PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
SteelBird
Colonel
Re: J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread
Great point!
But I think you don't have to worry too much. First, the Liaoning's main purpose is for training and gaining experience in operating aircraft carrier (everybody knows this and we don't need backup). Second, China will build more carrier, and the next carrier will be different from the Liaoning. This point is subject to debate because we haven't got any proof of the next Chinese carrier yet. Finally, we have J-31 in development. We are not sure what will be the fate of this bird yet but it is the size of the MiG-29. If it is adopted by the PLA (PLANAF), it will fit well on the Liaoning.
Great point!
But I think you don't have to worry too much. First, the Liaoning's main purpose is for training and gaining experience in operating aircraft carrier (everybody knows this and we don't need backup). Second, China will build more carrier, and the next carrier will be different from the Liaoning. This point is subject to debate because we haven't got any proof of the next Chinese carrier yet. Finally, we have J-31 in development. We are not sure what will be the fate of this bird yet but it is the size of the MiG-29. If it is adopted by the PLA (PLANAF), it will fit well on the Liaoning.
thunderchief
Senior Member
Re: J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread
Looks like you misunderstood what I have said . As any Flanker , Su-33 have enormous payload when taking-off from land . Avionics could be upgraded to carry strike weapons (in fact Russians did just that) . But , when taking-off from Kuznestov-class Su-33 cannot utilize full payload . Soviets of course knew about that . Why did they then proceed with the plane ? Because air defense was their primary concern .
Mig-29K has smaller payload (carries less fuel and less weapons then J-15/Su-33) . When taking off from land , Flankers surely beat Mig-29K in this game . But , when taking off from carrier Mig-29K could carry around 3t (certified) from INS Vikramaditya (2xKh-35 , 2xR-73 , 1xfuel tank) . From Kuznetsov/Liaoning that would probably increase to 3.5 - 4 t . That is very close to theoretical MTOW .
On the other hand , by all accounts , J-15/Su-33 could carry similar payload (4-4.5 t) from Kuznetsov/Liaoning . Now , all you have is percentage game . Few big planes that you cannot utilize completely , or more smaller planes that you could utilize almost to the maximum .
Looks like you misunderstood what I have said . As any Flanker , Su-33 have enormous payload when taking-off from land . Avionics could be upgraded to carry strike weapons (in fact Russians did just that) . But , when taking-off from Kuznestov-class Su-33 cannot utilize full payload . Soviets of course knew about that . Why did they then proceed with the plane ? Because air defense was their primary concern .
Mig-29K has smaller payload (carries less fuel and less weapons then J-15/Su-33) . When taking off from land , Flankers surely beat Mig-29K in this game . But , when taking off from carrier Mig-29K could carry around 3t (certified) from INS Vikramaditya (2xKh-35 , 2xR-73 , 1xfuel tank) . From Kuznetsov/Liaoning that would probably increase to 3.5 - 4 t . That is very close to theoretical MTOW .
On the other hand , by all accounts , J-15/Su-33 could carry similar payload (4-4.5 t) from Kuznetsov/Liaoning . Now , all you have is percentage game . Few big planes that you cannot utilize completely , or more smaller planes that you could utilize almost to the maximum .
Re: J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread
Well your phrasing of the original statement made it sound like there was something fundamental about the Su-33 which made it unable to perform strike.
If you are saying Su-33 cannot take off from a ski jump with heavy payloads then that is a different matter.
But of course, as I've repeatedly said, there is no proof for whether Su-33 or any other fighter cannot or can take off from ski jumps with heavy payloads. No studies, nothing. However we do have statements from individuals from Russian aviation that say Su-33 was able to take off from ski jumps at full payload during trials aboard kuznetsov. And we do have ancillary suggestions that the ski jump was able to launch fighters with heavy payloads because the Ulyanovsk class was meant to retain its ski jump despite having waist catapults. If the soviets had catapult technology ready at the time, and if a ski jump couldn't launch fighters at MTOW, then it would have made more sense to replace the bow ski jump with catapults instead.
So at best, we are at a detente on the matter of fighters taking off from ski jumps with heavy payloads.
I think you've overlooked the part where I said that Mig-29K being a smaller aircraft doesn't mean it is more strike orientated because being a smaller plane it also has smaller and weaker engines.
Besides, you're making a few massive assumptions with numbers pulled from thin air.
Why do you think mig-29K can suddenly take off with more payload from liaoning as opposed to the vikramditya?
