Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Share
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:15 pm

    In December 2017, Beijing and Male signed a protocol to build a joint ocean observation station in Maldives, which China insists will not become a military base. But with the Chinese navy now present in the Indian Ocean, and a pro-Beijing man in power in Maldives, the Indians and other Indian Ocean powers are deeply concerned about the implications of recent developments. http://www.atimes.com/article/maldives-presidents-pro-china-stance-making-waves/?utm_source=The+Daily+Report&utm_campaign=c0878275d7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_08_22_12_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1f8bca137f-c0878275d7-31607385
    Even a civilian station can have military personnel monitoring all navigation & collecting intel, besides guarding it. India is right to be worried! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives
    https://www.britannica.com/place/Maldives
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:43 pm

    China’s homemade carrier undergoes second sea trial
    https://atimes.us14.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2049a8663daea00bd30c32cf2&id=c2f6804219&e=5455568640

    A 3rd & maybe 4th will follow it.
    China markets ships to navies in SE Asia and Africa
    http://www.atimes.com/article/china-markets-ships-to-navies-in-se-asia-and-africa/?utm_source=The+Daily+Report&utm_campaign=a673be16fc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_08_27_11_45&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1f8bca137f-a673be16fc-31607385

    They can do it as the PLAN has enough of those classes already.

    Belt and Road construction brings no debt trap for relevant countries: Chinese official
    http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-08/28/c_137423467.htm

    Now, is there a way to verify this statement, & how accurate is it?


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:04 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link, text)
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:52 pm

    Made in China: the first missile cruiser went to sea
    Taking into account the development trends of the PLA Navy, it can be assumed that the 055 ships are considered in two main qualities - as the basis for an escort for prospective Chinese aircraft carriers, and also as the nucleus of independent strike groups operating in conjunction with an aircraft carrier connection or in isolation from it both in a peaceful way and in time of war. ..
    Presumably, the PRC intends to build eight ships of the 055 project. Combined with 21 destroyers of projects 052B / C / D and a large fleet of frigates and corvettes that will eventually approach a hundred units, this will make it possible to form the largest naval fleet in Asia, second only to the US Navy. At the same time, given the global ambitions of the United States and the need to keep a significant part of the Navy in other regions of the world, China can get superiority in forces in its "own" theater - in the western part of the Pacific Ocean.
    This superiority in case of any possible local conflict in the region will put the US before a choice - either to accept the very likely defeat of its allies, or to be drawn into a large-scale conflict fraught with a full-fledged war.
    Among the immediate opponents of China in the Pacific Ocean, in addition to the United States, can be identified the Navy of Japan, South Korea and Australia. However, at present, the Chinese Navy is already surpassing the fleets of all three countries combined in terms of the number of ships, as well as in the variety and technical characteristics of weapons. And, in fact, without American support, these countries, possessing quite serious by the standards of the second echelon states by the armed forces, can not oppose anything to the Chinese naval potential.
    In the Indian Ocean, the main contender of the PLA is the naval forces of India, and if 10 years ago, experts in the correspondence comparison unconditionally put the Indian fleet in first place in comparison with the Chinese, now the answer is profoundly unreasonable. China already surpasses India in the number of main class warships, and with the completion of the construction of destroyers of the 052D project, 052 cruisers and the second aircraft carrier will receive a significant qualitative superiority. The probability of a direct military conflict between India and China is not very high today, including thanks to the diplomatic steps of both countries towards each other, but it is clear that China's growing naval capabilities are seriously reinforcing Chinese diplomacy.
    According to some experts, the People's Republic of China can move to the construction of even larger missile ships that are already in line with the Russian nuclear cruisers of Project 1144. In any case, given Beijing's thorough construction of the fleet and the consistent development of the projects of warships from simple to complex, this task seems quite solvable for the second half of the 2020s.
    https://iz.ru/782763/ilia-kramnik/sdelano-v-kitae-pervyi-raketnyi-kreiser-vyshel-v-more

    Add the Pakistan Navy on the side of PRC & it's easier to pity Indian admirals!
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:12 pm

    PLA’s version of Black Hawk to fly to Tibet, land on carriers
    http://www.atimes.com/article/plas-version-of-black-hawk-to-fly-to-tibet-land-on-carriers/?utm_source=The+Daily+Report&utm_campaign=dc02e29a5d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_08_30_12_33&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1f8bca137f-dc02e29a5d-31607385

    The American UH-60s has many applications:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_UH-60_Black_Hawk#Variants

    I guess they don't want to import more KA-27/32s.

