China: First display of J-15 from carrier
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: .
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. The jet seems to be held on the red chocks while the throttles are advanced, they then snap flush with the deck and off you go.
I have never seen that before. Anyone else seen that system?
I have never seen that before. Anyone else seen that system?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Arresting Cables/Wires/Cross Deck Pendants whatever have a complex construction which is always being improved. In the Chinese case I have read they had to make their own because the Ruskies would not sell them any. :-(
SBIR/STTR Interactive Topic Information System (SITIS)
PURCHASE CABLE
http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14001/img/14001_96_2.jpg
Russia refuses to sell arresters for Chinese aircraft carrier
SBIR/STTR Interactive Topic Information System (SITIS)
PURCHASE CABLE
http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14001/img/14001_96_2.jpg
Russia refuses to sell arresters for Chinese aircraft carrier
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Has LIAONING 'Jumped the Shark'? :-)
Is there where the "Jumped the Shark" expression originated? Just add ski...
Jumping the shark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._the_shark.PNG
Jumping the shark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._the_shark.PNG
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Loughborough
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hold back chocks are nothing new and in keeping with what the Russians do on the Admiral Kuznetsov and the INS Vikramaditya. The arrestor cables on the Liaoning appear to be similar to that fitted to the Russian vessels, whilst the Russians didn't sell the arrestor gear to China the Ukraine apparently gave full technical details and the designs.
You can clearly see the hold back chocks in this news report about flight trials of the Mig-29KUB on the Admiral Kuznetsov:
You can clearly see the hold back chocks in this news report about flight trials of the Mig-29KUB on the Admiral Kuznetsov:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the system that the Russians use for the Flanker, so logically enough the Chinese use it for their Flankers
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mallorca
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't a ramp solve our catapult problem for other types and even help the 35? I understand that arrestors and an angled deck would be necessary to make the bolters less exciting. Cutting out the catapults would save a fortune in all sorts of ways, both in terms of provision and in ongoing costs, and an angled deck surely doesn't cost much to run once it has been built. Can none of the likely customers handle a ramp? I appreciate that my question may seem silly to some "in the know" because it must surely all have been assessed behind closed doors and discounted. It's just that, like some others here, I've never seen a launch by the Chinese way before.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cameronian
Actually, I think you might be on to something.
I wonder if the builders of our new carriers even considered these things at the design stage.
We could save a lot of money by skipping the catapults as you say, and this ramp thingy seems like a good idea.
So good an idea in fact I can't believe we didn't think of it before.
Sometimes you have to wonder if the MOD have any idea at all!!!
Copy the Chinese like you say.
Actually, I think you might be on to something.
I wonder if the builders of our new carriers even considered these things at the design stage.
We could save a lot of money by skipping the catapults as you say, and this ramp thingy seems like a good idea.
So good an idea in fact I can't believe we didn't think of it before.
Sometimes you have to wonder if the MOD have any idea at all!!!
Copy the Chinese like you say.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cameronian (and others)
Perhaps I can be of some help here.
Yes, this way of operating aircraft (often called STOBAR - Short Take Off Barrier Arrested Landing) was looked at in detail during CVF requirements development. It was also looked at by the USN many years ago (in the 70s, I believe).
The basic issue with it is that you get relatively poor launch performance with CTOL aircraft. The key to ramp launches is that you fly off the deck going upwards, which means you have more time to accelerate to a speed where you start flying at a positive rate of climb.
Any aircraft has to attain a ramp exit speed that allows it launch at an acceptable initial sink rate, plus it has to be controllable. That sink rate will be driven solely by wing lift and whatever thrust if can get by being pitched up - although that will in turn cause significant drag. That will delay the ability of the aircraft to accelerate to normal climb out speed. For a conventional aircraft with aerodynamic controls, and no thrust vectoring, a ramp launch will not be achievable at anything like MGTOW off a runway. In fact, probably quite a long way below. The sort of thrust/weight ratios used for flying displays are quite a long way away from what you get when fully loaded for a strike mission, or even air defence work.
A STOVL aircraft (e.g Harrier, F-35B) has a couple of massive advantages off the ramp. The first is that they have a control system that works at flying speeds down to zero, so they don't have to rely on control surfaces. The second is that they can launch in a powered lift mode, where they can vector their thrust through their CG. That means that they can launch at well below aerodynamic stalling speed, and then progressively shift thrust aft as wing lift builds up. Sea Harrier typically had ramp end speeds of around 85 kts.
The 'vanishing chocks' are used to allow the aircraft get into full reheat at higher weights before they start rolling, to try to get the best ramp end speed they can. At higher weights, the effect is minimal. Harrier did look at using a 'hold back' for deck launches, but it was realised that the gain was not worth the complexity.
Bottom line is that CTOL ramp launches are not going to deliver the sort of payloads (fuel and weapons) that operational air arms require. This is basic physics and is not solved by marketing. Ask the 'Sea Typhoon' salesmen after a few quiet beers. The Chinese have recently gone public with some fairly severe criticisms of their aircrafts' performance off their new carrier, which seems to confirm the point.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those launching naval aircraft whatever way they do it
Engines
Perhaps I can be of some help here.
Yes, this way of operating aircraft (often called STOBAR - Short Take Off Barrier Arrested Landing) was looked at in detail during CVF requirements development. It was also looked at by the USN many years ago (in the 70s, I believe).
The basic issue with it is that you get relatively poor launch performance with CTOL aircraft. The key to ramp launches is that you fly off the deck going upwards, which means you have more time to accelerate to a speed where you start flying at a positive rate of climb.
Any aircraft has to attain a ramp exit speed that allows it launch at an acceptable initial sink rate, plus it has to be controllable. That sink rate will be driven solely by wing lift and whatever thrust if can get by being pitched up - although that will in turn cause significant drag. That will delay the ability of the aircraft to accelerate to normal climb out speed. For a conventional aircraft with aerodynamic controls, and no thrust vectoring, a ramp launch will not be achievable at anything like MGTOW off a runway. In fact, probably quite a long way below. The sort of thrust/weight ratios used for flying displays are quite a long way away from what you get when fully loaded for a strike mission, or even air defence work.
A STOVL aircraft (e.g Harrier, F-35B) has a couple of massive advantages off the ramp. The first is that they have a control system that works at flying speeds down to zero, so they don't have to rely on control surfaces. The second is that they can launch in a powered lift mode, where they can vector their thrust through their CG. That means that they can launch at well below aerodynamic stalling speed, and then progressively shift thrust aft as wing lift builds up. Sea Harrier typically had ramp end speeds of around 85 kts.
The 'vanishing chocks' are used to allow the aircraft get into full reheat at higher weights before they start rolling, to try to get the best ramp end speed they can. At higher weights, the effect is minimal. Harrier did look at using a 'hold back' for deck launches, but it was realised that the gain was not worth the complexity.
Bottom line is that CTOL ramp launches are not going to deliver the sort of payloads (fuel and weapons) that operational air arms require. This is basic physics and is not solved by marketing. Ask the 'Sea Typhoon' salesmen after a few quiet beers. The Chinese have recently gone public with some fairly severe criticisms of their aircrafts' performance off their new carrier, which seems to confirm the point.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those launching naval aircraft whatever way they do it
Engines