Russia helps China build new aircraft carrier

[SkolZkiy]

SU-33 is heavy but MiG-29K is lighter so it could launch from ski-jump that's why Indians bought them

[Salty Dog]

Thanks for the welcome feanor. :)

I read this topic since the beginning and I saw many people argue that varyag and the other kievs acquired in stripped down condition by china will help it get experience in operating an aircraft carrier. There was also talk of converitng varyag to a carrier with boilers et al.

My point here is that in it default configuration the kiev class is classified as a aviation cruiser and not even a proper aircraft carrier. Only aircraft capable operating from this class in its default configuration were the VTOL Yak-38 and the choppers(more commonly).There is no way su33 could operate from kiev even with zero weapons load. In fact the indian carrier length during mods has been increased to 283m from default 273m with runway length increase by ~140%.
All the equipment for launch and recovery of a/c were stripped from chinese hulks which can anyway not launch any big birds. Given these facts what help do you think these hulks will provide to chinese in their aircraft carrier program??

Somehow I doubt the recent news from chinese sources about converting varyag to a operational status. Given the time it would take to find and install the thousands of types of equipment back on it, extending the ramp etc sufficiently to allow decent carrier ops. I am not sure of the viability of the project. either as a refurbished carrier or as a trainer of any sort for future carrier operations if the chinese were hoping for it.

There seems to be some confusion between the Kiev conversion (INS Vikramaditiya) and the Varyag which is a Kusnetsov class aircraft carrier. The Varyag does not need such an extensive flight deck modification.

VARYAG TRANSFORMATION (http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/varyagtransform.htm)

[Feanor]

Interesting. I wonder if tphuang could comment more on the Su-33 deal potential, and the Chinese naval Flanker program. Without aircraft it's not much use.

[shag]

There seems to be some confusion between the Kiev conversion (INS Vikramaditiya) and the Varyag which is a Kusnetsov class aircraft carrier. The Varyag does not need such an extensive flight deck modification.


I guess I mixed things up a little bit. Kiev and minsk are the original kiev class. Gorshkov/Baku/Vikramaditya is the modified Kiev class. While Varyag is the kuznetsov class, so I concede ur point that varyag doesn't need as much modification compared to gorshkov.

So lets get some stuff straight here the advantage a su-27 derivative like su-33 would have in a regular combat assuming full weapons and fuel load is its endurance and (marginally )greater weapons load. Mig-29K offers better avionics and marginally better short range performance. But in the scenario of a aircraft carrier operations a few additional factors comes in to play(with respect to a/c performance). One being the ideal runway length required for the aircraft to take off with full weapons and fuel load(without afterburners). In operations from land this is not a big consideration on land(except when operating from short or high altitude air fields) however in limited runway length of aircraft carrier this is crucial. If your a/c cannot operate with full fuel and weapons load given the runway length of the aircraft carrier you loose both the endurance and weapons load advantage.
So where do these two fighters stand with respect to the runway lengths provided by vikramaditya and varyag? I understand that the latter has a slightly longer runway then the former, did varyag also have arrested recovery like the one vikramaditya is being built for?
I also heard somewhere that both these a/c are not capable of catapult launches. I guess that rules out the chinese catobar plan speculation right?

[Salty Dog]

But in the scenario of a aircraft carrier operations a few additional factors comes in to play(with respect to a/c performance). One being the ideal runway length required for the aircraft to take off with full weapons and fuel load(without afterburners). In operations from land this is not a big consideration on land(except when operating from short or high altitude air fields) however in limited runway length of aircraft carrier this is crucial. If your a/c cannot operate with full fuel and weapons load given the runway length of the aircraft carrier you loose both the endurance and weapons load advantage.


There is actually a simple solution for for both carrier and land based aircraft. They take off with a full weapons load and partial fuel load. Once airborne they top off by IFR thus extending range and on station times.

[shag]

Is it practical to have an IFR support over the carrier all the time? esp in cases when the carrier is operating substantially away from a land base?
How effective would it be in a scramble situation. I don't think that's really a effective solution.

[Salty Dog]

Is it practical to have an IFR support over the carrier all the time? esp in cases when the carrier is operating substantially away from a land base?
How effective would it be in a scramble situation. I don't think that's really a effective solution.

USN carriers will conduct their own IFR from organic assets and these will go aloft when required. Land based IFR is nice to have, however is operating theater dependent.

In wartime steaming carrier aircraft are going to be aloft in CAP stations as well on deck ready-5. This can be maintained 24/7 with or without IFR.

Carrier organic IFR is practical and routine for the USN. For other navies, perhaps not.

