PRC Peoples Liberation Army Navy

[aussienscale]

I can't think of anyone, let alone those who do mil analysis for a job who thought that it was going to stay as a floating casino...

Just like Melbourne being made into razor blades Well eventually it did anyway

 

[ngatimozart]

You're right the China/Taiwan situation is unlikely to develop into a global hot war. Not only America but Taiwan itself and the rest of Asia have interests in those Chinese factories.

The most extreme example China invades, the rest of the world would turn a blind eye now in the same way it did to India throwing the Portugese out of Goa. In reality this is a non-issue Taiwan will become a self governing province of China the way as HK/Macau as China moves from a from a bureaucracy to a democracy

Your making the presumption that China understands what democracy is. It has never experienced any form of democracy in it's history except if you accept the present political system where a vote is held for party chiefs etc. I think one way to view the present government in China is as another dynasty. Though I do agree with you that in time Taiwan will return to the fold under a similar arrangement as HK.

But back onto topic I agree that the PLA(N) has a long way to go before it can be considered a blue water navy. Like others have said it is one thing to practice things onshore and another on the oggy on a dark stormy night in gale force winds and 10 metre seas with zero visibility, when even the whales decide they want to be elsewhere. Experience & capability come with time as in decades and you need to have a core cadre of experienced officers, senior and junior ratings who have had plenty of sea time out in the deep blue oggy. A good training regime is operating in the latitudes from 50S to 70S summer and winter.

 

[ngatimozart]

In the history of warfare, equipment and weapons specifically developed for war at sea have often found many applications in land warfare but there are fewer examples of ether weapons or tactics developed for land use which have been taken successfully to sea without major modifications in both. It is hard to get accurate information about the modern Chinese navy but it still feels to be with what little I can find out, is that it is like an army like organization with an army like weapons, put on ships. That might not be a fair evaluation for it is just a feeling.

The Chines Navy has recently taken part in the anti-piracy operations off the East African cost. As I understand it, this is one of its first deployments outside their coastal waters. It has mainly been taken positively by the rest of the world as an indication that China and its navy are beginning to take some responsibility in the world. But there doesn’t seem to be a lot of other indications which are normally commonly seen in other large modern world raging navies. Do they go too far flung ports for friendship visits with open houses ship tours? Do they participate in ongoing scientific operations like the annual Antarctic research and resupply activities, or participate in ocean roaming Fish and other biologic studies, including the monitoring of illegal whale and fish caches outside of their exclusive economy zone,do they provide navigational and weather hazard informational alerts? You get the Idea.

I know that engaging in these activities are political decisions to be made at some level but it also gives the Chinese seaman a chance to gain varied Blue-Water ocean experience that every navy needs while making friends at the same time.

IIRC there was a PLA(N) destroyer port visit to Auckland, NZ either last year or earlier this year. The RNZN has IIRC done a couple of port visits to China over recent years. So that destroyer coming here would have had a long voyage to quote Bilbo Baggins "there and back again". I also know the PLA(N)was having a shoot-ex with the RAN not long ago.

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks, the consensus seems to be the cruise missiles have been removed. This doesn't necessarily mean the carrier will be utilized similar to the US CVNs though.
So long as the Chinese and Russian carriers dispense with catapults, their aircraft will be constrained in terms of fuel and weapons loads. Most likely, they will be used to provide defensive air cover for the fleet. US carriers excel as offensive juggernauts.

Not correct. Their aircraft will be able to operate with full fuel & weapons loads. That's what the ski ramp is for. Same as the Ark Royal and the Harriers. Eurofighters projected navalised Typhoon can do the same from a standing start. Its all about thrust to weight ratio and max thrust and +ve delta velocity over shortest possible distance.

 

[ngatimozart]

Indeed. I wonder where they'll put the roulette wheels and baccarat tables?
That thing was bought supposedly to be converted into a casino and supposedly the contract forbade it from military use.

