Potential PLANAF Carrier Aviation Alternatives [Archive]

crobato

02-13-2006, 12:28 AM

Leave it here to discuss PLANAF's best or better carrier born alternatives. I have a list of suspects.

1. Su-33UB. Aka the Su-27KUB. I think this is a very likely suspect and I suspect it was originally developed to meet the Chinese demands for the Varyag in 1999. Can't see why Sukhoi would come up with a brand new carrier plane when the RuN's carrier aviation project is running down with the Su-33s spending most of the time in a land base. The fact that the plane was testing the Zhuk-MSE also intended for the Su-30MK3 added to that suspicion. This is probably what Sukhoi might offer to China. The problem of this is that it has so many changes over the standard Su-27 it might require a bit more familiarization from the logistical and tech support view, and from pilot training. Will probably be called Su-33UBK if sold to China.

2. Heavily modified Su-30MKK. Take the MKK, add canards to improve take off distance. You will have a plane that looks like the Su-35UB, already made by KnAAPO who also makes the Su-30MKK and the Su-33s. Add further Su-33 style strengthening mods. The radar can be N001VEP or Pero N001VEP aka Panda. Zhuk-MSE or Zhuk-MSFE are also alternatives. The advantage of this compared to #1 is that it takes advantage of existing tech support and pilot experience of the MKK, so transition would be easier.

3. Su-33MKK. Single seater derivant of the Su-33 with updated radar (pick anyone you like). The problem of any single seater is that PLAN has so far, likes to keep AshM support for a two crew for easier management. This is not like other countries where it's okay to have a single seater fire off AshMs.

4. "J-11N". I added the "N" for Naval. I'm sure that China likes to domesticate every project it can get its hands on. Literally a J-11B with naval and Su-33 like modifications. But the problem is like in #3. So far Sukhoi didn't appear to license China doing a two seater J-11, and the PLANAF likes to use two seaters for AshMs. I must say doing #4 is a lot of work and development, and must be seen more as a goal than a practical first step.

5. Navalized "J-10". The single seater has problems like #3 and #4. So you're looking at the J-10B at best, or a two seater version of the twin engined J-10. But these again are more far off goals than practical. Despite the J-10B's shorter range and less hardpoints, being a double seater gives it a point over the naval single seater J-11.

Like a baby taking its first steps, I think the PLANAF needs a holding hand to help it with its first steps on carrier aviation, not to try to be so ambitious and try to indigenize everything at the start.

Here is my idea how the PLANAF could start. I don't think Russia has enough Su-33UBKs other than two prototypes, and I don't believe they are willing to invest in a training squadron. I think PLANAF should acquire about two dozen Su-33UBKs, then have them temporarily deployed in the Kuznetsov, yes the Russian flagship carrier. The program is for the Russians to teach a seeding core of PLANAF pilots to do carrier takeoffs and landings, as well as carrier born missions, using the Kuznetsov as a base. The PLAN will pay the RuN for the use of the ship and for the training as part of a contract. Later when the training program is completed, and the Varyag completed as a training deck, all the Su-33UBKs and pilots will return to China and they will seed other pilots.

tphuang

02-13-2006, 01:09 AM

Interesting
Leave it here to discuss PLANAF's best or better carrier born alternatives. I have a list of suspects.

1. Su-33UB. Aka the Su-27KUB. I think this is a very likely suspect and I suspect it was originally developed to meet the Chinese demands for the Varyag in 1999. Can't see why Sukhoi would come up with a brand new carrier plane when the RuN's carrier aviation project is running down with the Su-33s spending most of the time in a land base. The fact that the plane was testing the Zhuk-MSE also intended for the Su-30MK3 added to that suspicion. This is probably what Sukhoi might offer to China. The problem of this is that it has so many changes over the standard Su-27 it might require a bit more familiarization from the logistical and tech support view, and from pilot training. Will probably be called Su-33UBK if sold to China.

My personal favourite, well at least for Varyag. With su-35 like avionics and increased payload through higher thrusted TVC engines, it can be a nice multi-role fighter. Of course, the problem is that it will be facing stealth fighters like JSF or semi-stealthy fighters like the super hornet in the future. Not a nice prospect.

2. Heavily modified Su-30MKK. Take the MKK, add canards to improve take off distance. You will have a plane that looks like the Su-35UB, already made by KnAAPO who also makes the Su-30MKK and the Su-33s. Add further Su-33 style strengthening mods. The radar can be N001VEP or Pero N001VEP aka Panda. Zhuk-MSE or Zhuk-MSFE are also alternatives. The advantage of this compared to #1 is that it takes advantage of existing tech support and pilot experience of the MKK, so transition would be easier.

Interesting, I still find 1 and 2 very similar.

3. Su-33MKK. Single seater derivant of the Su-33 with updated radar (pick anyone you like). The problem of any single seater is that PLAN has so far, likes to keep AshM support for a two crew for easier management. This is not like other countries where it's okay to have a single seater fire off AshMs.

Yeah, I would say su-27kub would probably be better than a single seat version too. I guess single seat==air superiority and twin-seat==fighter-bomber in pla.

4. "J-11N". I added the "N" for Naval. I'm sure that China likes to domesticate every project it can get its hands on. Literally a J-11B with naval and Su-33 like modifications. But the problem is like in #3. So far Sukhoi didn't appear to license China doing a two seater J-11, and the PLANAF likes to use two seaters for AshMs. I must say doing #4 is a lot of work and development, and must be seen more as a goal than a practical first step.

hmm, it has been mentionned that SAC has beaten out CAC as the developer of future carrier fighter for pla. (speculation) I wonder if that is going to be an indigenous effort or a licensed production. Either way, I don't have much faith in SAC making that much changes to the airframe of su-27 and succeeding.

5. Navalized "J-10". The single seater has problems like #3 and #4. So you're looking at the J-10B at best, or a two seater version of the twin engined J-10. But these again are more far off goals than practical. Despite the J-10B's shorter range and less hardpoints, being a double seater gives it a point over the naval single seater J-11.

I would expect a navalized J-10 to be like the original su-33 (ie: no anti-shipping capabilities at all). Another problem with J-10 is that you would need a catapult for it to lift off with any kind of decent payload.

Like a baby taking its first steps, I think the PLANAF needs a holding hand to help it with its first steps on carrier aviation, not to try to be so ambitious and try to indigenize everything at the start.

Here is my idea how the PLANAF could start. I don't think Russia has enough Su-33UBKs other than two prototypes, and I don't believe they are willing to invest in a training squadron. I think PLANAF should acquire about two dozen Su-33UBKs, then have them temporarily deployed in the Kuznetsov, yes the Russian flagship carrier. The program is for the Russians to teach a seeding core of PLANAF pilots to do carrier takeoffs and landings, as well as carrier born missions, using the Kuznetsov as a base. The PLAN will pay the RuN for the use of the ship and for the training as part of a contract. Later when the training program is completed, and the Varyag completed as a training deck, all the Su-33UBKs and pilots will return to China and they will seed other pilots.
sounds like a good plan. If planaf does decide this, it needs to start soon.

sumdud

02-13-2006, 01:30 AM

I am not sure if China should use these planes as their first carrier planes. Under-intakes are probably a really bad choice for naval fighters with the landing hits.
As for the Flankers, I am not sure if China should start with such a large plane.
Then again, the Soviets started with the same big plane.....

crobato

02-13-2006, 01:35 AM

Actually both #1 and #2 is quite different. The Su-33UB uses side by side seating and actually has larger wings and more wing area. So it might be better for carrier takeoffs and landings.

The Su-30MKK based alternative would have the standard tandem seating front and back.

I would regard #1 to be technically superior to #2, but #2 is much easier to adopt and train for because of existing infrastructure.

If China wants to contract SAC, SAC would have to refer to its Sukhoi ally. But I don't think Sukhoi and KnAAPO would want to license out the Su-33UB design. The modified Su-30MKK is more likely because China already has bought a large quantity of it and may already have fulfilled a contractual condition for licensing the design.

Nonetheless, if China wants to train pilots it would need Su-33UBKs off the shelf, as modifying the Su-30MKK design would take a little more time. Then implement the training package as I illustrated.

Like I said, China and SAC needs to talk with Sukhoi, KnAAPO and the RuN on this.

I'm sure all these things are hopelessly outdated compared to the JSF, but hey the PLAN is working off a shoestring budget compared to the USN and working at it late. Can't expect getting the best of everything or whatever you wish. You can only hope in working the best tools available for you.

sumdud

02-13-2006, 01:59 AM

Su-33UB is what the SU-34/32 is based on, and China is said to be trying get a copy. (I hope I am still updated on this.) So if China chooses the 33UB, it'll be a help.
But, the plane is not very manuverable.

I'll rather pick the Su-33MKK as my primary fighter while UB becomes a trainer. I too doubt that you can effectively train a pilot on landing with tandem seating.

crobato

02-13-2006, 03:20 AM

The Su-32FN/34 is a very different airframe from the Su-33UB. The only thing they have in common is side by side seating. Everything else is different.

Like I said, the problem of using single seater like Su-33MKK or J-11B alternative is that they are single seaters and the PLANAF believes its better to use dual seaters for that function. Maybe PLANAF needs to reconsider this issue.

The problem of using Russian avionics is lack of support for local AshMs. That is the negative point to all Russian based alternatives.

None of the alternatives is perfect, it seems. Some issues would have to be sacrificed or compromised to get results.

MIGleader

02-13-2006, 08:56 AM

it depends on when the plan wants to have it;s ifrst carrier. If it wants one by 2010, the su-33kub is clearly the better choice, because it is now avalable. But a naval su-30 isnt too far away, and since its still to be developed, china can have it custom tailored to fit plan needs. This would almost be the same as building a naval j-11. A naval j-10 is years away, so its only good for the long term.

