Let's see a ski jump launch this...

Let's see a ski jump launch this... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series

Message

Tailhook -> Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/10/2017 8:34:13 PM)
10x GBU-32s!!! Plus a tank, AIM-9X, ATFLIR, and looks like an AMRAAM on the cheek. Bad day for ISIS. Submitted the loadout to the DB3000 thread. [image]http://i.imgur.com/gHZk5zE.jpg[/image] [image]http://i.imgur.com/81rSlpZ.jpg[/image]

Dan109 -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/10/2017 9:21:17 PM)
Impressive loadout - for the F-35, we may have to wait to see an actual photo, even though its wetpoints can technically support the weight for the same amount of ordinance - I suppose it would need the software to send targeting info and release commands for that exact amount of weapons - I don't think public info on the block software ever discusses that level of detail.

Dysta -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/11/2017 2:28:30 AM)
Well, the STOBAR platform like Kuz and her sisters has one longer launching station, for 1 tons heavier of loadout than first two short stations. If I remember correctly, the J-15's short launch can only carry 2 PL-9, 4 PL-12 and one underbay fuel tank. Using the long launch may add 2 C-803A or 4 C-704A ASMs, but launch rate will be extremely slow. Both are nowhere to be heavier than that Super Hornet launch from a catapult. And it's not even a full potential of Su-33/J-15 because of the much bigger size (and to be launched from the cancelled Soviet nuclear powered CASTOBAR). What I'm agree with is ski-ramp is by far the simplest method to put carrier jets to the sky, with inferior performance.

Hongjian -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/11/2017 1:34:05 PM)
@Dysta The confirmed take-off loadout of the J-15 was 2x YJ-83KH (each about 700+kg, depending on variant) and two PL-8 (each 115kg). This gives one around 1.6 tons of weapons payload, so way less than what we see the Super Hornet carrying here. Indeed, ski-jumps are unsuitable for strike roles with a lot of heavy bombs and missiles, but looking from another side; these 1.6 tons of payload would still allow the J-15 to take off with its maximum AAM loadout: Eight PL-12 (each 180kg) + two PL-8, together being 1670kg. Coincidentially, there were unconfirmed reports that claimed that the J-15 cannot take off with more than 2 tons maximum payload. This might be quite low, but this still allows for a quite decent loadout, if we actually calculated how each Chinese AAM and AShM weights.

Dysta -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/11/2017 2:57:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hongjian @Dysta The confirmed take-off loadout of the J-15 was 2x YJ-83KH (each about 700+kg, depending on variant) and two PL-8 (each 115kg). This gives one around 1.6 tons of weapons payload, so way less than what we see the Super Hornet carrying here. Indeed, ski-jumps are unsuitable for strike roles with a lot of heavy bombs and missiles, but looking from another side; these 1.6 tons of payload would still allow the J-15 to take off with its maximum AAM loadout: Eight PL-12 (each 180kg) + two PL-8, together being 1670kg. Coincidentially, there were unconfirmed reports that claimed that the J-15 cannot take off with more than 2 tons maximum payload. This might be quite low, but this still allows for a quite decent loadout, if we actually calculated how each Chinese AAM and AShM weights. 1.6 tons? Well, I was overestimated that to be able to carry 2 tons from long and 1 ton from short. All I can say is, they need catapults very badly, something seriously powerful to haul a full-loaded Su-30 around 100 meters to the sky. Otherwise, they are lemon sharks.

kevinkins -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/11/2017 3:25:41 PM)
Perhaps irrelevant within a discussion of weights and measures ... but Chinese pilots have no direct combat experience nor combat tradition to fall back on. To field replicates of US forces would be foolhardy. They have to field platforms precisely tuned to their grand strategy. Heavy strike a/c may not be efficient in the context of that strategy. Inexperienced soldiers are more reliable on the defensive e.g. slowly seize forward positions diplomatically and defend them with nibble fighters. Kevin

mikmykWS -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/11/2017 4:23:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kevinkin Perhaps irrelevant within a discussion of weights and measures ... but Chinese pilots have no direct combat experience nor combat tradition to fall back on. To field replicates of US forces would be foolhardy. They have to field platforms precisely tuned to their grand strategy. Heavy strike a/c may not be efficient in the context of that strategy. Inexperienced soldiers are more reliable on the defensive e.g. slowly seize forward positions diplomatically and defend them with nibble fighters. Kevin 5 years ago perhaps you could hang your hat on that one but they've had time to learn. Mike

Dysta -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/11/2017 4:36:25 PM)
Anyway, I think that bomb-truck FA-18 fields better combat effectiveness than heavier, but no AA capability of B-1 for CAS, as well as to face against limited aerial threats. It's nimble enough for A/C, and store enough ordinances for a substantial land attack. The only weakness is short-legged compare to the proper bomber. A squadron of bomb-truck FA-18 can flatten most of the defense perimeters and convoys, and way more economical than cruise missiles. It's a big note to other navies in the world why warfare will favor to jets more than ships.

