Russia helps China build new aircraft carrier

[yasin_khan]

Russia, India and China will be building aircraft carriers for their navies almost simultaneously over the next five years or so, using many of the same design concepts, technologies and equipment. This is unprecedented in the history of shipbuilding.
The three countries currently are enjoying healthy political relations, smoothing the way for Russia's continued military cooperation with both China and India with regard to aircraft carrier technologies.
The news that China is about to start building its aircraft carrier is no secret in either Russia or Ukraine. Multiple authoritative sources from the Russian shipbuilding industry have confirmed in recent interviews with the author that China has candidly informed Russia of its intentions. After all, the technology and subsystems for China's aircraft carrier are largely from Russia.
As reported previously, systems such as arresting equipment for aircraft landings have been imported from Russia. A Russian shipbuilding industry source also has confirmed that China's first aircraft carrier will use the Russian ski-jump deck.
"This is a Russian invention, but it has been accepted by both India and China," said the source.

India launched its aircraft carrier construction project about one year ago. It also incorporates the Russian ski-jump deck design for aircraft takeoffs and uses steel plates imported from Russia. It will also use Russian MiG-29K shipborne fighters.
At the same time, Russia has an ambitious plan to build new aircraft carriers for its own navy. The commander in chief of the Russian navy, Adm. Vladimir Masorin (http://www.upi.com/topic/Vladimir_Masorin/), declared in 2007 that the navy would need at least three aircraft carriers before 2020 and that Russia would build nuclear-powered carriers.
The design of the new aircraft carriers is currently under way at the Russian Nevskoye Design Bureau. The designs for this project are expected to be completed by 2010 and the first carrier should be finished around 2016-2017 -- a date that coincides with China's plan to build its first aircraft carrier.
The chief designer at this facility told UPI in an interview that China had not asked for assistance in designing its aircraft carrier, however.
Russia's aircraft carrier construction program is not yet officially listed in the 2005-2015 national defense equipment development agenda. Moreover, the issue of using a nuclear-powered propulsion system is controversial within the Russian navy. It seems no final decision has been made as to what propulsion system will be fitted on the new carriers.
Despite similar timeframes and shared technologies, there are several major differences between the aircraft carrier construction plans of Russia and China.
First, the Russian navy has had 35 years of experience with aircraft carriers, including the technologies and experience of building the Ulyanovsk-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier -- even though this project was never completed, having been abandoned at the end of the Cold War. The Chinese navy has no such experience.
Second, Russia has a full toolbox of production technologies, while the People's Liberation Army navy has to search around to acquire these technologies. Third, and most important, the Russian navy fleets have practical experience with aircraft carriers, while the PLA navy has had to start from zero -- including the building of large surface warships and strategic nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.




http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2008/12/16/Russia_helps_China_build_new_aircraft_carrier/UPI-79441229476975/

[yasin_khan]

Russia badly needs aircraft carriers especially in its northren fleet.

China wants to become a Blue water Ocean going navy.

But India cant afford such projections.

Is it a new arms race.

[tphuang]

yeah, this is just another article by Andrei Pinkov trying to link China to Russia somehow. I think at the moment, putting China's program together with Russia is a little too far of a stretch. It doesn't even seem like China is asking Russia for any help.

[Feanor]

Russia badly needs aircraft carriers especially in its northren fleet.

China wants to become a Blue water Ocean going navy.

But India cant afford such projections.

Why do you say that India can't afford it?

As for Chinese carriers, I did read on DID that there was a Chinese inquiry into potential Su-33 purchase back in 2006. Though I've heard that China also has it's own navalized Flanker program running.

[yasin_khan]

Why do you say that India can't afford it?

As for Chinese carriers, I did read on DID that there was a Chinese inquiry into potential Su-33 purchase back in 2006. Though I've heard that China also has it's own navalized Flanker program running.

