What airplanes should China get/have?

[canada]

:coffee: This is me. Sitting around all day reading. From Sinodefence.com, I can see a airforce "gap" in China. Few choppers to carry troops. Few Naval figher bombers. Few bombers. Few fighers.

What kind of tech and what kind of aircraft should China have?
What you might think about:
-VTOL fighters
-Russian stealth fighters
-better airpower
-more transports.

Send in your ideas.
I'll check back in three days.

You can E-mail me at Victor@zipple.zzn.com

[MIGleader]

perhaps it time someone checked in with reality. the plaaf is certainly not at a shortage of bombers or fighters. they have over 400 4th gen combat aircraft, with 500 upgraded 3rd gen, they also have 120 old bombers modernized to fire cruise missles. naval fighters...perhaps true. the navy has the jh-7a, su-30mkk2, and j-8. but not many

more transports? well, in a sense. china right now has few transports, but they just ordered 30 more from russia. plus the y-9s comming along well.

russian stealth fighters? plz. no ones stupid eough to fall for that. russia has ability to make stealth aircraft, but its going to be a russian design entirely. china wants its own plane. id trust the j-xx more than any chinese pak fa.

vtol? seeing how china doesnt have any carriers, its best to lay off of them for now.

someone, check this guys ip. i have a suspicious feeling about him. he certainly isnt canadian. and for someone whos been reading sinodefence, he has no idea what hes talking about. i have the whole site almost memorized, and i know what kind of info it gives.

Kid, watch it.

[renmin]

China might not have the most high tech air force but they do have the largest airforce in the world. Russia does not have a stealth fighter even though they can build one. China does have a sizable amount of bombers but they lack longer ranged carpet bombers. And Id say China's fighter research is going pretty well. And transport choppers? they have plenty of transport choppers but lack of Attack helicopters.

[tphuang]

Well, I thought about closing this thread, due to the post by the thread starter, but this is actually an interesting topic to talking about. What does China really need right now? Personally, I see several area that we should be a lot further along in our development. Most notably heavy bomber. There is no reason that we should still be sitting on 1950s technology with H6. Does that mean we should've got the backfire? I'm not sure. I think if we can get the ToT on backfire and the bear, it could at least move our heavy bomber industry a generation ahead. Another huge void right now is the ground attacker position. Clearly, Q-5 is really really outdated. The current direction of plaaf seems to be replacing it will L-15 and WZ-10. Either way, we need to get rid of Q-5 soon. Another department I'm concerned about is heavy transport. I think we are doing fine with the recent Y8F600 upgrade program and the proposed Y-8X and Y-9 transport program. It's quite clear that we do not have the technology to build a good IL-76 size transport. IL-76 transport does have quite an advantage over Y-8/9 series, because we need this kind of transport for the KJ-2000 AWACS. We shouldn't have to rely on the Russians to provide us with the airframes for our flagship AWACS. In general, I'm also hoping for some development with the tanker side. The only domestic tanker right now is converted from H-6. If we do get something like IL-76 developed, we can then develop a tanker version of it. To canada, L-15 could be considered a VTOL I think. It got considerate help from Yakolev and it has a really short take off range.

[ahho]

Well, I thought about closing this thread, due to the post by the thread starter, but this is actually an interesting topic to talking about. What does China really need right now? Personally, I see several area that we should be a lot further along in our development. Most notably heavy bomber. There is no reason that we should still be sitting on 1950s technology with H6. Does that mean we should've got the backfire? I'm not sure. I think if we can get the ToT on backfire and the bear, it could at least move our heavy bomber industry a generation ahead. Another huge void right now is the ground attacker position. Clearly, Q-5 is really really outdated. The current direction of plaaf seems to be replacing it will L-15 and WZ-10. Either way, we need to get rid of Q-5 soon. Another department I'm concerned about is heavy transport. I think we are doing fine with the recent Y8F600 upgrade program and the proposed Y-8X and Y-9 transport program. It's quite clear that we do not have the technology to build a good IL-76 size transport. IL-76 transport does have quite an advantage over Y-8/9 series, because we need this kind of transport for the KJ-2000 AWACS. We shouldn't have to rely on the Russians to provide us with the airframes for our flagship AWACS. In general, I'm also hoping for some development with the tanker side. The only domestic tanker right now is converted from H-6. If we do get something like IL-76 developed, we can then develop a tanker version of it. To canada, L-15 could be considered a VTOL I think. It got considerate help from Yakolev and it has a really short take off range.

excuse me for the one liner question, yes i understand that L-15 is able to short take off, but how can it be VTOL and what modification does it required???

[canada]

Let's think about what if the U.S fighted with China with aircraft. How well would China's planes perform? Thinking about that, what aircraft would you want China to have. China will need all it can get. Not 1960's era bombers.

MIGleader quoted "vtol? seeing how china doesnt have any carriers, its best to lay off of them for now." And the U.K make its VTOL figher because of the fear that the U.S.S.R. would obliterated there runways.

[MIGleader]

no ones going to carpet bomb chinas runways. no one is in that kind of position. there are such things as temporary airstrips made out of ad hoc materials such as quick dry concrete that can support stols. if china relly needs a vtol by some chanc,e i would buy the yak 141. im not discrediting chinas abilities, but normal first generation vtols are extremely expensive to develop, complicated and time consuming to develop, and extremely hazardous. better go with a second generation design to form a base before making ur own.

what does china need? a powerful dedicated attack copter and ground attack aircraft. more aew and awacs.

[canada]

Yes that's true. But what about the F/A-22 rapter? Is it a danger to China, if so souldn't China have similer fighters?

[renmin]

Yes that's true. But what about the F/A-22 rapter? Is it a danger to China, if so souldn't China have similer fighters?If your talking air combat, then the F 22 might have the upper hand but China already has the stealth version of the Jian 10 ready but not yet operational and dont forget the Jian XX and the Jian 8III. All steath fighters. Second steath does not mean invincebility, flak and AA guns can just as well take out a steath fighter.

