Video of how SU-33 could work off of a PLAN carrier

[Jeff Head]

The following link is to an awesome video of the SU-33 and how it opertes off of the Kuznetsov. It is likely that the same type of opertions could be expected off of the Varyag.

http://www.youtube.com/w/SU-33?v=nhV-Bx8nWDA&search=Mini%20Jet%20fighter

Enjoy looking at it and I am looking forward to lots of comments.

[bd popeye]

The following link is to an awesome video of the SU-33 and how it opertes off of the Kuznetsov. It is likely that the same type of opertions could be expected off of the Varyag.

http://www.youtube.com/w/SU-33?v=nhV-Bx8nWDA&search=Mini%20Jet%20fighter

Enjoy looking at it and I am looking forward to lots of comments.

Eeennnhhh..ahem.Yawn...Is the video over yet? I wish when I worked on the flight deck we had so few aircraft on deck so I could have more room to roam....

Everytime I see the Russian CV viedos It just looks like the flight deck is devoid of action. But I know this thread is not about comparisons:o

The flying of the Su-33 does look awesome though. The few Naval avaitors that the Russians do have are very skilled...The refueling probe looks kinda small compared to a USN one. The USN refeuling probe is larger and extends futher from the aircraft probally creating a great measure of safety.

So guys just how many Su-33 will the PLAN need? 24 , 36 + spare parts??:confused: And why is the IN buying Mig-29's and not Su-33's?

[tphuang]

hmm, would like to watch this, but still need to finish watch last night's AI episode video first, hehehe.
I'm guessing at least 24. Considering that su-27kub could be a really nice strike aircraft, 48 would be possible. There are plenty of strike aircrafts in PLANAF, su-27kub would be better than anything China has right now for that mission.

[bd popeye]

hmm, would like to watch this, but still need to finish watch last night's AI episode video first, hehehe.
I'm guessing at least 24. Considering that su-27kub could be a really nice strike aircraft, 48 would be possible. There are plenty of strike aircrafts in PLANAF, su-27kub would be better than anything China has right now for that mission.
hmm, would like to watch this, but still need to finish watch last night's AI episode video first

AI=American Idol?? Believe it or not I have never ever seen that show. And have no intention of watching it on pourpose.

Anyway could 48 Su-27 fit on the Varyag? I think it would be way to conjested. Creating a danger for an unskilled crew...No slight intended to the PLAN.. Or do you mean 48 aircraft with 36 on board and 12 in reserve for training?

[Jeff Head]

I wish when I worked on the flight deck we had so few aircraft on deck so I could have more room to roam....Everytime I see the Russian CV viedos It just looks like the flight deck is devoid of action. Well, the Russians certainly do not employ the numbers or the mixture of aircraft that US carriers do...therefore, they are going to be a whole lot less active on that flight deck. However, if they got a chance to load those SU-33's up for bear...and went after something, they would represent a considerable threat.

The flying of the Su-33 does look awesome though. The few Naval avaitors that the Russians do have are very skilled...The refueling probe looks kinda small compared to a USN one. The USN refeuling probe is larger and extends futher from the aircraft probally creating a great measure of safety.There were some pretty good manuevers that the SU-33 made...seems like they would be very tough at knife fighting range. We need that ALRAMM to replace the Phoenix IMHO, a Super Hornet loaded with two LRAMMs, 4 AMRAMMs, and 2 AIM-9s would be a very dangerous animal from 120 NM all the way in.

So guys just how many Su-33 will the PLAN need? 24 , 36 + spare parts??:confused: And why is the IN buying Mig-29's and not Su-33's? I'd say they should carry 30-36 SU-33s on the Varyag. I believe the INS is buying Mig-29s because the SU-33 is much heavier and takes more space, and more deck required to take off. The Latest mods to the Mig-29s are no slouch. They do have shorter legs and less carry though.

[tphuang]

AI=American Idol?? Believe it or not I have never ever seen that show. And have no intention of watching it on pourpose.

