Survivalist Forum banner
61 - 72 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
I always thought 3X as many smaller carriers would be better. . .
But then, I'm no Naval warfare expert.
The problem with smaller carriers is that they can't carry as many aircraft and in many cases can't support larger aircraft. When the US activated F-14 squadrons, the older Midway class pig boat carriers were phased out. Also, carriers need large numbers of boats to provide AA and ASW. With carriers, bigger is almost always better. Very important that the Chinese have launched an oil burner. That's right out of WWII. Every time a carrier slows down for an UNREP it becomes a big slow-moving target. Same thing happens if you do lots of flight ops and need different ships to UNREP jet fuel and ordnance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,294 Posts
Buran was actually more functional in design than the American shuttle... which proved itself to be nothing more than an expensive death trap.
Dude…quit talking crap like that.
Honestly….you’re comparing the 2022 model against the 1991-2011 model, so it’s obviously going to be better.

So, since you don’t seem to bother with facts….

They flew 135 successful missions with the shuttles. How many have you done?

It was FAR more than an expensive death trap; it was an extremely successful first effort at a reusable near space vessel that could land on an airfield instead of in the ocean within 300 square miles of the target.

And the Buran wouldn’t even exist if that shuttle hadn’t gotten the job done.

The Buran is building off the lessons learned by the US shuttle, over the last 30 years. If it isn’t more functional, then they’d be stupid to bother with it. If that’s your only reason to puff up and crow….you should check yourself, as it’s pitiful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,294 Posts
The problem with smaller carriers is that they can't carry as many aircraft and in many cases can't support larger aircraft. When the US activated F-14 squadrons, the older Midway class pig boat carriers were phased out. Also, carriers need large numbers of boats to provide AA and ASW. With carriers, bigger is almost always better. Very important that the Chinese have launched an oil burner. That's right out of WWII. Every time a carrier slows down for an UNREP it becomes a big slow-moving target. Same thing happens if you do lots of flight ops and need different ships to UNREP jet fuel and ordnance.
Exactly. You need a given number and type of ships to provide security and support for each carrier, no matter how big or small they are. 3 times the small carriers means 3 times all the other ships. And if you bundle them up and run 3 carriers in a group…well, you may as well have one big one that can do everything in all weather, it is cheaper and more efficient.

Besides…we keep hearing that hyper speed stuff is going to end the carrier…but technology keeps moving. It won’t be long before we come up with effective defenses…and no one has PROVEN the hyper crap can actually do what the media says, even against the tools we have now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
The J-15s are huge which is why they only carry 24 of them according to most reports (ex. J-15 fighter of Chinese Navy aircraft carrier Liaoning conduct live firing and refueling training exercises). I thought they'd announced the J-20 was going to be adapted for use on the new larger carriers since it was already in production while they worked on a carrier based J-31? I'll be the first to say that I'm no expert on any of this and while I obviously follow it to some extent, it's not something I keep close tabs on other than as a curiosity.

I know they have been working on new engines (stealing or buying other country's designs- anybody remember Chinagate? Pepperidge Farm remembers.) The engines seem to be a bigger issue than the aircraft themselves although they need to get the size/weight of their aircraft down.
Adapting a land-based aircraft for use on a carrier is extremely difficult. The system usually goes the other way, in that carrier aircraft are easy to adapt to land bases, although they usually don't have the range and performance of dedicated land-based aircraft Good example is the F-4, which was designed as a carrier-based interceptor and eventually became the front-line fighter for Navy, USMC, and USAF.
Great example is if you compare the landing gear from an F-15 to the same gear from a F-14. The F-35 program is basically three different aircraft that share a common engine and avionics. Cheaper than building three separate aircraft, but not that much cheaper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,720 Posts
Discussion Starter · #66 ·
Very important that the Chinese have launched an oil burner. That's right out of WWII.
The two new British carriers are also oil burners. :rolleyes:

I seems to me that just because the British are your pals, it's OK and modern if they make oil burners but when the Chinese make one, it's "WW2 time".

a land-based aircraft for use on a carrier
It's a carrier based aircraft from the start. A Russian carrier-plane design the Russians gave up on... but the Chinese continued development.

It is not suited for ski-ramp carriers. But it will be EXCELLENT for this flat-top carrier. Because thanks to the catapults it can finally take off with full fuel and full weapons.

