RIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 773 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7772 times:
I'm confused by the markings on the aircraft. Never seen anything like that before. Don't the Chinese use a red star in the middle with two red bars on each side, or is this a Navy version?
BladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 386 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7723 times:
Quoting RIXrat (Reply 2): I'm confused by the markings on the aircraft. Never seen anything like that before. Don't the Chinese use a red star in the middle with two red bars on each side, or is this a Navy version?
Those are test markings, usually for cameras so they know what to aim at.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6150 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7526 times:
I realize that is a test bird - but that is the ugliest color I've ever seen on an aircraft.
alberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2685 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7439 times:
This is what the aircraft will look like when in service:
BTW Am I the only one shocked at how fast the development of their carrier program is moving along ? To think that India has spent far more money and in the end only getting a used refurbished carrier...
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6150 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7411 times:
Quoting alberchico (Reply 6): Am I the only one shocked at how fast the development of their carrier program is moving along ?
Well, the program is almost 40 years along its development track.
Also remember that China has acquired three other aircraft carriers - to study even though some eventually were converted for other roles. They have also spend a lot of money buying and studying aircraft designs from other nations.
This carrier and program are a continuation of the development work done by the Soviets. The basic hull and design are the Soviet carrier Varyag - refurbished, completed and updated.
We will see their first locally 'designed' carrier no sooner than 2015.
What we are seeing now is the implementation of decades of work. And they are not at the end of the program.
Quoting alberchico (Reply 6): To think that India has spent far more money and in the end only getting a used refurbished carrier...
While we know some of the numbers about the India program, we don't know the numbers about the China program.
I would believe that China has thrown more money at the problem than India.
But China's system would make the total amount of money to be used more efficiently in my opinion.
Acheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1418 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7208 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 7): This carrier and program are a continuation of the development work done by the Soviets.
Considering how the Chinese seem to be aiming at copying the american style CVBG's and the fact that the Soviets used a completely different doctrine and employment for their "carriers", that seems unlikely.
The only thing this thing has in common with the soviets after all the modifications the chinese did to it, its the basic hull design and nothing else.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10469 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (5 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7081 times:
Quoting Acheron (Reply 8): The only thing this thing has in common with the soviets after all the modifications the chinese did to it, its the basic hull design and nothing else.
Well that, and both are in various target identification databases maintained by the USAF and USN.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (5 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6796 times:
Quoting RIXrat (Reply 2): I'm confused by the markings on the aircraft. Never seen anything like that before.
Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 3): Those are test markings, usually for cameras so they know what to aim at.
They are indeed test markings, but they are there to provide a known contrast and focusing point on the aircraft for the cameras, not just for something to aim at
Take a look at the F-35 JDAM test drop photo below and you can see similar markings all over the place for the same reason.
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 710 posts, RR: 11 Reply 11, posted (5 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6775 times:
Quoting alberchico (Reply 6): BTW Am I the only one shocked at how fast the development of their carrier program is moving along ? To think that India has spent far more money and in the end only getting a used refurbished carrier...
Actually I was thinking I was quite surprised it had all taken this long since I have been hearing about it being imminent since the mid 1990's in some fashion. It will be really interesting to see how quickly they progress to an actual combat capability from here. In a lot of respects what they have done so far is the easy part. There is a lot yet to learn as you start having weapons around and attempting high tempo operations on a crowded deck with worn out crew members.
I also think STOBAR is a complete waste of time as a concept. It gains you none of the advantages of either CATOBAR or STOVL ships. There will be more learning to be done (more than they have to this point in my view) to go from a show pony to an operationally useful combat unit.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 12, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6640 times:
A side note, it was reported the that head of the aircraft company that built the plane died of heart attack during these tests. If I can find the article, I'll post the link.
fsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 229 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6474 times:
Are there any disadvantages to using the jump jet approach as opposed to the steam catapult? As an armchair admiral, I would guess it limits the aircraft weights/payload that can be shot off the front of the carrier.
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 710 posts, RR: 11 Reply 14, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6464 times:
Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 13): Are there any disadvantages to using the jump jet approach as opposed to the steam catapult? As an armchair admiral, I would guess it limits the aircraft weights/payload that can be shot off the front of the carrier.