USN carrier organic IFR. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c8/F-18F_refueling_F-18E.jpg/800px-F-18F_refueling_F-18E.jpg)

[Feanor]

Su-33s can refuel each other.

[gf0012-aust]

If the refueling aircraft has been part of the same flight, then all that will do is provide one aircraft with greater range at the expense of the other.

buddy fueling is not an ideal solution for a number of reasons. it's done as a matter of course by larger militaries, but its usefulness and utility really depends on the mission set

if you look at the flow rates and onboard capacity issues it gets even uglier.

esp if the nominated refueling asset has lost hard points for wing tanks - it means that the flight loses weapons mounts as well (eg two buddy tanks will mean losing 4 weapons stations if based on weight and wing loading issues)

[shag]

buddy refueling might be helpful(though complicated) in scenarios where a carrier has to maintain a CAP over a large area then it is capable of normally with its fighter complement. But in those situations it would mean that for every a/c that is need to maintain CAP two will have to take off(approximation considering the limitation of the carriers in question assuming that the buddy even without weapons load won be carrying too many drop tanks loaded with fuel). It seems there would be the a serious drop in the ability of the carrier to deploy a/c with speed. The way I see it there would be two take offs for each aircraft to be deployed, and once the buddy has refueled the other guy, He would have to land back and refuel and take off before other a/c an deploy.all this would count as time wasted in crucial moments.
Mind you this won't be a factor in air defence of the carrier or fleet around it for obvious reaasons.

Still speed of deployment remains crucial IMHO. Consider both type carriers performance in a scenario where an asset is under threat some distance away from the carrier. In one case a carrier can deploy a/c with speed where they scramble, take off and intercept to protect the asset. On the other hand if the a/c won't have full fuel load at take off it will waste precious time in waiting for a refueling buddy to take off and then in refueling from it.
comments?

[SkolZkiy]

Sory guys but you are talking about Varyag as big CV like US have and this is medium CV and there are different missions. In Soviet Union CV were to provide air defense - all other missions were not so necessary

[shag]

Sory guys but you are talking about Varyag as big CV like US have and this is medium CV and there are different missions. In Soviet Union CV were to provide air defense - all other missions were not so necessary

I agree with your point SkolZkiy,
Varyag class carrier in soviet fleet was used for fleet air defence and not for much else. But the scenario I suggested was also a part of fleet air defence and my point here was to try to figure out the places where a heavy fighter like su-33 may fall short on its role if it weren't able to take off with full combat load.
Soviet Navy may be one example but Indian Navy in contrast has had a history of using its medium/small aircraft carriers for active suppression roles. In 1971 war Indian navy's carrier INS Vikrant was in the Bay of Bengal and provided close air support to advancing Indian armed forces resulting in quick capitulation of opposing forces and resultant liberation of Bangladesh within 11 days of the conflict. If a relatively old Vikrant class carrier can provide such support, heavier keiv and kuznetsov classes should be able to do it. China has not operated a carrier yet so I can't say what chinese plans for it are, But I have read news that atleast the Indian Navy intends to use its carriers as a active force projection platform.

[shag]

That being said neither Russia,China nor India are in a position to field a supercarrier of the class of nimitz and such for a long time to come.

However even lighter carriers have their uses. Most people agree that in Falklands war a light carrier around could have made a lot of difference for the British.

[SkolZkiy]

for the AIrDefense there is no need in SU-33 - MiG-29K would be enough. More then this in AA mode SU-33 and any other AC never is being loaded fully.

[shag]

for the AIrDefense there is no need in SU-33 - MiG-29K would be enough. More then this in AA mode SU-33 and any other AC never is being loaded fully.

I totally agree with you that for fleet air defence yes both aircraft would fulfill that role very well without any trouble. I am talking about relatively long range interception and force projection roles. The scenario is that there is a asset(ASW plane or a ship) under attack by a group of enemy aircraft protected by a fighter escort good distance away from the carrier. An a/c would be entering such a fight with a good combat load.

I am also getting a feeling that u compare mig29 unfavourably with the sukhoi 33. Note that according to most sources Mig29k is much superior to the original mig29 it is derived from. BR claims 50% increase in range and 4-5 times reduced RCS besides and much shorter take of times due to the powerful new RD-33MK engines.

[Feanor]

The current MiG-29K is different from the original MiG-29K. The current MiG-29K is derived from the second-generation Fulcrum, the MiG-29M. There are two generations of fulcrums: MiG-29B upgrades and MiG-29M upgrades. The MiG-29K and MiG-35 are derived from the MiG-29M. The old MiG-29K, and the MiG-29SMT is derived from the MiG-29B. There are airframe differences, in addition to avionics and radar. The Su-33 was the contemporary of the old MiG-29K, and if it's production were to be restarted we should expect a modernization package for it before it sees any export orders. Possibly the Su-30MK2 or MKK avionics.

