Startup cycle

The defining characteristic of the combat power of an aircraft carrier is not so much the total number of air wings as the speed with which this air wing can be raised into the air and begin to carry out combat missions. The strength of the air wing as a whole mainly affects the assessment of combat stability, rather than striking power or ability to provide cover fleet. A large air wing allows you to alternate aircraft, creates reserves to make up for losses, allows for ongoing repair and maintenance of vehicles without interruption in combat operations, provides rotation of crews, reducing the load on each individual pilot, etc. But in real operations, an air wing is never used in its full strength, only part of it is used. The diverse composition of the air group makes it simply impossible to use the entire wing: it makes no sense to use all the support vehicles, helicopters, fighters and attack planes on board at the same time.

The type of upcoming operation determines the configuration of the air group that will directly carry it out. When setting a combat mission for an aircraft carrier, the composition of the vehicles that it takes on board is determined in advance. So, when performing the tasks of covering the fleet in the open sea, the wing will be based on fighters, and EW vehicles can be left on shore. When acting against the coast, the balance will be shifted towards the strike machines, and with the support of landing operations, more helicopters will be taken on board. All other compounds that are assigned to the aircraft carrier remain at the bases, or can be transferred to the bridgehead in other ways in order to create a gain after the aircraft carrier occupies a position. This explains the large formal strength of the air group assigned to the aircraft carrier. For example, the Nimitz aircraft carrier CVW-11 formally includes 3 squadrons of attack aircraft, a fighter squadron, an electronic warfare squadron, AWACS, 2 helicopter squadrons and a transport compartment aviation, which formally amounts to 90 cars [1]. In reality, the load of an aircraft carrier is determined by the combat mission, and rarely exceeds 45 aircraft, and when operating on the high seas it is limited by the capacity of the hangar deck.

When performing combat missions, the aircraft carrier operates in a cyclical mode. Usually, the launch and take-off cycles of airplanes alternate in order to ensure the maximum launch speed using all available starts, some of which cross the runway. At the same time, the use of all starts at once is rarely practiced even when working on takeoff with maximum intensity. Catapults alternate, and in modern conditions they are trying not to overload. Energy reserves also do not allow to use all the catapults simultaneously, or rather, such use will not give significant advantages in the speed of lifting the aircraft, since the cycle of "cocking" each catapult will increase [2]. Therefore, not all [3] start positions are commonly used in the start-up cycle.

Different types of aircraft carriers use different methods of organizing a group launch of aircraft, but in general, the launch sequence for an aircraft is the same:

1. The aircraft placed on the hangar deck is transported to one of the elevators. If necessary, the elevators are first served machines that block the movement of the selected aircraft. On the flight deck, they are transported to vacant areas in order to free up the elevator and the adjacent space.

2. Is the rise of the aircraft on the flight deck. If the elevator area permits, the lift can be carried out in pairs of machines [4].

3. The aircraft is transported to one of the launch positions on the flight deck. These positions are chosen in such a way that a tactical compound (usually this link) makes a start sequentially. If necessary, a place is cleared in the immediate vicinity of the starting positions so as not to interfere with the take-off queue.

4. At the pre-launch position, a visual inspection, pre-launch checks are performed. For all of the link machines, these checks occur simultaneously if the area of ​​the pre-launch positions allows, but more often 2-3 machines are serviced simultaneously. If the aircraft carrier did not carry out lifting operations before this stage, the ship will be turned to the wind.

5. On the flight deck raise ammunition in accordance with the task. Produced suspension weapons and refueling. Usually these operations are performed sequentially; Only in emergency cases can refueling be carried out simultaneously with the armament suspension. This is explained not only by safety standards, but also by the simple fact that the number of people who are simultaneously preparing the aircraft for departure is limited. With the availability of mechanization, the armament suspension is made on the folded wing to save deck space, but this is not a hard and fast rule.

6. Pre-launch checks of electronic equipment and avionics are carried out when operating from an external power source or an auxiliary power unit.

7. Machines prepared for takeoff move to the starting position and open the wing. Starting engines can be carried out at this stage if there is an autonomous auxiliary power unit on the machine. In its absence, the first engine is started from an external power plant before being supplied to the start. In this case, additional time is required to warm up the turbines before serving to the start.

8. The first car in the queue is installed at the start, the chassis is fixed on the “leash” of the catapult, if an ejection method of take-off is used. For a non-catapult start mode, the chassis is mounted on locking devices. Behind the plane, a shield rises, limiting the spread of the jet engine. The engines are taken to take-off mode (for a catalyst-free take-off - to the afterburner).

9. Take off. Under good weather conditions, the aircraft performs a lapel and gains height immediately after takeoff, freeing up airspace in the immediate vicinity of the deck to take off the next cars in the queue. This allows you to take off from a different start with a minimum delay, while simultaneously giving the next car to the start that was vacated after takeoff. In conditions of poor visibility and low cloud cover, the cuff is not performed, and the climb is made in a straight line. In this case, the next cars in the queue (including on other starts) are waiting for permission to take off from the dispatcher. The minimum allowed take-off interval for poor visibility is 30 seconds. A simultaneous take-off from two starts is technically possible only for aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class and is allowed only during daylight with visibility of at least 10 km and clouds not lower than 1500 m.

The 1 and 2 stages of the described sequence are not time-normalized and can take arbitrary time, which depends on many different factors. The readiness of aircraft on the hangar deck, therefore, cannot be accurately assessed. Under favorable conditions for a machine located in the immediate vicinity of the elevator, one hour before take-off can be taken as an optimistic estimate. For machines in the depths of the hangar this time can double.

The 3 stage also varies in time. An aircraft that is on the flight deck outside the pre-launch positions can be considered to be in time readiness for take-off.

The startup cycle is timed, starting at 4. An aircraft filed for pre-launch positions is considered to be in 45-minute readiness for take-off. Curb and refueled vehicles with crews who took seats in the cockpit, placed at the start in the queue, are considered to be in 15-minute readiness. 5-minute readiness for take-off is valid for no more than two cars (by the number of starts used), which are placed directly at the start with the engines running. Immediate readiness for take-off can be provided for two cars that are at the start, fixed, the engines are warmed up. This restriction is true for all modern aircraft carriers, including Kuznetsov class ships, although the disparity of launches determines the disparity of the combat load for machines that are on different starts. Indian Vikramaditya can keep only one car in immediate readiness.

Two F / A-18C (judging by the identification marks, the squadron VFA-34 from the wing of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln) prepared for launch. The engines are not yet running - both machines are in 15-minute readiness, not in 5-minute.

The desire to ensure adequate readiness of the wing dictates the need to place at least some of the machines on the flight deck whenever possible. This approach also allows you to unload the hangar deck, clearing the routes for moving cars to the elevators. However, the number of sides that can be placed on the flight deck without interference is obviously limited. In order to avoid unnecessary movements, the decks of aircraft carriers are divided into pre-defined zones. The zoning of the flight deck of the Nimitz class ships looks like this.

EL1-EL4 zones are elevator areas that can be used as prelaunch positions for a short time. When lifting cars from the hangar on the elevator is placed one plane. When using elevators to place cars on the flight deck, the area of ​​each is sufficient to accommodate two aircraft. The remaining areas of the flight deck have the following capacity and restrictions on use:

-POINT - placement up to 4-x machines with a non-working catapult №1;
-CORRAL - placement up to 2-x machines with restrictions in the operation of the EL1 elevator (helicopters can be lifted);
-JUNK YARD - placement up to 3-s machines with restrictions in the operation of the EL3 elevator. Used as an intermediate position when receiving aircraft;
-PATIO - placement up to 4-x machines. Used as an intermediate position when receiving aircraft, often used to accommodate helicopters;
-BOX - placing 1-2 machines in readiness for launch. This position is often used as an intermediate to accommodate the duty pair;
-THE STREET - placement to 6-ti machines, a typical position of the queue for takeoff from the 1 and 2 catapults, the standard position of the pre-launch preparation;
-THE SIXPACK - placement to 6-ti machines, a typical position of the queue for takeoff from the 2, 3 and 4 catapults, the nominal position of the pre-launch preparation. Can only be used when the aircraft carrier does not take on aircraft;
-CROTCH - placement of up to 5 machines with non-working 2, 3 and 4 catapults, or up to 3-x with non-working 2 and 3 catapults. Can only be used when the aircraft carrier does not take on aircraft;
-FINGER - placement up to 2-x machines with restrictions on the operation of the EL4 elevator. Used as an intermediate position when receiving aircraft, often used to accommodate helicopters.

In addition to the positions described, machines preparing to start with 3 and 4 catapults can take up position at the base of the corresponding starts. However, this placement is usually temporary, is used when lifting aircraft taking off directly from the hangar and is used only when the aircraft carrier does not receive aircraft. Often machines are placed along the tracks of the first two catapults, using them as non-standard pre-launch positions.

Based on the above, it can be concluded that the Nimitz class aircraft carrier without interference for flight operations of all types using all launches can simultaneously hold up to the 2-x links (8 machines), of which one can be in the 5-minute readiness, and the rest are in readiness from 15-ti to 45-ti minutes. Using the elevator area and blocking the landing strip allows you to increase the number of cars in readiness to 20-ti, while ensuring the pair's 5-minute readiness. It is this figure that is the maximum when the aircraft carrier is working on raising aircraft with maximum intensity. This is the maximum number of machines in one run cycle. Note that this number describes (and limits) the typical tactics: departure of a squadron, patrol unit, or cover unit and support vehicles (up to 4's tankers, EW machines, DRLO aircraft, etc.)

