Transcript INTERNAL COMBUSTION CATAPULT AIRCRAFT LAUNCHER

The Internal Combustion Catapult







The C14 Internal Combustion Catapult was
developed in the 1950s and successfully launched
planes.
Used the same launch engine as the steam catapult.
Was more powerful than the steam catapult.
Used JP5 and compressed air burned in a single
large combustor.
Difficult to establish consistent flame fronts and
consistent launch end speeds.
Suffered from lack of security oversight and mancaused faults.
Originally intended for CVN65 Enterprise.
C14 Catapult Operational in
1959 at NAWC Lakehurst
C14 Catapult History



(continued)
Inability of C14 catapult to deliver consistent end
speeds to launched aircraft and “manmade reliability
issues” removed it from consideration for USS
Enterprise. Replaced by the C13 steam catapult
aboard the USS Enterprise at new construction.
Bank of large air compressors intended to supply the
C14 catapult still aboard the Enterprise.
1950’s technology ready to support the ICCALS
catapult technology in spite of “reliability issues” and
2010’s technology is ready to support an internal
combustion catapult superior to either the steam
catapult or EMALS
ICCALS Technology Updates

Technology changes made to improve the technical
viability and performance of the Internal Combustion
Catapult:
• More efficient oxidizer and oxidizer management
• Subdivision of the combustion event into multiple
combustors which average out combustion
instabilities to deliver a smooth and controllable
highly variable mass flow of combustion gas and
steam from the combustor assembly to the launch
engine.
• A controlled constant or increasing launch
acceleration pressure during the launch event
over the length of the launch stroke
ICCALS Update Requirement
(continued)
• Updated control system to incorporate a
•
•
•
technological quantum leap in computer control of
the combustion event.
Use of modern combustion technology as used by
automotive technology and NASA technology.
Use of modern ignition, combustion control and
injection technology.
Rising acceleration rather than falling acceleration
during the launch stroke like EMALS or the C13
steam catapult.
What is needed for CVN78?




CVN78 requires a working catapult technology that
supports the construction schedule and on time
delivery of the ship without breaking the shipbuilding
budget or delivery schedule.
The ICCALS catapult meets the above requirements
while exceeding all of the capabilities that EMALS
claims.
With full closed loop control, peak to mean
acceleration will be minimized just as EMALS
The ICCALS catapult is lighter, cheaper, more
powerful, more space efficient, is based upon current
technology and requires little development.
ICCALS Benefits

Relative to both the C13-2 steam catapult and the
EMALS catapult, the ICCALS catapult:
• Uses less ship internal volume than either EMALS
or the C13-2 catapults.
• Costs and weighs less than either of the alternates.
• Is more powerful than either of the alternatives.
• Can maintain low peak to mean acceleration and
control of the launch event similar to EMALS which
may suffer acceleration cogging due to spacing
between accelerator coils.
• Can launch a wide range of planes from UAVs or
UCAVs to fighter-bombers and sled launched
TLAM and TASM cruise missiles and ATACMs
ICCALS Benefits
• Costs less than either of the alternatives.
• More efficient use of ship volume.
• Is current technology with almost all of the
•
•
components off the shelf. The system can
operate with all COTS hardware, but would be
more efficient with optimized hardware.
Makes little demand on the propulsion plant and
reduces reactor fuel burn-up. Only need spray
water for cooling and steam which is less than
3% of the 1320 pounds of water per launch
required for the C13-2 steam catapult.
Removes significant topside weight which aids
ship stability.
ICCALS Benefits
• Up to 100 million ftlbs delivered power with 33 million
•
•
•
additional ftlbs in reserve compared to half or 70
million ftlbs delivered by EMALS operating at the
upper limit of its capability. This is a function for
ICCALS of the number of combustor modules
deployed and fuel burned per unit time.
Operation at a higher pressure provides even more
launch energy
Steam delivers 75 Megajoules of energy, EMALS
delivers 122 Megajoules of energy. ICCALS delivers
up to 792 Megajoules of energy.
The system can be built and tested NOW.
What Needs To be Done?






