PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Jeff Head · May 23, 2008

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

szbd said:
Jeff, won't this superstructure at the tail affect landing? There should be serious air turbulence I suppose?

Sorry, I neve saw this response. I will respond now.

Having the approach come in from the angles as the aircraft do, the heading of the vessel to take advantage of the headwind, from whatever direction it was originating from, and the design of that aft superstructure itself, could all go a long ways in significantly reducing or eleminating any harmful turbulence to non-harmful levels.

Delbert · May 24, 2008

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

If looking for a super carrier, I think it would be better if China can build a new carrier who can carry up to at least 70 - 90 SU-30, SU-33's
This would be definitely as good as the US Nimitz class carrier.

If defense will be the purpose, I don't think carriers are needed. Since aircrafts can be launched from air bases.

The only purpose of aircraft carriers, was to project power beyond your borders. To attain what is so called blue water Navy.

Delbert · May 24, 2008

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

If looking for a super carrier, I think it would be better if China can build a new carrier who can carry up to at least 70 - 90 SU-30, SU-33's
This would be definitely as good as the US Nimitz class carrier.

If defense will be the purpose, I don't think carriers are needed. Since aircrafts can be launched from air bases.

The only purpose of aircraft carriers, was to project power beyond your borders. To attain what is so called blue water Navy.

Delbert · May 24, 2008

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

If looking for a super carrier, I think it would be better if China can build a new carrier who can carry up to at least 70 - 90 SU-30, SU-33's
This would be definitely as good as the US Nimitz class carrier.

If defense will be the purpose, I don't think carriers are needed. Since aircrafts can be launched from air bases.

The only purpose of aircraft carriers, was to project power beyond your borders. To attain what is so called blue water Navy.

Norfolk · May 24, 2008

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff:

What sorts of operational limitations - specifically with regards to aircraft launch and recovery - if any, would be imposed by the X-pattern runways? I was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that in the past such configurations may have been contemplated, but were rejected on grounds that it may have interfered with flight operations. If so, is this a case of how things changed with the replacement of prop-driven aircraft by jets, such that instead of several or many slow aircraft taking off or landing in quick succession, with jets the same is accomplished singly and at very definitie intervals? Are these questions indeed off-base, even?

Sweet design by the way.

Norfolk · May 24, 2008

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff:

What sorts of operational limitations - specifically with regards to aircraft launch and recovery - if any, would be imposed by the X-pattern runways? I was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that in the past such configurations may have been contemplated, but were rejected on grounds that it may have interfered with flight operations. If so, is this a case of how things changed with the replacement of prop-driven aircraft by jets, such that instead of several or many slow aircraft taking off or landing in quick succession, with jets the same is accomplished singly and at very definitie intervals? Are these questions indeed off-base, even?

Sweet design by the way.

Norfolk · May 24, 2008

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff:

What sorts of operational limitations - specifically with regards to aircraft launch and recovery - if any, would be imposed by the X-pattern runways? I was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that in the past such configurations may have been contemplated, but were rejected on grounds that it may have interfered with flight operations. If so, is this a case of how things changed with the replacement of prop-driven aircraft by jets, such that instead of several or many slow aircraft taking off or landing in quick succession, with jets the same is accomplished singly and at very definitie intervals? Are these questions indeed off-base, even?

Sweet design by the way.

Jeff Head · May 24, 2008

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Norfolk said:
Jeff:

What sorts of operational limitations - specifically with regards to aircraft launch and recovery - if any, would be imposed by the X-pattern runways? I was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that in the past such configurations may have been contemplated, but were rejected on grounds that it may have interfered with flight operations. If so, is this a case of how things changed with the replacement of prop-driven aircraft by jets, such that instead of several or many slow aircraft taking off or landing in quick succession, with jets the same is accomplished singly and at very definitie intervals? Are these questions indeed off-base, even?

Sweet design by the way.

Outside of emergencies, I believe the vessel would be limited to using one landing pattern at a time. If they had to use both, the wind conditions would have to be optimal for that, and the stageering and intervals in the landing patterns would also have to be a consideration.

As to launch, I believe they could use both of those pitions simultaneously with cats, with limitations depending on wind conditions.

Jeff Head · May 24, 2008

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Norfolk said:
Jeff:

What sorts of operational limitations - specifically with regards to aircraft launch and recovery - if any, would be imposed by the X-pattern runways? I was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that in the past such configurations may have been contemplated, but were rejected on grounds that it may have interfered with flight operations. If so, is this a case of how things changed with the replacement of prop-driven aircraft by jets, such that instead of several or many slow aircraft taking off or landing in quick succession, with jets the same is accomplished singly and at very definitie intervals? Are these questions indeed off-base, even?

Sweet design by the way.

Outside of emergencies, I believe the vessel would be limited to using one landing pattern at a time. If they had to use both, the wind conditions would have to be optimal for that, and the stageering and intervals in the landing patterns would also have to be a consideration.

As to launch, I believe they could use both of those pitions simultaneously with cats, with limitations depending on wind conditions.

Jeff Head · May 24, 2008

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Norfolk said:
Jeff:

What sorts of operational limitations - specifically with regards to aircraft launch and recovery - if any, would be imposed by the X-pattern runways? I was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that in the past such configurations may have been contemplated, but were rejected on grounds that it may have interfered with flight operations. If so, is this a case of how things changed with the replacement of prop-driven aircraft by jets, such that instead of several or many slow aircraft taking off or landing in quick succession, with jets the same is accomplished singly and at very definitie intervals? Are these questions indeed off-base, even?

Sweet design by the way.

Outside of emergencies, I believe the vessel would be limited to using one landing pattern at a time. If they had to use both, the wind conditions would have to be optimal for that, and the stageering and intervals in the landing patterns would also have to be a consideration.

As to launch, I believe they could use both of those pitions simultaneously with cats, with limitations depending on wind conditions.

PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Jeff Head

General

Delbert

Junior Member

Delbert

Junior Member

Delbert

Junior Member

Norfolk

Junior Member

Norfolk

Junior Member

Norfolk

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General

Jeff Head

General

Jeff Head

General