[Tiger1974]

I disagree with most of your analysis except for the part about power projection in regards to India.

Yes, and?? There are plenty of European countries with smaller Defence budgets than either India of China that have better power projection capabilities than China has at the moment. Spending large amounts of money does not give you results if you do not spend it wisely.

That is correct, and in this case China has spent its money far wiser than India. While India has been obsessed with becoming a military superpower while its infrastructure & manufacturing industry is far behind that of China, the Chinese concentrated first on developing their infrastructure and manufacturing industry. Only 15-20 years after the beginning of their economic reforms did they begin the plan to modernize their military in a major way. While doing that they first concentrated on acquiring military technology from China & developing indigenous weapon systems/platforms and military technology, only now are they planning to build aircraft carriers. Any one looking at the current situation & possible future scenarios would have to admit that so far the Chinese have played a far superior hand than India. One could say the Chinese are playing "go" while the Indians are playing "chess" and are therefore being outplayed.


No it isn't. And I would state Chinas lack of an Aircraft Carrier as a major deficiency in its power projection capabilities.

In this case you are correct India is does have superior power projection due to their aircraft carrier and the fact that unlike China there navy is not "contained" at this time compared to China which has to deal with the geographic barriers posed by Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, & Malaysia. Fact is though that apart from the aircraft carrier & their logistics ability, China's navy is superior in numbers (submarines, littoral surface warships, & major surface warships to India) and in quality (with 12 Kilo submarines, 20+ Song submarines, 2 Yuan SSNs, 40+ stealth catamaran missile corvettes, Aegis-type air defense stealth destroyers, Russian Sovremmeny carrier killing destroyers, Type 052B "Luyang I" Sovremmeny-type stealth destroyers, two classes of stealth frigates, SSBNs, JH-7 maritime strike aircraft, Su-30MK2 maritime strike aircraft, H-6 medium range bombers configured for maritime strike, & numerous anti-ship batteries equipped with the C-602 AShM with 200+ km range).


Self sufficient does not always equal better equipment and this is where India trumps China, because unlike China, India can scour the worlds Defence markets for the best available equipment for their needs.

True, India can "scour" the worlds markets for the best equipment out there unlike China but considering that China is forced to develop their own systems/technology or buy it from Russia I would have to say that the accomplishments of the Chinese far surpass those of India.

Via the acquisition of Russian military technology via arms purchases/licenses/espionage/unlicensed copying/Russian technical assistance and the acquisition of Western technology via dual-use technology (purchases/licenses/espionage/unlicensed copying/Western technicial assistance) the Chinese have developed the following weaponry which is equal or close to that of Russia (and in some cases to that of the West);

Catamaran-type missile corvettes (stealth) = which both India and Russia lack (either stealth & catamaran)
Type 054/054A "Jiangkai-I/I" frigates (stealth) = developed before India,
and which Russia lacks
Type 052C "Luyang II" Aegis-type air defense destroyers (stealth) = which neither Russia or India possess
Type 052B "Luyang I" Sovremmeny-type destroyers (stealth) = developed before India, and unlike Russia's version its stealth
Jin SSBNs = which are considered to be equivalent to Russia's Delta III class, and which India lacks
Shang SSNs = which are the equivalent to early Los Angeles class, and which India lacks
Yuan SSKs = equivalent to the Russian Kilos
J-11Bs = equivalent to Su-30 Flankers, indigenous copy (India has no indigenous copy)
J-10s = equivalent to either F-16s or the Eurofighter (depending on the source), superior to the Indian LCA which is not ready yet.
J-10B = equivalent or superior to the Eurofighter (depending on the source)
JH-7 = equivalent to the SEPECAT Jaguar but with a range superior to the Su-24 Fencer, & with glass cockpit/turbofans.
WZ-11 = equivalent to the Mongoose or Tiger attack helicopter (depending on the source), the Indian version not ready yet.
HQ-16 = superior to the Russian SA-11 & equal or superior to the Russian SA-17 medium range SAM (India has NO indigenous equivalent)
HQ-9 = equivalent to the American Patriot or the Russian S-300 Favorit (depending on the source), and India has no indigenous rival.
HQ-12 = equivalent to the American Improved Hawk but with phased array radar
ZTZ99 MBT = has features of both Russian & Western MBTs, is equivalent to the Russian T-90s MBT, and is superior to the Indian Arjun which has been having problems for decades.
PLZ05 SPG = 155 mm SP gun that is superior to any indigenous Indian system
ZBD97 IFV = superior to any indigenous Indian system
PHL03 MLRS = equivalent to the Russian Smerch system, superior to any Indian system
DH-10 land attack cruise missile = with 2500 mile range, equivalent to US Tomahawk which India lacks
DF-31A mobile ICBM = can reach most of the US, deployed in small numbers but is also a system that India lacks (in fact they have no ICBMs) and more importantly is MRV capable & is completely mobile on a wheeled TEL)
AWACS = indigenous equivalent to Russia's Mainstay, several deployed while India in turn had to purchase some from Russia this year.
ASAT = indigenous mobile missile (on wheeled TEL) that can shoot down satellites (once again something India lacks)
Over-the-Horizon radar = the type that can cover the sea up to the Mariannas/Marshall islands and beyond (which India lacks)