What makes you say that the J-15 can only take off from liaoning with a payload of 4-4.5 tons?
If both Mig-29K and J-15 are taking off from the same ski jump under similar conditions, then their payload should be proportional to their thrust and MTOW, and thus, the Mig-29K isn't somehow magically more "weight efficient" than the J-15. That is to say, the thrust to weight ratios of the mig and the flanker are both relatively equal, and neither their structural design or aerodynamics give us any reason to believe the Mig-29K is more "weight efficient".
Basically what I'm saying is that if J-15 can only take off with X% of its max payload under Y conditions on a ski jump, then Mig-29K should only be able to take off with X% of its max payload under Y conditions as well. The two should scale relatively proportionally.
Well your phrasing of the original statement made it sound like there was something fundamental about the Su-33 which made it unable to perform strike.
If you are saying Su-33 cannot take off from a ski jump with heavy payloads then that is a different matter.
But of course, as I've repeatedly said, there is no proof for whether Su-33 or any other fighter cannot or can take off from ski jumps with heavy payloads. No studies, nothing. However we do have statements from individuals from Russian aviation that say Su-33 was able to take off from ski jumps at full payload during trials aboard kuznetsov. And we do have ancillary suggestions that the ski jump was able to launch fighters with heavy payloads because the Ulyanovsk class was meant to retain its ski jump despite having waist catapults. If the soviets had catapult technology ready at the time, and if a ski jump couldn't launch fighters at MTOW, then it would have made more sense to replace the bow ski jump with catapults instead.
So at best, we are at a detente on the matter of fighters taking off from ski jumps with heavy payloads.
I think you've overlooked the part where I said that Mig-29K being a smaller aircraft doesn't mean it is more strike orientated because being a smaller plane it also has smaller and weaker engines.
Besides, you're making a few massive assumptions with numbers pulled from thin air.
Why do you think mig-29K can suddenly take off with more payload from liaoning as opposed to the vikramditya?
What makes you say that the J-15 can only take off from liaoning with a payload of 4-4.5 tons?
If both Mig-29K and J-15 are taking off from the same ski jump under similar conditions, then their payload should be proportional to their thrust and MTOW, and thus, the Mig-29K isn't somehow magically more "weight efficient" than the J-15. That is to say, the thrust to weight ratios of the mig and the flanker are both relatively equal, and neither their structural design or aerodynamics give us any reason to believe the Mig-29K is more "weight efficient".
Basically what I'm saying is that if J-15 can only take off with X% of its max payload under Y conditions on a ski jump, then Mig-29K should only be able to take off with X% of its max payload under Y conditions as well. The two should scale relatively proportionally.
Re: J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread
Don't be too short-sighted.
I don't even understand why Mig29 should be an option for China, for the PLAN.
Ever since the day China chose Su27 over Mig29 in the initial batch of purchase more than 20 years ago, Mig29 shouldn't even be an option for China any more.
China made the determination to buy/reverse-engineer the Su33 from a long long time ago. There were reportedly numerous talks to purchase the Su33, but due to small number of purchase Russians were not willing to sell them. Then China resorted to getting the T10K, which is one of the original prototypes of the Su33, from Ukraine. Mind you that this is one or even two decades ago when China didn't have a lot of funding (in fact it's really terrible to the point where China's defense spending is less than Taiwan in the early 90s! And majority of that money went to the Army!). Even in the darkest and most difficult days we were determined to have large capable multi-role carrier fighters.
We should build larger and more capable, more well-designed carriers to accommodate the J15, not the other way-round. Sooner or later we're going to build larger carriers, by then, only large fighters like the J15 will be able to push that new Supercarrier to her full potential (achieve maximum power projection range, more ordinance carried, etc etc).
Another factor to consider is that, a carrier needs to serve for as long as half a century, it's the aircrafts that determines the power of the carrier, the the aircrafts get upgraded once in a while (classic example is the USS Midway). with a carrier designed to meet the needs of the J15, it can carry aircrafts smaller or up to the size of J15. This would give the new carrier aircraft designers a lot more room to push their limits. Seriously speaking, the J15/Su33 is almost as big as it get when it comes to carrier fighters.
Another thing is, why would someone assume that it is "difficult" to operate the J15s on the Liaoning? For one, the Liaoning, when designed as the Varyag, was designed with the mission to carry Su33s as her fighters. They should work together like a natural pair. Why would it be "difficult"? The Varyag actually has many modifications based on experience learnt on the previous ship, one famous example is that the ski jump angle is said to have been modified from 12 degrees to 14 degrees. These modifications should make the pair work even better. In any case it shouldn't be "difficult" or "frustrating" to operate. I believe Soviet designers weren't mad, they must have done their best although limited by the technologies available to them.
