PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

bd popeye said:

Yes a ski ramp cannot break down.

I spent 6 of my 20 USN years at sea aboard carriers.. I never served abroad any ship that could not launch aircraft due to catapult malfunction. Period. I've witnessed thousands of "Cat Shots". never seen a failure.

And you cannot launch a fully laden aircraft with a ski ramp. No you cannot.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Blitzio posted an article from Russia kuznetsov CV claim Su-33 full loaded launch from back angle deck position with ship charging at 25 knots is able to launch from ramp.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

bd popeye said:

Yes a ski ramp cannot break down.

I spent 6 of my 20 USN years at sea aboard carriers.. I never served abroad any ship that could not launch aircraft due to catapult malfunction. Period. I've witnessed thousands of "Cat Shots". never seen a failure.

And you cannot launch a fully laden aircraft with a ski ramp. No you cannot.

Click to expand...

Yes. I agreed fully with wat you said. However, US - unlike the Chinese, had decades of catapult operation experience, the USN is one of the most refined carrier operation SOP (and that is not just pilots training, but logistical support, maintenance, etc.

The Chinese is very very new in this area, only having an operational aircraft carrier (which happened to be a ski jump carrier) for a very short period of time, not even 1 year.

As many would have argued that there is no or very insignificant different in launching an aircraft using Catapult and launching an aircraft using the ski-jump, but pilots training is only one part of carrier operation. So I think it make lots of sense if the Chinese wanted to take things slower, design a ski-jump carrier, with maybe one to two catapult so that the carrier can be launched into the sea almost immediately after commissioning, with minimal training required and make that carrier operational very quickly. At the same time trained her onboard crew members and more pilots to catapult operation, then these new group of pilots and crews could be deployed on the next carrier that would be full CATOBAR carrier.

That is a safe way of doing things, rather than jumped directly to something new, and needed time again to get her crew familiarise with the new system.

Things would be different though, if the Liaoning is a CATOBAR carrier right from the start, then the next carrier will immediately be a CATOBAR without much issues as the crew trained on Liaoning will be familiar with the system and SOP in operating a CATOBAR carrier.

Finally (I know I have been droning on and on like an old man - which I actually am), was that (and I believe Popeye, you would agree with me here too), an aircraft carrier operation don't just end at flying an aircraft off and land on the carrier. There are other operating procedure, from preparing an aircraft to fly, firefighting, operating and maintaining of the catapults, etc, etc.

As to Xian mentioning that the Chinese could train in an Ulyanovsk design, well... of course they can, they can train anywhere anyone would allow them to, even in Brazil carrier, French carrier or even the US carrier if the US, Brazilian and French allows.

However, unless the catapult designs are totally the same, maintenance and operating procedure might be very different. But of course, this coming from someone who only watch an aircraft carrier from photo and not actually boarded or see one close up before, I might be full of craps. What I said is from my experience with smaller machinery and factory operation whereby it is fully normal to build a factory from what the management are familiar in... then from there we upgrade, improvise and expand our operation rather than jump immediately into a totally new system.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

bd popeye said:

Yes a ski ramp cannot break down.

I spent 6 of my 20 USN years at sea aboard carriers.. I never served abroad any ship that could not launch aircraft due to catapult malfunction. Period. I've witnessed thousands of "Cat Shots". never seen a failure.

And you cannot launch a fully laden aircraft with a ski ramp. No you cannot.

Click to expand...

I really need to see a better argument for this beyond "we haven't seen them launch a fully loaded aircraft off a ski jump" -- apply a little critical thinking and one can come up with many better reasons for why we haven't seen it (lack of funds due to russian navy barely able to keep their Su-33 fleet maintained, etc).

I posted that article from ages ago saying how you could launch a follow loaded Su-33 from positions 1 and 2 on kuznetsov IF the ship had a headwind of about 30 knots.

You cannot launch fixed wing aircraft like E-2Ds of ski jumps (at least not without making the flight deck inpractical), but under most circumstances you can launch planes off a ski jump with a decent payload or even near max payload and fuel load.

What catapults allow is the additional flexibility of not requiring as much headwind go launch a plane, and the ability to launch fixed wing AEWC.

this dogma that ski jumps cannot launch fully loaded or practically loaded fighters has never been properly challenged and looked at quantitatively.
Even on vikramditya, you can see IN Mig-29Ks loaded with some A2G ordinance and heavy fuel tanks, etc.


Catapults are superior to ski jumps, no doubt about it, but both can launch heavily loaded fighters depending on headwind as well as the type of fighter they are launching.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

Xian said:

so, when PLAN is heading for CATOBAR - why should they introduce STOBAR carriers?
Sure, Liaoning is a special case - it was available and the hull was finished. Its good anough to train crews in carrier ops...
But if the cats are available for the second carrier, why should they stay at STOBAR?

I think it depends on how soon cats will be available...
I am sure work on cats is in progress and the PLAN knows how soon they will be available.
If they will be available in the next few years i dont think that they will start the construction if a STOBAR carrier!
Only if they see no possibility that cats are available within the next years they will build a second STOBAR...

