PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

plus there is the issue of safety. [video=youtube_share;cHUsGFGhfmk]http://youtu.be/cHUsGFGhfmk[/video]
check the ramp on this one.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

bd popeye said:

Not practical on a CV. You may have to clear the deck. And with that ski ramp room is at a premium. Rockets not in a pod/launcher are not the safest ..

You'd need a magazine below decks just to store those rockets. They do take up space. That magazine would take up storage for other air launched weapons.

The US called then JATO bottles.

JATO = Jet Assisted Take Off.

Not sure if the Blue Angels C-130, Fat Albert, does the JATO launch. Here's a video of a JATO launch.

[video=youtube;eRM1Ng1kmlk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRM1Ng1kmlk[/video]

It's just not practical aboard a ship.

Click to expand...

The JATO bottles were routinely used in Fat Alberts routine, it is awesome to watch, but they have been eliminated due to expense and a limited supply of bottles, However, if you hung a couple, on a couple of J-15s you would have a way to get them airborne with a full combat load out! Yes they are a little hot to handle, but nothing the USN should be afraid of?????? actually Albert is a Marine bird!

The rearmost two centerline hard points should suffice! Think Hosea Feliciano's "Come on Baby Light MY FIRE!"

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Jato rockets can't be attached to just any centerline hard point. The hard point must be designed to transmit the thrust of the rocket to the fuselage along a line that passes through the aircraft's center of mass.

In other words, if the plane wasn't designed for JATO, you can't use JATO on it.

C-130 was designed for JATO use as part of its original 1950s design requirement for rough field and soft field STOL.

There is no evidence su-27 family is designed for the same thing. F-15, su-27's American counterpart, is explicitly not design for JATO. This was made clear in late 1970s in response to hecklers from the peanut gallery who argued all American fighters needs to be able to take off from landing strips cratered by soviet preemptive strikes.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

chuck731 said:

Jato rockets can't be attached to just any centerline hard point. The hard point must be designed to transmit the thrust of the rocket to the fuselage along a line that passes through the aircraft's center of mass.

In other words, if the plane wasn't designed for JATO, you can't use JATO on it.

C-130 was designed for JATO use as part of its original 1950s design requirement for rough field and soft field STOL.

There is no evidence su-27 family is designed for the same thing. F-15, su-27's American counterpart, is explicitly not design for JATO. This was made clear in late 1970s in response to hecklers from the peanut gallery who argued all American fighters needs to be able to take off from landing strips cratered by soviet preemptive strikes.

Click to expand...

Would a lower power JATO make any difference?

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

chuck731 said:

Jato rockets can't be attached to just any centerline hard point. The hard point must be designed to transmit the thrust of the rocket to the fuselage along a line that passes through the aircraft's center of mass.

In other words, if the plane wasn't designed for JATO, you can't use JATO on it.

C-130 was designed for JATO use as part of its original 1950s design requirement for rough field and soft field STOL.

There is no evidence su-27 family is designed for the same thing. F-15, su-27's American counterpart, is explicitly not design for JATO. This was made clear in late 1970s in response to hecklers from the peanut gallery who argued all American fighters needs to be able to take off from landing strips cratered by soviet preemptive strikes.

Click to expand...

Actually Chuck, my Dad flew the C-130A, the C-130B, the C-130E, and the MC-130E Combat Talon 1, the 130 had four bottles per side on a panel on the aft fuselage, they are triggered as the aircraft accelerates through rotation in order to maintain aircraft control, and minimize stress on the aft fuselage, they are quite effective. IMHO it would be about 90% probable that the J-15 would respond quite nicely with a pair of bottles on the aft fuselage hard points designed for air to air missles as the fuselage is hardened to support the weight and the "thrust vector" would be very close to the main engines on the centerline. The J-15 has a very robust structure, as well as more than ample control authority to maintain directional control, while I was of course speaking "tongue in cheek" it is most certainly do-able, with a little "engineering".

As you well know the B-36, A-26, C-123, and as well as the C-119 were retro-fit with turbo-jet engines on pylons on the wings for the same purpose to, so really its no biggie for any engineer worth his salt, but I would remind you that you have yet to provide us with a source on your "agility vs maneuverability" theorem???? how bout it??

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Equation said:

Would a lower power JATO make any difference?

Click to expand...

You would of course have to "tailor" the thrust of the RATO bottles to operate within the design parameters of the aircraft in question, it would give you a lot more flexibility on load-out, but as with any other design changes, there are "trade-offs", they are in fact dangerous, and just as the C-130, they would only be practical when they were "essential" to the mission??? brat

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Guys, while very interesting why are we spending so much time talking about JATO etc? I think the odds of it being mounted on a J-15 for Liaoning is pretty much ZERO, NADA ZILTCH.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Re: J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread

I don't think the PLAN will develop a dedicated tanker J15. It would be too much of a waste of both the fighter jet and hanger space, what more, there is simply no need for a dedicated tanker variant of the J15 when the baseline model already has such enormous internal fuel capacity. I'd say give the J15 2-4 wet pylons, if they don't have them already, and that's all the modification one needs to make.

Apply that across the fleet would mean any J15 can serve as a makeshift tanker while still being able to carry out the full range of its normal missions with no penalties.

In the medium to long run, I think the PLAN would develop a dedicated tanker for its carriers, possibly based on a common airframe as their carrier AWACS. But I would not expect to see those until the PLAN starts building super carriers with CATs.

Re: J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread

plawolf said:

I don't think the PLAN will develop a dedicated tanker J15. It would be too much of a waste of both the fighter jet and hanger space, what more, there is simply no need for a dedicated tanker variant of the J15 when the baseline model already has such enormous internal fuel capacity. I'd say give the J15 2-4 wet pylons, if they don't have them already, and that's all the modification one needs to make.

Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. They can use buddy stores as required to meet this need far more effectively that taking J-1 airframes that could otherwise serve the strike role and making them dedicated tankers.

plawolf said:

In the medium to long run, I think the PLAN would develop a dedicated tanker for its carriers, possibly based on a common airframe as their carrier AWACS. But I would not expect to see those until the PLAN starts building super carriers with CATs.

Click to expand...

This may well happen. Depending on the AWACS airframe. Such an airframe in US service has served for decades for both the AWACS (E-2 Hawkeye) role and the Carrier onboard Delivery COD role (C-2 Greyhound) which is a cargo plane in essence.

The US has used others, such as the A-6 intruder attack aircraft for refueling, S-3 Viking ASW aircraft for refueling, and now, of course, uses buddy stores as you described for the J-15 with F-18 aircraft.

So, whether the PLAN develops a dedicated tanker will yet to be seen...but if they could use a common airframe for AWACS, COD, and refueling, which would make a lot of sense...except of course those aircraft are generally fairly large and take up a lot of deck and hanger space.

As it is, you could expect having probably three AWACS aircraft in any case which would be dedicated. Usually a US carrier has two COD aircraft...but if you used three, and developed the COD to be multi-role in the tanker and the COD roles, you could probably optimize that solution with buddy stores and address all aerial refueling needs.