In addition to the above systems/technologies China is known to be developing the following;

Directed Energy Weapons = radio frequency weapons, rail guns, lasers, particle beam, & electromagnetic pulse weapons (and are considered to have programs equal to that of Russia or getting close to it, while India is not considered to be a leader in any of these fields of future weaponry).

Stealth Fighters = depending on the sources they have 2-3 projects going on while India has only one (not including the one they bought into = Russia's Sukhoi project, reason the Chinese did not buy into it though it was offered was that there would be limited technology transfer and would have locked them into buying Russian systems for upgrades/maintenance). Chinese stealth projects are considered to be far ahead of that of India and either a few years behind that of Russia or at about the same stage.

Spaceplanes = have known projects while India has none.

Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile = have project that depending on source is in development or is ready.

Nanoweapons = in development per Newsmax (only source)

Electromagnetic armour = coils, in development per IEEE (only source)


NOTE: the online sources for the above are

Sinodefence
International Strategy & Assessment Center
Jamestown Foundation (China Brief)
China Defense-Mashup
China Military Power (annual reports by the Pentagon)


You need to provide evidence for your claims, because it just looks like country bashing for the sake off from where I am standing.:rolleyes:

[shag]

railguns?lasers?particle beam weapons?
how did we get into this from an aircraft carrier discussion??

[tphuang]

I totally agree with you that for fleet air defence yes both aircraft would fulfill that role very well without any trouble. I am talking about relatively long range interception and force projection roles. The scenario is that there is a asset(ASW plane or a ship) under attack by a group of enemy aircraft protected by a fighter escort good distance away from the carrier. An a/c would be entering such a fight with a good combat load.

I am also getting a feeling that u compare mig29 unfavourably with the sukhoi 33. Note that according to most sources Mig29k is much superior to the original mig29 it is derived from. BR claims 50% increase in range and 4-5 times reduced RCS besides and much shorter take of times due to the powerful new RD-33MK engines.
In terms of platform, there is no way mig-29 can compare itself to su-27. Yes, mig-29K is improved from the original Mig-29 with more advanced avionics, powerplant + missiles. But, these upgrades can be applied on Su-33 too. Does anyone here seriously think China will go with the original Su-33, in capable of performing multi-role task?


Interesting. I wonder if tphuang could comment more on the Su-33 deal potential, and the Chinese naval Flanker program. Without aircraft it's not much use.

I always thought that China wanted a very small number of su-33s for two reasons.
1) to study a little bit for its own domestic naval flanker program
2) the domestic program is most likely not going to be ready by the time China needs it. I'm referring to needing these fighters for the naval school that recently just go established.

As for domestic naval flanker program, some of my views on this:
1) China is planning for at least 2 domestic carriers + Varyag in the near term (by 2020). It simply doesn't make sense for China to rely on Russia for providing at least 3 regiments (72 flankers)
2) China will be developing a naval version of the 5th generation fighter, so it needs experience first developing a 4th generation naval fighter.
3) The question could be why it went with flankers instead of J-10. And this is the same reason why I think flankers are a far better naval platform than fulcrum. Flankers simply can carry more weapons and have longer range. I think PLAN wants naval flankers to eventually replicate super hornets. I'm pretty sure there will be an EW version of naval flanker for PLAN in the future. Using flankers for buddy-to-buddy refueling is a possibility + maybe even as a mini-AWACS (I know, the term is not correct here, but I think you know what I mean).

They have some pretty interesting ideas right now for performing AEW mission. I've seen both a Y-7 AEW in development and also a Z-8 AEW.

[Feanor]

Tiger1974, you liberally throw around the word stealth. I'm assuming you mean RCS reduction techniques. How effective would those be on a warship with several thousand tons for a displacement? Especially given other surveillance means... You also asses the developmental stages of top secret projects. To be able to tell whether Russian and Chinese 5th-generation fighter projects are at a comparable readyness level you would need to have insider information on both. Do you claim to have this info? Or are you pulling this out of thin air?

