Prev: Re: Fighters and Hangers Next: RE: Fighters and Hangers

RE: Fighters and Hangers

From: "B Lin" <lin@r...>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:53:53 -0700
Subject: RE: Fighters and Hangers

The hard points aren't necessarily the limiting factor.  In a free form
environment (where craft, crew and equipment are all in motion or able
to enter the area at any angle) it's difficult to imagine an automated
system.

But then on the other hand you can imagine a cradle that locks the craft
down and where robotic arms load missiles and such onto hard points. 
This seems very reasonable if you have a docking cradle, as the craft is
fixed into a known position, so the robotic arms would know precisely
where each hard point is supposed to be and would be able to get the
missile quite close, with perhaps fine adjustmaents being made using a
combination visual/microchip tag for the last 6 inches.  

By docking in a cradle, the robotics would know which type of craft was
in it, and have a pre-set idea of where the fueling port, gun
ammo/battery hatch is and where the hard points for missiles were, and
would activate the appropriate number of arms and load up the specified
fuel and ordinance.

The big reason you can't automate a modern carrier that they want the
flexibility to rearm and refuel ANYWHERE on deck.  If there's an
emergency, they want to be able to move the aircraft from a damaged
section but still be able to rearm and refuel aircraft for a strike or
CAP.  If reloading systems are fully automated, you lose that
flexibility (for instance, you could only refuel and reload at a cradle,
and if it were damaged or out of action for some reason you would lose
use of that capability, whereas a human crew can just move to the next
available spot and keep working.

A military case in point for not having automated reloading - Western
vs. Soviet tanks. Admittedly Russian tanks have smaller turrets since
they don't have a human loader.  The problem is, when the automated
loader goes wonky, it's up to the tank commander or gunner to try to get
the gun working, which significantly detracts from the tactical
operation of the vehicle.  In addition, it has been found to be more
useful in having an extra crewman around to deal with the routine
maintenance tasks when you are not in combat.  In a carrier type
situation, I can imagine that it's more helpful in an emergency to have
an extra 100 guys who usually just haul heavy objects around rather than
a stationary robotic arm.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----

> >Ryan Gill wrote:

> 
> One would think, but it depends on the craft itself having a fully 
> automatic handling system or something that merely helps it along. 
> Hard points for particular types of craft could be used, but you have 
> to have a very standarized fighter form and that limits future 
> growth. Look at the Standard Series of missiles and limits imposed on 
> that system for the Mk26 launcher systems, now apply that same set of 
> limits to fighter craft. If the F-14 were tied to a form factor based 
> on the initial development of 1950's naval aviation, we'd be nowhere 
> near the level of performance for the F18 or the F14s.
> 

Prev: Re: Fighters and Hangers Next: RE: Fighters and Hangers