energy imparted by the EMALS doesn't require the plane itself to be using afterburners. Don't most steam catapulted fighters take off with afterburners?
yes they do take off with afterburners on in case of a cold cat…not enough steam…but this new system could eliminate that problem
Bill, You mean there would never be a "cold magnet"?