Indian economy is going well but is not steady.In next few years it will be hit by worst food shortage in which China and Pakistan will also be with her.
China is also making naval version of J-10 and i have also read in sino defense forum that China is keen for Su-33.

[Feanor]

Indian economy is going well but is not steady.In next few years it will be hit by worst food shortage in which China and Pakistan will also be with her.

So India and China will BOTH have a food shortage. Yet, China CAN afford aircraft carriers (but doesn't have any yet) and India (who already operates one, and has two more underway right now) CAN'T?! You're making very little sense.

[yasin_khan]

You cant compare India with China.
China Millitary budget is much more then India.Power projection of Chinese armed forces is much greater then India.
China is almost self suficient in defense requirements and India still very behind.

[ASFC]

China Millitary budget is much more then 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.


Power projection of Chinese armed forces is much greater then India.
No it isn't. And I would state Chinas lack of an Aircraft Carrier as a major deficiency in its power projection capabilities.


China is almost self suficient in defense requirements and India still very behind.

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.

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:

[yasin_khan]

You need quality with quantity.If you dont have such quantity then you cant do any thing.

[kev 99]

Russia invented the Ski jimp?

[Salty Dog]

So India and China will BOTH have a food shortage. Yet, China CAN afford aircraft carriers (but doesn't have any yet) and India (who already operates one, and has two more underway right now) CAN'T?! You're making very little sense.

I suppose you meant "on the way" vice "underway".

Cheers!

[hellfire]

Indian economy is going well but is not steady.In next few years it will be hit by worst food shortage in which China and Pakistan will also be with her.
China is also making naval version of J-10 and i have also read in sino defense forum that China is keen for Su-33.

well if u compare the 2 economies its the chinese that will suffer more in this global economy crisis,since china is all about manufacturing,now when western people have no cash or are unwilling to spend,then majority of chinese people will loose their jobs,already many companies are laying off workers if u had seen a documentry in BBC u will know what i am talking about.on the other hand india is different they are mostly R&D,support etc.
in india there is very little layoffs,on the long run chinese economy will suffer a lot compared to india.many US companies products are made in china ,but the R&D is done in US.which is why even in the long run china can never tople the US as the no1 super power.unless chinese start their own R&D.

as far as military budget lets not forget china is a bigger country in terms of population and area so they need more numbers to protect its huge area,india which is about 1/3rd the size of china in terms of area have a reasonably good navy.

[yasin_khan]

well if u compare the 2 economies its the chinese that will suffer more in this global economy crisis,since china is all about manufacturing,now when western people have no cash or are unwilling to spend,then majority of chinese people will loose their jobs,already many companies are laying off workers if u had seen a documentry in BBC u will know what i am talking about.on the other hand india is different they are mostly R&D,support etc.
in india there is very little layoffs,on the long run chinese economy will suffer a lot compared to india.many US companies products are made in china ,but the R&D is done in US.which is why even in the long run china can never tople the US as the no1 super power.unless chinese start their own R&D.


India is far behind in R&D as compare to China.China is developing missiles,aircrafts,electronic weapons, radars etc what is India is doing working on LCA for last 30 years and still testing.Indian armed forces are totally dependent on western countries.

[yasin_khan]

as far as military budget lets not forget china is a bigger country in terms of population and area so they need more numbers to protect its huge area,india which is about 1/3rd the size of china in terms of area have a reasonably good navy.

China is bigger country but India and China have almost equal no of population so they got equal no man power for both military and civil use.

[yasin_khan]

Russia invented the Ski jimp?

I think ski jump was invented by Britishers.

[hellfire]

India is far behind in R&D as compare to China.China is developing missiles,aircrafts,electronic weapons, radars etc what is India is doing working on LCA for last 30 years and still testing.Indian armed forces are totally dependent on western countries.

well the reply was to the offtopic of economy of india and china,R&D in general I.T,science etc.
well india still is doing its R&D unlike many of its neighbours who just usualy reverse engineer or a copy as stated in articles in ausairpower.net.