Click to expand...

To divide up the number of things that can go wrong while you're familiarizing yourself with the operations of a carrier. STOBAR is a less risky option where you can gradually get your first air wing and crew trained and still have something operational. If you started off with a higher risk option like a CATOBAR, you not only increase the difficulty of learning how to operate a carrier with a more complex technology, but you increase the chances of sidelining your entire carrier training program if something goes wrong and your ship ends up needing to sit in a dry dock for repairs. Making a full CATOBAR carrier your third hull not only gives you greater experience to deal with the increasing complexity, but also reduces the number of unknowns you have to deal with. It also prevents your training program from stalling if something breaks, because you have other hulls to continue training in the aspects not related to the broken technology.

Remember, introducing the technology is only the first part of a very long process to developing carrier capabilities. Even if you could build the technology it takes time to learn how to operate it, and then even more time to scale that knowledge. Thus, both planning and risk management are necessary components to something as ambitious as China's carrier programme.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

Lion said:

Blitzio posted an article from Russia kuznetsov CV claim Su-33 full loaded launch from back angle deck position with ship charging at 25 knots is able to launch from ramp.

Click to expand...

I think under very ideal control conditions it is possible to launch an aircraft fully loaded with a ski ramp HOWEVER for all intent and purposes you can't ( I think that's what popeye was refering to).

With a catapult you can launch anytime anywhere w/o so many restrictions.. with ski ramp you can't unless you have that perfect weather, wind speed etc but even then you SHOULDN'T.

You are risking unecessary safety as well. Besides the last thing you want going through a naval aviator's head is him sweatin bullets as he's about to launch because he knows his bird is carrying tons more ordnance than recommended for launch. He may overcorrect, make mistakes or just poop in his pants

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

kwaigonegin said:

I think under very ideal control conditions it is possible to launch an aircraft fully loaded with a ski ramp HOWEVER for all intent and purposes you can't ( I think that's what popeye was refering to).

With a catapult you can launch anytime anywhere w/o so many restrictions.. with ski ramp you can't unless you have that perfect weather, wind speed etc but even then you SHOULDN'T.

You are risking unecessary safety as well. Besides the last thing you want going through a naval aviator's head is him sweatin bullets as he's about to launch because he knows his bird is carrying tons more ordnance than recommended for launch. He may overcorrect, make mistakes or just poop in his pants

Click to expand...

I believe the kuznetsov was designed from the outset to be able to launch fighters with near full payloads under most circumstances reliably. but a catapult mitigates for various dangers, include a sudden engine failure during takeoff, and a lack of headwind hindering a large payload takeoff. Also catapults allow for AEWC to also be launched of course.
Do we seriously think India would have purchased vikramditya if they could only launch their mig-29Ks at a fraction of their payload (considering that A, India is on a shopping spree for the best money can buy, and B, the mig-29K isn't exactly a large aircraft to begin with so any decrement in payload and fuel load will make it almost tactically irrelevant)? Even the latest concept for a new Russian carrier carrying PAK FA is a SKI JUMP concept.

Ask around on any of the Russian aviation boards (I think they would know more bout their own nations aircraft than we do), you'll get a similar answer for the question of kuznetsov.

Yes we don't have any pictures of kuznetsov launching fully loaded fighters. That isn't because it isn't able to. Rather it is because the kuznetsov was launched as the USSR was dissolving and the russian navy since then could barely keep their ship oiled up and fighters maintained, let alone arm them enough to take off with large loads. As liaoning and vikramditya enter service, I expect you guys will finally get the pictures and videos you want of J-15 and Mig-29K taking off with large payloads. Until then, please think critically about what evidence we have that says fighters cannot take off from ski jumps with large payloads, outside of repeated dogma from western military "observers" that have never taken a moment to even calculate whether their conclusion was feasible.

Catapults are still better than ski jumps. No question. Cats can launch large fixed wing AEWC, and larger subsonic high aspect ratio aircraft. But both can launch decently loaded fighters. Under what conditions, and with how much reliability accounting for variance of engine reliability, is another matter. But trying to dichotomise catapults and ski jumps based on fighters and their payload is flawed and reductionist in.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

Bltizo said:

I believe the kuznetsov was designed from the outset to be able to launch fighters with near full payloads under most circumstances reliably.

Do we seriously think India would have purchased vikramditya if they could only launch their mig-29Ks at a fraction of their payload (considering that A, India is on a shopping spree for the best money can buy, and B, the mig-29K isn't exactly a large aircraft to begin with so any decrement in payload and fuel load will make it almost tactically irrelevant)?

Click to expand...

Let me say several things.

First, your earlier contention to popeye about critical thinking, which you continue here as if to suggest that he and others either are not doing so, or somehow are blinded by their own view point, is IMHO not only ridiculous, it is (IMHO) demeaning.