Initial system architecture definition.
Initial design studies and hardware tests.
Demonstration of concept feasibility and
continuation of technology development.
Preliminary ship integration studies.
Prototype construction and test of the combustor
assemblies.
Assembly and test of ICCALS at land based or
existing (mothballed) carrier C13 catapult.
• Allows alternative ship concepts and ship types to
function as aircraft launch and recovery platforms like the
baby flat-tops of WWII.
• Allows backfit of ICCALS system into the existing Nimitz
Class Carriers providing catapults that exceed the
capability of the EMALS catapult while providing ¾ of a
million pounds topside weight reduction over 50 ft above
waterline and eliminating the “launch box” wind over deck
requirement.
• Emals cannot be backfit into the Nimitz Class Carriers
Proposed ICCALS Team Members








NAVSEA PEO CARRIERS
NAVAIR PMA 251
Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc
Stallard Associates
NAWC
NSWC Indian Head
NASA
ATK
Plan Of Action





Set up proposed team.
Determine schedule constraints and funding
requirements.
Brief appropriate officials as requested
Conduct presentations as required to other NAVAIR
and NAVSEA activities.
Seek funding ASAP to support CVN78 schedule.
Possibly use CVN 79 R&D funding.
Plan Of Action (Cont.)




Identify construction need dates for critical hardware.
Identify availability of C13-2 existing launch hardware.
Construct test bench, then build and test combustors.
Demonstrate a combustor asssembly producing launch
pressure gasses to duplicate launch requirements for
gas production for the lightest and heaviest anticipated
launch vehicle.
ICCALS INTEGRATED PRODUCT
TEAM





PEO CVN 78 - Program Lead Management
PMA 251 and Stallard Associates – Technical
development and production schedule lead.
NSWC Lakehurst catapult engineering. Design of
optimized control system for the ICCALS catapult and
conduct ICCALS assembly and qualification testing
HII for shipboard system integration, appropriate systems
engineering and integration drawing production schedule.
NASA – Support combustor and feed system design and
igniter lead or support.
ICCALS INTEGRATED PRODUCT
TEAM



Team with NSWC Indian Head for Naval shipboard
integration of oxidizer technology as applicable.
Team with NASA, Stallard Associates and ATK for
liquid propellant combustor and fuel/oxidizer feed
design.
Team with HII for shipboard system integration,
hardware need dates, shipboard integration into
construction schedule and appropriate systems
engineering.
ICCALS INTEGRATED PRODUCT TEAM



PEO CVN78 Program Office (PMA 378) provide program
management for ICCALS Internal Combustion Catapult
technology development.
PMA 251 and Stallard Associates to support program
management and provide development, design and
engineering oversight.
NAWC Engineering, Lakehurst test facility
• Provide catapult requirements and integration
engineering to integrate C13-2 launch engine with
ICCALS catapult combustor modules and control
system.
• Provide engineering/assembly services to temporarily
remove C13-2 launch valve and mount ICCALS
manifold and combustors for qualification testing.
NAWC Test Site Management

NAWC will accomplish the following:
• Modify a C13 land based catapult using team supplied
manifolds to accept the prototype ICCALS steam and
combustion gas generators.
• Manage temporary trailer mounted fuel and oxidizer
delivery systems provided by team
• Provide temporary modifications to the C13 control
system as appropriate to accommodate the ICCALS
control system.
• Conduct test launch program as required to prove
technology viability as soon as feasible.
ICCALS 1990s Clint Stallard
Significant Events




Numerous meetings with PMA 251 and team
members 1995-1998
Visited NAWC, Lakehurst, NJ several times to
site check the ground based C13 Mod 0 and C13
Mod 2 launchers. Determined that temporary
backfit of the ICCALS system is feasible for the
C13-0 catapult or the C13-2 catapult
Hosted a carrier tour for team personnel.
Inspected catapults, control rooms, accumulators
and steam piping areas of ship.
Constructed and successfully tested combustors
jointly with Thiokol (ATK).
ICCALS 1990s
Significant Events