Hongjian -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/11/2017 5:44:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dysta quote: ORIGINAL: Hongjian @Dysta The confirmed take-off loadout of the J-15 was 2x YJ-83KH (each about 700+kg, depending on variant) and two PL-8 (each 115kg). This gives one around 1.6 tons of weapons payload, so way less than what we see the Super Hornet carrying here. Indeed, ski-jumps are unsuitable for strike roles with a lot of heavy bombs and missiles, but looking from another side; these 1.6 tons of payload would still allow the J-15 to take off with its maximum AAM loadout: Eight PL-12 (each 180kg) + two PL-8, together being 1670kg. Coincidentially, there were unconfirmed reports that claimed that the J-15 cannot take off with more than 2 tons maximum payload. This might be quite low, but this still allows for a quite decent loadout, if we actually calculated how each Chinese AAM and AShM weights. 1.6 tons? Well, I was overestimated that to be able to carry 2 tons from long and 1 ton from short. All I can say is, they need catapults very badly, something seriously powerful to haul a full-loaded Su-30 around 100 meters to the sky. Otherwise, they are lemon sharks. Take note that this is just what has been confirmed by official images. If we believe their own papers, the PLAN has already tested with maximum takeoff weight of a J-15 (32.8 tons) successfully (requiring 20 knots wind over deck). But from the images, the heaviest load we could see was 2xYJ-83K and 2xPL-8, which would be around 1.6 tons.

kevinkins -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/11/2017 8:46:02 PM)
quote: 5 years ago perhaps you could hang your hat on that one but they've had time to learn. Mike Hmm ... not sure a mere 5 years is able to replace several generations of tradition, experience and engineering prowess. Not to mention real blood, sweat, and tears. I admit I am not an expert on these matters and could be missing something. That said, we are all fortunate China fights commercially and not militarily. Their strategy is methodical and never enters the cable news cycle wherein it might alert the public in western democracies to their motives. Kevin

zaytsev -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 8:42:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hongjian Take note that this is just what has been confirmed by official images. If we believe their own papers, the PLAN has already tested with maximum takeoff weight of a J-15 (32.8 tons) successfully (requiring 20 knots wind over deck). But from the images, the heaviest load we could see was 2xYJ-83K and 2xPL-8, which would be around 1.6 tons. Correct! But is 25kts headwind (even this 5kts means BIG difference) and they must be launched from 3.pos , long launch. Only 27000kg from pos.1/2 , short launch. 4. This is for SU-33 TOW : 30500kg Fuel : 5700kg (9300kg is max , so this is half fuel) Payload : 22 x 250kg bombs i.e. 5500kg Range : 1700km Flight time : 2hr 3min Combat radius : 700km And I've calculated rough weight for above hornet is ~4500kg ... 10x jdam = 5000lb ~ 2270kg 450 tank ~ 1700 kg atflir ~ 200kg amraam ~ 170kg 2x aim9x ~ 180kg It is clearly 1000kg less of load then SU-33 with 5500kg of load, given, carrier is moving 25kts headwind and longer launch position. I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine.

Gunner98 -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 10:19:27 AM)
quote: I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine. In perfect conditions on a slow launch cycle.

Dysta -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 10:31:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gunner98 quote: I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine. In perfect conditions on a slow launch cycle. One more: afterburner must be on.

Hongjian -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 11:23:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zaytsev quote: ORIGINAL: Hongjian Take note that this is just what has been confirmed by official images. If we believe their own papers, the PLAN has already tested with maximum takeoff weight of a J-15 (32.8 tons) successfully (requiring 20 knots wind over deck). But from the images, the heaviest load we could see was 2xYJ-83K and 2xPL-8, which would be around 1.6 tons. Correct! But is 25kts headwind (even this 5kts means BIG difference) and they must be launched from 3.pos , long launch. Only 27000kg from pos.1/2 , short launch. 4. This is for SU-33 TOW : 30500kg Fuel : 5700kg (9300kg is max , so this is half fuel) Payload : 22 x 250kg bombs i.e. 5500kg Range : 1700km Flight time : 2hr 3min Combat radius : 700km And I've calculated rough weight for above hornet is ~4500kg ... 10x jdam = 5000lb ~ 2270kg 450 tank ~ 1700 kg atflir ~ 200kg amraam ~ 170kg 2x aim9x ~ 180kg It is clearly 1000kg less of load then SU-33 with 5500kg of load, given, carrier is moving 25kts headwind and longer launch position. I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine. 27 tons is still pretty good. Keep in mind that the internal fuel of the Su-33 is about 9 tons full, while the Super Hornet is half of that at 4.9 tons. Empty weight of the Su-33 is about 18 tons. So, if the Sea Flanker takes off with half fuel, it would have 23 tons without weapons. This gives it about 4 tons of weapons, which is really not bad, if it could enable the Su-33 to be launched from the two forward positions with still decent range and payload. One always has to remember what huge plane the Sea-Flanker is.

