That floating casino in China
Discussion
Seems like they are letting fast jets land on it now...
more pics here
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2012-11/25/c_1239980...
more pics here
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2012-11/25/c_1239980...
jbi said:
Not often you see a CTOL bird use a ski-jump. Wonder what his TOW was? No drop at all. Even with a Harrier you saw some kind of ballistic trajectory. I would say this guy was light!Apparently...
"with a 25 knots headwind, the J-15 can take off from the 110m positions with the full 32,000kg MTOW. Without the 25 knots headwind, the take off weight is reduced to 28,000kg. From the 195m position you can take off with 32,000kg without a headwind."
"the carrier can easily generate enough headwind by traveling at a reasonable speed, implying J15 can almost always takeoff with full weapons load from the 110m positions."
No point in posting the link as it's all scanned in, in Mandarin
"with a 25 knots headwind, the J-15 can take off from the 110m positions with the full 32,000kg MTOW. Without the 25 knots headwind, the take off weight is reduced to 28,000kg. From the 195m position you can take off with 32,000kg without a headwind."
"the carrier can easily generate enough headwind by traveling at a reasonable speed, implying J15 can almost always takeoff with full weapons load from the 110m positions."
No point in posting the link as it's all scanned in, in Mandarin
ktcanuck said:
Not often you see a CTOL bird use a ski-jump. Wonder what his TOW was? No drop at all. Even with a Harrier you saw some kind of ballistic trajectory. I would say this guy was light!
If memory serves the 'drop' for the harrier after launch was more deliberate due to the change of nozzle direction and switch to more speed rather then lift, a bit of a rollercoaster ride to best balance lift and speed. There were always rumours about the soviet carriers and the aircraft launching with quite a bit less fuel and weaponry then they made out. Rumours aplenty in the carrier world though. jbi said:
Apparently...
"with a 25 knots headwind, the J-15 can take off from the 110m positions with the full 32,000kg MTOW. Without the 25 knots headwind, the take off weight is reduced to 28,000kg. From the 195m position you can take off with 32,000kg without a headwind."
"the carrier can easily generate enough headwind by traveling at a reasonable speed, implying J15 can almost always takeoff with full weapons load from the 110m positions."
No point in posting the link as it's all scanned in, in Mandarin
A large pinch of salt required there I think."with a 25 knots headwind, the J-15 can take off from the 110m positions with the full 32,000kg MTOW. Without the 25 knots headwind, the take off weight is reduced to 28,000kg. From the 195m position you can take off with 32,000kg without a headwind."
"the carrier can easily generate enough headwind by traveling at a reasonable speed, implying J15 can almost always takeoff with full weapons load from the 110m positions."
No point in posting the link as it's all scanned in, in Mandarin
sort of... it's basically a flanker airframe but has more in common with the SU-33 variant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15
The Chinese acquired an SU-33 prototype from Ukraine and have based the J-15 on it, however they have fitted Chinese engines and avionics, plus a few other structural changes.
They have also developed a 2 seater version which the Russians never got round to doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15
The Chinese acquired an SU-33 prototype from Ukraine and have based the J-15 on it, however they have fitted Chinese engines and avionics, plus a few other structural changes.
They have also developed a 2 seater version which the Russians never got round to doing.
jbi said:
it may well be possible...
The J-15 has a 10% thrust to weight ratio advantage against the F/A-18F and a 25% lower wing loading.
Thinfourth2 you are correct the Liaoning has no catapult system
If a rolling take off is that feasible, why are we buying the white elephant that is F35B? I conclude the Chinese are indulging in a little disinformation.The J-15 has a 10% thrust to weight ratio advantage against the F/A-18F and a 25% lower wing loading.
Thinfourth2 you are correct the Liaoning has no catapult system
hidetheelephants said:
If a rolling take off is that feasible, why are we buying the white elephant that is F35B? I conclude the Chinese are indulging in a little disinformation.
Because we were too short sighted 20+ years ago when it came time to make the decision on whether the typhoon should be carrier capable, sadly it is now far too late and far too expensive to change that. Rolling take offs are feasible due to the headwind, ramp and a jet with a high power to weight. I have read a piece on how a possible typhoon fitted with ducted ej2x0 jets could take off with a high load from the CVF but you still have issues of trying to land it and the extra strain on the under carriage caused by the ramp.The carrier we are building isn't long enough to launch and land a non cat and trap modern jet especially ones we can get hold of at full loading, fitting cat and trap is too expensive now thanks to a long and proud history of short sightedness. So we are left with the B which can use a short take off and ramp and short landing, pretty much all we can do.
It's not all downsides though, the B choice or at least choice for a STOL carrier allows us to in theory carry out more simultaneous operations in more adverse conditions, a ramp launched B can again in theory take off with full load from a ramp with even a negative wind over deck speed, if a rolling take off carrier cannot generate enough speed it can become almost useless.
Simpo Two said:
Is it not always possible to turn the ship into wind?
If there insufficient time to respond, room to turn, engine damage or extreme wind then not so much. Argentina had issues during the Falklands getting planes launched from its carrier due to the weather while the harriers could launch in much more extreme conditions.I admit to being a big fan of STOVL
True the B is not as good as the CATOBAR version, but the whole launch and recovery process is simpler.