    PRC: the success of the sea trials of its 2nd CV
    https://regnum.ru/news/it/2473027.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:59 am


    Add the Pakistan Navy on the side of PRC & it's easier to pity Indian admirals!

    I am sure the US would encourage any such conflict because no matter the result... it would seriously damage two potential rivals to world domination... but despite Americas wishes I doubt anything would come from it... the Indians are not stupid and the Chinese are actually rather sensible too.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:22 pm

    China’s plan for conquest of the South Pacific
    http://www.atimes.com/article/chinas-plan-for-conquest-of-the-south-pacific/?utm_source=The+Daily+Report&utm_campaign=bffac7869d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09_07_07_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1f8bca137f-bffac7869d-31607385

    http://www.atimes.com/article/beijings-great-game-to-win-over-pacifics-small-island-states/?utm_source=The+Daily+Report&utm_campaign=bffac7869d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09_07_07_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1f8bca137f-bffac7869d-31607385

    British navy and PLA face off in South China Sea
    http://www.atimes.com/article/british-navy-and-pla-face-off-in-south-china-sea/?utm_source=The+Daily+Report&utm_campaign=bffac7869d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09_07_07_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1f8bca137f-bffac7869d-31607385

    As part of its CV/N pilot training program, it pays for itself:
    China’s budget jet fighters on course for Asian airspace
    http://www.atimes.com/article/chinas-budget-jet-fighters-on-course-for-asian-airspace/?utm_source=The+Daily+Report&utm_campaign=bffac7869d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09_07_07_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1f8bca137f-bffac7869d-31607385

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_JL-9
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:26 pm

    New Chinese carrier inching closer to going into service
    http://www.atimes.com/article/new-chinese-carrier-inching-closer-to-going-into-service/?utm_source=The+Daily+Report&utm_campaign=02282e1438-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09_09_02_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1f8bca137f-02282e1438-31607385

    I doubt they'll scrap the now 6 year old Liaoning that soon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning

    Training ships last longer; it could be modified & used as LHA too.
    A sleeping dragon rises: China’s military buildup
    http://www.atimes.com/a-sleeping-dragon-rises-chinas-military-buildup/?utm_source=The+Daily+Report&utm_campaign=02282e1438-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09_09_02_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1f8bca137f-02282e1438-31607385
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:48 am

    In July, senior PLA officials confirmed that development and tests are in the works for a new carrier-based, catapult-capable fighter family to replace the J-15 to match the more advanced Chinese flattops in the future. http://www.atimes.com/article/plas-fighter-jet-a-drag-on-carriers-combat-capabilities/?utm_source=The+Daily+Report&utm_campaign=61129b963e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09_13_10_58&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1f8bca137f-61129b963e-31607385
    In the meantime, there r enough J-15s for the CNS Shandong as some could be reassigned from the CNS Liaoning.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1420
    Points : 1596
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:08 pm

    This article says different. That there's a shortage and still problems with J-15. Still don't know why they didn't just purchase Su-33:or at least production rights and help to setup would probably have worked out cheaper and certainly quicker and less problematic


    https://sputniknews.com/military/201809131068011871-Chinese-Navy-Short-J15-Fighters/
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:57 pm

    Since the CNS Liaoning is a training CV, IMO, contrary to the article, it doesn't need so many J-15s. And if they r not safe to fly, then they'll have to wait a few years for a new fighter & use naval trainers instead:
    Aircraft can climb at the rate of 150m/s. Its maximum speed is 1,715km/h. The range and combat radius of the aircraft are 3,100km and 550km respectively. The service ceiling of the aircraft is 16,000m. Its maximum loitering time is two hours. The aircraft weighs around 4,960kg and its maximum take-off weight is 9,500kg.
    http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2018-08/06/content_9243119.htm
    http://www.atimes.com/article/new-jet-trainers-to-prepare-pilots-for-plans-new-carrier/

