Large aircraft carriers compared

[Trident]

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Which carrier was the Antonov intended for then Trident?. Kuznetsov was never meant to have any more AEW than the Kamovs as it would only ever have needed lookdown coverage for self-defence. Its air defence function would be directed by the conventional air-search capability embarked.

Probably the Ulyanovsk (and line drawings exist, if you want to put so much faith in that type of thing), but as I said they figured out pretty quickly that it was practically impossible and looked for other, land-based applications. Technically, you are certainly correct (I did point that out?), I just allowed myself to pick a nit.

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Likewise Yak-44 only made it to mock-up state so its hard to see how anyone is saying its likely to have been STOBAR capable. Who knows what its eventual MTOW would have been and whether the power installed would be sufficient for such operation. The one thing that IS certain was that the Ul'Yanovsk models showed Yak-44 sat at the end of steam cats. Yak-44 was intended as CATOBAR.

Yes, the Yak-44 was most certainly intended to be used _primarily_ in CATOBAR mode (I'm not disputing that!) from the Ulyanovsk, so of course a model of that carrier would show them on the catapults.

However, I'm not sure whether you're aware just *how* overpowered it was designed to be - picture an E-2D with TP400-D6 engines, that's how! I just can't see why you'd do that if STOBAR isn't atleast a serious (if secondary) consideration. There is a certain logic to it as well, since the Kuznetsov (assuming for a moment that the USSR had not collapsed) would have served many years alongside the Ulyanovsk CVNs. No doubt, performance would have been compromised when operating in STOBAR mode, but obviously it was considered a worthwhile improvement over rotary-wing AEW.

It's probably safe to assume that the Yak-44 would have gained weight, but with 2x10000+kW it becomes a moot point - that's more than twice as much power on an airframe that is physically almost the same size as the Hawkeye. And while the aircraft never amounted to more than a full-scale mock-up, the D-27 has now been flying on the An-70 for more than a decade - hardly what you'd call a proven record but it does indicate the design has no major issues.

Not only is there circumstantial evidence that a STOBAR capability was deliberately planned (power-to-weight ratio, deck trials aboard the Kuznetsov) but a published source for the claim - what's so hard to believe?

[sealordlawrence]

It is a myth that the Antonov was designed for the Ulyanovsk, utter nonsense. the line drawings that show such a thing are not official.

[Jonesy]

Trident,

Not only is there circumstantial evidence that a STOBAR capability was deliberately planned (power-to-weight ratio, deck trials aboard the Kuznetsov) but a published source for the claim - what's so hard to believe?

Deck trials of a Yak-44 aboard Kuznetsov?. First I've heard that a complete airframe was ever built....when was this trial undertaken and to what purpose?.

The other main reason is that Yak-44 doesnt fit in with the mission. Kuznetsov was fitted with Mars-Passat for a reason. The concept, as I'm sure I dont need to tell you, was for a mobile 'bastion' of Soviet naval power operating in the Atlantic in support of their submarine forces. This wasnt the subtle doctrine of information denial and deft tactical manoevre as the USN is so adept at. This was a doctrine of staking out a specific set of geographical coordinates, going active on everything, and daring NATO assets to try and get through to engage the subs!.

The hugely powerful (and simply huge!) Mars-Passat array on Kuznetsov was one of the cornerstones of this plan and was intended to keep the surrounding airspace surveilled for hundreds of kms. The Oko airborne sets in conjunction with Su-33 CAP and RORSAT data were intended to warn of inbound contacts below the Mars-Passat horizon or of carrier groups closing to strike range. With hindsight we can now see that a Yak-44 might have been an interesting fit in a Kuznetsov group, but, thats hindsight and an attempt to change the concept to something it never was. Just like, as I heard the story, the Antonov-71 as a carrier aircraft.