[nevidimka]

There may not be much finished hardware coming out from Indian R&D for now, but there is a a huge and diverse area of capability which India is doing its R&D. you will only get to see the fruits of it in the coming years.

And on regards to military spending, I remember from a stat that India is spending 1.9% of its GDP on Military spending, much lower than the global Average of 3% GDP. So India still is capable of increasing its defence spending and still be within the average, while God knows how much the Chinese are pouring into the Defence spending.

[Feanor]

I suppose you meant "on the way" vice "underway".

Cheers!

Yes, thanks.

You cant compare India with China.
China Millitary budget is much more then India.Power projection of Chinese armed forces is much greater then India.

This is wrong. Do you understand the concept of force projection and what it implies? It implies being able to handle deployments far away from your own territory. Aircraft carriers are in large part a tool of force projection. Even light carriers like what India is getting still provide limited strike, and organic air defense capabilities. China has nothing of the sort.

China is almost self suficient in defense requirements and India still very behind.

That has no direct relationship to force projection capabilities.

[Type59]

well the reply was to the offtopic of economy of india and china,R&D in general I.T,science etc.
well india still is doing its R&D unlike many of its neighbours who just usualy reverse engineer or a copy as stated in articles in ausairpower.net.

Japanese and South Korean products, early on were usually knock offs. They copied western cars, once they had mastered manufacturing of these copies they then started to design and build own models. China is doing the same thing. If you read reports on its shipbuilding industry you will be informed about the huge amounts they spend on R&D. Now they are designing and building own ships, copying only gets you so far.

Sticking to stereotypes like "India innovates" and "China copies" are not rounded in reality. Its more complicated then that.

[Type59]

Yes, thanks.



This is wrong. Do you understand the concept of force projection and what it implies? It implies being able to handle deployments far away from your own territory. Aircraft carriers are in large part a tool of force projection. Even light carriers like what India is getting still provide limited strike, and organic air defense capabilities. China has nothing of the sort.



That has no direct relationship to force projection capabilities.

Why field a carrier when you lack assets to defend it? China has done the right thing in developing, deploying and improving surface and submarine assets before committing to a carrier which can be a liability if not protected properly..

[aaaditya]

Why field a carrier when you lack assets to defend it? China has done the right thing in developing, deploying and improving surface and submarine assets before committing to a carrier which can be a liability if not protected properly..

what makes you think that india does not have the assets to defend its carriers?

india's biggest advantage is that unlike the chinese indians have operational experience with aircraft carriers having used them in the 1971 war with pakistan,also the joint interactions with us and european navies have helped the indian navy refine its techniques of carrier operations .

also force projection capability even without an aircraft carrier have been suitably demonstrated by india during the operation cactus,the current action against the somali pirates,the asian tsunami etc.

india has several decades of experience of carrier operations as compared to china,and that is its biggest advantage,while china has had to strat from scratch and will take it atleast a decade after its new carrier is built to become operationally proefficient with it,all india needs to do is replace its aged carriers and update its opeartional tactics.

india currently has a massive naval force expansion programme which envisages a force of atleast 3 carriers,the first of which is already under construction,the second has been sanctioned and the third or the gorshkov is unergoing a major rebuild.

[Type59]

what makes you think that india does not have the assets to defend its carriers?

india's biggest advantage is that unlike the chinese indians have operational experience with aircraft carriers having used them in the 1971 war with pakistan,also the joint interactions with us and european navies have helped the indian navy refine its techniques of carrier operations .

also force projection capability even without an aircraft carrier have been suitably demonstrated by india during the operation cactus,the current action against the somali pirates,the asian tsunami etc.

india has several decades of experience of carrier operations as compared to china,and that is its biggest advantage,while china has had to strat from scratch and will take it atleast a decade after its new carrier is built to become operationally proefficient with it,all india needs to do is replace its aged carriers and update its opeartional tactics.

india currently has a massive naval force expansion programme which envisages a force of atleast 3 carriers,the first of which is already under construction,the second has been sanctioned and the third or the gorshkov is unergoing a major rebuild.