    Near the end of October 2006, Russia’s Kommersant newspaper revealed that Russian state-run weapon exporter Rosoboronexport was completing negotiations with China to deliver up to 48 Sukhoi Su-33.. in a purchase deal reportedly worth $2.5 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Naval_Air_Force#Future
    At ~$52M per plane, they thought they could get away with cloning of the 1 specimen sold by Ukraine.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1420
    Points : 1596
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:06 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Since the CNS Liaoning is a training CV, IMO, contrary to the article, it doesn't need so many J-15s. And if they r not safe to fly, then they'll have to wait a few years for a new fighter & use naval trainers instead:
    Aircraft can climb at the rate of 150m/s. Its maximum speed is 1,715km/h. The range and combat radius of the aircraft are 3,100km and 550km respectively. The service ceiling of the aircraft is 16,000m. Its maximum loitering time is two hours. The aircraft weighs around 4,960kg and its maximum take-off weight is 9,500kg.
    http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2018-08/06/content_9243119.htm
    http://www.atimes.com/article/new-jet-trainers-to-prepare-pilots-for-plans-new-carrier/

    Near the end of October 2006, Russia’s Kommersant newspaper revealed that Russian state-run weapon exporter Rosoboronexport was completing negotiations with China to deliver up to 48 Sukhoi Su-33.. in a purchase deal reportedly worth $2.5 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Naval_Air_Force#Future
    At ~$52M per plane, they thought they could get away with cloning of the 1 specimen sold by Ukraine.

    12yrs on nothing? Lol
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:33 pm

    The L-15 is not nothing, & they could get some MiG-29Ks from Russia if need be. 2nd hand N Korean, Malaysian, Bangladeshi, Ukrainian &/ Iranian MiG-29s could be purchased for parts &/ reverse engineering as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan_MiG-29_operators#_North_Korea
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan_MiG-29_operators#_Malaysia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan_MiG-29_operators#_Bangladesh
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan_MiG-29_operators#_Ukraine
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan_MiG-29_operators#_Iran
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:30 am

    They already have Su-35s in service... if they can't navalise that and have a decent Flanker based carrier aircraft, what chance would they have of buying ancient land based MiG-29s from Iran or the Ukraine and converting them to decent carrier based aircraft?
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:15 am

    Old planes won't be converted, but used for reverse engineering & building a new navalized variant & for parts. They could also lure Indian pilot to defect with a MiG-29K like Israel did with an Iraqi MiG-21. The MiG-29 is smaller, lighter & was originally designed as a potential deck fighter, & is being used as such by the VMF & the IN, so their chance of successful reverse engineering would be higher since they've got some experience with developing the J-15.
    But if they couldn't make good enough J-15 from that SU-33, how can they use a SU-35 to make a naval version? It's like trying to navalise the F-15/22- too hard & the end result won't be worth it.
    All of the above is conjecture but it's not very likely that there'll be a Chinese MiG-29K copy, as they may not be that desperate to replace the J-15 ASAP.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:59 pm

    PLA tackles shortfall of aircraft carrier fighter pilots
    There are also rumors that the J-15 is set to take off from the Type 001A carrier during its upcoming third sea trial, as recent photos from the vessel’s second trial in August have revealed that its flight deck is already fitted with four arresting cables.
    If so, the Liaoning‘s pilots will likely be on secondment [detachment] to the sister vessel to fly fighters and test flight-support systems.
    If they had severe problems with them, all those J-15s would be grounded!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:54 am

    The MiG-29 is smaller, lighter & was originally designed as a potential deck fighter, & is being used as such by the VMF & the IN, so their chance of successful reverse engineering would be higher since they've got some experience with developing the J-15.

    The MiG-29 was never intended as a deck fighter, the MiG-29K was the deck carrier design that was quite different from the land based fighter.

    The original land based MiG-29 of either Russia or Ukraine or Indian service would be of no more value to the Chinese for developing a carrier based variant than their own MiG-15 or MiG-21 modifications.

