CV-16 Liaoning (001 carrier) Thread II ...News, Views and operations
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
In a world where the number of "true" aircraft carriers can be counted on both hands by classes. Having the so called "worst" class still beats out more than half of the globe that does not have a carrier to speak off, and the Kuznetsov's dismal state is more due to funding than actual design or build ( both of which are actually quite sound).
If there is any carrier that is more deserving of the designation "worst" it would be the Chakri, that thing is more of a glorified yatch than a proper military vessel. The rest of the article to sum it up simply is your everyday news spin, designed to be as eye catch as possible yet delivering few, if any, new insights to what we don't already know, and evey then most of it is based on speculation rather than solid facts.
Yes the J-15 is heavy, but it makes up for it with one of the longest range and biggest payload of any carrier fighter and heavy carrier fighters were once the norm (hint F-14), yes it is a 30 year old design, and so is the F-18 and the Etendard and yet they are still flying fine.
Those are among the few of the myriad of deficiencies of the article that I cared to point out.
If there is any carrier that is more deserving of the designation "worst" it would be the Chakri, that thing is more of a glorified yatch than a proper military vessel. The rest of the article to sum it up simply is your everyday news spin, designed to be as eye catch as possible yet delivering few, if any, new insights to what we don't already know, and evey then most of it is based on speculation rather than solid facts.
Yes the J-15 is heavy, but it makes up for it with one of the longest range and biggest payload of any carrier fighter and heavy carrier fighters were once the norm (hint F-14), yes it is a 30 year old design, and so is the F-18 and the Etendard and yet they are still flying fine.
Those are among the few of the myriad of deficiencies of the article that I cared to point out.
Intrepid
Major
It is no problem to use kerosene in diesel engines or diesel in jet engines. Kerosene and diesel are quite the same. You can't use gasoline in diesel engines and only for a limited time in some jet engines (Beech King Air turboprop only 200 hours for example).
This sign may have been made before the "PLA xxx" rebranded itself "China xxx" though, but even the rebranding has been inconsistent and sometimes they go by "China/Chinese PLA xxx".
We don't have weight or range figures for j-15 but su-33 isn't that good in those departments.
Ferry range figures, using external tanks then dropping them when empty. Taking off from land:
Su-33 3000 km
Mig29k 3000 km
F35c around 3000 km (estimate only since no figure is disclosed)
Harrier ii+ 3300 km
F18c 3400 km
F18e 3400 km
Rafale m 3700 km
F14d could do some 3100 km. (A model was better)
Super etendard could do 3300 km (despite what wiki says) but it has been retired and no longer serves.
Of course, ferry ranges can't simply be halved to get operational ranges. Different missions would change combat ranges differntly. Small planes would do a bit worse with heavy loads. Taking off from a carrier would especially make it hard to to comparisons.
Empty Weight to thrust ratio is also not really top of the line for su-33.
Su33 19 tons for 255 kn 13.4
F18c ~11 tons for 158 kn 14.4
F18e 14.5 t for 196 kn 13.5
Rafale m 10.5 t for 150 kn 14.3
Mig29k 11-12 tons for 176 kn 15.3
F35c 15.7 tons for 191 kn 12.16
Of course operative thrust to weight ratio is a bit different, especially when heavier loads are used.
As said, though, su33 operating from forward launch positions won't get as close to its potential, compared to most other planes here.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
This fact makes the whole argument oxymoronic, the figures that you gave never specified if the Su-33 was carrying any drop tanks and if the J-15, it's derivative, can then its range will more than equal that of the F-18 with drop tanks.
Also this website also gives credible info about how the F-18 pairs up against the Flanker series
First time I have ever heard someone say a Su-27 derivative has short range. What I typically hear is that it has a gargantuan internal fuel tank in comparison with most other fighters. Like Deino said you are comparing aircraft with external fuel tanks to others without them.
The main issue with current Chinese carriers is that the J-15 cannot launch at anything approaching a full load. That will change once they change to a CATOBAR configuration. Another way to increase launch capacity would be to improve the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft. For example by using engines with more thrust-to-weight ratio. Using lighter materials. Or by improving the fuel consumption of the aircraft. I would not be surprised if the Chinese lowered the empty weight of the J-15 vs the much older Su-33. With the Su-35's engines the performance would also improve in several aspects if they managed to import them. Finally they could add conformal fuel tanks to the aircraft.
Another alternative would be to add a new refuelling aircraft, like the USN used to have, and wants to have again. This time with a drone providing the refueling. Budy refueling systems with aircraft that use low-bypass engines, like the Super Hornet, have terrible economics.
Also, the larger adversaries that China will have in Asia (like Japan or South Korea) at best will have the F-35B on their much smaller carriers. The F-35B has even shorter range than the F-35C. So in comparison the current Chinese carrier is a lot more capable. Probably one Chinese carrier will have as much throw weight as two of their carriers.
With regards to the USN until the Chinese switch to CATOBAR and add nuclear propulsion it will remain an unfair battle. I don't think the Chinese carriers necessarily need to be made larger as long as they can manufacture enough of them. If anything the current US supercarriers like the Ford class are anti-economic. The loss of a single of those ships would be tremendously expensive.
With regards to the USN until the Chinese switch to CATOBAR and add nuclear propulsion it will remain an unfair battle. I don't think the Chinese carriers necessarily need to be made larger as long as they can manufacture enough of them. If anything the current US supercarriers like the Ford class are anti-economic. The loss of a single of those ships would be tremendously expensive.
- Status