[tphuang]

excuse me for the one liner question, yes i understand that L-15 is able to short take off, but how can it be VTOL and what modification does it required???
my bad, I got VTOL and STOVL mixed up. So the answer is we don't have any VTOL, but I really don't see any point in developing one either.

To Migleader, AEW and AWACS are clearly things that China is working on right now. I have no idea what kind of preperation China is making toward replacing Q-5 and H-6.

As for F-22, we are not going to have anything capable of matching up against it for a while. Our best hope is for J-10's stealthy version to develop to the typhoon level. That could give us 3 to 1 kill ratio against F-22 and probably better if China uses the stealth detection radar (YLC-2 I think? or maybe YJ-27) + GCI or AWACS to coordinate J-10 and J-11. But the latter scenario would only be possible close to our costal areas, use the satellites and ground detectors and such. Maybe China will eventually be able to develop stealth radar that you can fit on the plane.

[canada]

What about the latest MIG fighter. I think, (correct me if i'm wrong) the mig-31? that has 3-D thrust and plasma stealth is going to be sold to China and India. This aircraft cost about $120 million a peaice! Can China afford a larg number of theese fighters?

[MIGleader]

ok. its is not the mig-31. the mig-31 is a interceptor designed in the 70s. what ur talking about is the mig.1.44. its meant to have plasma stealth coupled with a radar defelcting cervice. and it has a nice radar and 3-d tvc. one thing though: its not for sale!!! its approx 70 million per piece, but the single mig 1.44 is serving as a tech demonstrater for pak fa.

[canada]

Yes, there's two of them. But wouldn't it be nice for China to have them?

[rommel]

Canada, I'd like to welcome you to this forum. Still, I'd like to tell you to not post oneliner and unnecessary comment. And yeah, don't listen to rumor please, give us some concrete info. thanks

[bd popeye]

Since all of us only know what we read about the PLAAF I will post what I think they need based on my best guess.

An state of the art attack helo.

Transport helos.

Heavy transports & medium transport like a C-130.

AWACS and AEW.

Tankers that can actually re-fuel their present aircraft. It is my understanding that the PLAAF is poor at in flight re-fueling.

More flight hours for training.

[tphuang]

Since all of us only know what we read about the PLAAF I will post what I think they need based on my best guess.

An state of the art attack helo.

Transport helos.

Heavy transports & medium transport like a C-130.

AWACS and AEW.

Tankers that can actually re-fuel their present aircraft. It is my understanding that the PLAAF is poor at in flight re-fueling.

More flight hours for training.
shaking my head, how can I forget about plaaf's lack of helicopters. Shame...

To Canada, will you please stop this obsessiveness with stealth Russian planes? They are not going to be available until at least 2015.

[maglomanic]

shaking my head, how can I forget about plaaf's lack of helicopters. Shame...



While lack of support choppers (transport etc) should be a major concern for China (they are just too useful in any situation...war,claimity etc).. i don't think you guys should cry wolf on the lack of a very super duper star war tech kind of strike chopper (in the class of longbow). For all i know these things were dropping like flies in Iraq. even a moderatly capable antiaircraft missle can play havoc with choppers' ability to operate in a combat theater.
But that doesnt mean china shouldnt venture into this field at all. And i think they have shown some moderate progress in this field. But making it an important instrument in China's defense/offense philosphy would be a mistake.
I'd rather be a guy who gets a clear/lucky shot at an state of art chpper than the guy who is sitting in it.

[Wingman]

Well there's no way in hell they can get F22s and F35s

But on the subject of purchasing foreign planes, I think it should only be done to study its design and use it to get some ideas for future domestic designs. You can't rely on imported planes forever, since first you might not always have good relations with that country and second you can never surpass them unless you make your own designs

Yeah that was kinda obvious...

I don't think China should buy any more Russian planes except for their bombers and attack aircraft.

[PiSigma]

STOP THE ONELINERS!!! that means you mach and canada. READ THE RULES BEFORE YOU POST!!! WE DON'T ALLOW USELESS COMMENTS, AND IT WILL BE DELETED RIGHT AWAY.

[ahho]

Well transport copter is pretty useful for aids in natural disaster, but china recently sign a deal with france for a six ton chopper.

As for attack helo, i am pretty sure that a cobra like attack helo is pretty much enough since we all know how easily chopper can be shot down in modern combat.

[renmin]

Well transport copter is pretty useful for aids in natural disaster, but china recently sign a deal with france for a six ton chopper.

As for attack helo, i am pretty sure that a cobra like attack helo is pretty much enough since we all know how easily chopper can be shot down in modern combat.Remember, attack helicopters are only there to lend support to the ground troops, a task that the WZ-10 should be able to cover. This might be the second highest priority for China. I would say China needs to improve their mid air refuling technology and also gain long range bombers, a task that may be completed by purchasing them from russia.

[MIGleader]

Since all of us only know what we read about the PLAAF I will post what I think they need based on my best guess.

An state of the art attack helo.

Transport helos.

Heavy transports & medium transport like a C-130.

AWACS and AEW.

Tankers that can actually re-fuel their present aircraft. It is my understanding that the PLAAF is poor at in flight re-fueling.

More flight hours for training.

more flight hours? how many do they get anyways? ive hear that su-27/j-11 pilots get over 200 hours a year sometimes, which is quite stressful for them.

well chinas going to get 8 il-78s for a2a refueling

we all know about the y-8 aew and hj-200 awacs

and the y-9 transport. so popeye, your requirement seem to match the plaafs!!