I was talking inregards to China because a carrier can become a liability if not properly defended against air and sea threats like submarines. I am not gonna speculate on the defensive screen around India's only carrier because I know you will retort back and say "Indian carrier defence's are very capable". I am aware of Indian naval plans but failed to see any new advancements in ship capabilities, that surpass current design. Maybe it is ok when confronting Pakistan but nations with a modern defence industry forget it.

[Feanor]

China has undoubtedly done the right thing by developing a capable brown water navy, before trying to become a blue water navy. You have to learn how to walk before you can compete in the Olympics. However as to the usefullness of India carriers, I think you need to first off tell us who you are comparing them to? The USA? Ok. Your point is valid. To Russia? I wouldn't say that the Kuznetsov is all that superior to the Gorshkov. And the MiG-29K is certainly notably ahead of the Su-33. India is also preparing 3 carriers, out of which 2 are nearing completion. Russia so far has yet to lay down one.

Not to mention that India's likely opponents don't includ major maritime powers like the US, or Britain.

[funtz]

Russia, India and China will be building aircraft carriers for their navies almost simultaneously over the next five years or so, using many of the same design concepts, technologies and equipment. This is unprecedented in the history of shipbuilding.

The three countries currently are enjoying healthy political relations, smoothing the way for Russia's continued military cooperation with both China and India with regard to aircraft carrier technologies.

The news that China is about to start building its aircraft carrier is no secret in either Russia or Ukraine. Multiple authoritative sources from the Russian shipbuilding industry have confirmed in recent interviews with the author that China has candidly informed Russia of its intentions. After all, the technology and subsystems for China's aircraft carrier are largely from Russia.

As reported previously, systems such as arresting equipment for aircraft landings have been imported from Russia. A Russian shipbuilding industry source also has confirmed that China's first aircraft carrier will use the Russian ski-jump deck.

"This is a Russian invention, but it has been accepted by both India and China," said the source.

India launched its aircraft carrier construction project about one year ago. It also incorporates the Russian ski-jump deck design for aircraft takeoffs and uses steel plates imported from Russia. It will also use Russian MiG-29K shipborne fighters.

At the same time, Russia has an ambitious plan to build new aircraft carriers for its own navy. The commander in chief of the Russian navy, Adm. Vladimir Masorin (http://www.upi.com/topic/Vladimir_Masorin/), declared in 2007 that the navy would need at least three aircraft carriers before 2020 and that Russia would build nuclear-powered carriers.

The design of the new aircraft carriers is currently under way at the Russian Nevskoye Design Bureau. The designs for this project are expected to be completed by 2010 and the first carrier should be finished around 2016-2017 -- a date that coincides with China's plan to build its first aircraft carrier.

The chief designer at this facility told UPI in an interview that China had not asked for assistance in designing its aircraft carrier, however.
Russia's aircraft carrier construction program is not yet officially listed in the 2005-2015 national defense equipment development agenda. Moreover, the issue of using a nuclear-powered propulsion system is controversial within the Russian navy. It seems no final decision has been made as to what propulsion system will be fitted on the new carriers.

Despite similar timeframes and shared technologies, there are several major differences between the aircraft carrier construction plans of Russia and China.

First, the Russian navy has had 35 years of experience with aircraft carriers, including the technologies and experience of building the Ulyanovsk-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier -- even though this project was never completed, having been abandoned at the end of the Cold War. The Chinese navy has no such experience.

