Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread
Well, the idea was that they perhaps want to build a carrier for experiance/ training/ ideological purposes without having mastered the cat tech to a sufficient degree to rely completely on it.
Things like they can't produce enough steam or electricity to operate four cats while still making sufficient headway. Or the reliability is poor, so it won't work every time when needed.
So, I could have made two cats on the angled deck. AEW planes or Su-33 in strike roles could use the cats, while A-A/ CAP fighters take off the skyjump.
That's a way to speed up air-ops when you can only operate two cats anyway or to have an emergency reserve in case the cats won't work properly.
To scratch, nice drawings
But if you master the catabult, then why just fitting it to the angled deck in the first version instead of fitting it to the bow as well? STOBAR provides no advantages towards CATOBAR other than the fact that you don't have to use the complicated catabult (with the benefit for great penalty to aircraft operations). So if in your design the catabult is already fitted, why limiting the ships aircapability with forcing the main combat aircraft use decreased playloads to get off from the skijump?
Well, the idea was that they perhaps want to build a carrier for experiance/ training/ ideological purposes without having mastered the cat tech to a sufficient degree to rely completely on it.
Things like they can't produce enough steam or electricity to operate four cats while still making sufficient headway. Or the reliability is poor, so it won't work every time when needed.
So, I could have made two cats on the angled deck. AEW planes or Su-33 in strike roles could use the cats, while A-A/ CAP fighters take off the skyjump.
That's a way to speed up air-ops when you can only operate two cats anyway or to have an emergency reserve in case the cats won't work properly.
