PLAN Carrier Construction

kwaigonegin said:

I think under very ideal control conditions it is possible to launch an aircraft fully loaded with a ski ramp HOWEVER for all intent and purposes you can't ( I think that's what popeye was refering to).

With a catapult you can launch anytime anywhere w/o so many restrictions.. with ski ramp you can't unless you have that perfect weather, wind speed etc but even then you SHOULDN'T.

You are risking unecessary safety as well. Besides the last thing you want going through a naval aviator's head is him sweatin bullets as he's about to launch because he knows his bird is carrying tons more ordnance than recommended for launch. He may overcorrect, make mistakes or just poop in his pants

Click to expand...

I believe the kuznetsov was designed from the outset to be able to launch fighters with near full payloads under most circumstances reliably. but a catapult mitigates for various dangers, include a sudden engine failure during takeoff, and a lack of headwind hindering a large payload takeoff. Also catapults allow for AEWC to also be launched of course.
Do we seriously think India would have purchased vikramditya if they could only launch their mig-29Ks at a fraction of their payload (considering that A, India is on a shopping spree for the best money can buy, and B, the mig-29K isn't exactly a large aircraft to begin with so any decrement in payload and fuel load will make it almost tactically irrelevant)? Even the latest concept for a new Russian carrier carrying PAK FA is a SKI JUMP concept.

Ask around on any of the Russian aviation boards (I think they would know more bout their own nations aircraft than we do), you'll get a similar answer for the question of kuznetsov.

Yes we don't have any pictures of kuznetsov launching fully loaded fighters. That isn't because it isn't able to. Rather it is because the kuznetsov was launched as the USSR was dissolving and the russian navy since then could barely keep their ship oiled up and fighters maintained, let alone arm them enough to take off with large loads. As liaoning and vikramditya enter service, I expect you guys will finally get the pictures and videos you want of J-15 and Mig-29K taking off with large payloads. Until then, please think critically about what evidence we have that says fighters cannot take off from ski jumps with large payloads, outside of repeated dogma from western military "observers" that have never taken a moment to even calculate whether their conclusion was feasible.

Catapults are still better than ski jumps. No question. Cats can launch large fixed wing AEWC, and larger subsonic high aspect ratio aircraft. But both can launch decently loaded fighters. Under what conditions, and with how much reliability accounting for variance of engine reliability, is another matter. But trying to dichotomise catapults and ski jumps based on fighters and their payload is flawed and reductionist in.

Bltizo said:

I believe the kuznetsov was designed from the outset to be able to launch fighters with near full payloads under most circumstances reliably.

Do we seriously think India would have purchased vikramditya if they could only launch their mig-29Ks at a fraction of their payload (considering that A, India is on a shopping spree for the best money can buy, and B, the mig-29K isn't exactly a large aircraft to begin with so any decrement in payload and fuel load will make it almost tactically irrelevant)?

Click to expand...

Let me say several things.

First, your earlier contention to popeye about critical thinking, which you continue here as if to suggest that he and others either are not doing so, or somehow are blinded by their own view point, is IMHO not only ridiculous, it is (IMHO) demeaning.

1st, I believe popeye and his 20+ years naval experience, many of those years on carriers, gives him a better basis for critical thinking in this area than almost anyone on this board. I put great stock in what he has to say about carriers and their capabilities because of his experience doing it, and developing the feel for what can and cannot be done over all of those years.

2nd, the Kuznetsov was launched in 1985, and commissioned in 1990. She has been operational for over 20 years now. I have taken a keen interest in her from the beginning and I have never seen a fully loaded SU-33 launched, or even positioned on that carrier. Never.

Please post one if you are aware of one.

End the end, the proof is in the pudding Bltizo. As an engineer I learned long ago to listen to the field people and not lean too much on the scholarly education I got or the "feasible theories," when dealing with the real world. Those are good for getting you in the ball park for a design, and particularly in the structural analysis area...but then you have to be flexible to be able to look at reality and then modify accordingly because in the real world the permiatations and iterations in conditions and potential for change and impact are almost endless.

In fact...after 20+ years, the strongest argument against fully laden SU-33s on the Kuznetsov is 20+ years of never seeing one.

