Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.

delft

Brigadier
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II

And more importantly safety, while the forward stations may be used they limit fuel and payload, I'm not convinced that 80kt is a limit for the ramp, notice the Chinese used the aft position for their departure at what is presumably a fairly light weight, but as Obi Wan has stated ramps are cheating, lose an engine, and you're a swimmer, period!
That depends on the time you lose that engine. It would probably impossible to save your plane if it happens immediately after the chocks are retracted. I doubt whether you could kill the other engine and stay on deck. However if it happens around the time you leave the ramp you might descend to just above sea level and accelerate away in ground effect. I would think there are a very low V1 and a reasonable V2 and of course no VR. Between V1 and V2 you leave your office and wait for the chopper to pick you up.
If you have a cat in the ramp you will always have enough speed to accelerate way. That's just a design case.
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II

And more importantly safety, while the forward stations may be used they limit fuel and payload, I'm not convinced that 80kt is a limit for the ramp, notice the Chinese used the aft position for their departure at what is presumably a fairly light weight, but as Obi Wan has stated ramps are cheating, lose an engine, and you're a swimmer, period!

I didn't conjure up the 80 knot ramp limit from thin air, I did my research, as I'd advise all members to do.

The ramp launch is inherently safer than other methods, in the scenario you describe the aircraft will remain in the air several seconds longer than one cat launched or rolling off a flat deck (USMC style) because it has an upward trajectory. The pilot will still have to eject but will have a better safety margin, and will likely parachute into the sea at a safer distance from the carrier (less chance of being 'run over' by the mother ship).

Some people on this and other forums seem to have gotten it into their heads that the sole purpose of the ski jump is to give the aircraft a larger angle of attack on leaving the deck. If that was all that was required, then Naval aircraft would copy the F-14 Tomcat's trick of a spring loaded nose gear that releases at the end of the catapult track.

I will say this again. Read my (metaphorical) lips: There will never be a combined catapult and ski jump on any carrier. If your intended aircraft cannot reach 80 knots in 300ft under it's own power, then it would be suicide to send such an aircraft into combat. It will be so woefully underpowered as to be a flying coffin. The Harrier family started back at the end of the fifties, and most combat aircraft since have had more power to play with than Harriers. Hence types like the Flanker and Fulcrum which do not have the benefit of vectored thrust can still use the ramp.

The expensive part of a catapult is not in how long the stoke is, it's all the below decks equipment. a 100ft cat will require almost as many crew and take up almost as many compartments below decks as a 300ft cat. Hooking up an aircraft to a cat and making all the checks takes time and needs a number of deck crew. By contrast ramp launch needs less deck crew, takes less time as the aircraft only needs to be spotted on the runway. In early trials back in 1981, on an excercise in the North Atlantic, HMS Invincible launched a flight of four Sea Harriers in 50 seconds. Also on the excercise was USS Nimitz, who after recieving the same alert took two minutes to launch her first Tomcat. Her catapults could then launch one F-14 every 30 seconds, but they were playing catch up with the Shars by this time. The difference in numbers of crew required to operate the catapults (and to a lesser extent the arrestor gear) was a key factor in the switch back from catobar to stovl for the Queen Elizabeth class.
 

Engineer

Major
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II

The argument that an aircraft's landing gears being strong enough for landing should be strong enough for a combined ski-ramp and catapult is a complete non-sense. For one, it is an argument based on imagination and not one that's backed up by scientific calculation. For another, the fact that carriers don't have a ski-jump on the angle deck is already a good enough evidence proving speed and ski-jump don't mix.

