J-15 'Flying Shark' LIAONING Carrier Arrest Ski Jump Fly Ops

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post20 Feb 2016, 04:50

It's only designed to operate 24 J-15's, pretty amazing when you think about just how much more capability the Nimitz class has over the Russian (China) design. It can operate 3 times there fixed wing capacity, and we have 10 of the freakin things :shock:
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post21 Feb 2016, 01:36

spazsinbad wrote:
'tincansailor' said above: ...Additionally you only need tanker support for the ships escorts....
&
...Do they have tankers? Even buddy pack refueling? With low take off weight I doubt it. (Glad to hear that with the V-22 Osprey getting a tanker variant the USN will have a dedicated tanker again.)...

Aviation fuel never runs out? Wattle they think of next - aviation fuel from seawater? No..... :mrgreen: Didna ye not hear that UCLASS will be USN next buddy tanker? I guess Chinese have no cigar on that also. However they do have buddy AAR with ruskie gear. Chinese have said long and loud: LIAONING is a training carrier and everyone is learning....


Yes your right of course my friend, they do need tankers for aviation fuel. As a U.S. senator would say let me please extend my remarks. I was referring to fuel for ships power plants. The carrier you flew off was an ex RN Majestic Class Carrier. How much aviation fuel did she carry? How many sorties could she generate before needing to replenish? My point was that a nuclear carrier has more internal space for aviation fuel, and ordnance.

We hear reports that China is building a carrier of their own. We don't yet have any details about it. How big it is, what kind of power plant it will have, and so forth. How much will it be based on their Russian training carrier? CVNs are superior for Blue Water operations, smaller CVs may be adequate for operations within a few thousand miles of the Chinese coast. It's hard to imagine China trying to operate carrier battle groups in the mid Pacific during a war because they would have to pass between so many hostile bases. IMHO they won't try to do that, so their carriers won't be large CVNs.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1098
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post21 Feb 2016, 02:04

I am sure China can build a carrier.

Not so sure if they can build the complete pack that goes with it, or even the C&C structure to operate it as a tool.

Building "the boat" is the least of their problems.

They also need to have full SA control of the 500 NM around the pack for 24/7/365 and that for the next 50 years or so.

They have the technology, they have the manpower and the economics, but certainly not the mentality nor the chain of command.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2287
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post21 Feb 2016, 02:27

China is probably too fractured to get to that level for another decade. Internally they are breaking down divisions that were once a major obstacle to central control. They've mostly redrawn boundaries at the top and usurped regional heads amazingly well here lately. In fact this stock market crash has been just the crisis they needed to ax some heads figuratively speaking. Let's not forget that regional military leaders are also the regional business leaders. So when you hear about crack downs on corruption you know its all cant for reshuffling of power.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post21 Feb 2016, 12:39

madrat wrote:China is probably too fractured to get to that level for another decade. Internally they are breaking down divisions that were once a major obstacle to central control. They've mostly redrawn boundaries at the top and usurped regional heads amazingly well here lately. In fact this stock market crash has been just the crisis they needed to ax some heads figuratively speaking. Let's not forget that regional military leaders are also the regional business leaders. So when you hear about crack downs on corruption you know its all cant for reshuffling of power.


I agree with you about internal Chinese politics. China has always had a problem with regionalism. If central authority weakens the provinces start to go their own way. The old USSR had a nationalism problem, China has a regional problem. China's internal political power struggles are even more opaque then the old Soviet ones so it's very hard for outsiders to know what's happening. In China the machinations can have an even greater effect because as you say regional leaders control the local economy.

An economic down turn can put any system under great stress. That stress can destabilize a country, internally or externally. China has not faced an economic down turn in the post Mao period. The world will have to wait and see how China reacts. They may become much more aggressive in foreign policy in order to rally their people. Oh and I disagree on one point. When Chinese leaders fall from power it can often lead to prison, or firing squads.
Offline

str

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2015, 07:54

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 16:20

geforcerfx wrote:It's only designed to operate 24 J-15's, pretty amazing when you think about just how much more capability the Nimitz class has over the Russian (China) design. It can operate 3 times there fixed wing capacity, and we have 10 of the freakin things :shock:


Nimitz may only sail with 3x the aircraft, but they're built to handle 4x in contingencies. They did studies and found you could pack about 130 F-18 sized aircraft on a Nimitz, if you needed to use one as an aircraft ferry (jets loaded/unloaded by crane). Operationally, you can only use 80% of that max "density" and still have enough room to launch and recover, which nets a payload of a bit more than 100 combat aircraft. Having said that, it would still be crowded above and below the deck. The more space the easier things get. It's a tradeoff between capacity and individual efficiency. The more aircraft your have, the longer it takes to move them around and get them ready. So that, combined with the fact that no current mission requires that kind of air wing, is why we typically fly 4 dozen combat jets and another dozen support aircraft. That, and budgets...

