PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Mu Shu Tortilla said:

Crobato, I'm an old H-3 driver. I know dipping sonar. You apparently know nothing. Ever flown an ASW exercise? Guess not. Even the old equipment in the SH-3 had a passive mode. But you didn't dip until you had a pretty good datum gained from your sonobuoy pattern. It takes some skill to fly a precise pattern over the ocean, carefully laying a pattern of sonobuoys in the water, while your SENSO listens carefully and watches his ( or her! ) waterfall display for interesting frequencies. After you have a good looking datum you or your partner, we worked in pairs, would put the dome in the water for a listen. You could get a bearing this way, and some sense of range from the intensity of the sound. Keep in mind these sonars only had a range of maybe 1 nm, newer sonars used in the MH-60 have far greater ranges ( actual figures are of course classified ) and a depth of some 1400 feet. You would dip several times, tag teaming the sub using passive means only ( though a good sub might hear your downwash on the surface, it would be very reluctant to put the pedal to the metal and run, they know that outrunning two helos is impossible and the resulting racket would draw in more helos like flies to a dung heap ) . So you patiently play the game until the crew thinks they are close enough to "go hammer" and light off the active sonar. Yes this gives the game away but by then it is too late for the sub. Now you have both bearing and range to your datum and your partner is on top streaming the MAD bird. If the MAD gives a positive indication it's topedos away. Btw, Mk-50 is fast enough and deep diving enough to take care of any Russian SSN, even an Akula. I'v been there son, you haven't. Two dipping sonar helos with crews who know their craft and that sub is gone.

Click to expand...

Mu Shu Tortilla said:

Crobato, I'm an old H-3 driver. I know dipping sonar. You apparently know nothing. Ever flown an ASW exercise? Guess not. Even the old equipment in the SH-3 had a passive mode. But you didn't dip until you had a pretty good datum gained from your sonobuoy pattern. It takes some skill to fly a precise pattern over the ocean, carefully laying a pattern of sonobuoys in the water, while your SENSO listens carefully and watches his ( or her! ) waterfall display for interesting frequencies. After you have a good looking datum you or your partner, we worked in pairs, would put the dome in the water for a listen. You could get a bearing this way, and some sense of range from the intensity of the sound. Keep in mind these sonars only had a range of maybe 1 nm, newer sonars used in the MH-60 have far greater ranges ( actual figures are of course classified ) and a depth of some 1400 feet. You would dip several times, tag teaming the sub using passive means only ( though a good sub might hear your downwash on the surface, it would be very reluctant to put the pedal to the metal and run, they know that outrunning two helos is impossible and the resulting racket would draw in more helos like flies to a dung heap ) . So you patiently play the game until the crew thinks they are close enough to "go hammer" and light off the active sonar. Yes this gives the game away but by then it is too late for the sub. Now you have both bearing and range to your datum and your partner is on top streaming the MAD bird. If the MAD gives a positive indication it's topedos away. Btw, Mk-50 is fast enough and deep diving enough to take care of any Russian SSN, even an Akula. I'v been there son, you haven't. Two dipping sonar helos with crews who know their craft and that sub is gone.

Click to expand...

Deino said:

Any idea what's this and if it's real or only a concept/study ???

Deino

Click to expand...

F40Racer said:

If a thread had already been made regarding the Su-33, the please delete this one or move it.

Since the Chinese Navy is considering Su-33 as its first carrier aircraft, I think it would be good to have a discussion on the capabilities of the Su-33, and how suitable it is to the requirements of the PLAN. I also think it is more appropriate to put the thread here in the Navy section instead of the Air Force section.

It is a large fighter, so its range and weapons load should be decent. However, taking off from a carrier with ski jump instead of catapult may hamper its range and the amount of weapons it can carry. Since it is based on the highly maneuverable Su-27, its agility should be good enough to satisfy the Chinese Navy’s requirements. Since the PLA is already familiar with Su-27, operating and maintaining Su-33 should be relatively easy.

It’s radar/electronics are inferior to the 3rd generation Western and Chinese aircrafts (this becomes obvious if you compare the cockpit of Su-33 to those of F-15 and J-10). Some say that the electronics on the Su-33 is about as advanced as Western electronics from the early 1980’s. Which means the later variants of F-14 would have better electronics than Su-33, and F-14 have already become obsolete by modern western standards.

Su-33 is significantly heavier than Su-27, yet the engines are the same those on the Su-27, the result is an aircraft with relatively low thrust to weight ratio. According to data provided on Wikipedia, Su-33 has thrust to weight ratio of 0.83, while F-4 has 0.89, F-14 has 0.91, F-18E/F has 0.93, J-10 has 0.98, Su-27 has 1.09, F-15 has 1.12, Rafale has 1.13. Lower thrust to weight ratio usually leads to decreased maneuverability and decreased climb rate.

I think unless fitted with highly improved electronics, Su-33 would be only marginally acceptable for PLAN’s requirements. A navy version of J-10 would be a much more capable aircraft than Su-33, at least superior to the current version of Su-33 in service on the Admiral Kuznetsov. The J-10 is smaller so more can be fitted onto a carrier deck. Another alternative is to develop the naval version of J-11B, which would have similar performance to Su-33 but with better radar/electronics and with multi-role capability.

Click to expand...