Presentations to Captains Vandenberg, N885 and
O’Hare, PEO CVN 77
Captain O’Hare indicated a desire to have one of the
ICCALS cats as cat 4 on his ship
• Drop-dead dates and installation strategies were
discussed for CVN 77
• Ship-wide benefits of the ICCALS catapult were
discussed by both Captains.
ICCALS
Program Termination


In May of 1998, NNS management decided that it
would be more desirable to the Navy for NNS to
support EMALS, thus NNS terminated my ICCALS
program and assumed the role of systems integrator.
The ICCALS program was producing and testing
hardware when it was terminated, leaving only the
General Atomics electromagnetic catapult in
competition as a systems supplier in place of the
C13-2 steam catapult
Initial Task Goals FOR 2011




Provide rationale to NAVSEA and Congress for
acceptance and funding of the program as a fall-back
option if EMALS slips further on CVN78 (it was
originally supposed to have gone on CVN77)
Provide to NAVSEA and Congress the urgency for
ICCALS program funding to insure meeting the current
CVN78 build schedule.
Provide the programmatic and technical basis for
ICCALS design and development.
Start production of test hardware and control system
design update.
Task Deliverables
For The ICCALS Catapult





Technology development team identified.
System preliminary design and component
identification. Produce supporting analysis for
verification of design performance
Produce concept drawings, construction drawings
and interface drawings for catapult construction and
insertion into CVN78.
Support Navy PMA 251-Stallard Associates position
as technical lead
Design, construct, test and deliver prototype
hardware to NAWC Lakehurst for integration into the
ground based C13 catapult launch engine for
qualification testing.
Where We Are Now




EMALS is an unknown until the testing cycle is complete
The current fallback options are limited to rip-out of the
EMALS system from the ship model and reverting to the
C13-2 steam catapult with extensive delay and redesign.
The ICCALS catapult offers a better proven fall-back
option. It has a much lower installed cost, lower installed
weight, lower in-hull volume consumption and lower
impact to ship design, stability and ship construction.
The ICCALS catapult provides a more affordable, more
powerful and capable and easily installed catapult launch
option for CVN78 if EMALS has to slip to CVN79.
How Can We Support CVN 78





Support Congress/NAVSEA in funding the ICCALS
as either an alternate or primary fall-back option.
Inform NAVSEA as to decision date urgency for
initial development of ICCALS.
Prepare schedule to show development time and
required start date by working back from ship
construction schedule dates via critical path.
Initiate funded work ASAP to meet CVN78 program
need dates.
Explore accessing CVN 79 R&D funding for
ICCALS technology development which then can
be accelerated to support CVN 78 delivery
schedule and budget.
Why Do We Need To Do This?



Current additional projected CVN78 budget over-runs
driven by EMALS are estimated to be up to $560
million.
Total costs for an ICCALS system installed are
estimated to be less than $25 million for the first
catapult and less than $10 Million each for following
installations. Could install ICCALS on 10 operating
carriers for $415 million.
Installation of EMALS hardware into land based
prototype starts no later than 7 months after funding.
Why Do We Need To Do This?



We need this technology to be built and qualified so
as to have a fall-back alternative insurance policy
affordable in cost and schedule impact in case
EMALS has additional difficulties.
The cost of redesign and minimum of one year of
schedule slip of CVN 78 to allow retrofitting steam
catapults would be exorbitantly larger than installing
ICCALS with greater capabilities than EMALS.
ICCALS requires no significant increase in the
budget and requires not schedule slip if started now.
Why Do We Need To Do This?