"Enterprise" in the Mediterranean. The landing strip has been released for possible reception of aircraft. War machines in readiness on the deck there. DRLO aircraft is in readiness 30 minutes or more. Since the alarm was announced, at least 45 minutes will be required to take off the first pair of fighters. But at the same time, it would take just over an hour to take off a full squadron. The cars are clearly visible at the SIXPACK position.

Nimitz, top view. Hiking configuration; there are no on-duty duty machines on the deck, the landing strip is blocked, only 3 and 4 catapults can work on the lift. You can clearly see the tight placement of cars on the pre-launch position SIXPACK. If necessary, they can be lifted in the air in 45-50 minutes.

The aircraft carrier "Harry Truman" class "Nimitz" inside the order of protection. The setting is obviously relaxed. There is not a single aircraft on the deck, which would take less than an hour to get into the air, it is possible to use only one catapult and aircraft cannot be received. Judging by the number of people on the deck, some kind of party is expected. On deck, 3 Amphibious machines and a pair of EW aircraft are visible.

The launch cycle duration for aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class is usually from one to one and a half hours and, obviously, depends on the number of aircraft being raised, weather conditions, the number of operational launches, etc. In some cases (difficult weather conditions, difficult movement on deck, inability to use all prelaunch positions, use of abnormal prelaunch positions, etc.) the duration of one cycle can approach the 2-m clock, but should not exceed this value. The maximum duration of the startup cycle is dictated by safety regulations. In the 2-hour cycle, by the time the last produced aircraft leaves the aircraft carrier, the first take-off is already waiting for landing, and the take-off operations are stopped in order to clear the landing strip, which also does not happen instantly. Thus, the interval at which aircraft takes off on aircraft carriers varies, on average, from 3-x to 6-minutes [5]. This, of course, is much more than the claimed advertising characteristics in 20 seconds. The 20-second interval is theoretically attainable only when the attendant takes off from the state of immediate readiness in good weather - the regulations limit the take-off interval in conditions of poor visibility and low cloud cover.

Simultaneous take-off of 2-x F / A-18E from the deck of "George Washington". Obviously, the teachings. Another plane is preparing for takeoff. A distinctive cuff after takeoff is well visible.

"Harry Truman" raises aircraft. The landing strip is blocked, the 1 and 4 catapults are used, the third one is also free. One fighter is in immediate readiness for takeoff; EW machine and fighter in 5-10 minute and one more in 15-minute readiness. The degree of readiness of the rest of the machines to assess this photo is difficult. The aircraft are being trained on the 2 th catapult path, ammunition is being taken to the vehicles aft. Flight operations are conducted with low intensity, as evidenced by the use of abnormal pre-launch positions. Probably, we are witnessing a shock operation - this is indicated by the EW machines prepared for departure and a relatively tight turn for takeoff. In this case, half of the machines placed on the flight deck do not participate in this operation.

Can an aircraft carrier lift all the wing in one launch cycle? Technically, yes, although this is a hard-wearing job. But at the same time, the duration of such a cycle will exceed the safety standards. Thus, this case involves the withdrawal of the wing to the shore, one way. In terms of assessing the combat power of the ship, consideration of this mode of operation is not of interest.

Why is the startup cycle so long? After all, if all the machines assigned to the combat mission are on the flight deck, then any of them is theoretically ready for an hour or so. If the machines would fly into the air faster, this would also increase their number from the maximum 20 to a higher number. In addition, the deck area, it would seem, allow you to prepare cars for take-off and in non-standard positions.

In fact, the use of abnormal prelaunch positions dramatically reduces the speed of preparation of machines for departure. The deck of the aircraft carrier is designed in such a way that the elevators of the ammunition assembly are located near the standard pre-launch positions, and there are all the necessary infrastructure for refueling and pre-launch checks. Delivery of ammunition to emergency positions takes considerable time, and the number of mobile means of mechanization is obviously limited. Thus, the preparation for the departure of the car at a non-standard position takes hardly twice as long - those same hours and a half instead of the standard 45 minutes. The maximum number of aircraft in one launch cycle implies the use of all available resources for training. At the same time, the capacity of the standard pre-launch positions is 12 machines - this is the squadron of the first echelon, which can be in the air in the first 45 minutes.

Takeoff F / A-18F from the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. The pre-launch position is the track of the second catapult (the catapult is counted from right to left). 9 machines are placed on the pre-launch position, two of which (2-i and 3-i in depth) probably passed pre-launch checks and are preparing to be towed to the start line. One can see carts with ammunition for equipment. Takeoff is made with low intensity. Highlighted coloring machine leader of the second link (fourth in depth). The second link is represented by newer F / A-18E and F machines, the third one has a mixed composition.

In modern conditions, the US Navy aircraft carriers operate under complete domination at sea. In this situation, the regulations in force during the Cold War are more and more relaxed. In real operations, where ensuring the maximum speed of lifting machines is not a priority, it is increasingly practiced to prepare machines in non-standard positions, long launch cycles and preparation for departure. Placing cars on the flight deck also becomes the rule rather than the exception. Despite the fact that such a placement makes it difficult to take off work with maximum intensity and exposes open cars to additional danger in the event of accidents on the deck and fire impact, the convenience of unhurried board manipulation without unnecessary fuss with elevators is put at the center.

F-14 take-off from the deck of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt. A relatively clean deck creates a feeling of relaxed work, but in fact we are seeing just the rise of aircraft with maximum intensity. All 4 catapults are used; three aircraft have just taken off, three more are on 5-minute readiness and the fourth is being flown at the start. The absence of extra cars on the deck and free paths of movement to start-ups ensure the maximum launch speed.

"Ronald Reagan" in the sea. Almost empty flight deck is typical for long crossings and when operating in adverse weather conditions.

So far, we have been considering flight operations on US Navy aircraft carriers. Carriers of other countries use similar preparation procedures for launch, but the flight deck has been zoned differently. Here stands the ships of the class "Kuznetsov." For pre-launch preparation of aircraft they have a continuous zone surrounding the superstructure. Preparing cars for departure involves blocking elevators, but does not use the landing strip area (if there is no need to use a long start). In the prelaunch training zone, without prejudice to the work of the ship to receive aircraft, two links can be placed. This characteristic is exactly the same as that of the “Nimitsev” subject to the conditions of simultaneous work on take-off and reception of aircraft. Although the absence of a third elevator at the stern limits Kuznetsov’s ability to receive machines in one pair - then it will be necessary to clear the space by rotating the aircraft in the training zone and freeing access to the aft elevator. The launch cycle of the two links in both aircraft carriers will have a similar duration, despite the fact that the Kuznetsov is technically unable to ensure the simultaneous take-off of two aircraft. This is compensated for by the increased speed of setting the machines at the start (no fastening on the catapult is required) and by the rapid alternation of starts.

Kuznetsov in the sea, clean deck. Visible area of ​​preparation of machines for departure, limited red dotted markings around the superstructure.

Technically, Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers, using the landing strip areas as a non-standard pre-launch position, can prepare a full squadron for takeoff. But this mode of operation is not used in practice. Here, a rather poor tradition of aircraft carrier exploitation by the fleet of Russia is affecting. The standards of flight operations are observed more strictly, and the “improvisation” in the use of the area of ​​the flight deck, typical for the US Navy, is hardly possible. Another purpose of an aircraft carrier also manifests itself initially: first of all, the fleet air cover ship, and not the means of conducting shock operations against the coast. In this role, the superiority of the “Nimitz” to the “Kuznetsov” is primarily manifested in the presence in the wing of the DRLO aircraft, and not in the number of aircraft. The quality of the fighter cover provided by the US Navy aircraft carriers is comparable. Here, the role is not so much the number of cars in one launch cycle (it is more important for carrying out percussion operations), but rather the line of patrols of duty units.

Kuznetsov in the sea. On the deck there are two links; the second uses square aft elevator. The short duty start pair is probably in 15-minute readiness. Please note that the landing strip is not blocked. The deck configuration allows it to be used simultaneously with both short starts.

A couple of Kuznetsov's short starts. The photo is most likely staged - air intake plugs are visible.

The aircraft carrier of the “De Gaulle” class demonstrates a compromise approach, and according to the characteristics of the wing and the launch cycle organization it is similar to the ships of the “Kuznetsov” class. It also uses two starts, working with alternation, and the number of machines in 45-minute readiness is the same two links, plus a couple at the start. In solving the tasks of the aviation cover of the fleet, “De Gaulle” is somewhat superior to the “Kuznetsov” due to the presence of DRLO aircraft in its composition. At the same time, the launch cycle of the duty team at De Gaulle will be somewhat longer due to the use of the ejection method of take-off. “De Gaulle” is able to hold more aircraft on deck without using the elevator area, which is primarily due to the smaller geometric dimensions of the wing wings. The area occupied on the deck of large Su-33 class machines is much larger.

"De Gaulle" view from above. The flight deck looks almost empty. Two "Rafal", the link "Super Etandarov" and the DRLO aircraft are in minimal readiness. The helicopter is either preparing to take off, or has just landed.

"De Gaulle", clearly staged parade photo. The entire wing is placed on the flight deck, the DRLO machines demonstrate readiness for launch. Despite the staged nature of the picture, it can be assumed that, if necessary, the rise of the squadron will take no more than an hour.