[tphuang]

Most of the AWACS in PLAAF are recent development. China needs a lot more work on the "high new" Y-8 series before it can match plaaf's criteria. The helicopter industry whether civilian or military is quite weak. The recent cooperation with Eurocopter in EC120, EC175 as well as CMH and Z-10 are definitely the right way to go. I'm thinking helicopters are more useful to replacing Q-5 in ground attack role and placing on carriers and DDGs. We need something domestically produced that is the equivalent of Ka-28 and Ka-31. Again, I think that can be achieved by cooperation with Agusta and Eurocopter. Transport situation is still a little meak. We need more IL-76 than we have right now. The reason is that we need it for KJ-2000. If say 10 to 20 gets converted to KJ-2000, that will not be enough left for transport. That's where the rumoured An-125 and An-224 comes in. As for Y-9 and Y-8X, my hope is that if we can get the A320 assembley line, that will improve the quality of domestic airline development. Then, projects like ARJ and Y-8X would also be able to advance more. Heavy bomber is definitely needed, but plaaf doesn't seem to be as interested in the backfire and the bear as previously thought. Another important part is to get JH-7B developed to the level of su-34. If that can't be accomplished, buy su-32FN.

[MIGleader]

typhuang my friend, surely you have heard of the deal china recently signed with russia, for 30 il-76s?
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/airlift/default.asp

the an-125 and an-224 are some of the alrgest aircraft build, and i dont know if china has many runways that can operate them.

i think the plaaf should order several y-8f600's as a stepping stone towards the y-9.

[Roger604]

I am curious why China cannot build something that is equivalent to Tu-22M3 or even Tu-160. These are all late 70's technologies. Shouldn't it be easy for China to do at this point?

[crobato]

China has no requirements for such bombers. Also remember the PLAAF always lived in a tight budget and does not have as much political power as the PLA. The PLA found a much more cost effective means of delivering its bombs through the 2nd Artillery's SSMs.

In hindsight it was probably better. Big supersonic bombers were Cold War relics invented by arms services threatened by budget cuts when the strategic priority of deterrance and MAD is commuted to SSMs.

[renmin]

the peoples liberation army air force was created to defend Chinese cities incase of an attack from a foreign country, so in a sense, China is working harder on developing fighter jets and quick ground strike aircraft instead of heavy bombers, but these bombers are requried if China wants to retaileat with a airstrike of its own.

[walter]

In hindsight it was probably better. Big supersonic bombers were Cold War relics invented by arms services threatened by budget cuts when the strategic priority of deterrance and MAD is commuted to SSMs.

They may have been cold war relics, but I think the fact that the US has upgraded all its stratiegic bomber force (B-1, B-2, B-52) to be able to deliver precision guided conventional muntions has proven that such bombers still have value in modern air forces. The B-1 especially proved its worth by being able to deliver precision muntions to time sensitive targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think PLAAF wants and will eventually get a large supersonic bomber with tactical abilties, comparible to the B-1.

[MIGleader]

I am curious why China cannot build something that is equivalent to Tu-22M3 or even Tu-160. These are all late 70's technologies. Shouldn't it be easy for China to do at this point?


someday, these things are going to be just as outdated as the battleship. best not to start them. modern sams such as the arrow 2 would make quick work out of such aircraft. they arnt even stealthy

[crobato]

They may have been cold war relics, but I think the fact that the US has upgraded all its stratiegic bomber force (B-1, B-2, B-52) to be able to deliver precision guided conventional muntions has proven that such bombers still have value in modern air forces. The B-1 especially proved its worth by being able to deliver precision muntions to time sensitive targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think PLAAF wants and will eventually get a large supersonic bomber with tactical abilties, comparible to the B-1.

You can update a B747 to deliver PGMs if you want to. But the facts remains that much of the bombing jobs can be done by smaller, less costly and more efficient aircraft like multirole fighters. The Air Force will do everything to justify their expensive budgets and will send B-2s to bomb camel tents in order to do so, that is, after or before the Navy will send some a one million dollar Tomahawk fired from a sub at the same camel tents. It's a game of upmanship between the branches always trying to justify their budgets to the Congress by using sledgehammers against ants examples.

The fact that they can still does not justify because of better, more efficient and less costly alternatives, such as strike fighters. An army has more to fear from a support aircraft like an A-10 rather than a B-2. Just because one country has followed a wasteful example, does not mean you should.

[tphuang]

typhuang my friend, surely you have heard of the deal china recently signed with russia, for 30 il-76s?
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/airlift/default.asp

the an-125 and an-224 are some of the alrgest aircraft build, and i dont know if china has many runways that can operate them.

i think the plaaf should order several y-8f600's as a stepping stone towards the y-9.
of course, but do you really think 30 is enough? Let's just say we had 20 IL-76 before, then we will have 50 IL-76 now. If we produce say 15 KJ-2000, that would only leave 36 IL-76 left (using the assumption that we buy no more A-50 platform). Sure, we can produce more Y-8 Balance beam AWACS, but there are just things you can do with bigger platforms that you can't do with smaller ones. I'm sure you can put better command and processing equipment on a larger platform.

The issue of the backfire really puzzles me. It was clear that China wanted backfire a few years back, but it seems to have very little interest these days. Considering that we are still using H-6, buying some backfires and bears do not seem to be such a bad idea. People complain about backfire being 70s tech, but H-6 is 50s tech. The payload and range on these things can't really be matched by anything else in plaaf service.

[crobato]

The issue of the backfire really puzzles me. It was clear that China wanted backfire a few years back, but it seems to have very little interest these days.

Maybe because Chinese politicians and generals just got a lot more smarter, instead of buying the next big "branded" product that comes along.

[MIGleader]

of course, but do you really think 30 is enough? Let's just say we had 20 IL-76 before, then we will have 50 IL-76 now. If we produce say 15 KJ-2000, that would only leave 36 IL-76 left (using the assumption that we buy no more A-50 platform). Sure, we can produce more Y-8 Balance beam AWACS, but there are just things you can do with bigger platforms that you can't do with smaller ones. I'm sure you can put better command and processing equipment on a larger platform.