#1 woud be my pick

tphuang

02-13-2006, 06:51 PM

well, I said su-33mkk and su-33ub are similar choice in my mind, because China will most likely get a custom version that is not exactly the same as su-33ub, so it will probably be called something like su-33mkk. Looking at the current prototype of su-27kub, it really is quite a beautiful bird. Possibly, it has the best structure out of all the flankers. If you put su-35 avionics on it + give it FM3 engine, then it can be quite a potent multirole platform. Of course, it is also possible that China will order some single seat versions for purely air defence roles. i'm saying, because you probably want some pure air superiority naval flankers that can be equipped with multiple R-77s and R-73s. A multirole version might be able to carry one R-77, a couple of R-73s and a air launched Yakhont (or two/three kh-59)

crobato

02-13-2006, 08:20 PM

There is always the question of seat configuration.

Do you want it side by side like the Su-33UB?

Or tandem seating like Su-33 based on an Su-30.

Or single seater.

I bet that Sukhoi and KnAAPO might ask an arm and a leg to license the Su-33UB for SAC if they bother at all. Even if they did license, the differences of the plane design means it can't be produced immediately and there is going to be some transition period.

I heard that China has an option to license the Su-30MKK, providing if she's willing to pay up for the technology license. Since this and the UBK type has been around for a while, I bet SAC has studied the tandem two seater long enough they can switch to the two seater with less transition.

Using the single seater would have the least transition time, since you are basically applying the Su-33 specific mods onto a proven airframe that SAC has the manufacturing facilities for. But then again, the PLANAF might have to reconsider its policy of requiring a second person to operate an AshM.

What makes this issue quite complex is based on what angle you like to view it.

From the manufacturing angle, a J-11/Su-33KK solution.

From the operational angle, it would be an Su-33 based on the Su-30MKK with tandem seating.

From the practical angle, the Su-33UB sounds best.

There are other alternatives too, like the MiG-29K. But comparing the MiG-29 to the Flanker is like roughly comparing the F-18 to the Tomcat. The main arguments supporting the Tomcat has been with the plane's size and capability, while the Hornet being smaller, would have less of everything. Less range, armament and payload. i call the comparision roughly because there are avionics factors between the F-18 and the F-14. But with regards to the modernized MiG-29 and Su-33, avionics factors would be equalized. Given this, the Flanker's more powerful radar, range and payload outfit, would take the prize. Furthermore, PLA would not want the logistical complication of handling a totally new plane type.

Possible radars that can be used:

1.) N001VEP based on the Su-30MK2. Proven, obvious, but not that good.

2.) Panda (N001VEP with Pero phase array). It greatly enhances a proven base, but it might end up being expensive.

3.) Zhuk-MSE. China wanted this for a long time but decided to give it up. However, it is already extensively tested. Slotted array makes it cost effective, though somewhat dated.

4.) Zhuk-MSFE. Formerly known as Sokol, this phase array is already cleared for export to China since March of 2001. However, it was also in an immature state. This might be a good choice if somewhat more expensive than the MSE.

Among the Russian radars, based on performance, I would rank it accordingly like this. From best to worst.

Zhuk MSFE
Panda
Zhuk MSE
N001VEP

Among domestic alternatives you have LETRI's JL-X type radars and NRIET's KLJ-X series radars.

JL type radars already have strong multirole built into them, including support for YJ-8X missiles. While air to air performance may not be as good as KLJ, based on the JH-7A's experience, it should already be proven for the sea role.

KLJ radars might be better on A2A, but there are questions about ASM integration.

tphuang

02-15-2006, 10:35 PM

There is always the question of seat configuration.

Do you want it side by side like the Su-33UB?
Or tandem seating like Su-33 based on an Su-30.

I personally like side by side better, but yeah I do realize pla has more operation with the latter.

Or single seater.

i think single seater might be cheaper, China might not be compelled to just buy all twin-seated versions. After all, carrier fighters have both the role of defending the CVBG and also attacking opposing ships. Maybe a half/half split?

I bet that Sukhoi and KnAAPO might ask an arm and a leg to license the Su-33UB for SAC if they bother at all. Even if they did license, the differences of the plane design means it can't be produced immediately and there is going to be some transition period.
I heard that China has an option to license the Su-30MKK, providing if she's willing to pay up for the technology license. Since this and the UBK type has been around for a while, I bet SAC has studied the tandem two seater long enough they can switch to the two seater with less transition.

Using the single seater would have the least transition time, since you are basically applying the Su-33 specific mods onto a proven airframe that SAC has the manufacturing facilities for. But then again, the PLANAF might have to reconsider its policy of requiring a second person to operate an AshM.

What makes this issue quite complex is based on what angle you like to view it.

From the manufacturing angle, a J-11/Su-33KK solution.

From the operational angle, it would be an Su-33 based on the Su-30MKK with tandem seating.

From the practical angle, the Su-33UB sounds best.

If we look purely at capability and need, ub is definitely the preferred one. MKK has been taking a lot of heat for its performance in pla. Even so, its airframe is still quite good. If Russians can upgrade its avionics to the su-35 level, then a carrier version is definitely attractive.
The single seat version sounds most likely, since SAC apparently won the naval contract. It seems like China is not interested in buying that much from Sukhoi, but rather more interested in paying the Russians for assistance in developing its own naval fighters. With the amount of faith I have in SAC and the amount of trust I have with Sukhoi, I think this is quite a dangerous path to take. I personally prefer CAC getting the contract.

There are other alternatives too, like the MiG-29K. But comparing the MiG-29 to the Flanker is like roughly comparing the F-18 to the Tomcat. The main arguments supporting the Tomcat has been with the plane's size and capability, while the Hornet being smaller, would have less of everything. Less range, armament and payload. i call the comparision roughly because there are avionics factors between the F-18 and the F-14. But with regards to the modernized MiG-29 and Su-33, avionics factors would be equalized. Given this, the Flanker's more powerful radar, range and payload outfit, would take the prize. Furthermore, PLA would not want the logistical complication of handling a totally new plane type.

Mig-29 is definitely out of question just on payload+range alone.

Possible radars that can be used:

1.) N001VEP based on the Su-30MK2. Proven, obvious, but not that good.

2.) Panda (N001VEP with Pero phase array). It greatly enhances a proven base, but it might end up being expensive.

3.) Zhuk-MSE. China wanted this for a long time but decided to give it up. However, it is already extensively tested. Slotted array makes it cost effective, though somewhat dated.

4.) Zhuk-MSFE. Formerly known as Sokol, this phase array is already cleared for export to China since March of 2001. However, it was also in an immature state. This might be a good choice if somewhat more expensive than the MSE.

Among the Russian radars, based on performance, I would rank it accordingly like this. From best to worst.

Zhuk MSFE
Panda
Zhuk MSE
N001VEP

Zhuk-MSE is the minimum. I would go either with MSFE or MSE. Maybe it's just a bias, but I really don't think adding the Panda antenna can provide the same capability as a radar that was originally developed to be ESA radar.

Among domestic alternatives you have LETRI's JL-X type radars and NRIET's KLJ-X series radars.

JL type radars already have strong multirole built into them, including support for YJ-8X missiles. While air to air performance may not be as good as KLJ, based on the JH-7A's experience, it should already be proven for the sea role.

KLJ radars might be better on A2A, but there are questions about ASM integration.
This would only be possible if SAC can separate itself from the Russians. Not sure if that can happen.

crobato

02-15-2006, 11:00 PM

One reason why I think SAC got the contract is because of proximity. Shenyang isn't that far from Dalian. Chengdu on the other hand, is deep inside panda country.

I do think that Zhuk MSE should be the minimum. I don't know the real story why the PLAAF didn't go through the Su-30MK3 contract, or whatever problems Phazotron had developing the Zhuk MSE or its predecessor the Zhuk-27. China was supposedly interested to use this radar on its Su-30MKKs and J-11s. However, testing of this radar on the Su-33UB and Su-30MK3 prototype may indicate this is currently the most mature and solution that is far enough advanced, and sketched to be used on a potential Su-33MKK.

I don't really know how well the N001VEP in the MK2 performed. I guess the PLANAF wasn't that impressed in the end. And it's also the wrong century now to use a twist cassegrain antenna on a fighter radar. Even though this is the radar the PLAAF has the most experience with, perhaps that won't be enough to balance it to its favor.

The Russians may charge an arm and a leg for the phase array radars. I don't know how mature those solutions are.

I think what China had in mind maybe something like this:

J-11 airframe, FBW, avionics,
Su-33 style canards, wings and landing gear modification
WS-10A with TVC nozzles
KLJ or JL type fighter radar with support for YJ-83, YJ-91 and PL-12 missiles.

However, regardless even if China manages to make that above without Sukhoi's blessing, asistance, objection or intervention, the PLANAF still has to acquire Su-33UBs just for training, unless China is allowed to make a two seater (it will still end up as a tandem) which I kind of doubt at this piont.

maglomanic

02-17-2006, 01:32 PM

It is interesting that you guys have almost totally written off a twin engine version of J-10 for carrier duty. I think if they can implement TVC nozzles and twin engine configuration on J-10 it would be a much better candidiate than SU series fighter just because of the sheer size difference. It's more bang for the buck.

Gollevainen

02-17-2006, 03:09 PM

But sofar any twin engined J-10s exists on our imaginations but Su-33 is out there flying and ready for upgrades and stuff...

maglomanic

02-17-2006, 05:15 PM

But sofar any twin engined J-10s exists on our imaginations but Su-33 is out there flying and ready for upgrades and stuff...
True Indeed, and thats exactly why i said "IF". There are following things to consider.
1) If a twin engined J-10 is in making?
2) How long will it take for PLAN to start training(get varyag operational atleast for training) ?

My apprehension for another Aircraft from Russia or anyother outside source stems from the fact that China has resisted the temptation for some time and concentrated more on local fighters. There was another thread regarding Su-35 and whispers that china will go for it but nothing came out of it. I think there is general feeling that whatever that could be bought as out of box solution could be developed with some effort locally.

Just my 2 cents (and i am no expert on China :o )

tphuang

02-18-2006, 01:30 AM

True Indeed, and thats exactly why i said "IF". There are following things to consider.
1) If a twin engined J-10 is in making?
2) How long will it take for PLAN to start training(get varyag operational atleast for training) ?