Anyway could 48 Su-27 fit on the Varyag? I think it would be way to conjested. Creating a danger for an unskilled crew...No slight intended to the PLAN.. Or do you mean 48 aircraft with 36 on board and 12 in reserve for training?
yeah.

I'm not saying putting 48 on Varyag. 24 maybe? The other regiment will be based on shore and used as a strike aircraft. They can be used to replace the ones on Varyag. They also could be used for a future carrier. My opinion is that China will eventually have a carrier per fleet, so at least 75 carrier fighters are needed.

[Jeff Head]

24 maybe? The other regiment will be based on shore and used as a strike aircraft. They can be used to replace the ones on Varyag. They also could be used for a future carrier. My opinion is that China will eventually have a carrier per fleet, so at least 75 carrier fighters are needed.I think closer to 30. But also believe that the Chinese plan on building several carriers. If they intend to have one available in both fleets constantly (meaning two carriers available at all times), then due to maintenance and overhaul concerns through the years, they will end up building 3-4 carriers so they can rotate them through.

[Sendoh]

Any news on how navy or airforce will get their hands on some su-27 smk mods or some J-11 mods or some su-30 mods or some J-10 mods...or some engine mods...or some canard mods...or some structural integrity mods...anybody?

[Jeff Head]

Any news on how navy or airforce will get their hands on some su-27 smk mods or some J-11 mods or some su-30 mods or some J-10 mods...or some engine mods...or some canard mods...or some structural integrity mods...anybody?They would have to buy the SU-33 mods from the Russians, or at least buy the design rights from them and then make the changes themselves. On the J-10, they would have to make those changes themselves, or hire contract engineers from somewhere else, like Russia, to come in and do it. I know the Chinese have been looking hard at air shows in Russia and talking with them about the SU-33 type mods.

[MIGleader]

it dependes on when china plans to start operating it's carrier. If its soon, the su-33kub is the best choice. almost not real trials would be needed since the fighter can operate off of varyag without modifications.

Developing a navla j-10 is more difficult than simply strapping another enigne on the plane. New weapons and controls need to be mad,e and severe modifications to the airframe are needed. CAC may already be looking at a two-seater design right now, but its years from flying.

[Gauntlet]

Everytime I see the Russian CV viedos It just looks like the flight deck is devoid of action. But I know this thread is not about comparisons:oI couldnt agreed anymore. Its almost sad watching the "pride" of the Northern Fleet when she is out of harbor.

The flying of the Su-33 does look awesome though. The few Naval avaitors that the Russians do have are very skilled...I'm not sure if I agree on you there. The few pilots actually with carrier experience lack training. On the last big sortie this autumn, one of their most experience Flanker-D pilot crashed his plane during landing, with the plane skewing off the deck and sunk 3000m. The pilot survived though. This proves the pilots lacks training in every way when it comes to carrier operations.

And why is the IN buying Mig-29's and not Su-33's?Simple. The much smaller Kiev class would have a hard time launching the much bigger Flanker-D. Size is probarly also a important factor.


However, if they got a chance to load those SU-33's up for bear...and went after something, they would represent a considerable threat.But the n again; without a catapult system it would be impossible to load the planes with full weapons load and still be able to launch them up in the air. Therefore, the most common weapon load on Flanker-Ds are 2x Archers and (if lucky) 2x Adders. Getting the projected airborne carried Moskit on a carrier-based Flanker-D is out of the question.

24 maybe? The other regiment will be based on shore and used as a strike aircraft. They can be used to replace the ones on Varyag. They also could be used for a future carrier. My opinion is that China will eventually have a carrier per fleet, so at least 75 carrier fighters are needed.
As for the numbers carried, I think something like 24-30 is a realistic amount. Considering the size of the planes and the small hangar space provided on the Kuznetsov/Varyag, I doubt all of these planes would be able to fit underdeck. Therefore some of the big planes would have to be carried permanently overdeck.
Is this standard in the US Navy?



Example of the cramped conditions with the big Flanker-D in the underdeck hangar:
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/9339/su33lotsofthemparkedinkuznetso.jpg

I'm not entirely sure of the actual length and width of the hangar, but this pics illustrates that the hangar aint too long, and will therefore have a hard time to house 24-30 large planes like the Flanker-D:
http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/7416/su33parkedinsidekuznetsovshang.jpg

Now, question is: Will the PLAN get rid of the Shipwreck launcher in the forward deck to give more room for a large hangar deck?


it dependes on when china plans to start operating it's carrier. If its soon, the su-33kub is the best choice. almost not real trials would be needed since the fighter can operate off of varyag without modifications.Not to be negative, but have you seen the Su-33UB actually taking of from the deck with a valuable weapon load?

No? I thought so...

[crobato]

Now, question is: Will the PLAN get rid of the Shipwreck launcher in the forward deck to give more room for a large hangar deck?

What use are these if PLAN does not have Shipwrecks? So there is no point for having the launcher is there?

.

[Gauntlet]

What use are these if PLAN does not have Shipwrecks? So there is no point for having the launcher is there?
They could always just change the launchers to fire one of their own AShMs. But an air defence carrier with AShMs doesnt make much sense anyway.

People who got actual experience with ship construction:

Would it be hard to lengthen then underdeck hangar without weakining the construction of the topdeck?

[crobato]

The Chinese do not have any AshM that is vertically launched. They don't have Klinoks in any of their ships either, or any VLS based point defense missile system.

If they plan on using some VLS based system to replace the Granits and the Klinoks (SA-N-9), their best bet is the HHQ-9 systems used on 052C destroyers. Aside from rumored developments on VLS based HHQ-16 (medium range equivalent to Shtil), the HHQ-9 is currently the only VLS system the PLAN has. The place in the superstructure that could have been used for the Mars Passat radar might be a good fit for the HHQ-9 arrays.

[Gollevainen]

Now, question is: Will the PLAN get rid of the Shipwreck launcher in the forward deck to give more room for a large hangar deck?

Would it be hard to lengthen then underdeck hangar without weakining the construction of the topdeck?

Well I think you answerd by yourself to that question. I've been wondering this myself also and as more i have learned on basic strucltual mechanics and structual technics i've come to conclusion that it's propaply impossiple. Perhaps it could be done, but i think it would need completely rebuilt the ship from the hangardeck up. Sofar no such major work has been done in Dalian shipyards.

[Gauntlet]

Well I think you answerd by yourself to that question. I've been wondering this myself also and as more i have learned on basic strucltual mechanics and structual technics i've come to conclusion that it's propaply impossiple. Perhaps it could be done, but i think it would need completely rebuilt the ship from the hangardeck up. Sofar no such major work has been done in Dalian shipyards.
Thank you for confirming my thoughts, Gollevainen.

That would mean that the Varyag (as the Kuznetsov) will have limited hangarspace. I dare to make an educated guess with room for something like 15 or so Flanker-Ds underdeck if you cramp them realy tight together.

I can only count 10-12 Flanker-Ds on this pic, which seems to show most of the underdeck hangar:

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/9339/su33lotsofthemparkedinkuznetso.jpg


Now, would it make sense for the PLAN to go for a "failed" plane like the Su-33? Afterall, the Russians can only operate it with limited success due to its heavy size and lack of catapults.
As I've said numerous times: Try finding a pic of a Flanker-D taking off with a full weapon load...

As much as I love the Flankers, I think it would be much smarter for the PLAN to either go for a navalized J-10 or a Fulcrum-D. Period.

[renmin]

Thank you for confirming my thoughts, Gollevainen.

That would mean that the Varyag (as the Kuznetsov) will have limited hangarspace. I dare to make an educated guess with room for something like 15 or so Flanker-Ds underdeck if you cramp them realy tight together.