We do welcome new members, and discussion. However please realize that claims need support. You've made many claims but provided little support or elaboration.

Tphuang do you think China will be willing to purchase what has been stated as the minimal requirement of 24 aircraft?

[shag]

The current MiG-29K is different from the original MiG-29K. The current MiG-29K is derived from the second-generation Fulcrum, the MiG-29M. There are two generations of fulcrums: MiG-29B upgrades and MiG-29M upgrades. The MiG-29K and MiG-35 are derived from the MiG-29M. The old MiG-29K, and the MiG-29SMT is derived from the MiG-29B. There are airframe differences, in addition to avionics and radar. The Su-33 was the contemporary of the old MiG-29K, and if it's production were to be restarted we should expect a modernization package for it before it sees any export orders. Possibly the Su-30MK2 or MKK avionics.

wow you are definetly well read on this. Its true the IN mig29k is different from the original k. Su-33 china inducts will also probably be upgraded to MKK or MK2 avionics standard. Lets watch what what they do to their su-33s when they buy it.
here is a link to indian navy's mig29k specs.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/MiG-29K.html

anyone got any reliable source for chinese Su-33 plans?

[tphuang]

Tiger1974, you liberally throw around the word stealth. I'm assuming you mean RCS reduction techniques. How effective would those be on a warship with several thousand tons for a displacement? Especially given other surveillance means... You also asses the developmental stages of top secret projects. To be able to tell whether Russian and Chinese 5th-generation fighter projects are at a comparable readyness level you would need to have insider information on both. Do you claim to have this info? Or are you pulling this out of thin air?

We do welcome new members, and discussion. However please realize that claims need support. You've made many claims but provided little support or elaboration.

Tphuang do you think China will be willing to purchase what has been stated as the minimal requirement of 24 aircraft?
It's really hard to say. I think they might be willing to wait until domestic flankers are more ready. We haven't seen any photo of a naval flanker undergoing flight tests yet, but I think that will come in the next year. Until then, the pilots in the flight school will first work with take off and landing with Su-30MK2s, try out the carrier training center NITKA in Ukraine and also they've signed an agreement to train on the Sao Paulo Carrier. Which, basically confirms that they are going with catapult on their first domestic carrier.

[Feanor]

If they are waiting on domestic Flankers then KnAAPO Su-33s are out of the question. It would take 2-3 years to complete modernization, and start production. It would be 2011-12 by the time deliveries could realistically begin. If the Chinese program is 1-2 years from IOC then the deal wouldn't be on the table at all.

[tphuang]

If they are waiting on domestic Flankers then KnAAPO Su-33s are out of the question. It would take 2-3 years to complete modernization, and start production. It would be 2011-12 by the time deliveries could realistically begin. If the Chinese program is 1-2 years from IOC then the deal wouldn't be on the table at all.

They are definitely further than 1-2 year from IOC. Their main reason to get knaapo su-33s is due to the urgency of naval training program + lack of certainty in the domestic program. I think that if they do get some Su-33, it would be the most risk-free and ready version possible, because they really just want to get some naval fighters to train with to start off. That would give the domestic version more time to mature. But it's definitely not within their plans to buy a lot of Knaapo Su-33s. I think 24 might be more than what China is willing to buy. That's just my opinion.

[SkolZkiy]

and for Russia lesser then 24 is needlessly. that's the key

[Feanor]

So it looks like the deal won't happen afterall. There are no refurbished aircraft to offer. The production line is closed and won't re-open for less then 24. How far away would you estimate IOC to be?

[Tiger1974]

Tiger1974, you liberally throw around the word stealth. I'm assuming you mean RCS reduction techniques. How effective would those be on a warship with several thousand tons for a displacement? Especially given other surveillance means... You also asses the developmental stages of top secret projects. To be able to tell whether Russian and Chinese 5th-generation fighter projects are at a comparable readyness level you would need to have insider information on both. Do you claim to have this info? Or are you pulling this out of thin air?

The information is on many websites, one of the most well known experts on the subject matter is Dr. Fisher (expert on PLA whose papers often appear on the "International Strategy & Assessment Center" whose website is "www.strategycenter.net"). I was just giving the individual who I replied to an idea or snapshot of what the US Department of Defense is publishing as well as what the main websites regarding such things are publishing.

