Japanese Warship Kaga is becoming an aircraft carrier

[huanghong]

Are you for real?? Why not pick the end of the ship at number 4 spot while you are at it?

You can take off using that spot (in fact you can take off using any spot on a ship, but that is NOT the shortest spot for take off) You count the length of a ski jump from the beginning of the platform til the end of that platform, not the entire run off area, because run off area is different between different spot, you can literally take off from next to the island or at the end of the ship.

View attachment 924196

Those line is for aircraft to be on station to hide from the blast to basically queue up, you don't launch aircraft from the end of the dotted line. (You can but not a must) CVN-70 have those at the rear of those ships too, that does not mean the run off is from the red circle to the edge of the ship

This is an actual video of Mig-29K takes off from INS Vikramaditya

Notice that the aircraft launch from next to number 2 spot next to the island (the circle with a 2 on it ) This is corresponded to the red square on this picture of INS Vikramaditya

View attachment 924197

Which is roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the entire length of the deck, seeing INS Vikramaditya only 900 ft long, the runoff cannot be more than 300 ft in length. While the cat on Nimitz is 326 ft long Your mark is 150-200 ft off.

LOL, you can certainly take off at 1/4 to 1/3 the length of the deck, and then like I said with the f-35b, that's when the load on the plane drops off dramatically. Dude, don't you know that the MiG-29 can only take off with anti-ship weapons when it is in the red box I marked? And in the position you're talking about, it can't even carry a single anti-ship missile?

If you can't tell the difference between F-35B & C I can just dismiss your opinion.

wow, aren't we talking about the F-35B?

 

[jhungary]

LOL, you can certainly take off at 1/4 to 1/3 the length of the deck, and then like I said with the f-35b, that's when the load on the plane drops off dramatically. Dude, don't you know that the MiG-29 can only take off with anti-ship weapons when it is in the red box I marked? And in the position you're talking about, it can't even carry a single anti-ship missile?


wow, aren't we talking about the F-35

You can have a B-25 bomber take off from the end of your carrier deck too, so what's your point

Even F-35B fully loaded would have to take off from the rear of the USS America, as I said, you are talking about run off length, I am talking about the Ski Jump length, you can have the entire ship as run off as much as launching a E-2D off a Nimitz, that's a different parameter dude. But the length of the ski jump is fixed.

Which goes back to the original question, do you have enough length to have both cat and recovery, because if you are doing a runoff at the back of the carrier, ski jump or not, you CAN'T recover aircraft.

Do you even know what we were talking about??

 

[huanghong]

You can have a B-25 bomber take off from the end of your carrier deck too, so what's your point

View attachment 924218

Even F-35B fully loaded would have to take off from the rear of the USS America, as I said, you are talking about run off length, I am talking about the Ski Jump length, you can have the entire ship as run off as much as launching a E-2D off a Nimitz, that's a different parameter dude. But the length of the ski jump is fixed.

Which goes back to the original question, do you have enough length to have both cat and recovery, because if you are doing a runoff at the back of the carrier, ski jump or not, you CAN'T recover aircraft.

Do you even know what we were talking about??

what? Ski Jump length alone is not enough for a fighter to truly have combat capability. You need to run off length.
When an Indian carrier is capable of deck operations with a run off length of 195m, what makes you think the same cannot be done with a 300ft catapult?

 

[gambit]

Taiwan is not Ukraine, it's small island which can be easily blocked, besides, Taiwan still has many pro unification people, which can help the mainland from inside. we are all Chinese and we know what they think and their capabilities. Do you why know with full US financial and military support, KMT still lost to the communists in merely 3 years and fled to Taiwan?

I can play the same 'if it was easy' argument as you guys so often done: If it was easy to take Taiwan, China would have done it a long time ago.

Yes, Taiwan is not Ukraine. It is easier for Russia to run over land than China to swim across water. Taiwan is probably better militarily equipped than Ukraine. Ukraine has pro Russia elements and that did not helped much.