Second, Russia has a full toolbox of production technologies, while the People's Liberation Army navy has to search around to acquire these technologies. Third, and most important, the Russian navy fleets have practical experience with aircraft carriers, while the PLA navy has had to start from zero -- including the building of large surface warships and strategic nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.

http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2008/12/16/Russia_helps_China_build_new_aircraft_carrier/UPI-79441229476975/


The Indian Aircraft Carrier project seems to be different than the Russian (?) and Chinese ones, its based on different experience of operating light carriers in the past and using them in hostile situations, and a decision that has come about after decades of discussion/thought.


By 1987, the Indian Navy had persuaded the Government to approve the commissioning of a concept study by Direction des Construction Navale (DCN), France, of a sea control ship of about 25,000 tons, capable of operating aircraft in the 15-ton category. The DCN report, received in 1989, covered two options:
one of a conventional (catapult equipped) ship and the other of a ski-jump carrier,
to be constructed at the Ministry of Shipping-owned Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

The report unfortunately came in at a time of financial stringency and had to be shelved reluctantly by the Indian Navy.

The Indigenous Aircraft Carrier
The project received financial approval of the Government of India in January 2003, and first steel was ceremonially cut in Cochin Shipyard Ltd on 11 April 2005, when the ADS was re-designated as the ‘IAC’ or indigenous aircraft carrier.
Consultancy for propulsion system integration will come from M/S
Fincantieri of Italy (now in the final stages of completing the Italian carrier
Count Cavour) and, for the aviation complex, from M/S Nevskoie Design
Bureau of Russia.

As a practising adherent of ship-borne aviation for the past 45 years, the
Indian Navy aims to fulfil its long-term operational commitments in the IOR by deploying two carrier task forces at sea, while a third ship is under maintenance or refit. This would be the embodiment of a concept mooted in our plans as far back as 1948.

Source: http://www.************************/?p=260

The design/construction involve firms from India, Italy (cavour) and Russia (aviation element).


I was talking inregards to China because a carrier can become a liability if not properly defended against air and sea threats like submarines.
I am aware of Indian naval plans but failed to see any new advancements in ship capabilities, that surpass current design. Maybe it is ok when confronting Pakistan but nations with a modern defence industry forget it.

A carrier is a liability just like any other ship, and faces the same threats that these ships face, however what is important is what capability this ship brings in to a navy, back in the 80s (Falklands war) RNs harrier carriers (even though smaller than USN giants) gave the RN a capability that was worth the investment.
Another example would be INs role on the eastern front in 71, a light carrier was able to preform a significant role in that conflict that justified the investment.
In the IOR the planned aircraft carriers brings a very important element into the navy, along with other planned projects (ships/submarines).

What is the Chinese approach towards naval aviation?
What role would the PLA-N see for the carrier force?

[kay_man]

The Indian Aircraft Carrier project seems to be different than the Russian (?) and Chinese ones, its based on different experience of operating light carriers in the past and using them in hostile situations, and a decision that has come about after decades of discussion/thought.


Source: http://www.************************/?p=260

The design/construction involve firms from India, Italy (cavour) and Russia (aviation element).


A carrier is a liability just like any other ship, and faces the same threats that these ships face, however what is important is what capability this ship brings in to a navy, back in the 80s (Falklands war) RNs harrier carriers (even though smaller than USN giants) gave the RN a capability that was worth the investment.
Another example would be INs role on the eastern front in 71, a light carrier was able to preform a significant role in that conflict that justified the investment.
In the IOR the planned aircraft carriers brings a very important element into the navy, along with other planned projects (ships/submarines).

What is the Chinese approach towards naval aviation?
What role would the PLA-N see for the carrier force?

Id say it the role will be similar to that of Indian navy carriers.
to provide air defence for capital ships and for light costal bombardment.
if in case the chinese use the carriers it will probaby be in the same manner in which the INS virat exploited east pakistan in 1971...........that is to attack from an unexpected direction.

[Blitzo]

Well, you see it's more of a matter of national prestige than anything else. China is on it's way to become a superpower (this may be disputed), and feels that any great power or regional power must have an aircraft carrier. As well as the fact that China is the only country in the UN security council which doesn't have one, which is almost embarrasing.
As for roles of a potential aircraft carrier; they will most probably be similar to the US Navy roles, though probably more limited, depending on what type of carrier china acquires.

