Video of how SU-33 could work off of a PLAN carrier

bd popeye said:

Everytime I see the Russian CV viedos It just looks like the flight deck is devoid of action. But I know this thread is not about comparisons

Click to expand...

I couldnt agreed anymore. Its almost sad watching the "pride" of the Northern Fleet when she is out of harbor.

bd popeye said:

The flying of the Su-33 does look awesome though. The few Naval avaitors that the Russians do have are very skilled...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I agree on you there. The few pilots actually with carrier experience lack training. On the last big sortie this autumn, one of their most experience Flanker-D pilot crashed his plane during landing, with the plane skewing off the deck and sunk 3000m. The pilot survived though. This proves the pilots lacks training in every way when it comes to carrier operations.

bd popeye said:

And why is the IN buying Mig-29's and not Su-33's?

Click to expand...

Simple. The much smaller Kiev class would have a hard time launching the much bigger Flanker-D. Size is probarly also a important factor.

Jeff Head said:

However, if they got a chance to load those SU-33's up for bear...and went after something, they would represent a considerable threat.

Click to expand...

But the n again; without a catapult system it would be impossible to load the planes with full weapons load and still be able to launch them up in the air. Therefore, the most common weapon load on Flanker-Ds are 2x Archers and (if lucky) 2x Adders. Getting the projected airborne carried Moskit on a carrier-based Flanker-D is out of the question.

tphuang said:

24 maybe? The other regiment will be based on shore and used as a strike aircraft. They can be used to replace the ones on Varyag. They also could be used for a future carrier. My opinion is that China will eventually have a carrier per fleet, so at least 75 carrier fighters are needed.

Click to expand...

As for the numbers carried, I think something like 24-30 is a realistic amount. Considering the size of the planes and the small hangar space provided on the Kuznetsov/Varyag, I doubt all of these planes would be able to fit underdeck. Therefore some of the big planes would have to be carried permanently overdeck.
Is this standard in the US Navy?



Example of the cramped conditions with the big Flanker-D in the underdeck hangar:


I'm not entirely sure of the actual length and width of the hangar, but this pics illustrates that the hangar aint too long, and will therefore have a hard time to house 24-30 large planes like the Flanker-D:


Now, question is: Will the PLAN get rid of the Shipwreck launcher in the forward deck to give more room for a large hangar deck?

MiGleader said:

it dependes on when china plans to start operating it's carrier. If its soon, the su-33kub is the best choice. almost not real trials would be needed since the fighter can operate off of varyag without modifications.

Click to expand...

Not to be negative, but have you seen the Su-33UB actually taking of from the deck with a valuable weapon load?

No? I thought so...

Now, question is: Will the PLAN get rid of the Shipwreck launcher in the forward deck to give more room for a large hangar deck?

Click to expand...

What use are these if PLAN does not have Shipwrecks? So there is no point for having the launcher is there?

.

crobato said:

What use are these if PLAN does not have Shipwrecks? So there is no point for having the launcher is there?

Click to expand...

They could always just change the launchers to fire one of their own AShMs. But an air defence carrier with AShMs doesnt make much sense anyway.

People who got actual experience with ship construction:

Would it be hard to lengthen then underdeck hangar without weakining the construction of the topdeck?

The Chinese do not have any AshM that is vertically launched. They don't have Klinoks in any of their ships either, or any VLS based point defense missile system.

If they plan on using some VLS based system to replace the Granits and the Klinoks (SA-N-9), their best bet is the HHQ-9 systems used on 052C destroyers. Aside from rumored developments on VLS based HHQ-16 (medium range equivalent to Shtil), the HHQ-9 is currently the only VLS system the PLAN has. The place in the superstructure that could have been used for the Mars Passat radar might be a good fit for the HHQ-9 arrays.

Now, question is: Will the PLAN get rid of the Shipwreck launcher in the forward deck to give more room for a large hangar deck?

Click to expand...

Would it be hard to lengthen then underdeck hangar without weakining the construction of the topdeck?

Click to expand...

Well I think you answerd by yourself to that question. I've been wondering this myself also and as more i have learned on basic strucltual mechanics and structual technics i've come to conclusion that it's propaply impossiple. Perhaps it could be done, but i think it would need completely rebuilt the ship from the hangardeck up. Sofar no such major work has been done in Dalian shipyards.

Gollevainen said:

Well I think you answerd by yourself to that question. I've been wondering this myself also and as more i have learned on basic strucltual mechanics and structual technics i've come to conclusion that it's propaply impossiple. Perhaps it could be done, but i think it would need completely rebuilt the ship from the hangardeck up. Sofar no such major work has been done in Dalian shipyards.

Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming my thoughts, Gollevainen.

That would mean that the Varyag (as the Kuznetsov) will have limited hangarspace. I dare to make an educated guess with room for something like 15 or so Flanker-Ds underdeck if you cramp them realy tight together.

I can only count 10-12 Flanker-Ds on this pic, which seems to show most of the underdeck hangar:




Now, would it make sense for the PLAN to go for a "failed" plane like the Su-33? Afterall, the Russians can only operate it with limited success due to its heavy size and lack of catapults.
As I've said numerous times: Try finding a pic of a Flanker-D taking off with a full weapon load...