"De Gaulle" against the background of "Abraham Lincoln." A DRLO aircraft with folded wings in a half-hour (or more) readiness takes the start of the first catapult. Preparing the rest of the machines for takeoff will take longer. On the deck there are two links, the area of ​​both elevators is not occupied, the landing strip is blocked.

"De Gaulle" makes lifting machines. Two "Super Etandar" take off, a pair of "Rafale" in 5-minute readiness.

INTERIM CONCLUSIONS

The superiority of the Nimitz class ships over any other aircraft carriers of the world is undeniable. Particularly vividly it manifests itself in solving shock problems. Of the modern aircraft carriers, only the Nimitsy are able to lift into the air a balanced strike force, which will include the strike squadron, a covering group and support vehicles. Some classes of machines that are necessary to successfully accomplish percussion tasks (primarily specialized EW aircraft) are simply absent from the aircraft wing of aircraft carriers of other countries. A significant role in maintaining this superiority also has a rich tradition of aircraft carrier operation and accumulated experience of their combat use. As we, we hope, managed to demonstrate, the US Navy, taking advantage of domination at sea, use their aircraft carriers quite naturally, often relaxing the standards for conducting operations in favor of the convenience of operating the wing.

At the same time, the advertised prohibitive combat power of American aircraft carriers turns out to be a myth. Declared in the characteristics of 90 aircraft wing machines spend most of the time on the coast, being assigned to the aircraft carrier only formally. The 20-second takeoff interval in practice turns out to be the 5-minute. The maximum volume of the raised air group is no more than 20 machines, or rather one shock squadron with attached flight support equipment. The rise of this compound into the air takes more than one and a half hours, which means that it is impossible to use the full combat load. At least the first 6 vehicles in the launch cycle are forced to use outboard tanks in order to operate in conjunction with planes taking off later at the same range. From a tactical point of view, this means that the range of the strike connection can never reach its theoretical maximum, and the combat load will be at best half of the declared in the characteristics of the aircraft.

Here you can jokingly propose the rule of "dividing by two" in relation to American aircraft carriers. Wing? Divide 90 into two, and you’ll get a realistic figure - 36 machines on the hangar deck and two links on the flight, if the weather permits. Startup cycle? We divide by two the number of vehicles that the aircraft carrier actually carries on board - the correct figure will be obtained. Combat radius? Divide by two. Combat load? We use the same approach.

Propaganda and PR in the modern world order are, perhaps, even more important than the actual combat power of the ship. The Nimitz class aircraft carrier is a very powerful means of force projection. And the image that was created around him in the information field is stronger many times over. Try searching on the Internet for photographs of aircraft carriers - you will see a large number of beautiful “grand” pictures with a full wing on the deck. These photographs are most often taken during and after joint exercises. But to find pictures of the real combat work of an aircraft carrier is much more difficult, partly because they look far less impressive.

Comments

[Andrey Yuryevich]

›Armament» Fleet
Startup cycle
Today, 05: 54-of course it’s interesting ... I would like to see the evacuation cycle from sinking aircraft carriers. (With photo)

[Hairy Siberian]

What can I add here? Just a little bit of humor.
Zadornov about the lighthouse and the American aircraft carrier.

[Sergei1982]

Yes, the aircraft carrier ship is certainly necessary, but first we need to restore the Air Force, Air Defense, Navy, ground forces, and then after 2020 we can think about aircraft carriers but don’t build such monsters as in the USA and ships the size of de Gaulle.

[alebor]

First we need to rebuild the economy. There will be no economic growth - there will be no money, there will be no money - there will be neither the Air Force, nor the Air Defense, nor the Navy.

[Eggor]

Interesting perspective. 1991. Gulf War. USS Midway (CV-41), upper left; USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), top right; USS Ranger (CV-61), bottom left; and USS America (CV-66), bottom right.

[sevtrash]

Is this a real shot? Too close.

[Starover_Z]

Not a single wake can be seen and really too close one to one. "Photoshop"?

[lexx2038]

Eh would sink, how much junk would sink to the bottom at once.

[D-Master]

In the middle, put the warhead at 100 ktn and wave all four to feed the fish. One "Bear" would get off. Eh dreams, where is your sweetness.

[clidon]

It’s clear that this is a collage ...

[Kassandra]

could stand in the base ... and now just pour out the cassette with pyrophoric BOPS on it all, why 100ct?

[D-Master]

Very interesting article. Many thanks to the author from me (+)

[fennekRUS]

I join! Material, filing, everything is fine. I confess, stole an article in a personal archive. Author-refuge

[Rurikovich]

Quite an extensive article. A plus. For the uninformed, it makes it clear that the declared power is fundamentally different from the real one. The author also correctly takes into account the ability of the aircraft carrier to serve the assigned task. American aircraft carriers are referred to as shock carriers due to the wide range of tasks performed. With a shorter list of possibilities (for example, purely air defense or PLO functions), the operations to ensure the launch and landing are also simplified, because. the number of aircraft to perform these tasks is limited and there is enough time with space to meet the launch standards. Even tin cans such as the Italian "Conte di Cavura" and the like can effectively perform the functions of security effectively when the team is trained. Not to mention "Kuznetsov". So the haemorrhoids of American aircraft carriers is to have everything at once, and therefore it is necessary to develop the logistics of movement on the flight deck in order to somehow fulfill what is declared on paper.
The question is what will happen if there is good opposition from the enemy?

[Nicoloo]

Expensive toys. To multiply them strongly is unprofitable and irrational.

[tchoni]

Nevertheless, an aircraft carrier is, first of all, a ship of presence and projection of force. The United States is strong not only, and not so much in the quantity and quality of aircraft carriers, but in the number of allies and dependent countries (often one implies the other) around the world. Take the war in Iraq: more than 70 percent of the combat load was carried out by ground-based aviation from bases in Turkey and Kuwait. Although the aircraft carriers in the bay - it was like a flea on a dog.

[Rurikovich]

Because the ground location of aviation is more convenient. There are no restrictions on the size of the storage of weapons, fuel, convenient starts and landings, and even a lot of more functional "bells and whistles". An attempt to assign the functions of a strike on the coast to aircraft carriers is only meaningful when an island state is attacked in the outskirts of civilization. Then the air group also has enough stocks of weapons. In general, the meaning of the creation of aircraft carriers implied the fight with their own kind and other classes of ships, and not exclusively a war against the coast. Therefore, the ratio of sorties and the total contribution to the overall success of operations for aircraft carriers looks ridiculous. Loading aircraft carriers with additional functions does not always lead to the expected results. Therefore, it turns out that sending an aircraft carrier to the shores of a potential continental victim looks more like a gunboat policy, an attempt to scare the enemy. "Here we are sending an aircraft carrier to you - fear and tremble!" It's funny. But Americans sacredly believe in this. And I give 1000%, if some Iraqis got off to send at least one missile on board or break through at least one plane and drop at least one bomb on the deck, the appearance of these "tools" off the coast would be sharply limited.
And most likely they would have already performed their direct functions of air defense and anti-aircraft defense of a large fleet formation far from the coast. For what they are intended.
My personal opinion

[pr 627]

The article delighted with its objectivity, commentary was even more pleasing. The sofa admirals were still asleep and in their dreams they saw squadrons of Russian aircraft carriers and clouds of planes above them. Let them sleep longer. And realists are already working.

[Tigr]

This article is authored by Mr. Kabernik VV - Boyan almost two years ago, published on the website http://eurasian-defence.ru/

Essentially:

The maximum volume of the raised air group is no more than 20 vehicles, or rather, one shock squadron with attached means to ensure departure. The lifting of this compound into the air takes more than an hour and a half, which means the impossibility of using the full combat load.

Here on this video the aircraft carrier "Eisenhower" with two catapults - №№ 3 and 4 - in five and a half minutes launches a link of "Hornets" (4 cars). During this time, all 4 catapults can lift 8 aircraft into the air, in eleven minutes - 16, and in sixteen minutes - 20.

[Ruslan67]

Quote: Tigr

During this same time, with all 4 catapults, 8 aircraft can be lifted, in eleven minutes - 16, and in sixteen minutes - 20.

The line-up for landing will be the same impressing — screams did not fly here !!! will be heard very far

[73bor]

You just did not take into account yet another factor: the capacity of the steam generating unit, and your pluses in sixteen minutes 20 are completely inappropriate, read at least a closer look at the article. And at your launch pace (even if you have time to prepare all 20 planes), the ship simply cannot maintain the set speed and gets up. 190 sorties per day with the most intensive flights with a minimum of weapons preparation, this is the ceiling for the most modern aircraft carrier in the United States.

[Tigr]

All four C-13 steam catapults (mounted on aircraft carriers of the "Nimitz" type), when operating at high intensity, have a steam consumption of up to 20% of the maximum steam output of the ship's main power plant. So while maintaining cruising speed (up to 20 knots) during takeoff operations, the aircraft carrier will not lose a single knot in speed.

[78bor1973]

You tell this to your grandmother, you can believe it, only about 20 knots are needed to start it, but about 30 (depending on weather conditions), and desalination plants are not a perpetual motion machine, after 60 km the locomotive is 80% filled with water, and that’s not all they chewed you in the article, regular places for training aircraft are limited, therefore, there is a limit in the number of launches.

[Tigr]

Apparently you do not understand the subject matter. Well, study ship equipment for the operation of carrier-based aircraft http://www.volunteers-midway.org/assets/files/3403.pdf in terms of steam catapults in general and steam wet receiver system in particular. Maybe then you will stop writing about steam locomotives.

PS. Can you get acquainted with the source of your knowledge about the speed of an aircraft carrier during takeoff operations?

