China pointed to the "congenital" defects of the aircraft carrier Liaoning

The Asia Times newspaper spoke about the shortcomings of the first Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning (modernized "Varyag"), some of which are of "inborn" origin, reports Lenta.ru report.

The newspaper refers to the report of the state television company, in which the test pilot reported, in particular, about the features of the landing of the fighter Shenyang J-15 (created on the basis of the prototype Su-33 purchased from Ukraine) on the Liaoning deck.

According to the pilot, to land on an aircraft carrier, the J-15 aircraft “needs to lose weight (weapon and fuel). " In this case, the take-off of a fighter is “much easier than landing.

The TV company noted that “for the modernization of the Soviet aircraft carrier, China’s industrial industry produced more than 1,2 thousands of technological elements,” however, Liaoning “is significantly limited in its ability to be upgraded, including due to congenital defects”, and “significantly inferior to American aircraft carriers.” Therefore, its replacement is required.

Help publication: "Of the seven aircraft-carrying anti-submarine cruisers project 1143" Krechet ", created in the USSR, to date, only three have remained in combat status. "Kiev" and "Minsk" were sold to China, where they turned into entertainment centers. Novorossiysk sawed for scrap in South Korea. "Ulyanovsk" dismantled even on the stocks. "Admiral Gorshkov" sold to India, where it is being upgraded to Vikramaditya - the future flagship of the country's Navy. "Varyag" was sold to China, where after the conversion it was named Liaoning. Russia has only Admiral Kuznetsov. ”

Comments

[Vitaly Anisimov]

Ukraine bought for a vodka, here and deal with them hehe
We’ll still build ourselves .. Mama Do not Cry called!

[Borik]

Train to train and train again. Practice landing on the deck. And everything will be all right.

[Borik]

According to the pilot, for landing on an aircraft carrier, the J-15 aircraft “needs to lose weight (weapons and fuel).”

To reduce weight, you must eject yourself.

[lance]

In the USSR it was precisely because of the ammunition that the training took place without them with a load. As far as I know, Kuzi has done it. all the same, China is technically behind, maybe it’s going to blow up the Pacific like a monument?

[hrych]

And we were not yet interested in the opinion of the Chinese, we bought it and go. Or create it yourself, so no, build your own on the same project. Gyrfalcon is a cruiser for our northern latitudes, where they sailed on mounds between ice, and not on lousy junks.

[ancestors from Don]

In the article, some kind of confusion, an aircraft carrier and an aircraft carrier ship are essentially different combat units and there is no need to compare them so literally. An aircraft carrier is just a self-propelled barge with an airfield with support and support ships, and an aircraft carrying cruiser, in addition to having combat aircraft, has on-board weapons and can not stand up for itself so that the Chinese do not pick and take a different look at the combat capabilities of the former Soviet cruiser.

[Gene Concrete]

For a long time, neither Kuzya (missiles simply do not load), nor Liaoning (PU dismantled), nor Vikramaditya (PU dismantled) have no longer had rocket weapons.

[ancestors from Don]

Quote: Gene Concrete

For a long time, neither Kuzya (missiles simply do not load), nor Liaoning (PU dismantled), nor Vikramaditya (PU dismantled) have no longer had rocket weapons.

What is the problem ? The written appeal of the Chinese comrades and the advance payment for ship armament will solve everything, the type and capabilities of the cruiser allow this.

[Gene Concrete]

The problem is expediency, anti-ship missiles are not needed by the aircraft carrier.

[trahterist]

What kind of mod-compare different types of ships?
Type take-off on the deck is, then it is already a solid aircraft carrier, so what ??
This is NOT an aircraft carrier in the truest sense of the word, but just an aircraft carrier cruiser, the word 'cruiser' in the project is the main, key!
The only “clean” aircraft carrier was Ulyanovsk, but died without being really born
So it could be adequately compared with American "colleagues", but ... if only yes ...

[Kyzmich]

Can you tell me what is the difference between the ship "Ulyanvsk" from the "Kuznetsov"?

[Kyzmich]

Quote: Kyzmich

Type take-off on the deck is, then it is already a solid aircraft carrier, so what ??

And also "landing"
Why is he not an aircraft carrier for you?
And the British "Elizabeth" aircraft carrier or what?

[lance]

kuzi with rockets is okay.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: ancestors from the Don

An aircraft carrier is just a self-propelled barge with an airfield with support and support ships, and an aircraft carrying cruiser, in addition to having combat aircraft, has on-board weapons and can not stand up for itself weakly

An aircraft carrier cruiser is an aircraft carrier that has donated part of the aircraft weapons (which only he can carry) for the installation of conventional weapons systems that any ship can carry. At the same time, an escort for TAVKR is still needed.

