Potential PLANAF Carrier Aviation Alternatives

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
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!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
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

Colonel
VIP Professional
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

Banned Idiot
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
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
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

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
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

Banned Idiot
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.

Thank you! I forgot that the IAF wasn't using the latest MKI.
 

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
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!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

caksz

New Member
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 ?
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
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.
 
Top