PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

Originally Posted by Intrepid

Yes, but four of ten seats are empty and it looks that the helo prepares for plane guard duty. So the group of five aircraft seems to depart back to their homebase in this crew-setting. Typical training carrier operation: come in and land all together, then depart and fly home.

I liked to orbit high in the training area with dual instruction when my senior student pilots where underway on solo flights. And sometimes I take a rest at the airfield my solo students had to land at when they were on a cross country trip.

I cranked up the zoom all right, and there he was, I really didn't even see the pilots, I just assumed the helmets were on the glare shield, what is the likelyhood that these have enough thrust to operate off the ramp, I assume they don't have AB, and I doubt the Chinese trainers do either, any thoughts on that? I do love the picture and it is my new background on the desktop.

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Intrepid

Yes, but four of ten seats are empty and it looks that the helo prepares for plane guard duty. So the group of five aircraft seems to depart back to their homebase in this crew-setting. Typical training carrier operation: come in and land all together, then depart and fly home.

I liked to orbit high in the training area with dual instruction when my senior student pilots where underway on solo flights. And sometimes I take a rest at the airfield my solo students had to land at when they were on a cross country trip.

What aircraft did you fly Intrepid, my Dad was an IP in the C-130, he was stationed at Naha, Sewart AFB, and retired from Little Rock after they closed Sewart. My first flying lesson was with one of my Dad's students in an old radial engined Cessna 195, they often came out to the farm, and back in the old days they would often visit the guys homes around the country on those long cross country flights. I believe he usually flew with two students. One of my friends was a flight surgeon on the Kennedy, in fact he may have retired when the decommissioned the Kennedy. He had been a Hoover pilot, until the Navy sent him to med school.[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by Air Force Brat

I cranked up the zoom all right, and there he was, I really didn't even see the pilots ...

I can see the pilots.

In The Near Future

Originally Posted by Air Force Brat

Now old salt, why would anyone think such a thing, I just made that my new screensaver, and vortex generators are beautifull, remember form follows function, we installed them in the shop on a Cessna 206 that had a high lift Robertson kit on it, an gorgeous airplane. I was just thinking how sweet the Goshawks looked in their white and orange Duds. I just found my father in laws old WWII dity bag when we were cleaning out the basement after it flooded, I always loved the paint on the Navy airplanes, and those cool looking orange flight suits. That is a sweet looking airplane and I bet it flys like an angel. The Navy and Air Force has always had the coolest trainers, Stearman, Navy N3N, the T-6, the T-28, the T-33, and the gorgeous T-34, gorgeous little Beechcraft, and then the T-34C with the Turbine.

I am developing a wing sail ( taking an awfully long time to do so ) and its good functioning depend entirely on the right balance of several types of vortex generators. But these vortex generators are used to prevent flow detachment due to the interaction between the shock wave on the wing and the boundary layer at high subsonic and higher speed. I remember the Gloster Javelin night fighter of the '50's having three rows of them. A wing with a properly designed profile will not need them. Do you see them on the wings of other modern aircraft?

Originally Posted by Intrepid

I can see the pilots.

Yes I can too, my bad, I did have to crank up the zoom on my screen and I do suppose I should have just apologized up front for my mistake, I am very interested in hearing a little or a lot, about what aircraft you flew, and I also assumed we didn't have a naval aviator on this thread, I am just an Air Force Brat, but the old man was more than a little preturbed when I asked him why they didn't have cool orange flight suits like the Navy guys, something about turning your flight jacket inside out. I actually lost my flight jacket on a local aerial photog mission a couple of years ago, it was a hurry up deal and I didn't get my door closed and latched properly, it was latched but I didn't engage the over center locking pin. Any way I threw my jacket on my little brothers camera, in the back seat, and when he reached for his camera he layed my jacket on the floor, when he poped his window open, the pressure popped my door open. I had to slow the airplane way down in order to get my door open far enough to reengage the lock. He left immediately with the airplane after we landed, so I had no jacket, but assumed it was still in the airplane . It had apparently blown out when I was trying to latch my door. I had a cold ride home on the Hayabusa as well, but thats life.