My apprehension for another Aircraft from Russia or anyother outside source stems from the fact that China has resisted the temptation for some time and concentrated more on local fighters. There was another thread regarding Su-35 and whispers that china will go for it but nothing came out of it. I think there is general feeling that whatever that could be bought as out of box solution could be developed with some effort locally.

Just my 2 cents (and i am no expert on China :o )
Yeah, it's quite clear that China is not interested in importing much more fighters from the Russians. However, carrier capable fighter is a different issue. Su-33 and su-33ub are already tested platform on Kuznetzov (basically same class as Varyag). While I'd like to see China eventually come out with a carrier version of J-10 for future carriers. It seems like China wants to take the cautious approach as usual and make use of a tested system. So, does this mean we won't see a naval J-10? Not necessarily. If CAC is determined enough, it can still press on developing one without pla funding. As of now, it looks like SAC is getting the funding from pla for the carrier fighter development. So, you know what that means! More flankers.

maglomanic

02-18-2006, 06:10 PM

tphuang

02-18-2006, 06:48 PM

I have one question for you guys. JH-7A seems like a realistic feature of PLAN air wing. More so because of it's better FBW,avionics and antiship weapons capability. What is the chance that we will see a carrier based version of JH-7A??
about zero. It doesn't have the engines or the structure to be able to lift off on a carrier (even if China eventually gets catapult to work later). What China needs is to put some assault helicopters like WZ-10 on it + L-15 for attacking missions.

sumdud

02-19-2006, 12:33 AM

Deino

08-26-2006, 03:31 PM

Maybe new !!!

According to Andrei Fomin, Sukhoi are mulling a redesign of the Su-27KUB nose. The cockpit will be redesigned heavily to allow crew access through the canopy rather than through the nose wheel well. The cockpit view will be improved, advanced cockpit controls introduced and the right hand seat pilot will have a full set of controls (including engine controls). The Sokol radar should be replaced by the Irbis radar.

The hope is that China will order 60 SU-33K fighters and 40 Su-27KUB for their possible future carrier fleet.

Source:
Take-Off, July 2006 Farnborough International Edition.

Cheers, Deino :confused:

Sczepan

08-27-2006, 02:01 PM

L-15? That plane claims to have 8+ HP, but can that trainer effectively replace an attack plane?
And will WZ-10 have enough range for inland attack missions? Choppers do have low range......
....?China don't have much experience in carrier start and landing;
so the first steps should be done by cheap, low cost trainers - and the twin-engined L-15 is the only possible chinese trainer to teach and get carrier-licence;
after that the PLAN-pilots could change to real fighters - but: which one?
What's the mission?
For amphibious support the L-15 (and attack helos like WZ-10) could be the first choice, like tphuang sad - and amphibious support is a must for PLAN !
These wings also could be the equipement of light amphibious aircraft carriers of around 15,000t to 20,000t displacement.

A real carrier wing to win air-fights should be the next step.
May be, we can see navalized twin-engined J-10 or SU-derivates (like SU-30MKK2, SU-33 K, SU-27 KUB or "J-11 C - http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j11.asp) in chinese carrier operations in the future. But these planes also should have a bigger carrier - the Varjag to me seems to be to small, compared to US-carriers.

BLUEJACKET

09-20-2006, 10:24 PM

If the Chinese encounter problems with those airframes already mentioned here, and should the EU lift its arms ban sales against the PRC, I wouldn't discount the French Rafale- it has been developed for the French Air Force and Navy
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/
The French stopped military sales to Taiwan and if they price it right, the Rafale could beat Su-33 as a stop gap measure until the Chinese build their own carrier based jet.
Comparable aircraft
HAL Tejas
Eurofighter Typhoon
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Sukhoi Su-30 MKI (!)
Saab Gripen
J-10 (!) - http://www.answers.com/topic/chengdu-j-10
http://www.answers.com/topic/dassault-rafale
Also, how about the Yak-141?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/yak-141.htm
http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/yak141.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-141
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/Yak-141Freestyle.html
http://bearcraft-online.com/museum/museum.htm?mid=89

challenge

09-21-2006, 12:30 AM

I have one question for you guys. JH-7A seems like a realistic feature of PLAN air wing. More so because of it's better FBW,avionics and antiship weapons capability. What is the chance that we will see a carrier based version of JH-7A??

JH-7A look old, alternative will be SU-30MKK,which possess good range,EW,avionic,bomb load...

Mr_C

09-21-2006, 12:30 PM

What about the FC-1, that thing has side intakes and seems to be a reasonably small size which can pack some reasonable firepower? Besides its pretty cheap too.

eecsmaster

09-21-2006, 01:16 PM

Comparable aircraft
HAL Tejas
Eurofighter Typhoon
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Sukhoi Su-30 MKI (!)
Saab Gripen
J-10 (!) - http://www.answers.com/topic/chengdu-j-10
http://www.answers.com/topic/dassault-rafale
Also, how about the Yak-141?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/yak-141.htm
http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/yak141.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-141
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/Yak-141Freestyle.html
http://bearcraft-online.com/museum/museum.htm?mid=89

LCA on the same footing as the Rafale? What are you smoking? By the way, you might want to distinguish between single and twin engined planes. There is a pretty good reason why most people don't use single engined planes for carrier ops.

Sea Dog

09-21-2006, 03:14 PM

JH-7A look old, alternative will be SU-30MKK,which possess good range,EW,avionic,bomb load...

I actually think maybe China will want to field some Su-33's and mix a strike component of 'navalized' multi-role J-10. The Su-33's would be designed as a longer ranged air superiority component to control airspace and escort a strike component (J-10) to the target. That is of course if China has even considered a navalized J-10 variant. :confused:

Red_CCF

09-21-2006, 09:03 PM

i heard from somewhere that a fighter called super j-10 will be China's next carrier fighter aircraft

crobato

09-21-2006, 09:35 PM

I think the PLAN are in grips trying to find ways to pay their own salaries before they can think of all these things. They are facing heavy competition from the commercial sector for the kind of educated and skilled people needed to run and maintain the next generation of more technologically advanced ships, not to mention to stop the bleeding of their own people to China's own humongous (over 10X the size of Great Britain's) merchant navy.

BLUEJACKET

09-22-2006, 04:02 PM

LCA on the same footing as the Rafale? What are you smoking? By the way, you might want to distinguish between single and twin engined planes. There is a pretty good reason why most people don't use single engined planes for carrier ops.
Can only Light Combat Aircraft be used on a carrier?
The Rafale program is composed of three versions of multi-purpose twin-engine combat aircraft. The first is a single-seat Rafale C, the second is a two-seat Rafale B and the third is a single-seat naval version Rafale M.-

http://www.milavia.net/users/fighterjets/aircraft/rafale.php

With new and more reliable engines, using one-engine fighters is not as risky as before. The JSF for the USN is a case in point: Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm

bd popeye

09-22-2006, 05:27 PM

Can only Light Combat Aircraft be used on a carrier?
The Rafale program is composed of three versions of multi-purpose twin-engine combat aircraft. The first is a single-seat Rafale C, the second is a two-seat Rafale B and the third is a single-seat naval version Rafale M.-

http://www.milavia.net/users/fighterjets/aircraft/rafale.php

With new and more reliable engines, using one-engine fighters is not as risky as before. The JSF for the USN is a case in point: Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm

Bluejacket, as you know the EU has an arms embargo against the PRC. Nothng will happen until that is lifted.

Not only is the F-35 JSF a single engine aircraft so were many USN jet aircraft. A-4, A-7 & F-8. All served the USN and other nations well.

BLUEJACKET

09-22-2006, 05:36 PM

pasteBluejacket, as you know the EU has an arms embargo against the PRC. Nothng will happen until that is lifted.

Not only is the F-35 JSF a single engine aircraft so were many USN jet aircraft. A-4, A-7 & F-8. All served the USN and other nations well.

I know that, I just wanted to give better substantiation against the argument that "most people don't use single engine a/c on carriers". And in my earlier posting, I clarified: "should the EU lift its arms sales against the PRC..."

crobato

09-23-2006, 12:53 AM

The single engined F-8 Crusader served in the French Navy for decades. Also we have the A-4 Skyhawk and the A-7 Corsair for the USN. And of course, the Harrier jet is also single engined.

The twin engine reason put up by the US Navy is their excuse so that no navalized F-16 would be forced by the Congress on them. It is sacred to the US Navy that their top fighter must be unique from the USAF, which is why hell will freeze over before you even see a navalized F-22. It must have been a political feat to get the USN to agree on the F-35 through the compromise of the use of the word "Joint", plus the fact that Navy's traditional aircraft contractors like Grumman have stopped making aircraft.

BLUEJACKET

09-23-2006, 07:55 PM

That is very interesting!
So, how about the Yak-141? In my opinion, the PLAN could revive the program and use the result with success on both LHA & CV type carriers!

http://www.vectorsite.net/avredvt.html#m3
Xi’an Aircraft Industry Company is reportedly working on a new bomber aircraft project, which is said to resemble the Russian Su-34. If this is true, the project may benefits from the knowledge and experience China obtained from the licensed production of the Su-27SK at Shenyang, since the Su-34 design bears close tie to the former.
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/groundattack/hx.asp

The PLAN may also use it either land or ship based, or both- in anti-ship & land attack roles.

BLUEJACKET

10-21-2006, 02:17 AM

How about MIG23/27? China could get some from Russia an/or some other countries and reverse engineer it. With strenghtened landing gear & a tailhookit could make fine carrier interceptor/ground attack should Su-34 prove too slow in coming/expensive!
http://www.space-travellers.de/home/html/images/mig23-flogger.jpg
http://users.cihost.com/ata/aircraft/mig27.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/mig23/
These MiG-23MS helped the Chinese to develop their J-8II aircraft by borrowing some MiG-23 features, such as its ventral fin and air intakes, ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-23
Visitors can also see the famous Soviet MiG-23 aircraft-fighter, two Mi-24 military helicopters and Chinese military aircraft. When the Minsk was an active military vessel this deck would hold 42 aircraft simultaneously.
http://www.chinatoday.com.cn/English/p40.htm

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/04/05/Navigation/177/196139/Angola+awards+life-extension+contract+for+MiG-23ML+fleet.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-23.htm

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/mig27-01.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mig-27.htm

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_273.shtml

Deino

10-21-2006, 03:26 AM

How about MIG23/27? China could get some from Russia an/or some other countries and reverse engineer it.

Simply too much dated ! There have been several attempts besides the Russians to develop a carrier-capable MiG-23 alias the "K" and esp. the "A"-version but for today .... WHY ????

BLUEJACKET

10-21-2006, 07:10 PM

Simply too much dated ! There have been several attempts besides the Russians to develop a carrier-capable MiG-23 alias the "K" and esp. the "A"-version but for today .... WHY ????
That's just another possibility- "to keep your options open"!

Sea Dog

10-21-2006, 08:22 PM

MiG-23 on a future PLAN carrier? I don't think that approach is really needed. I'm willing to bet that China is going to pursue the Su-33 as a whole option. Su-33 can be used in naval ops as a multi-role purpose aircraft, can carry a nice load of missiles, has good sea legs, and can do both anti-ship, and land attack strikes. Why even consider such an old aircraft like this?

For an alternative, I can see the FC-1 being put into a navalized configuration as a way to supplement Su-33's.

crobato

10-21-2006, 10:13 PM

BLUEJACKET

10-23-2006, 03:17 PM

BJ, you must be one of those "yesteryear" Soviet aircraft fans. Admittedly I like dated Soviet aircraft too, just love the way they look. But they're dated and no way in hell they will be in a future PLAN ship. The best you can expect are Su-33s or like copies.
But the MIG-29 is also dated and it's been bought for the Indian carrier. The airframe is old but when you put new gear in it becomes modernized for today's missions.

Deino

10-23-2006, 05:26 PM

But the MIG-29 is also dated and it's been bought for the Indian carrier. The airframe is old but when you put new gear in it becomes modernized for today's missions.

Ohhh please !!! The MiG-29 was the successor to the MiG-23 in Russian service and at least one generation behind !

If You follow Your argument You could use a navalised MiG-19/J-6 ... :roll: ... I think China should know this design now much better than the Russians themselfs !

Deino

adeptitus

10-23-2006, 05:26 PM

As far as I know, the MiG-23K, along with Yak-44 and Beriev P-42, never got past the design stage.

In Russian service, the last MiG-23P (Flogger-G) variant was retired in 1998. The MiG-23-98 upgrade program was only successful in exporting few component upgrades to Angola and India. It's very unlikely that the PLAAF/PLANAF would acquire MiG-23 at this point, or develop a naval variant.

Currently Rosoboronexport is only offering 2 carrier-based combat jets, the MiG-29K/KUB and Su-33. The MiG-29K is lighter (~18,550 kg) and smaller than the Su-33 (~25,000 kg), which would enable smaller carriers to carry more aircraft.

Since India operated both MiG-29 and Su-30MKI, they could've gone with either MiG-29K or Su-33 without too much additional logistics issues. But for the PLANAF, I think the choice would be Su-33. Though personally, I think they're better off investing in Korea LPX style helicopter flat-tops at this time. The PRC doesn't own oversea territory and all of its territorial claims are within land-based aircraft strike range.

I'd put my $$ in:
* SSBN's & SLBM's
* Maritime strike aircraft
* Amphibious assault ships

For the amphibious assault ship strategy, I'd do a "10 year plan" and gradually build up the tonnage in 4 phases:

Phase 1 (2006-2007): Complete construction on the current 17,000 ton LHD, then re-design for flat-top (LP-X) style.

Phase 2: (2008-2010): Build a pair of the new flat-top LHD. I'd estimate the size to be 18,000-20,000 tons, and carry 6-8 helicopters, 2-3 LCAC's, 600-800 marines, plus equipment/vehiciles. Similiar capacity as Korean LP-X.

Phase 3: (2011-2013): Enlarge previous design and build 2 ships at ~30,000 ton displacement. This ship should have similiar capacity as the FS Mistral-class, with 12-16 helicopters, 2-3 LCACs, 800-1,000 marines, plus equipment/vehicles.

Phase 4: (2014-2016): Enlarge previous design and bild 2 ships at ~40,000 ton displacement, similiar to the USN Tarwa-class LHD in size. It should carry 20-24 helicopters, 1,200-1,600 marines, plus their equipment & vehiciles.

========

This strategy basically follows what the PLAN does today, build a pair, then build an enlarged/improved pair, rinse, repeat. If you find a design that you like, you build additional pairs. We hope, with the experienced gained in gradually moving up the tonnage, the PRC shipyards would gain valuable experience in building even larger ships.

According to my timeline, by 2016 the PLAN would operate ~7 recently built large capacity LHD's, and the next progression would be to fixed-wing aircraft carriers:

Phase 5: (2016-2020) Build a pair of ~60,000 ton aircraft carriers with 30-40 aircraft & helicopter capacity. By then we hope the domestically-made next-generation carrier-capable aircraft should be ready. If building 2 is too ambitious, then 1 is fine.

Upon completion (~2020?), the PLAN would, at least in terms of hardware, take a giant leap toward catching up to the power projection capability of European navies, such as the RN with 2 x CVF carriers, or the French FS with Charles de Gaulle CV + PA2 CV. But experience will take some time to acquire.

In the mean time, I'd advocate turning the Varyag into a floating test platform for testing naval aircraft. The hull can be towed & anchored near-shore (or keep in dock), and its flight deck rebuild to new specs if needed. They can start off by purchasing a small batch of Su-33's.

BLUEJACKET

10-23-2006, 07:10 PM

adeptitus

10-23-2006, 07:42 PM

I think that PLAN will need a carrier to protect those LHDs.-China's neighbors allready got or building small carriers/LHA types. Varyag will be used for training for the first few years, and then will go on operational deployments.

At this time, the PLAN doesn't have any experience operating carriers and carrier based aircraft. The PRC doesn't have any oversea territory, almost all of its territory, including contested ones, are within shore-based aircraft strike range (i.e. South China Sea).

I do think CV's should be planned for the future, but for now they should slowly build up experience, in both ship building and operational experience. Large LHD's can provide valuable "flat top" construction experience, as well as aircraft (helicopter) handling/storage (below deck hanger) operational experience.

After the speculated petro/gas deposits under spratleys was found to be mostly... speculation, PRC, Vietnam, and others have agreed to put the guns away and chip in $$ for joint resource exploration, and maintaining the status quo in island-LoC. This is a fair situation that can be maintained. If the PLAN were to operate a few large LHD's in the area, it'd serve as a big stick to other "locals" who wants to upset the status quo.

I'd also advocate avoiding conflict over Taiwan. If PRC were to force the unification issue via military means, anyone and everyone who can benefit from a weaker China will be gunning for PLAN assets. If that were to occur, it'd be a duck shoot with PLAN ships sinking. Having one operational carrier isn't going to fend off the USN and its allies.

BLUEJACKET

10-23-2006, 08:21 PM

Update!-
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=264&page=36

I'm not advocating bringing 2nd generation fighters like MIG-23 back to service- but if they are upgraded they could serve as a stop gap measure till PLA gets newer birds. Successful designs mature and last for many decades while being upgraded from time to time. Even the USAF/Navy still uses old C-130s, B-52s, C-135s (based on B-707), EA-6Bs (based on A-6), F-18 A/C (developed over 30 years ago); and until recently F-14s & A-4s (for training). So, China isn't the only nation that uses/produces/upgrades older aircraft designs!
http://www.aeronautics.ru/img003/c130-hercules-02.jpg
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/ea-6b_prowler.htm
A total of 744 B-52s were built with the last, a B-52H, delivered in October 1962. Only the H model is still in the Air Force inventory and all are assigned to Air Combat Command. The first of 102 B-52H's was delivered to Strategic Air Command in May 1961. The H model can carry up to 20 air launched cruise missiles. In addition, it can carry the conventional cruise missile which was launched from B-52G models during Desert Storm.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm
Starting in 1989, on-going modifications incorporates the global positioning system, heavy stores adapter beams for carrying 2,000 pound munitions, and a full array of advance weapons currently under development.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=83
first Hornet flight (160775) 18 November 1978; 11 development aircraft flying by March 1980; delivery of F/A-18A/B (TA designation dropped) to US Navy and Marines began May 1980 and completed 1987; millionth flying hour achieved 10 April 1990; two-millionth on 17 September 1993.
http://www.danshistory.com/fa18.html
The Super Hornet is a growth variant on the F/A-18C/D Hornet. The Super Hornet was ordered from McDonnell Douglas in 1992, first flew in November 1995, made its first carrier landing in 1997 and entered service in 1999. Current versions include the F/A-18E single-seater and F/A-18F two-seater.
Despite the same general layout and systems, there are enough differences from the original F/A-18 Hornet that many judge the Super Hornet to be an essentially new aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/1643/general-info_frameset.html
http://www.aeronautics.ru/img003/ea-6b-prowler-01.jpg
http://www.aeronautics.ru/img001/kc135.jpg
Initial operational capability in 1973; first flight on 21 December 1970. 79 Tomcats were delivered to Iran before the 1979 Revolution. They are normally grounded for lack of parts; some were seen flying during December 1989 Iranian maneuvers. /QUOTE]
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2006917205712.asp
[QUOTE]The A-4 Skyhawk is an attack aircraft originally designed to operate from United States Navy aircraft carriers. Fifty years after the type's first flight, some of the nearly 3,000 Skyhawks produced remain in service with smaller air arms around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-4_Skyhawk

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2326

crobato

10-23-2006, 10:07 PM

Deino

10-24-2006, 07:47 AM

Just actual .... :D

http://www.kommersant.com/p715509/China_jet_fighters_export/

Russia to Deliver Su-33 Fighters to China

Russia’s state exporter of weapons, Rosoboronexport is completing negotiations to ship to China up to 50 Su-33 jet fighters for a total worth of $2.5 billion. If the deal is ever clinched, it will be the second biggest contract for export of Russia’s armaments.
Till late this year, China will buy in Russia two Su-33 jet fighters on trial for the aircraft carrier that is currently constructed. The deal value is around $100 million, sources close to negotiations said. Bound by the very tough confidential agreements on military cooperation, Rosoboronexport doesn’t comment on the talks.