[maximghost]

Not any, but only large enough.
At the same time, a small percentage of the air group donates. Fully use which still can not be a single modern aircraft carrier - there will not be enough deck capacity. As a result, you can either slightly reduce the escort, or leave it the same, but get a more stable connection.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: maximghost

At the same time, a small percentage of the air group donates. Fully utilized which no one modern aircraft carrier can still use - there will not be enough deck capacity

The "small percentage of the air group" for 11435 is about 20%. That is how much area of ​​a possible hangar was devoured by the Granit UNP.

Quote: maximghost

As a result, you can either slightly reduce the escort, or leave it the same, but get a more stable connection.

Due to what will we reduce the escort? TAVKR air defense - this is only near-range air defense systems and self-defense air defense systems. PLO is limited only by anti-torpedo defense complexes. So you have to leave the escort the same.
As for the SLCM ... PMSM, it is better to have 20% more reusable aircraft in the hangar than 12-20 "one-time bombers" in the UNP.

[maximghost]

The "small percentage of the air group" for 11435 is about 20%. That is how much area of ​​a possible hangar was devoured by the Granit UNP.

In the dimensions of launch granites + combat posts, m / d launch and agrarian will fit 3-5 aircraft, so 10% at best.

As for the SLCM ... PMSM, it is better to have 20% more reusable aircraft in the hangar than 12-20 "one-time bombers" in the UNP. smile

TAVKR air defense - this is only near-range air defense systems and self-defense air defense systems. PLO is limited only by anti-torpedo defense complexes.

Yes, only the same daggers are the main anti-aircraft caliber of the same BOD, which will be included in the order, incl. as air defense ships.
In addition, it is important that these means of air defense and anti-aircraft defense, as well as the means of their guidance, are on the ship itself and always remain with it.

Debatable. These aircraft in the hangar can only be used as a replacement for the lost, and missiles can be used at any time only by limiting take-off and landing operations at the time of launch.

[Quote] [/ quote]

[Alexey RA]

Quote: maximghost

In the dimensions of launch granites + combat posts, m / d launch and agrarian will fit 3-5 aircraft, so 10% at best.

I considered taking into account the extension of the hangar to PU.

Quote: maximghost

Yes, only the same daggers are the main anti-aircraft caliber of the same BOD, which will be included in the order, incl. as air defense ships.

1155 were never air defense ships. The main gripe on them was precisely the short-range air defense systems, which were suitable only for self-defense and did not provide anti-aircraft defense.

Quote: maximghost

In addition, it is important that these means of air defense and anti-aircraft defense, as well as the means of their guidance, are on the ship itself and always remain with it.

Right. That is, it is impossible to increase the depth of the detection and destruction zone due to the extension of the escort forces to the threatened direction - the detection and destruction means are attached to the ship.

Quote: maximghost

Debatable. These aircraft in the hangar can only be used as a replacement for the lost

Why? If the hangar were extended to the launcher, then the aircraft would also move forward.

[maximghost]

I considered taking into account the extension of the hangar to PU.

So do I. Due to the reduction in the width of the ship just in the area of ​​PU granites - I get + 4 drying or 4 drying and a helicopter.

1155 were never air defense ships. The main gripe on them was precisely the short-range air defense systems, which were suitable only for self-defense and did not provide air defense

and nevertheless they would have been in the warrant, like the buzzards with their very modest plos. In addition, daggers are threatened to be exchanged for air defense missiles similar to land tori with protruding from below the PU decks, and this is already an average range, given that the zircon and caliber will have universal PU, and the caliber has a version with a rocket and torpedo then the PLO can be pulled to an acceptable level. All this is a theory of course. We do not now have the USSR and this is unlikely to be realized.

Right. That is, it is impossible to increase the depth of the detection and destruction zone due to the extension of the escort forces to the threatened direction - the detection and destruction means are attached to the ship.

but at the same time, they can be located on the opposite, from the direction of attack, the edge of the order and at a great distance, just an uncomfortable position and, as a result, will not be able to take part in repelling the attack on the aircraft carrier.

Why? If the hangar were extended to the launcher, then the aircraft would also move forward.