It's probably safe to assume that the Yak-44 would have gained weight, but with 2x10000+kW it becomes a moot point - that's more than twice as much power on an airframe that is physically almost the same size as the Hawkeye

Quite, and I concur that the engine flying on An-70 means that Yak-44 was doubtlessly viable as a CATOBAR type, what I would be in less of a hurry to propose would be STOBAR characteristics. Very high power outputs from engines, as described, come with penalties. For an AEW type carrying sensitive and reasonably delicate electronics the worst of these is imposed vibration load. Ramp those engines up to high revs and you will need a pretty massive airframe, or some very fiddly isolation measures, to keep those loads from being transmitted through to the black boxes.

Then you have the structural load imposed by the deck/ramp transition. I'm not sure if you have 'hump-backed' bridges in Germany but if you do race your car towards one and see what happens when you hit the start of the bridge elevation from the road surface. Now imagine that you are having to do that with tons of aircraft and electronics behind you several times a day!. Either way you have to design a very strong airframe which means weight penalties. For an aircraft intended to be CATOBAR it would be bizarre to impose such performance penalties on the aircraft just for those occaisions when you want to deploy the aircraft to a non-cat equipped carrier. It would've make a lot more sense just to refit Kuznetsov/Varyag with a steam cat over the angled deck rather than performance hit the whole Yak-44 fleet!.

Lastly, seeings Ul'Yanovsk was going to have a ski jump, its hard to envisage why, if Yak-44 was being developed as a platform with meaningful STOBAR capability, the Soviets were going to the effort of fitting steam cats especially after all the problems they had over the years with that technology. I just cant see Yak-44 as a STOBAR capable design I'm afraid Trident.

[Trident]

Originally Posted by sealordlawrence

It is a myth that the Antonov was designed for the Ulyanovsk, utter nonsense. the line drawings that show such a thing are not official.

I'm not so sure, but can we give it a rest? It's kind of irrelevant to the debate anyway.

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Deck trials of a Yak-44 aboard Kuznetsov?. First I've heard that a complete airframe was ever built....when was this trial undertaken and to what purpose?.

That probably needs clarification: I was referring to the comment in my first post about deck handling tests being done on the Kuznetsov with the full-scale mock-up (which did have functional folding wings etc.). You are right that no flying airframe was ever constructed, if that's what you thought I was saying.

Originally Posted by Jonesy

The other main reason is that Yak-44 doesnt fit in with the mission. Kuznetsov was fitted with Mars-Passat for a reason. The concept, as I'm sure I dont need to tell you, was for a mobile 'bastion' of Soviet naval power operating in the Atlantic in support of their submarine forces. This wasnt the subtle doctrine of information denial and deft tactical manoevre as the USN is so adept at. This was a doctrine of staking out a specific set of geographical coordinates, going active on everything, and daring NATO assets to try and get through to engage the subs!.

The hugely powerful (and simply huge!) Mars-Passat array on Kuznetsov was one of the cornerstones of this plan and was intended to keep the surrounding airspace surveilled for hundreds of kms. The Oko airborne sets in conjunction with Su-33 CAP and RORSAT data were intended to warn of inbound contacts below the Mars-Passat horizon or of carrier groups closing to strike range. With hindsight we can now see that a Yak-44 might have been an interesting fit in a Kuznetsov group, but, thats hindsight and an attempt to change the concept to something it never was.

That's all fine, but the problem with Mars-Passat is that it apparently turned out a failure. AFAIK only the Gorshkov ever carried a complete system, the Kuznetsov reportedly had concrete ballast slabs on the antenna mounts instead pending a solution to the problems. Varyag, the second of class, was finally built with a revised island that lost the arrays altogether! So there may well have been a retroactive requirement to replace the surveillance capabilities of Mars-Passat with something else.

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Quite, and I concur that the engine flying on An-70 means that Yak-44 was doubtlessly viable as a CATOBAR type, what I would be in less of a hurry to propose would be STOBAR characteristics. Very high power outputs from engines, as described, come with penalties.

Why install such powerful engines in the first place, if no STOBAR capabilities were required? There would be no good reason to do so (and accept all the issues you mention) then.

Originally Posted by Jonesy

I just cant see Yak-44 as a STOBAR capable design I'm afraid Trident.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then

[Jonesy]

Trident,

You are right that no flying airframe was ever constructed, if that's what you thought I was saying.

