J-15 carrier fighter thread

[dvan0]

I highly doubt the su-33 can't take off from the carrier at full load. The US Navy managed to launch a fully loaded c-130 from a carrier in the 60s without a catapult.

 

[Jeff Head]

I highly doubt the su-33 can't take off from the carrier at full load. The US Navy managed to launch a fully loaded c-130 from a carrier in the 60s without a catapult.

Please...it is not even close to the same.

1st, it is a prop driven aircraft with very large wings that was designed as a STOL aircraft.

Here's the actrual history:

The aircraft, a KC-130F refueler transport (BuNo 149798), on loan from the U.S. Marines, was delivered on 8 October. Lockheed's only modifications to the original plane included installing a smaller nose-landing gear orifice, an improved anti-skid braking system, and removal of the underwing refueling pods. "The big worry was whether we could meet the maximum sink rate of nine feet per second," Flatley said. As it turned out, the Navy was amazed to find they were able to better this mark by a substantial margin.

In addition to Flatley, the crew consisted of Lt.Cmdr. W.W. Stovall, copilot; ADR-1 E.F. Brennan, flight engineer; and Lockheed engineering flight test pilot Ted H. Limmer, Jr. The initial sea-born landings on 30 October 1963 were made into a 40-knot wind. Altogether, the crew successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet, about twice the aircraft's wing span! The Navy was delighted to discover that even with a maximum payload, the plane used only 745 feet for takeoff and 460 feet for landing roll. The short landing roll resulted from close coordination between Flatley and Jerry Daugherty, the carrier's landing signal officer. Daugherty, later to become a captain and assigned to the Naval Air Systems Command, gave Flatley an engine "chop" while still three or four feet off the deck.

Lockheed's Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch-and-go and full-stop landings. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted."

From the Aviation Zone, C-130 on USS Forrestal

Doing this with a STOL cargo aircraft into winds of 40 knots, is nothing comparable to what we are talking about with a jet fighter.

As I have said before, the capability to utilize the SU-33 with full war at sea load outs would be a very significant one for any nation that wants to use it's aircraft carriers as any kind of power or force porjections on the high seas.

I personally believe if Russia could do it...we would have seen it long ago and that they would have not only tested it, but trained with it and made it operational...and they would have been very public about it.

Yet they never have.

I will admit that it could simply be because they didn't want to...but I also highly doubt that.

The US found that it was impractical to use the C-130 for the Super COD role, even though on that occasion they were able to land and take off numerous times. The aircraft's wings did not fold. it did not fit into the hanger. it would have played complete havoc with other air operations.

Perhaps the Soviets found that the use of the SU-33 was impractical. But I also highly doubt that.

The SU-33's wings fold, it fits into the hanger, and it is the primary fixed wing aircraft operating off of the Kuznetsov already.

As Bltzio and I ended up agreeing...we simply do not know for sure.

But we do know that there is no evidence that they ever even tested it off the carrier...and that just does not make sense to me.

 

[delft]

Please...it is not even close to the same.

1st, it is a prop driven aircraft with very large wings that was designed as a STOL aircraft.

Here's the actrual history:



Doing this with a STOL cargo aircraft into winds of 40 knots, is nothing comparable to what we are talking about with a jet fighter.

As I have said before, the capability to utilize the SU-33 with full war at sea load outs would be a very significant one for any nation that wants to use it's aircraft carriers as any kind of power or force porjections on the high seas.

I personally believe if Russia could do it...we would have seen it long ago and that they would have not only tested it, but trained with it and made it operational...and they would have been very public about it.

Yet they never have.

I will admit that it could simply be because they didn't want to...but I also highly doubt that.

The US found that it was impractical to use the C-130 for the Super COD role, even though on that occasion they were able to land and take off numerous times. The aircraft's wings did not fold. it did not fit into the hanger. it would have played complete havoc with other air operations.

Perhaps the Soviets found that the use of the SU-33 was impractical. But I also highly doubt that.

The SU-33's wings fold, it fits into the hanger, and it is the primary fixed wing aircraft operating off of the Kuznetsov already.

As Bltzio and I ended up agreeing...we simply do not know for sure.

But we do know that there is no evidence that they ever even tested it off the carrier...and that just does not make sense to me.

Testing on board ship started just when when the Soviet Union failed so a reasonable explanation is that there just weren't the resources to achieve integration of other weapons beside air-to-air ones in the '90's. Since then maintaining Adm K. at the state achieved was difficult enough.

 

[Jeff Head]

a reasonable explanation is that there just weren't the resources to achieve integration of other weapons beside air-to-air ones since then maintaining Adm K. at the state achieved was difficult enough.

And yet they have spent a LOT of money on many things since the fall..

New aircraft, new ships, new submarines, etc., etc. The list goes on and on.

I do not buy that explanation.

The expense of testing, training, and equipping a squadron of SU-33s, which are already developed, aboard a carrier that is already operational is trivial in comparison, and would net a truly critical and important strike at sea capability.

 

[snake65]

And yet they have spent a LOT of money on many things since the fall..

New aircraft, new ships, new submarines, etc., etc. The list goes on and on.

I do not buy that explanation.