poaw -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 12:38:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zaytsev Correct! But is 25kts headwind (even this 5kts means BIG difference) and they must be launched from 3.pos , long launch. Only 27000kg from pos.1/2 , short launch. 4. This is for SU-33 TOW : 30500kg Fuel : 5700kg (9300kg is max , so this is half fuel) Payload : 22 x 250kg bombs i.e. 5500kg Range : 1700km Flight time : 2hr 3min Combat radius : 700km And I've calculated rough weight for above hornet is ~4500kg ... 10x jdam = 5000lb ~ 2270kg 450 tank ~ 1700 kg atflir ~ 200kg amraam ~ 170kg 2x aim9x ~ 180kg It is clearly 1000kg less of load then SU-33 with 5500kg of load, given, carrier is moving 25kts headwind and longer launch position. I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine. Those look like 1000lbs class JDAMs, not 500lbs, and you shouldn't ignore the Super Hornet's internal fuel even if you're measuring payload. If the weight restrictions mean that a larger payload has to come out of the fuel carried then that will have a significant impact on either the payloads it carries in practice or it's practical range. Matching comparable aircraft in payload by only carrying half the fuel you can isn't fine, when the they don't have dedicated tanking aircraft to top them up after launch, they have a relatively small number of strike aircraft to begin with (which will suffer the same weight restrictions as the other aircraft) so chopping aircraft to buddy tank cuts much deeper, and their air forces have a much smaller tanker force overall.

Cik -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 1:20:28 PM)
i'm 90% those are MK83 and not mk82 like poaw says. so it's a really, really heavy loadout.

Dysta -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 1:43:07 PM)
MK83 is a rare sight. I mean, most of the time we talk about bombardments are using MK82, or often heavier laser/GPS-guided bombs to bust down some strong fortification. Even the upgrades are based on MK82, too. Is MK83 too powerful and dumb to be practical?

shania -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 1:57:55 PM)
Super Hornet TOW: 21320kg (with 6780kg of internal fuel) 10x 1000lb bombs: 4500kg 450 tank ~ 1700 kg atflir ~ 200kg amraam ~ 170kg 2x aim9x ~ 180kg =25070kg - still 4867kg reserve to MTOW

Cik -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 2:41:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dysta MK83 is a rare sight. I mean, most of the time we talk about bombardments are using MK82, or often heavier laser/GPS-guided bombs to bust down some strong fortification. Even the upgrades are based on MK82, too. Is MK83 too powerful and dumb to be practical? MK83 is used frequently by the navy, but those probably aren't dumb. unless i am really far off the mark, there are JDAM kits for MK83 and those are likely GBU-32 of some variety. edit: yeah, definitely. note the enlarged tailfins over the normal MK83 and the midbody "brace"

mikmykWS -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 3:07:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cik quote: ORIGINAL: Dysta MK83 is a rare sight. I mean, most of the time we talk about bombardments are using MK82, or often heavier laser/GPS-guided bombs to bust down some strong fortification. Even the upgrades are based on MK82, too. Is MK83 too powerful and dumb to be practical? MK83 is used frequently by the navy, but those probably aren't dumb. unless i am really far off the mark, there are JDAM kits for MK83 and those are likely GBU-32 of some variety. edit: yeah, definitely. note the enlarged tailfins over the normal MK83 and the midbody "brace" I agree. Likely GBU-32. M

Tailhook -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 3:41:03 PM)
Those are indeed GBU-32 1000lb JDAM bombs. Here's a very senior (and tragically no longer with us) Naval Aviators thoughts on SU-33/Kuznetsov ops. I know there is a lot of chest thumping involved whenever this ship is brought up, but pay attention to his sortie rate calculations and see the dramatic difference. https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2017/05/23/flanker-ops/#more-21071

Dysta -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 5:53:38 PM)
If Yak-144 was developed 10 years earlier before the Su-33, then I understand the value of Kuznetsov for Soviet navy. If not, without Ulyanovsk's Steam catapult, skiing 70K lbs of big boy upward is only a dream. While MiG-29K have a humble size for take-off efficiency, it's still short legged compare to the Hornet A/B. Comparing ski-ramp and steam catapult is like a baseball pitcher throwing a 95mph heater, against a golfer driving a 200mph from the tee. Absolute hopeless. And like I said, Su-33 was promised to be more combat-effective, but there is none of a take off platform to give it a full potential.

