Potential PLANAF Carrier Aviation Alternatives

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.

Interesting

crobato said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

sounds like a good plan. If planaf does decide this, it needs to start soon.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

crobato said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Or single seater.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

This would only be possible if SAC can separate itself from the Russians. Not sure if that can happen.