Now, the Mig-29K may be different. It is a smaller aircraft that they have upgraded with newer, more powerful engines. We shall see what they are capable of.

The Indians may know full well what they are about...and apparently the Russians (surely for economic reasons too) are following suite and going to replace all of the SU-33s with Mig-29Ks.

In the end, we will know that they not only possibly can do it, but that they are doing it when we see it happening. To date...we haven't.

Now, I hope and trust one day we will...but it simply has not happened yet, and I have to believe if the Russians could do it, they would do it. The argument that they do not have enough funds simply does not hold water (pardon the pun) particularly in light of the large exercise we saw with the Chinese just a month or so ago. That was not a cheap exercise in the least. The fact is, they have enough money for those kinds of exercises if they want, and with the shifts they are talking about in tactics for their carriers and naval aviation, they have the reason to do it too.

As with everything else...in the end, time will tell.

I certainly did not mean to offend Popeye, and I hold both your opinion and his in high regard.

But as of this point the only argument against all the points I made is that we haven't "seen" kuznetsov launching fully loaded Su-33s. While I can understand that sometimes we need to see to believe, using mere visual evidence while rejecting the "theoretical" without further investigation, on such a potentially influential military subject and can completely change the view of how competent the world's STOBAR carriers are.

Jeff, you said youve followed russian naval aviation with great interest. May I venture to ask, have you posited the ski jump question to Russian military followers equivalent to yourself? Because in western military readings I have found nothing aside from the dismissive caveat of "ski jumps = no full load" where as a variety of historical Russian publications say otherwise.

In regard to the mig-29K, while it is a lighter aircraft than Su-33 it also has a proportionally smaller thrust.

-----

I agree, let time tell. But in regards to future comparisons of STOBAR carriers, I think acknowledging the alternative thought should also be recognised, which is where my qualm lies.

Bltizo said:

I certainly did not mean to offend Popeye, and I hold both your opinion and his in high regard.

But as of this point the only argument against all the points I made is that we haven't "seen" kuznetsov launching fully loaded Su-33s.

Click to expand...

Well, I do not think at all that that is the only argument. It is just the most telling.

Bltizo said:

While I can understand that sometimes we need to see to believe, using mere visual evidence while rejecting the "theoretical" without further investigation, on such a potentially influential military subject and can completely change the view of how competent the world's STOBAR carriers are.

Jeff, you said youve followed russian naval aviation with great interest. May I venture to ask, have you posited the ski jump question to Russian military followers equivalent to yourself? Because in western military readings I have found nothing aside from the dismissive caveat of "ski jumps = no full load" where as a variety of historical Russian publications say otherwise.

Click to expand...

Well I have never stated that SU-33s could not launch with some decent loads.

"Full" loads is a subjective term because it varies depending on the mission. For example, a full AAW load is far different than a full A2G load out. But the fact is, although we have seen some AAW load outs, I do not believe I have ever even seen a "full" AAW load out on an SU-33 launching from the Kuznetsov.

Much less a full bomb, or anti-shipping, or ground strike load out.

Fuel load also plays in here, and even with what we have seen we do not know what fuel load these are launched with and what, if any trade-offs are made. And...the Russians aren't saying.

This video, is the most heavily laden example of a SU-33 launch I have ever seen, with six missiles:


Far and away, when they show an armed load out at all, most pictures show 2-4 AAW missiles.

Bltizo said:

I agree, let time tell. But in regards to future comparisons of STOBAR carriers, I think acknowledging the alternative thought should also be recognised, which is where my qualm lies.

Click to expand...

No problem. I am open minded about it and look for the load outs...and believe some decent loadouts are possible.

I just have never seen any "full" load out, and I am not sure what fuel load they carry when launched.

Hi, to all the experts out there, as we know we have not seen a Su-33 launched in full load out of a ski jump carrier, however, if the... say, the J-15 but armed with more powerful engines (like the WS-15 when that engines are available). Could the aircraft then be launched from the Ski Jump carrier with full load?

I know it was not done now, but how about theoretically?

rhino123 said:

Hi, to all the experts out there, as we know we have not seen a Su-33 launched in full load out of a ski jump carrier, however, if the... say, the J-15 but armed with more powerful engines (like the WS-15 when that engines are available). Could the aircraft then be launched from the Ski Jump carrier with full load?

