PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

bd are you saying the Russians are not current or just don't do enough airops of their own?

They just don't fly the number of sorties the USN does. The USN CVNs do about 120-160+ sorties a day. It takes the Russians two weeks to do 40 launches and arrested landings.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

They just don't fly the number of sorties the USN does. The USN CVNs do about 120-160+ sorties a day. It takes the Russians two weeks to do 40 launches and arrested landings.

Per carrier? That's at least 2-3 sorties per plane per day, which is war operation tempo!

Originally Posted by nemo

Per carrier? That's at least 2-3 sorties per plane per day, which is war operation tempo!

You know I read that a while ago.. about a year. Let me check..

OK.. the 160 sortie rate is for the new CVN-78 class.

present sortie rate for USN CVNs is 110+ sorties a day.

Thanks for rasing the question

Originally Posted by bd popeye

You know I read that a while ago.. about a year. Let me check..

OK.. the 160 sortie rate is for the new CVN-78 class.

present sortie rate for USN CVNs is 110+ sorties a day.

Thanks for rasing the question

Again, are you sure these are normal daily operation rate rather than peak operations rate? 110 sorties a day is about 2 sorties per aircraft per day, and 160 sorties are 3 sorties per aircraft per day. I am assuming about 50-60 aircraft per carrier (less than cold war establishment).

I don't know about naval pilots, but NATO pilots flies around 200 hrs per year. Each sorties are usually at least couples of hours. At this rate, you will hit this in less than 2 months -- which is less than time a tour. And you need to re-arm, refuel, and re-check every aircraft before flight.

I see no reason why one would want to fly every aircraft 2-3 times a day. Again, this is combat operation rate.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

In the 1960s during a cross decking operation between HMS Hermes and USS Ranger, USN pilot were heard to say about the small British carrier that the "British were nice guys, but Nuts!", whilst in return the pilots from Hermes took one look at the huge Ranger and suggested "Formation Landings" and "Not bothering to put our hooks down!"

Yes , that was one of my points, nobody aughta hafta drive their bird onto a carrier without somebody to hold you hand, or cover your butt, the first few times. I still remember my first night landing in the Mitsubishi at 120 knots with no flare on short strip, then into reverse, I thought "Oh Momma, we're gonna die"! One engine lagged into reverse by a fraction, scarred me, but I loved flyin it, but my buddy got killed in it a month or so later. Hot birds don't offer second chances!

Originally Posted by Sczepan

I'll prefer three or four of this small carriers instead of one big stick; not so expansive, could be used at different places and - if concentrated - it's not the gigant mistake, when a anti-ship-missile hit the carrier ....

Most of the cost is in R&D. With respect to this cost, getting a bigger hull isn't anymore costlier than a smaller hull.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

You know I read that a while ago.. about a year. Let me check..

OK.. the 160 sortie rate is for the new CVN-78 class.

present sortie rate for USN CVNs is 110+ sorties a day.

Thanks for rasing the question

I guess the rate is probably achieved during exercise period. Unlikely it is done every day per deployment.

Originally Posted by aquauant

I guess the rate is probably achieved during exercise period. Unlikely it is done every day per deployment.

No.. that's the average sortie rate for all air operations. If you were ever on an active CV you would think it's more than that.

Grand Logistics: A Comparison Of Sortie Rates For Land Based And Carrier Based Aircraft In Recent Conflicts

CVN 78 Gerald R Ford Class

Grand Logistics: Sortie Generation Since 1945

---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 AM ----------

Originally Posted by aquauant

I guess the rate is probably achieved during exercise period. Unlikely it is done every day per deployment.

No.. that's the average sortie rate for all air operations. If you were ever on an active CV you would think it's more than that.

Grand Logistics: A Comparison Of Sortie Rates For Land Based And Carrier Based Aircraft In Recent Conflicts

CVN 78 Gerald R Ford Class

Grand Logistics: Sortie Generation Since 1945

Any info on when J-15 will have deck ops?

Originally Posted by Speeder

Any info on when J-15 will have deck ops?