    Any aircraft can be designed for carrier use... it largely involves structural strengthening is very specific areas due to rough landings, and also the addition of a tail hook and folding wing design.

    If they already have Su-33s then that is what they need to duplicate... having a MiG-29 or Su-27 land based model will not tell them what components or areas need to be strengthened.

    But if they couldn't make good enough J-15 from that SU-33, how can they use a SU-35 to make a naval version? It's like trying to navalise the F-15/22- too hard & the end result won't be worth it.

    Well they have land based Su-27s and an Su-33... so examination of both structures should tell them what needs to be stronger on the carrier based aircraft... if they had any sense they would apply that little gem of knowledge to Su-35s rather than Su-27s and end up with a rather better carrier aircraft.

    Navalisation of aircraft is not really that hard... during its development the Su-57 was found to have a structural weakness and strengthening measures were taken to solve the problem on the prototype. You can bet the basic design was changed to solve the problem further, and I would assume that plans to eventually put these aircraft on carriers would mean additional strengthening was likely done at the design stage to allow for carrier takeoffs as that would also benefit operations from short stretches of motorways too.

    Once navalised a fighter can be used on land or at sea... look at the F-4...

    The MiG-35 is supposed to be fully carrier capable too.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:02 pm

    The tactical and technical requirements for this aircraft were ambitious: a large range of operation, the possibility of using short runways.. A number of different modifications have been developed and produced, including deck-based aircraft.
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%93-29#%D0%98%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F
    CV/Ns & TAKRs also have "short runways" more commonly called flight decks. About the time & later the Soviets were developing TAKRs & knew that a CTOL fighter to replace the Yak-38 will be needed for future larger TAKRs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38
    having a MiG-29 or Su-27 land based model will not tell them what components or areas need to be strengthened.
    Then they would absolutely need to obtain a MiG-29K in that scenario.
    Navalisation of aircraft is not really that hard...
    But they failed with the J-15 even with having 1 SU-33 in their possession + many SU-27/-30/J-11s being assembled & flown. Following ur logic, the J-20 (~the size & weight as the F-111 that was too heavy for a CV/N) can also be easily & successfully navalized, surpassing all those SU-33s, J-15s, F-18/-35s & MiG-29Ks!
    The MiG-35 is supposed to be fully carrier capable too.
    Only after navalization, which btw will result in different performance. Deck fighters/ground attack planes can be land based like the A-4/-6/-7/-8s & F-4/-14/-18s, but the land based F-16/-15/-22s can't be CVN based, as their navalization isn't worth the trouble.
    The same can be said about the SU-57, as others pointed out. It has ~the same J-20 dimensions:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57#Specifications_(T-50)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20#Specifications
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark#Specifications_(F-111F)

    If ~ the same sized F-111 was not suitable for the USN CV/Ns, then how the J-20 & Su-57 could be suitable for a 80-90K ton CVN? And how many could fit on a 100K ton CVN & to leave enough room for other a/c? Producing just a few of them isn't worth it.
    The F-18s were designed for the USN from the start & will be used till 2040, if not longer, while the SU-33s & J-15s came from the land based SU-27. They  r effectively "stop gaps" pending a better plane.
    That's why those F-35B/Cs r so expensive, having been designed with near universal Swiss army knife-like capabilities.
    Naval versions EF2000 & JAS-39s were also offered, but they r still only on paper & in plastic:  
    In February 2011, BAE debuted a navalised Typhoon in response to the Indian tender. The model offered is STOBAR capable, corresponding to the Indian Navy's future Vikrant-class aircraft carrier. The changes needed to enable the Typhoon to launch by ski-jump and recover by arrestor hook added about 500 kg to the airframe, however this is now thought to be substantially more given the Typhoons's "unfriendly" design in terms of adapting the airframe to suit sustained naval operations. If the Indian Navy pursues a catapult launch carrier, the Typhoon is completely uncompetitive against tender rivals (e.g. Rafale and Super Hornet) since meeting "... catapult requirements would add too much weight to the aircraft, blunt performance and add substantially to modification costs". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants#Navalised_Eurofighter
    https://asianmilitaryreview.com/2017/02/gripen-m-for-indian-navy/
    http://mdbp.org/sa-news/saab-offers-sea-gripen-carrier-borne-naval-fighter-jet/

    W/o the CAT, they still will need stronger & heavier landing gear & fuselage.