I know it was not done now, but how about theoretically?

Click to expand...

If the "more powerful" engine means a heavier engine, then it's still to be seen how much a performance boost it'd bring. Also, it has to take account to fuel efficiency, as well as real thrust output at high humidity high saline environment.

Also, as long as it still using ski jump, aircraft's effective operational range (or flight time, to put it the other way) will suffer, for J-15 to have effective payload with usable operational range, mid-air refueling will be a must.

kwaigonegin said:

I think under very ideal control conditions it is possible to launch an aircraft fully loaded with a ski ramp HOWEVER for all intent and purposes you can't ( I think that's what popeye was refering to).

With a catapult you can launch anytime anywhere w/o so many restrictions.. with ski ramp you can't unless you have that perfect weather, wind speed etc but even then you SHOULDN'T.

You are risking unecessary safety as well. Besides the last thing you want going through a naval aviator's head is him sweatin bullets as he's about to launch because he knows his bird is carrying tons more ordnance than recommended for launch. He may overcorrect, make mistakes or just poop in his pants

Click to expand...

The worst aspect of trying to assume ideal conditions is that you can't plan around them. Nevermind all the other risks. What good is depending on capabilities that only exist in a fraction of a percent of the situation?

One more reason why we haven't seen any photos of heavy loaded Su-33 on Kuznetsov could be the fact that the soviets/russians have a different doctrine in carrier ops.
They did not intend to launch heavy strike fighters for long range missions - the mission of the kuznetsov was to defend the fleet against airstrikes.
Attacks against the enemy fleet are the mission of the cruisers, destroyers and submarines armed with long range supersonic anti-ship missiles.

So, the reason why the russians never tried to launch Su-33 with heavy air to ground ordonance may be that they never wanted to launch a fighter in such a configuration!?

Is it possible to refuel the J-15 by buddy-to-buddy refuiling?
So may be that it is possible to launch a fully loaded J-15 from the back position with low fuel und refuil it after take-off?

Sure, it is impossible to launch a AEW aircraft like E-2 - you have to use Helos instead with all there limitations!
And even it is possible to launch a fully loaded J-15 strike fighter, it is only possible under some circumstances:
Only from the back position - so you have only one take-off-track that you can use!
May be the carrier has to turn into the wind and speed up to launch the strike fighters?

Limitations which you don't have with cats!
So again, i think PLAN should move to real CATOBAR as soon as possible, as soon there cats are available.
If there are available in a time frame right for the second carrier, they should build this one as CATOBAR!
If the cats are not available within next 5 years, it makes sense to build a second STOBAR before switching to CATOBAR.
But a mixture like the Ulyanovsk still doesn't make sense to me!

Most people think that the PLAN will follow USN in the size and configuration of their carriers. However USN developed its 100k carriers when it was the only navy with offensive capabilities and with one large defensive navy on the other side. This has not yet changed and even now the ability of the US to interfere in other countries is decreasing, see Syria. PLAN will not live in the permissive environment USN experienced and its carriers will have to be developed with that very different environment in mind. It might mean that two smaller carriers might be worth more than a single 100k carrier while costing little more especially for a navy with only a small number of carriers. Those smaller carriers must use all techniques available, still to be developed perhaps, to make optimal use of their flight deck and personnel. The number of possible configurations is large and PLAN will certainly look at ways to reduce the cost of providing the air power its needs. Think also of the cost of infrastructure necessary for building the carriers.

Btw theoretically Kuznetsov is able to launch Su-33's at MTOW.

PLAN definitely have different requirements than USN. Really don't see the need for PLAN to have a carrier anywhere to the size that the USN has. Liaoning's size is basically adequate for what the PLAN needs, and maximum tonnage until it becomes a waste of money and resources shouldn't be more than 75,000t. 3-5 60-65,000t for PLAN is more than adequate for protection China's interest and defending the country. And if ever required offensive power is more then sufficient.

Not saying build Liaoning's perfect but more less is sufficient after slight redesign. Elevator resizing & reduce island size.