The issue of the backfire really puzzles me. It was clear that China wanted backfire a few years back, but it seems to have very little interest these days. Considering that we are still using H-6, buying some backfires and bears do not seem to be such a bad idea. People complain about backfire being 70s tech, but H-6 is 50s tech. The payload and range on these things can't really be matched by anything else in plaaf service.

china purchased exactly 14 il-76s in the 90s. one was converted to a kj-2000. so after this deal, china will have 43. not bad at all. i think another one may be converted to a kj-2000, but the y-9 should be out by then. besides, chians paratroop forces are relatively small now.

both the il-76 and the y-8 can alternate as platforms for aew and transport. the il-76 is obviously better, but i dotn see china operating 15 of them. russia only has 25 a-50.

[crobato]

They can always buy more IL-76 later if they need to make more KJ-2000s.

[tphuang]

They can always buy more IL-76 later if they need to make more KJ-2000s.
To Miggy, I know that some sources including sinodefence list that plaaf had 14 il-76 previously. There are also sources that stated we had as many as 30 IL-76 previously. I like using huitong's source, http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/Il-76_Y-8X_H-6U.htm
He said that China imported at least 20 IL-76 in the early 90s. Also, we have converted 2 IL-76 to KJ-2000 so far (4040 and 4043). Anyhow, I do believe that we can't really measure ourselves against Russia. Just because Russia only had 25 A-50, that does not mean we can't have more AWACS than them.

To Crobato, I'm just saying we need more large transports, if we intend to convert more to KJ-2000. (which I think China will). Especially in a possible conflict with Taiwan, China needs as many large transports as it can get its hands on. Let's see if the An-124 deal ever goes down.

[MIGleader]

im not sure the an-124 will be obtained easily. although there are some reports china expressed interest in it, http://www.sinodefence.com/news/2004/news011004.asp(rather old news), no deal has come throug. there would be the question of how chian would operate such large aircraft on existing runways, and more technicla difficulties i see. i wouldnt be surprised if one of these behemoths crashed.

besides, ukraine is more eu concious than russia. it will need skillful bargaining to ensure these planes dont tip any power balance.

so we know china has 40-50 il-76 in the future. not bad. the y-9 cna soon fill the heavy lift role, and perhaps a joint venture with boeing or airbus may pat off by then.

[Roger604]

the peoples liberation army air force was created to defend Chinese cities incase of an attack from a foreign country, so in a sense, China is working harder on developing fighter jets and quick ground strike aircraft instead of heavy bombers, but these bombers are requried if China wants to retaileat with a airstrike of its own.


I thought a supersonic strategic bomber would be useful against any attempt to interdict oil shipments from the middle east. E.g.) strike against CVBG in indian ocean. That is why the Tu-22M3 would have "tipped the balance".

Can LACM do this job just as well? Aren't they slower?

[renmin]

I thought a supersonic strategic bomber would be useful against any attempt to interdict oil shipments from the middle east. E.g.) strike against CVBG in indian ocean. That is why the Tu-22M3 would have "tipped the balance".

Can LACM do this job just as well? Aren't they slower?Generally speeking, LACMs are much faster yet they are quite inacurate, cruise missiles are used against staionary targets, not moving targets since the missile is given a cordinate and only flies to that cordinate.

[MIGleader]

dont most lacms hit within three meters of their target? thats pretty accurate.

lacms are usually .9 mach, which is the harpoons speed. not too bad, but supersonic varients are being made.

[Gollevainen]

I thought a supersonic strategic bomber would be useful against any attempt to interdict oil shipments from the middle east. E.g.) strike against CVBG in indian ocean. That is why the Tu-22M3 would have "tipped the balance".

Can LACM do this job just as well? Aren't they slower?

Well, not to be anyway patronaising but what do you think those supersonic bombers will drop over the enemy?? Freefall iron bombs?? The PRIMARY weapons used by Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are actually cruise missiles, only called "Stand-off missiles". The KH-55 and its shortenrange little brother are both cruisemissiles desingded to fire from either subs, ships, land or as i said from airoplanes....

[Kampfwagen]

Now, considering that the Chinese Military Doctrine at the curent time calls for defensive programes, I would have to say that the two most important air-types it could use would be VTOL and Interceptor aircraft. While not having any carriers, the VTOL would be quite suitable for quick take-offs from short rural runways. But as far as in general theatres, more modern interceptor aircraft could be useful. I would sugest fighter-bombers, but it seems as if they have enough of those. The new J-XX program looks promising, especialy as it's role as a multi-role fighter, but of course that is still up in the air.

Of course, this is my humble opinion. Any sugestions/refinements to this idea would be most welcome.

[darth sidious]

But the Tu-22m3 is a very goood defence weapon aginst the american carrier in case of war aginst taiwan it could also double as a replacemant for the airforce

[MIGleader]

nothing in this world could be less "defensive" than a supersonic heavy bomber. having one strikes fear in the hearts of your neighbors. those things if armed with stand off weapons, can destroy a sizable enmy force(maybe not a cvbg). true, the m3 is a good carrier deterent. but its aquisition would result in taiwan passing its 15 billion $ arms deal.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Well, not to be anyway patronaising but what do you think those supersonic bombers will drop over the enemy?? Freefall iron bombs?? The PRIMARY weapons used by Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are actually cruise missiles, only called "Stand-off missiles". The KH-55 and its shortenrange little brother are both cruisemissiles desingded to fire from either subs, ships, land or as i said from airoplanes....

I think what he meant was what advantage a strategic bomber offers over a land-based or sea-based launcher. In my opinion, a strategic bomber essentially extends the range of the LACM by several thousand kilometers, and allows the missile variable angles of attack and closes the distance from target.

[darth sidious]

A stragetic bomber is a offensive weapon a tatical one is more acceptable the .TU-22M3 is singled out as a tatcal weapons in the arms reduction program

Cninas ability to combat carrier will be greatly increase if she gets the backfire

[The_Zergling]

Can someone tell me what kind of Anti-Ship missiles the Backfire would have? I am not very knowledgeable about Chinese and Russian weapons, but I am (somewhat) confident on American weapons...