The thing is the throughput of the deck, the number of those. positions, that it is impossible to fully service aircraft in the hangar for safety reasons, and that some of the aircraft were initially stored on deck. If you don’t have any details, then you need to raise the strike group, which is not fast and very dreary, especially if you have to use refueling (suppose we have them). While the group in the air it is impossible to carry out large-scale take-off and landing operations, but it is necessary to keep 1-2 patrol pairs in the sky, keep 1-2 patrol pairs on the deck and 1-2 rescue helicopters + drills in the air. Then, upon the return of the drummers, you need to quickly clear the deck and begin the dreary procedure for receiving them, while everyone will not fit on the deck, part of it must be lowered into the hangars without refueling, and it is impossible to refuel in the hangar. Plus, those who are waiting for landing are exhausted by departure and have little fuel left, which means either we land everyone quickly, or refueling again on takeoff, which slows down and complicates everything.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: maximghost

and nevertheless they would have been in the warrant, like the buzzards with their very modest plos.

So therefore, they were included in the connection together: 1155 needed air defense, and 956 needed PLO. This is the "division of labor."

Quote: maximghost

In addition, the daggers threaten to change to a missile system, similar to land tori, with protruding from under the PU decks, and this is already an average range,

So the “Dagger" was originally a messy "torus". And the "torus" is the air defense system of a database with max. range up to 15 km. The average range is the Buk.

Quote: maximghost

if we take into account that the zircon and caliber will have a universal launcher, and the caliber has a version with a rocket and torpedo, then the PLO can again be pulled to an acceptable level.

Isn't it better to find areas for additional Ka-27PL? They fly further than PLUR, and can work as "external GAS".

Quote: maximghost

full service aircraft in the hangar is not possible for TB

The Yankees, based on their experience, decided that it was possible. Under the responsibility of the commander of the AB: he was given the right to authorize the refueling and suspension / removal of ammunition in the hangar. The only thing that can not be done in the hangar is to start the engines. However, it is possible to test technicians - in a special hangar area at the stern.

[maximghost]

So the “Dagger" was originally a messy "torus". And the "torus" is the air defense system of a database with max. range up to 15 km. Medium Range is Buk

I'm dumb. I meant that the dagger, the oversized torus, will be replaced by the oversized axle box partially protruding above the PU deck (i.e., the dagger should wave to the calm).

Isn't it better to find areas for additional Ka-27PL? They fly further than PLUR, and can work as "external GAS".

Ka-27, in addition to Kuznetsov himself, is based on a mix of 1-2 escort ships. In addition, the missile torpedo can be quickly launched onto the boat, while the helicopter will take off, while it will fly.

The Yankees, based on their experience, decided that it was possible.

Maybe. But, as far as I know, they, too, cannot use the full air group at a time. Maybe I'm wrong. But in any case, when in Vietnam they eased the safety requirements for removing fuses from SAM missiles, they burned a bunch of planes on deck.

[hrych]

Quote: Alexey RA

An aircraft carrier cruiser is an aircraft carrier that has donated part of aircraft weapons.

Maybe on the contrary, the Cruiser, who donated strike systems for the wing
Do not forget that Kuznetsov has anti-aircraft defense and air defense systems, including missiles, in addition to the wing has 12 missiles of the most powerful Granites, which will naturally be replaced by Onyx and Caliber. For this reason, he does not need an export, but it is not forbidden. The American aircraft carrier can provide its air defense with an air wing, but this thing works in the southern latitudes, with a certain mismatch and wind. Kuznetsov lives and works in the northern latitudes, where the pitching, where the weather is not flying, where the steam catapults do not work, however, he is able to carry out his tasks, especially with Caliber, becomes a carrier of strategic weapons and receives additional specialization, the most important and serious one. A more versatile ship does not currently exist. Do we just need a floating trough? In the north, definitely not.

[voyaka uh]

"however, they are able to carry out their tasks," ////

The main thing is not to launch planes. The rest is excellent.

[hrych]

And how is the Israeli aircraft carrier or cruiser doing? Or Sherkhan and I have 11 aircraft carriers. Don’t worry, we’ll put air defense systems and coastal Bastions to the Syrians and Iranians, or even the vigorous bonbu and stop giggling, there will be crying throughout the promised land (the Negev slop desert)

[Alexey RA]

Quote: hrych

Do not forget that Kuznetsov has anti-aircraft defense and air defense systems, including SAMs,

PLO "Kuznetsova" is RBU RKPTZ. Air Defense - SAM self-defense ("Daggers" and ZRAK). That is, all that he can with on-board weapons is the interception of torpedoes and anti-ship missiles at the last frontier. Without an escort, self-defense 11435 is not much different from American AB.