[Blitzo]

China has undoubtedly done the right thing by developing a capable brown water navy, before trying to become a blue water navy. You have to learn how to walk before you can compete in the Olympics. However as to the usefullness of India carriers, I think you need to first off tell us who you are comparing them to? The USA? Ok. Your point is valid. To Russia? I wouldn't say that the Kuznetsov is all that superior to the Gorshkov. And the MiG-29K is certainly notably ahead of the Su-33. India is also preparing 3 carriers, out of which 2 are nearing completion. Russia so far has yet to lay down one.

Not to mention that India's likely opponents don't includ major maritime powers like the US, or Britain.
The Mig-29K can't simply be said to be better than the Su-33, their land based counterparts are very similar, both being designed for air superiority. But out of the two, I'd probably place my money on the Su-33.

[Blitzo]

Most people assume that China would want an aircraft carrier to counter other aircraft carriers, which is probably unlikely. China would more likely use anti ship cruise missiles or anti ship ballistic missiles. And as for India planning 3 aircraft carriers.... well good for them, all are probably similar to the redone admiral gorshkov, which is a light carrier.
I've read a few good analysis's on china's carrier ambitions, and most say that china will first build a carrier similar to the varyag, in terms of propulsion and ski jump, though the aircraft load may be larger because china is not expected to put multiple SAM's or anti ship missiles on their carrier, following the US navy carrier designs. The next stage would be to build a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, with steam catapults. of course this would be far far away, but is currently under development, as the 081 project (i think it was at least, i could be wrong).
People may say china simply doesn't have the experience, technolgoy etc to build an aircraft carrier, which is half true. China has acquired quite a few retired aircraft carriers to study before, and has done intensive study in other areas of aircraft carriers such as steam catapults.
Just a few weeks ago, a PLA general said that if china acquired an aircraft carrier, it wouldn't use it for power projection, probably untrue, but it proves that the chinese military is prepping itself for a carrier.
It is inevitable that currently, at least china seems to be on the verge of building it's first carrier. probably starting in the early to medium stages of the next decade.

[funtz]

Well, you see it's more of a matter of national prestige than anything else. China is on it's way to become a superpower (this may be disputed), and feels that any great power or regional power must have an aircraft carrier. As well as the fact that China is the only country in the UN security council which doesn't have one, which is almost embarrasing.

As for roles of a potential aircraft carrier; they will most probably be similar to the US Navy roles, though probably more limited, depending on what type of carrier china acquires.

The Mig-29K can't simply be said to be better than the Su-33, their land based counterparts are very similar, both being designed for air superiority. But out of the two, I'd probably place my money on the Su-33.


In case of a national prestige issue, more serious steps towards making the "floating casino" would have been expected, would have yielded something big to show around.

A Su-33 upgraded to similar levels as the Mig-29K will indeed preform better than the Mig-29K, more load, more fuel, bigger radar.

[Blitzo]

In case of a national prestige issue, more serious steps towards making the "floating casino" would have been expected, would have yielded something big to show around.

A Su-33 upgraded to similar levels as the Mig-29K will indeed preform better than the Mig-29K, more load, more fuel, bigger radar.
Well we all know China hasn't started building an aircraft carrier obviously, but officials have said they have "mastered the technologies of aircraft carriers", obviously it depends how much technology has been "mastered", but it shows that China is defeintly planning to build them.

As for the Su-33, and Mig-29K.. the Su-33's thrust/payload/range is all superior or comparable to the Mig-29K : 74.5 kN (from each engine, none afterburning)/6500kg/3000km compared to the Mig's 81.4 kN (each engine, none afterburning)/3500kg/300km range. Wikipedia is my source. so in conclusion, i think that the Su-33 is better than the Mig-29K

[yasin_khan]

Yes, thanks.



