SinoDefence Forum

tphuang

I believe it's because Yak-38 just wasn't that capable. Yakolev had to develop a vstol fighter, so they came out with the Forger. I read that it only has a maximum range of 370 km.

Finn McCool

Alright, let's talk about the air wings of aircraft carriers that will come into service in the next few years. The Varyag, the INS Vikramditya, the Cavour (Italy's new carrier) and any other new carriers that I forgot.

__________________
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
-Winston Churchill

Obi Wan Russell

The Indian Navy's plans are interesting, because it seems they have no intention of retiring the Sea Harrier when the new carriers come online. They are being upgraded even though the INS Viraat is scheduled to be withdrawn in only four years time, and several sources talk of the Sea Harriers being included in the Air groups of INS Vikramaditya and the new 'Air Defence Ship' INS Vikrant, so they will serve alongside the MIG-29Ks and the LCA(Navy). I think the two CTOL types will be used for long range strike/air defence much like the F/A-18 while the Sea Harriers will provide CAP (combat Air Patrol) over the fleet, a role for which only a small (ie 6 to 8 aircraft) sqn would need to be embarked and as the Sea Harrier is a relatively small aircraft would take up less space on deck and in the hangar. Space aboard ship could be increased by adopting the RNs practice of shifting the embarked helicopter sqns to supporting fleet auxilliaries equipped with large aft flight decks and hangars capable of maintaining four to six Sea King sized Helos.
The New ADS INS Vikrant has a design closely related to the Italian Cavour but unlike that ship will have an angled deck and Arrestor wires as well as a ski jump for STOBAR ops on a larger displacement (approx 35,000tons compared to Cavour's 27,000tons) but will probably be able to operate the same number and types of aircraft as the ex-russian ship as she is designed to be a carrier from the start.

The first three images are ITS Cavour, the last two INS Vikrant.

__________________
"Without Organic Airpower at Sea (Aircraft Carriers), you don't have a Navy, You have a Coast Guard!"

Indianfighter

The development of the ADS has commenced in 2005. It is expected to enter the service of the Indian Navy by 2012.

The Air Defence Ship of the Indian Navy (INS Vikrant) shall indeed be one of the best Aircraft Carriers in operational capabilities in Asia. The addition of the Naval LCA and MiG-29C jets shall be ideal for the operations of the ADS.

The following website provides detailed information about the ADS :
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/ADS.html

"The ship when built would be able to carry in all 30 to 40 aircraft, including the light combat aircraft (LCA), MiG 29K, 25 fighters and 10-12 helicopters. The LCA would be ready by then, he added."

Source:http://www.hindu.com/2004/04/30/stor...3004100400.htm

Naval Light Comabt Aircraft

bd popeye

Obi Wan sez;
Personally that reason coupled with the fact that you can't spot(park) aircraft on the ski ramp makes the number of aircraft on board marginal at best.

Thanks everyone for the input on the Yak-38..After reading about it you have to wonder why the Russians/Soviets opearated such a marginal aircraft at the risk of the pilots lives? Not to smart if you ask me..

Finn sez;
As for the PLAN CV air wing..Who knows for sure? I don't. But at first I expect to see about 24 Su-33 and 16 helo's. We do not know how cable the PLAN will be of operating their first carrier.

The Cavour air wing may of course eventually have 6-10 F-35B's ..and a like number of EH-101 Merlin variants..Tha's just a guess on my part.

As far as the IN is concerned I know they will have the Mig-29k But I'm sure I read about them aquiring E-2 Hawkeyes. Not sure about the helo though The IN pilots will be trained by the USN. The two countries made an agreement last year. Smart move..

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...716-irna01.htm

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

Jeff Head

Popeye and Obi Wan, a number of U.S. naval aviators came up with a loving nick-name for the Yak-38...they called it FUGSD, Fly Up Get Shot Down.

But, in alll seriousness, it was an aircraft that gave the Soviets some capabiliy off of their KIev class vesslels that was better than no capability, partilculary when considering any force with no naval air arm.

It also gave them valuable experience.

The Cavour and the new Spanish Strategic Projection Vessel, which is currently under construction, are very similar as well.

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFutur...p?SecAct=05202



It is interesting because they only show helos on the vessel (I am sure for political reasons) and yet it has the ski jump.

bd popeye

Everytime I see a picture of these "light" CV's I wonder why they don't have deck edge aircraft elevators? You use up a lot of space when you don't have deck edge elevators. Is it a cost factor? A design preference ? Or just what??

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

Jeff Head

I agree! But in defense of the Spanish design, the rear elevator, similar to the design with the US Navy's Tarawa class of Amphibious Assault Ships (LHAs), is actually a deck edge elevator...the edge being on the aft side. I do not know why the forward one is not moved over just a few feet to the deck edge other than possible strength considerations for the lift mechanism to be at all four corners instead of just two.