I've been thinking about the effectiveness of Chinese weapons to sink a US carrier... in my analysis I used the Harpoon (Because it's probably a pretty good marker to compare with)

I found an interesting article and it seems pretty accurate. Those of you with real military experience correct me if you see something wrong... I've edited the article slightly, original credit goes to Paul Flocken.

To my knowledge, a carrier is laid out this way. The flight deck is labeled "04". The deck underneath that is "03" and that's contiguous throughout the entire ship. Underneath that are (obviously) "02" and "01". (04 is never really called 'of four', it's simply called the "flight deck".

This is mostly for reference points...

The harpoon is an excellent missile for the job it was designed to do, but it would be completely inadequate to "blow the top off a carrier". While it's got more explosive content than a 1000 lb Mk83 dumb bomb, it is only a subsonic missile and even more speed would be lost in the pop-up that is needed to come down on the flight deck from above.

The velocity of a weapon is far more important for penetration of armored ships than for non-armored ones. The explosive part is only important after the weapon has penetrated the ship. Anybody who has been on an American aircraft carrier and has transited from the flight deck to 03 knows that the flight deck is over a foot thick. While I can't do the accurate math to know what could get throug this, I do know that prior to the ascention of carriers battleship shells had to be pretty heavy, sometimes several tons in order to penetrate that kind of armor. I don't know if those shells were supersonic in flight.

Modern warships, with the exception of those super-carriers aren't heavily armored and thereby are extremely vulnerable to weapons that have such low speed that armored ships would simply shrug off. The French Exocet missile has a pitifully small warhead but that was enough to sink several British ships and damage several more severely in the Falklands, all of them small, unarmored ships.

Some people (not necessarily on this board) have stated that it is easy to sink an aircraft carrier because a missile will ignite the fuel onboard, thereby engulfing the entire ship in fire. This is somewhat inaccurate...

The grades of fuel that the (US) Navy uses and I can identify are JP-5, and DFM. AvGas and JP-4 are worth mentioning. First off I'll state what I've found out about their volatility. (That of AvGas, JP-4, JP-5, and DFM) AvGas is just high octane gasoline. The US Navy stopped using that decades ago after the A-1 Skyraider was removed from service. People hated it because of its volatility.

JP-4 is what the Air Force uses for its jets and is comparable to kerosene in volatility. I believe it is also what modern airliners use in which case it is called Jet A or Jet B, I never could keep those two straight. The Air Force was phasing JP-4 out but that was years ago so I don't know if that is complete or not.
(A side note here, automotive diesel should fit in here between JP-4 and JP-5).
Next is good ol' JP-5. Stings like fire ants and always seemed to have infiltrated the water. Eventually breakfast just didn't taste right without that JP-5 Tang. ALL Navy aircraft that go to sea aboard carriers use JP-5. It's low volatility is what made it the Navy's choice. In FF school we watched instructors put out lit matches in buckets of JP-5. It is also used in the emergency electrical power 'diesel' engines of the carriers. Big honking in-line 9 cylinder engines the size of a VW micro bus from the sixties. I never did get to see one running, but they were impressive. Next is DFM or diesel fuel marine. It was for the ships engines(I served on the Independence, CV62, one of the non-nuclear ships).

As for the destructive possibilities of the Harpoon... The "03" deck of the carriers is dominated by several things. At the front are the catapult rams, steam, for cat's 1 and 2. Amidships are the various warfare control centers, though in terms of volume they don't really occupy much. Also amidships, slightly back of the CIC's, are the second set of catapult rams, for cat's 3 and 4. Aft are the arresting wire rams, hydraulic. Tucked into all the remaining spaces are the berthing and staterooms of the officers(including pilots) of the air-wing's squadrons. There are also a various workshops for the squadrons. In terms of volume these last two are the biggest but they are not systematically inserted into the deck because of the requirements of the others, it is more random, because after all a person can sleep anywhere.
Now, did I mention fuel anywhere? No. That must be because there is no fuel stored on the '03'. Fuel is run up from many decks down, below the waterline of the ship, in pipes that run just under the outer skin of the ship. All refueling stations on the carrier are on the outer deck edge of the flight and hangar decks, not in the middle. This makes it safer as a hazard for damage and does not interfere with stability, after all, tanks of fuel are not hollow and would raise the C.G. of the ship. The location of the fuel is a no-brainer lesson from WWII, because bombs do penetrate flight decks and having fuel right under them would therefore not be good. The best way for a Harpoon to attack a carrier is the terminal sea skimming mode. That would get the missile into the vital spaces below the first deck where it would be much more likely to encounter large quantities of fuel and explosives. Additionally, though the flight deck is armored, the skin of the ship on the sides is only about 1/2 inch thick, not enough to keep out even a subsonic missile.

That says something about how effective missiles are against carriers (Of course that's regarding the Harpoon)

Can anyone tell me how the missile that the Tu-22 Backfire would carry would fare in this situation?

If anyone notes something incorrect about the article, by all means correct me! (Popeye?)

[darth sidious]

Kh-15 and kh-22 right now in the future they can be rearmed with moskit or the club or chinese anti-ship missile of similar perfomance

[tphuang]

Kh-15 and kh-22 right now in the future they can be rearmed with moskit or the club or chinese anti-ship missile of similar perfomance
I think the Russians allow China to use backfire to fire YJ-62, YJ-63 and YJ-83 and YJ-91 (you know, Chinese missiles), China would have a higher chance of buying it.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Can someone tell me what kind of Anti-Ship missiles the Backfire would have? I am not very knowledgeable about Chinese and Russian weapons, but I am (somewhat) confident on American weapons...

I've been thinking about the effectiveness of Chinese weapons to sink a US carrier... in my analysis I used the Harpoon (Because it's probably a pretty good marker to compare with)

I found an interesting article and it seems pretty accurate. Those of you with real military experience correct me if you see something wrong... I've edited the article slightly, original credit goes to Paul Flocken.

