USA mainly beat Japan thanks to its silent service by halting raw material shipment...
It is like a fighter jet : you need troops on the ground to win, but without you can't.
To be changed : Rafale is now officially able to take off from ski jump.
Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
- Thread starter Gautam
- Start date
It is like a fighter jet : you need troops on the ground to win, but without you can't.
What exactly are the modifications required to convert a naval Fighter Aircraft from Catapult based take off to ski jump ? Any inputs ? @Picdelamirand-oil
For the Rafale nothing at all: all Rafale M's have a three position switch to take off either from the ground, or from a CATOBAR, or from a STOBAR. This switch changes the behaviour of the FCS on take-off, there is nothing else to change because the constraints of a CATOBAR take-off are higher than those of a STOBAR take-off.
You mean except for the FCS characteristics , no other structural modification is required for such conversion from CATOBAR to STOBAR take off & I mean this not just for the Rafale M but any other Naval Fighter Aircraft ?
Yes you have
CATOBAR > STOBAR > Classic aircraft
For exemple the aim of the naval Typhoon was to be able to take off from a STOBAR, the CATOBAR was deemed impossible.
Any reading material you'd recommend to get a better idea of the difference between a CATOBAR & a STOBAR Naval Fighter Aircraft ?
No. The bird sent in India was a Rafale M without change. Maybe some new laws in the FBW system
(edit : @picdelamirand say no. He is more aware than me).
US beat Japanese because
1) japanes lacks resources to fight a Giant like USU. Their only bet was distance from US mainland. This advantages negated the day US started setting up bases around japan.
2) US had an immense fleet of Battleships & AC, which played the crucial role.
This is not something very common in the literature, my information came from Mr Hironde who is one of the fathers of the Rafale, I will look for...
In STOBAR launch, the nose wheel has to take lot of load as the aircraft goes over the ramp. and all the oleos of the wheels suffer sudden and rapid extension. In case of CATOBAR also the same thing happens. So you dont need any additional changes to the wheels or the aircraft structure
Thanks for the information. In that case , except for the FCS , the same TEDBF which will be developed for STOBAR can then also function from a CATOBAR based AC then . Is this a correct assumption ?
I also wanted to same.
All catobar are stobar capable..
Reverse? Is stobar capable of catobar?
No clue. That's what I was seeking answers to though from the information given it shouldn't be a problem except for the FCS.
Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
Subs are for weak nations,it won't bring you victory USA mainly beat Japan thanks to its silent service by halting raw material shipment... It is like a fighter jet : you need troops on the ground to win, but without you can't. To be changed : Rafale is now officially able to take off from...
www.strategicfront.org
It's all to do with the strength of the landing carriage in this case.
Developing an aircraft for CATOBAR needs a much stronger landing carriage, including the airframe. But that comes with a weight penalty. So ADA has to design TEDBF with the weight penalty for it to become CATOBAR-capable right from the beginning.
Rather what ADA has chosen to do is, they will make TEDBF STOBAR-only for now, but they can modernise it for CATOBAR operations if necessary in the future. Alternatively, they are also keeping a new CATOBAR-capable stealth design as an option. So it's totally unnecessary to make the TEDBF 1 ton heavier than it needs to be for a capability that may never be used. Similarly, the TEDBF's landing carriage has to be re-engineered to be lighter if it's to be sold to air forces.
The N-LCA also uses a different landing carriage, it can absorb 5 times the energy as the air force version. But it's still not CATOBAR-capable.
Basically, the reverse is not possible if the aircraft has been designed for efficiency from the start.
Not really, silent service had a defective torpedo well into 1943. "From December 1941 to November 1943 the Mark 14 and the destroyer-launched Mark 15 torpedo had numerous technical problems that took almost two years to fix."
Underrated in the general public obviously, bit overrated historically. Not to say submarines aren't of supreme importance, it's just the US was really hamstrung by torpedos and tactics.
First 6 months of the Pacific War was the hardest and won by 4 carriers. Only 1 submarine(crucial, but only because the route and Hornet was messed up) did anything at Midway. The next year after saw that carrier number whittled down to 1 carrier.
It's not like Japan had any way of protecting the convoys from airpower after being outnumbered 30 to 4 in carriers.
You can win logistically or through combat, or you could be like the US and do both. Would it have been harder without submarines yes, was it not even close if Japan had infinite shipping? yes. Even with unlimited resources the IC of Japan was too small compared to the USA. Only the USSR and USA mastered mass production techniques for war.
This is the main reason US beat Japan.
I mean Japan is obviously losing the war by 1944 start without subs sinking any trade fleet due to torpedos.
Their torpedoes suffer from a default : they were cruising deeper than intended. ie some torpedoes gone under the smaller ship wothout exploding.
Some, but not all.
And US subs captains were aware of that so change the selected depth of the torpedoes.
Here the results, only for US subs. They did't wait 1944.
Joint Army–Navy Assessment Committee :
| Date | Tonnage at the beginning | Tonnage built | Tonnage sunk | result | Tonnage end period |
| 1942 (incluant décembre 1941) | 5 975 000 | 111 000 | 725 000 | −89 000 | 5 886 000 |
| 1943 | 5 886 000 | 177 000 | 1 500 000 | −1 323 000 | 4 963 000 |
| 1944 | 4 963 000 | 624 000 | 2 700 000 | −2 076 000 | 2 887 000 |
| 1945 | 2 887 000 | ? | 415 000 | −415 000 | 2 472 000 |
| Fin de la guerre | 3 903 000 | 1 983 000 |