If it was a kiwi ship the senior rates would have them stowed somewhere nice and quiet to be used on occasion to keep the mess funds afloat

 

[wormhole]

Not correct. Their aircraft will be able to operate with full fuel & weapons loads. That's what the ski ramp is for. Same as the Ark Royal and the Harriers. Eurofighters projected navalised Typhoon can do the same from a standing start. Its all about thrust to weight ratio and max thrust and +ve delta velocity over shortest possible distance.

I know its Wiki but ..The disadvantage of the ski-jump is the penalty it exacts on aircraft size, payload, and fuel load (and thus range): large, slow planes such as the E-2 Hawkeye and heavily laden strike fighters like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-33 cannot successfully launch using a ski-jump because their high loaded weight requires either a longer takeoff roll than is possible on a carrier deck, or catapult assistance, although the Su-33 does launch with a light fuel and weapons load from a ski jump.

Also, w/o catapults, the carrier can't operate AWACS aircraft similar to the Hawkeye w/c puts it at a major disadvantage. Thus you see helo-based AWACS as a less capable substitute.

The CVN's catapult allows a SH to launch with a full load of weapons and fuel. just like it would if it had the luxury of a long concrete runway.

I suspect you might wind up with a broken jet if you tried to launch fully loaded using a ski jump.

 

[ngatimozart]

I know its Wiki but ..The disadvantage of the ski-jump is the penalty it exacts on aircraft size, payload, and fuel load (and thus range): large, slow planes such as the E-2 Hawkeye and heavily laden strike fighters like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-33 cannot successfully launch using a ski-jump because their high loaded weight requires either a longer takeoff roll than is possible on a carrier deck, or catapult assistance, although the Su-33 does launch with a light fuel and weapons load from a ski jump.

Also, w/o catapults, the carrier can't operate AWACS aircraft similar to the Hawkeye w/c puts it at a major disadvantage. Thus you see helo-based AWACS as a less capable substitute.

The CVN's catapult allows a SH to launch with a full load of weapons and fuel. just like it would if it had the luxury of a long concrete runway.

I suspect you might wind up with a broken jet if you tried to launch fully loaded using a ski jump.

The Royal Navy operated Harriers in combat ops off the Falklands in 1982 with full munitions & fuel. You design your aircraft to take the stresses exerted by the ski jump which are in all probability less than those of a catapult launch. Secondly the only mods Eurofighter are doing to the Typhoon for STOBAR ops are strengthening the undercart to take shock of carrier landings, installing a tail hook, strengthening the aft fuselage assy to take the tail hook and associated stresses and giving the aircraft a really good coat of paint.

Helos can do AEW as the RN is intending to doing so with Merlin I think. All USN carrier capable aircraft are designed for CATOBAR. The only operational fixed wing aircraft in the US inventory capable of operating off a STOBAR carrier at the moment is the USMC AV8 Harrier.

 

[Bonza]

The Royal Navy operated Harriers in combat ops off the Falklands in 1982 with full munitions & fuel. You design your aircraft to take the stresses exerted by the ski jump which are in all probability less than those of a catapult launch. Secondly the only mods Eurofighter are doing to the Typhoon for STOBAR ops are strengthening the undercart to take shock of carrier landings, installing a tail hook, strengthening the aft fuselage assy to take the tail hook and associated stresses and giving the aircraft a really good coat of paint.

Helos can do AEW as the RN is intending to doing so with Merlin I think. All USN carrier capable aircraft are designed for CATOBAR. The only operational fixed wing aircraft in the US inventory capable of operating off a STOBAR carrier at the moment is the USMC AV8 Harrier.

I'm not sure the example of the Sea Harrier applies to all naval fighters, like the SU-33 for instance... Feanor or someone else could probably correct me here if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall hearing something about the SU-33 having problems getting airborne from Russian ski-jump carriers with a full fuel/weapons load - but then it's a larger aircraft than a Sea Harrier, with a much bigger payload. I could be remembering incorrectly but I think I remember it coming up in a discussion here or elsewhere...

