Aircraft Carriers III

TerraN_EmpirE said:

CVF was designed in three concepts. The Jump carrier she became.
A Cat assisted launch arrested landing carrier and a Russian style arrested landing only version.
The choice on form was to be based on what aircraft the British got.
If they didn't like F35B they could buy French Rafael or F35C. If they couldn't get those they in theory could modify Eurofighter to take off Russian style.
If Of course the fact is the moment the F35 program started the US have the British a chair at the table and let them help design the requirements. Especially for F35B. The Marines and RN basically tailored F35B to their wants given that CATBAR wasn't really serious.

Click to expand...

Of the three, a Russian style take off was the worst of the option as outlined in a Public Accounts deliberation record when the project was considered. I have read the document and particularly criticised in that debate was over the plan to navalise the Eurofighter. It was simply technically infeasible. Interestingly all those deficiencies highlighted concerning a Russian style takeoff is exactly what the Chinese is experiencing with the J-15 and Liaoning

Brumby said:

Interestingly all those deficiencies highlighted concerning a Russian style takeoff is exactly what the Chinese is experiencing with the J-15 and Liaoning

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? Thank you!

bd popeye said:

Care to elaborate? Thank you!

Click to expand...

He's talking about the compromise when you take a very capable fighter like the Su-33/J-15 and fly it off that ramp at 1/2 fuel and 1/2 ammo stores, its well below an optimal situation, because honestly as capable as that airframe is off land, having to fly it off that ramp lowers its efficiency and efficacy!

I'm sure Mr. Brumby will add a more informed and learned explanation, but in pilot talk, you're flying that awesome bird with "half a load"??? not efficient, but hey, its way better than nothing, and the Chinese have done a very outstanding job bringing their Naval Aviator's up to speed, with an outstanding safety record, I'm VERY impressed, Very impressed indeed!

Air Force Brat said:

He's talking about the compromise when you take a very capable fighter like the Su-33/J-15 and fly it off that ramp at 1/2 fuel and 1/2 ammo stores, its well below an optimal situation, because honestly as capable as that airframe is off land, having to fly it off that ramp lowers its efficiency and efficacy!

I'm sure Mr. Brumby will add a more informed and learned explanation, but in pilot talk, you're flying that awesome bird with "half a load"??? not efficient, but hey, its way better than nothing, and the Chinese have done a very outstanding job bringing their Naval Aviator's up to speed, with an outstanding safety record, I'm VERY impressed, Very impressed indeed!

Click to expand...

Doing a vertical takeoff reduces the payload even more!
VTOL fighters are a boondoggle.

The Harrier could take like a measly two short range (not even radar guided) air to air missiles or something like that and it didn't even have a radar. That's how crappy its payload capabilities were in VTOL. It was also one of the fighters with worst crash record of its era. It only did as good as it did in the Falklands conflict because of superb piloting skills. The airplane was crap.

The F-35 has a much more powerful and modern engine. But put the same engine on a Russian like configuration with STOBAR and it will have more takeoff weight capacity. Most of the time when the Royal Navy launched a Harrier they would use basically either the equivalent of STOBAR or a mixed approach rather than a pure vertical takeoff so they could, you know, actually carry weapons.

When they wanted to do a vertical landing the standard operating procedure was to dump the weapons overboard before landing. Because it was considered too dangerous to land with live ammo. Because of both vibrations and because the plane would be too heavy. That should be real cost effective too...

gelgoog said:

Doing a vertical takeoff reduces the payload even more!
VTOL fighters are a boondoggle.

Click to expand...

They both have there trade offs.
STOBAR does loose some payload as does VTOL.
But SVTOL can buy back some via ramp and roll where with STOBAR there is no way to.
STOBAR still requires arresting cables and systems which have to be inspected, maintained and replaced. SVTOL land only with the lift system in the aircraft. So inspection and maintenance is built into General servicing.


One of the biggest drivers in the push for Jump jets was actually ground use not naval.

The Public Account document :

Brumby said:

The Public Account document :

View attachment 51899
View attachment 51900
View attachment 51901
View attachment 51902
View attachment 51903

Click to expand...

Thank you Mr. Brumby for an extremely well informed report... its obvious that BAE has no idea what they are talking about,,, I had no idea that the T-45 Goshawk had a ton and a half wing, center fuse, and landing gear beef up to enable it to manage coming aboard ship. It very seriously compromises aircraft performance off the flat deck...

So for those who think the J-10 would be a wonderful carrier aircraft?? here's your answer, and for those who continue to maintain that J-15 operates off the ramp, and back onto the boat at full gross weight, here's a realistic analysis that puts pay to that fanboi "wet dream"...

Air Force Brat said:

Thank you Mr. Brumby for an extremely well informed report... its obvious that BAE has no idea what they are talking about,,, I had no idea that the T-45 Goshawk had a ton and a half wing, center fuse, and landing gear beef up to enable it to manage coming aboard ship. It very seriously compromises aircraft performance off the flat deck...

So for those who think the J-10 would be a wonderful carrier aircraft?? here's your answer, and for those who continue to maintain that J-15 operates off the ramp, and back onto the boat at full gross weight, here's a realistic analysis that puts pay to that fanboi "wet dream"...

Click to expand...

I believe the rule of thumb is generally an add on of approx. 2 tons to navalise.

It is worse for catapult aircraft. A STOBAR does not require as much strengthening of the fuselage. But a catapult increases payload enough it erases that weight creep and then some.

With regards to weight creep it depends. The carrier based Rafale M is only 500 kg (half a ton) heavier than the Air Force version.
The Eurofighter engines are better than the Rafale engines. They have more thrust-to-weight ratio and more thrust overall. In fact they have a thrust-to-weight ratio similar to a 5th generation aircraft's engines. There were also proposals for engines with even more thrust. So I do not think it would have been that problematic even with some weight creep.

With a catapult you can launch an aircraft at max weight, using all weapons hardpoints, without a catapult you will always have reduced weight capacity.

it's been some time (I know I posted it a few times before), and will need to wait some more to see;

"just not to forget Apr 2, 2015
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/aircraft-carriers-ii-closed-to-posting.t3125/page-534#post-334315

a = v*v/(2*S)
so for v=145 knots (number from AFB's post) and S=90 m (the deck length) a is 2.94g

Click to expand...

the assertion (not mine, but it doesn't matter) was the Fords had too short deck in the sense
aircraft would be so heavy (assuming enough ordnance/fuel) they would need rather high takeoff speed, and the shorter the deck, the higher acceleration to achieve that takeoff speed
(the argument was related to suggesting either too low ordnance/fuel, or too high force needed, with obvious drawbacks)"