Intrepid
Major
Steam pipes have even additional 90-degree-angles, look:
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Also given the nature of that airfield, testing, development of carrier based aircraft and pilot training it stands to reason that those are catapults of some kind. There are only two known choices, steam or EMALS. Since this a testing and developmental facility the length might not really reflect the end state.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
I don't see what is the problem with 90 degree elbow. I see it everyday From this distance it is hard to see whether it is sharp 90 degree or short elbow with radius of 1 diameter.
Steam has no problem with sharp 90 except small losses . If you are talking about dead leg that is problem
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
It is most likely insulated with 3 or 4 in insulation so it give the appearance of sharp 90 degree when actually it is not
RCD have an interesting article which outlines how an amphibious airplane could be used as a tanker instead of the current setup of an F/A-18 with buddy tanks, or a future UCLASS tanker.
So the amphibious airplane would operate directly from a resupply ship, thus freeing space on the carrier deck and hanger, as well as prolonging the aviation fuel supply on the carrier.
It then laments how the US currently doesn't have a large amphibious aircraft platform and would have to develop it.
But I'm thinking that China already has the TA-600 amphibious flying boat, which can carry a payload of 12 tonnes of water plus possibly 8? tonnes of internal fuel, and which is twice? what the J-15 with buddy tanks can carry. So if it was developed into a tanker that could operate from a carrier or resupply ship, it would be a neat boost to the Chinese carrier aviation force. And if these tankers were to be based in the SCS, it could provide a sustained tanker facility in the event the runways on the island bases were disabled.
RCD Article below.
So the amphibious airplane would operate directly from a resupply ship, thus freeing space on the carrier deck and hanger, as well as prolonging the aviation fuel supply on the carrier.
It then laments how the US currently doesn't have a large amphibious aircraft platform and would have to develop it.
But I'm thinking that China already has the TA-600 amphibious flying boat, which can carry a payload of 12 tonnes of water plus possibly 8? tonnes of internal fuel, and which is twice? what the J-15 with buddy tanks can carry. So if it was developed into a tanker that could operate from a carrier or resupply ship, it would be a neat boost to the Chinese carrier aviation force. And if these tankers were to be based in the SCS, it could provide a sustained tanker facility in the event the runways on the island bases were disabled.
RCD Article below.
Presumably a carrier compatible seaplane could be developed?
But it does raise the question, could seaplanes actually be based on a resupply vessel? Would it be worth basing a few seaplanes on a Lewis and Clark class or the Chinese Type 901?
It also raise the question of different variants of seaplanes focusing on ASW or ISR.
Plus the Type-901 apparently has 4 gas turbines, which means it would be able keep up with the Liaoning. Reference below
Last edited:
A few remarks:
P6M Seamaster was a four turbojet engine aircraft. Its design is not suitable to be revived: engines, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, manufacturing technology.
TA600 is likely too slow to be used as an aerial refueller.
I doubt the usefulness of the flying boat/amphibian aerial refueller concept.
P6M Seamaster was a four turbojet engine aircraft. Its design is not suitable to be revived: engines, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, manufacturing technology.
TA600 is likely too slow to be used as an aerial refueller.
I doubt the usefulness of the flying boat/amphibian aerial refueller concept.
Why would the TA600 be too slow?
The J-15 has a minimum speed of 240km/h and the TA600 has a maximum speed of 570km/h.
Presumably the Type-901 would already be operating with the carrier group, so the tankers would be immediately useful.
It's a cost-benefit calculation at the end of the day. The KC-130 is $71 million, so let's say the TA600 costs roughly the same, given that it is physically smaller but doesn't benefit from economies of scale.
So call it $200 million in total for 2x TA600 tankers to be integrated onto a Type-901.
It's certainly an interesting question.
We are not interested in minimum speed and maximum speed. You want to be refuelling at a height and speed that is convenient to the thirsty aircraft and at that condition the refueller itself should be at a comfortable cruising speed and height.
I can imagine war games being played on a computer system using these things but I can't image these being developed before much more experience has been acquired. After that it will be considered if there will be a likelihood that there will be occasion to use these if they had been made available and that use and its likelihood is set against the costs of such a program - the buying and maintaining the aircraft and everything belonging to them, training the crews, bases, adapting the AOR's, &c.
- Status