 

[wormhole]

The EF Typhoon's EJ200 engine is rated at 20,000lbs thrust in afterburner per their website giving a total of 40K lbs. The same website states the maximum weight of the plane at 51,809lbs.

I don't see how with such a low takeoff speed arising from a short takeoff run and the aid of a ramp that a fully loaded Typhoon can generate enough lift to stay in the air.

Even if they develop thrust vectoring, this would be concentrated at the rear of the aircraft so wouldn't it just push the nose down w/c is a bad thing so close to the surface.

My understanding ios that successful STOVL jets ie. Harrier, F-35B balance the center of gravity over the engine thrust to ensure the jet remains level.

 

[Belesari]

Might the canards take care of that? And how well do the french operater from their carrier.

The EF Typhoon's EJ200 engine is rated at 20,000lbs thrust in afterburner per their website giving a total of 40K lbs. The same website states the maximum weight of the plane at 51,809lbs.

I don't see how with such a low takeoff speed arising from a short takeoff run and the aid of a ramp that a fully loaded Typhoon can generate enough lift to stay in the air.

Even if they develop thrust vectoring, this would be concentrated at the rear of the aircraft so wouldn't it just push the nose down w/c is a bad thing so close to the surface.

My understanding ios that successful STOVL jets ie. Harrier, F-35B balance the center of gravity over the engine thrust to ensure the jet remains level.

 

[wormhole]

-double post-

 

[wormhole]

The French use catapults just like the Yanks.
Those tiny canards really won't help at such a low takeoff speed if your plane weighs tons more than your engines max thrust.
This is the thinking that led the RN to go with a CATOBAR design for their new carrier and switch from the F-35B STOVL jet to the F-35C. They can project greater force at greater distances with the C.

 

[kato]

And how well do the french operater from their carrier.

35,800 lbs thrust
regular take-off weight 32,700 lbs, MTOW 54,400 lbs.

giving a total of 40K lbs.

43,000 lbs thrust. 2x 95 kN. MTOW may be 46,000 lbs (regular) or 52,200 lbs (structural limit), but regular takeoff weight is 34,400 lbs.

Or in other words the Eurofighter has a better thrust-to-weight ratio than the Rafale. Better than the Hornet too for that matter - because the Hornet pretty much exactly rides the 1.0 ratio for loaded weight vs thrust. Same for the F-35C btw.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The French use catapults just like the Yanks.

More to the point, the french are using license built US catapults

 

[gf0012-aust]

but I seem to recall hearing something about the SU-33 having problems getting airborne from Russian ski-jump carriers with a full fuel/weapons load

that certainly was the case. they needed topping up after launch if was a long mission. they were certainly unable to launch under full fuel and weaps load despite the jump

 

[Blitzo]

 

[gf0012-aust]

Russian Aircraft Carrier
French helicopter.....

 

[Bonza]

that certainly was the case. they needed topping up after launch if was a long mission. they were certainly unable to launch under full fuel and weaps load despite the jump

Thanks for that GF, I thought I'd heard such but couldn't for the life of me remember where. A Flanker variant seems like a really baffling choice for a relatively small ski-jump carrier...

 

[wormhole]

35,800 lbs thrust
regular take-off weight 32,700 lbs, MTOW 54,400 lbs.


43,000 lbs thrust. 2x 95 kN. MTOW may be 46,000 lbs (regular) or 52,200 lbs (structural limit), but regular takeoff weight is 34,400 lbs.

Or in other words the Eurofighter has a better thrust-to-weight ratio than the Rafale. Better than the Hornet too for that matter - because the Hornet pretty much exactly rides the 1.0 ratio for loaded weight vs thrust. Same for the F-35C btw.

I guess they have to update the EF website..

 

[swerve]

More to the point, the french are using license built US catapults

No, they're using imported US catapults. Type C13.