That's actually a good point. If a C-130 could take off from a flat top without a catapult, why can't a PLAN AEWC aircraft take off from a Liaoning with a ski jump?
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I think the problem isn't about being completely unable to take off but if it can be done in a way that adds a useful capability without unacceptable risks or other unacceptable drawbacks.
The C-130 taking off using JATO rockets from an empty flat top is an extreme example that not everything that can be done is a practical idea.
The article linked above seems to indicate that India had a good look at operating the E-2C from their carrier and decided it was possible but not really a good idea.
Perhaps the chinese carrier based AEWC aircraft will be designed in a way to make that a practical idea, but chances are that the STOBAR carriers will just keep using their AEW helicopters. I would guess that in situations where a STOBAR carrier with helicopter AEW is not capable enough the PLAN would in the future send a more capable CATOBAR carrier anyway (or a taskforce with more than one carrier).
The Z-18 AEWC is a near-sighted asthmatic on oxygen compared to the E-2. I think the gains the Liaoning would make with a fixed-wing AEWC over a helo AEWC would be dramatic enough that if they could launch off a STOBAR, there would have to be some serious problem that we don't know about for them to not use a plane over a helo for AEWC.
Intrepid
Major
Did the C-130 use JATO rockets on that days taking off from the Forrestal? I thought it took off completely unassisted (but with a 40 to 50 knots headwind).
The story in the internet:
I remembered this experiment using JATO, but it seems that I was mistaken and the C-130 didn't need JATO to take off.
Intrepid
Major
In the 1960th and 1970th there was a line painted on all US-Navy carrier flight decks for unassisted take offs. Mainly used by COD- and other propeller driven aircraft like OV-10s. But also used by the first AV-8A Harrier jets.
I guess, a E-2 could take off along this line, but it is not longer used and disappeared from the carrier decks. And I further guess, a E-2 could not take off without a stronger hull and undercarriage if the bow has a ski ramp.
I guess, a E-2 could take off along this line, but it is not longer used and disappeared from the carrier decks. And I further guess, a E-2 could not take off without a stronger hull and undercarriage if the bow has a ski ramp.
Carrier aircraft are stressed for vertical touch down velocities of 6 m/sec or in the US case probably 20 ft/sec. That should be ample for take off over a ski ramp.
VERY impressive.
The issue is what it does to the operation of aircraft on the deck, the temp, and the ability to quickly get a lot of aircraft into the air.
Sure a C-130 could use the whole deck to land and take off. But nothing else happens while it is doing so.
With CATs, the airraft in question simply takes its place in line and gets launched like everything else.
It is a finely tuned orchestra of aircraft operating...tking off, landing, moving around the deck to where they need to go.
When it is set up and operating like a well oiled machine with the personnel well trained it becomes a very capable and efficient operation.
Throwing aircraft in that foul that up and cause everything to stop and wait for them simply impacts the efficiency of the operations too much.
The Chinese will learn this...and probably already know it, respect it, and are biding their time until they have the right equipment and aircraft to be able to maximize their operations.
The US launched a whole squadron of 16 B-25s of a carrier early on in World War II...ut it was a one off operation. They could not land those aircraft on deck then, and even if they could, it would simply not make since to use up a large carrier deck in that fashion.
Same thing today.
Anyhow, just some more food for thought.