    Chinese navy hospital ship docks in Venezuela amid crisis
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:19 am

    CV/Ns & TAKRs also have "short runways" more commonly called flight decks.

    Yeah, but would you not agree that designing an aircraft to take off from a short runway so it could take off from a short strip of motorway, or perhaps their home runway with a large bomb crater half way down it, is really not the same as being able to land on a heaving runway in the middle of the Atlantic ocean in the middle of the night?

    In a rolling sea the deck can be moving up and down several metres in each direction... a high sink rate for the landing aircraft added to a deck rising 5m could create a very hard landing... really not something a land based aircraft has to deal with...

    About the time & later the Soviets were developing TAKRs & knew that a CTOL fighter to replace the Yak-38 will be needed for future larger TAKRs.

    They did, but if the vanilla MiG-29 could operate from a carrier, then why bother with the MiG-29K or the Su-33 if they were both designed to operate from short air strips too.

    BTW the Yak-41 could not operate from land airstrips in a short take off mode either... during a short take off run at Farnborough it damaged the runway when its main engine vectored down to assist a short take off.

    It needs special heat resistant tiles to operate from short air strips let alone vertical take off and landings.

    Then they would absolutely need to obtain a MiG-29K in that scenario.

    Or they could analyse the design and structure and work it out themselves, but actually buying some MiG-29KR aircraft would be much faster and much safer because the work has already been done. (note the MiG-29KR and MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 share the same airframe and basic design... the MiG-29K is from the mid 1980s and is not as sophisticated or capable.)

    But they failed with the J-15 even with having 1 SU-33 in their possession + many SU-27/-30/J-11s being assembled & flown.

    Structural strengthening is not a simple business... sometimes it is different thicknesses, or different materials or different shapes that make some areas stronger... China have the capacity to make german diesel engines, but the breakdowns in Russian service suggest they haven't gotten the materials right just yet... and that is why it is not the case that everyone can make a decent diesel engine... operational experience and they will realise what bits need to be made of harder material, and the question is... do you want to develop it yourself or buy off the shelf?

    Following ur logic, the J-20 (~the size & weight as the F-111 that was too heavy for a CV/N) can also be easily & successfully navalized, surpassing all those SU-33s, J-15s, F-18/-35s & MiG-29Ks!

    The carriers they were attempting to operate F-111s from were rather smaller than today and with new EMALS catapults offering a more sophisticated launch, you could probably get away with an F-111 weight aircraft on a really big carrier. In fact on a catamaran design with two decks you could have an EMALS the full length of one deck and a landing area the full length of the other deck for rather heavy aircraft... it would be bloody expensive, but I really don't see the point.

    The Su-57 is smaller than an Su-35 or Su-33 so bigger is not necessarily better... remember the F-18 replaced the F-14D, so smaller aircraft do replace larger aircraft occasionally... the F-14D is not a small aircraft.

    With steam catapults you set it up for an aircraft type and its current fuel and weapon weights and when you fire it generates a takeoff force to get that aircraft in that configuration airborne in the space available... you can't change it during launch... so if there is an error and an AWACS aircraft with full fuel is launched with a setting for a small light unloaded aircraft, that AWACS aircraft is likely going in the drink.

    With EMALS during the launch the system can detect the acceleration and weight of the aircraft so mid launch it could increase or decrease force levels to get the aircraft moving fast enough to get airborne or to prevent damage... A tiny little lightly loaded aircraft with steam cat settings for a heavy fully loaded F-14A with full fuel will get its nose gear ripped off... conversely a fully loaded F-14A with full fuel and weapons with a light unloaded aircraft setting will gently roll forward and drop into the water.

    An EMALS system with the wrong setting will immediately notice a problem and adjust the force level to get the aircraft airborne.

    This will be more important in the future when some aircraft will be 5 ton UAVs, and others will be 30 ton AWACS aircraft...

    Only after navalization, which btw will result in different performance.

    Nope.

