Japanese Warship Kaga is becoming an aircraft carrier

[huanghong]

Again, I don't see any fuel or weapon on that Superhornet picture.

As I said, I KNOW FOR A FACT that CDG weren't certified to operate FA-18E/F Super Hornet, that's a fact, can it have a F-18 Super Hornet take off or land in specific circumstance? Sure, but none of them would have been for combat, because you are going to put every aircraft at Maximum readiness, which mean you would have to max out the FA-18E/F for their mission profile, and many of them are at MTOW.



I don't know how MTOW is rarely used in China, in the US Navy, only 2 scenario are not taking MTOW into account, and they are transit (A Hornet come from a land base land at a Carrier and carry on to another land base) and reconnaissance, ie sending a Super hornet to take picture. Because you would need a quick and slick aircraft. You want it to be minimally armed. Even A2A configuration is close to MTOW, that's because most combat scenario require you to carry both weapon and fuel (including external fuel) for maximum loitering, you don't just go out and perform a strike and get back home. That's not how CAP work

What Chinese do? I don't know

wow,
I have never seen an F-18E take off on a carrier in MTOW, on the contrary I can find a lot of F-18E not taking off on a carrier in MTOW. Since you say MTOW is the norm, can you provide evidence for your statement?

 

[jhungary]

wow,
I have never seen an F-18E take off on a carrier in MTOW, on the contrary I can find a lot of F-18E not taking off on a carrier in MTOW. Since you say MTOW is the norm, can you provide evidence for your statement?

how many F-18E take off you had ever seen?

My brother was a Marine Pilot, he pilots a Super Hornet........He had around 1600 flight hours on both legacy Hornet and Super Hornet, do you want to talk to him instead?

I have "seen" thousands of Hornets launching on combat load. I called countless of hornet strike eagle on MTOW on station to drop their ordinance to my pos, have you ever done that??

 

[huanghong]

how many F-18E take off you had ever seen?

My brother was a Marine Pilot, he pilots a Super Hornet........He had around 1600 flight hours on both legacy Hornet and Super Hornet, do you want to talk to him instead?

I have "seen" thousands of Hornets launching on combat load. I called countless of hornet strike eagle on MTOW on station to drop their ordinance to my pos, have you ever done that??

Dude, why is the flight manual for the f-18e the heaviest of the various mission loads,
Also over a ton less than MTOW?
Or can you show me evidence of your brother taking off from a carrier in MTOW? ? ?

 

[jhungary]

Dude, why is the flight manual for the f-18e the heaviest of the various mission loads,
Also over a ton less than MTOW?
Or can you show me evidence of your brother taking off from a carrier in MTOW? ? ?
View attachment 924252

Do you know what is "Fighter Profile" if you have the Superhornet "Flight Manual"?

Why don't you quote CAS pref, and ground attack pref?

Also, this is what I said

I don't know how MTOW is rarely used in China, in the US Navy, only 2 scenario are not taking MTOW into account, and they are transit (A Hornet come from a land base land at a Carrier and carry on to another land base) and reconnaissance, ie sending a Super hornet to take picture. Because you would need a quick and slick aircraft. You want it to be minimally armed. Even A2A configuration is close to MTOW, that's because most combat scenario require you to carry both weapon and fuel (including external fuel) for maximum loitering, you don't just go out and perform a strike and get back home. That's not how CAP work

What Chinese do? I don't know

I would say a bit more than a ton is "Close to MTOW"

Dude, if you have to twist my word like that again, then this is going to be the last time I reply to your post.

 

[huanghong]

Do you know what is "Fighter Profile" if you have the Superhornet "Flight Manual"?

Why don't you quote CAS pref, and ground attack pref?

Also, this is what I said


I would say a bit more than a ton is "Close to MTOW"

Dude, if you have to twist my word like that again, then this is going to be the last time I reply to your post.

lol, dude, when you say a bit more than a ton is "Close to MTOW".
Is it "Close to MTOW" for a 28-ton MTOW aircraft to take off at 27 tons? ?

 

[jhungary]

lol, dude, when you say a bit more than a ton is "Close to MTOW".
Is it "Close to MTOW" for a 28-ton MTOW aircraft to take off at 27 tons? ?

FA-18 Super hornet has a MTOW of 30 tons.

And again, if you want to, you can try launch a 28 tons aircraft off a cat that certified to only pull 27 tons. I mean, that's your money.

 

[huanghong]

FA-18 Super hornet has a MTOW of 30 tons.

And again, if you want to, you can try launch a 28 tons aircraft off a cat that certified to only pull 27 tons. I mean, that's your money.

lol
30 tons 28.2 tons is "Close to MTOW".
28 tons 27 tons isn't "Close to MTOW".
Nonsensical sophistry, good night

 

[jhungary]

lol
30 tons 28.2 tons is "Close to MTOW".
28 tons 27 tons isn't "Close to MTOW".
Nonsensical sophistry, good night

Well, if a bridge is certified to carry 10 tons of traffic, your truck is 11 tons, can your truck safely go over that bridge?

28 tons aircraft on a 27 tons catapult is not "Close to MTOW" but exceeded operational limits.

And you are comparing apple and oranges,. which is the theme of your ENTIRE discussion, so yours are nonsensical sophistry indeed

 

[huanghong]

Well, if a bridge is certified to carry 10 tons of traffic, your truck is 11 tons, can your truck safely go over that bridge?

28 tons aircraft on a 27 tons catapult is not "Close to MTOW" but exceeded operational limits.

And you are comparing apple and oranges,. which is the theme of your ENTIRE discussion, so yours are nonsensical sophistry indeed

lol, why do you need to launch 28 tons instead of 27 tons?
Since the F-18E takes off in the state of "Close to MTOW"
Why can't a 28-ton aircraft do it?

 

[renhai]

Everytime i see a Japanese warship - i am stunned by the build quality of them - they are second to none on how weel they build their ships. Truly. They look perfectly made with none of the imperfections you would see from other navies ( UK, USA included !!!! )...

What is so different about how they manufacture them and the bill of materials they use ?

no. in fact. Turkey's warships are of better quality than Japan's.

 

[jhungary]

lol, why do you need to launch 28 tons instead of 27 tons?
Since the F-18E takes off in the state of "Close to MTOW"
Why can't a 28-ton aircraft do it?

why can't China use a 24 tons aircarft? Why can't US navy use Rafale instead? OR why not just use a piece of wood as a deck to launch aircraft

Also, most flight profile are over 28 tons A2A is the lightest of all profile because a JDAM or Mk84 are 2000 pound, instead of ARMAAM are 384 pounds, so no, unless you only design your carrier profile solely around air superiority mission, you can't use a 28 tons aircraft to do it.

And if you have to ask stupid questions like this, then I am not going to reply to you anymore.

 

[renhai]

If you make fun of Chinese tragedies, they complains to the admin staff as 'racism'.

Calm down. Baby. No one will complain about racial discrimination on the forum. Don't bring your life into the forum.

 

[huanghong]

why can't China use a 24 tons aircarft? Why can't US navy use Rafale instead? OR why not just use a piece of wood as a deck to launch aircraft

Also, most flight profile are over 28 tons A2A is the lightest of all profile because a JDAM or Mk84 are 2000 pound, instead of ARMAAM are 384 pounds, so no, unless you only design your carrier profile solely around air superiority mission, you can't use a 28 tons aircraft to do it.

And if you have to ask stupid questions like this, then I am not going to reply to you anymore.

Inexplicable statement? Didn't you know that the f-35c carries a 2000 lb Mk84 in combat with a takeoff weight of less than 28 tons?
lol, the Rafale fighter can only execute around air superiority mission？

 

[jhungary]

Inexplicable statement? Didn't you know that the f-35c carries a 2000 lb Mk84 in combat with a takeoff weight of less than 28 tons?

so? What's the point?

Each aircraft has its own MTOW, do I need to list every aircraft MTOW and say what it can be done close to MTOW and why can't the other do it??

You are using something that is totally irrelevant to proof your irrelevant point, that is the problem, sure, you can use some other aircraft to launch on a 27 tons cat, did the French use Super hornet? No. Did the American use Rafale? No, did the Chinese uses either? No, the problem is and always is if you use both cat and arresting gear, it simply won't fit if your ship is too small, you can go argue why not use this or why not use that to make your cat smaller, but then it wasn't the point here, now is it?

And if you are building a LHD to the length and width of an fleet carrier, and without a well deck, which you would have to do without if you have aircraft hanger, then you are no longer building a LHD, you are building an aircraft carrier, now, unless you are telling me China is using a 24 tons MTOW Rafale and not a 32 tons MTOW J-15 or 28 tons MTOW J-31, then it's POINTLESS to talk about C-13-3, which a technology YOU DO NOT HAVE to begin with.

So either you go back to topic, or this is going to be the last post for me, because I am not in a mood to discuss every little thing about the Navy with you. Especially with your knowledge.

 

[huanghong]

so? What's the point?

Each aircraft has its own MTOW, do I need to list every aircraft MTOW and say what it can be done close to MTOW and why can't the other do it??

You are using something that is totally irrelevant to proof your irrelevant point, that is the problem, sure, you can use some other aircraft to launch on a 27 tons cat, did the French use Super hornet? No. Did the American use Rafale? No, did the Chinese uses either? No, the problem is and always is if you use both cat and arresting gear, it simply won't fit if your ship is too small, you can go argue why not use this or why not use that to make your cat smaller, but then it wasn't the point here, now is it?

And if you are building a LHD to the length and width of an fleet carrier, and without a well deck, which you would have to do without if you have aircraft hanger, then you are no longer building a LHD, you are building an aircraft carrier, now, unless you are telling me China is using a 24 tons MTOW Rafale and not a 32 tons MTOW J-15 or 28 tons MTOW J-31, then it's POINTLESS to talk about C-13-3, which a technology YOU DO NOT HAVE to begin with.

So either you go back to topic, or this is going to be the last post for me, because I am not in a mood to discuss every little thing about the Navy with you. Especially with your knowledge.

So, here's an inexplicable point you've been holding on to
Cat and arresting at the same time. Why do you want to do this? Obviously neither French nor Indian carriers can do this, so why are you insisting on this requirement?