As much as I love the Flankers, I think it would be much smarter for the PLAN to either go for a navalized J-10 or a Fulcrum-D. Period.

Gauntlet said:

Thank you for confirming my thoughts, Gollevainen.

That would mean that the Varyag (as the Kuznetsov) will have limited hangarspace. I dare to make an educated guess with room for something like 15 or so Flanker-Ds underdeck if you cramp them realy tight together.

I can only count 10-12 Flanker-Ds on this pic, which seems to show most of the underdeck hangar:

[qimg]http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/9339/su33lotsofthemparkedinkuznetso.jpg[/qimg]


Now, would it make sense for the PLAN to go for a "failed" plane like the Su-33? Afterall, the Russians can only operate it with limited success due to its heavy size and lack of catapults.
As I've said numerous times: Try finding a pic of a Flanker-D taking off with a full weapon load...

As much as I love the Flankers, I think it would be much smarter for the PLAN to either go for a navalized J-10 or a Fulcrum-D. Period.

Click to expand...

Actually, China has a huge plan to arm their carriers with J-10s, and J-8IIs to tell you the truth. The Su-33 is just a small part of the whole big operation. there is a navalized J-10 and J-8II.:china:

As for the numbers carried, I think something like 24-30 is a realistic amount. Considering the size of the planes and the small hangar space provided on the Kuznetsov/Varyag, I doubt all of these planes would be able to fit underdeck. Therefore some of the big planes would have to be carried permanently overdeck.
Is this standard in the US Navy?

Click to expand...

I assume you mean that some planes stay on the flight deck.

Well the aircraft on a USN CV are constantly being moved for various reasons. No aircraft is deticated to remain on the flight deck. If the Russians are doing this those planes will corrode(rust) like nobodys business. The Hangar Deck on a USN CV is used to store aircraft that need maintance. It is a constant shuffle of aircraft.

As for the crowding of aircraft. The USN does the same thing despite the huge hangar deck space avaliable. A Nimitz class hangar is approxmitely 220m x 34m. And is divided into two bays. How much space is avaliabe in the hangar deck depends on several factors. Flight schedule, underway replenshiments & various other activites.

On the last big sortie this autumn, one of their most experience Flanker-D pilot crashed his plane during landing, with the plane skewing off the deck and sunk 3000m. The pilot survived though. This proves the pilots lacks training in every way when it comes to carrier operations.

Click to expand...

I don't know the real level of Russian pilots training. I don't. But accidents with Naval aircraft do happen. Those aircraft are operating at a high tempo. The USN loses aircrfat also. An F-18 was recently lost off the USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76.



USS Enterprise hangar deck. Not a full pic. Note the crowding.

Gollevainen said:

Well I think you answerd by yourself to that question. I've been wondering this myself also and as more i have learned on basic strucltual mechanics and structual technics i've come to conclusion that it's propaply impossiple. Perhaps it could be done, but i think it would need completely rebuilt the ship from the hangardeck up. Sofar no such major work has been done in Dalian shipyards.

Click to expand...

With only 70% of the carrier completed, I doubt the launchers were there anyway, and being uncompleted can be a blessing in disguise, since it allows you to reconstruct what is not done.

As much as I love the Flankers, I think it would be much smarter for the PLAN to either go for a navalized J-10 or a Fulcrum-D. Period.

Click to expand...

As much as I like the J-10, it ain't going to happen. The J-10 is just taking off the ground, and needs to accomplish a lot of maturity issues first. No doubt the J-10 with the new 3D TVC 13,200kg thrust AL-31FNM-1 engine will be handful for any fighter. But there is going to be a lot of redesigning of this plane's tight frame to make it fit for carrier duty.

The Fulcrum isn't going to be accepted, being short ranged and has previously been rejected by the PLAAF. The PLANAF has no room to support the logistical burden of another new plane type.

The Flankers is a known quantity for the PLA. Given this venture is a total adventure for the PLA, it's not going to risk this with the introduction of a less mature type of plane or a new type never used by the PLAAF before. The known quantity is a needed bedrock for this adventure.

Having said this, there are risks and disadvantages. The new Su-33UB features an all new wing design that could give greater lift, but also makes the plane bigger than the Su-33. It is likely the new Su-33s will require the combination of canards and TVC to assist in the takeoff. More powerful engines based on the AL-31FM-1 should be used. And then there is the size.

If rumors are to be believed, the job of provding the planes appear to have fallen with Shenyang AC, which makes the J-11s. It would be difficult to mod the J-11s into Su-33s without Sukhoi's help. It appears China might want to manufacture the type as well under license. A carriered version of the Su-30MKK is also logical, complete with canards and TVC. Both types---carriered J-11s and Su-30MKKs, turned into new versions of the Su-33, can leverage the PLA's experience and infrastructure on using and maintaining on both Flanker types. The Su-33KUBs will still be necessary to provide a seed regiment used to train pilots.

J-8IIs have to be ruled out completely---these planes are too long for carrier duty.