By the way, did you note that the Makin Island, LHD-8, eigth of the Wasp class and the vessel the Belleau Wood made way for, was christened last week?

Obi Wan Russell

I think the reluctance to fit deck edge elevators in smaller CV designs has a lot to do with structural strength of the hull and the ability to continue to move aircraft to and from the hangar deck in rough seas. This was the reason that the British CVA-01 design of the 1960s had an aft deck edge elevator and a forward inboard unit. The new Spanish vessel has the same lift layout as the Pricipe de Asturias, suggesting it is a configuration the Spaniards are happy with, and her design was originally American! Based on Admiral Zumwalt's proposed Sea Control Ship design of the mid 70s, the only major change made by spain was to alter the bow to include a ski jump, so as fond of the deck edge lift as US designers are, they must have thought an inboard elevator was the right way to go for a small CV.
On a large CV/CVN the forward lifts are usually far enough back and high enough above sea level to avoid damage from 'slamming' in rough seas. On a smaller ship the forward lift would be closer to the bows and as the freeboard tends to be lower too (smaller CVs still tend to have hangar heights of 17'6" as opposed to a typical US large deck carrier's 25'), and large openings in the hull can cause weakness just where the ship is hitting the sea hardest. When HMS Hermes was fitted with a deck edge lift at the forward end of her angled deck during construction in the mid 50s, it's inclusion caused a lot of headaches for her designers who had to find ways of reinforcing the hull girder to maintain rigidity and special grades of steel had to be used. The smallest carriers fitted with deck edge units (to the best of my knowledge) were the US Iwo Jima class LPHs built in the 60s, and they mounted their lifts portside amidships and starboard side three quarters aft. Deck edge lifts free up internal volume in the hangar and thus increase aircraft capacity, no question, but the smaller the ship the more difficult their inclusion which is a pity as smaller ships would benefit most from increased internal volume.

__________________
"Without Organic Airpower at Sea (Aircraft Carriers), you don't have a Navy, You have a Coast Guard!"

bd popeye

Jeff and Obi Wan thanks for the input..

Reminder on the pics please post them as thumbnails to save bandwidth. The new pictures posted are as large as I would want in this thread..Thanks

I've seen waves break accross deck edge elevators when they were lowered. Not often mind you..but I have seen it.

Yes I am aware of that. If I'm not mistaken those elevators also folded up. I had a neighbor that was onboard the USS Okinawa for 5 years. He says they called it the USS Broken-now-wa..get it? I know after Operation Frequent Wind the Okinawa was in the shipyard in Subic Bay for about two months...

The Makin Island may be a Wasp class LHD but it is certianaly unique. It has no steam plant..No boilers in other words...check it out. I think LHD-8 is a one class ship because it is so unique...

http://www.makin-island.navy.mil/why...ormational.htm

USS MAKIN ISLAND (LHD 8) is currently under construction by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in Pascagoula, Mississippi. MAKIN ISLAND will be the last LHD built in the WASP Class but will be the only one powered by LM 2500+ Gas Turbine Engines and Electric Drive. Additionally, MAKIN ISLAND is the only LHD to feature an all electric design -- no steam is used onboard MAKIN ISLAND. As the final member of the WASP Class LHD's, MAKIN ISLAND is transforming the U.S. Navy Amphibious Forces and setting the stage for the under-development successor to the Wasp Class, the LHA (R) Class of Amphibious Landing Ship.

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

Jeff Head

Yes...ljust ike CVN-77, although it is a Nimitz class carrier, is also a transformational vessel to the CVN-21 class and CVN-78, the Makin Island, although it is the last Wasp Class, it is a transformational vessel to the new LHA(R) or LH-X class of vessels.

Here's a pic, and it's a thumbnail! (I fixed the other larger pictures on this thread too). Click on it for a larger image.

Obi Wan Russell

The steam plant of the Tarawa class and Wasp class is one of the reasons the ships would be unattractive to foreign buyers (That's if the US would even consider selling them instead of sinking them!). A couple of years ago some uninformed types in the British media were stating that a party of RN officers had inspected a Tarawa class ship with a view to purchasing two of them instead of building the CVFs. I believe the purpose of the inspection was to gather data on the operation of LHA/LHD type ships as one is being designed in Britain (originally to complement HMS Ocean, but now it seems she will be her replacement around 2018). Buying the two LHAs would have been a false economy as they would be over twenty five years old by the time they entered service and would require a major SLEP refit (costing a small fortune) and as mentioned earlier, their steam turbine plant would make them relativley manpower intensive (ie more expensive to run) than the CVFs.
The Royal Navy phased out it's last steam powered warship (he LPD HMS Fearless) four years ago and currently all frontline warship classes (carriers, destroyers and frigates) are gas turbine powered for 28-30 knots, while amphibious ships and auxilliaries are diesel powered for 18-20 knots. The Tarawa's steam plant was designed to give them a speed in the 20+ knot range and so would be unsuitable for fleet ops as well as being a drain on resources (eg requiring a seperate training program for engineers). The Makin Island and the new LHA(R) class are long overdue developments and will be much welcomed by the fleet when they enter service. The older vessels should still be offered to other friendly nations instead of being sunk, as the limitations I have described above would be less important to some navies and would give them an instant promotion to the first division of Navies (eg Canada, Australia, Japan, even Germany!) but I don't think they would be right for the RN, especially as an alternative to the CVFs.