Greater immunity to weather.
Increased sortie rate.
The ability to return with unused stores.
Less to go wrong on the ship, no cats and traps.
Fewer crew.
Less power demand from te warship.
Greater likelyhood of the aircraft landing on safely.
Fewer fuel issues on return to the ship.
No need to configure and tie up airframes as buddy tankers.
There is a lot to like about STOVL. Or indeed the "Bedford Array" rolling landings which CVF will probably adopt.
This Chinese carrier may look impressive with its STOBAR jets, but its really not a great idea operationally.
True the B is not as good as the CATOBAR version, but the whole launch and recovery process is simpler.
Greater immunity to weather.
Increased sortie rate.
The ability to return with unused stores.
Less to go wrong on the ship, no cats and traps.
Fewer crew.
Less power demand from te warship.
Greater likelyhood of the aircraft landing on safely.
Fewer fuel issues on return to the ship.
No need to configure and tie up airframes as buddy tankers.
There is a lot to like about STOVL. Or indeed the "Bedford Array" rolling landings which CVF will probably adopt.
This Chinese carrier may look impressive with its STOBAR jets, but its really not a great idea operationally.
DangerMonkey said:
Near the coast?
I'm not sure a carrier would operate so close to the coast that it couldn't turn round. Such things normally keep their distance, and whilst I don't know how long it takes a carrier to turn up to 180 degrees, it also takes time for aircrew to get from readiness to the cockpit and ready to launch.ETA And one could of course fit a conveyor belt!
wildcat45 said:
Increased sortie rate.
They'll need 2 extra sorties to compensate for the poor payload and endurance.wildcat45 said:
The ability to return with unused stores.
Meh; the only time this is a significant issue is in a shooting war, where expediture of munitions is so profligate that dropping a few in the oggin is not a problem.wildcat45 said:
Less to go wrong on the ship, no cats and traps.
More to go wrong on the aircraft, where a failure will dump biggles in the oggin and remove an airframe from the squadron.wildcat45 said:
Less power demand from te warship.
I don't understand the point here, unless it's about fuel economy in which case meh; carrier battle groups have a baggage train bigger than Madonna touring with Elton as support, a little extra fuel will make no difference.wildcat45 said:
Greater likelyhood of the aircraft landing on safely.
They'll need it with the increased sortie rate necessary to complete a given objective.wildcat45 said:
Fewer fuel issues on return to the ship.
Fuel issues more likely with such poor endurance.wildcat45 said:
No need to configure and tie up airframes as buddy tankers.
Did I mention poor endurance?The endurance pay off v getting back on the deck is a far better option.
To land back on you have to be at a minimum weight - ie low on fuel. CATOBAR, or STOBAR "arrivals" have a high risk of bolters. If you can actualy stop the jet, then land on you have much less risk of ending up with a lot of expensive machinery very wet.
With a limited air group - and lets face it we will have a limited air group - you have to have AAR configured aircraft to keep everything in the sky if they can't land on.
The CVFs were going to have EMALS electro-magnitic launch catapults. That was goiong to require more power generation from the ship - more power, more dieso, more cost more crew.
It is much better having a landing system that is based on lights and steel plates rather than complex traps.
You can do a lot more on a flight deck with a STOVL configuration. Recover jets while launching helos etc.
The last point will be more important when we end up not replacing our LPH and the time comes when we have to run one ship as a CVA and LPH at the same time.
It is not out of the question that CVF could be running CAP, CAS, AEW, and Commando operations at once.
Not that I hate conventional carriers. I would have liked us to have them, but realistically, so far into build and with our experience in STOVL, it made sense to go down that route.
That Chinese effort is the worst of both worlds.
India has her sister ship. How do they plan to operate her? Anyone know?
To land back on you have to be at a minimum weight - ie low on fuel. CATOBAR, or STOBAR "arrivals" have a high risk of bolters. If you can actualy stop the jet, then land on you have much less risk of ending up with a lot of expensive machinery very wet.
With a limited air group - and lets face it we will have a limited air group - you have to have AAR configured aircraft to keep everything in the sky if they can't land on.
The CVFs were going to have EMALS electro-magnitic launch catapults. That was goiong to require more power generation from the ship - more power, more dieso, more cost more crew.
It is much better having a landing system that is based on lights and steel plates rather than complex traps.
You can do a lot more on a flight deck with a STOVL configuration. Recover jets while launching helos etc.
The last point will be more important when we end up not replacing our LPH and the time comes when we have to run one ship as a CVA and LPH at the same time.
It is not out of the question that CVF could be running CAP, CAS, AEW, and Commando operations at once.
Not that I hate conventional carriers. I would have liked us to have them, but realistically, so far into build and with our experience in STOVL, it made sense to go down that route.
That Chinese effort is the worst of both worlds.
India has her sister ship. How do they plan to operate her? Anyone know?
Edited by wildcat45 on Monday 26th November 08:34
Edited by wildcat45 on Monday 26th November 08:35
Edited by wildcat45 on Monday 26th November 08:36
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff