PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I found an interesting video on YT a while back, it appears that the Russians (Soviet Navy?) did test the Yak-41 on Kiev class aviation cruisers:


In the video you can see multiple Yak-41's, as well as the "aircraft 77" accident while landing on the Admiral Gorshkov (ex-Baku) on Oct 5, 1991.

I suspect the Yak-41M was just a few years behind serial production in 1991. But with the fall of Soviet Union and retirement of Kiev-class aviation cruisers, the Russian navy didn't need the Yak-41M (as Yak-38 replacement) anymore. Given limited choice, the Russian navy opted to fund the Admiral Kuznetsov & Su-33's.

If we look at the post-Soviet time-line, the first 3 Kiev-class aviation cruisers (Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk) were retired in 1993, and the Yak-41M project was also canceled in 1993.

Without foreign buyer, I think Yakalov saw the writing on the wall and retired the project. Had China or France approached them in 1992-1993 to express interest and funding, things might have turned out quite differently.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The Yak-41 was definitely coming, and it looked interesting, but the fall of the USSR ended the program. It is far from impossible to resurrect such programs. The B-1 anyone? I am still of the opinion that it would be less costly in terms of Renminbi and in terms of lives to finish the Freestyle and use this off of a simpler STOVL carrier rather than try to build and then operate a CATOBAR carrier as the PLAN's first try at a CV. Even the USSR didn't attempt that. I'm also certain the PLAN would find such carrier to be a better ship all around than a rebuilt Varyag. The Varyag has a lot of limitations, not the least of which is all the hanger space lost to the missile silos under the forward flight deck. That is wasted space. A carrier exists for it's air wing, loosing sorties and ammunition storage for the airwing to carry big anti-surface missiles is foolish. Better off to make a well designed STOVL carrier and learn the ropes this way.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The Yak-41 was definitely coming, and it looked interesting, but the fall of the USSR ended the program. It is far from impossible to resurrect such programs. The B-1 anyone? I am still of the opinion that it would be less costly in terms of Renminbi and in terms of lives to finish the Freestyle and use this off of a simpler STOVL carrier rather than try to build and then operate a CATOBAR carrier as the PLAN's first try at a CV. Even the USSR didn't attempt that. I'm also certain the PLAN would find such carrier to be a better ship all around than a rebuilt Varyag. The Varyag has a lot of limitations, not the least of which is all the hanger space lost to the missile silos under the forward flight deck. That is wasted space. A carrier exists for it's air wing, loosing sorties and ammunition storage for the airwing to carry big anti-surface missiles is foolish. Better off to make a well designed STOVL carrier and learn the ropes this way.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The Yak-41 was definitely coming, and it looked interesting, but the fall of the USSR ended the program. It is far from impossible to resurrect such programs. The B-1 anyone? I am still of the opinion that it would be less costly in terms of Renminbi and in terms of lives to finish the Freestyle and use this off of a simpler STOVL carrier rather than try to build and then operate a CATOBAR carrier as the PLAN's first try at a CV. Even the USSR didn't attempt that. I'm also certain the PLAN would find such carrier to be a better ship all around than a rebuilt Varyag. The Varyag has a lot of limitations, not the least of which is all the hanger space lost to the missile silos under the forward flight deck. That is wasted space. A carrier exists for it's air wing, loosing sorties and ammunition storage for the airwing to carry big anti-surface missiles is foolish. Better off to make a well designed STOVL carrier and learn the ropes this way.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

man overbored said:

The Yak-41 was definitely coming, and it looked interesting, but the fall of the USSR ended the program. It is far from impossible to resurrect such programs. The B-1 anyone? I am still of the opinion that it would be less costly in terms of Renminbi and in terms of lives to finish the Freestyle and use this off of a simpler STOVL carrier rather than try to build and then operate a CATOBAR carrier as the PLAN's first try at a CV. Even the USSR didn't attempt that. I'm also certain the PLAN would find such carrier to be a better ship all around than a rebuilt Varyag. The Varyag has a lot of limitations, not the least of which is all the hanger space lost to the missile silos under the forward flight deck. That is wasted space. A carrier exists for it's air wing, loosing sorties and ammunition storage for the airwing to carry big anti-surface missiles is foolish. Better off to make a well designed STOVL carrier and learn the ropes this way.

Click to expand...

I believe the PLAN is capable of building a STOVL carrier...but believe at this point that the chances of resurrecting the Yak-141 are probably pretty remote. Though it would probably still make a good design, particularly since Yakovlev has the Yak-43 upgrade still hanging around.


The Yak141 in vertical take-off mode.

I believe the PLAN has removed those ASM silos forward on the Varyag and could well have made use of that space. Though the missile launchers appear to be gone, we cannot be sure that the space has been made use of...but they have certainly had plenty of time to do so.