__________________
"Without Organic Airpower at Sea (Aircraft Carriers), you don't have a Navy, You have a Coast Guard!"

bd popeye

Obi Wan sez;
I agree!..Not to mention the cost of the fuel for these leviathan. I'm guessing a SLEP(Service Life Extension)Progarm refit on a Tarawa class would cost about $1 billion USD. How the USN keeps those steam plants going is a testament to those sailors maintaing those power plants.

What is SLEP?
The Service Life Extension Program (abbreviated SLEP), is a program developed in the 1980s to extend the useful designed service life of the US Navy's aircraft carriers. The concept subsequently expanded to all of the US Navy's life-extension programs for ships, aircraft, and combat systems. SLEP was designed to extend the service life of a CVN 20 years.

SLEP was performed on CV-59, 60, 62, 63 & 64. None of which is still in comission any longer. SLEP for CV-67 was cancelled when half way complete The Philadelphia Shipyard was closed in a BRAC descision. CV-66 was never scheduled for SLEP to my knowledge.

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

sumdud

You mean Yak-36? I think that was only a demostrator. By the way, what happen to the Yak-41? Lack of funding?

As for the Indian carrier aircraft. I guess the Indians will use the Harrier as a backup while they are still training and refining the naval LCA? Afterall, the naval LCA is India's 1st naval aircraft, meaning lots of input and training must be used. The Indians have carrier experience but not for such an aircraft, so I think the ship will be ready first.

I have a doubt about mixing the 2 aircraft though, since the Harrier uses weapons of the West, but the 29K and LCA both use Russian missiles. Wouldn't that kill logistics on the ship?

Also, what is the problem/disadvantage of having a dual hull carrier? A weak center? Seems like a great thing as it gives a lot of capabilities.

__________________

Give us a break. Don't try ranting at SDF.

Gollevainen

Yak-36 was the first VSTOL jet eneterd limited production. It was rather ugly and different aircraft than it's follower, the Yak-38. Yak-36 flew from the flightdeck of Moskva and according to some reports about 15 where build.

Now Yak-38 was first labeled Yak-36 in the eastern military press and this caused confusion among the western intelligense community. Yak-38, Forger according to NATO is completely different with it's VSTOL method than the previous Yak-36. The Forger uses one R-27V-300 turbojet (non-afterburner version of the Floggers engine) cruise engine and two RD-36 lift engines. This arragment is somewhat hazardious and it efficiently unables almoust all sort of external load to be carrierd.
Yak-36 in the otherhand had different engine arragment as it used two R-27 to serve as a cruise and lift engines, bit like in Harrier but only wiht twinengines. From my limited aviation knowlidge the arragment in Yak-36 seems to be far more economical and practical and would have given better operational capabilities.

Now to awnser the question why soviets selected such a illfated and completely unpractical plane?? The biggest reason was that it was availble. During the days of the Kiev class development, soviets where still recovering from the Khrutsevs "revolution in military affairs" policy that effwetly cut down all soviet "big fleet" programs. VSTOL aircrafts was toughted somewhat of "god's gift" to the soviets (as to UK as well as they where running down their conventional carrier force at the same time) who now saw a change to get aircraft in seas in few years. Normaly soviet warplanes goes trough extensive trialperiods and no plane with similar weakness as Yak-38 would have ever entered to IA-PVO or FAs service. So the biggest reason why Yak-38 flow onboard in soviet ships in the first place was purely political coped with the VSTOL hype which toughted that this "revolutionary" innovation would eventually replace conventional aircrafts completely.

Unfortunately the Yak-38 effects to the whole soviet carrier aviation was ironically the opposite that you might think. The poor operational results didn't cause the soviets to whitdraw it as soon as possiple and give away of VSTOL development and go for coventional jets. In fact the effect was quite the opposite and soviets just went for new VSTOL design which eventually led to the Yak-41. As good plane is may be, it's existence was the biggest single reason why soviets didn't field convetional carriers with ctabults. During the 70's there where several proposals for "supercarriers" but they where all effectly dismissed on behalf of more Kievs and ultimately with the "super VSTOL carrier" Admiral Kuznetsov.

But some one asked what happened to the Yak-41?? Well pretty much the same what happened to all soviet weapon programs after 1991....

__________________