Concerning the stealth fighters I was talking about the Shenyang and Chengdu projects of J-13, J-14, Super J-10, & J-XX. There is debate as to whither they are 2-4 separate projects, the types of 5th generation fighters, & the stage of development. All internet sources point to those projects being ahead of India's MCA (in comparison if you look up the Medium Combat Aircraft). Regarding the "stealth" warships, you are correct I was speaking about RCS (reduced cross section), "stealth" is one of the terms used in speaking about these ships saying that they have "stealth" features or design (though in reality they are NOT as stealthy as even the relatively low-tech stealth F-117).

Links:

International Strategy & Assessment Center = International Assessment and Strategy Center (http://www.strategycenter.net)
Jamestown Foundation =
The Jamestown Foundation - The Jamestown Foundation (http://www.jamestown.org)
Sino Defense =
SinoDefence.com - The Chinese Military in the 21st Century (http://www.sinodefence.com)
China-Defense-Mashup=
China-Defense-Mashup|China Military News, images and videos information (http://www.china-defense-mashup.com)
US Department of Defense=
U.S. Department of Defense Official Website - 12/08/2005 - Final Edition (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/china.html)
Air Power Australia
Air Power Australia - Home Page (http://www.ausairpower.net)

I find the above websites to provide extensive and detailed information, though one need to of course recongize the sources and take that into consideration. US military, national security block in US foreign policy (the US must be number #1 at all costs, see "International Strategy & Assessment Center), Chinese nationalists with ties to the PLA? (china-defense-mashup), an anti-China? Australian neo-con think tank (Air Power Australia), etc.

Of course their is also the British defense publication "Janes" if you are willing to pay big bucks for an online subscription.

Sorry I did not take more time to post each link or multiple links for each example (such as the J-10), time constraints but all the above information is easily retrieved. For example if one types HQ-9 & missile you will get dozens of hits, if you type J-14 + stealth you will likewise get hits. From my review of the Internet, one can conclude one of two things either China has far more projects going on than China and in further development or somehow India which is a more open society has been able to keep its comparative projects in greater secrecy than in authoritarian China.

We do welcome new members, and discussion. However please realize that claims need support. You've made many claims but provided little support or elaboration.


Admin: Tiger, please make the effort to use the proper quote and edit tools, as it can make things look messy

[Salty Dog]

So it looks like the deal won't happen afterall. There are no refurbished aircraft to offer. The production line is closed and won't re-open for less then 24. How far away would you estimate IOC to be?

Despite previous discussion, I still feel if China really wants the Su-33, they will acquire it by some means. That's my opinion.

By the way, the Su-33 and Mig-29K are listed in the ROSOBORONEXPORT Catalogue of Aerospace Systems (http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/airf0rces_cataloque.html).

[HKSDU]

Despite previous discussion, I still feel if China really wants the Su-33, they will acquire it by some means. That's my opinion.

By the way, the Su-33 and Mig-29K are listed in the ROSOBORONEXPORT Catalogue of Aerospace Systems (http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/airf0rces_cataloque.html).
Hmm if China really wanted the Su-33 they mostly need the airfame with the engines and thats about all. Airframe, as in strengthened undercarriage, arrestor hooks, folding wings, redesigned landing wheels. But highly doubt Russia will sell Su-33 airframe with engines and let China install their own weapon suites and avionics. Just a personal perspective, I think China prefers Flankers over Migs. They chose Flankers over Migs during the 90's when both fighters where on the offering table, yet they chose the Flankers for range and payload. I feel that the same still applies on carrier fighter candidates. Even though its PLAN not PLAAF, they still prefer Flankers for the same reasons the PLAAF did.
Not objecting to your opinion, just my thoughts.

[Feanor]

Despite previous discussion, I still feel if China really wants the Su-33, they will acquire it by some means. That's my opinion.

By the way, the Su-33 and Mig-29K are listed in the ROSOBORONEXPORT Catalogue of Aerospace Systems (http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/airf0rces_cataloque.html).

Of course they're both listed. It doesn't mean that it's easy to buy them.

Tiger you list both Jamestown and APA on your list. I'm again questionable of your sources. I don't see in any of them, any concrete information which would tell us how far along any Chinese 5th generation aircraft projects are. Once again I'm asking you for a specific single source that tells us how far along the projects are. Otherwise we can not make any solid claims in that regard.

[tphuang]

So it looks like the deal won't happen afterall. There are no refurbished aircraft to offer. The production line is closed and won't re-open for less then 24. How far away would you estimate IOC to be?
Let me first define IOC in this case as the time when PLAN is ready to train its naval pilots on it rather than IOC on a carrier (which would be much later).