PPS My grandmother will not tell you anything, so do not be rude.

[find2312]

In the absence of a headwind, wind in nature, i.e. calm sea, (typical weather in warm seas), is necessary for the take-off of an airplane with a maximum take-off weight, the oncoming air flow at a speed of at least 15 m / s, this is 54 km \ h, or about the speed of an aircraft carrier 30 knots. When landing, the necessary speed of the oncoming flow is from 10 to 15 m / s, (to reduce the load on the AF), respectively, 20-30 travel nodes. In the absence of wind, in some cases the temperature + 27- + 32 degrees Celsius, takeoffs with maximum weight are impossible due to the lack of thrust of turbofan engines of modern aircraft, data for F-14 aircraft. Yes, by the way, with a wind speed of more than 18-20 m / sec., Landing on an aircraft carrier is seriously difficult due to the strong trail from the superstructure and aircraft carrier hull.

[Tigr]

I have slightly different data for the values ​​you specified for the F-14A from here: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-14A_Tomcat_SAC_-_April_1977.pdf

It turns out that for an F-14A ejection launch with virtually a maximum takeoff weight of 70 pounds, the minimum wind speed above deck would be 000 knots in "normal" climates and 11 knots in the tropics.

When landing on a deck with a landing weight of 44 pounds, the wind should not be oncoming, but at a passing speed of 000 to 4 knots, and in the tropics - about zero.

As for the wind speed you mentioned is 18-20 m / sec., It is a very strong wind according to the Beaufort scale and corresponds to severe sea waves of 8 points. Flights of decked aircraft usually stop at a wave of 6-7 points.

[find2312]

I looked with interest, but I think this is advertising data on the aircraft from the Grumman company, look here: http: //militaryexp.com/av/121.html on the website itself, in the search engine, type "F-14 carrier-based fighter". The publication of the USSR Ministry of Defense reflects the actual flight characteristics of this aircraft in the F-14A modification. There, in particular, it says max. hack takeoff weight 31700 kg (70000 lb) during takeoff from a ship, takeoff weight limit of no more than 26200 kg (57850 lb) this limitation is imposed due to poor aerodynamic characteristics of the airframe (tendency to stall at low speeds in the military-industrial complex and low engine thrust TF30-P-412A in PF mode only 2 x 9480 kg plus thrust losses due to air friction in the air intakes still minus 8-10%). The mass of the empty equipped aircraft with the crew is 18075 kg, the mass of fuel in the internal tanks is 7025 kg, and the payload is 1100 kg (2 UR Phoenix and 2 UR Sidewinder), and hang the phoenixes in a semi-drowned position so as not to create unnecessary drag on takeoff. Therefore, what the "Grumman" company wrote about the air flow speed of 11 knots (5,5 m / s) does not in any way correspond to the aerodynamic characteristics and engine thrust, even with a take-off weight of 26200 kg, the flow rate must be at least 15 m / s. And the fact that the ship goes downwind on landing, in my opinion, is generally fantastic, for modern jet deck aviation it is absolutely impossible.
Regarding what I previously called the air flow velocity, 18-20 m / sec., It was not the wind speed in nature, but the air flow velocity above the deck, i.e. calm sea and the ship accelerates to 30 knots creating an air flow above the deck of 15 m / s, necessary for the reception and release of aircraft.
By the way, with a high wind speed at sea, excitement of 6-7 points does not always immediately arise. And for the flights of decked aviation, the critical value is mainly the roll and especially pitching, with a pitching of 2 degrees, the fore and aft ends of a ship 300 meters long make vertical movements + -1,5 meters, and the plane passes aft when landing at altitude 4-5 meters above the deck.

[Tigr]

Quote: find2312

I looked with interest, but I think this is advertising data on the aircraft from the Grumman company ...

Advertising, say? Advertising hasn't been secret for 20 years. Therefore, please take a closer look at the title page of "Standart Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model F-14A", which identifies the organization that issued this document. This is not Grumman, this is NAVAIR (Naval Air Systems Command) - the Command of the material support of aviation systems and airborne weapons of the US Navy.

Developers and manufacturers sometimes really overestimate the parameters of their "products", but not those who use these products. It would be maddening for NAVAIR to list the F-14A's official performance data, such as the aircraft's maximum takeoff weight when ejected from an aircraft carrier of 70000 pounds, which actually turned out to be 57850 pounds. Do you see what this would lead to?

So there is no reason to doubt the data presented in the "Standard Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model F-14A".

Quote: find2312

... look here: http: //militaryexp.com/av/121.html on the site itself in the search engine, type "F-14 carrier-based fighter".

Yes thank you. I have this book, and I am familiar with its contents.

Quote: find2312

The USSR Ministry of Defense publication reflects the actual performance characteristics of this aircraft in the F-14A modification.

I can not agree with this regarding the issue under consideration.

Quote: find2312

There, in particular, it says max. vzl. the mass during take-off from the airfield is 31700 kg (70000 pounds), when taking off from a ship, the take-off weight is limited to no more than 26200 kg (57850 pounds) ...

57646 pounds is the takeoff weight of the F-14A with 16200 pounds of fuel and 676 rounds of the M61A1 cannon. So the value of the maximum take-off mass of a fighter when operating from an aircraft carrier at 14 kg indicated in the book "F-22 Carrier-Based Fighter (US Navy)" on page 24500 is incorrect.

Quote: find2312

... this restriction is imposed due to the poor aerodynamic characteristics of the airframe (the propensity to stall at low speeds in the military-industrial complex and the low thrust of the TF30-P-412A engines in the PF mode is only 2 at 9480 kg plus the traction loss due to air friction in the air intakes is still minus 8 -10%).

In the book "F-14 Carrier-Based Fighter (US Navy)" only the maximum take-off weight limit is indicated (as it turned out, erroneous), but the reasons for this limitation are not indicated. Could you explain where you got them from?

PS Of course, the TF30-P-412A engine in the early F-14A series was the weak point of this aircraft.

[Tigr]

(Continued)

Quote: find2312

The empty mass of an equipped aircraft with a crew of 18075 kg, the mass of fuel in the internal tanks is 7025 kg, and the payload is 1100 kg (2 UR Phoenix and 2 UR Sidewinder), and the phoenixes are suspended in a half-flooded position so as not to create excess drag on take off.

When solving the task of providing air defense for the fleet, the F-14A has an take-off mass of 70700 pounds, of which 16200 are fuel in the internal tanks + 3800 pounds of fuel in 2 outboard fuel tanks and 6288 pounds for weapons (6 AIM-54A + M61A1 gun ammunition).

PS When conducting combat air patrols in real F-14A service conditions, two Phoenixes under the wings were changed to two Sparrow due to the fact that with six AIM-54A the landing weight per aircraft carrier exceeded the maximum allowable.

Quote: find2312

Therefore, what Grumman wrote about the air flow speed of 11 knots (5,5 m / s) does not correspond to the aerodynamic characteristics and engine thrust, even with a take-off weight of 26200 kg, the flow rate must be at least 15 m / s.

As I showed above, the firm "Grumman" has nothing to do with the document, according to which I am citing the characteristics of the F-14A ... Please explain how you correlate the aerodynamic characteristics of the airframe and the thrust of the aircraft engines with the wind speed required for takeoff over the flight deck?

Quote: find2312

And the fact that the ship is going downwind while landing the aircraft, in my opinion it’s generally fantastic, it’s absolutely impossible for modern jet carrier-based aviation.

Why do you think so?

Quote: find2312

Regarding what I previously called the air flow velocity, 18-20 m / sec., It was not the wind speed in nature, but the air flow velocity above the deck, i.e. calm sea and the ship accelerates to 30 knots creating an air flow above the deck of 15 m / s, necessary for the reception and release of aircraft.

To my shame, I am not good at the aerodynamics of the "island" of an aircraft carrier, and therefore it is difficult for me to judge the speed of turbulent air currents left by it. To be honest, it is not interesting to understand this issue either. For flight operations, an aircraft carrier does not need to accelerate to a speed of 30 knots. 11-15 is enough.

Quote: find2312

By the way, with a high wind speed at sea, excitement of 6-7 points does not always immediately arise. And for the flights of decked aviation, the critical value is mainly the roll and especially pitching, with a pitching of 2 degrees, the fore and aft ends of a ship 300 meters long make vertical movements + -1,5 meters, and the plane passes aft when landing at altitude 4-5 meters above the deck.

There is no doubt that the weather conditions impose restrictions on the use of aviation, including and deck.