Partially yes - though the deck handling trials is also news to be honest. Any information on how 'complete' the mock up was i.e engines, control linkages etc?

That's all fine, but the problem with Mars-Passat is that it apparently turned out a failure. AFAIK only the Gorshkov ever carried a complete system, the Kuznetsov reportedly had concrete ballast slabs on the antenna mounts instead pending a solution to the problems

Exactly right. Another case of the Blue Circle radar!.

Why install such powerful engines in the first place, if no STOBAR capabilities were required? There would be no good reason to do so (and accept all the issues you mention) then

Why not if you have the engine available. 80's era Russian electronics tended towards the weighty side and the airframe was going to be anything but dainty. Throw in a good fuel load and crew it may have been the most logical, conservative, solution to fit the most powerful engine readily available. Like I said without clear idea of what the real-world MTOW would have been its impossible to categorically state that the engines were massively overpowered for the airframe demands.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then

I can live with that!

[Trident]

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Partially yes - though the deck handling trials is also news to be honest. Any information on how 'complete' the mock up was i.e engines, control linkages etc?

Not sure, this is about as much as I know:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru....html#msg42437

Going by that, the wing fold mechanism and the retractable radome pylon were functional, the landing gear also looks pretty detailed. On the other hand, the propellers - while geometrically very accurate - don't quite match the finished article on the An-70 (the spinners are much simpler and the blades lack the protective metal strip on the leading edge). So it probably didn't have real engines. I suppose the objective was to see whether it fit the elevators and hangar and how deck operations were affected.

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Exactly right. Another case of the Blue Circle radar!.

LOL, it did remind me of the Tornado ADV saga while typing Although the Foxhunter came through in the end.

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Why not if you have the engine available. 80's era Russian electronics tended towards the weighty side and the airframe was going to be anything but dainty. Throw in a good fuel load and crew it may have been the most logical, conservative, solution to fit the most powerful engine readily available. Like I said without clear idea of what the real-world MTOW would have been its impossible to categorically state that the engines were massively overpowered for the airframe demands.

Since the airframe was about the same size externally as the E-2, it seems unlikely that the end product would have had a power-to-weight ratio that was anything less than amazing, unless they were going to build it out of lead. Again, those engines were more than twice as powerful as the T-56 - if the difference was something like 20 or 25% (F100 vs. AL-31F for example - and even then the Flanker is physically larger than the F-15) you might have a point, but 100+%?

Fuel consumption would have been a very good reason to choose a different powerplant on such a high-endurance platform, infact the only reason why they did get away with it is the extraordinary fuel efficiency of the D-27.

EDIT: Well, my memory was deceiving me, it seems. I checked and the Yak-44 was to be both larger and heavier than the Hawkeye, much like the Flanker was compared to the Eagle. Yet, my point about the engine output being far and away greater than strictly necessary for CATOBAR, even allowing for weight growth beyond the original design, still stands. The magnitude of the power overhead is just too large.

[Gollevainen]

The soviet carrier brone AWACS plane which eventually came up to be the Yak-44 is as old as a concept as the Soviet full scale aircraft carrier program. It's mentioned (and included in the only drawings) alongside with the pr. 1160 which was the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier design from the late 60's, early 70's and is couped with pr. 1153 as well as the early premilinary versions of Kuznetsov.

When discussing about soviet carriers you need to keep in mind that alongside the Kiev's the conventional aircraft carrier idea grew in soviet naval circles. Due heavy resistance it was often pushed to the backround and many projects remained just projects nothing more. Kuznetsov class was as a design a consensus between the supersonic VSTOL block and real conventional aicraft block. Initial plans called catabults and arrestor wires and apparently at this point the AWACS plane was still considered to be part of the airgroup. However it was decided that the airgroup would be completely for VSTOL planes and the catabults were eliminated and ski-jump was added. Now the important thing to remember was that the Ski-jump was orginally adopted to boost the capability of the supersonic VSTOL plane (tobe Yak-41) and not for STOBAR arragment for conventional planes. So indeed the Yak-44 was dropped out at this point.
When the ships were still at building phase it was discovered that the new powerfull MiG-29 and Su-27 conventional jets could take of by using the ski-jump and as the orginal layout for the ship was designed with CATOBAR arragment in mind, it was easy to add the arrestor wires for the design.
Apparently the question in this depate seems to be that was Yak-44 added again to the airgroup? There are solid proofs for and against:

First the mock-up of Yak-44 was tested onboard Tbilisi (later Kuznetsov)

Why would it be tested if it's not going to be included to the airwing?
But then again all the drawings and models of Ulyanovks (and do remember that the models are official models of the designers, not some fan work) shows the Yak-44 onboard Ulyanovsk catabults and not on the STOBAR take-off spots. Also the very little liturate of Ulyanovsk also descripes the catabults being for the Yak-44 specially.

[Trident]

Originally Posted by Gollevainen

But then again all the drawings and models of Ulyanovsk (and do remember that the models are official models of the designers, not some fan work) shows the Yak-44 onboard Ulyanovsk catabults and not on the STOBAR take-off spots.

That proves nothing IMHO, since CATOBAR was the primary mode of operation for the Yak-44, so it comes as no surprise at all to see it always using the catapults on a carrier that actually has them available. Anything else would be pointless.

Just found another piece of evidence for STOBAR Yak-44s. Having talked to a former chief designer for aircraft carriers at Nevskoye, Sergey Kuznetsov suggests that Varyag would have embarked the aircraft if completed for the Soviet navy:

http://pilot.strizhi.info/2008/04/09/5309#more-5309

Kind of lends some credence to my above suspicion that the failure of Mars-Passat left a gap in the surveillance shield that needed filling.

[X07]

Excellent work, Planeman!

Nae Sao Paulo:
She now is fitted with two SAM twin launchers Simbad. One of the two cats is still out of order (lateral one). Never seen more than 6 A4K on board. 3 Super Etendard were on board in april-may 2002 (ARAEX VI). Project to fit the ship with Umkhonto SAM VLS.

FS Charles de Gaulle:
Will soon have F2 and F3 Rafale M, multirole fighters. F1 version (interception) is now out of active service. Forbin DDG will be commissioned in december 2008 with ASTER 30 SAM. New shafts (probably 27 knots).

AFSS Kuznetsov:
Not sure that this carrier is able to carry more than 40 aircrafts.

X07

[J33Nelson]

How good of a design is the USS America (LHA-6)? Can she carry non VSTOL airctaft?

[sferrin]

Originally Posted by J33Nelson

How good of a design is the USS America (LHA-6)? Can she carry non VSTOL airctaft?

No catapults.

[echonine]

A little more Yak-44 for those interested

[planeman6000]

and no ski-jump.

[J33Nelson]

"No catapults."

"and no ski-jump."

If catapults or a ski jump was added to the USS America (LHA-6) for a foreign nation what type of aircraft and how many aircraft could she carry?? Thanks for any help?

[StevoJH]

Originally Posted by J33Nelson

"No catapults."

"and no ski-jump."

If catapults or a ski jump was added to the USS America (LHA-6) for a foreign nation what type of aircraft and how many aircraft could she carry?? Thanks for any help?

For Ski-Jump, JSF plus helicopters, same mix as the CVF. For Catapults, same aircraft as the CVN's.

[EdLaw]

Originally Posted by J33Nelson

"No catapults."

"and no ski-jump."

If catapults or a ski jump was added to the USS America (LHA-6) for a foreign nation what type of aircraft and how many aircraft could she carry?? Thanks for any help?

Theoretically, it could be done, by adding an angled deck on sponsons, but the fundamental problem is that it would be too compromised by it's LHA heritage. Simply adding a ski-jump would certainly help it's F-35B operations, improving takeoff performance (e.g. allowing heavier weights). If combined with a UAV-based AEW aircraft, capable of both long endurance and high altitudes, then the LHA becomes a pretty powerful carrier. It would effectively boost it's capability to somewhere at par with, or better than, ships like the Sao Paulo, Vikramaditya, Vikrant, and arguably Kuznetsov in some categories.