1st, I believe popeye and his 20+ years naval experience, many of those years on carriers, gives him a better basis for critical thinking in this area than almost anyone on this board. I put great stock in what he has to say about carriers and their capabilities because of his experience doing it, and developing the feel for what can and cannot be done over all of those years.

2nd, the Kuznetsov was launched in 1985, and commissioned in 1990. She has been operational for over 20 years now. I have taken a keen interest in her from the beginning and I have never seen a fully loaded SU-33 launched, or even positioned on that carrier. Never.

Please post one if you are aware of one.

End the end, the proof is in the pudding Bltizo. As an engineer I learned long ago to listen to the field people and not lean too much on the scholarly education I got or the "feasible theories," when dealing with the real world. Those are good for getting you in the ball park for a design, and particularly in the structural analysis area...but then you have to be flexible to be able to look at reality and then modify accordingly because in the real world the permiatations and iterations in conditions and potential for change and impact are almost endless.

In fact...after 20+ years, the strongest argument against fully laden SU-33s on the Kuznetsov is 20+ years of never seeing one.

Now, the Mig-29K may be different. It is a smaller aircraft that they have upgraded with newer, more powerful engines. We shall see what they are capable of.

The Indians may know full well what they are about...and apparently the Russians (surely for economic reasons too) are following suite and going to replace all of the SU-33s with Mig-29Ks.

In the end, we will know that they not only possibly can do it, but that they are doing it when we see it happening. To date...we haven't.

Now, I hope and trust one day we will...but it simply has not happened yet, and I have to believe if the Russians could do it, they would do it. The argument that they do not have enough funds simply does not hold water (pardon the pun) particularly in light of the large exercise we saw with the Chinese just a month or so ago. That was not a cheap exercise in the least. The fact is, they have enough money for those kinds of exercises if they want, and with the shifts they are talking about in tactics for their carriers and naval aviation, they have the reason to do it too.

As with everything else...in the end, time will tell.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

I certainly did not mean to offend Popeye, and I hold both your opinion and his in high regard.

But as of this point the only argument against all the points I made is that we haven't "seen" kuznetsov launching fully loaded Su-33s. While I can understand that sometimes we need to see to believe, using mere visual evidence while rejecting the "theoretical" without further investigation, on such a potentially influential military subject and can completely change the view of how competent the world's STOBAR carriers are.

Jeff, you said youve followed russian naval aviation with great interest. May I venture to ask, have you posited the ski jump question to Russian military followers equivalent to yourself? Because in western military readings I have found nothing aside from the dismissive caveat of "ski jumps = no full load" where as a variety of historical Russian publications say otherwise.

In regard to the mig-29K, while it is a lighter aircraft than Su-33 it also has a proportionally smaller thrust.

-----

I agree, let time tell. But in regards to future comparisons of STOBAR carriers, I think acknowledging the alternative thought should also be recognised, which is where my qualm lies.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

Bltizo said:

I certainly did not mean to offend Popeye, and I hold both your opinion and his in high regard.

But as of this point the only argument against all the points I made is that we haven't "seen" kuznetsov launching fully loaded Su-33s.

Click to expand...

Well, I do not think at all that that is the only argument. It is just the most telling.

Bltizo said:

While I can understand that sometimes we need to see to believe, using mere visual evidence while rejecting the "theoretical" without further investigation, on such a potentially influential military subject and can completely change the view of how competent the world's STOBAR carriers are.

Jeff, you said youve followed russian naval aviation with great interest. May I venture to ask, have you posited the ski jump question to Russian military followers equivalent to yourself? Because in western military readings I have found nothing aside from the dismissive caveat of "ski jumps = no full load" where as a variety of historical Russian publications say otherwise.

Click to expand...

Well I have never stated that SU-33s could not launch with some decent loads.

"Full" loads is a subjective term because it varies depending on the mission. For example, a full AAW load is far different than a full A2G load out. But the fact is, although we have seen some AAW load outs, I do not believe I have ever even seen a "full" AAW load out on an SU-33 launching from the Kuznetsov.

Much less a full bomb, or anti-shipping, or ground strike load out.

Fuel load also plays in here, and even with what we have seen we do not know what fuel load these are launched with and what, if any trade-offs are made. And...the Russians aren't saying.

This video, is the most heavily laden example of a SU-33 launch I have ever seen, with six missiles:


Far and away, when they show an armed load out at all, most pictures show 2-4 AAW missiles.

Bltizo said:

I agree, let time tell. But in regards to future comparisons of STOBAR carriers, I think acknowledging the alternative thought should also be recognised, which is where my qualm lies.

Click to expand...

No problem. I am open minded about it and look for the load outs...and believe some decent loadouts are possible.

I just have never seen any "full" load out, and I am not sure what fuel load they carry when launched.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

Hi, to all the experts out there, as we know we have not seen a Su-33 launched in full load out of a ski jump carrier, however, if the... say, the J-15 but armed with more powerful engines (like the WS-15 when that engines are available). Could the aircraft then be launched from the Ski Jump carrier with full load?

I know it was not done now, but how about theoretically?