    The MiG-29KR, MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 share an airframe... so increasing structural strength should not be necessary... they are all two seater structure designs with the single seater option with an extra fuel tank in the rear replacing the seat and cockpit instruments.

    Folding wings and tail hook is all they would need and could be fitted with them as standard.

    If ~ the same sized F-111 was not suitable for the USN CV/Ns, then how the J-20 & Su-57 could be suitable for a 80-90K ton CVN? And how many could fit on a 100K ton CVN to leave enough room for other a/c? Producing just a few of them isn't worth it.

    The Su-57 is smaller than the Su-33, and is reported to be lighter too, and with no external weapons normally carried it should be much lower drag... even with a weapon load.

    You are only ever going to produce a few of them unless you are planning a 20 carrier fleet, so it makes rather good sense to base 90% of the design on something that is already designed and in service on land. We are talking about 5th gen fighters... do you really think spending a trillion dollars developing a new 5th gen stealth fighter just so you can put 30-40 on 2-3 carriers makes any sense at all?

    The two best options is to use an existing design... which means the Su-57, or incorporate the requirements in a new design you are working on now... ie light 5th gen fighter from Yak or MiG... or both Yak and MiG.

    You can make the same mistake the US did and end up with an F-35, or you can use some common sense and eliminate the vertical takeoff necessity and just have a better 5th gen fighter with STOL performance... much like the Su-57 already has.

    The F-18s were designed for the USN from the start & will be used till 2040, if not longer, while the SU-33s & J-15s came from the land based SU-27. They r effectively "stop gaps" pending a better plane.

    An Su-27 aircraft could be upgraded to Su-35 level which would waste any F-18 easily, so why do you call the Su-33 a stopgap aircraft?

    Neither the Hornet or Flanker are stealth aircraft, and the Flanker has better performance and rather more potential being a bigger aircraft.

    That's why those F-B/Cs r so expensive, having been designed with near universal Swiss army knife-like capabilities.

    If you are talking about the Super Hornet, that is what you get trying to make a not stealthy design into a semi stealthy one.

    In practical terms it is not stealthy... especially when actually armed... but it ends up costing a large fraction of an actually stealthy aircraft... which is actually rather bad.

    By all means reduce RCS but don't be silly enough to think you can make it actually stealthy...

    In February 2011, BAE debuted a navalised Typhoon in response to the Indian tender.

    It might reduce the Typhoons performance to be navalised, but the real question is... does that actually make it worse than the alternative... the enormously expensive F-35 in the vertical take off version?

    Plus, if the Typhoon had several customers who wanted a navalised version then it would be more affordable, and likely easier to manage... there are no doubt features a naval Typhoon does not need that the land based model does that could be changed.

    More engine power could also compensate for the extra weight too... really an extra 500kgs shouldn't effect flight performance that much... that is the average weight of the crew on a USN twin seat aircraft isn't it? Twisted Evil Razz
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:15 am

    If you are talking about the Super Hornet, that is what you get trying to make a not stealthy design into a semi stealthy one.
    I meant the F-35B/C.
    .. if the vanilla MiG-29 could operate from a carrier, ..
    I never implied that, only that most of the work was already done in the VVS (AF) MiG-29. They tested a preceding MiG-23 mod at NITKA before work on the MiG-29 started.
    Or they could analyse the design and structure and work it out themselves, but actually buying some MiG-29KR aircraft would be much faster and much safer because the work has already been done. The MiG-29KR, MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 share an airframe... so increasing structural strength should not be necessary...
    The MiG-29KR would not be sold to the PRC to be cloned & sold. I doubt the MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 would need only minimal changes to make them deck fighters. It's not economically feasible to produce a fully navalized a/c if it'll never be used as such.
    The two best options is to use an existing design... which means the Su-57, or incorporate the requirements in a new design you are working on now... ie light 5th gen fighter from Yak or MiG... or both Yak and MiG.
    Or better design an even smaller version of the SU-57, so more could be fit on a given CVN, regardless of the latter size.
    An Su-27 aircraft could be upgraded to Su-35 level ..
    If so, we would have heard that Russia is planning that upgrade by now. For the sake of the argument, the SU-30/-34 could also be navalized to add to SU-33/J-15 #s & increase power projection capabilities of future Russian &/ Chinese CBGs, but is it worth it? For the heavier SU-34s, IMO they'll need at least 90-100K ton CVN to embark 8-10 of them in addition to other a/c. It & the SU-33 r longer, but their wingspan is only slightly bigger of the SU-57:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#Specifications_(Su-34)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-33#Specifications
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57#Specifications_(T-50)