I can only count 10-12 Flanker-Ds on this pic, which seems to show most of the underdeck hangar:

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/9339/su33lotsofthemparkedinkuznetso.jpg


Now, would it make sense for the PLAN to go for a "failed" plane like the Su-33? Afterall, the Russians can only operate it with limited success due to its heavy size and lack of catapults.
As I've said numerous times: Try finding a pic of a Flanker-D taking off with a full weapon load...

As much as I love the Flankers, I think it would be much smarter for the PLAN to either go for a navalized J-10 or a Fulcrum-D. Period.Actually, China has a huge plan to arm their carriers with J-10s, and J-8IIs to tell you the truth. The Su-33 is just a small part of the whole big operation. there is a navalized J-10 and J-8II.:china:

[bd popeye]

As for the numbers carried, I think something like 24-30 is a realistic amount. Considering the size of the planes and the small hangar space provided on the Kuznetsov/Varyag, I doubt all of these planes would be able to fit underdeck. Therefore some of the big planes would have to be carried permanently overdeck.
Is this standard in the US Navy?

I assume you mean that some planes stay on the flight deck.

Well the aircraft on a USN CV are constantly being moved for various reasons. No aircraft is deticated to remain on the flight deck. If the Russians are doing this those planes will corrode(rust) like nobodys business. The Hangar Deck on a USN CV is used to store aircraft that need maintance. It is a constant shuffle of aircraft.

As for the crowding of aircraft. The USN does the same thing despite the huge hangar deck space avaliable. A Nimitz class hangar is approxmitely 220m x 34m. And is divided into two bays. How much space is avaliabe in the hangar deck depends on several factors. Flight schedule, underway replenshiments & various other activites.

On the last big sortie this autumn, one of their most experience Flanker-D pilot crashed his plane during landing, with the plane skewing off the deck and sunk 3000m. The pilot survived though. This proves the pilots lacks training in every way when it comes to carrier operations.


I don't know the real level of Russian pilots training. I don't. But accidents with Naval aircraft do happen. Those aircraft are operating at a high tempo. The USN loses aircrfat also. An F-18 was recently lost off the USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=22109

USS Enterprise hangar deck. Not a full pic. Note the crowding.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-65-ent-hangar2.jpg

[crobato]

Well I think you answerd by yourself to that question. I've been wondering this myself also and as more i have learned on basic strucltual mechanics and structual technics i've come to conclusion that it's propaply impossiple. Perhaps it could be done, but i think it would need completely rebuilt the ship from the hangardeck up. Sofar no such major work has been done in Dalian shipyards.


With only 70% of the carrier completed, I doubt the launchers were there anyway, and being uncompleted can be a blessing in disguise, since it allows you to reconstruct what is not done.

[crobato]

As much as I love the Flankers, I think it would be much smarter for the PLAN to either go for a navalized J-10 or a Fulcrum-D. Period.

As much as I like the J-10, it ain't going to happen. The J-10 is just taking off the ground, and needs to accomplish a lot of maturity issues first. No doubt the J-10 with the new 3D TVC 13,200kg thrust AL-31FNM-1 engine will be handful for any fighter. But there is going to be a lot of redesigning of this plane's tight frame to make it fit for carrier duty.

The Fulcrum isn't going to be accepted, being short ranged and has previously been rejected by the PLAAF. The PLANAF has no room to support the logistical burden of another new plane type.

The Flankers is a known quantity for the PLA. Given this venture is a total adventure for the PLA, it's not going to risk this with the introduction of a less mature type of plane or a new type never used by the PLAAF before. The known quantity is a needed bedrock for this adventure.

Having said this, there are risks and disadvantages. The new Su-33UB features an all new wing design that could give greater lift, but also makes the plane bigger than the Su-33. It is likely the new Su-33s will require the combination of canards and TVC to assist in the takeoff. More powerful engines based on the AL-31FM-1 should be used. And then there is the size.