[J Boyle]

To state the obvious...that YAK sure looks like an E-2.
Yes, I know planes designed for the same mission will look alike...and not an indication of copying...but this one really does look like the Hawkeye.

[sferrin]

Originally Posted by EdLaw

Theoretically, it could be done, by adding an angled deck on sponsons, but the fundamental problem is that it would be too compromised by it's LHA heritage. Simply adding a ski-jump would certainly help it's F-35B operations, improving takeoff performance (e.g. allowing heavier weights). If combined with a UAV-based AEW aircraft, capable of both long endurance and high altitudes, then the LHA becomes a pretty powerful carrier. It would effectively boost it's capability to somewhere at par with, or better than, ships like the Sao Paulo, Vikramaditya, Vikrant, and arguably Kuznetsov in some categories.

I know the Tomcat was tested with a ski-jump. Anybody know if the Hawkeye or Viking were?

[planeman6000]

Originally Posted by X07

Excellent work, Planeman!

Nae Sao Paulo:
She now is fitted with two SAM twin launchers Simbad. One of the two cats is still out of order (lateral one). Never seen more than 6 A4K on board. 3 Super Etendard were on board in april-may 2004 (ARAEX). Project to fit the ship with Umkhonto SAM VLS.

FS Charles de Gaulle:
Will soon have F2 and F3 Rafale M, multirole fighters. F1 version (interception) is now out of active service. Forbin DDG will be commissioned in december 2008 with ASTER 30 SAM. New shafts (probably 27 knots).

AFSS Kuznetsov:
Not sure that this carrier is able to carry more than 40 aircrafts.

X07

Thanks for the info. I was searching for info on whether SAMs had been added. By Simbad I take it you mean a crewed twin Mistral launcher? Why oh why oh why not at least Sadral??? And why not some of those radar guided single Bofors 40mm mounts that only Brazil seems to use?

Where abouts are the Simbad fitted?, I'll update the relevant graphic.

Re the Rafale, it'll be great when France does chose to deploy them in a truly multirole mode - as far as my research could ascertain only 3 strike equipped Rafales have so far actually been deployed and the Super Etendard is likely to remain as the ship's strike platform for a couple of years due to costs. Now I agree, and I believe I commented to the effect that, France could deploy a much more potent all-Rafale multi-role air wing on the CDG at short notice if the need arose. Presumably more Rafales with strike capability enabled will deploy next time she sails (imminently?).

Re Kuznetsov max air wing, if you combined the hanger and deck storage you could certainly carry many more than the current typical air wings. As I showed Su-33 actually folds up quite small, and MiG-29K is a possibility. However, I can't see a max air wing being deployed for some years due to airframe availability, cost, need and aircrew training needs.


Also, re the Argentinean deployments, I was aware of them but they don't count as 'typical'. Part of the basis for my comparison was Typical situations, not the maximum feasible or future fit - hence I didn't go into great lengths about many of the things people have "corrected" me about. And also why I haven't tried "defending" my analysis very much.

[planeman6000]

I have a half completed missile boats comparrison to finish but I'm thinking of doing "small" carriers next. Problem is there are a hell of a lot of them so I might go into less detail and stick to the basics, plus divide into two categories:

STOVL (jet equipped) carriers
Invincible class
Cavour
Giuseppe Garibaldi
Principe de Asturias
Chakri Naruebet
INS Viraat
Juan Carlos I
USS America
Wasp class (forget Tarawa, too much same)

large through-deck helicopter carriers that could operate VTOL jets
HMS Ocean
Mistral class
Dokdo
Hyūga class



Any relevant info on any of the above welcome. Also if anyone wants to collate stats on general chractristics across the above ships that'd be great as I can't be bothered to. Things like hanger size, command facilities etc.

[Ja Worsley]

Originally Posted by planeman6000

Thanks for the info. I was searching for info on whether SAMs had been added. By Simbad I take it you mean a crewed twin Mistral launcher? Why oh why oh why not at least Sadral??? And why not some of those radar guided single Bofors 40mm mounts that only Brazil seems to use?

