Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Man ..safety is not the Russians strong point..No life preservers, no hearing or eye protection all during an active recovery of aircraft. well I did see a director with what look like a motorcycle helmet...no non-skid on the flight deck.
Very interesting video non-the-less. thanks for posting.
Very interesting video non-the-less. thanks for posting.
They really are something else aren't they, kind of a brash irreverant group, but they were recovering aircraft weren't they, I imagine when the new wear's off of the Liaoning we will see an uptempo version of the Russian Air Ops. Mostly two ship and four ship sorties, and they will use that aft station for most normal departures, pilots have a universal saying, nothing is more useless than altitude above you, fuel thats not in your tanks, nor runway behind you. While lots of us like to dream, what is occuring aboard the Liaoning now is a toddlers formative steps, while they have learned a great deal from everyone who operates carriers with fixed wing aircraft, there are operational limits on CV-16, and I believe the Chinese will work very hard to move their capability up to those limits, that is really why its imperative that the Chinese establish a carrier doctrine that works for them, while they will imitate success, they will also taylor it to "their" needs, as well they should. No one else will dictate what form success must take to the PLAN, and as "Westerners" we must be carefull not to shortsell what the PLAN has already achieved, and Chinese fans of the Liaoning must not "overstate their objectives" or you will be disapointed, the PLAN has set very attainable, realistic goals and objectives for the Liaoning and her future J-15 air wing, and it is quite likely they will achieve those objectives in a very practical fashion. AFB
MwRYum
Major
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II
The obvious: the handicap of ski-jump takeoff.
But you can't afford to be picky when you don't have steam cat or EM cat, either.
The obvious: the handicap of ski-jump takeoff.
But you can't afford to be picky when you don't have steam cat or EM cat, either.
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II
I don't think having catapults or not is deterministic, Of course, having them is better for sustained combat missions. But there are other ways of uping the payload and sortie of a ski jump like rocket assisted take off.
On a side note, I don't understand why you can't use cats on a ski, I mean, sure your piston have to be linear, the nose wheel trolley and rail it runs in does not - you simply need a pulley system; which is more complicated but you increase launch payload for sure.
I don't think having catapults or not is deterministic, Of course, having them is better for sustained combat missions. But there are other ways of uping the payload and sortie of a ski jump like rocket assisted take off.
On a side note, I don't understand why you can't use cats on a ski, I mean, sure your piston have to be linear, the nose wheel trolley and rail it runs in does not - you simply need a pulley system; which is more complicated but you increase launch payload for sure.
Intrepid
Major
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II
If you collect all pictures of Kuznetsov available in the internet and count the aircraft on spot 1, spot 2 or spot 3, than you have more on the forward positions than on the aft position. But the aft position is the most used position. That tells me, that I should think, the forward positions are the normal positions. In reality, the aft position is the normal position and the forward positions only for special use or under special circumstances.
If you collect all pictures of Kuznetsov available in the internet and count the aircraft on spot 1, spot 2 or spot 3, than you have more on the forward positions than on the aft position. But the aft position is the most used position. That tells me, that I should think, the forward positions are the normal positions. In reality, the aft position is the normal position and the forward positions only for special use or under special circumstances.
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II
I've explained this dozens of times on this forum, indeed a number of times on this very thread! Anyone who asks this question clearly doesn't understand how ski jumps work and why there will never be a combined cat/ramp.
To get a jet fighter off the deck of a carrier, you have to get it from 0 knots to flying speed (on average around 130+ knots). An unassisted takeoff roll on the deck is a very bad idea, because unless your flight deck is over 1000ft in length (and you'd need every inch of that length) plus a lot of wind over deck (WOD) you aren't going anywhere but into the drink. And that's without any payload hangig from the wings or much fuel in the tanks. With catapult assitance (Steam or EMCAT), you can acclerate a FULLY LADEN aircraft from 0 to 130 knots in around 300ft, given the average sizes and weights of modern naval combatttant types.
The ski jump comes between the two, and it is a way of cheating really. You are still trying to do a free roling takeoff, but halfway along the roll when the aircraft is at around 80 knots (and therefore not generating sufficient lift from it's wings to fly) the aircraft is sent into the air up the 12 degree ramp on a ballistic trajectory, just like driving over a hump backed bridge in a car. Evel Knieval and his fellow stunt riders used the same technique, and their motorbikes are still to this day not known for their aerodynaimc qualities, yet they 'fly'. Unlike those bikes and indeed cars, aircraft that have left the end of the ramp are still subject to acceleration from their engine thrust and as the continue to arc upwards they increase their velocity to reach flying speed before they reach the top of the arc, at which point they are usually about 200ft in altitude and around 800ft ahead of the carrier, and simply fly away as normal. The limits in this method are mainly to do with ramp entry speed, as hitting the ramp at anything in excess of 80 knots puts excessive stress on the nosewheel oleo, and indeed if the aircraft is to be launched at highr weights it is the takeoff roll which is extended further aft on the deck so as to reach the same speed (80 knots) at the bottom of the ramp, not to enter the ramp at higher speed.
