All About The Chinese Aircraft Carrier Thread

[bd popeye]

Obi Wan sez;

The Chinese already know the basics of Steam catapult tech from the Melbourne, and I wouldn't be surprised if they had hired the expertise of naval engineers familiar with them from Brazil, Argentina, France or even Britain or America. An outside possibility, to be sure, but still possible

I agree. I think somewhere in this forum there is a sattlite pic of a Chinese catapult. Of course that is all we see. But no doubt they probally have the technology.

The USN has removed the catapults from it's decomissioned ships. I know that the cats were removed from the CV-64 before she was decomissioned. I'm almost sure I read those cats will be installed on CVN-77. Those catapults were only about 18 months old when CV-64 was decomissioned.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Obi Wan sez;
The USN has removed the catapults from it's decomissioned ships. I know that the cats were removed from the CV-64 before she was decomissioned. I'm almost sure I read those cats will be installed on CVN-77. Those catapults were only about 18 months old when CV-64 was decomissioned.

Good to see the USN going Green and getting into recycling! Mind you, the thought that US warships may be made from old beer cans is a little worrying...

[bd popeye]

Good to see the USN going Green and getting into recycling! Mind you, the thought that US warships may be made from old beer cans is a little worrying

Yes the USN scavanges anchors, anchor chains, shafts, propellers , arresting gear motors & catapults from retired CV's..has been for a long time.

I wonder if the PLAN scavanged any parts off the Melbourne, Kiev or Minsk? Either for study or use. Probally those catapults have been and are under study. Not to forget to mention the arresting gear.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Melbourne's cats and wires were only strong enough for A-4 'scooters' and 'Stoofs', so unless the Chinese have lightweight fighters they wouldn't be useful for installation on Varyag, but they would provide a lot of info if set up on land for tests. Every now and again someone suggests the PLAN should build 15-20,000ton light carriers perhaps using Melbourne as a basis for the design. Well you can't fly SU-33s off something that small, the lower limit for CTOL or STOBAR carriers operating even Mig-29Ks would be around the 35,000ton mark, although something resembling HMS Hermes in her CTOL guise of the 60's at 28,000tons might be the absolute lower limit. I wouldn't be surprised to see other items of equipment turning up though, and if you see an anchor on Varyag stamped with 'Made in Barrow in Furness' then we'll know for sure...

[Sczepan]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

Melbourne's cats and wires were only strong enough for A-4 'scooters' and 'Stoofs', so unless the Chinese have lightweight fighters they wouldn't be useful for installation on Varyag, but they would provide a lot of info if set up on land for tests. Every now and again someone suggests the PLAN should build 15-20,000ton light carriers perhaps using Melbourne as a basis for the design. .....

The Skyhawk has a take off weight (normal) of 11,113kg
Wing span 8.38m, Length overall 12.29m, Height overall 4.57m

With the L-15 Falcon - advanced trainer aircraft - student pilots will be able to complete mission flight training and advanced combat training for the fourth generation fighters such as J-10 and J-11. The aircraft also have six (four under-wing and two wingtip) pylons to carry various air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. If necessary, it can serve for lightweight attack role with minor modifications.
Weight: Normal take-off 6,500kg; max take-off 9,500kg



and aditional:
What about the FC-1 (Fighter China-1) Xiaolong, initially known as Super-7, the single-seat, single-engine, multirole fighter aircraft ?

Weight: Empty 6,321 kg; Normal take-off: 9,100 kg; Max take-off 12,700 kg; Max weapon payload 3,800 kg
Wingspan: 9.00 m, Length: 14 m, Height: 5.10 m

So the Melbourne-Catapults could serve the L-15 as trainee-aircraft (to get carrier licence) and additional as lightwight ground-attack fighter and FC-1 fighters in amphibious operations very easy.
In the dimensions it could be critical to use the Melbourne Hangar and aircraft elevators for the FC-1 fighter, but may be they - and the Hangars and elevators of Varyag - are big enough.

edit:
please, don't missunderstand me - I don't say this will be done,
its only a possibility

[bd popeye]

Sczepan sez;

With the L-15 Falcon - advanced trainer aircraft - student pilots will be able to complete mission flight training and advanced combat training for the fourth generation fighters such as J-10 and J-11. The aircraft also have six (four under-wing and two wingtip) pylons to carry various air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. If necessary, it can serve for lightweight attack role with minor modifications.
Weight: Normal take-off 6,500kg; max take-off 9,500kg

