Chinese carrier-borne AEW&C testbed

Woody

Passionate about the advancement of technology
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
288
Reaction score
0
Website
www.freewebs.com

Attachments

NUSNA_Moebius

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
116
Reaction score
3
(in link) The existence of the JZY-01 could suggest that China eventually intends to develop aircraft carriers equipped with steam or electro-magnetic catapults.
First of all, not surprised to see an E-2 clone. I'm not surprised one bit.

But more importantly, is developing a proper catapult so difficult? To this day, I'm still surprised that none of the Soviet/Russian carriers or the new converted Indian carrier have a catapult on the end of the angled deck for heavier aircraft and heavy loaded combat aircraft.
 

hole in the ground

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
NUSNA_Moebius said:
But more importantly, is developing a proper catapult so difficult? To this day, I'm still surprised that none of the Soviet/Russian carriers or the new converted Indian carrier have a catapult on the end of the angled deck for heavier aircraft and heavy loaded combat aircraft.

Is it a question of developing a catapult or developing an aircraft to utilise one? Perhaps you can get more commonality with purely land based aircraft if you ramp launch and not cat? You are still arresting the landing so i would assume that the aircraft have got to be stressed for that. But I have never designed a carrier aircraft so again perhaps designing for arrested landing is simpler than the stresses for launch.
 

Bill Walker

Per Ardua ad Nauseum
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
482
Reaction score
0
Website
rwrwalker.ca
From work done many years ago on landing gear design for carrier based aircraft, the landings are easier than a catapult launch (from a landing gear designers point of view, anyway). That assumes a tow bar launch, and not a bridle launch (which imposes its own weight penalties on the aircraft, plus throws away bridles). Also, the failure modes of a ramp are much less demanding than the failure modes of a catapult. The US has been trying for decades to come up with a non-steam catapult, but it is still a long ways from service use.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,973
Reaction score
80

NUSNA_Moebius

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
116
Reaction score
3
Considering the much longer take off distance used for heavier loaded/less powerful aircraft on ski-ramp carriers (200m?), I would say a catapult is still a good thing to have. With one in front, you can keep those operations well forward, and out of the way of aircraft landing, though it would compromise having a ski-ramp (but it wouldn't even be needed if you have a catapult).
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
70

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
258
Reaction score
3
I'm more curious on the radar being used. Wonder if Chinese will opt for E-2D concept by using UHF band or opt for higher frequencies.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
737
Reaction score
21
Some recent developments. As ever, hard to tell if Flightglobal are falling for fandom art of if this is the genuine article.
An AEW and COD aircraft seems obvious for the Type 002 class if it has catapults but an ASW variant seems odd. No navy now operates carrier-based fixed-wing ASW and I would have thought helicopters would have been the better solution.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/more-hints-about-beijings-aircraft-carrier-ambitio-458339/
Would that not depend on how far out from your carriers you want an ASW barrier?
 
Top