The Internal Combustion Catapult

1. 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 man-caused faults. • Originally intended for CVN65 Enterprise.

2. C14 Catapult Operational in 1959 at NAWC Lakehurst

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

12. Proposed ICCALS Team Members • NAVSEA PEO CARRIERS • NAVAIR PMA 251 • Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc • Stallard Associates • NAWC • NSWC Indian Head • NASA • ATK

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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. • NAWCEngineering, 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.

18. 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.

19. ICCALS 1990s Clint StallardSignificant 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).

20. ICCALS 1990sSignificant 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.

21. 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

22. 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.

23. Task DeliverablesFor 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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

31. Additional ICCALS Benefits • Reduces the required Tavg for the reactor/core burn-up by elimination of ship-produced 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.

32. Additional ICCALS Benefits • Maintaining a constant or increasing acceleration of the plane being launched reduces or eliminates the wind over deck requirementand 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.

33. 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

34. 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.

35. Contact Information • For additional information please contact • Clint Stallard • cstallardva@yahoo.com • Stallard Associates • 757-325-8298 Office • 757-846-4814 Cell

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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?

39. 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

40. 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.