But the sources say the contract will be sealed in December in Beijing. The aircraft will be constructed by Komsomolsk-on-Amur Production Association and tested by China at the ground range and at Varyag aircraft carrier that was acquired in Ukraine in 1999 and which construction is being completed now. Russia uses Su-33 only at Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.

China intends to come up with its own aircraft carrier by 2010, equipping it with foreign jets. But it will probably attempt to design its own variant of Su-33 by using Russia's technology.

The agreed option provides for delivery of 12 more Su-33 jets. The consignment may widen to 48, stepping up the budget to $2.5 billion. Should it happen, it would be the second biggest military and technological contract of Russia, trailing in size only the $3-billion agreement for Su-30MKI license assembly in India.

“Theoretically, China can make aircraft. They have mastered license assembly of J-11, the actual Su-27SK. The question is how much it will cost and how efficient it will be in operation,” said Konstantin Makienko, an expert of Strategy and Technology Center.

BLUEJACKET

10-24-2006, 04:33 PM

No matter what, MiG-23 and Yak-141 for Varyag ain't going to happen. The MiG-23 belongs to the J-8II generation and level of performance. Why not just fix up the J-8IIs and these are more maintainable too. Variable wings are problematic in maintenance which is why they're retiring Tomcats.

For that matter, why not just fix up JH-7As?

Or make a carrier version of the Q-5?

As a matter of fact, the PLAAF does upgrade their earlier birds. They have a lot of old birds on their own and they don't need to source or buy from the outside for used planes to upgrade.
J-8IIs are to big/heavy for that, but JH-7As & Q-5 may, I agree! The bottom line is if MiG-23/27 were really far along in being navalized, even in the design stage, and/or/if it would be cheaper to navalize JH-7As & Q-5.
Deino says:
Ohhh please !!! The MiG-29 was the successor to the MiG-23 in Russian service and at least one generation behind!
If You follow Your argument You could use a navalised MiG-19/J-6
Those are too old, so your comparison is out of proportion, sorry.
J-5 - version of the MiG-17 [7] (Retired, some converted to drones/UAV's)
J-6 - version of the MiG-19 [8] (Mostly retired, few used in training/reserve units)
Q-5 - A ground attack aircraft developed from the MiG-19 [6] (Cold war, ~300 in service)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Air_Force

The MiG-29 is over 20 years old! (http://www.saunalahti.fi/~fta/MiG-29.htm) I failed to mention
Mirage (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/mirage-5.htm)

and J-7 / F-7-all were operated & upgraded for decades by many air forces!

bd popeye

10-24-2006, 05:00 PM

Jeff Head

10-24-2006, 05:20 PM

BLUEJACKET no nation is going to pull out the former Russian designs to establish an CV airwing. It ain't gonna happen. Espeically on aircraft that are not in production. I cannot understand why you think this may happen.Well...it is becoming a moot point. The Indians are going Mig-29 with their carriers, and it looks like China is going SU-33s. Although, from an older aircraft standpoint, Brazil still uses A-4s, my bet is that at the first opportunity they would upgrade away from that if they can afford it.

I do not see any other CVs coming along that will use anything other than Mig-29s and SU-33s as far as current Russian equipment goes and your point about not consideing old Mig-23's etc. is spot on. The Chinese may eventually field their own naval fighter...in fact I would be surprised if they didn't in the next 5 years or more.

Just my opinion.

BLUEJACKET

10-24-2006, 06:20 PM

Well...it is becoming a moot point. The Indians are going Mig-29 with their carriers, and it looks like China is going SU-33s. Although, from an older aircraft standpoint, Brazil still uses A-4s, my bet is that at the first opportunity they would upgrade away from that if they can afford it.
I do not see any other CVs coming along that will use anything other than Mig-29s and SU-33s as far as current Russian equipment goes and your point about not consideing old Mig-23's etc. is spot on. The Chinese may eventually field their own naval fighter...in fact I would be surprised if they didn't in the next 5 years or more. Just my opinion.

Thanks for mentioning Brazil's A-4s! I hope the PLAN will be happy with SU-33s (if that report is true), but as time goes they may still get lighter fighters, especially if there are problems with domesticaly build SU-33 version. As was mentioned on J-10 tread, that fighter can be navalized also!

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1546&page=27

In case they won't get SU-25/34, I won't discount something similar to Su-24 FENCER -if not for the carriers, then for land based anti-ship/strike role.
The Su-24 Fencer is an all-weather supersonic low-level striker/attacker/bomber with capability of deliver conventional and nuclear warloads with great precision. The Su-24 has capabilities similar to the United States F-111 Aardvark/EF-111A Raven. However, the Su-24 is smaller, lighter, and more powerful than its counterpart.

http://www.milavia.net/users/fighterjets/aircraft/su24_fencer.php

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-24.htm

tphuang

10-24-2006, 09:12 PM

BlueJacket,

China has no use for old planes like mig-23/27, su-24. Honestly, even getting su-33 is archaic compared to the likes of Rafale, F-35 and Super Hornet.

BLUEJACKET

10-24-2006, 10:04 PM

BlueJacket,
China has no use for old planes like mig-23/27, su-24. Honestly, even getting su-33 is archaic compared to the likes of Rafale, F-35 and Super Hornet.
Well, the SU-33 cousin, SU-30MKI (I will not be surprised if they navalize them) beat USAF F-15 in exersises; I don't know about Rafale (the embargo could last for years to come) & F-35 (still in the design stage), but if China could obtain Super Hornet for the same $$$ they probably would have, if only for adversary training!

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html
Owing to its unique features which favorably distinguish it from foreign counterparts, the Su-30MKI is rightly considered one of the best multirole fighters at the beginning of the 21st century.
Aircraft combat capabilities are usually assessed using complex efficiency indicators defining aircraft overall performance. According to preliminary estimates, in long-range air combat, the Su-30MKI outperforms the F-16C Block 60, F-16C Block 50 and F-18E/F aircraft by 15, 20 and 12-15 percent, respectively, owing to its radar’s greater detection range, higher jamming immunity and multichannel capability, as well as better maneuverability.
The Su-30MKI’s supermaneuverability and better air-to-air missiles give this aircraft superiority in close air combat in which it excels the F-16C Block 50 by 10-15 percent, F-16C Block 60 by 20-30 percent (as the high wing loading significantly limits its maneuverability in close-range combat), and F-18E/F by 15-20 percent.
In terms of ground strike capabilities, the Su-30MKI outperforms the F-16C Block 50 by 50 percent and the F-16C Block 60 by 100 percent owing to its better surveillance and fire control radar system, higher survivability, better maneuverability, heavier combat load and longer flight range. The F-18E/F, following its modernization which has increased its flight range, armament suite and ammunition load and upgraded its surveillance and fire control radar system, still lags behind the Su-30MKI in strike capability by 15 to 20 percent.
Another distinguishing feature of the Su-30MKI is its high versatility. It can be used as an air defense interceptor, a strike aircraft or a flying command post. It can be used as a leader aircraft of combined fighter groups (including those of light fighters), ensuring their cooperation and concentration of efforts.

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f16-f18-su30-1.html

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-iaf-usaf-su30-f15-article01.html

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-vayu.html

bd popeye

10-24-2006, 10:15 PM

Well, the SU-33 cousin, SU-30MKI (I will not be surprised if they navalize them) beat USAF F-15 in exersises; I don't know about Rafale (the embargo could last for years to come) & F-35 (still in the design stage), but if China could obtain Super Hornet for the same $$$ they probably would have, if only for adversary training!

When the USAF flew against the IAF a few years ago they flew without AWACS and and their full radar suit. No ASEA....Not exactly a fair fight.

Hell will freeze over before the PRC get's an Super Hornet for advasary training..Where do you get this stuff??? How would they get one?

crobato

10-24-2006, 10:58 PM

They had missions with and without AWACS. Also the MKI wasn't used in the exercises, as the Indians were skittish that the US may use record their radar signals. Just plain old Su-30Ks only, plus MiG-29s, Bisons, M2000Cs and Jaguars. The Su-30Ks are just about your standard Su-27UB with a refueling probe. The most advanced radar in the bunch would actually be the ones in the Bison.

BLUEJACKET

10-24-2006, 11:02 PM

Hell will freeze over before the PRC get's an Super Hornet for advasary training..Where do you get this stuff??? How would they get one?
Have you read what tphuang suggested? He brought it up about F-18E/F. Endeed, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that after being exported it or its predesessor could fall into the wrong hands- think of UAEs, Pakistan's & Venezuela's F-16s and Malaysia's F-18s!
F/A-18 Hornet is an all-weather, day-night, multimission aircraft renowned for its reliability and performance. It is has been procured by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, and the air forces of Australia, Canada, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain, Switzerland and Thailand
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/mdc/97-38.html

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18/

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/apr/01ram.htm

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11171&rsbci=0&fti=126&ti=0&sc=400

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users.html

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article14.html

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_04/uaeap00.asp

crobato

10-24-2006, 11:10 PM

J-8IIs are to big/heavy for that, but JH-7As & Q-5 may, I agree! The bottom line is if MiG-23/27 were really far along in being navalized, even in the design stage, and/or/if it would be cheaper to navalize JH-7As & Q-5.

J-8IIs are actually as heavy as your MiG-23/27s, and lighter than some Rafale or Typhoon variants.

Of course, it's a bit too old now to be navalized.

and J-7 / F-7-all were operated & upgraded for decades by many air forces!

Except for the double delta J-7s, J-7s and MiG-21s have far too long take off and landing distances. That and the Q-5 are too short ranged.

I would consider the JH-7A to be the best bet for navalization. The experience is there, and so is the avionics and weapons integration. Just needs more powerful engines.

But the most important are not fighters, but helicopters and patrol aircraft. Ka-25/28/31/35s etc,. Maybe convert the Y-7 to a naval patrol plane.

The Su-24 Fencer is an all-weather supersonic low-level striker/attacker/bomber with capability of deliver conventional and nuclear warloads with great precision. The Su-24 has capabilities similar to the United States F-111 Aardvark/EF-111A Raven. However, the Su-24 is smaller, lighter, and more powerful than its counterpart

I like the Su-24, but there is nothing there that a JH-7A cannot fill.

While the Russians think that side by side seating is cool and very assuring for the crew in long distances, tandem seating gives much better view out of the cockpit.

Also, if you want to go Su-24, for China, it's better for them to go with the Su-34 instead, since the Su-34 is much closer to the Flankers they already possess.

tphuang

10-24-2006, 11:18 PM

Have you read what tphuang suggested? He brought it up about F-18E/F. Endeed, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that after being exported it or its predesessor could fall into the wrong hands- think of Pakistan's & Venezuela's F-16s and Malaysia's F-18s!

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/mdc/97-38.html

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18/

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm
I honestly didn't want to reply anymore to your posts, but you are now slandering stuff that I post.

There is an embargo in place. Which means no exports of any American military equipments to China.

BLUEJACKET

10-24-2006, 11:31 PM

BLUEJACKET

10-25-2006, 12:19 AM

I honestly didn't want to reply anymore to your posts, but you are now slandering stuff that I post.
There is an embargo in place. Which means no exports of any American military equipments to China.
I didn't mean to slander- there are many others to whom US does sell (or used to sell, like F-14s to Iran) arms that one day may be turned against it. It helps to see the forest for the trees!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/01/ING9ULB4N11.DTL

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm
Some rumors suggest that a few of the AIM-54 Phoenix missiles supplied to Iran before the revolution were sold to the Soviet Union, where they may have strongly influenced the development of the similar Vympel AA-9 'Amos' long-range missile. It is also believed that the MIM-23 HAWK surface-to-air defence missiles that were also a carry over from the pre-revolution period have been adapted to be used as air-to-air missiles and integrated for use with the F-14.

http://experts.about.com/e/f/f/F-14_Tomcat.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22367

caksz

10-25-2006, 12:59 AM

Jeff Head

10-25-2006, 01:01 AM

kinda dumb question .... why carrier aircraft need more solid airframe than the fighters on land , if the carrier using catapult for launching a powerful air frame is needed because of the stress from the catapult , but a carrier with ski jump don't put stress on the airframe ( maybe some ... ) so quite numbers of china plane can be navalized for carrier operation , right ?Huge stress is exerted on the airframe during arrested landing. Slamming down on the deck and being grabbed by a cable and pulled up short like that is violent and adds huge stress. So, they would still need big structural changes...much stiffer landing gear for starters.

caksz

10-25-2006, 01:07 AM

Huge stress is exerted on the airframe during arrested landing. Slamming down on the deck and being grabbed by a cable and pulled up short like that is violent and adds huge stress. So, they would still need big structural changes...much stiffer landing gear for starters.

i forgot about the arrested landing :p , thanks

Sea Dog

10-25-2006, 01:08 AM

I'm intrigued with the potential for JH-7 to be navalized. It is a big aircraft. I've seen that posted. It does provide an excellent naval strike capability. Definitely has the avionics and weapons. But what about weight and space considerations?

Gollevainen

10-25-2006, 01:48 AM

In Varyag case, it would be hopless attempt. The STOBAR configuration needs good STOL cabability in order to take off using the ski-jump and JH-7 just simply doesen't have the required performance. The biggest lag is the needed thrust. Like it's western counterpart Tornado IDS, it's engines (Spey MK. 202) provides just enough thrust needed for interdiction work. Taking off from the Ski-jump of Varyag needs pretty much thrust-to weight ratio being over 1 so with the JH-7 could only take off without any armament and only limited fuel...not exactly usefull for military purposes...

Totoro

10-25-2006, 04:14 AM

Can someone tell me why has the kuznetsov class been designed in such a way that planes start their take off relatively close to bow of the ship? Wouldn't their max take off weight figure go up if they had a longer run before hitting the ski jump? Sure, it'd probably prevent simultaneous take off and landing procedures but added range/weapons on planes would be more than worth it, no?

Gollevainen

10-25-2006, 04:42 AM

Well there is a third takeoff spot in Kuznetsov, which is ment for heavier load aircrafts. It's located were the blue rounder indicates in this following pic:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/1807/kuzneya2.jpg

Now remember that the Kuznetsov had it's skijump intended for the VSTOL use only, the conventional Su-33s and MiG-29Ks became in to the picture later on. The STOBAR in generally is just russian excuse for the current situation. Kuznetsov was never intended to use it's Skijump as a main launcher for non-VSTOL planes, only the cirqumstances made it possiple. As the concept works (someways) they are now marketing it as a cheap alternative to CATOBAR. However it's suitability to non-VSTOL planes is very limited and it will force the planes using it to sacrifice their playload in order to just get airbrone. There is no need to specualte wheter this plane or that plane could be added to the PLANs future carrierwings becouse frankly only very hihg performance modern 4th generation fighters like Su-33 can use the STOBAR system even adeqautly usefully and even so it have to make sacrifices which it wouldn't have to make with CATOBAR.

Sczepan

11-02-2006, 06:48 AM

China intends to buy Russia's Su-33 fighters

01/11/2006 13:15 ZHUHAI (China), November 1 (RIA Novosti) -

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061101/55289379.html

China intends to purchase Su-33 Naval Flanker ship-borne fighters from Russia, but negotiations on this issue are still at the preliminary stage, a government official said Wednesday at China's largest air show.

Alexander Denisov, a high-ranking military and technical official, is heading Russia's delegation at Airshow China 2006. The huge five-day exhibition which began Tuesday at Zhuhai, near Hong Kong, has attracted aircraft makers from 18 countries, seeking lucrative contracts on the booming Chinese market.

Denisov said, "Each party has the right to purchase what it needs to protect its national interests, and the Chinese side intends to buy Su-33 aircraft; but negotiations are still at the preliminary stage." "Russia is ready to supply all armaments and hardware its enterprises are developing, and will hold negotiations, if the Chinese side expresses such a wish," Denisov said.
However, the official denied media reports claiming that Russia has sold, or intends to sell, Su-27 Flanker fighters to Taiwan.

More than 50 Russian defense companies, including Sukhoi and MiG, are presenting fighter planes, helicopters, and military technology at the air show in China, along with civilian aircraft makers. Aircraft maker Tupolev said it expects to sell two cargo planes to China this year and three next year, while Ilyushin said it plans to deliver at least three planes at the end of 2008.

Alexander Denisov said Russia is ready to help China design an aircraft carrier if asked. "Such a request would not contradict any international agreements or rules. Such cooperation is possible," he said. Chinese media have previously discussed building an aircraft carrier, claiming that China could use the former Soviet carrier Varyag, which was sold to China in the late 1990s, as a basis to design its own model. However, China's military have repeatedly denied the country's plans to build an aircraft carrier

Sczepan

11-05-2006, 04:37 AM

China don't have much experience in carrier start and landing;
so the first steps should be done by cheap, low cost trainers - and the twin-engined L-15 is the only possible chinese trainer to teach and get carrier-licence;
...
the L-15 looks very similiar to russians Yak-130,
- see posting of tphuang at http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=495&page=3, postet 04-02-2006
variants of the Yak-130 being considered include a navalised carrier-based trainer aircraft, a lightweight reconnaissance aircraft and an unmanned strike aircraft.
- see http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/yak_130/
http://www.yak.ru/PIC/ENG/PROD/yak-130m.jpg
so I become more and more the feeling, that L-15 will be the first PLAN trainer to be used by future carrier pilots
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3324/l1534vz.jpg

Deino

11-11-2006, 04:38 AM

Yes, I know this is the third attempt with the same question, but as here are more guys, which are more familiar with Chinese carrier developments and projects I try it here again ! :D

Any idea what's that :confused: .... just a modeller's dream or a real long-dead project ??? (found at the secret-projects page posted by rousseau) !! … it clearly shows a tail-hook and folding wings !

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/9944/chineseplanfighter1gq8.jpg

Another one here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=679.0;attach=8857; image

Besides, at the Key-forum "TinWing" mentioned:

Deino, both of these concepts remind me of the Brough P.163 lightweight fighter study of 1981?
...
It is entirely possible that the British might have pitched a lightweight fighter design concept to the Chinese in this era. It is a documented fact that BAe marketed lightweight fighter concepts to both Sweden and India from 1982 onward, so it is conceivable that this very conventional concept might have been pitched to the Chinese a year or so earlier. It seems peculiar that the events in Tiananmen Square completely changed the west's view of China as a potential defense customer, but pre-1989 China was viewed as an ally.

Another idea was a lightweight fighter concept maybe from Shenyang (maybe developed out of the original J-11 Mirage F1-look-alike, but as it had quite a different design and regarding the PL-8 on it's fin I'm not sure if this has to be a later design !

Regarding "No carrier fighter design" it clearly shows a tail-hook and folding wings !

Thanks in advance, Deino

BLUEJACKET

11-15-2006, 09:25 PM

New Su-33/35/Rafale & Yak-41 videos!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7325396415063642104

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5119208964033445996&q=su-35&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5556618649152605685&q=su-35&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3793938189143435803

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81ajldA5xwA

kevin JJW

12-30-2006, 01:05 AM

CHINA DEVELOPING SHIPBORNE COMBAT AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES
http://www.kanwa.com/dnws/showpl.php?id=166

photo pds

12-30-2006, 09:22 AM

I think Su-33 is the best choce right now for there carrier.

Chengdu J-10

12-30-2006, 09:35 PM

I think Su-33 is the best choce right now for there carrier.
I agree. The Su-33 currently is the best option for the PLAAF for an aircraft carrier aircraft to start its first carrier training. Though the PLAAF shouldn't rely on the Su-33 on the long run, using it as the mainstream for its carrier aircraft. The PLAAF shouldn't invest to much in the Su-33 maybe just two regiments for two carriers 50 Su-33 initially to train a carrier aircrew. And then stop the purchase and acquisation of the Su-33 and move on to their own designs for their indigenious catapault carrier instead of the ski jump. J-10B maybe
Ski Jump: Su-33
Catapault: J-10B
Su-33 should be the starting block for the PLAAF from present to 2015. 2015 onwards should be equipped with domestic carrier aircrafts.