[find2312]

Once again I am convinced that the US has a strong military-industrial lobby. I am sure that the Grumman firm was closely associated with the Naval Aviation Command. The documents may be classified and particle boards, but the main goal of both firms and the military is to squeeze money from congressmen for planes. This lobby tried to break even McNamara of the US Department of Defense in the 60s, as you know, in order to save budget funds, he tried to force the industry to create uniform types of AT for the Navy and the Air Force, but as a result, this comrade was quickly removed from the post of minister, so I don't care I am sure that the data of the command of the Navy is advertising.
I consider these brochures "F-14 carrier-based fighter" to be reliable, especially since the authors are a team of representatives of the VVIA im. Professor N.E. Zhukovsky, at that time the strongest higher educational institution in the country, why shouldn't I believe them? You would give your arguments on this issue. The arguments that the Americans are smart because the data have been secret for 20 years did not convince me.
To limit the maximum take-off weight, I apparently made a mistake not of 26200 kg, but as indicated on page 22, even less than 24500 kg, that is, all other things being equal, 1700 kg less fuel was poured into the plane when taking off from the ship.
By the way, I found some interesting information in Nikolsky's book "Tomket" F-14 Deck Fighter "2001, and so this book says that until 1984 the Navy lost 81 aircraft of this type, the main technical reasons for this are stalling into a flat spin and engine failures, while pilots complained of a tendency to stall during takeoff and aerobatics, as well as low thrust and high acceleration times of the engines.
Engine thrust and aerodynamics are very interrelated, specifically low engine afterburner thrust, large aircraft mass and poor aerodynamics (in relation to the F-14, this is expressed in the presence of only slats and flaps from the entire wing mechanization and the absence of a deflected wing tip), leads to the exit of the aircraft to the second flight modes, engine thrust is not enough, the pilot is forced to increase the angle of attack, the slightest side wind gust and the plane falls into a flat spin. About the first and second flight modes, the coefficients of lift and drag, aerodynamic quality, analysis of the dependences of Su and the angle of attack on the types of wing mechanization, you can read in the textbook on practical aerodynamics of aircraft with jet engines published by VVIA im. prof. Zhukovsky, there is no time to quote all of it. But miracles do not happen, an apparatus with a take-off weight of 31700 kg with a total thrust of 18960 kgf engines, with wing mechanization in the form of slats, cannot take off from the ship. So the American sailors had to reduce the combat load and in no case hang suspension tanks and bombs because of which the aerodynamic quality of the already small was reduced. You can read about this book Ilyin "Hornet" carrier-based fighter F-18 ", it says that the superhornet modification is equipped with 2 10000 kgf engines, has socks deflected throughout the wingspan, take-off weight from a ship is 25 or 26 tons, I think this is more true information.
During take-off and landing operations, the ship always goes against the wind, because any pilot prefers to have a speed reserve, 15 m / s is 54 km / h, i.e. at a landing speed of 240-250 km / h, the speed of the aircraft relative to the aircraft carrier can be 186-196 km / h, less load on the cable and on the brake machine itself, and in case of a miss or cable break at the first stage of braking, there is the possibility of going to the second round. And with a fair wind there is no reserve of air flow velocity, it is very dangerous for any decked aircraft, and for the F-14, especially with its weak thrust at maximum and a very long engine throttle response.

[Tigr]

(Continued)

Quote: find2312

To limit the maximum take-off weight, I apparently made a mistake not of 26200 kg, but as indicated on page 22, even less than 24500 kg, that is, all other things being equal, 1700 kg less fuel was poured into the plane when taking off from the ship.

But it is very simple to check it. Take the specific fuel consumption in full afterburner mode of the TF30-P-412A engine from the book "F-14 Carrier-based Fighter (US Navy)", page 11, and calculate the amount of fuel required to complete the mission to intercept air targets. But you won't find such an important characteristic as the combat radius in this book (the brochure is cleverly written ) So if you do not want to perceive the data of the source, then use the book of MV Nikolsky mentioned by you. Tomcat F-14. It says on page 77:

Typical tasks for the deck F-14 were patrolling and interception. In the first case, a pair of Tomkets and an E-2C Hokai control plane patrolled for 50 minutes at a distance of 550 km from the aircraft carrier. The Tomcat load included four UR “Phoenix”, two UR “Sparrow”, two UR “Sidewinder” and two PTB with a capacity of 1060 liters each.When flying to intercept from the standby position on an aircraft carrier, the fighter carried a similar load on external suspensions. The combat radius of action in this case was 247 km when flying at a speed of 1,5 M.

Determine the required amount of fuel for the F-14 combat mission highlighted in color (and at the same time you can calculate the take-off weight in this configuration).

Quote: find2312

But miracles do not happen; an apparatus with a take-off mass of 31700 kg and a total engine thrust of 18960 kgf cannot take off from the ship with wing mechanization in the form of slats. So the American sailors had to reduce the combat load and in no case do not suspend hanging tanks and bombs because of which the aerodynamic quality was already low.

Look at the photo above. This is relative to PTB. As for your statements about limiting the maximum take-off weight of the F-14A when ejecting from an aircraft carrier, as well as the direction and speed of the wind when boarding a ship, I would like to look at the calculations confirming them.

[Kassandra]

they do not drag PTBs to intercept - they immediately gain climb and speed - they will have to be reset almost immediately.

[Tigr]

Quote: find2312

Once again I am convinced that the US has a strong military-industrial lobby. I am sure that the Grumman firm was closely associated with the Naval Aviation Command. The documents may be classified and particle boards, but the main goal of both firms and the military is to squeeze money from congressmen for planes. This lobby tried to break even McNamara of the US Department of Defense in the 60s, as you know, in order to save budget funds, he tried to force the industry to create uniform types of AT for the Navy and the Air Force, but as a result, this comrade was quickly removed from the post of minister, so I don't care I am sure that the data of the command of the Navy is advertising.

I am always sad when the rational arguments presented verbally do not find understanding and they have to be duplicated by a visual series, as in a children's book.

Quote: find2312

I consider these brochures "F-14 carrier-based fighter" to be reliable, especially since the authors are a team of representatives of the VVIA im. Professor N.E. Zhukovsky, at that time the strongest higher educational institution in the country, why shouldn't I believe them? You would give your arguments on this issue. The arguments that the Americans are smart because the data have been secret for 20 years did not convince me.

Good. Here is my argument:

This is the F-14A from the VF-102 “Diamondbacks” squadron. Just took off from the aircraft carrier CV-66 "America", Indian Ocean, January 1, 1984. Count its take-off weight.

[find2312]

Quote: Tigr

Good. Here is my argument:

This is the F-14A from the VF-102 “Diamondbacks” squadron. Just took off from the aircraft carrier CV-66 "America", Indian Ocean, January 1, 1984. Count its take-off weight.

But you don’t find that this is a staged photo, judging by the size of the aircraft carrier after takeoff, 20-25 seconds elapsed, the distance from the aircraft carrier was 2-2,5 km, the pilot managed to remove the landing gear, slats, flaps during this time, gain speed of 450-500 km / hour, and the most important thing is to shift the wing to a sweep of 45-50 degrees, as everything is instantly done. In addition, when zooming in on the aircraft carrier, you can see that the tracks of steam catapults No. 3,4 are blocked, No. 2 is already on one third of the track, the plane is already at one third of the track, No. 1 is "Hawkeye", the question is where did the F-14A take off?
Takeoff weight 28560 kg, unless of course he took off with full tanks, possibly refueling in the air from "Viking".
But we left the initial question, namely the possibility of taking off the F-14A with a headwind of 11 knots (5, 5 m / sec.) With a maximum mass. In the configuration shown in the photo, I think the plane took off with a headwind of at least 20-25 knots.
You can see it here: http: //airspot.ru/library/book/pavlenko-vf-korabelnye-samolety
quote: "The minimum final airspeed of a catapult launch, determined from the airspeed corresponding to the loss of aerobatic qualities, and the value of the required increase in the angle of attack, usually 4 ... 7 km / h above the airspeed corresponding to the loss of aerobatic qualities in combination with the requirement subsidence of no more than 6 m.
Another important aspect of carrier ejection launch operations that deserves consideration is the distinction between test and operational conditions. To take into account these differences from the experience of testing and operation, it was found that, in general, under operating conditions, ejection launches should be performed at a speed 18,5-28 km / h (10-15 knots) exceeding the minimum permissible final air speed of an ejection launch, determined by the above criteria. However, there are operating conditions where it is not possible to maintain a standard airspeed margin of 18-28 km / h (10-15 kt) and the pilot-in-command must decide how close to the test minimum airspeed the ejection launch should be. For example, an A-4E aircraft with a mass of {178} 10900 kg at an air temperature of 32,2 ° C requires an air flow above deck of 46 km / h (25 knots) for an ejection launch at a minimum airspeed and if there is no surface wind and the aircraft carrier can go only at a speed of 55 km / h (30 knots), the aircraft should be launched either with an airspeed margin of 9 km / h (5 knots), or by reducing the load mass. Therefore, the decision taken by the crew commander partly depends on his knowledge of how the minimum airspeed is obtained, knowledge of the characteristics of the aircraft and the level of training of the flight personnel "

[Tigr]

Quote: find2312

And you do not find that this is a staged photo ...?

No, I don’t. I cannot judge the nature of this photo, let alone estimate the time elapsed after the launch, the distance from the ship and the speed of the aircraft by it ... However, I do not insist. You can independently type in Google "f 14 takeoff" and get a lot of photo and video materials about the "Toms" taking off from the deck with different load options and estimate their takeoff weight.

Quote: find2312

Takeoff weight 28560 kg, unless of course he took off with full tanks, possibly refueling in the air from "Viking".

Thus, the value of the maximum take-off weight at launch from an aircraft carrier of 24500 kg from the brochure "F-14 carrier-based fighter (US Navy)" does not correspond to reality.

PS F-14, like F / A-18, almost always catapults with PTB (which you previously denied). Why do they need hanging tanks for incomplete refueling internal?

Quote: Tigr

But we left the initial question, namely the possibility of taking off the F-14A with a headwind of 11 knots (5, 5 m / sec.) With a maximum mass. In the configuration shown in the photo, I think the plane took off with a headwind of at least 20-25 knots.

Again, by eye, I am not able to determine the speed of an aircraft carrier or the wind speed above its flight deck from a photo, so I use the "Standart Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model F-14A" charts. The Indian Ocean is the tropics, and your quoted takeoff weight is 28560 kg or 62907 lbs. Accordingly, the minimum wind speed above deck should be 4 knots or 7,5 km / h.