The Russians had the choice of Mig29K and Su33, and yet they chose Su33. This should be a very good proof that the Varyag class would be more powerful with Su33s, instead of Mig29Ks.
Apart from range and payload, another important advantage of the Su33/J15 platform is that you get much upgrade potential with a larger airframe. There's so much more possibilities and so much more you can do when your plane is larger. And it's not larger by a bit. With the limitation of the Ski Jump, the J15 can already achieve a respectable range and payload due to its sheer size, just imagine what will be the possibilities when she is paired with a modern 10,000 tonnes nuclear powered CATOBAR carrier that's designed with her in mind? And when she gets better engines? Better composite materials to reduce weight? Even more types of ordinance? Even better radar which is again benefited from her large nose? Although these are all possible upgrades for the Mig29K, but her much smaller size inherently limits the upgradability.
After all carriers and carrier programmes are long-term, they may well span half a century or even more than that. One really needs to look into the future and not just the current Liaoning/J15 combination. Albeit a fully operational aircraft carrier, her other important missions are research and training.
Don't be too short-sighted.
I don't even understand why Mig29 should be an option for China, for the PLAN.
Ever since the day China chose Su27 over Mig29 in the initial batch of purchase more than 20 years ago, Mig29 shouldn't even be an option for China any more.
China made the determination to buy/reverse-engineer the Su33 from a long long time ago. There were reportedly numerous talks to purchase the Su33, but due to small number of purchase Russians were not willing to sell them. Then China resorted to getting the T10K, which is one of the original prototypes of the Su33, from Ukraine. Mind you that this is one or even two decades ago when China didn't have a lot of funding (in fact it's really terrible to the point where China's defense spending is less than Taiwan in the early 90s! And majority of that money went to the Army!). Even in the darkest and most difficult days we were determined to have large capable multi-role carrier fighters.
We should build larger and more capable, more well-designed carriers to accommodate the J15, not the other way-round. Sooner or later we're going to build larger carriers, by then, only large fighters like the J15 will be able to push that new Supercarrier to her full potential (achieve maximum power projection range, more ordinance carried, etc etc).
Another factor to consider is that, a carrier needs to serve for as long as half a century, it's the aircrafts that determines the power of the carrier, the the aircrafts get upgraded once in a while (classic example is the USS Midway). with a carrier designed to meet the needs of the J15, it can carry aircrafts smaller or up to the size of J15. This would give the new carrier aircraft designers a lot more room to push their limits. Seriously speaking, the J15/Su33 is almost as big as it get when it comes to carrier fighters.
Another thing is, why would someone assume that it is "difficult" to operate the J15s on the Liaoning? For one, the Liaoning, when designed as the Varyag, was designed with the mission to carry Su33s as her fighters. They should work together like a natural pair. Why would it be "difficult"? The Varyag actually has many modifications based on experience learnt on the previous ship, one famous example is that the ski jump angle is said to have been modified from 12 degrees to 14 degrees. These modifications should make the pair work even better. In any case it shouldn't be "difficult" or "frustrating" to operate. I believe Soviet designers weren't mad, they must have done their best although limited by the technologies available to them.
The Russians had the choice of Mig29K and Su33, and yet they chose Su33. This should be a very good proof that the Varyag class would be more powerful with Su33s, instead of Mig29Ks.
Apart from range and payload, another important advantage of the Su33/J15 platform is that you get much upgrade potential with a larger airframe. There's so much more possibilities and so much more you can do when your plane is larger. And it's not larger by a bit. With the limitation of the Ski Jump, the J15 can already achieve a respectable range and payload due to its sheer size, just imagine what will be the possibilities when she is paired with a modern 10,000 tonnes nuclear powered CATOBAR carrier that's designed with her in mind? And when she gets better engines? Better composite materials to reduce weight? Even more types of ordinance? Even better radar which is again benefited from her large nose? Although these are all possible upgrades for the Mig29K, but her much smaller size inherently limits the upgradability.
After all carriers and carrier programmes are long-term, they may well span half a century or even more than that. One really needs to look into the future and not just the current Liaoning/J15 combination. Albeit a fully operational aircraft carrier, her other important missions are research and training.