But...Do you agree that China has a much more limited invasion window to Taiwan than Russia to Ukraine?

 

[beijingwalker]

I can play the same 'if it was easy' argument as you guys so often done: If it was easy to take Taiwan, China would have done it a long time ago.

Yes, Taiwan is not Ukraine. It is easier for Russia to run over land than China to swim across water. Taiwan is probably better militarily equipped than Ukraine. Ukraine has pro Russia elements and that did not helped much.

But...Do you agree that China has a much more limited invasion window to Taiwan than Russia to Ukraine?

PRC never seriously considers invading Taiwan if not for US repeated provacations, China didn't take back Hong kong until 1997, Macau untill 1999, it was not because China didn't have to capability to take on UK and Portugal, it's because China didn't think the time was right to do so. Same goes for Taiwan, China never wants to take back some ruined lands.

 

[jhungary]

what? Ski Jump length alone is not enough for a fighter to truly have combat capability. You need to run off length.
When an Indian carrier is capable of deck operations with a run off length of 195m, what makes you think the same cannot be done with a 300ft catapult?

Honestly, are you really that stupid or just pretend to be??

If you are talking about "Run Off" length, then it would be as long as the entire length of the Aircraft Carrier, so whichever carrier is longer, that would have a longer run off length, which mean you can't compare if they are CATOBAR or Ski Jump carrier. Because it was not based on whether or not it was a CATOBAR or STOBAR design, it's based on the deck design, ie how long you want your deck to be, which basically a question about the Aircraft Hanger deck..

I am talking about how you are going to put BOTH Catapult and Arresting gear recovery as in PHYSICALLY in an aircraft carrier. You are talking about jet landing and takeoff from a deck, you need "MINIMAL" distant for that to happen, it take around 400-500 ft ball distant to arrest an aircraft from 300 knots to dead stop, and a Catapult is over 300 ft in length, if you also put a Jet Blast protector and the entire aircraft length, which is about 100 ft, you can't operate a cat while recovering an aircraft if your carrier is only around 800 ft, you will need a ski jump to launch aircraft that way. Unless you are saying Chinese EMALS are shorter than the one Ford is using, you can't, because the aircraft you are trying to recover will hit the back of the aircraft trying to take off when they arrest.

 

[huanghong]

Honestly, are you really that stupid or just pretend to be??

If you are talking about "Run Off" length, then it would be as long as the entire length of the Aircraft Carrier, so whichever carrier is longer, that would have a longer run off length, which mean you can't compare if they are CATOBAR or Ski Jump carrier. Because it was not based on whether or not it was a CATOBAR or STOBAR design, it's based on the deck design, ie how long you want your deck to be, which basically a question about the Aircraft Hanger deck..

I am talking about how you are going to put BOTH Catapult and Arresting gear recovery as in PHYSICALLY in an aircraft carrier. You are talking about jet landing and takeoff from a deck, you need "MINIMAL" distant for that to happen, it take around 400-500 ft ball distant to arrest an aircraft from 300 knots to dead stop, and a Catapult is over 300 ft in length, if you also put a Jet Blast protector and the entire aircraft length, which is about 100 ft, you can't operate a cat while recovering an aircraft if your carrier is only around 800 ft, you will need a ski jump to launch aircraft that way. Unless you are saying Chinese EMALS are shorter than the one Ford is using, you can't, because the aircraft you are trying to recover will hit the back of the aircraft trying to take off when they arrest.

Obviously, what you say and what I say are not the same thing at all. I never said that TAKE and off are simultaneous.
So back to the original point, India’s 40,000-ton aircraft carrier can operate with a length of 195m runway, so why can’t it operate a 300ft catapult runway?

Honestly, are you really that stupid or just pretend to be??

If you are talking about "Run Off" length, then it would be as long as the entire length of the Aircraft Carrier, so whichever carrier is longer, that would have a longer run off length, which mean you can't compare if they are CATOBAR or Ski Jump carrier. Because it was not based on whether or not it was a CATOBAR or STOBAR design, it's based on the deck design, ie how long you want your deck to be, which basically a question about the Aircraft Hanger deck..