I still believe they intend a STOBAR use of the Varyag and if, after the initial agreement to buy two to twelve SU-33's a couple of years ago, the reports of license building their initial SU-33s are true, it would tend to support that opinion.

But time will tell.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

man overbored said:

The Yak-41 was definitely coming, and it looked interesting, but the fall of the USSR ended the program. It is far from impossible to resurrect such programs. The B-1 anyone? I am still of the opinion that it would be less costly in terms of Renminbi and in terms of lives to finish the Freestyle and use this off of a simpler STOVL carrier rather than try to build and then operate a CATOBAR carrier as the PLAN's first try at a CV. Even the USSR didn't attempt that. I'm also certain the PLAN would find such carrier to be a better ship all around than a rebuilt Varyag. The Varyag has a lot of limitations, not the least of which is all the hanger space lost to the missile silos under the forward flight deck. That is wasted space. A carrier exists for it's air wing, loosing sorties and ammunition storage for the airwing to carry big anti-surface missiles is foolish. Better off to make a well designed STOVL carrier and learn the ropes this way.

Click to expand...

I believe the PLAN is capable of building a STOVL carrier...but believe at this point that the chances of resurrecting the Yak-141 are probably pretty remote. Though it would probably still make a good design, particularly since Yakovlev has the Yak-43 upgrade still hanging around.


The Yak141 in vertical take-off mode.

I believe the PLAN has removed those ASM silos forward on the Varyag and could well have made use of that space. Though the missile launchers appear to be gone, we cannot be sure that the space has been made use of...but they have certainly had plenty of time to do so.

I still believe they intend a STOBAR use of the Varyag and if, after the initial agreement to buy two to twelve SU-33's a couple of years ago, the reports of license building their initial SU-33s are true, it would tend to support that opinion.

But time will tell.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

man overbored said:

The Yak-41 was definitely coming, and it looked interesting, but the fall of the USSR ended the program. It is far from impossible to resurrect such programs. The B-1 anyone? I am still of the opinion that it would be less costly in terms of Renminbi and in terms of lives to finish the Freestyle and use this off of a simpler STOVL carrier rather than try to build and then operate a CATOBAR carrier as the PLAN's first try at a CV. Even the USSR didn't attempt that. I'm also certain the PLAN would find such carrier to be a better ship all around than a rebuilt Varyag. The Varyag has a lot of limitations, not the least of which is all the hanger space lost to the missile silos under the forward flight deck. That is wasted space. A carrier exists for it's air wing, loosing sorties and ammunition storage for the airwing to carry big anti-surface missiles is foolish. Better off to make a well designed STOVL carrier and learn the ropes this way.

Click to expand...

I believe the PLAN is capable of building a STOVL carrier...but believe at this point that the chances of resurrecting the Yak-141 are probably pretty remote. Though it would probably still make a good design, particularly since Yakovlev has the Yak-43 upgrade still hanging around.


The Yak141 in vertical take-off mode.

I believe the PLAN has removed those ASM silos forward on the Varyag and could well have made use of that space. Though the missile launchers appear to be gone, we cannot be sure that the space has been made use of...but they have certainly had plenty of time to do so.

I still believe they intend a STOBAR use of the Varyag and if, after the initial agreement to buy two to twelve SU-33's a couple of years ago, the reports of license building their initial SU-33s are true, it would tend to support that opinion.

But time will tell.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

There are two versions of ESSM. For Aegis ships it has inertial nav. Aegis feeds a waypoint into the INS immediately before launch exactly as with Standard SM-2 and the missile flies to the waypoint after launch. Aegis can update this waypoint in flight. For the last less than one second before the intercept the missile uses semi-active homing. The thrust vanes are only used on vertical launch ESSM and are discarded after the missile performs it's tip over maneuver.
For non-Aegis ships ESSM uses the same homing head as Sea Sparrow and is SARH all the way to the target. This was done to allow the new missile to be used on older hulls and those without Aegis. I think it is a stop gap until an AMRAAM active seeker is installed.
Rather than build the smallest hull to do the job as Totoro proposes I prefer the largest hull that will do the job. Huh? Well, the greater the length of a vessel's waterline, the faster it can travel before it planes. Planing, where the hull rises out of the water on it's bow wave eats deep into a vessel's power. If you can keep the hull down and not plane by using a longer hull form you can actually achieve the same speed on less installed power, or go faster on the same power than the planing hull. I learned this long ago in a naval architecture class. In our wave tank competition I built the only displacement hull ( I even added lead weights to keep it low in the water, we cut our hulls out of a block of hard foam ), and it had a pronounced bulbous bow, really exaggerated. I called it USS Phaluscy. We all had the same power available, but mine displaced more and had more mass due to the weights. My classmates all mimicked the hulls of various speed boats. Their's all planed and mine did not. Mine won handily, wasn't even close. Use the longest displacement hull you can for best possible speed. A long hull is also far more stable and fast in a big swell, meaning something like a Spruance will walk away from smaller frigates in a big Pacific swell, and surprise, a huge AOE like USS Sacramento would walk away from her escorts, unless the escort was a Spruance. Spruance class cans went well over 40kts, closer to 50kts flat out, limited by how much power the shafts could take without breaking. Probably the fastest DD ever made. This is why the oft criticized Spruance was so big. One last point about big hulls. The USN discovered the old way of building the smallest hull for the job left no room to add new equipment to mid life hulls when tactics and new weapons forced them to modify existing designs. The Farragut class was so overloaded it could not accept even the weight of a pair of CIWS, nor could new radars be installed, the ship would have been too top heavy to be stable in heavy seas. Build a big hull with lots of room for new equipment to be added later.

Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier

Friends,

AWACS is very important in detecting any incoming fighter or bomber. I have several questions:
1. What is the maximum altitude of AWACS operation? And what is the maximum altitude of the modern fighter such F-22, F-16?
2. What is the maximum altitude of such fighters' missiles?
3. What is the self-defense equipment of the AWACS?

The ultimate question is: Is AWACS vulnerable to fighters/bombers? And what does the PLAAF do to cover this weak point?

These are a lot of questions, and I would like to thank you for taking the time educate me about the basics of AWACS and its relationship with fighters/bombers.

Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier

An AWACS is generally defenseless, relying on the fighters it helps control to protect it from attack. The actual radar horizon of the E-2 for example is highly classified but is at least 300nm and probably more. In the USN, the E-2 is data linked to the surface force and both share an integrated battle space picture. Every unit sees a combined picture generated from all the sensors in the strike group. Control of the fighters is coordinated with surface commanders. The defensive anti-air commander is not necessarily on the CV but more likely on a CG equipped with Aegis ( every CG now ). The E-2 does not act alone vectoring fighters to threats. There is a lot of computer power going on here as well to identify and prioritize threats. The same is true in the cockpit as most modern fire control radars will prioritize threats for the pilot or weapons officer to select.
Maximum altitude of most missiles depends on the altitude of the launch platform. Actual rocket burn lasts seconds, seldom longer. If a missile has to climb significantly or dive significantly this takes away from it's horizontal range. You have to think in three dimensions. Also a fighter on the deck can be given targeting data from a higher altitude asset with a longer radar horizon, or from a surface unit that is further out in the strike group. These aircraft seldome exceed 40,000 feet regardless of what the spec sheet says about their maximum altitude. What happens at high altitude is that your stall speed begins to approach your cruise speed, and the range of angle of attack the aircraft is capable of diminishes. Dogfighting at 40,000 feet is a lot more difficult due to basic aerodynamic limitations. Engine also do not tolerate high AoA at high speeds and altitudes.
Typically today a CV's escorts are well over the horizon from the CV due to the great range of modern weapons and sensors. It is nothing like WWII with the escorts grouped tightly around the "bird farm". This expands the strike group's radar horizon and increases the distance from the carrier that these ships may begin to engage incoming aircraft and missiles. If you thing about each ship having a hemisphere over it representing the range of it's weapons, you arrange these around the carrier so that they all overlap near the carrier providing long range air and ASW defenses. The Hummer sits above all of this.
Fighters will defend that AWACS. Lets face it, the Hummer is an aerodynamic slug. It has about a zero chance to protect itself. It would require a very long range missile system, and this implies you would need to devote space and weight to the necessary radars, fire control computers and install launch rails. This would greatly detract from the payload available for the Hummer's primary job of being an AWACS. Mounting something like a Sidewinder would be futile, there is no possilbe way a Hummer could maneuver sufficiently to get a shot off. For AIM-9X for example to make anything but a frontal shot ( implying the Hummer was lined up on the fighter, ha, good luck ! ) you need helmet mounted sights with all the ancillary stuff in the cockpit to track the pilot's head movements. The limited visibility from a Hummer's cockpit makes this a fantasy. You would need to have a bubble canopy and still the rotodome and those two big engines would limit where such a pilot could see. For many types of engagements even older 'Winders require the seeker to be slaved to the aircraft's intercept radar to achieve lock. No IR or IIR sensor can detect anything much beyond ten miles. This is a basic limitation of all such seekers. If something hostile makes it within ten miles of the Hummer the crew might as well bail before they are blown up cuz it will be over in a few seconds. It is pure fantasy for a Hummer to launch missiles to defend itself. Nope, the Hummer or any AWACS is completely reliant on other fighters for it's self defense, or from the missiles of the surface units in the strike group.