If rumors are to be believed, the job of provding the planes appear to have fallen with Shenyang AC, which makes the J-11s. It would be difficult to mod the J-11s into Su-33s without Sukhoi's help. It appears China might want to manufacture the type as well under license. A carriered version of the Su-30MKK is also logical, complete with canards and TVC. Both types---carriered J-11s and Su-30MKKs, turned into new versions of the Su-33, can leverage the PLA's experience and infrastructure on using and maintaining on both Flanker types. The Su-33KUBs will still be necessary to provide a seed regiment used to train pilots.

J-8IIs have to be ruled out completely---these planes are too long for carrier duty.

[Soyuz]

Having said this, there are risks and disadvantages. The new Su-33UB features an all new wing design that could give greater lift, but also makes the plane bigger than the Su-33. It is likely the new Su-33s will require the combination of canards and TVC to assist in the takeoff. More powerful engines based on the AL-31FM-1 should be used. And then there is the size.


Will fitting TVC to an Su-33 mean the plane will require a shorter takeoff run I mean isn't the main purpose of TVC to provide better manouvrability not to improve takeoff capabilities.

Also I am curious about one thing concerning TVC, how much extra weight is added through fitting this system to an aircraft?

[MIGleader]

TVC on russian flankers is designed to allow the aircraft to take off quickly from a carrier deck in the event that it misses the arrester wire on landing. TVC engines typically are one ton heavier than their non-tvc counterparts, but this is canceled out be the more effective thrust direction of the tvc nozzel.

[Gauntlet]

But it's doubtfull that it will be enough to launch a fully laden Su-33UB. When you see the failure with the vanilla Flanker-D, I have my doubts about the much bigger Su-33UB. The engines would have to have something like the double amount of thrust compared to the vanilla Flanker-D, which I doubt will be aveilible.

[MIGleader]

The engines are, of course, uprated al-31f3s with improved thrust. Canards help reduce the takeoff distance required. Since the TVC engiens are used in case of bad landing, i doubt the plane would have any ordinance on it.

[crobato]

I'm not sure if the hanger picture on the Kuznetsov is the entire or the half of it. Anyway, if the Su-33 has difficulty taking off I would wonder what it can use for AshMs. Probably not at all. But more advanced engines have already been made available. For example the AL-31FNM-1 sold for the J-10 has 13,200kg thrust, more powerful than the standard AL-31F, and it has TVC. Why not a version for the Su-33 as well? Weight can be lightened through composites. That work has already been done on the Su-33UB, which at the expense of some space has larger wing area than the standard Flanker. Turning it into an even lighter single seater won't be hard. The Su-33s in the future just isn't going to be the same as the Su-33s in the past.

[Gauntlet]

I can agree on those statements the day I see a Su-33UB or even a Su-33 taking off from the ski-jump with a decent amount of missiles, especially the promised airlaunched version of the Moskit, receiving the temporary NATO reporting name AS-X-22 Krypton. I doubt it will be do-able without catapults.

Carried on center pylon on static display:
http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/missiles/moskit.jpg

SIMULATION:
http://www.airpower.at/news04/0706_flanker/moskit.jpg

[crobato]

The Moskit hanging under the Su-33 is pure airshow BS. The Russians have been rightly criticized for it and from that time on, they only show missiles hanging on planes that actually support the missiles or intend to.

As far as the Moskit, it is far too heavy (4100kg) for the Su-33 to take off, but the weight of such is not indicative of the average AshM today. The Su-33 lacked a radar that has a sea search and target capability that can be used to lock on to ship targets; the radar is a mere navalized N001, which is basically an air to air radar.

Most AshMs weigh around 700kg roughly, because I am assuming this based on the Kh-31A China has acquired and the YJ-83 China uses on its JH-7As. Four of these missiles will not not reach the same weight as a single air launched Moskit, which no country has ordered.