The biggest problem is that it really only works for high thrust aircraft. You can make it work for fighters. You can use it to drastically improve the take off performance of VSTOL aircraft. What you generally can't do is make it get say an E-2 airborne. I doubt one could ever ramp launch an A-6 or an S-3 either. The biggest downside of this (other than not taking E-2/C-2 type aircraft which you might be able to replace with a V-22 type though I have my doubts) will be in the field of launching long endurance UAV's from your carriers. UAV's get their endurance generally by having large wing area and pretty low power to weight ratios. Most have pretty long and thin wings. They are just not suited for that kind of operation. That is a big benefit to EMALS for the USN is that it can smoothly accelerate more fragile drones allowing them to have lighter structures and experience less stress.
The load limit question is far more complicated and the best answer one can give is that it depends on the aircraft, deck length and jump angle.
mffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 908 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6430 times:
Quoting Acheron (Reply 8): Considering how the Chinese seem to be aiming at copying the american style CVBG's and the fact that the Soviets used a completely different doctrine and employment for their "carriers", that seems unlikely.
The only thing this thing has in common with the soviets after all the modifications the chinese did to it, its the basic hull design and nothing else.
Lets hope they did a better job on the carrier then with their Submarine's? If that is a model of how they improve on Russian tech... Then nobody needs to worry about the Chinese for the next couple of decades.
I remember speaking with a U.S. Navy sonar guy several years ago... He said the newest Chinese boomer sounded like a garbage truck dragging strings of cans (might as well have put a "Just Married" sign on the back of it!).
BarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2050 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6317 times:
Quoting alberchico (Reply 6): To think that India has spent far more money and in the end only getting a used refurbished carrier...
There's more happening behind the scenes on the Vikramaditya deal that is not publicly stated; the cash transfers also serve as means to pay for the technology transfer and design support from the Russians on the SSBN program, whose collaborative effort is not publicly disclosed as a matter of official policy. Further, keep in mind that a second carrier is being built locally, and has floated out. A third carrier has been more or less finalized, with construction soon to begin.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5291 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6215 times:
Quoting BarfBag (Reply 16): There's more happening behind the scenes on the Vikramaditya deal that is not publicly stated
I've heard lots of stories about this project from Russian friends, it's hundreds of millions over budget mainly because it's making the yard directors and owners very rich.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6123 times:
The PLAN CV has about the same displacement of the RN's new CVFs. However Liaoning is about 74' longer and slightly (about 3') shorter on her extreme waterline beam. But the Queen Elizabeth class CVFs carry more aircraft.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5640 times:
Quoting mffoda (Reply 1): I like the 2nd pic with the movie theater barricades. Tickets please!
And the last pic is very Top Gun... Why are there 2 guys pointing?? What if one them points the other direction?
You know what they say, imitation is the highest form of flattery. Looking at pictures and watching video of operation on the Liaoning it is obvious that the Chinese Navy has been studying USN carrier ops. Probably on YouTube. Yellow shirts directing, green shirts running out to the plane after it has landed, final checkers although they should be wearing black and white checkerboard float coats.
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 788 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5385 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 20): You know what they say, imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Its not imitating... it is looking around at what works, and adapting it to their use. Why reinvent what someone already perfected?
The Chinese never had a real concept of 'intellectual property', not cause they 'steal' other peoples 'ideas'... their society never had the concept of owning and idea.
And who is to say that their own domestically built and designed carriers are not going to be 'inspired' by current USN carriers? The Liaoning is just practice for the new ships which will operate like a Nimitz.
flyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1285 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5343 times:
Quoting Oroka (Reply 21): The Chinese never had a real concept of 'intellectual property', not cause they 'steal' other peoples 'ideas'... their society never had the concept of owning and idea.
Imitation is a virtue in Chinese society. Chinese pupils strive to imitate their teachers. If something is seen as superior, it is copied quickly. Since very long times, the Chinese were very willing to copy foreign ship designs, learn from foreign craftsmen and builders.
If there is something that hasn't been copied, it's the philosophy. They never forgot confucianism in favor of any other world view. Perhaps this is the backbone that has allowed all the technological advances, a steadfastness in their mindset.
David
Even a letdown, if it is thoroughly and final, is a step forward.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5256 times:
Quoting Oroka (Reply 21): Its not imitating... it is looking around at what works, and adapting it to their use. Why reinvent what someone already perfected?
Acheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1418 posts, RR: 1 Reply 27, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5354 times:
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 11): I also think STOBAR is a complete waste of time as a concept.
Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 13): Are there any disadvantages to using the jump jet approach as opposed to the steam catapult?