Yes a Simbad system is a Crewed version of an Army Mistral system. The reasons for choosing this system is because they are a secondary system used for close in air defence. They are back up to the two Crotale systems on board the vessel. For more info on the Sao Paulo

Where abouts are the Simbad fitted?, I'll update the relevant graphic.

They are fitted on the sponsons the forward port quarter holding the Simbad and the first Crotale and the aft starboard quarter one holding the other Crotale and Simbad system. The other two corners holding just the Simbads (this coming off the top of my head- will call a friend in Brazil to confirm). I can confirm though that the 100mm guns are no longer on the vessel.

Re the Rafale, it'll be great when France does chose to deploy them in a truly multirole mode - as far as my research could ascertain only 3 strike equipped Rafales have so far actually been deployed and the Super Etendard is likely to remain as the ship's strike platform for a couple of years due to costs. Now I agree, and I believe I commented to the effect that, France could deploy a much more potent all-Rafale multi-role air wing on the CDG at short notice if the need arose. Presumably more Rafales with strike capability enabled will deploy next time she sails (imminently?).

F2 and F3 standard Raf's have been coming on strength for some time now, a recent deployment of Raf to the US has seen the MN keep up their carrier qualifications for the pilots as well as test that these planes can and do meet MN standards. The plan has been to retire the SEM's around 2012 with the CdG (and PA2, if they ever pull their finger out) with an all Raf combat element, how ever- having said that, the problems that they have had in the development program of the Raf in it's different versions has lead me to thinking that the SEM's will soldier on till at the latest 2020 (lets face it, they can't last any longer after that- it would be like having an Alize onboard CdG today

Re Kuznetsov max air wing, if you combined the hanger and deck storage you could certainly carry many more than the current typical air wings. As I showed Su-33 actually folds up quite small, and MiG-29K is a possibility. However, I can't see a max air wing being deployed for some years due to airframe availability, cost, need and aircrew training needs.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Russian Federation Navy did not opt for any Mig-29K fighters and as such only India will be the sole customer of this vairent of the Fulcrum. Having said that, Could a new and improved version become a possibility should the Russians decided that the Flankers are getting to big and expencive to operate? Could is also be said that if they go for the Mig's then a single seat version of the Su-25 could also follow suite?

Also, re the Argentinean deployments, I was aware of them but they don't count as 'typical'. Part of the basis for my comparison was Typical situations, not the maximum feasible or future fit - hence I didn't go into great lengths about many of the things people have "corrected" me about. And also why I haven't tried "defending" my analysis very much.

Sorry if my corrections have offended you- I don't mean to discredit the work you have put into such a massive task.

[planeman6000]

Re Sao Paulo, I think that the Crotale was removed along with the 100mm guns. All photos of Sao Paulo show no Crotale.



And as the Foch with Crotale and 100mm DP guns


re MiG-29K yes it was not put into operation by CIS but is now re-entering production for India (albeit a much improved version). When Russian navy buys more combat jets the 'new' MiG-29K is probably just as likely as the Su-33.



Re Simbad, it's very obviously inferior to the Sadral as a CIWS. Obviously they both use the same missile, but ne is crewed and the other automated, plus has more ready-to-fire rounds.
Sadral:


Simbad:

[star49]

It just show it is far easier to train pilots now than back in 60s.

http://www.royfc.com/news/sep/1405sep03.html
On what to train

As the chief MiG-29K designer, Nikolay Buntin, maintains, the modern level of development of simulator complexes allows dispensing with specialized twin-place trainers in the naval pilots training programs. India, for example, does not have plans for such an aircraft – they thought it there enough to have several twin-place MiG-29KUB for support of the flying skills of the ship-based airmen. Within the framework of a contract with RSK MiG, the Indian navy will received next year a “full-scale MiG-29K simulator” (the PTS-29K). It has six degrees of freedom and a laser projection system from the STN ATLAS ELEKTRONIK ((in English)) firm (a division of Reinmetal Defense Electronics) ((in English)).