    For stowage purposes on a CVN, the a/c folded wingspan is more critical than the fuselage length; the bigger it is unfolded, the bigger it is when folded.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:03 am

    I never implied that, only that most of the work was already done in the VVS (AF) MiG-29. They tested a preceding MiG-23 mod at NITKA before work on the MiG-29 started.

    The only MiG-29s operated by existing users that China could buy from were not designed for carrier use... the only carrier capable MiG-29s are the K model which only Russia ever had, the new KR model which Russia and India have, and the MiG-35 that currently no one has.

    The MiG-29KR would not be sold to the PRC to be cloned & sold.

    They wont sell them 2 aircraft. If the PRC wants 48, then they will sell them... if they want to buy 12 and then licence produce 100 of them they will also likely sell them though they will likely include in the licence that they cannot be exported to other countries without MiG and Russian government permission... but that is just normal.

    I doubt the MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 would need only minimal changes to make them deck fighters. It's not economically feasible to produce a fully navalized a/c if it'll never be used as such.

    Why do you think that?

    The MiG-29KR, MiG-29M2, and MiG-35 share an airframe... they have the same airframe, so for the MiG29KR to operate from carriers it would need a different structure to purely land based aircraft, but that means that the MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 also have the stronger airframe.

    The stronger airframe will mean slightly more expensive but if all are the same that extra money is saved back again... it might make it a little heavier, but it should also increase max payload weight and also g performance as well because it is stronger... it will also likely extend air frame life too.

    Land based F-18s and F-4s are not lightened... the cost of making the lighter and less strong would be the same as taking a land based aircraft and making them stronger for carrier use, so the land based F-18 and F-4 should be able to be used on carriers too...

    I am not suggesting that one week a MiG-35 squadron will operate on land, and the next week on a carrier and then back on land again, but in terms of structure it should be able to be sent to either unit for use... anti corrosion treatments would be good for any aircraft... and the ability to use a tailhook for shorter landing runs can be used on land airstrips too.

    Or better design an even smaller version of the SU-57, so more could be fit on a given CVN, regardless of the latter size.

    Why?

    A smaller version of an Su-57 would be vastly more expensive than just making it carrier capable... you need to fit all the same stuff in a smaller area... and deal with all the problems that that creates... and why?

    So you can build carriers smaller than the Kuznetsov?

    The Russian Navy has already decided the Kuznetsov is already a little too small for their purposes, so the Su-57 is already slightly smaller than the Su-33 so why compromise the design and make the planes even smaller?

    The USN lost a lot of capability when they let the F-14D die and replaced it with the F-18... the F-14D had much better range and speed performance and a much better long range missile but the logic was that the Soviets didn't have Backfire bombers with long range high speed anti ship missiles any more so they didn't need the Phoenix or the Tomcat... how has that worked out...

    The Hornet had better medium range weapons and was cheaper to operate, but a compromise was always possible, but the US MIC wanted to sell Hornets and already had F-35s lined up too... they didn't want anyone to realise an F-14D was a rather more capable aircraft than they gave it credit for... especially the D model with the new engines.

    If so, we would have heard that Russia is planning that upgrade by now. For the sake of the argument,

    The Su-33KUB was an impressive aircraft with a lot of new technologies including an active wing shape... but carriers and carrier aircraft are not a high priority in the Russian Navy... for them, supersonic anti ship missiles and hypersonic anti ship missiles will be their way of dealing with western carrier groups... China on the other hand needs carriers to expand their influence around the world... Russia will be wanting to do that in 10-20 years time but for now there is no rush for them.... get their economy going independent of major western international systems that restrict everyone but the US is rather more important right now.

    the SU-30/-34 could also be navalized to add to SU-33/J-15 #s & increase power projection capabilities of future Russian &/ Chinese CBGs, but is it worth it? For the heavier SU-34s, IMO they'll need at least 90-100K ton CVN to embark 8-10 of them in addition to other a/c.