It's all relative. The soviets decided against the steam catapults for the same reason they don't cover their decks with nonskid materials: the weather up north, where everything freezes.
Quoting Oroka (Reply 25): Still cheaper to steal the info than spend countless billion dollars making it work.
Weirdly enough, they can't still make it work even when outright copying things, as show by the development of the J-11B, WS-10 engine, among other things.
Also, you don't see any other nation going out of its way to copy other as you see with the chinese, even countries with smaller R&D base.
While the US has a great history of military innovation, things would look totally different if we weren't up to some forthright stealing and imitation.
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 31, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4773 times:
Oh wow........I stand corrected ! (Thanks GP) (but I'm still trying to figure out how to tell a Su-33 from a Su-27 ?
(They all tend to look alike to me)..........especially when they're painted yellow & blue, (with bulls eyes painted on them !)
Quoting mffoda (Reply 1): I like the 2nd pic with the movie theater barricades. Tickets please!
Lol ! Yeah, I noticed that...........and it looks like they forgot to put the "strap" between the little chrome plated stanchions; another thing...........I wonder who they're trying to "keep out" ? (usually not that many "rubberneckers" hanging around on flight decks)
[quote=kanban,reply=12]A side note, it was reported the that head of the aircraft company that built the plane died of heart attack during these tests.
Lol............I'm thinking, they might lose an occasional pilot too, when those guys come screaming down that flight deck, "balls to the wall", and then hit that "ski jump" ! (probably be a few "brown trouser moments" there)...........
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 33, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4674 times:
Quoting Geezer (Reply 32): but I'm still trying to figure out how to tell a Su-33 from a Su-27 ?
(They all tend to look alike to me
Su-33s are outfitted for carrier ops, so folding wings would be your first, best indicator. The wing's also longer on it than a standard Flanker, it sports a twin nose wheel, and the "stinger" portion of the tail is shorter than on an Su-27 and also has the arresting hook mounted underneath it.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Acheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1418 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4630 times:
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 33): Su-33s are outfitted for carrier ops, so folding wings would be your first, best indicator. The wing's also longer on it than a standard Flanker, it sports a twin nose wheel, and the "stinger" portion of the tail is shorter than on an Su-27 and also has the arresting hook mounted underneath it.
You'd think the canards would be the most obvious giveaway
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 35, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4602 times:
Quoting Acheron (Reply 34):
You'd think the canards would be the most obvious giveaway
Doh! Good call - forgot to highlight those too!
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1421 posts, RR: 1 Reply 36, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4492 times:
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 33): Su-33s are outfitted for carrier ops, so folding wings would be your first, best indicator. The wing's also longer on it than a standard Flanker, it sports a twin nose wheel, and the "stinger" portion of the tail is shorter than on an Su-27 and also has the arresting hook mounted underneath it.
So the Su-33 is just the "navalized" version of the Su-27......with an arresting hook, beefed up structure, folding wings, and canards ? Thanks GP and Acheron..........I just learned something I didn't realize ! To tell the truth, I wasn't even aware that the Russians had any folding wing A/C OR tail hooks.
You know, everyone has been thinking of all the reasons it will take the Chinese a LONG time to develop first rate carrier ops;
it got me to thinking.........I have a niece who's husband retired after 30 some years from the Navy; because he was a NW, the only billets for sea duty for his rate was carriers, so he served on Forrestal, Big "E", and a couple of more that I forget; I used to hear a lot about all of the "mishaps", fires, crashes, you name it; and from my own experience, I know how safety conscious most of the Navy is, yet disasters just seem to keep happening; It's a dangerous environment, in spite of all of the "old salts" who know all of this stuff, and know how to do things safely, any Navy will ALWAYS have new guys coming in, and all it takes is for ONE guy to make just ONE small slip, and you have a disaster like happened on Nimitz, killed dozens, and damn near lost the ship. So regardless of how good their carrier is, how good their pilots are, it will take a LONG time to learn how to "avoid" all of the potential disasters; ( You can steal "ideas", "designs", "plans" etc. but you can never steal safe operational experience. You can be a GREAT pilot, but the only way you will ever have the experience and "know how" of a 9,000 hr veteran, is to sit in that seat and "do it" for 9,000 hours ! (IMHO that is)
Quoting Acheron (Reply 34): You'd think the canards would be the most obvious giveaway
I hadn't thought of them either; going back and looking at the photos again, only two of the shots show the canards clearly.
