I would say there is a huge range of operating speeds and heights that are suitable for both the J-15 and the TA600. Remember that the turboprop powered KC-130 manages to refuel the F/A-18.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
I would say there is a huge range of operating speeds and heights that are suitable for both the J-15 and the TA600. Remember that the turboprop powered KC-130 manages to refuel the F/A-18.
Intrepid
Major
There is a tanker on alert while flight operation is in progress - to refuel aircraft that are arriving with low fuel and going arround because of a bolter. This tanker is normaly not a KC-130.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
actually more than one. Used to be done by the S3Bs but recovery tanking has been taken over by the bugs. They are call 'wet configuration' when doing tanking missions.
Blackstone
Brigadier
If it's anything like the contract manufacturers we work with, then absolutely nothing happens between 2/3 and 2/15.I wonder what is the progress with the Dalian carrier construction now. No now pics during the new years.
I wonder what is the progress with the Dalian carrier construction now. No now pics during the new years.
I'm sure it will resume in earnest once the holidays are over. Maybe we will even get some good pictures from people traveling past it.
A boat hull has more drag than the C-130 fuselage and so the speeds of KC-130 is some 100 km/h faster. And I would think the F/A-18's would be happier to fly higher and faster when taking on fuel.
If I wanted to design a sea based aerial refueller I would look for retractable boat steps and/or retractable water skies to reduce drag and either turbofan or a modern turboprop as used on An-70 for propulsion.
KC-130 was developed because C-130 was already available. All engineering is finding suitable compromises.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I kinda like the idea of unmanned stealth airships as possible future tankers.
Their inherent characteristics means they use very little fuel to stay airborne and move around compared to conventional tankers. Their ability to move very slowly means they can descend and tether to a supply ship to take on fuel and replacement nitrogen gas without ever having to actually land.
The slow speed of airships could be mitigated by them flying high and using a very long fuel hose and small engine attached to the boom, which can fly large circles under the airship to achieve sufficient airspeed to allow fighters to refuel without risk of stalling out.
These would lack speed for rapid deployments, but you can use buddy tanking to meet any emergency needs and tide any thirsty birds over until they can get to an airship to fully stock up.
If UCAVs develop to one day be able to challenge manned fighters in air combat, such a set up could conceivably replace carriers for most air defence missions.
So instead of sending out a carrier strike group, you just deploy UCAVs and send up airship tankers to support them with fuel.
If you develop the concept a bit more, you can easily turn the airships into UCAV motherships, with UCAVs able to automatically dock and launch from them, thereby removing the need for the UCAVs to land even to rearm after combat. You will just need to rotate the drone motherships once their munitions stocks start running low for replenishment.
I can see that as a potential long term development path for aircraft carriers 30-50 years down the line, where flying airship carriers start to first supplement, and then eventually replace the seaborne variety.
Their inherent characteristics means they use very little fuel to stay airborne and move around compared to conventional tankers. Their ability to move very slowly means they can descend and tether to a supply ship to take on fuel and replacement nitrogen gas without ever having to actually land.
The slow speed of airships could be mitigated by them flying high and using a very long fuel hose and small engine attached to the boom, which can fly large circles under the airship to achieve sufficient airspeed to allow fighters to refuel without risk of stalling out.
These would lack speed for rapid deployments, but you can use buddy tanking to meet any emergency needs and tide any thirsty birds over until they can get to an airship to fully stock up.
If UCAVs develop to one day be able to challenge manned fighters in air combat, such a set up could conceivably replace carriers for most air defence missions.
So instead of sending out a carrier strike group, you just deploy UCAVs and send up airship tankers to support them with fuel.
If you develop the concept a bit more, you can easily turn the airships into UCAV motherships, with UCAVs able to automatically dock and launch from them, thereby removing the need for the UCAVs to land even to rearm after combat. You will just need to rotate the drone motherships once their munitions stocks start running low for replenishment.
I can see that as a potential long term development path for aircraft carriers 30-50 years down the line, where flying airship carriers start to first supplement, and then eventually replace the seaborne variety.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
it's in the works and will be reality in the next 10 years. USN is planning on using UCLASS airframes and turning them into CBARS (Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System).
It will be loosely based on the X-47B
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Breaking news is that UCLASS has been quietly canned...
- Status