The question what is better for training naval airmen: a special training airplane or a powerful simulator and twin-place fighter variant, most of all is economic. The cost of a “flight hour” on a modern integrated simulator is rather high (owing to the complexity of the equipment) and starts from the thousands of U.S. dollars. For comparison: an hour of MiG-29UB flight costs 3,000 – 4,000. So, today military sailors and aviators, who are in tough financial conditions, ever more often have to take up text books for economic reasons. This factor in many ways will be considered in the discussion of aircraft carrier programs. As we have it in this country, so too do our partners in military and technical cooperation.
Source: 14.09.05, Voenno-Promyshlennyy Kur’er, Correspondent: Vladimir Karnozov

[planeman6000]

Two seat Indian MiG-29k

[Trident]

Originally Posted by sferrin

I know the Tomcat was tested with a ski-jump. Anybody know if the Hawkeye or Viking were?

The Hawkeye was, which was part of my point about the Yak-44:

Originally Posted by www.navy-matters.beedall.com

During the Carter Administration, the US Navy investigated whether it would be possible to deck launch an E-2, in expectation that it might be forced to move from its Nimitz Class super carriers to much smaller carriers such as the CVV and SCS. It found that not only was it possible to deck launch, but it could even be done safely - at reduced weights. Trials in the early 1980's from a ski-jump (of just 2-3 degrees) built at built ashore at NAS Patuxent River offered the promise of raising launch weights. However the ski jump presented some maintenance problems, and also indicated the possibility of fully compressing the nose gear at the higher angles that are optimum for a STOVL fighter such as the Harrier. A redesign of the nose gear would thus be required in order to operate the E-2 from a ski-jump on a regular basis, and max TOW issues remain as well.

Now fit engines with considerably more 'oomph' and the option seems definitely viable.

[niksi]

Originally Posted by planeman6000

Two seat Indian MiG-29k

Small correction: to the left is the single seater MiG-29K and on the right should be a MiG-29KUB (as those two were presented together on several occasions).
I have some questions (a bit OT):
Will all single seat MiG-29Ks retain the canopy from the double seat MiG-29KUBs or they will inherit canopy from the M/SMT versions?
What was the purpose of making that kind of canopy for a single seater? (unless it was an already built airframe for M2/UB and just converted in order to cut costs)

[sealordlawrence]

Originally Posted by Trident

I'm not so sure, but can we give it a rest? It's kind of irrelevant to the debate anyway.

Not irrelevant at all, iy was never intended to be carrier launched.

[Rick86]

Very good job, planeman 6000.

I really hope you will do something similar with VTOL carriers and, if i can suggest, you should include only true carriers and not LHD and / or multipurpose vessels.
So you can put:
- Garibaldi (8 Harriers)
- Cavour (with 12 - 16 F-35 and EH-101 HEW)
- Principe de Asturias
- Chakri Naruebet
- INS Viraat

Here you can get a lot of info about Cavour: http://digilander.libero.it/en_mezzi...en_cavour.html

[harryRIEDL]

Originally Posted by Rick86

Very good job, planeman 6000.

I really hope you will do something similar with VTOL carriers and, if i can suggest, you should include only true carriers and not LHD and / or multipurpose vessels.
So you can put:
- Garibaldi (8 Harriers)
- Cavour (with 12 - 16 F-35 and EH-101 HEW)
- Principe de Asturias
- Chakri Naruebet
- INS Viraat

Here you can get a lot of info about Cavour: http://digilander.libero.it/en_mezzi...en_cavour.html

why are you ruling out the Invinsables as they are basis of the small carriers and are as pure carrier as Viraat (it still kept it commando carrier ability from when it was in RN services) like wise Cavour muilit perpous his list seems fine despite the questionable ability of Dodoko and Hygua to operate fixed wing

my congratulations to you Planeman for a fantastic guide

[planeman6000]

so far I have Wasp, Invincible, Cavour, Juan Carlos I, Principe de Asturias, Garibald, Chakri Naruebet and Viraat.

Mistral, Ocean, Dokdo and Hyūga might yet make it as a "could be" category. USS America maybe too but info on her seems very sketchy. The 'official' pics show it as just a Wasp with no well deck. Even the radars seem in line with Wasp.