Ski-jump and catapult will never be combined together into a single solution. Period. When a ski-jump is sufficed for launching aircraft off the deck, catapult is not needed. Likewise, when there are catapults for launching aircraft off the deck, a ski-jump is redundant. What's more, catapult is precision equipment where one of the most important requirements is straightness. It is difficult enough as it is to maintain that precision with all the stress and warping from the hull. It would be an order of magnitude more difficult to manufacture a curved catapult to that precision and impossible to maintain the precision on board a ship, leading to a jammed and completely useless catapult.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II

This is a good thread..excellent post by nearly everyone.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In early trials back in 1981, on an excercise in the North Atlantic, HMS Invincible launched a flight of four Sea Harriers in 50 seconds. Also on the excercise was USS Nimitz, who after recieving the same alert took two minutes to launch her first Tomcat. Her catapults could then launch one F-14 every 30 seconds, but they were playing catch up with the Shars by this time. The difference in numbers of crew required to operate the catapults (and to a lesser extent the arrestor gear) was a key factor in the switch back from catobar to stovl for the Queen Elizabeth class.

Yep.. that's with the Tomcats staged on the cats in alert 5 position...Once the launches get going it can go very fast..however could any other type carrier & air wing do this? Just asking.

On July 20, 1997, as part of JTFEX 97-2, USS Nimitz with Commander, Carrier Group Seven (CCG-7) and Carrier Airwing Nine embarked began a high intensity strike campaign. When they completed flight operations four days later, they had generated 771 strike sorties and had put 1,336 bombs on target.

The Surge, as it has come to be known, was unprecedented. It demonstrated the entire process required to put bombs on target in a littoral warfare scenario; it incorporated all facets of strike warfare – from weapons buildup in the magazines to bombs on target. In the post-Vietnam era, no other carrier and embarked airwing have ever generated as much firepower in ninety-eight hours.

Following that six-day period, operations paused for 16 hours, and USS Nimitz and CVW-9 made several preparations for “The Surge” including personnel augmentation, planning augmentation, and replenishment to insure the carrier was fully prepared for the exercise. The resulting average of 192 sorties was touted by the Navy as the benchmark for carrier operations. At the time, this was very important, because naval aviation had taken a hit following the 1991 Gulf War with critics citing low aircraft carrier sortie rates as a reason to reduce the number of aircraft carriers.

While there were obviously agendas at play for the exercise, the lessons learned from that exercise have clearly been demonstrated in Kosovo, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in which, during these operations naval aviation has certainly redeemed itself of the skepticism that may have lingered from the Gulf War. In fact, it was “Surge 97″ that highlighted the remarkable reliability of the F-18 Hornet, a significant metric that highlights the high durability and high sustainability of the aircraft. However, in order for the USS Nimitz to achieve the daily 197 sortie rate sustained for 5 straight days of 24/7 flight operations, almost all sorties were conducted a range less than 200 nautical miles, with a large number conducted under 100nms. As real world operations have since demonstrated, that is not realistic. Regardless, sortie rates under strict conditions remain very useful for comparison purposes.

For “Surge 97″ USS Nimitz had 14 F-14As, 36 F/A-18Cs, 4 EA-6Bs, 8 S-3Bs, 2 ES-3As, and 4 E-2Cs, but of those aircraft only 9 F-14As, 32 F/A-18Cs, 4 EA-6Bs, 5 S-3Bs, 0 ES-3As, and 4 E-2Cs were mission capable on the first day. I think it is important to note that in real world operations, in this case an aircraft carrier that had been engaged in six days of intense operations, an aircraft carrier could have 20% of her CVW unavailable for operations. I think it is also noteworthy that the older aircraft, F-14s and S-3s, suffered the higher downtime rates.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
OV-10 Bronco on the JFK in 1968. Also at 1:43 an RN F-4 Phantom is seen making an arrested landing. ,Looks to me on the Bronco that the tires would need to be changed after just a few landings.

[video=youtube;0QQuyql36aY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0QQuyql36aY#![/video]
 

Mysterre

Banned Idiot
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II

Yep.. that's with the Tomcats staged on the cats in alert 5 position...Once the launches get going it can go very fast..however could any other type carrier & air wing do this? Just asking.