Neutral Zone

01-02-2007, 12:44 PM

I agree. The Su-33 currently is the best option for the PLAAF for an aircraft carrier aircraft to start its first carrier training. Though the PLAAF shouldn't rely on the Su-33 on the long run, using it as the mainstream for its carrier aircraft. The PLAAF shouldn't invest to much in the Su-33 maybe just two regiments for two carriers 50 Su-33 initially to train a carrier aircrew. And then stop the purchase and acquisation of the Su-33 and move on to their own designs for their indigenious catapault carrier instead of the ski jump. J-10B maybe
Ski Jump: Su-33
Catapault: J-10B
Su-33 should be the starting block for the PLAAF from present to 2015. 2015 onwards should be equipped with domestic carrier aircrafts.

Also, wouldn't the fact that PLANAF would be using basically the same aircraft as it's land based sister service make it easier to form a carrier wing as PLAAF pilots, already familiar with the Flanker's systems and characteristics could be seconded to PLANAF for carrier training? I read somewhere before that the only difference in the cockpits of a RuAF Su-27 and an RuN Su-33 are the switches for the wingfold and the tailhook. And unlike the experience of the Kuznetsov's air wing, a PLAN air wing won't be hampered by budget constraints and they'll be able to put in some very intensive training to become carrier qualified.

Once PLAN has an experienced core of carrier pilots, they will then find it easier to introduce advanced, indigenously designed carrier planes such as the twin engined J-10, (if it ever happens!)

Chengdu J-10

01-04-2007, 09:46 PM

Its not moreso the pilot situation that the PLANAF is worried about its more so the carrier itself that the PLAN has to worry about. Twin enlarged J-10 you are trying to refer to the Super 10 project aren't you. The first step thaet the PLANAF should take for a carrier aircraft is the twin seater J-10B increasing the thrust, changing the structure just a bit, TVC engines, improved avionics. The J-10B should be the first domestic carrier aircraft then the possible twin engine enlarged J-10. But overall the carrier is the main issue here. The aircraft has to suit the carrier or the carrier has to suit the aircraft.

Sczepan

01-07-2007, 11:25 AM

Yes, I know this is the third attempt with the same question, but as here are more guys, which are more familiar with Chinese carrier developments and projects I try it here again ! :D

Any idea what's that :confused: .... just a modeller's dream or a real long-dead project ??? (found at the secret-projects page posted by rousseau) !! … it clearly shows a tail-hook and folding wings !

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/9944/chineseplanfighter1gq8.jpg

Another one here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=679.0;attach=8857; image

Besides, at the Key-forum "TinWing" mentioned:

Another idea was a lightweight fighter concept maybe from Shenyang (maybe developed out of the original J-11 Mirage F1-look-alike, but as it had quite a different design and regarding the PL-8 on it's fin I'm not sure if this has to be a later design !

Regarding "No carrier fighter design" it clearly shows a tail-hook and folding wings !

Thanks in advance, Deino

Deino, I've no cloud, but to me it looks like one of the first J-10 phantasy products, added by a modeller's wet dream!
today jou should not have the aircraft fighters with only one engine .....

Chengdu J-10

01-07-2007, 10:44 PM

A possible carrier fighter with foldable wings and tail hook it well could be a early design from the 80's or the early 90's of a future carrier aircraft prospect for future PLA aircraft carrier. The design incorporates Mirage aspects within its appearance. Personally it seems like a project that has just gone dead. Another wild assumption could be a carrier fighter trainer aircraft for the PLAANF pilots.

zoolander

01-08-2007, 08:59 PM

if the weapons ban get lifted we could throw in the Rafale.

but considering original design of the carrier and the avaibility, i think su-33 is best candidate

Chengdu J-10

01-10-2007, 01:24 AM

Yes to the Su-33 but only for the existing Varag in the PLAN in Dailan. But the PLAN wants to build a fighter around their indigenous carrier suiting their requirments and needs. Though Rafale tecnology could enhance indigenous carrier aircrafts. Most likely would be a twin seater enlarged twin engine J-10.

Scratch

01-10-2007, 08:46 AM

A question about that twin-seater point. Should a navalized J-10 actually be a twin-seater? Though, I can see that two crew members might be helpfull in strike roles when there are more threads to identify and targets to classify. Is it possible that there are two very similar naval J-10s like the F/A-18 E/F, a single-seater for A2A combat and a twin seater for strike roles and EW?

Chengdu J-10

01-10-2007, 09:34 PM

Well the answer really depends on the PLAN needs either single-seater for A2A combat or twin seater for strike roles and EW or even both. The answer that personally will give won't be totally correct as I don't know the PLAN true ambitions and strategy. Though for starter the current non-operational naval aircraft carrier is the Varag which is a ski jump so the fighters equipped will mainly be for Air superioty or as you said A2A combat requiring only a single seater. So initially China's first 2 carriers including the Varag and the other indigenous ski jump carrier will to retain air superiorty requiring the single seater. But retaining air superiorty won't be enough in the future, and after retaining some knowledge in the initial carriers China would likely move foward for catapault carriers that can give aircrafts a full payload launch thus requiring two seater for strike roles and EW. The aircraft that was mentioned previously was the possible future J-10 for China's indigenous catapault aircraft carrier.

sumdud

01-11-2007, 01:51 AM

How does France and the US train its pilots?

Russia has a point in a side by side trainer for carrier landings, but I haven't seen any other than maybe the A-6 Series, which from looks doesn't seem to fly like a fighter. China should get a side by side trainer of some sort in my opinion. (And without confirmation of the SU-34 design being used on (if it exist!) JH-7B, I wouldn't put hope on it much.)

Pointblank

01-11-2007, 07:06 AM

Sczepan

01-11-2007, 02:01 PM

russia have the Yak-130 design as carrier trainer http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/yak_130/, which seeems to be very simillar to the chinese L-15 http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/trainer/l15.asp

Scratch

01-13-2007, 01:54 PM

One hour ago, while under the shower, something came to my mind. It's not specific chinese airwing but more a generall question on how to get aircraft airborne.

The Vought F-8 (http://www.vectorsite.net/avcrus.html), an american carrierborne fighter of the 50s and 60s, had the ability to adjust it's angle of incidence (the angle between the longitudinal axis of the fuselage and that of the airfoil), to allow lower T/O, landing speeds.
I've never seen that anywhere else.
Would it be usefull to fit that into modern fighters (perhaps even the J-10)? I know it's maintenance intensive. And it's probably not neccessary when you have strong cats or sky-jumps. Even more so since we see canards nowaday everywhere to accelerate the T/O roll.

It's just: will we ever see that again ... ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Vought_F-8_EC77-6988.jpg
http://www.alaska.faa.gov/fai/images/Aircraft/F8-b.jpg
http://www.cloud9photography.us/ej/EJ000050_VoughtF-8CrusaderUSNVF-194PM.jpg

bd popeye

01-13-2007, 02:33 PM

The Vought F-8, an american carrierborne fighter of the 50s and 60s, had the ability to adjust it's angle of incidence (the angle between the longitudinal axis of the fuselage and that of the airfoil), to allow lower T/O, landing speeds.

I don't see any reason why it could not be engineered. But it would require some R & D to make it work. The reason the Crusader was modified like it was so it could land on old Essex Class CVA's.

I know it's maintenance intensive.

Friend, you have no idea the maintance required to keep that airframe in tune. Many, many hours.

Oh by the way the last USN Crusader VF squadron was decomissioned in 1976. The USN last photo recon squadron was decomissioned in 1986. The FN flew varaints of the F-8 until 31 DEC 1999.

SinoForce

01-18-2007, 12:31 AM

The PLANAF should go with combat drones. They are smaller so that will allow them to field more aircraft with fewer carriers. They don't require as much maintainance because there are no parts to support a human pilot on-board. They can carry more fuel/weapons for the same space. There's always a ton of cheap electronics in china to get 'em built!

BLUEJACKET

01-18-2007, 05:14 PM

Could rocket-assisted takeoff be a substitute for catapult-assisted takeoff? If so, this could be a cheaper alternative to catapults on PLAN's CVs!

The_Zergling

01-18-2007, 09:37 PM

Could rocket-assisted takeoff be a substitute for catapult-assisted takeoff? If so, this could be a cheaper alternative to catapults on PLAN's CVs!

I would imagine the backblast from rockets would be considerably higher than the commonly used catapult system - the flight deck would have to be completely cleared, and a significant amount of fuel would have to be used. From a technical aspect, it's probably a bad idea.

Scratch

01-19-2007, 06:35 AM

I've read that B-52s used the engines of CM under their wings for T/O assistance, and once airborne, refuled those CMs with fuel from their on (B-52) tanks. Could perhaps be a possibility for heavy loaded strike aircraft.

Sczepan

01-19-2007, 02:58 PM

One hour ago, while under the shower, something came to my mind. It's not specific chinese airwing but more a generall question on how to get aircraft airborne.

The Vought F-8 (http://www.vectorsite.net/avcrus.html), an american carrierborne fighter of the 50s and 60s, had the ability to adjust it's angle of incidence (the angle between the longitudinal axis of the fuselage and that of the airfoil), to allow lower T/O, landing speeds.
....
and what do you think about the DO-31 VTOL transport plane
http://membres.lycos.fr/wings2/3vues/dornier31_3v.jpg
http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00000000400004/9/74/543749.jpg
http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00000000400004/0/74/543740.jpg

see:
http://www.eads.net/web/eads/en/1024/content/OF00000000400004/3/72/543723.html
http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/DornierDo31.htm

(its just: Dornier was purchesed by chinese investors)

Scratch

01-19-2007, 03:26 PM

Nice try back then, but having different engines for horizontal and vertical flight isn't a good idea. You carry shut down engines with you all the time. And the T/O weight isn't really higer than that of an Osprey.

yifyif

01-25-2007, 03:00 AM

Pointblank

01-25-2007, 03:24 AM

i know that the russians/soviets like to use ski jump for take off. why don't they just captlulats like the americans for mig29s and su33

The Project 1143.7 Orel Ul'yanovsk class was slated to use catapults, and she was slated to have a airwing of 27 Su-33's (or 27 MiG-29K's), 10 Su-39's, Yak-44's, and 15-20 Ka-27 Helix A's, for a total of 70 aircraft. She was scraped at 40% complete due the fall of the Soviet Union and the resulting economic conditions that followed. Using the STOBAR configuration is cheaper and easier to implement than using the CATOBAR configuration as found on the USN's carriers.