That's very intresting in this aspect to me. USN/USMC pilots get no flight training in the delivery of weapons until they get to the training squadron on the type "advanced"(F-18 or E/A-6B) aircraft they will fly. Zero. So it appears that the PLA pilots will have a "leg up" on the USN/USMC in that aspect.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Melbourne only had the one catapult and it is on the short side:

The L-15 could certainly operate effectively in the light attack role, but would need it's landing gear completely redesigning as it is too flimsy for carrier landings, and the fuselage would have to be stressed for catapult launches. All achieveable, as BAe manged just such a feat when the T-45 Goshawk was produced as a carrier based version of the Hawk Trainer:

As you can see the undercarriage was heavily beefed up to withstand carrier landings and the whole airframe was strengthened. A navalised L-15 would involve a lot of redesigning but would produce a very rugged little aircraft, most likely replacing the forward cockpit with a radar (as in the Hawk 200) and while payload would be small (possibly one anti ship missile under one wing balanced by a drop tank under the other, as with the Super Etendard), large numbers of aircraft assigned to a strike would compensate. The L-15s small size would allow twice as many to be carried as the SU-33 for example, making the Varyag's air group look much larger than if it was all Su-33s (or J-10s for that matter. If a successful small strike aircraft were produced, the this opens up the option of smaller carriers to follow (but not the 15-20,000tons suggested by some, a CTOL landing deck for even a small aircraft like this would require a larger ship ie Hermes size 28,000tons which would also allow an adequate air group to be embarked, up to 30 L-15s plus helos (ASW and AEW, don't leave home without them!)

I always thought the USN could have ordered a single seat Goshawk for light attack missions to replace the A-4 Skyhawk (using the forward fuselage from the Hawk 200 which already has the APG-65 radar, the same as the F/A-18A/B and the AV-8B+ Harrier) which could be produced in numbers more cheaply than larger types, and would have suited Brazils naval needs quite well for example.

[bd popeye]

Obi wan sez;

I always thought the USN could have ordered a sigle seat Goshawk for light attack missions to replace the A-4 Skyhawk (using the forward fuselage from the Hawk 200 which already has the APG-65 radar, the same as the F/A-18A/B and the AV-8B+ Harrier) which could be produced in numbers more cheaply than larger types, and would have suited Brazils naval needs quite well for example.

They should have! But that's not how the US DoD spends it's billions. The Goshawk would have made an excellent CV aircraft with is small size and decent payload.

You are so correct about landing gear and airframes needing to be beef up to withstand carrier landings. Imangine if you will an aircraft traveling at at 270km and having to stop in less than 90 meters. that is quite a shock to the airframe.

[adeptitus]

The Russians have successfully modified and operated the Su-25 from their carrier, I don't think it'd be too difficult to convert Yak-130 or L-15 to do the same. The Yak-130 can carry Kh-25, which is roughly the same size and weight as the Penguin anti-ship missile.

A wing of L-15's equipped with short-range AAM's and light anti-ship missiles (Pengiun, Sea Skua class) on the carrier would give the PLAN a good training platform.

IMO the L-15 (and Yak-130 platform in general) can become a very flexible platform like the BAe Hawk. It can be a Q-5 replacement for CAS role, light carrier strike aircraft, carrier trainer, fighter jet trainer, and possibly even light fighter role. It may also have good export potential as well.

[BLUEJACKET]

I think we won't see any catapult on Varyag, at least for some time. If they build their own carrier(s) of comparable size or smaller, I would say there is 50/50 chance of catapults being installed there. If the mission is just sea control/limited power projection ashore, then there is no need for heavily laden jets to be catapulted! Which brings us to the STOL alternative.

Like the British carriers, the Russians adopted ramps or "ski-jumps" to increase the plane's takeoff weight and shorten the takeoff roll. Ski-jumps can also be seen on the aircraft carriers of Italy, Spain, India, and Thailand. All of these countries fly the Harrier from their carrier decks and use the ramps to improve takeoff performance.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...s/q0281b.shtml
http://www.ibiblio.org/maritime/media/index.php?cat=882
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian...eppe_Garibaldi
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/asturias/
http://www.answers.com/topic/royal-navy-cvf-programme
By the way, I wonder if the max. takeoff weight is the same or better compared with USMC Harriers on USN LHAs?

[bd popeye]

BLUEJACKET sez;

By the way, I wonder if the max. takeoff weight is the same or better compared with USMC Harriers on USN LHAs?