That won't happen for some time. The crew needs to be trained up in aircraft handling procedures, firefighting, damage control etc... Plus why would the PLAN risk it's handful of J-15 's operating on an CV with a crew with limited training? it will happen but we do not know when.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

No.. that's the average sortie rate for all air operations. If you were ever on an active CV you would think it's more than that.

Grand Logistics: A Comparison Of Sortie Rates For Land Based And Carrier Based Aircraft In Recent Conflicts

CVN 78 Gerald R Ford Class

Grand Logistics: Sortie Generation Since 1945[COLOR="Silver"]

The references you quoted are *wartime* operations rate, not peacetime operation rate -- which you quoted for the Russian. Even in war time, it's not sustained for long stretch -- steam catapult need to be serviced every 1000 launches or so. This means carriers need to be pulled out every two weeks for maintenance, if not fo supply.

A lot of more or less frivolous arguments enter in the choice of the size of a carrier.
What is the size of ship our current ports can handle?
Is it necessary to impress all countries? Then go to the largest size possible.
Is it better not to look a big bully? Go to a lesser size.
Do you lack the experience to use four cats on a single carrier? Don't go too large.
What is the size of propulsion machinery you can manage to build and maintain?
What type propulsion machinery will you have? GT? Nuclear-electric?
What will be the size of the next generation of radar aircraft?
Will you have all kinds of aircraft on your flattop or have you separate flattops for fleet defense, for UAV and UCAV, perhaps helicopter carriers?
Will you go for a traditional mono hull or will try to build a tricat, i.e. a smaller ship with the length of a larger one and with reduced drag and improved propulsive efficiency?
What will you have for close-in defense?
What kinds of ships will be available to protect your flattop?
Most important of all: which of the many possible uses of your flattops will be more important, which ones less?

These are some of the more obvious questions. If you really start designing the choices are nearly endless.

Originally Posted by nemo

The references you quoted are *wartime* operations rate, not peacetime operation rate -- which you quoted for the Russian. Even in war time, it's not sustained for long stretch -- steam catapult need to be serviced every 1000 launches or so. This means carriers need to be pulled out every two weeks for maintenance, if not fo supply.

Nemo, I served. I know what an USN CV can really do. By the way USN seldom use all 4 catapults during a launch. Generally three are used. Carriers do not stop functioning because of the need to re-arm and refuel or maintenance on the catapults. All this is done at sea when deployed in a very short period of time.

My statements are based on my 20 years experience serving on 5 USN CVs, Kennedy, Midway, Hancock, America & Nimitz and keeping informed about current USN CVN operations I stand by what I stated on USN CV sortie rates. Much of the info I provide is off the top of my itty bitty brain.

Enough stated.

Originally Posted by Air Force Brat

If I'm not mistaken the Brazilians are still flying the A-4 off the Sao Paulo, some excellent reading on the A-4 page about bringing a bird aboard ship. I believe its the A-4 association, repeats serveral of the considerations I mentioned. I am not sure whether all their A-4s are two holers, I think they have several. Could someone else possibly deal with the Brazilian/China agreement, I wasn't aware of that. I mentioned the Russians because they operate the same carrier, with esentially the same aircraft. bd are you saying the Russians are not current or just don't do enough airops of their own?

I agree entirely with your line of reasoning. Of course the Chinese should go to the Russians (if indeed they have not already done so): Same carrier, same skijump, same plane.

No, the Russians do not do enough flying, though there was some e.g. during the KUZNETSOV task force’s recent Mediterranean deployment – but there the KUZNETSOV reportedly had a couple of Indian MIG-29K’s onboard, and it would of course not do to have both Chinese and Indians as guests!

Bbut then the Brazilians probably do not do much flying, either. What the Chinese could learn by flying little outdated planes launched by outdated catapults passes my understanding. If they wanted to try their hand at a modern carrier, they should go to the French (again, if indeed they have not already done so). But there would of course again be the risk of encountering Indians, studying how to handle Rafale from a carrier…