By the way, your facts are off. The Moskit does not have the NATO reporting name of Krypton. The name is Sunburn. The Kh-31A/P are the ones called Krypton. Both missiles are standard and operational equipment on Chinese Su-30MKKs and MK2s. It won't be a stretch to have the required avionics applied on the Su-33. Another AshM, the 450kg Kh-35 Switchblade is smaller still.

The older Su-33s use a slightly overtuned AL-31F. The new ones KnAAPO is trying to sell will use the more powerful -F3 engines. Let us factor that the Su-33KUB introduced in 1999 has revised wings and lifting surfaces for greater lift than the original Su-33.

[Soyuz]

Would I be right In assuming that as the Russian Navy's Su-33s were built in the late 80's/early 90's that the airframe of these planes would be heavier than any new build Su-33s for the PLAN which will probably have airframes with modern lightweight composites used In their construction.

Anyway heres a couple of good pics from on board Kuznetsov.
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/9920/su33800200029zh.jpg
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/2672/su33800200040zf.jpg
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/7277/3004zk.jpg
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/6090/3109vm.jpg

[Gauntlet]

The Moskit hanging under the Su-33 is pure airshow BS. The Russians have been rightly criticized for it and from that time on, they only show missiles hanging on planes that actually support the missiles or intend to.

As far as the Moskit, it is far too heavy (4100kg) for the Su-33 to take off, but the weight of such is not indicative of the average AshM today. The Su-33 lacked a radar that has a sea search and target capability that can be used to lock on to ship targets; the radar is a mere navalized N001, which is basically an air to air radar.

Most AshMs weigh around 700kg roughly, because I am assuming this based on the Kh-31A China has acquired and the YJ-83 China uses on its JH-7As. Four of these missiles will not not reach the same weight as a single air launched Moskit, which no country has ordered. Yeah, the Moskit is way too heavy to be carried from a carrier-based aircraft like the Su-33.
But would it be able to get off the carrier with it, if the carrier had catapults?

By the way, your facts are off. The Moskit does not have the NATO reporting name of Krypton. The name is Sunburn. The Kh-31A/P are the ones called Krypton. Both missiles are standard and operational equipment on Chinese Su-30MKKs and MK2s. It won't be a stretch to have the required avionics applied on the Su-33. Another AshM, the 450kg Kh-35 Switchblade is smaller still. I am terribly sorry. I made an too quick conclusion. I confused the SS-N-22 and the AS-X-22. You are absolutly right; they have nothing in common.

But hey, have the proposed air launched version of the Moskit received an designation yet? Since the Moskit were long thought to be able to be launched by the Su-33, I guess NATO must have thought on something. I doubt it was called "Sunburn", as it denotes a ship launched weapon.

The older Su-33s use a slightly overtuned AL-31F. The new ones KnAAPO is trying to sell will use the more powerful -F3 engines. Let us factor that the Su-33KUB introduced in 1999 has revised wings and lifting surfaces for greater lift than the original Su-33.So you belive the Su-33UB/Su-27KUB will be able to take off with a valuable weapon load?


Oh, and btw: I have now digged up pictures of 24 different bort numbered Su-33s, along with alot of Kuznetsov "action" shots. If you guys wan't too, I can host alot of them. Just let me know.

[crobato]

As far as the Kh-41 air launced Moskit goes, it is a dead project. Dead as d-e-a-d. I don't think China plans to buy them so no funds to finish their development. Raduga has concentrated instead on the Kh-59MK antiship missile, which is based on an improvement of the Kh-59ME airframe. Each of these missiles is probably around 900kg and a Flanker is expected to cary two of them. Yes the designation for the missile is Kh-41, but there is no NATO reporting name and why should it have the honor of one, since it never appeared in service.

As far as the Su-33UB goes I would expect that it could carry off the decks with weapons loads. It has redesigned wing surfaces and area tha gives it better lift than the Su-33. It also uses composites to reduce its weight, and recently spotted with TVC nozzles (one wonders who is financing these developments). If fitted with more powerful engines, with TVC, with the new wings and lighter construction, all working in conjunction now, who is to say it won't be able to achieve the task at hand? Let's point out it does not need to lift the Moskit anymore, with the project dead, there should be no requirement for such. But at least it should be able to lift four Kh-31As or Kh-35s, or two Kh-59MKs.

