PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Obi Wan Russell said:
Where to begin indeed. Wind over deck. Cotrary to popular belief this does not have to be on the exact axis of the landing runway or aligned with the cats perfectly...

Jeff's design has to be considered in context, it isn't about putting a new generation of carriers into frontline peacetime service, it's more a spiritual decendant of the WW2 escort carrier conversions or MAC ships. Far from ideal but very functional and useful in time of war...

The Centreline elevator was dropped decades ago. Except it wasn't. Unless you are American. Around the world carriers are still coming off the slipways today with centreline elevators. The ships we are debating here, are most definitley not to be built in American yards so imposing American rules on the design isn't possible. These ships are conversions, not purpose built, so there will be compromises such as centreline elevators in order to make the ships work. Try comparing them with other converted vessels such as RFA Argus rather than purpose built vessels like the Nimitz class.

Turbulence from the superstructure will be trailing the ship directly aft whereas the aircraft in the landing circuit will be approaching off axis at an angle, thus should not encounter any serious problems. If the weapons mounted forward are in VLS silos and mounted lower than flight deck level then there shouldn't be any seroious problems there either. The Invincible class had a large Missile launcher with a large blast deflector mounted forward and didn't have any turbulence problems as a result.
Click to expand...
Obi Wan...you have rendered my response wholly un-necessary. The vessels are conversions, meant, in a fictional tale, to get as effective a platform on the seas as possible at as low a cot as possible so that many of them could be built in the fictional war scenario.

All you have said were considerations in coming up with the admittedly fictitous design for a fictional story. As such it is not meant to be an actual, real world design. But thanks for articulating things so directly and clinically...better than I could have doen becaue of my emotional attachment through five years of work on the book series.

BTW, on the aft port and aft starboard sides, on the superstructure, there are CIWS...one on each side, in addition to the two up front...and yes, their are VLS cells forward, one set for AA work at flight deck level, and one below the level of the flight deck for the larger ASMs.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Obi Wan Russell said:
Where to begin indeed. Wind over deck. Cotrary to popular belief this does not have to be on the exact axis of the landing runway or aligned with the cats perfectly...

Jeff's design has to be considered in context, it isn't about putting a new generation of carriers into frontline peacetime service, it's more a spiritual decendant of the WW2 escort carrier conversions or MAC ships. Far from ideal but very functional and useful in time of war...

The Centreline elevator was dropped decades ago. Except it wasn't. Unless you are American. Around the world carriers are still coming off the slipways today with centreline elevators. The ships we are debating here, are most definitley not to be built in American yards so imposing American rules on the design isn't possible. These ships are conversions, not purpose built, so there will be compromises such as centreline elevators in order to make the ships work. Try comparing them with other converted vessels such as RFA Argus rather than purpose built vessels like the Nimitz class.

Turbulence from the superstructure will be trailing the ship directly aft whereas the aircraft in the landing circuit will be approaching off axis at an angle, thus should not encounter any serious problems. If the weapons mounted forward are in VLS silos and mounted lower than flight deck level then there shouldn't be any seroious problems there either. The Invincible class had a large Missile launcher with a large blast deflector mounted forward and didn't have any turbulence problems as a result.
Click to expand...
Obi Wan...you have rendered my response wholly un-necessary. The vessels are conversions, meant, in a fictional tale, to get as effective a platform on the seas as possible at as low a cot as possible so that many of them could be built in the fictional war scenario.

All you have said were considerations in coming up with the admittedly fictitous design for a fictional story. As such it is not meant to be an actual, real world design. But thanks for articulating things so directly and clinically...better than I could have doen becaue of my emotional attachment through five years of work on the book series.

BTW, on the aft port and aft starboard sides, on the superstructure, there are CIWS...one on each side, in addition to the two up front...and yes, their are VLS cells forward, one set for AA work at flight deck level, and one below the level of the flight deck for the larger ASMs.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Obi Wan Russell said:
Where to begin indeed. Wind over deck. Cotrary to popular belief this does not have to be on the exact axis of the landing runway or aligned with the cats perfectly...

Jeff's design has to be considered in context, it isn't about putting a new generation of carriers into frontline peacetime service, it's more a spiritual decendant of the WW2 escort carrier conversions or MAC ships. Far from ideal but very functional and useful in time of war...

The Centreline elevator was dropped decades ago. Except it wasn't. Unless you are American. Around the world carriers are still coming off the slipways today with centreline elevators. The ships we are debating here, are most definitley not to be built in American yards so imposing American rules on the design isn't possible. These ships are conversions, not purpose built, so there will be compromises such as centreline elevators in order to make the ships work. Try comparing them with other converted vessels such as RFA Argus rather than purpose built vessels like the Nimitz class.

Turbulence from the superstructure will be trailing the ship directly aft whereas the aircraft in the landing circuit will be approaching off axis at an angle, thus should not encounter any serious problems. If the weapons mounted forward are in VLS silos and mounted lower than flight deck level then there shouldn't be any seroious problems there either. The Invincible class had a large Missile launcher with a large blast deflector mounted forward and didn't have any turbulence problems as a result.
Click to expand...
Obi Wan...you have rendered my response wholly un-necessary. The vessels are conversions, meant, in a fictional tale, to get as effective a platform on the seas as possible at as low a cot as possible so that many of them could be built in the fictional war scenario.

All you have said were considerations in coming up with the admittedly fictitous design for a fictional story. As such it is not meant to be an actual, real world design. But thanks for articulating things so directly and clinically...better than I could have doen becaue of my emotional attachment through five years of work on the book series.