The expense of testing, training, and equipping a squadron of SU-33s, which are already developed, aboard a carrier that is already operational is trivial in comparison, and would net a truly critical and important strike at sea capability.

This is not a Su-33 of course, but nevertheless it is a carrier plane in anti-ship configuration to take off from a ski-jump. 2xR-77 + 2xX-35 + 2xPTB-1150 + 1xPTB-2150 = 400+1200+1800+1600 = 5000kg payload.

 

[delft]

No, Jeff. Adm K. is in the first place an air defence ship for the fleet which is itself equipped with many ships and aircraft carrying anti-ship missiles. A few Su-33's equipped with such missiles instead of AA missiles are not significant. Besides the integration of such missiles is expensive and sometimes fails. Think of F-14 and Harpoon.

Time for some back of the envelope calculations. I take the numbers from the wiki:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.
MTOW 33000 kg.
TOW clean max 30000 kg.
so 3000 kg external ordnance or 6500 kg max. external ordnance.
Engine thrust 125.5 kN.

Take off run is 220m minus length of aircraft so 200 m.
Assume failure of one engine at release gives an acceleration at MTOW of about 3.6 m/s. That gives a run of 10.5 sec and an end speed of 40 m/s.
Add the speed of the wind over deck, say equal to the ship speed, 32 kts or 16 m/s gives 56 m/s or 200 km/h.
After leaving the deck the aircraft drops its external ordnance and can or cannot accelerate to flying speed without hitting the sea. The back of the envelope is here not sufficient but it seems to me that at 26.5 ton and perhaps even at 30 ton it will fly.
Of course air temperature, wind speed and trouble with the ship's engines will influence the possibilities.

 

[thunderchief]

We already had discussions about this, Su-33 with full internal fuel (9400 kg) could take of with 4 , maybe 6 AAMs . With reduced fuel (50 or 75 % ) it could take off with full air-to-air complement (8-10 missiles) . It was not designed to carry "smart" air-to-ground or air-to-sea weapons , it is unclear what has been upgraded lately .
Mig-29K on the other hand does not carry that much fuel internally, so it is possible it could take-off with 4500-5000 kg payload (externally) from Kuznetsov (not sure about Vikramidtya) . I would bet J-15 could lift something like 6000 kg , but with 50% fuel . It would still have decent range.

 

[Jeff Head]

This is not a Su-33 of course, but nevertheless it is a carrier plane in anti-ship configuration to take off from a ski-jump. 2xR-77 + 2xX-35 + 2xPTB-1150 + 1xPTB-2150 = 400+1200+1800+1600 = 5000kg payload.View attachment 12993

Yes it is...and I know full well that the Indians are in fact testing it and developing that capability with the Mig-29K..

As I have stated...I agree to the notion that we simply do not know regarding the SU-33, and that there are several reasons why the Russians may not have done it. (See my post above)...to date, it is clear that the Russians have not done this with the SU-33.

Heck, I myself posted several pictures of the Indians working with the Mig-29K off of their new Vikramaditya.

As I understand it, the Russians are moving to the Mig-29K for the Kuznetsov for a number o reasons. Perhaps they will develop the strike at sea doctrine with that aircraft.

 

[Jeff Head]

No, Jeff. Adm K. is in the first place an air defence ship for the fleet which is itself equipped with many ships and aircraft carrying anti-ship missiles.

I know exactly what the Kuznetsov is and why it was developed and used. That is precisely why I listed one of the reason above for their perhaps not doing so was that it is not part of their doctrine.

A few Su-33's equipped with such missiles instead of AA missiles are not significant.

Baloney. Having four or six SU-33s loaded up with ASMs would make a huge difference in its capability to project Russian power and take on SAGs or CSGs. That is patently obvious.

Besides the integration of such missiles is expensive and sometimes fails. Think of F-14 and Harpoon.

This argument would say that the Russians could not get the missiles to work on the aircraft. I do not buy that since on SU-27s, SU-30s, etc. they have those same missiles working.

It is much more likely that it was not feasible to load and use them off of the carrier than that they could not make them work at all.

Now, it is clear that the Mig-29K is capable of doing this mission and the Indians are actively testing and training for it off of the Vikramaditya. The Russians have also announced that they are going to the Mig-29K for the Kuznetsov.

We do not know all of the reasons why, and there are clearly several reasons why they would do this.

As regards the SU-33, the bottom line remains the same. The Russians have not done so. We have no pictures or other evidence of them testing, training wth, or operating SU-33s off of their carrier with ASMs of any kind.

We have not seen it yet with the J-15 on the Liaoning either...which is the focus of this thread.

I have already stated that that may well be because the Chinese Naval Carrier Air program is still young. I expect that the Chinese will task their carrier air wings with a strike at sea purpose and will make that a part of their doctrine. As such, they will want to develop a strike at sea capabilities.

Time will tell.

 

[delft]

My calculation shows that take off at MTOW is possible even at zero wind speed. But the refit of the carrier has been delayed repeatedly seemingly for financial reasons. They may not want to integrate an anti-ship missile now only to have to repeat it for the next missile after the refit.
I fully expect PLAN not to delay this longer than to integrate more urgently needed weapons and systems.