According to Global Security, an aircraft carrier can even launch as fast as one fighter every 20 seconds..... BUT this source seems to be suggesting that this is an average launch rate per carrier taking all four cats into account.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The flight deck crew can launch two aircraft and land one every 37 seconds in daylight, and one per minute at night. The Flight Deck is often described as one of the most dangerous places in the world because of the numerous high-performance aircraft launching and landing in a relatively small, confined area. From its four catapults, an aircraft carrier can launch an aircraft every 20 seconds.

This seems to be more in line with sources stating that EMALS recharges in 45 seconds and is claimed to be less than the recharge rate of a steam cat.
 

hkbc

Junior Member
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II

Yep.. that's with the Tomcats staged on the cats in alert 5 position...Once the launches get going it can go very fast..however could any other type carrier & air wing do this? Just asking.

Need some clarification not having served on a US carrier I am not clear on the jargon used here

Is the implication that it would be quicker if it was something other than a tomcat on the cat? or that it would be quicker if the alert position was different? or both? or something else?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The other Jedi bloke seem to have offered real empirical evidence from an exercise that on the day with the same underlying conditions a STVOL carrier got a bunch of planes up in the air off a ski jump quicker than a carrier with 4 cats. Might be different on a different day in different conditions, but it happened on that day in that exercise.

This blog posting seems to be an opinion piece where the un-named author concludes "I’ll whip any 4 VSTOL CVLs every single day of the century." Is the conclusion to be drawn that even 4 Liaonings is no match for a big deck US carrier? Or is the Liaoning not to be considered a VSTOL CVL? In which case what conclusions or comparisons should we draw from the article with respect to the Liaoning and PLAN Carrier operations in general?
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II

Need some clarification not having served on a US carrier I am not clear on the jargon used here

Is the implication that it would be quicker if it was something other than a tomcat on the cat? or that it would be quicker if the alert position was different? or both? or something else?

The Tomcats were mentioned because as the Fleet's primary air defence asset, they are the ones you want airborne in the shortest time. Likewise for the Sea Harrier, which unlike it's AV-8B cousins, was primarily an air defence asset and not a 'mud mover' (bomber). 'Alert 5' refers to 5 minute notice to launch for fighters, one of several levels that the aircraft can be held at depending on the threat level. These aircraft would usually be reinforcements for the standing CAP (Combat Air Patrol, usually a pair or several pairs of fighters deployed 'up threat' or in the direction the enemy is expected to attack from). In the North Atlantic in peacetime the Weather is often so bad fighters are only launched if a threat is detected approaching. This is an area where STOVL carrier have an advantage, as Harriers can launch of a ski jump in conditions where flight operations would not be possible from a CATOBAR ship (as was shown in the Falklands). That is not to say CATOBAR operations require flat calm conditions by any means. The Invincible class/SHAR combo was intended to complement the USNs CVNs/F-14s in NATO ops by providing primarily ASW cover and an extra level of air defence, possibly the only AD aircraft available in really bad weather.


The other Jedi bloke seem to have offered real empirical evidence from an exercise that on the day with the same underlying conditions a STVOL carrier got a bunch of planes up in the air off a ski jump quicker than a carrier with 4 cats. Might be different on a different day in different conditions, but it happened on that day in that exercise.

This blog posting seems to be an opinion piece where the un-named author concludes "I’ll whip any 4 VSTOL CVLs every single day of the century." Is the conclusion to be drawn that even 4 Liaonings is no match for a big deck US carrier? Or is the Liaoning not to be considered a VSTOL CVL? In which case what conclusions or comparisons should we draw from the article with respect to the Liaoning and PLAN Carrier operations in general?

I was trying to illustrate the difference between the two launch methods in terms of complexity and deck crew numbers, and the pros and cons resulting from these factors. As a simple guide to the pros and cons...

CATOVAL (Catapult Launch and Vertical Landing): Probably the best way to do things; aircraft can be launched with max fuel/weapons load to strike at the furthest possible distance from the carrier. Recovery is vertical as with the Harrier/F-35B, which is inherently safer than arrested recovery and allows for smaller fuel reserves on recovery/no need for buddy tankers orbitting the carrier. Unfortuanely only one aircraft was ever desighned for this method, the Hawker P-1154RN in 1964. It was cancelled for political reasons. For sci Fi fans this method is also employed by the Battlestar Galactica and her sister ships. The way of the future...