BTW, on the aft port and aft starboard sides, on the superstructure, there are CIWS...one on each side, in addition to the two up front...and yes, their are VLS cells forward, one set for AA work at flight deck level, and one below the level of the flight deck for the larger ASMs.
 
S

su-27

New Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Pardon Jeff, don't you think could be better develop a VTOL fighter based on the YAK-141?
With a good VTOL fighter could be possible use merchant ships as light carriers without big modifies as English made in Falklands war.
Or do you think that your carrier design could be used for strike operations?
 
S

su-27

New Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Pardon Jeff, don't you think could be better develop a VTOL fighter based on the YAK-141?
With a good VTOL fighter could be possible use merchant ships as light carriers without big modifies as English made in Falklands war.
Or do you think that your carrier design could be used for strike operations?
 
S

su-27

New Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Pardon Jeff, don't you think could be better develop a VTOL fighter based on the YAK-141?
With a good VTOL fighter could be possible use merchant ships as light carriers without big modifies as English made in Falklands war.
Or do you think that your carrier design could be used for strike operations?
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

su-27 said:
Pardon Jeff, don't you think could be better develop a VTOL fighter based on the YAK-141?
With a good VTOL fighter could be possible use merchant ships as light carriers without big modifies as English made in Falklands war.
Or do you think that your carrier design could be used for strike operations?
Click to expand...
This carrier design is purely fictional...but it is based on a container ship design. In the story it employs an airwing of 48 aircraft of which 36 are SU-27 (or their variants) type strike aircraft launched from two forward catapaults.

The Chinese would clearly either have to have a cat design, or a workable V/STOL design to make this vessel possible.

To date they have neither.

I believe that the Yak-141 was a good concept design. But the Soviets, and now the Russians, never put it into mass production.

The F-35 will be the first, mass produced, servicable super-sonic V/STOL aircraft deployed. I think that design is the best out there to date and has certainly benefited from all that went before.

Whether the Chinese will produce one of their own is yet to be seen. They have the manufacturing capability, but would need a lot of operational experience helping them in the design. The Russians have very little practical operational experience in V/STOL operations. They do have some as a result of the Yaks.

The US, the UK, Italy, Spain, and others western navies have the types of practical experience that the PLAN would need to rely on. Otherwise, they would have to learn from scratch which the Soviets and Russians have shown to be very expensive and a very long, arduous process with little prospect for long term success.

But that is just my opinion.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

su-27 said:
Pardon Jeff, don't you think could be better develop a VTOL fighter based on the YAK-141?
With a good VTOL fighter could be possible use merchant ships as light carriers without big modifies as English made in Falklands war.
Or do you think that your carrier design could be used for strike operations?
Click to expand...
This carrier design is purely fictional...but it is based on a container ship design. In the story it employs an airwing of 48 aircraft of which 36 are SU-27 (or their variants) type strike aircraft launched from two forward catapaults.

The Chinese would clearly either have to have a cat design, or a workable V/STOL design to make this vessel possible.

To date they have neither.

I believe that the Yak-141 was a good concept design. But the Soviets, and now the Russians, never put it into mass production.

The F-35 will be the first, mass produced, servicable super-sonic V/STOL aircraft deployed. I think that design is the best out there to date and has certainly benefited from all that went before.

Whether the Chinese will produce one of their own is yet to be seen. They have the manufacturing capability, but would need a lot of operational experience helping them in the design. The Russians have very little practical operational experience in V/STOL operations. They do have some as a result of the Yaks.

The US, the UK, Italy, Spain, and others western navies have the types of practical experience that the PLAN would need to rely on. Otherwise, they would have to learn from scratch which the Soviets and Russians have shown to be very expensive and a very long, arduous process with little prospect for long term success.

But that is just my opinion.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

su-27 said:
Pardon Jeff, don't you think could be better develop a VTOL fighter based on the YAK-141?
With a good VTOL fighter could be possible use merchant ships as light carriers without big modifies as English made in Falklands war.
Or do you think that your carrier design could be used for strike operations?
Click to expand...
This carrier design is purely fictional...but it is based on a container ship design. In the story it employs an airwing of 48 aircraft of which 36 are SU-27 (or their variants) type strike aircraft launched from two forward catapaults.

The Chinese would clearly either have to have a cat design, or a workable V/STOL design to make this vessel possible.

To date they have neither.

I believe that the Yak-141 was a good concept design. But the Soviets, and now the Russians, never put it into mass production.

The F-35 will be the first, mass produced, servicable super-sonic V/STOL aircraft deployed. I think that design is the best out there to date and has certainly benefited from all that went before.

Whether the Chinese will produce one of their own is yet to be seen. They have the manufacturing capability, but would need a lot of operational experience helping them in the design. The Russians have very little practical operational experience in V/STOL operations. They do have some as a result of the Yaks.

The US, the UK, Italy, Spain, and others western navies have the types of practical experience that the PLAN would need to rely on. Otherwise, they would have to learn from scratch which the Soviets and Russians have shown to be very expensive and a very long, arduous process with little prospect for long term success.

But that is just my opinion.
 
S

su-27

New Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Thank'you Jeff.
But, when I said Vtol fighter based on YAK-141, I visualize the YAK only as a start point to develop the new fighter.

Chinese announced that they will build LHDs, do you think that they have the capability to employ STOVL fighters on these ships?

I remember also that many modern Navies started their carrier tradition with STOVL fighters. Also we Italians started in 1985 with 551 Giuseppe Garibaldi and now with the new 550 Cavour we will reach the goal of two carriers:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top