Based on previous programs like J-11B, I think a naval flanker program would take around 3 years to go from first flight to IOC. If my previous deciphering of AVIC1 news is correct, then naval flanker prototype should already be assembled, it's just waiting to test fly now. Mind you, J-11BS was assembled by end of 2007, but we didn't see a photo of it from CFTE until earlier this year. So, I think first flight will either happen this year or early next year. That would probably put IOC at the end of 2012. Which is a reasonable time if they want to launch the carrier by 2015. The problem that I have is the production capability of SAC. Even after 2 years a production, I don't think they've managed to even produce 1 regiment (around 28) of J-11B. Even if they manage to raise the production rate to 2 flankers a month by 2012, that would still only be 24 aircraft a year. And that would have to be split between the navy and the air force (who wants J-11BS). If they want to put 35 fighter jets on each of the domestic carriers, it would take them 3 years to produce one air wing.

This is exactly why PLAAF could never improve as fast as PLAN.

[Feanor]

Could purchasing Russian Flankers make up for part of the numbers, given how slow production is?

[shag]

tphuang,
What are the arguments for and against SU-33s and navalized flankers as of now in a comparison between the two?

I don't think we can as of yet decide if they will go for CATOBAR or STOBAR as of now (Preparation of varyag indicates a STOBAR and excecising on Sao Paulo as some one mentioned indicated a Catapult launcher.) Whats your opinion on this?
Do note that as of now most experts I talked to are of opinion Su33 doesn't support catapult operation(under carriage stresses etc.)

[shag]

It's really hard to say. I think they might be willing to wait until domestic flankers are more ready. We haven't seen any photo of a naval flanker undergoing flight tests yet, but I think that will come in the next year. Until then, the pilots in the flight school will first work with take off and landing with Su-30MK2s, try out the carrier training center NITKA in Ukraine and also they've signed an agreement to train on the Sao Paulo Carrier. Which, basically confirms that they are going with catapult on their first domestic carrier.

wait a minit!
I don't think the Su30MK2 has strengthened undercarriage etc. to take off using a ski jump or catapult!! please correct me if I am missing something here.
Arrested recovery is out of question for obvious reasons. What sort of training do u believe they will get out of a non naval platform?

[Feanor]

Well they can always get general flight training.

[Salty Dog]

I don't think we can as of yet decide if they will go for CATOBAR or STOBAR as of now (Preparation of varyag indicates a STOBAR and excecising on Sao Paulo as some one mentioned indicated a Catapult launcher.)

The Su-33 is way heavier than a Rafale or Super Hornet both of which were weight limited to operate from the ex-Foch (São Paulo).

[tphuang]

Could purchasing Russian Flankers make up for part of the numbers, given how slow production is?
That is definitely possible. Another possible reasons to buy from Russia is if the domestic production of WS-10A remains slow in the future. Maybe SAC production capability will improve in 5 years, I don't know.


tphuang,
What are the arguments for and against SU-33s and navalized flankers as of now in a comparison between the two?

I don't think we can as of yet decide if they will go for CATOBAR or STOBAR as of now (Preparation of varyag indicates a STOBAR and excecising on Sao Paulo as some one mentioned indicated a Catapult launcher.) Whats your opinion on this?
Do note that as of now most experts I talked to are of opinion Su33 doesn't support catapult operation(under carriage stresses etc.)

I wrote all the reasons for a domestic flanker in a previous post. Su-33s advantage is the availability.

I'd think CATOBAR is most likely given the recent Sao Paolo deal. In the long run, China is likely to go for CATOBAR.

[Salty Dog]

That is definitely possible. Another possible reasons to buy from Russia is if the domestic production of WS-10A remains slow in the future. Maybe SAC production capability will improve in 5 years, I don't know.

I wrote all the reasons for a domestic flanker in a previous post. Su-33s advantage is the availability.

I'd think CATOBAR is most likely given the recent Sao Paolo deal. In the long run, China is likely to go for CATOBAR.

Brazil and France rely heavily on the US Navy not only for technical assistance for CATOBAR systems, but also for final carrier qualifications for their pilots. It would be interesting to see where the PLAN would receive similar CATOBAR support.

[Feanor]

They would have to develop it indigenously. There have been indications that the current Russian carrier program is CATOBAR. But it's a long ways off. They may have to develop it indigenously.

[Spacearrow99]

They would have to develop it indigenously. There have been indications that the current Russian carrier program is CATOBAR. But it's a long ways off. They may have to develop it indigenously.

Here's a Russian article about carrier program.

Russia to build nuclear-powered 60,000-ton aircraft carrier | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090227/120342249.html)

Russia to build nuclear-powered 60,000-ton aircraft carrier

19:0227/02/2009
MOSCOW, February 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's new-generation aircraft carrier will be nuclear powered and have a displacement of up to 60,000 metric tons, a United Shipbuilding Corporation executive said on Friday.
Vice Adm. Anatoly Shlemov, the company's head of defense contracts, said the new carrier was still at the drawing board stage, but its blueprint and basic specifications have already been defined.

