PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

[Air Force Brat]

Not practical on a CV. You may have to clear the deck. And with that ski ramp room is at a premium. Rockets not in a pod/launcher are not the safest ..

You'd need a magazine below decks just to store those rockets. They do take up space. That magazine would take up storage for other air launched weapons.

The US called then JATO bottles.

JATO = Jet Assisted Take Off.

Not sure if the Blue Angels C-130, Fat Albert, does the JATO launch. Here's a video of a JATO launch.

[video=youtube;eRM1Ng1kmlk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRM1Ng1kmlk[/video]

It's just not practical aboard a ship.

The JATO bottles were routinely used in Fat Alberts routine, it is awesome to watch, but they have been eliminated due to expense and a limited supply of bottles, However, if you hung a couple, on a couple of J-15s you would have a way to get them airborne with a full combat load out! Yes they are a little hot to handle, but nothing the USN should be afraid of?????? actually Albert is a Marine bird!

The rearmost two centerline hard points should suffice! Think Hosea Feliciano's "Come on Baby Light MY FIRE!"

 

[chuck731]

Jato rockets can't be attached to just any centerline hard point. The hard point must be designed to transmit the thrust of the rocket to the fuselage along a line that passes through the aircraft's center of mass.

In other words, if the plane wasn't designed for JATO, you can't use JATO on it.

C-130 was designed for JATO use as part of its original 1950s design requirement for rough field and soft field STOL.

There is no evidence su-27 family is designed for the same thing. F-15, su-27's American counterpart, is explicitly not design for JATO. This was made clear in late 1970s in response to hecklers from the peanut gallery who argued all American fighters needs to be able to take off from landing strips cratered by soviet preemptive strikes.

 

[Equation]

Jato rockets can't be attached to just any centerline hard point. The hard point must be designed to transmit the thrust of the rocket to the fuselage along a line that passes through the aircraft's center of mass.

In other words, if the plane wasn't designed for JATO, you can't use JATO on it.

C-130 was designed for JATO use as part of its original 1950s design requirement for rough field and soft field STOL.

There is no evidence su-27 family is designed for the same thing. F-15, su-27's American counterpart, is explicitly not design for JATO. This was made clear in late 1970s in response to hecklers from the peanut gallery who argued all American fighters needs to be able to take off from landing strips cratered by soviet preemptive strikes.

Would a lower power JATO make any difference?

 

[Air Force Brat]

Jato rockets can't be attached to just any centerline hard point. The hard point must be designed to transmit the thrust of the rocket to the fuselage along a line that passes through the aircraft's center of mass.

In other words, if the plane wasn't designed for JATO, you can't use JATO on it.

C-130 was designed for JATO use as part of its original 1950s design requirement for rough field and soft field STOL.

There is no evidence su-27 family is designed for the same thing. F-15, su-27's American counterpart, is explicitly not design for JATO. This was made clear in late 1970s in response to hecklers from the peanut gallery who argued all American fighters needs to be able to take off from landing strips cratered by soviet preemptive strikes.

Actually Chuck, my Dad flew the C-130A, the C-130B, the C-130E, and the MC-130E Combat Talon 1, the 130 had four bottles per side on a panel on the aft fuselage, they are triggered as the aircraft accelerates through rotation in order to maintain aircraft control, and minimize stress on the aft fuselage, they are quite effective. IMHO it would be about 90% probable that the J-15 would respond quite nicely with a pair of bottles on the aft fuselage hard points designed for air to air missles as the fuselage is hardened to support the weight and the "thrust vector" would be very close to the main engines on the centerline. The J-15 has a very robust structure, as well as more than ample control authority to maintain directional control, while I was of course speaking "tongue in cheek" it is most certainly do-able, with a little "engineering".

As you well know the B-36, A-26, C-123, and as well as the C-119 were retro-fit with turbo-jet engines on pylons on the wings for the same purpose to, so really its no biggie for any engineer worth his salt, but I would remind you that you have yet to provide us with a source on your "agility vs maneuverability" theorem???? how bout it??

 

[Air Force Brat]

Would a lower power JATO make any difference?

You would of course have to "tailor" the thrust of the RATO bottles to operate within the design parameters of the aircraft in question, it would give you a lot more flexibility on load-out, but as with any other design changes, there are "trade-offs", they are in fact dangerous, and just as the C-130, they would only be practical when they were "essential" to the mission??? brat

 

[kwaigonegin]

Guys, while very interesting why are we spending so much time talking about JATO etc? I think the odds of it being mounted on a J-15 for Liaoning is pretty much ZERO, NADA ZILTCH.

 

[bd popeye]

DO NOT quote or respond to this post!!

Guys, while very interesting why are we spending so much time talking about JATO etc? I think the odds of it being mounted on a J-15 for Liaoning is pretty much ZERO, NADA ZILTCH.

EXACTLY!

We are all guilty.. So let's ..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

bd popeye super moderator​

 

[bd popeye]

We know the ship went to sea recently. However we've seen no new media releases or phptos of what may be happening aboard CV-16.

If anyone has any NEW news,photos or videos please postI I can't find any..

Please do not re-post the same crusty photos we've been looking at the last three years.. Thank you!

 

[Franklin]

I suppose the images of those few J-15's landing and taking off from the Liaoning is getting old even for the Chinese media. But i also think its better this way, as much as i appreciate the photos and videos from the Liaoning over the past year. But in my view these sea trials shouldn't be about PR and show it should be about serious training and all those journalists and interviewers on board are a distraction. They should just let the crew get on with their job. I hope after she returns we could get to see some videos and pictures of night ops. That's really the thing we haven't seen yet. It would be a new milestone and another step towards mastering all the skills needed for operating a carrier.

 

[bd popeye]

I suppose the images of those few J-15's landing and taking off from the Liaoning is getting old even for the Chinese media. But i also think its better this way, as much as i appreciate the photos and videos from the Liaoning over the past year. But in my view these sea trials shouldn't be about PR and show it should be about serious training and all those journalists and interviewers on board are a distraction. They should just let the crew get on with their job. I hope after she returns we could get to see some videos and pictures of night ops. That's really the thing we haven't seen yet. It would be a new milestone and another step towards mastering all the skills needed for operating a carrier.

Franklin I agree. The media aboard a ship is sometimes a nuisance. Been there done that!

However.. why can't the PLAN use it's own photographers similar to other armed services of the World? Like the USN for instance...What's the problem? I'm assuming the PLAN is holding it's cards close to their chest.

Well as per usual we have to wait and see.