Quote: find2312

To take these differences into account from testing and operating experience, it was found that, in general, ejection launches should be performed at a speed of 18,5–28 km / h (10–15 knots) exceeding the minimum permissible final airspeed of the ejection launch defined above criteria.

10-15 knots are fully consistent with the values ​​specified for F-14 NAVAIR data. I suspect that they were written off from there because there is a reference to the operational experience, namely, its generalization and analysis, and NAVAIR is engaged in issuing recommendations to pilots.

PS The book of V.F. Pavlenko "Ship planes" can be read on-line here:
http://scilib-avia.narod.ru/Pavlenko1/cba.htm#31 Well, and if you want to laugh at the delusional data of the graph in Fig.3.2. "Dependence of the speed of descent Vcx of the aircraft from the catapult of the aircraft carrier" Forrestal "on its take-off weight." And once again make sure that the data is copied from Western sources. Moreover, it is illiterate.

[find2312]

Quote: Tigr

PS The book of V.F. Pavlenko "Ship planes" can be read on-line here:
http://scilib-avia.narod.ru/Pavlenko1/cba.htm#31 Ну, и при желании посмеяться над бредовыми данными графика на Рис.3.2. "Зависимость скорости схода Vсх самолета с катапульты авианосца типа «Форрестол» от его взлетной массы." И в очередной раз убедиться, что данные списаны с западных источников. Причем безграмотно.

I do not argue, the schedule is of course delusional, but I would not immediately speak about all the material presented in the book.

[Tigr]

In my postscript, I just wanted to show that the data for domestic specialized literature is taken from the primary sources that you consider to be advertising.

[find2312]

Quote Tigr Thus, the value of the maximum take-off weight at launch from an aircraft carrier of 24500 kg from the brochure "F-14 carrier-based fighter (US Navy)" does not correspond to reality.

Perhaps the data in the brochure corresponds to an aircraft with TF30-P-412 engines with afterburner thrust of 9070 kg (minus 7-10% of friction loss in the air intake duct).
I suspect that NAVAIR created its own graphics for the F-14D modification built by a very small series (several pieces) in 1988-1990, with F110-GE-400 engines with a thrust of 12500 kg, with such an engine, of course the F-14 will take off and with a mass of 33 tons.

Quote Tigr PS F-14, like F / A-18, almost always catapults with PTB (which you previously denied). Why do they need hanging tanks for incomplete refueling internal?

I did not deny the take-off from the PTB, I just pointed out that the PTB suspension significantly increases the drag coefficient (Cx) and, accordingly, reduces the aerodynamic quality of the aircraft, therefore, all other things being equal, it is necessary to increase the speed of the oncoming stream (aircraft carrier speed.
As far as I know, Navy aircraft, as well as the U.S. Air Force, when refueling in the air, allow refueling of both internal tanks and PTB, refueling is often used to increase the flight (not take-off, namely flight) mass of the aircraft.

Quote: find2312

To take these differences into account from testing and operating experience, it was found that, in general, ejection launches should be performed at a speed of 18,5–28 km / h (10–15 knots) exceeding the minimum permissible final airspeed of the ejection launch defined above criteria.

10-15 knots are fully consistent with the values ​​specified for F-14 NAVAIR data.

I suspect that they were written off from there because there is a reference to the operational experience, namely, its generalization and analysis, and NAVAIR is engaged in issuing recommendations to pilots.

[Tigr]

Quote: find2312

Perhaps the data in the brochure corresponds to an aircraft with TF30-P-412 engines with afterburner thrust of 9070 kg (minus 7-10% of friction loss in the air intake duct).

Maybe. I dont know. I only know that the data on the maximum take-off weight of the F-14A during ejection presented in this brochure is incorrect.

Quote: find2312

I suspect that NAVAIR created its own graphics for the F-14D modification built by a very small series (several pieces) in 1988-1990, with F110-GE-400 engines with a thrust of 12500 kg, with such an engine, of course the F-14 will take off and with a mass of 33 tons.

No way. There is a separate manual for the F-14D: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-14D_Tomcat_SAC_-_July_1985_(Partially_Declas)
. Pdf

Quote: find2312

I did not deny the take-off from the PTB ...

Oh?

Quote: find2312

So the American sailors had to reduce the combat load and in no case do not suspend hanging tanks and bombs because of which the aerodynamic quality was already low.

Quote: find2312

As far as I know, Navy aircraft, as well as the U.S. Air Force, when refueling in the air, allow refueling of both internal tanks and PTB, refueling is often used to increase the flight (not take-off, namely flight) mass of the aircraft.

When a fighter goes to intercept supersonic fuel consumption is enormous, and he has no time to refuel in the air. But after completing a combat mission - please!

[find2312]

(Continued)
About Grumman and the Navy here: http: //airspot.ru/catalogue/item/grumman-f-14a-tomcat
Quote: "The work on Tomcat was carried out at a very high rate; the model of the aircraft, which usually took 4-5 months to build, was built by the company in less than three. Meanwhile, clouds were gathering over the entire program. Experts again asked about the parallelism of developments in the Navy and the Air Force. "Why do you need an F-14 if the Air Force has already ordered a simpler F-15, which, moreover, is much more maneuverable than the F-14? Wouldn't it be better to put the McDonnell Douglas on deck? "This time, happiness in the person of Defense Secretary Melvin Laird and F-14" godfather "Vice Admiral Connolly smiled at Grumman. Laird and Connolly defended the Tomcat firmly. : "This plane is not just necessary for the fleet, it needs it in the shortest possible time!"
quote: "The competitor of the F-14 was much more serious: in July 1971, the Pentagon initiated a study of the possibility of basing F-15 fighters on aircraft carriers. Then Grumman, with the support of Vice Admiral Connelly, managed to defend the Tomcat relatively easily. A new discussion unfolded In March 1973, the F-15N (N-NAVY, US Navy) was again promoted to the decks of aircraft carriers. The Grumman firm had a hard time. Hastily, in contrast to the F-15, modernization projects for the Tomcat were presented to the F-14B / C / D. "Needles" never appeared on aircraft carriers, but the "Tom-kats", nevertheless, had to make room: the discussion had an impact on the development of naval aviation, stimulating work on the F-18 "Hornit" multi-role fighter.
Quote: "Accidents and disasters with the Tomkats due to engine problems prompted the Minister of the Navy, John Lehman, in 1984, at a Congressional hearing, to declare in the hearts that" the F14A with the TF-30 turbojet engine is probably an illustration of the worst agreement characteristics of aircraft and engines in naval aviation over many years; TF-30 engine - terrible, it caused the loss of 28,2% of all crashed F-14s; the F-14A aircraft can perform the required tasks, but it should be piloted very carefully, flying the aircraft at high altitudes at low speeds is associated in some cases with great risk. "
And as a consequence of the decisions of the admirals and the military-industrial complex.
here: https: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat
"The US Navy has delivered 545 aircraft."
"During the operation of the F-14 Tomcat in the US Navy, at least 166 aircraft were lost in incidents."

[Tigr]

And how does the above you relate to the topic of discussion?

[find2312]

Quote: Tigr

Advertising, you say? Advertising hasn't been secret for 20 years. Therefore, please take a closer look at the title page of "Standart Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model F-14A", which identifies the organization that issued this document. This is not Grumman, this is NAVAIR (Naval Air Systems Command) - the Command of the material support of aviation systems and airborne weapons of the US Navy.

Developers and manufacturers sometimes really overestimate the parameters of their "products", but not those who use these products. It would be maddening for NAVAIR to list the F-14A's official performance data, such as the aircraft's maximum takeoff weight when ejected from an aircraft carrier of 70000 pounds, which actually turned out to be 57850 pounds. Do you see what this would lead to?

So there is no reason to doubt the data presented in the "Standard Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model F-14A".

And so it is, the comrades from NAVAIR obey the command of the Navy. And they will write the necessary information in their documents.
But the real information, for example, about the investigation of a flight accident with the F-14, for example, the same stall into a tailspin when taking off from an aircraft carrier, will be carefully classified, otherwise God forbid the probable enemy finds out, or Congress will hold hearings on the topic "Who adopted the aircraft that during takeoff from an aircraft carrier or maneuverable air combat falls into a tailspin? " and the admirals will deduct from their salaries the cost of the 512 F-14 supplied to the Navy. I have no doubt that the aviation commanders in the field have other charts and nomograms showing really safe take-off masses, which of course will never be published, even after the F-14 is removed from service. By the way, the F-15N (NAVY) aircraft with very good aerodynamics (including adaptive wing tips deflected throughout the wingspan), initially good, powerful engines, were not adopted.

[Kassandra]

Of course they didn’t accept ... and even together, and not instead, they didn’t.
was the F-16N?
F-14 was more dangerous than modern F-15

PTB with incomplete internal can be useful if spending after take-off immediately goes from them.

[Tigr]

Quote: Kassandra

PTB with incomplete internal can be useful if spending after take-off immediately goes from them.

When throwing an F-14 to intercept at a speed of M = 1,5 at a distance of 247 km, fuel consumption is simply monstrous (if we consider the specific consumption of 2,78 kg / kgf * h, then more than 8 tons will come out one way).

[Kassandra]

and when throwing is not intercepted, they are not needed just because they slow down.
therefore usually bullet without them. What, to throw them off immediately after leaving the deck?