Re: J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread
Mig-29 was never really an option for the Chinese. PLAAF embraced su-27 Back in 1992 when all versions of mig-29 then in service had abysmal range. Since that time Chinese aviation industry had focused on reverse engineering, enhancing, and keeping up with Russian developments with su-27 family, often times at the expense of antagonizing Russia and her aviation industry.
When PLAN decided to pursue a carrier fighter Russian used su-27 derivatives on her own carrier. China could acquire prototype su-33s on the market to reverse engineer. China already had a large base of experiences with the basic su-27 airframe. Going with su-27 family for Chinese carriers is a no brainer.
Mig-29 was never really an option for the Chinese. PLAAF embraced su-27 Back in 1992 when all versions of mig-29 then in service had abysmal range. Since that time Chinese aviation industry had focused on reverse engineering, enhancing, and keeping up with Russian developments with su-27 family, often times at the expense of antagonizing Russia and her aviation industry.
When PLAN decided to pursue a carrier fighter Russian used su-27 derivatives on her own carrier. China could acquire prototype su-33s on the market to reverse engineer. China already had a large base of experiences with the basic su-27 airframe. Going with su-27 family for Chinese carriers is a no brainer.
Re: J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread
Another thing to consider is that J-15 most likely weights less than Su-33 and have a significantly highly thrust engine than the original Su-33.
Compared to Su-27 or J-11A, J-11B is 700kg lighter due to the use of composites. Similarly Jh-7A is several kg lighter than Jh-7 due to the use of composites. For a weight sensitive ship borne fighter it's highly unlikely that SAIC didn't apply a similar weight reduction method.
On the engine front, J-15 will either end up with a WS-10 variant or one of the newer AL-31 variants (China already have a contract with Salyut for Al-31FN Series 3 which is basically Al-31 F M 1)
Another thing to consider is that J-15 most likely weights less than Su-33 and have a significantly highly thrust engine than the original Su-33.
Compared to Su-27 or J-11A, J-11B is 700kg lighter due to the use of composites. Similarly Jh-7A is several kg lighter than Jh-7 due to the use of composites. For a weight sensitive ship borne fighter it's highly unlikely that SAIC didn't apply a similar weight reduction method.
On the engine front, J-15 will either end up with a WS-10 variant or one of the newer AL-31 variants (China already have a contract with Salyut for Al-31FN Series 3 which is basically Al-31 F M 1)
Re: J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread
But, back then, the Soviets had a different mission for the Kuznetsov and Varyag. That mission did not place emphasis on strike at sea and offense attack as much as on fleet air defense and air dominance. For that role, back when these decisions were being made, for the Soviets at the time, the SU-33 was a much better option for the Kuznetsov. It gave them a better air dominance fighter, with a larger A2A load out, longer range, etc. It also limited the number of aircraft they could carry...but that was not a s critical a factor, and strike at sea roles were not in play for the aircraft.
She will also serve as the intial carrier, thereby training up airwings for herself, and probably for the new carriers as they start being launched and going through trials and then work up.
The PRC chose the J-15 because of several things IMHO:
1) They make it...pretty much all of it, and do not have to depend on the Russians for it.
2) It met the requirements then need for both strike and air defense.
3) It fits into their overall go forward plan for carrier operations better.
HAving siad all of this, the Mig-29K is not a bad aircraft. When augmented by refueling aircraft, it is going to be a serious multi-role aircraft for whomever uses it (in this case Indian and now Russia, who has already announced that it will be their aircraft of choice in the future). it carriers a decent load and is capable of carrying very dangerous ASMs. With refueling, and particularly with a decent AEW&C capability off of the aircraft carrier...make no mistake, it will be a serious threat.
But, given the time frame, given where it is made, nad given the larger carrier plans the PLAN has, is not as good a fit for the PLAN as the J-15 is.
Really, IMHO, it's not. The PLAN made their choice for the J-15 and is moving forward with it. No looking back.
Good points all...but as with anything, there are trade-offs. The PLAN looked at these and made their determination based on what thier requirements and plans are. And are now moving forward with it.
Well, not necessarily. They did not have the Mig-29K, they had earlier Mig-29s which were not nearly as capable. Now they do, and thay have made it clear that they are choosing the Mig-29K as their go forward aircraft and will retire the SU-33s. But their priorities have changed, their planned use of the carrier is changing...and the Mig-29K is something they make and can afford better than restarting the SU-33 production line...which would also have to be seriously upgraded.
