Chinese Carrier

[birdman]

Not really. Even way back in the early to mid 70's we were able to launch planes off the pointy end and recover them on the flat end while we were anchored. We did it a bit in the Med during the "fuel crisis" of the 70's.

bob

True, however, the payload for take off and bring-back is severely limited if not underway--if one assumes the cat is good for 140-160 knots, a 20 knot wind down the deck (due to the speed of the carrier) is good for a 20+% increase in T/O weight, all else being equal, and 20% is the difference between minimal A/A ordnance on a super hornet and a "pound the crap out of something" load out

[roo_ster]

All is not quiet in teh Middle Kingdom:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8969702/Wukan-forces-Chinese-officials-to-release-three-villagers.html

When an authoritarian regime is forced to cough up folks it has snatched, things are looking a mite shaky.

[makattak]

All is not quiet in teh Middle Kingdom:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8969702/Wukan-forces-Chinese-officials-to-release-three-villagers.html

When an authoritarian regime is forced to cough up folks it has snatched, things are looking a mite shaky.

AND good for the people of China. Hopefully.

[BobR]

True, however, the payload for take off and bring-back is severely limited if not underway--

I agree, but one simple way around that is to load up on payload and not fuel. You launch as heavy as you can with minimal fuel and hit a tanker immediately after takeoff. As airframes have a max limit on take off weight, along with the ability of the cat to get you fast enough to stay in the air once it shoots you off of the pointy end you just choose the type of weight you want to go with, fuel or ordnance.

A logistical challange to get enough tankers in the area to fuel up a large package, but it could be done if it was deemed important enough.

bob

[birdman]

I agree, but one simple way around that is to load up on payload and not fuel. You launch as heavy as you can with minimal fuel and hit a tanker immediately after takeoff. As airframes have a max limit on take off weight, along with the ability of the cat to get you fast enough to stay in the air once it shoots you off of the pointy end you just choose the type of weight you want to go with, fuel or ordnance.

A logistical challange to get enough tankers in the area to fuel up a large package, but it could be done if it was deemed important enough.

bob

Kinda limits carrier tankers as well though (buddy store tanks...hey, with no more A-6, does that mean no more KA-6?  Do we use 18's with buddy store tanks now?!).

I thought of that, but being dependent on USAF assets for navy projection does limit things--even if it gives you more wings in the battle and local ordnance--lately, fuel loads per mission substantially exceed payload load-outs

[BobR]

but being dependent on USAF assets for navy projection does limit things

That is what is happening these days. The Navy has become quite content with the AF providing land based refueling assets for their in flight refueling. With the demise of both the A6 and the S3 tankers about all that is left is an F18 with buddy stores and a hose reel package to provide in flight refueling in close to the boat.

And I have to agree, relying on the AF to put enough tankers in the air to fuel a strike package after launching with a much lower fuel load would limit things quite a bit.

Most of the times we launched from anchorage it was for limited planes doing limited missions, like recco over Cyprus in the early 70's when Greece and Turkey both wanted the island.

bob