To my knowledge, a carrier is laid out this way. The flight deck is labeled "04". The deck underneath that is "03" and that's contiguous throughout the entire ship. Underneath that are (obviously) "02" and "01". (04 is never really called 'of four', it's simply called the "flight deck".

This is mostly for reference points...

The harpoon is an excellent missile for the job it was designed to do, but it would be completely inadequate to "blow the top off a carrier". While it's got more explosive content than a 1000 lb Mk83 dumb bomb, it is only a subsonic missile and even more speed would be lost in the pop-up that is needed to come down on the flight deck from above.

The velocity of a weapon is far more important for penetration of armored ships than for non-armored ones. The explosive part is only important after the weapon has penetrated the ship. Anybody who has been on an American aircraft carrier and has transited from the flight deck to 03 knows that the flight deck is over a foot thick. While I can't do the accurate math to know what could get throug this, I do know that prior to the ascention of carriers battleship shells had to be pretty heavy, sometimes several tons in order to penetrate that kind of armor. I don't know if those shells were supersonic in flight.

Modern warships, with the exception of those super-carriers aren't heavily armored and thereby are extremely vulnerable to weapons that have such low speed that armored ships would simply shrug off. The French Exocet missile has a pitifully small warhead but that was enough to sink several British ships and damage several more severely in the Falklands, all of them small, unarmored ships.

Some people (not necessarily on this board) have stated that it is easy to sink an aircraft carrier because a missile will ignite the fuel onboard, thereby engulfing the entire ship in fire. This is somewhat inaccurate...

The grades of fuel that the (US) Navy uses and I can identify are JP-5, and DFM. AvGas and JP-4 are worth mentioning. First off I'll state what I've found out about their volatility. (That of AvGas, JP-4, JP-5, and DFM) AvGas is just high octane gasoline. The US Navy stopped using that decades ago after the A-1 Skyraider was removed from service. People hated it because of its volatility.

JP-4 is what the Air Force uses for its jets and is comparable to kerosene in volatility. I believe it is also what modern airliners use in which case it is called Jet A or Jet B, I never could keep those two straight. The Air Force was phasing JP-4 out but that was years ago so I don't know if that is complete or not.
(A side note here, automotive diesel should fit in here between JP-4 and JP-5).
Next is good ol' JP-5. Stings like fire ants and always seemed to have infiltrated the water. Eventually breakfast just didn't taste right without that JP-5 Tang. ALL Navy aircraft that go to sea aboard carriers use JP-5. It's low volatility is what made it the Navy's choice. In FF school we watched instructors put out lit matches in buckets of JP-5. It is also used in the emergency electrical power 'diesel' engines of the carriers. Big honking in-line 9 cylinder engines the size of a VW micro bus from the sixties. I never did get to see one running, but they were impressive. Next is DFM or diesel fuel marine. It was for the ships engines(I served on the Independence, CV62, one of the non-nuclear ships).

As for the destructive possibilities of the Harpoon... The "03" deck of the carriers is dominated by several things. At the front are the catapult rams, steam, for cat's 1 and 2. Amidships are the various warfare control centers, though in terms of volume they don't really occupy much. Also amidships, slightly back of the CIC's, are the second set of catapult rams, for cat's 3 and 4. Aft are the arresting wire rams, hydraulic. Tucked into all the remaining spaces are the berthing and staterooms of the officers(including pilots) of the air-wing's squadrons. There are also a various workshops for the squadrons. In terms of volume these last two are the biggest but they are not systematically inserted into the deck because of the requirements of the others, it is more random, because after all a person can sleep anywhere.
Now, did I mention fuel anywhere? No. That must be because there is no fuel stored on the '03'. Fuel is run up from many decks down, below the waterline of the ship, in pipes that run just under the outer skin of the ship. All refueling stations on the carrier are on the outer deck edge of the flight and hangar decks, not in the middle. This makes it safer as a hazard for damage and does not interfere with stability, after all, tanks of fuel are not hollow and would raise the C.G. of the ship. The location of the fuel is a no-brainer lesson from WWII, because bombs do penetrate flight decks and having fuel right under them would therefore not be good. The best way for a Harpoon to attack a carrier is the terminal sea skimming mode. That would get the missile into the vital spaces below the first deck where it would be much more likely to encounter large quantities of fuel and explosives. Additionally, though the flight deck is armored, the skin of the ship on the sides is only about 1/2 inch thick, not enough to keep out even a subsonic missile.

That says something about how effective missiles are against carriers (Of course that's regarding the Harpoon)

Can anyone tell me how the missile that the Tu-22 Backfire would carry would fare in this situation?

If anyone notes something incorrect about the article, by all means correct me! (Popeye?)


Although what you say is correct, think of it this way:
Two missiles are luanched at the bridge, killing the staff and thus decapitating the C&C structure of the carrier. Also, much of the advanced sensors and communications are taken out.
Two missiles are luanched at the catapults. No planes can take off.
More missiles can be launched at the flight deck to dent it and render it inusable, but that is just overkill.
Thus, four well-placed missiles can turn a carrier into a huge floating mass of useless junk, still afloat but mission-killed.

[The_Zergling]

Theoretically you are correct. That brings up another question. How accurate are those anti-ship missiles? Can they actually be so accurate that they can decide to hit the bridge instead of the forward catapults?

Which brings up the point of whether or not the missiles would even reach the carrier itself. I think we'll all agree that the US Carrier group is paranoid about safety, and that they'd have a pretty hard time getting within a lethal range.

If it gets to the point where those Anti-Ship missiles can hit an aircraft carrier without resistance, then the argument's over. Simply taking out the bridge would (probably) render the aircraft carrier useless, hence all the precautions the US Navy takes.

BTW, can anyone elaborate on the capabilities of the Tu-22's missiles? Speed, warhead, range, type of homing...