But, back then, the Soviets had a different mission for the Kuznetsov and Varyag. That mission did not place emphasis on strike at sea and offense attack as much as on fleet air defense and air dominance. For that role, back when these decisions were being made, for the Soviets at the time, the SU-33 was a much better option for the Kuznetsov. It gave them a better air dominance fighter, with a larger A2A load out, longer range, etc. It also limited the number of aircraft they could carry...but that was not a s critical a factor, and strike at sea roles were not in play for the aircraft.
Make no mistake, the Liaoning is going to be fully operational and capable of providing the PRC with power projection and military tasks whenever called upon.
She will also serve as the intial carrier, thereby training up airwings for herself, and probably for the new carriers as they start being launched and going through trials and then work up.
The PRC chose the J-15 because of several things IMHO:
1) They make it...pretty much all of it, and do not have to depend on the Russians for it.
2) It met the requirements then need for both strike and air defense.
3) It fits into their overall go forward plan for carrier operations better.
HAving siad all of this, the Mig-29K is not a bad aircraft. When augmented by refueling aircraft, it is going to be a serious multi-role aircraft for whomever uses it (in this case Indian and now Russia, who has already announced that it will be their aircraft of choice in the future). it carriers a decent load and is capable of carrying very dangerous ASMs. With refueling, and particularly with a decent AEW&C capability off of the aircraft carrier...make no mistake, it will be a serious threat.
But, given the time frame, given where it is made, nad given the larger carrier plans the PLAN has, is not as good a fit for the PLAN as the J-15 is.
Re: J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread
..Because in my experience aboard five USN CVs large aircraft are more time consuming to handle. That is a fact. And the PLAN at this moment in time has very limited experience handling large aircraft aboard an aircraft carrier....This does not mean they cannot learn to operate larger numbers of J-15s.. It just won't be a cakewalk.
However as plawolf has pointed out the PLAN has a long term plan for it's CV programme.
Does any one have any idea or knowledge about how many J-15s are scheduled to be aboard CV-16? Thank you.
Originally Posted by xiabonan
Another thing is, why would someone assume that it is "difficult" to operate the J15s on the Liaoning? For one, the Liaoning, when designed as the Varyag, was designed with the mission to carry Su33s as her fighters. They should work together like a natural pair. Why would it be "difficult"?
..Because in my experience aboard five USN CVs large aircraft are more time consuming to handle. That is a fact. And the PLAN at this moment in time has very limited experience handling large aircraft aboard an aircraft carrier....This does not mean they cannot learn to operate larger numbers of J-15s.. It just won't be a cakewalk.
However as plawolf has pointed out the PLAN has a long term plan for it's CV programme.
Does any one have any idea or knowledge about how many J-15s are scheduled to be aboard CV-16? Thank you.
Re: J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread
Not really. When Kuznetsov class was designed, both Mig-29 and Su-27 were in contention for its fighter complement.
Early Mig-29s had abysmal range totally unacceptable for much beyond point defence. In the cash crisis after the fall of Soviet Union Russia had to support one or the other. At the time Su-27 was the obvious choice as it already works. Mig-29 needed more work. So Russia effectively cut Mig-29 loose and focused its now much reduced military aircraft funds on the Su-27. Also, Sukhoi was much better connected with the new apparatchiks of the Yelsin era.
But the short comings of early Mig-29 has appearently been largely overcome by Mikoyan's own dime. What was true of Mig-29 when Su-33 was chosen is no longer quite so true. Also Russia is probably also waking up to the down side of Sukhoi monopoly on its fighter supply. So the Russian choice made 23 years ago may not be so strong an indicator of the relative merits of the two fighters today.
Not really. When Kuznetsov class was designed, both Mig-29 and Su-27 were in contention for its fighter complement.
Early Mig-29s had abysmal range totally unacceptable for much beyond point defence. In the cash crisis after the fall of Soviet Union Russia had to support one or the other. At the time Su-27 was the obvious choice as it already works. Mig-29 needed more work. So Russia effectively cut Mig-29 loose and focused its now much reduced military aircraft funds on the Su-27. Also, Sukhoi was much better connected with the new apparatchiks of the Yelsin era.
But the short comings of early Mig-29 has appearently been largely overcome by Mikoyan's own dime. What was true of Mig-29 when Su-33 was chosen is no longer quite so true. Also Russia is probably also waking up to the down side of Sukhoi monopoly on its fighter supply. So the Russian choice made 23 years ago may not be so strong an indicator of the relative merits of the two fighters today.