There are still limitations, the Harrier family were the first to exploit the benefits of Ramp launch because they could supplement wingborne lift after leaving the ramp with vectored thrust. Aircraft without vectored thrust eg SU-33 and Mig-29K have to rely on the high thrust to weight ratio inherent in their designs, but to maintain this ratio aircraft weight has to be kept down, limiting payload/fuel on launch. To compensate, higher powered engines would be needed, but the extra power would be disproportionate with current engine technology. Rocket assistance is dangerous to deck crews, and te rockets could only be fired safely after leaving the ramp. Not impossible, but too risky for normal ops.
Bottom line, if you can afford a catapult system for your carriers, you fit it and don't bother with the ramp. The ramp offers no benefits if your aircraft is already leaving the front of the carrier at flying speed.
I've explained this dozens of times on this forum, indeed a number of times on this very thread! Anyone who asks this question clearly doesn't understand how ski jumps work and why there will never be a combined cat/ramp.
To get a jet fighter off the deck of a carrier, you have to get it from 0 knots to flying speed (on average around 130+ knots). An unassisted takeoff roll on the deck is a very bad idea, because unless your flight deck is over 1000ft in length (and you'd need every inch of that length) plus a lot of wind over deck (WOD) you aren't going anywhere but into the drink. And that's without any payload hangig from the wings or much fuel in the tanks. With catapult assitance (Steam or EMCAT), you can acclerate a FULLY LADEN aircraft from 0 to 130 knots in around 300ft, given the average sizes and weights of modern naval combatttant types.
The ski jump comes between the two, and it is a way of cheating really. You are still trying to do a free roling takeoff, but halfway along the roll when the aircraft is at around 80 knots (and therefore not generating sufficient lift from it's wings to fly) the aircraft is sent into the air up the 12 degree ramp on a ballistic trajectory, just like driving over a hump backed bridge in a car. Evel Knieval and his fellow stunt riders used the same technique, and their motorbikes are still to this day not known for their aerodynaimc qualities, yet they 'fly'. Unlike those bikes and indeed cars, aircraft that have left the end of the ramp are still subject to acceleration from their engine thrust and as the continue to arc upwards they increase their velocity to reach flying speed before they reach the top of the arc, at which point they are usually about 200ft in altitude and around 800ft ahead of the carrier, and simply fly away as normal. The limits in this method are mainly to do with ramp entry speed, as hitting the ramp at anything in excess of 80 knots puts excessive stress on the nosewheel oleo, and indeed if the aircraft is to be launched at highr weights it is the takeoff roll which is extended further aft on the deck so as to reach the same speed (80 knots) at the bottom of the ramp, not to enter the ramp at higher speed.
There are still limitations, the Harrier family were the first to exploit the benefits of Ramp launch because they could supplement wingborne lift after leaving the ramp with vectored thrust. Aircraft without vectored thrust eg SU-33 and Mig-29K have to rely on the high thrust to weight ratio inherent in their designs, but to maintain this ratio aircraft weight has to be kept down, limiting payload/fuel on launch. To compensate, higher powered engines would be needed, but the extra power would be disproportionate with current engine technology. Rocket assistance is dangerous to deck crews, and te rockets could only be fired safely after leaving the ramp. Not impossible, but too risky for normal ops.
Bottom line, if you can afford a catapult system for your carriers, you fit it and don't bother with the ramp. The ramp offers no benefits if your aircraft is already leaving the front of the carrier at flying speed.
Last edited:
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II
It must be possible to build a steam cat with a curved "cylinder", just as with the atmospheric tramway system that used vacuum rather then pressure to propel its vehicles and was the model for the steam cat, but I wouldn't want to try. Building an EM cat with a curved track is not really more difficult than with a straight track.
The stream cat system is already maintenance intensive enough. With your pulley system reliability is likely to suffer excessively.
It must be possible to build a steam cat with a curved "cylinder", just as with the atmospheric tramway system that used vacuum rather then pressure to propel its vehicles and was the model for the steam cat, but I wouldn't want to try. Building an EM cat with a curved track is not really more difficult than with a straight track.
Another thing I noticed in that Russian video.. Where are the young men? Those sailors on the flight deck look very mature. And are there any women serving on RU ships??
Go here..
It is updated during the week days.
Go here..
It is updated during the week days.
Last edited:
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II
I just explained why a ramp/cat system will never happen, but as an extra illustration of why it's a bad idea, during WW2 the Germans developed a rifle barrel that was curved to enable the soldier to fire around corners or over the lip of a trench without exposing himself to direct return fire. It worked, but the barrel was subject to excessive wear on the inside due to forcing the bullet to 'turn a corner', and the barrels had to be replaced frequently. As I said, the purpose of the ramp is to get you off the deck before you have reached flying speed. above 80 knots the forces on the nose hear rise exponentially, so by the time you get to 130+ knots the nose gear would have to be milled from a solid block of titanium and have no moving suspension just to withstand the forces on it.
I just explained why a ramp/cat system will never happen, but as an extra illustration of why it's a bad idea, during WW2 the Germans developed a rifle barrel that was curved to enable the soldier to fire around corners or over the lip of a trench without exposing himself to direct return fire. It worked, but the barrel was subject to excessive wear on the inside due to forcing the bullet to 'turn a corner', and the barrels had to be replaced frequently. As I said, the purpose of the ramp is to get you off the deck before you have reached flying speed. above 80 knots the forces on the nose hear rise exponentially, so by the time you get to 130+ knots the nose gear would have to be milled from a solid block of titanium and have no moving suspension just to withstand the forces on it.
- Status