---------- Post added at 11:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 AM ----------

Originally Posted by delft

I am developing a wing sail ( taking an awfully long time to do so ) and its good functioning depend entirely on the right balance of several types of vortex generators. But these vortex generators are used to prevent flow detachment due to the interaction between the shock wave on the wing and the boundary layer at high subsonic and higher speed. I remember the Gloster Javelin night fighter of the '50's having three rows of them. A wing with a properly designed profile will not need them. Do you see them on the wings of other modern aircraft?

---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 AM ----------

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by delft

I am developing a wing sail ( taking an awfully long time to do so ) and its good functioning depend entirely on the right balance of several types of vortex generators. But these vortex generators are used to prevent flow detachment due to the interaction between the shock wave on the wing and the boundary layer at high subsonic and higher speed. I remember the Gloster Javelin night fighter of the '50's having three rows of them. A wing with a properly designed profile will not need them. Do you see them on the wings of other modern aircraft?

Well it turns out the Goshawk is a rehash of the BAE Hawk, which is manufactured by McDonnel Douglas, in flight testing at the stall it dropped a wing so bad, up to 90 degrees, they added the leading edge flaps and probably the vortex generators as well, to clean it up, it is likely that it has a much higher wing loading as they had to beef up the gear and associatted aircraft structure for carrier ops. It also doesn't want to spin well, and they have reportedly eliminated spin training from the curriculum? So much for assuming it flew well, although I understand it flys much better now. Have you seen the youtube video of the man powered flight, thats not real is it? As you say those vortex generators are not attractive, but they do have a beneficial effect. Wing Sail eh? you do like to go for those none traditional solutions, my wife says my sense of style is still in the 70s, so I like traditional stuff, sometime even nostalgic stuff.LOL

I just wanted to respond to the manual vs automated deck landing issue. It is true that automated deck landings are possible. Indeed, the USN is desperate to save training and personell costs and is considering everything. One poster here asked "why doesn't the USN just automate everything." That is a very good question. It would save a ton of $$$$.

BUT-and this is important-automation does not necessarily mean combat effective. Wartime experience shows that under the stress of an actual war deployment-things break. Even battle damage has to factored in. Unnecessary-or over done-reliance on automation is a very bad idea. Also, and this sounds trite, but weather never seems to like automation at sea. It just doesn't. To this day, the most reliable machine at sea is a trained sailor.

However, budgets are being cut all over the world-except perhaps China. Navies are looking very seriously at pro/cons of automation. Combat readiness is no longer the only issue. If it's a choice between 11 carriers task forces with automation and say 7 without -but "old school" combat ready-the choice will be 11.

But I'm happy to see the PLAN looking at automating carrier aviation.

Originally Posted by kroko

About WS-10H



Ive never heard about "WS-10B". In fact, i wasnt even aware that there was a difference in power betwen WS-10 installed in J-11B and J-10B

There is certainly a difference in the engine's gearbox position for J-10B (It should have the same gearbox position as the J-10A) and J-11B. Question is that would the engines be assigned with a different suffix just for this reason or there're some other changes as well, like power output.

Originally Posted by Air Force Brat

... about what aircraft you flew ...

[OT]As head of training of a flight training organisation I flew lighttype single and twin engine aircraft and Beech King Air. In my off time I flew Antonov AN-2 for sightseeing flights and one time in my life 14 days on AN-24 and L-39 in russia. I am retired since end of 2010 after 10000 hours and 30000 landings, but have still my ratings and fly as privat pilot. I gain inside knowledge of military aviation, because we had a lot of transition training for military pilots to become airline transport pilots.[/OT]

More Pictures of operational Varyag.

11111.jpg

A really large picture:

2222.jpg

The whole picture:

333.jpg

It is best to see it through this link.

http://www.xfjs.org/attachment/Mon_1...4c3201.jpg?791


You can zoom in and see it very clearly, it is an excellent picture of what a fully operational Varyag will look like. I counted 20 J-15 on the flight deck, and 5 choppers.

NOTE, you can also see the different colored shirt each sailors are wearing, indicating that the Chinese are indeed following USN carrier operational style, NOT the Russian style. No wonder the Chinese did not even bother asking the Russians to for any help. Also, I am firmly convinced that Varyag will have singificantly larger hanger than the Russian one, to store planes.

Future Chinese Carriers:

4.jpg

5.jpg


6.jpg


enjoy,

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Nice pic AeroEngineer. Do you have a larger version of that photo which may be suitable for a desk top background? If so please post!

Yes, Popeye.

In fact, I post a lot of new pictures, you will like it. There is a really big one too.



Popeye, this one is huge:

1.jpg


AWWW, you can not see it big throug this type of image posting.




However, you can vist this Chinese military fourm site. It is a great site but all in Chinese:

http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=vi...ad&tid=1251064

This is the picture.

personally i think Varyag is geared to store alot more planes , i got these drawings from a source on PDF, Varyag can carry close to 40+ J15s, China modified the the below deck to make more space and removed the missiles silos, they can store close to 30 J15s below deck

heres my post from a ealier thread

Originally Posted by asif iqbal

I think Shi Lang has been extensively modifed internally to carry more aircraft, heres some info from PDF claiming that hanger area is >5000 sqaure metres

Below is the old and simplified deck plan for the original Varyag.

Varyag (old) Deck Plan:


Section “7” was the old ~4000 Square Meter Hangar. It has a Max capacity to hold 22 Su-33s with a low utilization rate of ~60%!

Varyag (old) Hangar with 22 * Su-33s.


Section “3” – “6” are the SS-N-19 Weapon Clusters. Since China never got any weapons with her at all, and needed a real carrier.
PLAN removed Section “3” – “6” completely, and extend the hangar all the way to the end of Section “3”.
Adding ~1500 Square meters of Hangar space, to a total of ~5000 Square Meters in area.

Old Hangar in relation to the main hull.

Varyag (old) Hangar in relation to the Hull.


The New Hangar extends all the way to the Missile Silos. The Number of total Su-33Ms/J-15s that I have stated above is the Engineering MAX number.

so its seems that maximum J15 Shi Lang can take is more than 40!

^^^ you cannot cram that many aircraft in an hangar deck. It is not safe. I've mentioned this before. You need a fire lane. That fire lane is also used to move large object easily from one end of the ship to the other. You need wiggle room to move aircraft from the hangar deck to the flight deck and vice versa as they need repair and are repaired.

ok 4000m2 gets u 22 aircraft crammed in, lets cut that by 10% to allow for extra space, hell lets cut it by 15% for the sake of argument, thats around 18-19 aircraft

removing sections 3-6 adds 1500m2 so thats 4000+1500= 5,500m2 of space, going by the same calculation you can still get 26 J15s in the lower deck, lets cut that even further and say 25

you can quite easily get 15 J15s on the deck on the Varyag, so 25+15=40 with no sweat, but the deck could take as many as 18-20 J15s

obviously thats not counting helos, AWACS and trainers we are just talking about J15 max numbers

i have heard before that the Varyag can take 2 naval sqaudrons if need be, thats 24 x 2= 48 aircraft, that might be far fetched but certainly isnt out the equation

either way, if Varyag is geared anywhere near 40 that puts it close to Queen Elizabeth-class supercarriers, which isnt a bad achievment

but like most things we will just have to wait till we see something offical, which might/ might not happen

Originally Posted by bd popeye

^^^ you cannot cram that many aircraft in an hangar deck. It is not safe. I've mentioned this before. You need a fire lane. That fire lane is also used to move large object easily from one end of the ship to the other. You need wiggle room to move aircraft from the hangar deck to the flight deck and vice versa as they need repair and are repaired.

US Navy did regularly park aircraft on deck, at least during WW-2. So parking aircraft that tightly is only necessary during storm, when you cannot operate any aircraft anyway.

The "tight" parking in the hangar is obviously an amateur calculation, expressly without taking a fire lane into consideration.

I am sure that I posted this before, but the Russians were learning while building the KUZNETSOV, so the deck aircraft stowage was improved on VARYAG, which is said to be designed for 44 SU-33 and 15 KA-27 (vs. 33 and 10 on KUZNETSOV). I must admit I find it difficult to see how they could manage to squeeze that many planes in.

You cannot just extend the hangar all the way to the missile silos. If you go back a lot of posts, you will see that they would lose the combat information centres in the process.