Gollevainen

01-25-2007, 11:07 AM

i know that the russians/soviets like to use ski jump for take off. why don't they just captlulats like the americans for mig29s and su33

Becouse the orginal decision to fit Kuznetsov and her sisters with catabults failed due political decision to boost up the V/STOL development. It was then discovered that the newest jets, MiG-29K and Su-27 were actually powerfull enough to take off from the ski-jump as well, so (and with pressure form Sukhoi) there really was no need for it in the short timeframe. With Uljanovsk the catabults were added as the Yak-44 was unable to take-off from the Ski-jump...but all these came naturally to end when Soviet union broke down. I'm certain that ultimately, perhaps in the follow-on to Ulyanovsk, Soviets would have turned totally to CATOBAR as it's benefits are so big over STOBAR...

yifyif

01-26-2007, 01:59 AM

Becouse the orginal decision to fit Kuznetsov and her sisters with catabults failed due political decision to boost up the V/STOL development. It was then discovered that the newest jets, MiG-29K and Su-27 were actually powerfull enough to take off from the ski-jump as well, so (and with pressure form Sukhoi) there really was no need for it in the short timeframe. With Uljanovsk the catabults were added as the Yak-44 was unable to take-off from the Ski-jump...but all these came naturally to end when Soviet union broke down. I'm certain that ultimately, perhaps in the follow-on to Ulyanovsk, Soviets would have turned totally to CATOBAR as it's benefits are so big over STOBAR...
ok so the russians has invested in caplulats. But how can a big plane like the su33 take off from a runway that is less than 600 ft long with out any assitance? I.E caplulats. I know it uses the "ski JUMp" technqiue and also the weapons load and fuel load has been reduced, but still the thing gotta weight around 25-27ish tonnes. and a normal SU33 using a regular runway to take off which is about 4000-6000ft long. SO my questions how does a heavy plane like taht take off at such short distance

Scratch

01-26-2007, 10:31 AM

The point is not so much the minimum speed that is required to generate enough lift, but for the take-off roll.
When taking off over the sky-jump, the plane is given a higher angle of attack (AOA). That means the nose points in an upwards direction, and so does the airfoil (wing). This AOA makes the wing generate more lift than with 0° AOA at the same speed. And obviously, that's enough for a Su-33 to take off from a Kuznetsov.
Now if you want to roll (get the nose up) from a flat runway, you have to use the elevators (pitch them up to create a downward force at the aft of the plane). And to do that needs a higher speed/longer runway than is available on a carrier.
The use of canards or TVC also helps shorten the runway, since you can roll at lower speeds.

Obi Wan Russell

01-26-2007, 10:53 AM

To clatify, a Ski jump launch gets the aircraft off the deck BEFORE it has reached takeoff speed! When the plane leaves the deck it is on a ballistic trajectory (like a car that has gone over a hump backed bridge too fast) and while the wings are generating some lift, this is insufficient for the aircraft to 'fly'. The wings at this point only stabilise the direction/attitude of the aircraft and all things being equal the plane would then reach apogee (top of the arc) then drop back down into the sea. What actually happens is the aircraft is subject to further acceleration from its engines and reaches flying speed before it reaches apogee, and thus continues flying. If there is a problem (eg engine failure) then the upwards trajectory of the aircraft gives the pilot a few more seconds to eject than with a catapult launch before the plane hits the sea.

BLUEJACKET

01-26-2007, 05:45 PM

Obi Wan,
Where do you see that happen in these videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Nx_hHXoFhY

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7325396415063642104&q=su-33

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9jFbIVJyLI

Obi Wan Russell

01-26-2007, 06:20 PM

Those videos illustrate what I said exactly! When the jets leave the ski jump it is practically sitting on it's engine thrust for the first ten to twenty seconds. If you look closely you'll see that despite the high angle of attack the aircraft are moving mostly forwards rather than climbing upwards as it accelerates to flying speed, at which point it will start climbing away. The info I have on the ski jump launch comes from articles by and about the man who invented it, Lt Cmdr Doug Taylor RN.

BLUEJACKET

01-26-2007, 06:31 PM

Yes, I saw it too but only for 1-2 seconds. If they were to start their takeoff from farther aft, if that was possible by the ship's architecture, would that produce higher speed to carry more ordinance? If so, a redesign of the flight deck should be given a thought by the Chinese, IMO.

Obi Wan Russell

01-26-2007, 07:19 PM

The longer the takeoff run, the more speed at the exit of the ski jump. This is why there is an extra takeoff point to port further back. It isn't often seen in use in these videos and others but I suspect that is on purpose, as most discussion in th west is based on the merits and otherwise of the forward launch positions. Aircraft using the aft launch point can probably lift off with a larger fuel or ordnance load, though still not as much as with catapult assistance.

The original Soviet plan was to build two Kuznetzovs before switching production to the larger Ulyanovsk class CVN, which was intended to have two steam catapults in the waist position. It is logical to assume that 'cats' would have been retrofitted to the first two ships in the late nineties, and that the existing fleet of SU-33s (and possibly the Mig-29Ks) may well have been designed from the start to have stressed airframes for catapult launching (as they have no nose tow bar they would presumably use the wire bridle method), requiring only to be fitted with the spools for the wire bridles. Otherwise the USSR would have had by the middle of the 90s three CVs unable to cross deck with each other, operating different types of aircraft with different launch methods. All available pictures of the Ulyanovsk design show the ski jump retained at the bow, for launching ready alert fighters presumably, but a closer look at the profile of the bow shows the ski jump not to be integral as in the Kuznetzov design, possibly allowing for the later removal and replacement by another pair of steam catapults.

Knowing where the USSR was heading may give a little insight as to where the PLAN may choose to go also.

Scratch

01-26-2007, 08:36 PM

Those vids are short after the takeoff but I could notice what Obi Wan said.
Here's another one with a -29K on a Kuznetsov. Starts with several "touch and gos", then landing and takeoffs at the end. On time you can see the MiG starting from the aft port position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MSTEvXgusA

BLUEJACKET

01-26-2007, 08:41 PM

OK, this all makes sense. I won't be surprised if Russia eventually builds Ulyanovsk class CV/Ns -they have more $$$ now and their relations with the West are getting worse. They may also sell Kuznetsov to China as less capable carrier to complement Varyag- please quote me & post your reply here (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2686&page=6), if you will.

Scratch

02-02-2007, 04:21 PM

Could rocket-assisted takeoff be a substitute for catapult-assisted takeoff? If so, this could be a cheaper alternative to catapults on PLAN's CVs!

If researed a bit. That rocket assisted take-off was popular just after WW II when the first turbojets weren't powerfull enough to get heavy loaden bombers into the air. But was dropped rather fast when the power output of engines increased.
Those "rockets" are rather small and I don't think really expensiv, howerever they generate a strong blast for sure. Don't know if that's a good thing on a carrier. But on the other hand, ABs of a Su-33 are already powerfull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/fowler/images/vickers_valiant.jpg
http://www.a3skywarrior.com/pg9photos/jato.jpg
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/7934/p1020525oz9.png

bd popeye

02-02-2007, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by BLUEJACKET
Could rocket-assisted takeoff be a substitute for catapult-assisted takeoff? If so, this could be a cheaper alternative to catapults on PLAN's CVs!

After WWII the USN pondered using rocket and large explosive charges in a controlled situation .They were to be installed in the catapult. Thankfully they opted for steam cats of British design.

The biggest problem I see is where to store the rocket charges. And the safe handling of them.

Sczepan

02-10-2007, 04:01 PM

... Most likely would be a twin seater enlarged twin engine J-10.
and
A question about that twin-seater point. Should a navalized J-10 actually be a twin-seater? Though, I can see that two crew members might be helpfull in strike roles when there are more threads to identify and targets to classify. Is it possible that there are two very similar naval J-10s like the F/A-18 E/F, a single-seater for A2A combat and a twin seater for strike roles and EW?
you ment a toy like this one?

BLUEJACKET

02-10-2007, 05:17 PM

I just got a crazy idea- can anyone draw some pictures of H-6 bomber with folding wings on on a Chinese carrier? Theoreticaly it could probably land & takeoff from the angled deck!

sumdud

02-20-2007, 10:55 PM

??? :confused:
Where'd you get that?

BLUEJACKET

02-20-2007, 11:03 PM

Land based bombers and cargo planes occasionaly been taken off the carrier decks in the past.
http://www.airpac.navy.mil/news/pr2000/pr00-069.asp

http://kittyhawk.public.hq.nasa.gov/essay/Air_Power/doolittle/AP17G3.htm

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp

Subetei

10-28-2007, 03:05 PM

Given that China is new to carrier operations, and any potential carrier will have a smaller airgroup than a US carrier (and the carrier will itself be smaller), reducing the number of different aircraft on the carrier will be of great importance for training and logistics reasons (bd Popeye comments?).

As such the best immediate solution for China would appear to be Su-33 and Su-33UB. This is due to the roles which need to be addressed: Su-33 for Air Superiority, and Su-33UB for Strike, AEW and Tanker. In addition the aircraft will be easier to cross-train and support logistically than a carrier version of the J-10!

Of course in the longer term, a carrier version of the Su-47 would be ideal, because:

It offer stealth capability,
better short field performance, and
Better approach speed handling

These aircraft are in production and proven off Varyag class carriers, ans STOBAR carriers at that.