[Tigr]

"Bullet", as you put it, almost always with PTB. When intercepting, fuel is consumed from them very quickly during climb and acceleration to supersonic. When fuel is used up, they are discharged.

[Kassandra]

... doesn’t have time, pulls down and creates a sail - therefore without PTB
and with the F-18 as well.

[find2312]

You counted this for one engine, and there are two engines, respectively 16 tons per one end, and you have to return back at subsonic sound, and you also need to take into account the fuel consumption for takeoff, climb and acceleration to Mach 1,5, without turning off the entire flight " afterburner ", and afterburner bypass engines are not very economical, the tanker will probably be needed. You can read it in the textbook "Practical aerodynamics of aircraft with jet engines". Most likely, the afterburner took off, then in cruise mode to the interception zone, 3 minutes before interception, acceleration to 1,5 M, interception, and slowly home, painfully looking at the falling fuel gauges, and worrying about not allowing the interception for the AF cable when landing.

[Tigr]

Quote: find2312

You counted it for one engine ...

I calculated this for two engines (simplified):
Initial data - radius of interception 247 km, speed - 1,5M (according to the book of Nikol'skiy M.V. "Tomcat" F-14 "), engine thrust TF30-P-412A in full afterburner mode - 9480 kgf, specific fuel consumption in the mode full afterburner - 2,78 kg / kgf * h (according to the book "F-14 carrier-based fighter (US Navy").
Payment:
Speed ​​1,5M = 1593 km / h;
The time to reach the intercept line at a distance of 247 km from the aircraft carrier is 247/1593 = 0,155 hours or 9 minutes 18 seconds.
Fuel consumption: 9480 kgf x 2,78 kg / kgf * h x 0,155 h = 4085 kg.
For two engines - 8170 kg.

This estimate is overvalued compared to real more than 2 times.

[find2312]

Quote: Tigr

I calculated this for two engines (simplified):
Initial data - radius of interception 247 km, speed - 1,5M (according to the book of Nikol'skiy M.V. "Tomcat" F-14 "), engine thrust TF30-P-412A in full afterburner mode - 9480 kgf, specific fuel consumption in the mode full afterburner - 2,78 kg / kgf * h (according to the book "F-14 carrier-based fighter (US Navy").
Payment:
Speed ​​1,5M = 1593 km / h;
The time to reach the intercept line at a distance of 247 km from the aircraft carrier is 247/1593 = 0,155 hours or 9 minutes 18 seconds.
Fuel consumption: 9480 kgf x 2,78 kg / kgf * h x 0,155 h = 4085 kg.
For two engines - 8170 kg.

This estimate is overvalued compared to real more than 2 times.

Your calculation is understandable, in general it is called ISR (engineering-navigational calculation), but some points are missed.
1. The flight altitude of the interceptor in the interception zone, (a height of at least 11 km is desirable, at lower altitudes the hourly flow rate will be very large at M-1,5).
2. It is necessary to take into account the fuel for takeoff to and climb 11 km, then acceleration to M-1,5 (in the manual "carrier-based fighter F-14" there is data-acceleration from 800 km / h to 1300 km / h-2 min.11 sec.) - plus 1000 kg.
3. The return road, braking from M-1,5 to subsonic afterburner shutdown, cruising, at a speed of 750 km / h, according to the throttle characteristics of the Court-0,8 kg / kgf * h, thrust-2500 kg, time 0,33 , 2500 hours, consumption 0,8 x 0,33 x 2 x 1320 = XNUMX kg
4. Landing, on landing, provide a fuel reserve for possible departure to the second circle, or even departure to a reserve airfield (at least 1,8-2,5 tons of fuel)
5. Moreover, it is necessary to take into account the mass of the aircraft and PLC (drag indicators) for suspended PTBs - 7-9% add to the Court. By the way, the tanks should be reset, how it will come out with them at M = 1,5 is not clear.
Total: Take-off, set-up and acceleration -1000 kg + exit to the interception line 8170 kg + return road 1320 kg total 10490 kg + navigational reserve 2000 kg it turns out 12490 kg for everything.
fuel on board, internal tanks 7348 kg, hanging tanks 1672 kg, calculated at a fuel density of 0,813 g / cm. cubic meters, total 9020 kg.

[Tigr]

You see, there can be no incomplete refueling of internal fuel tanks - kerosene is already lacking.

[find2312]

I agree that our partners have well-developed in-flight refueling, a very necessary measure when there is not enough kerosene. By the way, I read about the incident in the US Navy, the young pilot made three calls to the aircraft carrier and couldn’t catch on, the RP gave him the command to occupy a height of 5000 m in the area in the vicinity of the ship, lifted the tanker from the deck, refueled the young pilot’s plane, gave him time calms down, and then he made three more calls and caught only on the sixth call.

[Kassandra]

straight trouble ... and with what plane is wrong?

it’s not a hook because with the direct wing the F-14, like the MiG-23, is just a glider.

[find2312]

More dangerous in terms of safety, I agree with you.

[Kassandra]

more dangerous for other states

F-15 was allowed to have 3 countries outside the United States, F-14 - only one.

[Tigr]

Quote: find2312

And so it is, the comrades from NAVAIR obey the command of the Navy. And they will write the necessary information in their documents.

That's right. This information is necessary for commanders of air units and combat pilots for the operation and combat use of aircraft.

Quote: find2312

But real information, for example, on the investigation of a flight accident with the F-14, for example, the same stall into a corkscrew during take-off from an aircraft carrier, will be carefully classified ...

I am not a supporter of "conspiracy theories"

[Kassandra]

even after classifying the MH-17 for a year?

[Tigr]

And what does this have to do with the operation of carrier-based aircraft and the investigation of the causes of their accidents and accidents?

[Kassandra]

this has to do with conspiracy practice.

[Tigr]

This is not for me.

[Kassandra]

even if they relate to IRIAF deck aircraft?

[Tigr]

Excuse me, does Iran have aircraft carriers in its fleet?

[Kassandra]

Excuse me, didn’t you know that he has an F-14?

[Tigr]

Good. Tell me, how do Iranian F-14s relate to the article under discussion about the cycle of launching aircraft from an aircraft carrier?

[Kassandra]

OK. I’ll write - this is a decked aircraft, and there is also an element of a conspiracy.

[find2312]

Quote: Tigr

I am not a supporter of "conspiracy theories"

I'm not talking about conspiracies, but about filters for information in the US Navy, I meant that NAVAIR will publish only the information "necessary" to the command, but information about LP (getting into a tailspin, especially stalling during takeoff from an aircraft carrier) with F- 14, for example, I did not find, but maybe you will find it.

[Tigr]

You can’t understand in any way that NAVAIR is not Grumman’s advertising department before or LM is currently promoting its products. NAVAIR is the US Navy's Aviation Systems and Airborne Armed Forces Command, which includes, inter alia, operational experience clarification real Performance characteristics of equipment adopted by the US navy aviation. When the chipboard stamp is removed from these documents, then our domestic publications begin to use them (though, as our discussion has shown, it is not always correct).

As for the investigation into the causes of aircraft accidents in the US Navy, I do not know this. Yes, I am not interested in knowing these reasons for the plane sent to the museum.

[find2312]

I understand you perfectly, but I’m saying that not a single self-respecting military leader of the Navy or Air Force, or structures subordinate to the military leadership (NAVAIR) will ever say or write that he was mistaken in adopting one or another type of military hardware . The company certainly advertises its goods, but there are many companies, and the decision to adopt the aircraft is made by the Moscow Region or the US Navy and is responsible for this, as I quoted above
"This time, happiness in the person of Defense Secretary Melvin Laird and F-14" godfather "Vice Admiral Connolly smiled at Grumman. Laird and Connolly defended Tomcat:" This aircraft is not just necessary for the Navy, it needs it in the shortest possible time! "
It’s simple and simple, and the MDs with the F-15N were simply discarded, which NAVAIR after that admits that the F-14 is bad, even chipboard, if Congress is needed and it’ll dig up the chipboard.

[Kassandra]

and why speak all the more if I’m not mistaken?
The F-15, although twin-engine, is bad - there are no ultra-long-range missiles and there is no such radar, the co-pilot is an option and wasn’t laid down initially, landing speed is high, it cannot barrage, the hull is not so strong
F-15N if it was a competitor then for F-18, and not for Tomket

[Tigr]

In fact, there were not so many aviation companies manufacturing deck aircraft for the US Navy in the 70-80s of the last century: McDonnell Douglas, Grumman and Lockheed Martin (LM). So the competition was approximately at the level of Mikoyan, Sukhoi and Yakovlev design bureaus. Now there are only two corporations left: Boeing and LM, which in the future will remain the only supplier of fighters for the American Navy.

It is normal that there are dramatic moments in the history of the creation and adoption of certain types of aircraft. Exactly the same "undercover" struggle was waged in the Soviet aviation industry.

[find2312]

A bit off topic, but I want to add. Several years ago, the Finnish Air Force announced a tender for the adoption of a new fighter to replace the MiG-21. Participants included MiG-29 (land-based) and F-18 Hornet. The Hornet F-18 won the tender, apparently also because the United States took part of the 3 billion payment in Finnish goods. A documentary film was even made about the adoption of the F-18 Hornet aircraft by the Finnish Air Force and shown on our TV. So the Finns bought the F-18 Hornet for land use a carrier-based aircraft with a reinforced glider for landing on a ship, a reinforced landing gear, a brake hook, a folding wing and even a leash for a steam catapult on the front landing gear. I do not argue that the electronics on the MiG are even worse, but a close maneuvering battle, a carrier-based aircraft will initially lose to a land-based aircraft, it is heavier by 2-3 tons (this additional mass is necessary for basing on an aircraft carrier). And this despite the fact that Ilyin's book "Hornet" F-18 Deck Fighter "describes the tests of the land version of the YF-17, an excellent aircraft, lightweight, without a hook and a reinforced deck structure, unfortunately it lost the fight to the F-16.