[darth sidious]

with the f-14 gone its harder for the american to stop such heavy bomber

the accuracy on the orignal russian missile will not be enough to target specific parts of the ship

maybe improved ones can tipical range 300km speed 3 mach

in us navy they flood fuel tank with co2 first thing in an attack

[FriedRiceNSpice]

with the f-14 gone its harder for the american to stop such heavy bomber

the accuracy on the orignal russian missile will not be enough to target specific parts of the ship

maybe improved ones can tipical range 300km speed 3 mach

in us navy they flood fuel tank with co2 first thing in an attack

If you fire several dozen anti-ship missiles at the carrier, then a few are bound to hit the bridge. And even if you leave the bridge intact, one missile on the flight deck can make it impossible for aircraft to take off, thus crippling a major offensive component of the American fleet.

[Roger604]

Do you guys think the Tu-22M3 is a "must get" then (especially if Chinese missiles can be used)? Can we safely rely on LACM when the target is imposing an embargo on China far away? Can China build its own supersonic "long-range tactical" bomber? Can a submarine do the job instead [don't mean to get off-topic here, just thought it was relevant]?

[PLABUDDY]

Do you guys think the Tu-22M3 is a "must get" then (especially if Chinese missiles can be used)? Can we safely rely on LACM when the target is imposing an embargo on China far away? Can China build its own supersonic "long-range tactical" bomber? Can a submarine do the job instead [don't mean to get off-topic here, just thought it was relevant]?
In my opinion, Tu-22M3 is a "must get" for the PLAAF. Why? First of all it is an advanced and very capable aircraft and would definitely boost China's airforce. Secondly, Tu-22M3 has a very long range which gives China more adventage in future conflicts. Eg. Taiwan, South China Sea, etc. Thirdly Tu-22M3 can carry nuclear missiles which gives China another adventage in future warfares.

I think China should acquire Tu-22M3.:china:
And i hope they do:)

[MIGleader]

the tu-22m3 is just another russian "cool toy". it indeed has superb performance, and can pose a threat to any cvbg or neighboir nations. but i think it would be much wiser for the plaaf to custom order its tu-22, if it intends to aquire them. the "off the shelf" tu-22m3s are from the russian air force, and are at least 15-20 years old. besides, the plaaf will likely use these assets for a somewhat different purpose than russia. in russia, the m3 was an anti cvbg naval bombaer. in the plaaf, it will serve as a multirole strategic bomber, and thus needs upgrades to fill that role. some upgrades:

a new fire control radar to guide Chinese cruise missles and stand off weapons, and other tv or laser guided bombs. this might be the main issue, as russia only lets china use russian missles on the su-30s and j-11s.

stealth. not full stealth, but a similar to b-1 upgrade. ram and some polymer components can really lower the huge bombers rcs.

some 21st ceturey avionics and ecm. the advanced electronics will greatly increse the survivability of the plane over hostile territory. as russia has shown itself capable of making these advanced avionics, thw plaaf should settle for nothing less than the best.

and the backfire needs to cost around 80-90 million a peice to be reasonable. i wouldnt advise on aquring more than 2 dozen.

[adeptitus]

:coffee: This is me. Sitting around all day reading. From Sinodefence.com, I can see a airforce "gap" in China. Few choppers to carry troops. Few Naval figher bombers. Few bombers. Few fighers.
What kind of tech and what kind of aircraft should China have?


If I were to list top 3 items:

1) Stealth
2) Armed UAV
3) Cruise missiles

I envision long range, stealth UAV's, armed with "stealth munitions". That is, AShM's, LACM's, etc. with low radar profile and anti-missile system avoidance capability. The munitions can be guided via satellite or other stealth recon UAV's.

Here's one example:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_004412.php

Human pilots require years of training, and can only serve for so many years before they retire to a civilian job flying 747's. Armed UAV's and cruise missiles do not require a pilot/cockpit, there is no risk to loss of life, and even if the technology is a little behind, if it's cheap enough you can do saturated attacks.

[Gollevainen]

this might be the main issue, as russia only lets china use russian missles on the su-30s and j-11s.

actually chinese are forced to use russian weapons in these planes becouse the russian fire corntol radars and systems doesen't understand chinese software programming languages...

[tphuang]

Actually, LACM is one of China's strength. Missiles industry in general are not doing too badly. UAV development is hard to say. I wonder how those converted J-6s are doing. As for Russian software not being able to understand Chinese software. That must be the worst programmed avionics software. I do remember that a Chinese software engineer cracking the flanker control systems a while back. That's probably what allowed the full indigenization of flankers. For the backfires, we definitely need to put modern Chinese avionics + radar on them. In order to do that, we might need to get some sort of ToT from the Russians as part of the deal. With this order, the Russians might be able to afford to blackjacks a year instead of one.

[FreeAsia2000]

China should acquire aircraft which are relevant to it's situation for instance
a land invasion of China is highly unlikely as is any other type of war between
China and any other major power.

Which leaves small scale dogfight/interception missions and of course the
evergreen issue of taiwan and when/if an invasion takes place.

America seems to have decided that the F-35 will be it's last manned aircraft
, I believe they're intending on having 1,400 after which we're into UAV
period

Thus China dosn't need to have large stocks of fighter aircraft, it needs small
stocks of high quality weapons so called assasins mace :)

China need to invest HEAVILY in naval warfare and space technologies

[bd popeye]

Yes, there's two of them. But wouldn't it be nice for China to have them?

What would the PLAAF do with them? They can't duplicate them. So what would be the purpose? Why do you think Russian never made anymore? The PLAAF best bet is to develop it's own aircraft and quit relying on those Russians.


China need to invest HEAVILY in naval warfare and space technologies

100% correct. The PRC needs to develop it's own unique weapons of all kinds. Not copies or variants.....

[MIGleader]

popeye, everything is a copy, or at least a varient from something else. most of russias equipment were developed from german and western technology(particularly the engines like the bmw and rolls royce nene), but eveolved. same with china. copying is the base for future development.

[renmin]

China should acquire aircraft which are relevant to it's situation for instance
a land invasion of China is highly unlikely as is any other type of war between
China and any other major power.