But it should also be noted that J-15/Su-33 is a lot bigger than anything the USN flies today. It's only a couple feet shorter than the A-3 Skywarrior or A-5 Vigilante. They could probably fit 3 dozen MiG-29K in the space of those 2 dozen Flankers.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 16:43

str wrote:
geforcerfx wrote:It's only designed to operate 24 J-15's, pretty amazing when you think about just how much more capability the Nimitz class has over the Russian (China) design. It can operate 3 times there fixed wing capacity, and we have 10 of the freakin things :shock:


Nimitz may only sail with 3x the aircraft, but they're built to handle 4x in contingencies. They did studies and found you could pack about 130 F-18 sized aircraft on a Nimitz, if you needed to use one as an aircraft ferry (jets loaded/unloaded by crane). Operationally, you can only use 80% of that max "density" and still have enough room to launch and recover, which nets a payload of a bit more than 100 combat aircraft. Having said that, it would still be crowded above and below the deck. The more space the easier things get. It's a tradeoff between capacity and individual efficiency. The more aircraft your have, the longer it takes to move them around and get them ready. So that, combined with the fact that no current mission requires that kind of air wing, is why we typically fly 4 dozen combat jets and another dozen support aircraft. That, and budgets...

But it should also be noted that J-15/Su-33 is a lot bigger than anything the USN flies today. It's only a couple feet shorter than the A-3 Skywarrior or A-5 Vigilante. They could probably fit 3 dozen MiG-29K in the space of those 2 dozen Flankers.


Used to be the typical air wing size was ~90 aircraft.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

str

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2015, 07:54

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 16:57

And it used to be that every one of those jets were needed for an alpha strike on a bridge that *still* failed because no bomb would actually hit the target.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 18:42

str wrote:And it used to be that every one of those jets were needed for an alpha strike on a bridge that *still* failed because no bomb would actually hit the target.


Er, both A-6Es and A-7Es carried PGMs. Furthermore, both easily outranged anything on today's flight decks.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

str

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2015, 07:54

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 22:27

By the time PGMs were common, the fighter and attack compliment was already down to 5 squadrons of a dozen ships each. And those fighter squadrons didn't generally move a lot of mud. So you're looking at 3-4 attack squadrons, which is less than or equal to what we deploy now.

The big difference is that we've dropped the single purpose fleet defense squadrons. No Tomcats amd no Vikings. That's 2 dozen fewer aircraft than we had in post Vietnam to Cold War wind down era.

Then again, that's been the trend for the last 50 years: more multipurpose, less specialized. We've dropped interceptors, photo recon, separate day/night attack, nuclear strike (sorry, "heavy attack"), and fixed wing ASW. F-18 does all of the above except for ASW.

Before we had 2 fleet air defense squadrons, tops. Now each group has 4. Attack is now consistently 4 squadrons, instead of 3-4.
They're all all-weather, and can all do recon. Your air wing is dictated by what you've loaded into the magazine, not what jets you've got parked on deck.

Only thing we've dropped from 50 years ago is strategic bombing and ASW.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Mar 2016, 23:59

str wrote:By the time PGMs were common, the fighter and attack compliment was already down to 5 squadrons of a dozen ships each.



While they didn't have JDAMs there were still plenty of PGMs around. Walleye, HOBOs, Skipper, Paveway, Harpoon, Maverick, etc.

My point is that 1. Today's carriers could support 90+ aircraft on a regular basis just fine. 2. The retirement of the A-7E and A-6E significantly reduced the reach of USN strike.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

str

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2015, 07:54

Unread post04 Mar 2016, 07:45

sferrin wrote:
str wrote:By the time PGMs were common, the fighter and attack compliment was already down to 5 squadrons of a dozen ships each.



