PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

asif iqbal said:

By these pictures it seems like there is 14 parking spots for J15

4 aft...

Click to expand...

Agreed on the four aft of the island.

asif iqbal said:

7 infront of the island....

Click to expand...

Agreed on the seven to the port side of the island.

asif iqbal said:

2 opposite the island...

Click to expand...

Agree on the two on the port deck-edge, aft of that port launch position.

asif iqbal said:

1 between the two primary launch points.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is actually a parking spot. It certainly would not be used as such during any launch operations from either of those two forward launch stations.

asif iqbal said:

Also they could have additional 3, thats one at each jet blast deflector.

Click to expand...

I do not think you can consider the positions at the launch stations as parking spots.

asif iqbal said:

However I have one question if the primary jet blast deflector is up (the one which is next to the landing strip) can they still do a touch and go on the landing strip?

Click to expand...

I think that during any simultaneous launch and recovery operations, unless there was a very radical emergency, you would see launches occurring only from the starboard side launch position there forward while recovery was occurring. They have to leave that area completely clear for any bolters.

Yes, the port JFB does infringe on the landing strip and the wont' do simultaneous launch from that position along with recovery.

However that's not a big deal. For instance, the CdG's JFB for its bow cat also infringes on the landing strip making simultaneous recovery and launch impractical, however I think simultaneous recovery and launch are rare done that often anyway, and it's only a delay of a few seconds to successfully recover an aircraft and to wheel a plane into place to launch.

As for simultaneous recovery and launch. If the plane is already at the starboard launch position then there is no problem for that plane taking off while air planes are landing in the back even with bolters. However if the plane still have to taxi to the launch position from it spot then it will depend on the circumstances.

Jeff Head said:

Agreed on the four aft of the island.

Agreed on the seven to the port side of the island.

Agree on the two on the port deck-edge, aft of that port launch position.

I'm not sure that is actually a parking spot. It certainly would not be used as such during any launch operations from either of those two forward launch stations.

I do not think you can consider the positions at the launch stations as parking spots.

I think that during any simultaneous launch and recovery operations, unless there was a very radical emergency, you would see launches occurring only from the starboard side launch position there forward while recovery was occurring. They have to leave that area completely clear for any bolters.

Click to expand...

Yes I meant 14 actual parking spots and rest are positions for aircraft which is why I called them additional spots not parking spots

Ok it's good we can see during simultaneous landing and launch the only position they would use for launch is from the primary starboard side

I think PLAN has really thought there carrier through and through they have done the best they could with what they have, with the inherit design flaws they have managed to get out as much as they could out of the carrier

They have optimised the operational capability and have it at a stage where it can operate as a pretty good platform which will give them the ability the put aircraft over the sky's far from home shores

Franklin said:

As for simultaneous recovery and launch. If the plane is already at the starboard launch position then there is no problem for that plane taking off while air planes are landing in the back even with bolters. However if the plane still have to taxi to the launch position from it spot then it will depend on the circumstances.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what PLAN have to work on, 14 aircraft on deck and 10 in the hanger another dozen helos all moving up and down moving weapons, refueling and landing and launching aircraft whole thing has to be well co-ordinated and well planned running like clock work while at the same time giving the pilots plenty of flying hours to trim thier skills in carrier opps

The pilots need flying time hours and need to maintain them if they want a battle ready carrier strike group at any given time, once they build up a full air wing they will be profficent enough and can move aircraft around and do things like it is second nature

I am just looking forward to time when we see such a carrier crew with a full load of aircraft doing full air opps, a carrier strike group is like a moving airport with a moving air space above it, very very complicated which takes years and years of skill to master

Even though according to most the specs that i have seen the deck of the Liaoning is suppose to be 304,5m x 75m and the Nimitz class is suppose to be 332,8m x 76,8m. The deck of the Kuznetsov class is suppose to be 14700m² and the Nimitz class is suppose to be 18211m². That's only a difference of 19%! But if you compare the deck space of the Liaoning with that of a Nimitz class carrier the difference is shocking. Are the specs for the Kuznetsov class wrong? I have seen another source that gives the deck of the Kuznetsov class of only 70,5m width.

asif iqbal said:

This is exactly what PLAN have to work on, 14 aircraft on deck and 10 in the hanger another dozen helos all moving up and down moving weapons, refueling and landing and launching aircraft whole thing has to be well co-ordinated and well planned running like clock work while at the same time giving the pilots plenty of flying hours to trim thier skills in carrier opps

The pilots need flying time hours and need to maintain them if they want a battle ready carrier strike group at any given time, once they build up a full air wing they will be profficent enough and can move aircraft around and do things like it is second nature

I am just looking forward to time when we see such a carrier crew with a full load of aircraft doing full air opps, a carrier strike group is like a moving airport with a moving air space above it, very very complicated which takes years and years of skill to master

Click to expand...