Hongjian -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 8:28:36 PM)
Actually, despite all limitations of the Ski Jump design, shouldnt the sortie rate be one of its strong points? As I understand, steam catapults have a set number of subsequent launches until the steam boilers have to recharge the pressure. For the Ski Jump, none of that is necessary, so planes could take off with steady rate one after another... Of course, in the end, a Nimitz is still superior in sortie rate because it has 4 catapults, while the Kutznesov only has 3 launch points. But still...

Tailhook -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/12/2017 9:25:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hongjian Actually, despite all limitations of the Ski Jump design, shouldnt the sortie rate be one of its strong points? As I understand, steam catapults have a set number of subsequent launches until the steam boilers have to recharge the pressure. For the Ski Jump, none of that is necessary, so planes could take off with steady rate one after another... Of course, in the end, a Nimitz is still superior in sortie rate because it has 4 catapults, while the Kutznesov only has 3 launch points. But still... I've never seen steam generation rates listed as a limiting factor in discussions involving modern carriers. The amount of steam that can be generated by a full size plant is rather impressive. It also lets you save space because every single catapult can launch a fully loaded fighter, while only one spot on Kuznetsov and Lioaning can launch a heavy jet. You've also got to factor in the need to clear the deck for the run up, so there's less space for jets to maneuver around topside. I believe that's what the Queen Elizabeth carriers are trying to design around, but at the end of the day there's only one way to get it done.

ExNusquam -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/13/2017 2:08:46 AM)
There's a lecture by the former lead of the CVN 78 design (this video should be required watching before talking about carrier design), where he emphasizes the fact that STOVL carriers generate "half the range, half the payload". While STOBAR will improve this, the limitation is primarily on the take-off (bring-back capability is significantly improved by the arrested recovery, however). If you want to launch useful payload to useful range, you use catapults (or move your carrier aircraft to a nearby land base...). I'd be interested in seeing the heaviest load used by an operational STOBAR carrier. The heaviest I've seen pictures of is a MiG-29K loaded for AAR work - 4xDrop tanks with a buddy store on centerline...it would be interesting to know the actual weight numbers. Unfortunately, the performance manuals for the Su-33/J-15 and MikG-29K don't appear to exist in the public sphere.

Dysta -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/13/2017 5:48:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExNusquam (or move your carrier aircraft to a nearby land base...). Or what about launch a full-loaded Su-33 from land base, completed the mission and return to the aircraft carrier to refuel, then ferry back to land base for the next full-load run? They are carrier fighters, doesn't mean they must be take off and land at the carrier. Using the carrier as a midway station is also possible, especially having air bases near the carrier that usually for defensive deployment. If the fleet is in imminent aerial threat, those jets can justly lightly equip with AAMs from the carrier; while the bomb run can use airfields instead. The problem is the carrier cannot be overcrowded for external carrier jet operations, and landing for refuel also takes time and resources as well. Worse, pilot management will be very complicated, and doubling the time for each strike.

jtoatoktoe -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/13/2017 2:04:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikmyk quote: ORIGINAL: Cik quote: ORIGINAL: Dysta MK83 is a rare sight. I mean, most of the time we talk about bombardments are using MK82, or often heavier laser/GPS-guided bombs to bust down some strong fortification. Even the upgrades are based on MK82, too. Is MK83 too powerful and dumb to be practical? MK83 is used frequently by the navy, but those probably aren't dumb. unless i am really far off the mark, there are JDAM kits for MK83 and those are likely GBU-32 of some variety. edit: yeah, definitely. note the enlarged tailfins over the normal MK83 and the midbody "brace" I agree. Likely GBU-32. M DOD twitter confirmed they were. https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense/status/873751648350466049

AlGrant -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/23/2017 2:23:04 PM)
Let's see EMALS launch this ... [;)] https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20170622.aspx "During sea trials the Ford used EMALS heavily, as would be the case in combat and training operations. Under intense use EMALS proved to be less reliable than the older steam catapult, more labor intensive to operate, put more stress on launched aircraft than expected and due to a basic design flaw if one EMALS catapult becomes inoperable, the other three catapults cannot be used in the meantime as was the case with steam catapults." Estimated breakdown every 400 launches is bad enough (design spec is for 4,100) but if one goes down ALL 4 go down!

Dysta -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/23/2017 4:08:08 PM)
Well, I saw that news translated to Chinese, and those commenters are said it's a bluff -- by releasing bad news to soften the importantance of Chinese EMALS development.

Cik -> RE: Let's see a ski jump launch this... (6/23/2017 4:13:01 PM)
21 dimensional underwater parcheesi to be sure

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625