Good question. I'm sure Obi Wan could answer this better than I. I'm not sure.. But I think the Sea Harrier takeoff weight is the same . But the ski ramp will help the aircraft attain it's cruising speed much faster with a payload.

[Jeff Head]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

BLUEJACKET sez;


Good question. I think the Sea Harrier takeoff weight is the same .

The USMC Harrier II has an empty wieght of roughly 14,900 lbs (6764 kg), a vertical max takeoff of 20,750 lbs (9416 kg) and a max STOL of 31,000 lbs (14061 kg)

The UK Harrier FA2 VSTOL is listed at 14,600 lbs (6632 kg) empty weight and a max STOL weight of 24,250 lbs (11880 kg).

So, for operations off of a Wasp or Tarawa, depending on the roll the Harrier II gets, it may carrier as much or more than the FA2...but if it has to go straight vertical, it carries almost 4,000 lbs less than a UK FA2 using the ski jump.

[BLUEJACKET]

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

Thew USMC Harrier II has an empty wieght of roughly 14,900 lbs (6764 kg), a vertical max takeoff of 20,750 lbs (9416 kg) and a max STOL of 31,000 lbs (14061 kg)

The UK Harrier FA2 VSTOL is listed at 14,600 lbs (6632 kg) empty weight and a max STOL weight of 24,250 lbs (11880 kg).

So, for operations off of a Wasp or Tarawa, depending on the roll the Harrier II gets, it may carrier as much or more than the FA2...but if it has to go straight vertical, it carries almost 4,000 lbs less than a UK FA2 using the ski jump.

I know that USMC jump jets were upgraded some years ago, so their performance must be superior to the other Harriers out there. I remember reading an opinion article in Proceedings magazine about desirability of using them on current/future CV/CVNs. You could either build smaller carriers in larger numbers or fit more STOVL fighters on bigger ones.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/show...5605#post45605

[Obi Wan Russell]

The L-15can certainly be adapted for carrier ops, but we are talking about redesigning the airframe rather than sticking a hook on existing aircraft. The Goshawk may look like the rest of the Hawk family, but under it's 'skin' it is a very different beast. Just look at it's undercarriage! The same goes for the FC-1, just look at the picture posted earlier showing the undercarriage lowered, the legs would snap like twigs if they were slammed onto a carrier deck at 140knots.

The Ski Jump works by 'throwing' an aircraft into the air before it has reached flying speed, just like if you drive over a hump backed bridge too fast. Except whereas a car would fall back to earth with a bump, an aircraft wiil still be subject to acceleration from it's engine(s), and before it reaches the apogee of its' arc the aircrafts' wings start to generate lift and the plane begins flying conventionally. This allows for shorter takeoff rolls than with a flat deck or a greater payload/fuel load for a given takeoff roll. It is a method that suits the vectored thrust of the Harrier family, as they rotate their nozzles downwards at 55degrees (using a preset 'stop' on the nozzle control lever) just as the Harrier starts to climb the ramp. Non vectoring thrust aircraft can benefit from ski jump launches too (as the SU-33 does) provided they have sufficient engine thrust to keep them from falling into the sea between the end of the ramp and reaching flying speed. I recall seeing some pictures in the mid 80s of the USN conducting trials with ski jumps at various angles at Patuxent River air base using different aircraft types, including an F-14! I think that test was with a low (7degree) angle ramp but I don't think they were planning to replace 'cats' aboard CVs, just gathering data.

[Sczepan]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

The L-15can certainly be adapted for carrier ops, but we are talking about redesigning the airframe rather than sticking a hook on existing aircraft. The Goshawk may look like the rest of the Hawk family, but under it's 'skin' it is a very different beast. Just look at it's undercarriage! The same goes for the FC-1, just look at the picture posted earlier showing the undercarriage lowered, the legs would snap like twigs if they were slammed onto a carrier deck at 140knots.

.....

both - L15 and FC-1 - was developed in the last years; the PLAN studied the Melbourne Catapults before and was clearly interested in carrier know-how by reconstruction of Kiew and Minsk and rebuilding the Varyag at the same time.

Its not impossible to construct L 15, FC-1 (and J-10) from the beginning to be operated by future PLAN carriers. I am not sure - but couldn't there are navalised variants of those planes (including solid legs and strenghten fuselage) in some navy airports?

The Varyag seems to bee finished within the next yrs, pretty soon as I think. At this time they need navalised planes, if the PLAN want to start in carrier operations. And I see no other chinese planes arround to do this job (without some future russian imports)

Lets wait and see the future