It is a Flanker at heart and all Flanker variants have awesome range and awesome weapon loads.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Exactly. You need a given number and type of ships to provide security and support for each carrier, no matter how big or small they are. 3 times the small carriers means 3 times all the other ships. And if you bundle them up and run 3 carriers in a group…well, you may as well have one big one that can do everything in all weather, it is cheaper and more efficient.

Besides…we keep hearing that hyper speed stuff is going to end the carrier…but technology keeps moving. It won’t be long before we come up with effective defenses…and no one has PROVEN the hyper crap can actually do what the media says, even against the tools we have now.
A big problem with the "hyper" designs is that the faster the airspeed, the more thrust you need. The more thrust you need, the more fuel you need. The more fuel you need, the larger the fuel tanks have to be. The larger the fuel tanks, the bigger the aircraft needs to be. The larger the aircraft needs to be, the more thrust you need. And the loop goes on and on.
In general, if aircraft A can fly B number of miles while using C amount of fuel. If you double the airspeed, you need four times as much fuel to fly the same distance. The problem with hypersonics is range. NASA has experimented with boosting a hypersonic vehicle by attaching it to the nose of a conventional vehicle, so the hypersonic part of the flight only happens within a few hundred miles of the target. Problem is that the first thousand miles of the mission takes place at a speed that's easy to track and therefore intercept.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
The two new British carriers are also oil burners. :rolleyes:

I seems to me that just because the British are your pals, it's OK and modern if they make oil burners but when the Chinese make one, it's "WW2 time".


It's a carrier based aircraft from the start. A Russian carrier-plane design the Russians gave up on... but the Chinese continued development.

It is not suited for ski-ramp carriers. But it will be EXCELLENT for this flat-top carrier. Because thanks to the catapults it can finally take off with full fuel and full weapons.

It is a Flanker at heart and all Flanker variants have awesome range and awesome weapon loads.

The Brits aren't my pals. I've never thought that they had much NAVAIR capability. I don't know what the Russians had to do to convert a Flanker to make it useful as a carrier-based aircraft, but usually those kinds of mod end up with an aircraft that's heavy, slow, and doesn't have much range. If I'm wrong I apologize, but giving up on a system usually doesn't presage a successful aircraft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,720 Posts
Discussion Starter · #69 ·
The Brits aren't my pals.
I meant "America".

I don't know what the Russians had to do to convert a Flanker to make it useful as a carrier-based aircraft
The original "J-15"... Su-33...

Compared with the Su-27, the Su-33 has a strengthened undercarriage and structure, folding wings and stabilators, all for carrier operations. The Su-33 has canards, and its wings are larger than the Su-27 for a slower stall speed. The Su-33 has upgraded engines and a twin nose wheel, and is air refuelable.

Following the break-up of the Soviet Union and the subsequent downsizing of the Russian Navy, only 24 aircraft were produced.

Problem is that the first thousand miles of the mission takes place at a speed that's easy to track and therefore intercept.
Not that easy.

Unlike other missiles like the subsonic EXOCET and HARPOON... hypersonic carrier-killers have to use a maneuver the US Airforce calls, "Dippsy Doodle". Not easy to intercept at all.

Take the CM400AKG missile fitted to our navy planes, for example.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,294 Posts
The two new British carriers are also oil burners. :rolleyes:

I seems to me that just because the British are your pals, it's OK and modern if they make oil burners but when the Chinese make one, it's "WW2 time".
It seems to me that no one was even talking about the Brits, but if we had been, we’d have said they were old fashioned as well.🙄

Why do you make up things like that? NO ONE said what you are saying, except you. NO ONE but you. Stop acting like you know things about us, and stop thinking you know how we feel, when you’ve never even left your own front porch. It’s ridiculously ignorant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,720 Posts
Discussion Starter · #72 ·
And never mind the carrier... that is the least of your problems.


They mention Yuan Class submarines.... we are getting 8 of those. Four of them are being made right now in Karachi. These are heavily modified Yuan Class boats called "Hangor". A ninth submarine will be provided free for familiarization practice.

Steel cutting for Hangor Class submarine no.5...
Workwear Asphalt Automotive tire Engineering Hat



 
61 - 72 of 72 Posts
Top