[bangladesh]

how to dowload the movie su33 d

[Lavi]

Now, one question which no one has asked yet, let alone answered: does the carrier need AShM's on its aircrafts?

It depends, the whole idea behind the Kutsnetzov was to provide a ship with that could provide air cover over vast distances, the striking edge of the Soviet navy was their huge CNG's. The USN on the other hand uses their carriers as their iron fists, being able to sink or destroy enemy facilitites, ships etc.

An interesting option is also if the Russians would come up with an armed sea-going version of their Su-25. Since its already is available in a (unarmed) carrier version, I suppose it could be a project if a cheap aircraft to supplement Kutsnetzovs aa-capability, attacking armored vehicles is surprisingly similar to attacking armored ships.

[Gollevainen]

To awnser to your question Lavi, yeas, you defianetly need AShMs for carrier brone planes. In Kuznetsov case you have to remeber the overall proplematic and development phases of soviet carrier development. Kuznetsov is great example of how too much compromising on different wievs end up oversize carrier wiht insufficient aircapapility. It was merely good luck that soviets were able to field Su-33s onboard carrier which lacked the basic launch mechanism for conventional aircrafts. (The Ski-jump was fitted becouse it was orginally decide to equip these ships with Yak-41 alone...) THe Uljanovsk was to be correction of these past mistakes but time was too late for her.

So the fact that Russians have no AShMs onboard Kuznetsov isen't a choise made freely, but forced fact by the cirqumstances. The STOBAR aircraft lauching system limits Su-33 to purely airdefence dutyes simply becouse the ski-jump limits the taking off aircrafts playloads. In effect Kuznetsov is oversized V/STOL carrier who's leghty flightdeck allows you to operate bit bigger planes.

[Lavi]

Well, I am still somewhat believing that already by providing air cover a carrier would do a great job, although of course the points Gollevainen made are true.

Another interesting thing when talking about the loads came to my mind however, wouldn't it be possible to launch a strike-aircraft on minimum fuel, and then top it up with the buddy-buddy air refueling visible on the video? I mean, in order to make damage today you don't actually need that many weapons, the Argentineans sank two British ships with five missiles, although of course the Conveyor wasn't armoured.

That is something to remeber, although anti-missile defence have developed today, so have the missiles themselves, and even if the USN probably is though to beat, perhaps grouping several AEGIS-ships in a CVBG, the vast majority of countries still don't posses that capabilit).

[Gauntlet]

Then again, how are you supposed to get alot of UPAZ-1 (buddy-to-buddy tanks) loaded Su-33 in the air? I'm sure the UPAZ have to weight alot since it, afterall, contains alot of fuel. However, the fuel loaded is probarly not enough to give the Su-33 full range.

Another thing. The lack of training for air-to-air tanking (especially the Su-33 pilots) would most likely make this impossible. They simple cannot give enough funding to allow this kind of training on regular basis.

Here's a pic of the unusual event in the Russian Naval Air Force (probarly taken on the same time as on the video):
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/4230/su33doingbuddytobuddyrefueling.jpg

[sumdud]

J-10s and J-8Bs for the carrier? The J-10 will collpase on its intake on landing, and the J-8B, with its small wings? How will it do on take off?
But is it possible to place the stoppers (Well, the flap that stops the plane from flying off before getting full power on take off, as I think most people on this forum don't know about it.) farther back for more payload, reliability and speed?
As for AShM, it's a Chinese plane we are talking about, so it should be able to carry the C-80X instead. It was designed for planes anyway and is less than a ton.
Canards help reduce the takeoff distance required.??? Where'd you get that?
PS:
AI=American Idol?? Believe it or not I have never ever seen that show. And have no intention of watching it on pourpose. Good thing I don't either.