PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Discussion in 'Navy' started by Jeff Head, Sep 16, 2005.

  1. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,135
    Likes Received:
    32,432
    Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

    No, I did not. That statement only holds in the condition of A=B=C. Otherwise, in any inequality as you have written it, A must be greater than C.

    Anyhow...I'm happy to let it go. I believe the arguements ob both sides stand or fall on their own merit and others can read and decide for themselves without all the intervening minutia.
     
  2. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,135
    Likes Received:
    32,432
    Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

    No, I did not. That statement only holds in the condition of A=B=C. Otherwise, in any inequality as you have written it, A must be greater than C.

    Anyhow...I'm happy to let it go. I believe the arguements ob both sides stand or fall on their own merit and others can read and decide for themselves without all the intervening minutia.
     
  3. crobato
    Offline

    crobato Colonel
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,852
    Likes Received:
    4
    Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

    Let's can the logic debate here, and continue discussing nothing more than carriers...
     
  4. crobato
    Offline

    crobato Colonel
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,852
    Likes Received:
    4
    Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

    Let's can the logic debate here, and continue discussing nothing more than carriers...
     
  5. crobato
    Offline

    crobato Colonel
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,852
    Likes Received:
    4
    Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

    Let's can the logic debate here, and continue discussing nothing more than carriers...
     
  6. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,135
    Likes Received:
    32,432
    Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

    Agreed...and no prob. As I said in my last post. I'm happy to let it go. Far too much minutia.
     
  7. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,135
    Likes Received:
    32,432
    Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

    Agreed...and no prob. As I said in my last post. I'm happy to let it go. Far too much minutia.
     
  8. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,135
    Likes Received:
    32,432
    Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

    Agreed...and no prob. As I said in my last post. I'm happy to let it go. Far too much minutia.
     
  9. F40Racer
    Offline

    F40Racer New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Su-33 discussion thread

    If a thread had already been made regarding the Su-33, the please delete this one or move it.

    Since the Chinese Navy is considering Su-33 as its first carrier aircraft, I think it would be good to have a discussion on the capabilities of the Su-33, and how suitable it is to the requirements of the PLAN. I also think it is more appropriate to put the thread here in the Navy section instead of the Air Force section.

    It is a large fighter, so its range and weapons load should be decent. However, taking off from a carrier with ski jump instead of catapult may hamper its range and the amount of weapons it can carry. Since it is based on the highly maneuverable Su-27, its agility should be good enough to satisfy the Chinese Navy’s requirements. Since the PLA is already familiar with Su-27, operating and maintaining Su-33 should be relatively easy.

    It’s radar/electronics are inferior to the 3rd generation Western and Chinese aircrafts (this becomes obvious if you compare the cockpit of Su-33 to those of F-15 and J-10). Some say that the electronics on the Su-33 is about as advanced as Western electronics from the early 1980’s. Which means the later variants of F-14 would have better electronics than Su-33, and F-14 have already become obsolete by modern western standards.

    Su-33 is significantly heavier than Su-27, yet the engines are the same those on the Su-27, the result is an aircraft with relatively low thrust to weight ratio. According to data provided on Wikipedia, Su-33 has thrust to weight ratio of 0.83, while F-4 has 0.89, F-14 has 0.91, F-18E/F has 0.93, J-10 has 0.98, Su-27 has 1.09, F-15 has 1.12, Rafale has 1.13. Lower thrust to weight ratio usually leads to decreased maneuverability and decreased climb rate.

    I think unless fitted with highly improved electronics, Su-33 would be only marginally acceptable for PLAN’s requirements. A navy version of J-10 would be a much more capable aircraft than Su-33, at least superior to the current version of Su-33 in service on the Admiral Kuznetsov. The J-10 is smaller so more can be fitted onto a carrier deck. Another alternative is to develop the naval version of J-11B, which would have similar performance to Su-33 but with better radar/electronics and with multi-role capability.
     
  10. FriedRiceNSpice
    Offline

    FriedRiceNSpice Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,715
    Likes Received:
    334
    Re: Future PLAN Carrier Borne Aircraft

    Now, if the J-10 has a lower T/R ratio than a Su-27, what would make you think that a navalized J-10 would have a higher T/R ratio than a navalized Flanker?
     
Loading...

Share This Page