He said the carrier will serve as a seaborne platform for new-generation fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, in particular, a fifth-generation fighter that will replace the Su-33 multirole fighter aircraft currently in service, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).

"It will be a fifth-generation aircraft with classic horizontal take-off and landing capability," the admiral said.

Shlemov said, unlike in the past, the new aircraft carrier would not be armed with cruise missiles, which were not part of its "job description."

He said that at least three such carriers were to be built, for the Northern and Pacific Fleets.

The executive offered no timeline on the project, saying it was not as yet clear which shipyard would get the contract.

The new carrier has an estimated price tag of $4 billion.

So far the Russian Navy only has one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov Project 1143.5, built in 1985, with a displacement of 55,000 metric tons, a crew of 1,500, and capability to carry more than 50 aircraft.

[Feanor]

AHA!!!! I knew it! 3 carriers. Not 5-6. One for each of Pacific and Northern, and one in maintenance.

[swerve]

Brazil and France rely heavily on the US Navy not only for technical assistance for CATOBAR systems, but also for final carrier qualifications for their pilots. It would be interesting to see where the PLAN would receive similar CATOBAR support.
France relies on the USA purely for cost reasons, as the UK will do if it converts CVF to catapult launch. I'm sure China (& Russia) can do better than British 1950s technology - and that's all it takes to build steam catapults. I don't see why China needs support.

The RN went from no catapults on carriers, via hydraulic catapults, to newly-invented British-built steam catapults launching jets in less time than some people claim it would take China, after years of studying carriers & catapults, & with decades of other other nations experience to build on, to build a catapult. :confused:

[shag]

The RN went from no catapults on carriers, via hydraulic catapults, to newly-invented British-built steam catapults launching jets in less time than some people claim it would take China, after years of studying carriers & catapults, & with decades of other other nations experience to build on, to build a catapult. :confused:

I think he means catapult launch training rather than catapult development itself.

[shag]

found this video about the modifications on vikramaditya if anyone is interested. the ski jump installation is complete and the island looks like it is in final stages. You also see some work being done on the infamous rewiring issue.
Russians and Indians seem to have somehow come to an agreement for installing newer parts instead of repairing old ones, this was one of the sticky issues which lead to delays. Looks like Russians have pulled up their socks on this. I guess they saw the risk of loosing such an important arms market, seeing how badly they had pushed the indians to the edge with this carrier regarding delays and cost overruns
YouTube - India's Aircraft Carrier INS Vikramaditya is being built in Russia - Part 4
The modifications on the ship are heavier than I expected them to be. I didn't have information on extensions on the side to increase deck space(aircraft stowage capacity?) clearly mentioned in this video.

I would love to see some reports like this on varyag to compare the progress.

[Feanor]

You're right about the Russian position. We even agreed to lower the cost allegedly.

[shag]

Do you think the fact that indian navy used catapults launches on Vikrant before replacing it with a ski jump and arrestor gear would help experience vise if India decides to go in for a hybrid for second carrier or hybrid or CATOBAR config for the third carrier?
or is the time gap too significant to be of any use vis a vis catapult launch experience.

[Salty Dog]

It's really hard to say. I think they might be willing to wait until domestic flankers are more ready. We haven't seen any photo of a naval flanker undergoing flight tests yet, but I think that will come in the next year. Until then, the pilots in the flight school will first work with take off and landing with Su-30MK2s, try out the carrier training center NITKA in Ukraine and also they've signed an agreement to train on the Sao Paulo Carrier. Which, basically confirms that they are going with catapult on their first domestic carrier.

The Beijing-Brazil Naval Axis (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/the_top_10_stories_you_missed_in_2009?page=0,5)

. . . That leaves Brazil, which was only too happy to let PLAN officers train aboard its 52-year-old carrier, the São Paulo (which it bought from France in 2000). Brazilian Defense Minister Nelson Jobim revealed the program in an interview with a Brazilian defense website in May. Although the exact terms of the deal are unknown, it is widely thought that the Chinese might be funding a restoration of the aging São Paulo in exchange for the training program. A Chinese naval website also hinted that China might be helping Brazil build nuclear submarines, and Jobim himself said that he hoped the program would lead to military cooperation in other areas.

The Brazilians must be keeping this low key as nothing else has appeared in the news here regarding the PLAN. Also may have to do with the São Paulo only recently returning to service after a lengthy yard period (since 2005).