Quote: hrych

Kuznetsov lives and works in the northern latitudes, where the pitching, where the weather is non-flying, where the steam catapults do not work

And as soon as the Yankees in the 80s of the last century flew both in the Bering Sea and in the Norwegian Sea beyond the Arctic Circle.
Probably, they simply did not know that the catapults should not work there.

Quote: hrych

all the more with Caliber it becomes a carrier of strategic weapons

What strategic weapon? On which theater are you able to bring the AB 1000 km to the coast of a likely enemy? Otherwise, what is this strategic weapon that can only be operated along the coast ...

[hrych]

When was the last time an American aircraft carrier entered the Arctic Ocean? Strategic Kyrgyz Republic Caliber with nuclear warhead flies 2,5 thousand kilometers. Kuznetsov passed the English Channel so-and-so, was not attacked. And why should he defend himself? What kind of council psychology. We must and can, if necessary, attack first. Air defense and anti-aircraft defense of the ship are sufficient to repel an attack on the ship itself, it does not claim to be an element of missile defense. And who said that they will not be modernized or replaced with marine analogs of the S-400, etc. Or does the type of escort ship have more advanced missiles? Ushakov generally has only anti-aircraft artillery. After all, you again keep the American doctrine in your head. And in general, I repeat, when the Soviet admirals made a decision on this ship, there was a calculation, there were specific tasks. There, academics puzzled, and they, excuse me, you are more authoritative. Now there is this ship and it must be used, but God forbid, climb monkeys in the west. This is let the Chinese do it. We do not need aircraft carriers, for us in the future, and the KR and fighter-bombers with unlimited range with nuclear warheads will not be remote. An aircraft carrier is a stagnant and unpromising type of weapon, we do not need to invest in an anachronism.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: hrych

When was the last time an American aircraft carrier entered the Arctic Ocean?

And what should they do there after the collapse of the USSR? But in the 80s they worked there almost every year.

Quote: hrych

Kuznetsov passed the English Channel so-and-so, was not attacked.

We and the submarine across the English Channel in the freeboard passed unhindered. Does this mean that in wartime submarines can safely act without diving?

Quote: hrych

And why should he defend himself? What kind of council psychology.

Because the main task of our AB is air defense of naval formations of the "barrier".
And also because the enemy has stupidly more deck vehicles. If we come to visit him, he will use them all in air defense. And if he comes to us, then he will have to allocate part of the machines for provision (electronic warfare, refueling, control group, etc.), and the remaining ones to be divided between the strike group and the clearing and direct cover groups.

Quote: hrych

Air defense and anti-aircraft defense of the ship are sufficient to repel an attack on the ship itself, it does not claim to be an element of missile defense.

Air defense and PLO of the ship are sufficient for drifting missiles and torpedoes that made their way through the escort.

Quote: hrych

And who said that they will not be modernized or replaced with marine analogs of the S-400, etc.

Goodbye, deck aviation. You look at the dimensions of the S-400 TPK, especially in height. And then figure it out - where you can put them on 11435.
Oh yes, you still need to put antenna posts. And achieve EM compatibility. And do not repeat the fate of Polement-Redoubt.

Quote: hrych

After all, you again keep the American doctrine in your head.

Well, yes, of course - what can the Yankees with 100 years of experience in using it, including one World War, understand in carrier-based aviation?
It is imperative to fill the aircraft carrier with all possible weapon systems, while reducing the air group to a size that provides only self-defense of this AB. Because, as any complex, we require mass and volume. We had few projects of “battleship-aircraft carriers for the RKKF” from Gibbs and Cox in the 40s. And there were few of us 1143, who, with sizes approaching a full-fledged AB, carried the armament of rocket EM and small AB.

Quote: hrych

We do not need aircraft carriers, for us in the future, and the KR and fighter-bombers with unlimited range with nuclear warheads will not be remote.

And the "Death Star".
Stories about KR and fighter-bomber with unlimited range with nuclear weapons very good, you know, against the backdrop of "Ivan Gren." Or, not by night will be remembered, "Polement Reduta."

[hrych]

They have another hundred years of experience using battleships, but this experience has gone to the trash with the last battleship recently. The WWII experience here is already completely inappropriate; the difference in technologies and doctrines is too big. You understand that the USA AUG, like the lack of diesel submarines, is not from a good life, but by necessity. They are an overseas power, the main trade routes for supplying the sea, they buy half the oil, they need to transport their goods by sea, etc. There is certainly a large number of military bases, so again it is necessary to supply and supply by sea. The number of AUGs in them corresponds to the bottlenecks of the sea routes such as the Suez Canal, the Strait of Malacca, the Panama Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, Gibraltar, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, etc. And what about Russia? Yes, we do not care about these paths, we have other, in the Baltic, Black Sea, Vladik and Nakhodka. Nowhere do they need their problems, the coastal aviation and the fleet of the near zone do an excellent job. Okay, you need to cover the exit of our strategic Pacific and North Sea submarines, and there the Northern Fleet expanded, to the atomic and aircraft carrier cruisers. The task of combating AUGs and their bottlenecks, the USSR, at the very least, solved the problem, created underwater and flying “aircraft carrier killers,” which now receive strategic functions due to the progress of strike weapons and positioning systems, tracking, target designation. Why do we need aircraft carriers? Yes, do Americans need them? I agree, their doctrine, their mode of existence requires. We have nothing of the kind. Their bottlenecks, like their coast, along with the troughs, we will flush with super torpedoes. It’s in vain that Putin made these things public. The whole doctrine of the Navy and VKS, and the Strategic Missile Forces is radically changing. Carriers here are simply inappropriate.

[hrych]

Can an air wing perform a task in such a storm? Of course not, but how the Cruiser can and should work, including the anti-aircraft, anti-submarine, anti-ship and shock-strategic function. And fighters and helicopters in the internal hangar will wait for flying weather and calm

As if our admirals, when they ordered Krechet, were short-sighted. They knew what and where was needed.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: hrych

As if our admirals, when they ordered Krechet, were short-sighted. They knew what and where was needed.

And our admirals didn’t order Krechet. They did not need him.
The fleet needed project 85. Or 1160.

And the 1143 line was imposed on the Navy by "boots" from the General Staff, fantasizing about how the aircraft KVVP will perform tasks on an equal footing with the American decks.

Quote: hrych

Can an air wing perform a task in such a storm? Of course not, but how the Cruiser can and should work, including the anti-aircraft, anti-submarine, anti-ship and shock-strategic function.

AB seaworthiness in aviation, more precisely - the ability to carry out take-off and landing operations - up to 7 points.

[hrych]

Imposed, not imposed. All this is speculation and rumor. And in general, who told you that our tasks coincide with the Americans, who said that the AUG will fight against AUG, as in WWII with the Japanese? We have made anti-AUG aircraft carriers - Antei with supersonic semi-megaton kamikaze planes in the form of Granite, and an Tu22M3 air carrier with the megaton X-22. They are then called upon to punish the Papuans, we do not need this. To discuss is not harmful, but we will not do them.

[maximghost]

And our admirals didn’t order Krechet. They did not need him.

Our admirals did not have a consensus about which aircraft carrier is needed and whether it is needed at all. It is because of the lack of consensus - now there is so much srach.

[Zhelezyakin]

Let's take a deeper look? China, with all due respect to them, is a big copier. If the Varyag's design does not provide for something, then you already need to connect your own R&D sector. Does he have experience? Most likely no. Well, or there is, but associated with a change in the style of sneakers. What I mean is that Soviet technology historically has a great potential for refinement and modernization, and if some Nyan does not see it, it does not mean at all that it is so!

[sogdy]

Quote: Zhelezyakin

I mean, that Soviet technology historically has great potential for refinement and modernization

No, well, cho, Enterprise doesn’t come out of Liaoning. Especially the one from Star Trek. Shipka many details need to be finished.

[Zhelezyakin]

Humor appreciated))) However, they did not buy Enterprise but Varyag. Rather, a historical prototype should have turned out that the enemy never surrendered!

[sogdy]

Judging by their films and general political training, they are sufficiently prepared.
And during the defense of Liaohe, almost the entire army and the whole fleet were laid, but the province was not captured. Tradition, adnaka.

[Zhelezyakin]

Ha!!! They now have a real opportunity to buy a real Enterprise. Maybe after the "modernization" and manufacture of the next 1200 technological elements, a spaceship will turn out. It will only be necessary to find his Tiberius Kirk, with a characteristic cut of eyes)))

[Heterocapsa]

not everything is so bad. But then the aircraft carrier stopped smoking after modernization and ours is visible a mile away although maybe this is a plus?

[Zhelezyakin]

That’s why it doesn’t come out - a "stone flower". Like a parable about a non-firing AK that was made with tightening tolerances ...

[Piramidon]

Quote: Zhelezyakin

Maybe take a deeper look?

If deeper, then the Chinese, too, seemingly bought it under the casino, so they would have played roulette and there would have been no problems. Chitrozade, damn it.

[siberalt]

Are there few people in China? It is not necessary for every pilot to return to the deck. The Japanese, somehow, did not bother much with this. He took off, fulfilled the task and the pilot’s family was completely respected by the government.

[Sergey985]

Pilots do not stock up. And it’s also expensive to rivet one-time pilots. Airplanes are also expensive.

[Heterocapsa]

what are you bloodthirsty well, let him even return home on the same plane

[Freeman]

Quote: siberalt

Are there few people in China? It is not necessary for every pilot to return to the deck. The Japanese, somehow, did not bother much with this. He took off, fulfilled the task and the pilot’s family was completely respected by the government.

BANZAAAI !!!

[Denis Obukhov]

They took it under the museum at the price of scrap metal, and now they have claims.

[RASKAT]

China pointed to the "congenital" defects of the aircraft carrier Liaoning

One innate effect, this is not an aircraft carrier, this is an aircraft carrier cruiser! The first and last of its kind, according to the results of the exploitation of the USSR, realized that the idea was a dead end and the next ship was to be the 1143.7 project Ulyanovsk. With a displacement of 80 000 tons, an air group of 70 units and a nuclear power plant. And the Chinese are stepping on the same rake in shipbuilding and in addition, and copies of our Su-33 do not correspond to the TTX analogue.
I think so.

[sogdy]

Actually, the task is to confirm the presence on the islands of the South China Sea. What it copes with.

[KVIRTU]

The name TAKR and RCC on it is a bypass of the Montreux Convention, concluded back in 1936, prohibiting the entry of aircraft carriers into the World Cup.
Last year, China "Shandong" launched the recycled Krechet, but left the same dimensions (305 m of the flight deck). Enterprise, for reference, 1100 feet.
They’ll put a steam catopult, but they’ll put it, that's all, no rake.

[Normal ok]

Quote: MIKHAN

Ukraine bought for a vodka, here and deal with them hehe
We’ll still build ourselves .. Mama Do not Cry called!

The child is not reasonable, read the text completely and you will be happy (it is better to read a more complete version on other resources). And in the test, it is written in black in Russian that the project itself (congenital defects) is defective. This also applies to Kuzi.

[Shadow shooter]

And they made their first aircraft carrier 001 based on the defective Varyag concept? Funny

[Uncle lee]

Kiev and Minsk sold to China

Varangian is sold to China

What a terrible fate ships have!

[Dezinto]

Why did they draw it in the photo? Could not find a real photo?



In general, well, kapets news. The Chinese are hauling Soviet equipment purchased from Ukraine. Not everywhere there wi-fi catches! badly built redo nada.!
Maybe we still apologize that such an uncomfortable aircraft carrier China bought for a penny after the collapse of our country? .....
..... towards the forest it’s over there.

[ism_ek]

At least there is no smoke from the chimney. The Chinese are able to do something

[Denis Obukhov]

In fact, it’s also underwater ... the option is turned on with uncertain predictability to confuse the adversary ... but the Ukrainians decided to give the Indians an undocumented surprise ...

For neher museums to adopt ....

[Corsair0304]

Quote: Denis Obukhov

For neher museums to adopt ....

To be honest -. Well, the Chinese will not accept a defective aircraft carrier cruiser. Even if they were dubbed the “world photocopier”, China cannot be denied pragmatism. Accepted - that means all errors are permissible for the performance of the tasks assigned to it and the team before this ship.

[voyaka uh]

They will have 6 aircraft carriers. Starting from the 4th - real, with a catapult. The first 3 are light aircraft carriers.

[NEOZ]

J-15 "need to lose weight

need to offer MiG29K !!!!!!

[Sergey985]

You just need to provide for the dumping of bricks from the pilot!

[NEXUS]

Nothing that Varyag is already under 40 years old and it was built on the basis of the threats of those years and from the concept of the use of the 80s? It is clear that it is out of date. But at the same time, starting from the age of 12, the Chinese received technology for building aircraft carriers, which they did not have before the village.

[Dormidont]

Generic Ukrainian injury

[Evgeny Goncharov]

Nevskoye PKB has long moved to Ukraine?

[Strelets1]

Quote: Borik

According to the pilot, for landing on an aircraft carrier, the J-15 aircraft “needs to lose weight (weapons and fuel).” At the same time, the takeoff of the fighter is “much easier than landing.”

