PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

thunderchief said:

Little bit off-topic , but I always wondered would they park aircraft so densely during the war ? I mean , even one ASM could destroy dozens of valuable aircraft . It is enough to remember what one small Zuni rocket (that even failed to detonate ) did to USS Forrestal in 1967.

Click to expand...

In fact, in major combat operation, either strike at sea or land attack operations like Rolling Thunder, they are parked even more densely but with full combat stores as they await take off. That's why the three incidents during the Vietnam war with the Oriskany (1966), Forrestal (1967), and Enterprise (1969), were so bad...and why a carrier deck at any time, but particularly during combat operations is one of the most dangerous places at sea.

Jeff Head said:

This was probably already mentioned, but no. Any waist launch off the Liaoning will come off the bow, following the port side track that extends past the bow launch position back to the waist launch position as shown below:

​

So , that pic is most probably a fly by or touch and go. Could also be a bolter or wave off...but my money is on a low altitude fly by or touch and go.

Click to expand...

The lane marker from the waist leads to the bow. But the jet blast deflector at the waist allows a direction of a takeoff run straight forward towards the front end of the sponson. It make sense to use waist position as an additional lunch position when possible rather than as a extension to a bow position.

It seem using waist position for bow takeoff would hog a much larger amount of deck space out of a much smaller deck compared to full sized CATOBAR carriers, while using the waist position this way it also seem unlikely any aircraft could be safely spotted at either bow position for safety reasons. This would impose severe restriction on how fast a flight package could be put into the air, which in turn further restrict the range and endurance of the air package by forcing parts of the package already airborne to wait longer for the rest.

chuck731 said:

The lane marker from the waist leads to the bow. But the jet blast deflector at the waist allows a direction of a takeoff run straight forward towards the front end of the sponson. It make sense to use waist position as an additional lunch position when possible rather than as a extension to a bow position.

Click to expand...

The jet blast deflectors are square to the center line of the ship, no doubt for structural reasons. For take off parallel to the ship center line from the aft position an aircraft would have a shorter run than from the forward positions over the ski ramp. It would also lack the advantage of the use of the ski ramp, so it would need to combine a low wing loading with a large acceleration. We don't build such aircraft.

chuck731 said:

The lane marker from the waist leads to the bow. But the jet blast deflector at the waist allows a direction of a takeoff run straight forward towards the front end of the sponson.

Click to expand...

No, the blast deflector's angle there is simply normal to the centerline of the carrier. That waist launch position in the STOBAR configuration is not meant to, or designed to allow an aircraft to take off "straight" over the end of the waist sponson, no more than the bow position forward of it allows for a "straight" take off from that position. The waist position is a third position allowing for either heavier, or larger aircraft to have a longer run off the bow, period.

Now, were a catapult to be added there, giving a CATOBAR capability, that would be a different matter. But I do not expect that to ever be the case for the Liaoning because it was not deigned for it and it would probably require too much structural change to do so. Perhaps the 1st indegenous carrier, an improved Liaoning, will be deigned fom the outset for a catapult to be located there.

Liaoning celebrating one year of service.

Is that the Liaoning is longer than the Vikramaditya or Flanker has shorter take-off distance than the Fulcrum that I see the take-off marks on the Liaoning are not as far-aft as ones on the Vikramaditya? Further, the two marks on the Liaoning are significantly different in length while those on the Vikramaditya are almost identical.

SteelBird said:

Is that the Liaoning is longer than the Vikramaditya or Flanker has shorter take-off distance than the Fulcrum that I see the take-off marks on the Liaoning are not as far-aft as ones on the Vikramaditya.

Click to expand...

The Liaoning is longer than the Vikramaditya, 992 ft. Versus 900 ft. And the Mig-29K is smaller than the J-15, and lighter, requiring a marginally less take-off run...but the stall speed go the Mig-29K is higher, so maybe not. However, the two take-off runs on the Vikramaditya are both are longer, starting from amidships near the island.

SteelBird said:

Is that the Liaoning is longer than the Vikramaditya or Flanker has shorter take-off distance than the Fulcrum that I see the take-off marks on the Liaoning are not as far-aft as ones on the Vikramaditya? Further, the two marks on the Liaoning are significantly different in length while those on the Vikramaditya are almost identical.

Click to expand...

There is no short take-off position on the Vikramaditya and you have two long take-off positions instead.

Oh?

no_name said:

There is no short take-off position on the Vikramaditya and you have two long take-off positions instead.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I ask; the MiG-29 can't take off with short distance like Su-33/J-15?