[Kassandra]

in which museum, where you can see it in the USA?

[Tigr]

F-14A at the Grumman Memorial Park in New York.

[Kassandra]

restore to flight condition of course does not work?

[Tigr]

I do not know. Want to steal something?

[Kassandra]

F-14 has a variable wing geometry, lower separation speed and lower landing speed than F-18, it is better based on an aircraft carrier

[voyaka uh]

With all the shortcomings of an aircraft carrier - WITHOUT aircraft carriers
bulge large surface squadrons away from
its bases are completely pointless. No air support
they are doomed in a collision with AUG. Zury - this is a dead poultice.

Only submarines can survive.
This was perfectly understood by the Soviet admirals, trying
build aircraft carriers.

[EvilLion]

The missile defense system will always surpass any aircraft in range, so that the outcome of the battle of aircraft against the cruiser of the Atlant project may be far from in favor of the aircraft.

[Sultan Babai]

I completely agree that no fleet carrier that has at least one full squadron on board (interceptors, drums, drills, and warheads) needs a fleet, without a carrier, a fleet for coastal operations.

[PSih2097]

Our TAVKRs were built to cover the SSBN's exits to the areas of combat patrol and to cover the KMG from the air.

[bmv04636]

Or there is an exit cover from ground airfields i.e. military bases along the line of ships.

[Mountain shooter]

Nice, detailed article. "Wunderwales" do not "canal". Aircraft carriers of the mattress - of course, horror, but not "Horror, horror, horror ..!." Against the "Papuans", defenseless, unable to even threaten the safety of such ships - an absolute weapon. And how will they "feel" with the threat of a blow from under the water or from the air?

[Dimka off]

The duration of the launch cycle for aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class is usually from one to one and a half hours

A lot like that. They may not have time to answer.

[Assistant]

And there are opinions why they refused to prepare aircraft on the hangar deck?
Trite is not necessary, because now there is no war in the Pacific Ocean, when your life depended on the speed of the aircraft release? And are Americans in AUG ships really so secure that they put a decrease in the probability of an incident higher than an increase in firepower because this power against real US adversaries is redundant and delivered mainly by other means?

[okroshka79]

Very competent, sensible and balanced article! The author’s professionalism is felt. My respect!

[Gans1234]

Chic article, ATP for the opportunity to kill time with interest in reading fascinating reading))
Definitely a plus. I did not know in specific figures the degree of inferiority of the speed of launching aircraft with AK
With a secretive approach with Amerov aircraft carriers, one can mercilessly bomb them for a long time without a chance to receive an air-air missile in response. Oh, sorry, there are still warrant ships with air defense systems .... (((

[Turkir]

Interesting article. The author correctly laid out the information.
It would be necessary to look for his articles in Runet.
Ba, found - Kabernik Vitaliy Vladimirovich
MGIMO
Department of Advanced Research and Educational Development, Head of Department
Department of Innovative Development, Head of Department
Center for Military-Political Studies, Leading Expert
And here's another - http://viperson.ru/wind.php?ID=600286

[find2312]

Yes, a very interesting article, only some features of the operation of aircraft carriers with steam catapults in the Arctic are not reflected, for example, the air temperature is 0 ...- 5, as a result of which the track and catapult shuttle freeze up and the inability to ensure the takeoff of aircraft. Not to mention the banal freezing of the flight deck and the need to remove the ice with a heat engine. For the above reasons, NATO aircraft carriers do not go beyond 60 degrees. from. sh., and by the way TAVKr "Admiral Kuznetsov" is entered in the Guinness Book of Records as the only ship in the world performing takeoff and landing operations of aircraft in winter.

[Tigr]

Attack aircraft A-6E landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier "Karl Vinson", Bering Sea, January 1987.

[find2312]

An interesting photo, maybe the aircraft carrier fell into a snow charge, just before the reception of the aircraft and apparently there was already no time to remove it, judging by the condition of the deck, this is only a slight freezing of the deck, without the formation of a thick ice-crust, which is dangerous when taking off, ice getting into the air intakes and engine failure with all the ensuing consequences. But the landing is shown in the photo, in these conditions it is less dangerous, if only there is no side rolling, even at 2-3 degrees. when taxiing, you can take the plane overboard, will you have to immediately moor the plane immediately after the detachment from the AF cable, and where will the next one land? And I talked about flying north of 60 degrees. N, and the Bering Sea 2/3 south of 60 deg. with. w.

[Tigr]

Here is the Corsair from the assault squadron VA-27 Royal Maces preparing to take off during the same cruise of the Carl Vinson to the Borengovo Sea. Icing of both the flight deck and the aircraft is clearly visible:

[find2312]

Interesting photo, judging by the presence of snow and ice on the lower surface of the folding wing console and the lateral surface of the keel, the planes covered the snow charge at the time of preparation for flights, it is not known whether flights will continue, but for example, according to the rules of operating aircraft in the Russian Federation, the plane will not fly until it completely cleared of snow and ice, the deck must also be completely cleared of ice, and for this aircraft must be removed to the hangar, take-off from such a deck is dangerous for both the plane and the helicopter, so I think that the Americans will do For big break in flights on the cleaning period, or migrated to another day.

[Tigr]

But "America" ​​in Westfjord, October 1985, 68 degrees north, during the OCEAN SAFARI '85 maneuvers, when the use of aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft in the Norwegian fjords was being practiced:

[find2312]

I agree, "America" ​​is beyond the Arctic Circle, but apparently flights in these latitudes were not performed from it, otherwise it would also have been placed in the Guinness Book of Records along with "Kuznetsov".

[Tigr]

I would not judge the geographical areas of use of carrier-based aircraft according to the Guinness Book of Records ... Of course, American aircraft flew over the Arctic Circle off the coast of Norway. You can read about it here:
http://ussamerica-museumfoundation.org/Parson/ocean_safari.htm

[find2312]

Thanks for the link, I read it, I didn't know about this trip. I wrote a little wrong about the book of records, in fact, we are talking about flights from our aircraft carrier in December in the Arctic Circle, i.e. flights in the conditions of the polar night, the Yankees apparently flew in October, and judging by the photo there was no snow, they were lucky, they quickly conducted exercises and washed off to the south. "Kuznetsov" is always in the Arctic and works with aviation there, well, not counting trips to Middle-earth.

[Cat]

The article is gorgeous.
Now a little history. During World War II, two German battle cruisers Schornhorst and Gesenau sank the English aircraft carrier Glories + two destroyers. During the half-hour clash, the British were not able to raise more than one aircraft.

[find2312]

This topic is described in detail in the book Sick, "Duels of aircraft carriers", the reason for the loss of the aircraft carrier "Glories" is a mistake of the aircraft carrier commander who did not organize the duty of the "suordfish" torpedo bombers on the deck, plus the aircraft carrier accepted non-standard "harricane" coast-based with non-folding wing seats on deck. Therefore, when the Germans had already opened fire, the British had just begun to urgently prepare the flight on duty for departure, but the Germans quickly destroyed both the aircraft and the aircraft carrier itself. If the British had raised at least a link of torpedo bombers, the Germans would most likely have lost both battle cruisers, as they later lost "Bismarck ".

[Rarahin]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

And how will they "feel" with the threat of a blow from under the water or from the air?

Like this

[sharp-lad]

Great targets for the Russian Air Force and tactical missile weapons, including cruise missiles of various bases!

[metallic]

Good debriefing.
Only a photo of the Enterprise in the Mediterranean would still be worth adding

[gvozdan]

Someone tell me three questions

1) Is there a combined take-off from the catapult to the springboard, and what is the theoretical explanation for not using this option?

2) If an AB with a springboard is equipped with one ejection exclusively for 4 DLRO aircraft, is it enough for one?

3) Why didn’t they go in the EM catapult in a simpler way and did not use the usual El. engine driven through a cable to the shuttle?

[Kassandra]

exists. "aircraft carriers are a weapon of aggression" ...

that's enough

because no one is looking for easy ways for the Russian Navy ...

[looker-on]

Quote: Tigr

I would not judge the geographical areas of use of carrier-based aircraft according to the Guinness Book of Records ... Of course, American aircraft flew over the Arctic Circle off the coast of Norway. You can read about it here:
http://ussamerica-museumfoundation.org/Parson/ocean_safari.htm

Quote: find2312

This topic is described in detail in the book Sick, "Duels of aircraft carriers", the reason for the loss of the aircraft carrier "Glories" is a mistake of the aircraft carrier commander who did not organize the duty of the "suordfish" torpedo bombers on the deck, plus the aircraft carrier accepted non-standard "harricane" coast-based with non-folding wing seats on deck. Therefore, when the Germans had already opened fire, the British had just begun to urgently prepare the flight on duty for departure, but the Germans quickly destroyed both the aircraft and the aircraft carrier itself. If the British had raised at least a link of torpedo bombers, the Germans would most likely have lost both battle cruisers, as they later lost "Bismarck ".

Gentlemen, come back! ”With pleasure I watched your balanced verbal duel. Without spitting and rudeness. Nice to read both of you. I learned a lot for myself