While they didn't have JDAMs there were still plenty of PGMs around. Walleye, HOBOs, Skipper, Paveway, Harpoon, Maverick, etc.

My point is that 1. Today's carriers could support 90+ aircraft on a regular basis just fine. 2. The retirement of the A-7E and A-6E significantly reduced the reach of USN strike.


Sure, PGMs have existed since WW2. How commonly were they used though? Not very often. Experimentally in WW2 and Korea. They were something like 1% of munitions dropped in Vietnam. Gulf War was only 10% of bombs dropped, and that number was skewed by F-111 tank plinking and other anti armor missions by other platforms.

PGMs (in terms of how we use them today) are, really, a very recent phenomenon. Even if Paveway and Maverick have been around for nearly 50 years, the first 30 of those years they were used sparingly. A-6/7, while great aircraft, spent nearly all of their lifetimes dropping dumb bombs.

And yeah, on paper, retiring the subsonic attack jets cut down of carrier reach. I'm practice, there's been no threat were that mattered. Either tanking was plentiful, or the CVBG simply moved 200nm closer to shore. Or both. Same deal with the S-3. On paper, we lost a capability. In practice, it hasn't mattered, and is unlikely to matter in the near term.

Honestly, the biggest real loss was the KA-6 and the S-3 as tankers. Forcing Rhino to buddy fuel has been an expensive waste of flight hours.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post04 Mar 2016, 07:55

sferrin wrote: 2. The retirement of the A-7E and A-6E significantly reduced the reach of USN strike.


I see this said a lot, and while I agree with the statement in a sense there's a factor that has always thrown it off for me. We had the ability to have a A-6/7 go 800-900nmi off the deck, but how many tankers did the navy fly back then? While not nearly as efficient of a system any super hornet on board can become a tanker if the need is there. The supers can get 500-600nmi out give them some decent SH tanker support along the way and on the way back and you could prob push the extra 200-300nmi you lost, but again at a much larger fuel load used over all. The capability should be back though with the F-35C, taking it's 5,000lbs stealthy load out over 700nmi on internal fuel will bring much welcome strike capability back to the fleet.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1337
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post04 Mar 2016, 10:11

geforcerfx wrote:
sferrin wrote: 2. The retirement of the A-7E and A-6E significantly reduced the reach of USN strike.


I see this said a lot, and while I agree with the statement in a sense there's a factor that has always thrown it off for me. ...


The less emphasized potential that stands out for me is the effect of a missile like LRASM to both increase effective range, with a LO (reliable) and precise weapon, increasing survivability, reducing CSAR effort, plus RTB times are shorter to recover, rearm, refuel and do it again. The LRASM can cover much of the attack distance itself, meaning the fighter uses less fuel, spends less time in he air, the pilot less fatigued, not stressed so much by the attacker's threats. Potentially getting airborne shortly after the first LRASMs have struck, so each jet could hit gain in just a couple of hours later. So regaining and matching if not surpassing, both prior strike radius levels, and maybe increasing speed and attack tempo, with fewer jets going it, on a less congested carrier. Then similar with JSOW and tanker.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post04 Mar 2016, 14:30

str wrote:Sure, PGMs have existed since WW2. How commonly were they used though? Not very often. Experimentally in WW2 and Korea.


FFS can we stay relevant? I'm talking about A-7s and A-6s not TBM Avengers. :doh:


str wrote:PGMs (in terms of how we use them today) are, really, a very recent phenomenon. Even if Paveway and Maverick have been around for nearly 50 years, the first 30 of those years they were used sparingly.


Which doesn't change the fact that A-7s and A-6s were both PGM capable and both handily out ranged any flavor of Hornet.


str wrote:A-6/7, while great aircraft, spent nearly all of their lifetimes dropping dumb bombs.


And? Again, that doesn't change the fact that strike took a big hit when it went from A-7s and A-6s to F/A-18s.

str wrote:And yeah, on paper, retiring the subsonic attack jets cut down of carrier reach. I'm practice, there's been no threat were that mattered.


Therefore there never will be right? :doh:

str wrote:Either tanking was plentiful, or the CVBG simply moved 200nm closer to shore. Or both. Same deal with the S-3. On paper, we lost a capability. In practice, it hasn't mattered, and is unlikely to matter in the near term.


By that rational I should get rid of my health, home, and auto insurance. Because, you know, it hasn't mattered and is unlikely to matter in the near term.
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests