什么也不知道了

太大太沉了，不敢奢望。:L

瓦良格好图、支持

这张施工区域的照片正好可以否定某些人认为的瓦妈弹+滑的预测，那几排小屋位置太偏了

恩，真是放寒假了，羡慕啊！

回复 1# Processed

如果航母上就配一架Y-8，没问题

还有卡31

回复  Processed

如果航母上就配一架Y-8，没问题
wujimin 发表于 2011-1-30 23:16

还有卡31

LZ该不会是跟老瓦过不去吧
好好的KA31预警机放着不用，上运8做神马呢～～～～

..................孩子..海盘子装运8只是为了测试盘子的性能而已，他的平台是另外一个型号的飞机

看别人的帖子只看了一知半解就以为那啥了

就算瓦良格上起降运八没问题，那歼15怎么办呢？还有地方起降不？

Processed 发表于 2011-1-30 23:22

- -
像Y-8这样级别的飞机上舰了，别的飞机就窝在机库别出来了。。。。。
至于需要几个预警机，尼米兹上是4架。。。。。

revolutionzz 发表于 2011-1-30 23:27
不是跟老瓦过不去
是KA31不给力
KJ2000又太少不给力
海军要自主   预警还得加指挥

直接上UFO吧

运八高新平台再好，也不及舰载E/A-380在续航时间、载重和空间布置上给力哦，况且空客敞开供应。

wujimin 发表于 2011-1-30 23:36

我问的战斗时！

唉，寒假到了，LZ你是想多了，运8要占据多少甲板空间，Y8一上甲板其他飞机都趴窝了，这样的航母还有什么作战意义

唉，寒假到了，LZ你是想多了，运8要占据多少甲板空间，Y8一上甲板其他飞机都趴窝了，这样的航母还有什么作战意义

啊机 发表于 2011-1-30 23:47

无语了！唉，寒假到了！

About the KC-130 landings and take-offs aboard USS FORRESTAL:

When one reviews the encyclopedic range of accomplishments by the Hercules and its valiant aircrews over the years, surely one of the most astounding took place in October of 1963 when the U.S.Navy decided to try to land a Hercules on an aircraft carrier: Was it possible? Who would believe that the big, four-engine C-130 with its bulky fuselage and 132-foot wing span - could land on the deck of a carrier?
Not only was it possible, it was done, in moderately rough seas 500 miles out in the North Atlantic off the Boston Coast. In so doing, the airplane became the largest and heaviest airplane to land on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, a record that holds to this day.
When Lt.James H. Flatley III was told about his new assignment, he thought somebody was pulling his leg: "Operate a C-130 off an aircraft carrier? Somebody's got to be kidding, " he said.
But they weren't kidding. In fact, the Chief of Naval Operations himself had ordered a feasibility study on operating the big propjet aboard the Norfolk-based Forrestal. The Navy was trying to find out whether they could use the big Hercules as a sort of "super-COD" - a "Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft". The airplane then used was the Grumman C-1 Trader, a twin engine bird with a limited payload and only a 300-mile range. If a carrier is operating in mid-ocean it has no "on board delivery" system to fall back on and must come nearer land before taking aboard even urgently needed items. The Hercules was stable and reliable with a long cruising range and a high payload.
The aircraft, a KC-130F refueler transport (BuNo 149798), on loan from the Marines, was delivered October 8. Lockheed's only modification to the original plane was to install an improved anti-skid braking system, remove refueling pods form the wings and install a smaller nose-landing gear orifice.
"The big worry was whether we could meet the maximum sink rate of nine feet per second," Flatley said. As it turned out, the Navy was amazed to find they were able to better this mark by a substantial margin.
In addition to Flatley, crewmen consisted of Lt.Cmdr. W.W. Stovall, co-pilot; ADR-1 E.F. Brennan, flight engineer and Lockheed engineering flight test pilot Ted H. Limmer, Jr., safety pilot. The initial seaborn landings, on October30, 1963, were made into a 40-knot wind. Altogether, the crew successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full stop landings and 21 unassisted take-offs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130Fcame to a complete stop within 267 feet, about twice the aircraft's wing span! The Navy was delighted to discover that even with the maximum load, the plane used only 745 feet for take-off and 460 feet for landing roll. The short landing roll resulted from close coordination between Flatley and Jerry Daugherty, the carrier's landing signal officer. Daugherty, later to become a captain and assigned to the Naval Air Systems Command, gave Flatley an engine "chop" while still three or four feet off the deck.
Lockheed's Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch and go and full-stop landings. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. Still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted...."
The plane's wingspan cleared the Forrestal's flight deck "island" control tower by just under 15 feet as the plane roared down the deck on a specially painted line. Lockheed-Georgia's chief engineer, Art E. Flock was aboard to observe the testing.
"The sea was pretty big that day. I was up on the captain's bridge. I watched a man on the ship's bow and that bow must have gone up and down 30 feet." The speed of the shop was increased 10 knots to reduce yaw motion and to reduce wind direction. Thus, when the plane landed, it had a 40 to 50 knot wind on the nose.
"That airplane stopped right opposite the captain's bridge," recalled Flock. "There was cheering and laughing. Thereon the side of the fuselage, a big sign had been painted on that said, "LOOK MA, NO HOOK."
From the accumulated test data, the Navy concluded that with the Hercules, it would be possible to lift 25,000 pounds of cargo 2,500 miles and land it on a carrier. Even so, the idea was considered a bit too risky for the C-130 and the Navy elected to use a smaller CoD aircraft. For his effort the Navy awarded Flatley the Distinguished Flying Cross.

About the KC-130 landings and take-offs aboard USS FORRESTAL:

When one reviews the encyclopedic range of accomplishments by the Hercules and its valiant aircrews over the years, surely one of the most astounding took place in October of 1963 when the U.S.Navy decided to try to land a Hercules on an aircraft carrier: Was it possible? Who would believe that the big, four-engine C-130 with its bulky fuselage and 132-foot wing span - could land on the deck of a carrier?
Not only was it possible, it was done, in moderately rough seas 500 miles out in the North Atlantic off the Boston Coast. In so doing, the airplane became the largest and heaviest airplane to land on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, a record that holds to this day.
When Lt.James H. Flatley III was told about his new assignment, he thought somebody was pulling his leg: "Operate a C-130 off an aircraft carrier? Somebody's got to be kidding, " he said.
But they weren't kidding. In fact, the Chief of Naval Operations himself had ordered a feasibility study on operating the big propjet aboard the Norfolk-based Forrestal. The Navy was trying to find out whether they could use the big Hercules as a sort of "super-COD" - a "Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft". The airplane then used was the Grumman C-1 Trader, a twin engine bird with a limited payload and only a 300-mile range. If a carrier is operating in mid-ocean it has no "on board delivery" system to fall back on and must come nearer land before taking aboard even urgently needed items. The Hercules was stable and reliable with a long cruising range and a high payload.
The aircraft, a KC-130F refueler transport (BuNo 149798), on loan from the Marines, was delivered October 8. Lockheed's only modification to the original plane was to install an improved anti-skid braking system, remove refueling pods form the wings and install a smaller nose-landing gear orifice.
"The big worry was whether we could meet the maximum sink rate of nine feet per second," Flatley said. As it turned out, the Navy was amazed to find they were able to better this mark by a substantial margin.
In addition to Flatley, crewmen consisted of Lt.Cmdr. W.W. Stovall, co-pilot; ADR-1 E.F. Brennan, flight engineer and Lockheed engineering flight test pilot Ted H. Limmer, Jr., safety pilot. The initial seaborn landings, on October30, 1963, were made into a 40-knot wind. Altogether, the crew successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full stop landings and 21 unassisted take-offs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130Fcame to a complete stop within 267 feet, about twice the aircraft's wing span! The Navy was delighted to discover that even with the maximum load, the plane used only 745 feet for take-off and 460 feet for landing roll. The short landing roll resulted from close coordination between Flatley and Jerry Daugherty, the carrier's landing signal officer. Daugherty, later to become a captain and assigned to the Naval Air Systems Command, gave Flatley an engine "chop" while still three or four feet off the deck.
Lockheed's Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch and go and full-stop landings. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. Still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted...."
The plane's wingspan cleared the Forrestal's flight deck "island" control tower by just under 15 feet as the plane roared down the deck on a specially painted line. Lockheed-Georgia's chief engineer, Art E. Flock was aboard to observe the testing.
"The sea was pretty big that day. I was up on the captain's bridge. I watched a man on the ship's bow and that bow must have gone up and down 30 feet." The speed of the shop was increased 10 knots to reduce yaw motion and to reduce wind direction. Thus, when the plane landed, it had a 40 to 50 knot wind on the nose.
"That airplane stopped right opposite the captain's bridge," recalled Flock. "There was cheering and laughing. Thereon the side of the fuselage, a big sign had been painted on that said, "LOOK MA, NO HOOK."
From the accumulated test data, the Navy concluded that with the Hercules, it would be possible to lift 25,000 pounds of cargo 2,500 miles and land it on a carrier. Even so, the idea was considered a bit too risky for the C-130 and the Navy elected to use a smaller CoD aircraft. For his effort the Navy awarded Flatley the Distinguished Flying Cross.

寒假快结束吧，真受不了啦

Processed 发表于 2011-1-30 23:53

好吧，前面我搞错了，那请问了，一个航母就带个运-8有什么意义？

太不现实了.....你说个运7还情有可原

那你认为现代化的中国航母舰队的指挥/预警靠卡31还是空军的4架KJ2000

好吧，前面我搞错了，那请问了，一个航母就带个运-8有什么意义？
啊机 发表于 2011-1-30 23:59

那你认为现代化的中国航母舰队的指挥/预警靠卡31还是空军的4架KJ2000

9L不是已经回答你了么，还有一个由有一条没有战斗力的航母组成的航母编队，他的意义在哪里？

那你认为现代化的中国航母舰队的指挥/预警靠卡31还是空军的4架KJ2000
Processed 发表于 2011-1-31 00:06

9L不是已经回答你了么，还有一个由有一条没有战斗力的航母组成的航母编队，他的意义在哪里？

舰载预警机已经有解决方案了，但不是运八。另外，老瓦俯视好图！！

这个已经算是一个神教了吧，LZ先看看为了让130起降这个航母做的啥吧

运七能上老瓦就不错了还运8

图不错

自己看盘子再说话！


9L说的是山寨E-2吧

9L不是已经回答你了么，还有一个由有一条没有战斗力的航母组成的航母编队，他的意义在哪里？
啊机 发表于 2011-1-31 00:11

自己看盘子再说话！


9L说的是山寨E-2吧

太大了，就算运7都大了，又不是弹射。

没有弹射器，神马都是浮云

运八太大了。而瓦良格又不大，还有滑跃甲板，而且没有弹射器，同时歼15又是最大的飞机。
上运八的话，1架没有什么战斗力，上三四架的话，歼15的数量将急剧缩小，这样得不偿失。
研制小型的舰载预警机是肯定的，不会拿现有的直接上舰。
假如我们只有空警2000这样的大型预警机，楼主会认为这玩意能上舰？;P

Y-8怎么样才能从航母上飞起来？

我真佩服大家的涵养

美帝的那个是要火箭助飞的吧

提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽
真正的预警机airborne early warning and control (AEW&C). 1架就够了。KJ2000中国才4架。

运八太大了。而瓦良格又不大，还有滑跃甲板，而且没有弹射器，同时歼15又是最大的飞机。
上运八的话，1架没 ...
激情燃烧的岁月 发表于 2011-1-31 00:41

提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽
真正的预警机airborne early warning and control (AEW&C). 1架就够了。KJ2000中国才4架。

;P回复 35# Processed
不常驻，还要它干什么，废物么。

hwthegreat 发表于 2011-1-31 00:52

有 视频！自己看

新平台都飞了，还在这里画蛇添足，烦不烦啊？

无敌三条 发表于 2011-1-31 01:13

机体还是运7的，带了盘子而已

回复 37# Processed
那问题就在甲板调度上了