One other thing...........I'll bet if you were to ask 500 U.S. Naval aviators "what they think about carriers with "ski-jumps", you'd get about 500 "are you kidding me" responses ! It's gonna be VERY interesting when "Ford" gets commissioned, watching the new technology for shooting planes off the deck !
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13337 posts, RR: 64 Reply 37, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4486 times:
The carrier is defintely a game changer in contested waters like the South China Sea and worries the navies of the smaller countries, which often have, like e.g. the Philippines, to rely on obsolety warships to defend their territories.
Three weeks ago the ASEAN summit failed to produce a common line against China´s ambitions, mainly because Cambodia´s president refused to join the other ASEAN countries. Cambodia´s president Hun Sen is a former member of the ultra-Maoist Khmer Rouge and currently Cambodia is China´s closest ally in the region, receiving billions of $$$.
Burma (Myanmar), which was previously China´s closest supporter, has turned away from China and democatized itself.
Apparently one reason was that the population noticed more and more that China wasn´t really interested in a partner, but just a source for cheap raw materials and a dumping ground for her products.
Two weeks ago China p#ssed off most countries in the region by printing a map in it´s new passports, which showed Chinese territory including all territorial claims. This also alienated India, because China claims two Indian provinces. Also India is involved in a cooperation with Vietnam to explore oil fields off the southern coast on Vietnam, which China also claims. India has announced to base warships in the South China Sea to protect her interests.
Singapore is worried about an announcement by China that the Chinese navy can stop any ship passing through the seas China claims (practically the whole South China Sea), therefore disrupting the traffic to their huge cobtainedr port.
So now there is an alliance forming of India, Singapore, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Japan and the US (who would have thought so 40 years ago?), plus possibly South Korea.
China sees this as an attempt by the US to encircle it, but so far has refused any involvement of the UN (which has produced a map, in which the resources of the South China Sea would be shared among the bordering countries) or other multinational bodies and especially the US. Instead China insists on bilateral negotiations with the other countries, knowing very well that China´s military dwarfs any of the other smasller countries.
Hardliners in the Chinese miltary have already threatened with war as well.
I think the next hot spot will be inj South East Asia. IMO at the moment it is only the presence of the US Navy, which keeps China at bay. I wonder though if the presence of one or two American attack submarines in the contested waters could effectively neutralize the threat imposed by the new Chinese aircraft carrier.
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 38, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4448 times:
Quoting Geezer (Reply 36):
So the Su-33 is just the "navalized" version of the Su-27......with an arresting hook, beefed up structure, folding wings, and canards ? Thanks GP and Acheron..........I just learned something I didn't realize ! To tell the truth, I wasn't even aware that the Russians had any folding wing A/C OR tail hooks.
Pretty much. To be accurate, the aircraft pictured is actually a Shenyang J-15 (ie a Chinese copy of the Su-33). But yes, the Russians do have folding wing/tailhook equipped aircraft for both their current carrier, the Kuznetsov, as well as the aircraft carrier that was in development by the Soviets at the time the Union dissolved, the Ulyanovsk. Navalized versions of the Su-25, the MiG-29 (the MiG-29K) exist as well as an AEW aircraft (the Yak-44) which never got past the full-scale mockup phase as development. The MIg-29K, in addition to being used by the Russians, will also be used by the Indians assuming Vikramaditya (the ex-Gorshkov) ever actually enters service for them
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Quote: Burma, Laos, Northern India, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Ryukyu Islands, 300 islands of the South China, East China and Yellow Seas, as well as Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Taiwan, South Kazakhstan, the Afghan province of Bahdashan, Transbaikalia and the Far East to South Okhotsk - here is the complete list of areas that, according to Zedong, were lost due to the fall of the Qing empire. All of these countries and regions combined exceed the territory of modern China. Not all complaints are voiced by the Government of China in the international arena, but within the country the imperialist ambitions have not been lost, but rather, are actively promoted.
Aar90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 40, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3770 times:
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 14): The biggest problem is that it really only works for high thrust aircraft. You can make it work for fighters. You can use it to drastically improve the take off performance of VSTOL aircraft. What you generally can't do is make it get say an E-2 airborne.
Not sure what your point in the above is. E-2C can "deck launch" (non-catapult) from current CVN angle decks. It is just much safer for all concerned to catapult launch the "Hummer" --besides being easier on flight deck operations. The ramp would make very little difference to an E-2C style "deck launch."
