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

[Tailhook]

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/ ... more-21071

[Dysta]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: Cik

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]

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]

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]

21 dimensional underwater parcheesi to be sure

[Hongjian]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

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.

Well, if true, they might be correct. The first Type 002 class will most probably be steam catapult anyway...