CATOBAR (Catapult Launch and Barricade/Arrested Recovery): The best method available today, You get aircraft off the deck at max weight and recover them on the angled deck using arrestor wires or the Barricade if the plane's hook has malfunctioned. the downside is your planes have to keep a fuel reserve to cover any missed wires (BOLTER, when the plane 'Bolts' from the deck and has to go around the circuit for another go. If it misses more than three times for example the plane has to rendevous with an orbitting tanker to refuel before trying again) The extra fuel reserve has an effect on overall range of the aircraft, but this can be compensated for with tankers accompanying the mission, but this does add to the complexity and cost overall.

STOVL (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing): The Harrier's forte, soon to become the Lightnig 'Bs forte too. No deck equipment or crew beyond a Flight Deck Officer are needed, the aircraft taxies onto the carriers runway and when signalled by the FDO it's brakes off and full throttle to the end of the deck/ramp. at this point the nozzles are directed down at 45 degrees to supplement wing lift until full flying speed is reached, when the nozzles are directed aft and the aircraft flies away normally. On USN 'Gators' (LHA/LHDs) because they have no ski jump they need all the flight deck length to launch (at least 750ft of the 800ft deck) and when fully loaded can still experience some 'sink' off the forward end of the deck before they reach flying speed. On ramp equipped carriers much less deck run is needed (around 300-400 ft on average) allowing more aircraft to be ranged on deck ready to launch (hence the earlier statement about four Shars being launched in 50 seconds). Recovery is vertical, the aircraft fly up to the port side of the carrier and hover, then transition sideways over the deck and land like a helicopter. Coming aboard at 0 knots relative to the deck will always be safer than coming aboard at 130+ knots relative to the carrier, or as Harrier pilots say it's better to stop and land than to land and stop. With the Lightning, a new recovery method is under investigation, the Rolling Vertical landing (RVL) which is intended to increase the aircraft's bring back capability so that expensive smart munitions and missile won't have to jettisoned before landing. The aircraft approaches the carrier from directly astern and slows to around 40 knots using vectored thrust, then lands on the runway and stops using it's brakes. At this speed the wings are generating some lift, which is believed to be sufficient to increase the aircraft's payload on recovery. If successful the new term will be STORVL.

STOBAR (Short Takeoff and Barricade/Arrested Recovery): In my view the worst of all methods, but workable. Launch is by ski jump at the bows, limiting aircraft payload compared to catapult launch, but recovery is by angled deck/arrestor wires so further limiting range of the aircraft due to fuel reserve requirements. Currently only employed on three carriers, the Russina Kuznetzov, her sister the Chinese Liaoning and the soon to be delivered Indian Navy's Vikramaditya (yes the 'soon' bit of that last statement was a bit sarcastic).
 
Last edited:

Intrepid

Major
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II

The Invincible class/SHAR combo was intended to complement the USNs CVNs/F-14s in NATO ops by providing primarily ASW cover and an extra level of air defence, possibly the only AD aircraft available in really bad weather.
Mix it and you have the best result. Or put some SHAR or Lightning on a CATOBAR-Carrier and you have filled the gap.
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos II

Mix it and you have the best result. Or put some SHAR or Lightning on a CATOBAR-Carrier and you have filled the gap.

Very true, but the idea was that the CVS would deploy up threat of the CVN to provide ASW cover and this would also compensate for the difference in range between the Shars and the F-14s. The CVS/Shar combo would in other words be more than a 100 miles closer to the enemy, so shortening the reaction times. Getting your aircraft off the deck quickly becomes a positive advantage in this scenario, and the Shars provide an extra layer of cover for the main battle group, acting as a 'tripwire' in effect, hopefully taking out Tu-95 Bears before they could lauch anti ship missiles. Supersonic Bombers would be left to the Tomcats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top