    Their aircraft carriers are air defence carriers... their purpose is to detect and deal with air threats to the Russian ships in the surface action group.

    In 10-20 years time rather than sending Su-34s deep into enemy territory to attack a target, they will likely launch some Su-35 level Su-33s to provide overwatch to a dozen hypersonic land attack missiles with a range of 1-2K kms... no third world country could stop hypersonic land attack missiles so they don't need to protect them all the way...

    For stowage purposes on a CVN, the a/c folded wingspan is more critical than the fuselage length; the bigger it is unfolded, the bigger it is when folded.

    The Su-33 is bigger than the MiG-29K... the Su-33 is bigger unfolded than the Fulcrum...

    The Su-33 is 14.7m wide in flying condition, but with the wings folded is 7.4 metres wide.

    The MiG-29K has a wingspan of 11.99m in flying condition, and 5.9m folded, so we are talking about the difference of 1.5m... which really is fuck all.

    To be honest that extra 1.5m per aircraft is worth the minor increase in space because the Su-33 is a much longer ranged aircraft capable of carrying more weapons further and with a larger radar for better target detection performance.

    They bought MiGs because they were much cheaper, but also multi role, but with a properly upgraded Flanker the choice is not so clear...

    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:08 am

    The F-14D could be kept for some more years, but it wasn't worth to the USN top brass to keep in the air, esp. after the F-18E/F was being introduced.
    I'm afraid that by the time their 1st CVN goes to sea, a better 6-gen plane & UCAVs will be there instead of the Su-57.
    OTH, China could buy some MiG-35s & MiG-29KRs, but they want to be superior to India (which flies MiG-29K) & produce her own planes; besides, they r not that desperate to replace the J-15s:
    A number of articles in recent months have suggested that the PLA Navy is also interested in pursuing a next generation carrier-borne fighter. This is certainly true; however, it would be incorrect to characterize it as due to any recent or inherent deficiency in the existing J-15 platform, considering indications of a fifth generation carrier-borne fighter have been circulating for a number of years now. More importantly, the performance of the J-15 in Navy service does not suggest any level of inadequacy that exceeds what would be expected for the Navy’s level of expertise in conducting carrier flight operations.
    5 PLAN Projects to Watch in the Next 5 Y
    .


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:29 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add a quote)

    Labrador

    Posts : 130
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2018-09-24

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Labrador on Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:01 pm

    J-15 have problems again in one article for it in South China Morning Post News China Military, can't post links/pics during 7 days !
    2 - 4 lost with them to know they don't talk !
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:13 pm

    It's still a rumour & hearsay.
    China plans to have at least four aircraft carrier groups operating by 2030 as it tries to build up a blue-water navy that can operate globally. That would mean the Chinese navy will need at least 130 carrier-based fighter jets in service by 2030. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2163126/engine-boost-chinas-j-15-fighter-jets-it-tries-build-navy#comments
    Extrapolating from the article, 130 fighters for 4 CV/Ns=32.5 planes per CV/N. So they'll have on average ~30 fighters on deck with the rest for attrition.
    With 4 CV/Ns, 1 is 100% ready 24/7; sometimes 2 can be deployed simultaneously.

    https://www.popsci.com/china-nuclear-submarine-aircraft-carrier-leak


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Sep 30, 2018 12:26 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add pic., link)
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:57 pm

    Labrador wrote:J-15 have problems again in one article for it in South China Morning Post News China Military, can't post links/pics during 7 days !
    2 - 4 lost with them to know they don't talk !

    It has nothing to do with days, you must have 10 posts as to prevent spammers.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1178
    Points : 1178
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:46 am

    The USN CSGs r only good against 2nd & 3rd world countries, not RF & PRC:
    https://x-true.info/74345-dlinnaja-ruka-vmf-ssha-butaforija-kak-ona-est.html
    the USS Gerald R. Ford (CV-78).. [EM] catapult was designed for 4166 guaranteed takeoffs with one failure, but after 400 takeoffs it already breaks down.

    Sponsored content

    Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:51 am