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
justinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3725 times:
Quoting Aar90 (Reply 40): Not sure what your point in the above is. E-2C can "deck launch" (non-catapult) from current CVN angle decks. It is just much safer for all concerned to catapult launch the "Hummer" --besides being easier on flight deck operations. The ramp would make very little difference to an E-2C style "deck launch."
It's true. Actually the turboprop can take off with engine off, considering the wind over deck .The Chinese vision E-2, JZY-1, is ready to test on CV16 Liaoning. It's based on Y-7, a modification of An-24. Here is one picture of JZY-1.
StudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3584 times:
Quoting Geezer (Reply 36): because he was a NW, the only billets for sea duty for his rate was carriers
During my 20 years in the NAVY- I never heard of that rate- what does an 'NW' do?
Maybe it's an old one- you did mention the Forrestal...
But she was still around when I first joined, so that is weird...?
Quoting Geezer (Reply 36): and you have a disaster like happened on Nimitz
Wait, what happened on the Nimitz?
StudeDave
Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 43, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3558 times:
Quoting SSTeve (Reply 28): While the US has a great history of military innovation, things would look totally different if we weren't up to some forthright stealing and imitation.
True enough. The angled deck, steam catapult and the optical landing system all British inventions.. Although I think the USN borrowed them.
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 37): Two weeks ago China p#ssed off most countries in the region by printing a map in it´s new passports, which showed Chinese territory including all territorial claims. This also alienated India, because China claims two Indian provinces
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 37): IMO at the moment it is only the presence of the US Navy, which keeps China at bay.
Someone recently said the US government should send a thank you note to the Chinese government over it's handling of it's neighbors. I don'k think the warming of relations between the US and India or the US Navy making port calls to Vietnam is just a coincidence.
Quoting Aar90 (Reply 40): Not sure what your point in the above is. E-2C can "deck launch" (non-catapult) from current CVN angle decks. It is just much safer for all concerned to catapult launch the "Hummer" --besides being easier on flight deck operations. The ramp would make very little difference to an E-2C style "deck launch."
Wonder what the difference is in MTW between a ski jump launch and a cat launch.
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 710 posts, RR: 11 Reply 44, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3555 times:
Quoting Aar90 (Reply 40):
Not sure what your point in the above is. E-2C can "deck launch" (non-catapult) from current CVN angle decks. It is just much safer for all concerned to catapult launch the "Hummer" --besides being easier on flight deck operations. The ramp would make very little difference to an E-2C style "deck launch."
There is a huge difference between can and should. As you say with enough deck you can get something like that airborne. The question is with what amount of fuel can you do it. I agree you could do it with the right wind, ship speed, take-off weight and clearing enough deck space for the run up. But the larger point is that it is pretty sub-optimal and those problems would still exist for aircraft types that were similar to the A-6 or S-3 if those type of capabilities were deemed necessary again. Catapults give you a much wider array of aircraft options and operational flexibility.
In regards to the E-2 in particular I believe the phrase used by Northrup was along the lines of "yes but at a somewhat reduced capability level". It was really explored for the Indian Navy if I remember right and I recall there being rumors of endurance in low-wind conditions dropping from around 5 hours to more like 1-2 hours because of MTOW limits imposed by that operational model. So yes it can be done. But it would not be really smart.
Aar90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 46, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3413 times:
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 44): In regards to the E-2 in particular I believe the phrase used by Northrup was along the lines of "yes but at a somewhat reduced capability level". It was really explored for the Indian Navy if I remember right and I recall there being rumors of endurance in low-wind conditions dropping from around 5 hours to more like 1-2 hours because of MTOW limits imposed by that operational model. So yes it can be done. But it would not be really smart.
Not sure who you are citing, but I was manning up a MTOW E-2C (52,500#) for a deck launch when the injured person I was to carry off to a hospital... "expired." There is no MTOW limit for an E-2C/D performing a deck launch on the angle deck of any USN CVN. The primary downside is the danger. There is a considerable time period during the deck run where the plane can no longer stop on the available "runway" (V1) and has not yet reached flying speed (V2). During that time period if an engine failed the plane would not survive the ditching.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Sponsor Message: 
From China, joined Aug 2012, 306 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 908 posts, 
From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1418 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, 
From India, joined Mar 2001, 2050 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5291 posts, 
Yellow shirts directing, green shirts running out to the plane after it has landed, final checkers although they should be wearing black and white checkerboard float coats.
From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 788 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1285 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13337 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