The Chinese have studied USN carrier ops meticulously from both open sources and perhabs not so open sources. They now have the Liaoning for more than a year and they have to adapt the American carrier ops plans to their own circumstances and needs. They have been through the theories over and over again and now the challenge will be to put those theories in to practise. It will take a long time for them to achieve a high tempo of operations as on the USN carriers.

Franklin said:

Even though according to most the specs that i have seen the deck of the Liaoning is suppose to be 304,5m x 75m and the Nimitz class is suppose to be 332,8m x 76,8m. The deck of the Kuznetsov class is suppose to be 14700m² and the Nimitz class is suppose to be 18211m². That's only a difference of 19%! But if you compare the deck space of the Liaoning with that of a Nimitz class carrier the difference is shocking. Are the specs for the Kuznetsov class wrong? I have seen another source that gives the deck of the Kuznetsov class of only 70,5m width.

Click to expand...

Just take a look at where the landing area cuts across the deck and how much room there is to either side on the Nimits, particularly to port, and you can see.

The actual dimensions are as follows:

Nimitz class deck widest width is 252 feet.
Nimitz deck length is 1,092 feet.

Kuznetsov/Liaoning deck widest width is 237 feet.
Kuznetsov/Liaoning deck length is 992 feet.

That widest on the Kuznetsov/Liaoning is for a short distance just aft of the angled take-off deck. It loses another 6-8 feet after that. The deck is also 100 feet shorter.

In addition, the entire bow is thinner, and also not suitable for spotting aircraft, where on the US Nimitz an entire row of aircraft can be spotted along one side of the bow while one of the cats is in use there...or on both sides if the bow cats are not being used.

Makes a huge difference/

Ok Nimitz Class can simultaneously recover and launch aircraft, more importantly it can launch two aircraft at the same time while doing a recovery

The two launch positions from port side one can have a aircraft ready to launch and one positioned after a landing has taken place

So like a 2,1,1 launch sequence two simultaneous launches from primary position starboard followed by one each from port side outer then inner

Liaoning is more like a 1,1,1 launch sequence, primary position launch from starboard , secondary position launch from port side followed by primary position launch from port side

you can see on a surge high temp opps the sortie rate of Nimitz Class would be much higher

asif iqbal said:

Ok Nimitz Class can simultaneously recover and launch aircraft, more importantly it can launch two aircraft at the same time while doing a recovery

The two launch positions from port side one can have a aircraft ready to launch and one positioned after a landing has taken place

So like a 2,1,1 launch sequence two simultaneous launches from primary position starboard followed by one each from port side outer then inner

Liaoning is more like a 1,1,1 launch sequence, primary position launch from starboard , secondary position launch from port side followed by primary position launch from port side

you can see on a surge high temp opps the sortie rate of Nimitz Class would be much higher

Click to expand...

I think you gentlemen are getting to the crux of the matter, what many call design flaws, the Air Force Brat would call "operational considerations", the Liaoning is what she is, the Flag vessel of the PLAN, her capabilities are just exactly that "CAPABILITIES", anything that the PLAN could do this year, that it couldn't prior to the advent of the Liaoning, are added capabilities, yes there are lots of operational considerations, but there is an awful lot of additional capability, so while you must look at the Liaoning alongside similar vessels, she is a wonderful first step into carrier ops.

As a bystander, we might "underestimate" the Liaonings capabilities, we might "overestimate" the Nimitz class, and honestly if the Liaoning where being operated by a Navy with more "experience" the Liaoning would be doing some things differently, according to the philosophy of whichever Navy she were being operated by, just as the Nimitz would be operated differently if she were not a USN vessel. As master Jeff repeats, we'll have to wait and see.....