If we do not prove the ICCALS technology in
time to support CVN 78, then the default and
only current fall-back position in case of
EMALS difficulty is the steam catapult.
Given the current budget atmosphere, this
could put the entire CVN program into
jeopardy along with the industrial base and
maintenance of technically qualified people.
Why DO WE NEED TO DO THIS
(cont)


7 months is sufficient time to build and start testing
an ICCALS prototype system, using existing Naval
assets. The rather ambitious schedule is based upon
almost all of the hardware being off the shelf with
developmental effort being at a minimum.
The greatest effort will be in updating and validating
the current FY1998 control system design.
In Conclusion, The ICCALS Benefits

Relative to both the C13-2 steam catapult and the
EMALS catapult, the ICCALS catapult:
• Is basically off the shelf
• Very little development required
• Uses less ship internal volume
• Weighs less and costs much less
• Is more powerful than either of the alternatives.
• Can maintain low peak to mean acceleration
• Can launch a wide range of planes from UAVs to
fighter-bombers and cruise missiles and ATACMs
using a special launch sled.
• Can be installed on other platforms
Additional ICCALS Benefits


Reduces the required Tavg for the
reactor/core burn-up by elimination of shipproduced steam and 1320 lbs of distilled
water required per C13-2 launch, or
eliminates the requirement to generate the
EMALS electrical launch energy.
Eliminating either will extend core life.
Additional ICCALS Benefits



Maintaining a constant or increasing
acceleration of the plane being launched
reduces or eliminates the wind over deck
requirement and the launch box
Saves over 760,000 pounds compared to the
C13-2 steam catapult.
Saves over 1.02 million pounds compared
to the EMALS catapult.
Additional ICCALS Information



ICCALS is backfittable at low cost to all of
the C13-1 and C13-2 operational carriers,
providing a great increase to the fleet in
capability, both offensive and defensive and
range of planes launched from .
EMALS is not backfittable to the Nimitz
Class cariers.
Addditional combustion catapult information
is available at Bob Holland_com
Schedule vs Risk vs Cost


The latest estimates of CVN78 cost and
schedule growth from NAVSEA if EMALS is
not ready is $560 Million and a year slip in
delivery to install a C13-2 cat system which
affects CVN79 start schedule and funding.
The ICCALS system can be built and
qualified at minimum cost in time to insure
the present CVN78 build schedule as
against additional EMALS slippage.
Contact Information






For additional information please contact
Clint Stallard
[email protected]
Stallard Associates
757-325-8298 Office
757-846-4814 Cell
From Bob Holland.com



After the X-15 project I was transferred to the Internal
Combustion Catapult project.
Ok, You say "What is that?". First let me explain the catapult.
Planes that require flying speed are launched from an aircraft
carrier by a catapult using high pressure steam. The problems
with this are:
• Fresh water is needed to generate the steam
• As the catapult moves the pressure drops. The initial
"kick" is very high and then the acceleration drops off.
The plane and pilot may be subjected to as much as 5G's
at the start to get enough speed to get airborne.
This is why aircraft carriers always turn into the wind and
increase speed to launch planes. To conserve fresh water and
reduce stress to pilots and planes.
From Bob Holland.com (continued)



Reaction Motors designed a system with a rocket
engine that burned jet fuel and added salt water
to generate the steam.
Both jet fuel and salt water are readily available
at sea. The engine produced constant pressure
throughout the launch and a plane could be
launched with as little as 2G's of constant
acceleration.
This means that aircraft could be launched with
less stress and even at flying speed downwind.
From Bob Holland.com (continued)


I was transfered to Lakehurst New Jersey.
The left catapult is steam, the center was
the Reaction Motors catapult and the
large building to the right is the steam
house required to generate the steam for
the steam catapult.
Right about now you are probably
wondering "if this thing was so great then
why are we still using steam catapults?
From Bob Holland.com (continued)



The answer is very simple.
In the latter stage of the project we turned the
catapult operations over to Navy personnel. The
arrangement was that if there were any problems
the Navy personnel could go home while we
fixed it.
DUH
From Bob Holland.com (continued)



Yup, we had problems. Leaks, cut wires, loose
fittings, water in the hydraulics, you name it.
Anything the sailors could think of so they could
get off work.
The boys in Washington looked at the numbers
and in their infinite wisdom decided that the
system was too unreliable.
I worked on both catapult systems and believe
me, the Reaction Motors system was far
superior, less expensive and more effective.