I am talking about how you are going to put BOTH Catapult and Arresting gear recovery as in PHYSICALLY in an aircraft carrier. You are talking about jet landing and takeoff from a deck, you need "MINIMAL" distant for that to happen, it take around 400-500 ft ball distant to arrest an aircraft from 300 knots to dead stop, and a Catapult is over 300 ft in length, if you also put a Jet Blast protector and the entire aircraft length, which is about 100 ft, you can't operate a cat while recovering an aircraft if your carrier is only around 800 ft, you will need a ski jump to launch aircraft that way. Unless you are saying Chinese EMALS are shorter than the one Ford is using, you can't, because the aircraft you are trying to recover will hit the back of the aircraft trying to take off when they arrest.

Why do you think Run Off has to happen at the same time?
Obviously, when the Indian aircraft carrier is using the 195m runway, it is impossible to land, and without using this long runway, the fighter jets cannot carry enough load.

 

[jhungary]

Obviously, what you say and what I say are not the same thing at all. I never said that TAKE and off are simultaneous.
So back to the original point, India’s 40,000-ton aircraft carrier can operate with a length of 195m runway, so why can’t it operate a 300ft catapult runway?

Why can't you put a 200 meters metal deck on any ship and operate aircraft with it? Or why not India build a 1000 ft carrier to operate Ski Jump? That's because those questions are irreverent, you can't put a Cat on a sub 800 ft ship because it won't physically fit, if they operate a 300 ft cat on a 850 ft ship, you can't do both recovery and launch at the same time.

And if you cannot recover aircraft and launch them at the same time you are basically sitting duck, that's how Japan loses 3 aircraft carrier in Midway because they can't launch the second strike when they are receiving the first strike.

 

[huanghong]

Why can't you put a 200 meters metal deck on any ship and operate aircraft with it? Or why not India build a 1000 ft carrier to operate Ski Jump? That's because those questions are irreverent, you can't put a Cat on a sub 800 ft ship because it won't physically fit, if they operate a 300 ft cat on a 850 ft ship, you can't do both recovery and launch at the same time.

And if you cannot recover aircraft and launch them at the same time you are basically sitting duck, that's how Japan loses 3 aircraft carrier in Midway because they can't launch the second strike when they are receiving the first strike.

You are basically sitting duck? ? ? ?
lol, this is exactly an 850ft aircraft carrier LOL

 

[jhungary]

You are basically sitting duck? ? ? ?
lol, this is exactly an 850ft aircraft carrier LOL
View attachment 924234

Are you using light aircraft like A-4 and Rafale?

because that had a 264 ft cat

 

[huanghong]

Are you using light aircraft like A-4 and Rafale?

because that had a 264 ft cat

Wow, in your eyes, the 24500kg Rafale is as light aircraft as the 24500lb A-4? ? ?
lol
24500kg is light aircraft？？？

 

[jhungary]

Wow, in your eyes, the 24500kg Rafale is as light aircraft as the 24500lb A-4? ? ?
lol
24500kg is light aircraft？？？

Was it a 30 tons Hornet?

And I never said Rafale was light aircraft, I said were you operating light aircraft like A-4, and Rafale.

 

[huanghong]

Was it a 30 tons Hornet?

WOW, no 30 tons is a light aircraft?
Even if the f-18c is only 23541kg? ? ? lol

 

[jhungary]

WOW, no 30 tons is a light aircraft?
Even if the f-18c is only 23541kg? ? ? lol

Again, don'\t twist my word, I never said Rafale is a light aircraft.

I said "Were you operating light aircraft, like A-4, and Rafale"

 

[huanghong]

Again, don'\t twist my word, I never said Rafale is a light aircraft.

I said "Were you operating light aircraft, like A-4, and Rafale"

so what? Being able to operate a Rafale doesn't meet your needs?