Hehe ... found the "news" ... "drop weapons and fuel" ... you might think that the pilots of the US Navy do not ...
The same thing about take-off and landing - on take-off you are pushed by a catapult or springboard and the job is done ... The most important thing is not to lose consciousness from overloads ...
But landing problems ... - you need to get into a matchbox at a speed, which is extremely difficult - especially with strong winds and pitching ... therefore, marine pilots in the USA (and, in general, wherever there is aircraft carrier) - this is an elite from elites - there really are pros ...

[lance]

most likely you need to bring to mind the optical landing system, such as our "moon", which also changed after the appearance of twinks

[Heterocapsa]

but how to

[andrew42]

Chinese techies are certainly hard workers, but here is the classic Chinese cheek puff in all its glory. Claims against an aircraft carrier cruiser built by a state that has been gone for 27 years. Well, let them order from the United States an analogue of Gerald Ford, what else can I advise.

[Heterocapsa]

I read the news twice. I didn’t see the complaints. There’s just a statement. The working moment.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Zhelezyakin

If the Varyag's design does not provide for something, then you already need to connect your own R&D sector. Does he have experience? Most likely no.

There is experience - they completed the Varangian ...
And their R&D sector has been connected for a long time - in all high-tech areas - since they (unlike us) have enough money to afford it ...
The proof of this is the second aircraft-carrying cruiser of its own construction, from scratch ...

[Cossack 471]

Takeoff is easier. than landing! Here is the truth discovered! Yes, it’s at least from an aircraft carrier. even with a helicopter carrier. harder anyway. try to put the device on a small piece of deck in the water of the oceans. and at takeoff. "gas to the floor" and you're in the air.

[Vard]

Uh ... Another kick in the ass ...

[lance]

Apparently, the Russian Federation concludes an agreement for the operation of our pilots by Lyaolin to show how to operate it correctly with all the “defects”, and at the same time drive the optic-hazard complex “Luna”

[geniy]

But tell me: everyone knows that if the plane slightly increases the angle of attack during landing, then the increase in the angle of attack decreases speed (and the magnitude of the lift remains the same). but does it make it easier and easier to land from a decrease in landing speed? So: it may be worth our and Chinese pilots to increase the angle of attack during the approach?
And besides: even during the Russo-Japanese War, engineer Kostenko suggested pumping five hundred tons of water into the aft compartments of the battleship “Oryol” so that he would stay on course better, as this creates a small trim on the stern, and a side projection of the area in the aft increases, and in the nasal - decreases. And immediately the battleship Eagle began to stay on course better. But if both our aircraft carrier and the Chinese also pumped, for example, a couple of thousand tons of water into the aft compartments, then there will be a small trim on the stern, it will lower a little (about 1 meter) and it will be easier for a landing aircraft to rub on to the deck.

[Beby]

Quote: geniy

So: it may be worth our and Chinese pilots to increase the angle of attack during the approach?

They already land with decent angles of attack - if you increase them further, then the stability margin (controllability) of airplanes begins to fall catastrophically, and this will inevitably lead to disasters.

[geniy]

They already land with decent angles of attack - if you increase them further, then the stability margin (controllability) of airplanes begins to fall catastrophically, and this will inevitably lead to disasters.

Sorry, but you are misleading all readers. Because the stability margin has nothing to do with the angle of attack. In fact, the stability margin is how far the center of gravity of the aircraft from its aerodynamic focus is assigned along its length. And therefore, at any angle of attack, the stability margin does not change.
But in fact, another negative effect is possible there - if the nose is raised too much (that is, a large pitch) during landing, the tail of the aircraft may hit the deck. But this requires too much pitch - about 20 degrees. And if within reasonable limits - for example, the pitch (and, accordingly, the angle of attack) is 10-15 degrees?

[lance]

You think over 40 years of operation, only you guessed it. it is the complex of the moon, depending on the aircraft and its congestion that gives the optimal angle of approach with the reflection of the air flow, etc.

[geniy]

the moon complex, depending on the aircraft and its congestion, gives an optimal approach angle with reflection of the air flow, etc.

Sorry to bother you; I don’t know anything at all. And Google in response gives only information about the Luna missile system. If it’s not difficult for you, enlighten at least a little about how it works, or throw a link.

[lance]

I do not like Google. Yandex, the optical moon landing system.
to any http://kuznetsov.tass.ru/spusk-na-vodu/, but there it’s overview and brief that you can keep track of the top line

[Beby]

Quote: geniy

Sorry, but you are misleading all readers. Because the stability margin has nothing to do with the angle of attack. In fact, the stability margin is how far the center of gravity of the aircraft from its aerodynamic focus is assigned along its length. And therefore, at any angle of attack, the stability margin does not change.