Which leaves small scale dogfight/interception missions and of course the
evergreen issue of taiwan and when/if an invasion takes place.

America seems to have decided that the F-35 will be it's last manned aircraft
, I believe they're intending on having 1,400 after which we're into UAV
period

Thus China dosn't need to have large stocks of fighter aircraft, it needs small
stocks of high quality weapons so called assasins mace :)

China need to invest HEAVILY in naval warfare and space technologiesIn terms of UCAV technology, America is still at the begining. UCAV tech might be easy if you look at today's, combat remote control planes, but what America is really aiming for are UCAVs that dont need pilots, UCAVs that can think by themselves and that kind of technology is still a little far off.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

popeye, everything is a copy, or at least a varient from something else. most of russias equipment were developed from german and western technology(particularly the engines like the bmw and rolls royce nene), but eveolved. same with china. copying is the base for future development.

That is not true. Not everything is a copy. If you take a look at human history; both far in the past and more recently; it would not be hard for you to find countless examples of truly original technology. For example:
The Dreadnought
The Wright's Brother's plane
The First Jet
The First Rocket
The Nuclear Bomb

[MIGleader]

the dreadknoght is not so original. it was indeed basedon pre dreadnoght warships, but simply eveolved to a new extant

the first rocket? some wood and gun powder? just 2+2.

nuclear bomb...couldnt of been made without thousands of men, and uranium test labs, and particle acceleraters, and the machine that first split an atom

write bros plane...please, they stole the wing design from birds. it was a bycicle with wings.

first jet...heinkel he 280. the jet engine was not one mans idscovery, but many put together. the jet plane is merely a jet engine on an airframe

you have to really think about this...nothing exept aub atomic particles are original

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Well, how about the wheel? Isn't that original? Or clothes? Well, I'm afraid we might incur the wraths of the moderators for going off-topic, so this will be the last comment I make on the issue.

[FreeAsia2000]

In terms of UCAV technology, America is still at the begining. UCAV tech might be easy if you look at today's, combat remote control planes, but what America is really aiming for are UCAVs that dont need pilots, UCAVs that can think by themselves and that kind of technology is still a little far off.

renmin I take your point but the question is what is the requirement in the
future...bombing targets ? in which case cruise missiles or the new russian manoeverable ICBM's are better than any aircraft and a UAV is irrelevant.

If it's air-superiority then most aircraft will be BVR anyway so a remotely
piloted UCAV is just as useful unless you believe stealth makes BVR irrelevant.

so many variables...:)

[ger_mark]

can the predator and global hawk U(C)AV's recon and attac autonomically or do they need to be remote controlled? i know that germany and the usa exchanged many uav's we get global hawk and predator and they get taifun and kzo wich work attac and recon autonomically
as far i know taifun is currently the only autonimic ucav wich detects enemy, classifies them and attacs it without being remote controlled, they are even linked with each other, a so battery of 3 taifun ucavs all choose a different target and they can attac the target at the same time, while they can also be used as simple recon uav's
germany already ordered 2000 of them and they are going to be licence produced for the us army (with a different name)

autonomic ucavs make it possible for a goverment to purchase thousends of them just with claiming they are kinda missiles or something like that, they dont need pilot and not necessary need remote control

[MIGleader]

germark, the global hawk and any of your german toys have no relavence to this thread. at least talk about chinese uavs.

chinas currently developing a new uav, the wu zhen 2000/9. it may have a sar radar and thermal imaging camera, and is powered by a turbo fan. it has soem uav stealth feature seen on us designs, and might have flown sometime this year. anything to add.

[renmin]

germark, the global hawk and any of your german toys have no relavence to this thread. at least talk about chinese uavs.

chinas currently developing a new uav, the wu zhen 2000/9. it may have a sar radar and thermal imaging camera, and is powered by a turbo fan. it has soem uav stealth feature seen on us designs, and might have flown sometime this year. anything to add.Yes, that UAV has similar characteristics to the global hawk. I dont know if it flew yet but I may be wrong. the Chinese are planing to fit the wu zhen 2000 with missiles.

[ger_mark]

Yes, that UAV has similar characteristics to the global hawk. I dont know if it flew yet but I may be wrong. the Chinese are planing to fit the wu zhen 2000 with missiles.


yes from its shape, but what about the size ?

btw "stealth features" doesnt mean that it is "stealth"

[MIGleader]

the wz-2000/9 appears to resmble the appearance of the global hawk, exept that it is smaller.

so if u consider the global hawk "stealthy", concider the wz-2000/9 stealthy.

[renmin]

the wz-2000/9 appears to resmble the appearance of the global hawk, exept that it is smaller.

so if u consider the global hawk "stealthy", concider the wz-2000/9 stealthy.You got a point there, the global hawk is almost as large as a conventional aircraft, but the WZ 2000 seems much smaller.

[sumdud]

I think China's AWACS and AEW fields are adequte.
Maybe not EW and SIGNT and ELINT though.
As for the Il-76MFs will be able to haul large objects (lengthened by 6.6m) up to 50 tonnes.
That's very good.
But 43 of them is still really a small number. Good progress, but not enough.
Just counting C-5s alone US has 55 of those.
And 50 tons is good, but China can always get a K-ton hauler like the An-124.
As for C-130, The Y-8F600s are way good enough..........
They just need more.......

China do lack BADLY in A2G arnaments though......
China REALLY need to get a larger range of weapons both in terms of quality and quantity.

As for getting the Backfires. Even the old planes are good enough. You just need a lot of spares.
We don't really need to mind about stealth.
The Tu-26/22M has a huge nose housing a good radar.
Even if it was Russian, it was good enough to detect far away like a AEW, so stealth doesn't really matter.
I hope China can develop a goodazz radar for the Tu-22M though. Doing so allows it to buy the plane without an useless radar(Unless only codes matter, then you can trasfer the codes?) get it to use Chinese weapons, and act as a AEW for its escorts!!!

And for god's sake, don't be pointing fingers.