Look at things more broadly: You refer to margin of longitudinal (static) stability along the angle of attack, provided (!!!) that the angle of attack is significantly lower than the critical. But sustainability, after all, happens also dynamic... On the other hand, when the critical angle of attack is exceeded, the airflow around the aircraft changes significantly, and the value of the “margin of longitudinal static stability along the angle of attack” loses all meaning (it is calculated for other conditions), because other moments of forces act on the plane in such a situation, as a rule, located outside the aerodynamic focus - that’s why it goes beyond the critical angle of attack. + when landing, a screen effect is also added, and when landing on an aircraft carrier, this effect is “added” quite sharply.
You have to land on an aircraft carrier, and so, with a critical angle of attack, you (in your first comment) suggested increasing this angle even more — that is, in fact, going beyond the critical angle of attack. Accordingly, when leaving a critical angle, the aircraft very quickly becomes dynamically unstable, despite all the efforts of the control system. That's what I, in fact, interpreted, saying that:

Quote: Beby

They sit down already with decent angles of attack - if you increase them further, then the stability margin (controllability) begins to fall catastrophically in airplanes ...

Quote: geniy

And if within reasonable limits - for example, the pitch (and, accordingly, the angle of attack) is 10-15 degrees?

So planes and so often land with such angles of attack (and sometimes, even with large). What is the essence of your proposal then?

[A57]

Monkey. Give them a grenade, they will blow it in your hands. What actually was not once.

[Giharka]

After so many years found a couple of defects ?!

[geniy]

Quote: Lance

optical moon landing system.

Sudoud, do you even know what a glide path is? and the angle of inclination of the glide path along which the plane lands for landing. And do you know: what is the difference between the slope angle of the glide path from the angle of attack of the wing of an airplane?

[geniy]

Quote: Beby

On the other hand, when the critical angle of attack is exceeded, the airflow around the aircraft changes significantly, and the value of the “margin of longitudinal static stability along the angle of attack” loses all meaning (it is calculated for other conditions), because other moments of forces act on the plane in such a situation, as a rule, located outside the aerodynamic focus - that’s why it goes beyond the critical angle of attack. + when landing, a screen effect is also added, and when landing on an aircraft carrier, this effect is “added” quite sharply.

You probably do not understand the real aerodynamics. That is, not in the one that is explained to university students when they use only the qualitative criteria "more" - "less" and explain the essence of the effects, but the real one - when they give very specific figures that most airplanes have. So I inform you: that the critical angle of attack, which can not exceed most of the wings, is about 25 degrees.
But to reach this angle on an airplane landing is almost impossible! And it’s not at all because of aerodynamics, as you mistakenly think, but because of the banal reality: the tail of the aircraft fall below the lowest point of the wheels of the landing gear and this immediately causes the tail of the aircraft to hit the landing strip. This phenomenon is called a tail strike in English. But the fact is that this deadly angle strongly depends on the length of the fuselage of the aircraft, that is - the longer the aircraft, the more dangerous it is for him to take a large angle of attack and pitch on landing. But the magnitude of this angle for different types of aircraft is different. For passenger airliners, the fuselages are very long, but for jet fighters, they are short. Therefore, passenger airliners have a 13-degree tail strike angle in my opinion, and about 20 degrees for fighter jets, but in any case, the tail strike angle is less than the critical angle of attack of the wing based on flow stall conditions. And if you talk about the fact that the flow around the plane when leaving the critical angle of attack changes significantly (and this applies to the landing condition on the runway), then this means that you do not at all understand the real conditions of how airplanes fly.
So, I explain: if the critical angle of attack is about 25 degrees, and the tail strike angle for carrier-based fighters is about 20 degrees, then it’s stupid to think that the landing pitch angle limits the angle of attack, but actually limits the angle of the tail strike.
But for me, not everything is so clear here. Because the pitch angle of the deck fighter when landing about 10-13 degrees - and this is also quite far from the dangerous angle of the tail strike 20 degrees. That is, it would seem that it is possible to increase the landing pitch angle by several degrees, but there can only be a danger in the fact that with the nose of the deck aircraft being raised too high, his pilot will not see the axis of the landing strip on the deck?
And just don’t think about stuttering me about the screen effect, because the glide angle of the deck fighter is much steeper than the ground, and from this the screen effect on the deck is only a fraction of a second, and can’t have any effect.