This is wrong. Do you understand the concept of force projection and what it implies? It implies being able to handle deployments far away from your own territory. Aircraft carriers are in large part a tool of force projection. Even light carriers like what India is getting still provide limited strike, and organic air defense capabilities. China has nothing of the sort.


In WW2 germans didnt have aircraft carriers but they showed great power projection.

[Feanor]

Well, you see it's more of a matter of national prestige than anything else. China is on it's way to become a superpower (this may be disputed), and feels that any great power or regional power must have an aircraft carrier. As well as the fact that China is the only country in the UN security council which doesn't have one, which is almost embarrasing.
As for roles of a potential aircraft carrier; they will most probably be similar to the US Navy roles, though probably more limited, depending on what type of carrier china acquires.

Rubbish. The reasons for the Chinese carrier program have to do with turning the PLAN into a blue-water navy. The political prestige considerations are secondary, possibly even tertiary. Geopolitical and military needs are far more urgent.

As for the Su-33, and Mig-29K.. the Su-33's thrust/payload/range is all superior or comparable to the Mig-29K : 74.5 kN (from each engine, none afterburning)/6500kg/3000km compared to the Mig's 81.4 kN (each engine, none afterburning)/3500kg/300km range. Wikipedia is my source. so in conclusion, i think that the Su-33 is better than the Mig-29K

There are far more important figures then thrust and payload. For example digital avionics, radar, sensor suites. The MiG-29K is a far more modern fighter in that sense. Morever their land based counterparts are very very different (at least initially). The Su-27S is an air superiority plane. The MiG-29S is a point-air defense plane.

In WW2 germans didnt have aircraft carriers but they showed great power projection.

They were ultimately unable to project power even as close as the British Isles. Their African campaign is rather impressive, but the scale of it was miniature compared to the Eastern Front, or even to the operations against France in 1940.

[nevidimka]

Engine thrusts are not a measure of how good an aircraft is. You should learn more about fighters.

Btw, this is an artist impression of the Indian indegenous Carrier project being built in Kochi. These images were taken from the Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

[yasin_khan]

Engine thrusts are not a measure of how good an aircraft is. You should learn more about fighters.

Btw, this is an artist impression of the Indian indegenous Carrier project being built in Kochi. These images were taken from the Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

These are artistic images.There are no real pictures.

[yasin_khan]

There are far more important figures then thrust and payload. For example digital avionics, radar, sensor suites. The MiG-29K is a far more modern fighter in that sense. Morever their land based counterparts are very very different (at least initially). The Su-27S is an air superiority plane. The MiG-29S is a point-air defense plane.


Mig-29S is the new one with designation Mig-35

[Blitzo]

Rubbish. The reasons for the Chinese carrier program have to do with turning the PLAN into a blue-water navy. The political prestige considerations are secondary, possibly even tertiary. Geopolitical and military needs are far more urgent.



There are far more important figures then thrust and payload. For example digital avionics, radar, sensor suites. The MiG-29K is a far more modern fighter in that sense. Morever their land based counterparts are very very different (at least initially). The Su-27S is an air superiority plane. The MiG-29S is a point-air defense plane.



They were ultimately unable to project power even as close as the British Isles. Their African campaign is rather impressive, but the scale of it was miniature compared to the Eastern Front, or even to the operations against France in 1940.
Well, you are right about the geopolitical reasons for having a carrier, but being Chinese, I can tell you that me and my fellow chinese feel that an aircraft carrier is one of the last things we need to acquire to challenge the US, perhaps not now, but in the future. So really, it is a matter of national pride, almost.
A possible aircraft carrier will probably be used for protection of shipping lanes, which is crucial to china.

And as for the Mig-29K vs. the Su-33; it is really hard to tell whether the electronics of one is more superior to the other. The most we can do is speculate unless one has actually built the electronics in both aircraft and can tell us. I gave information on thrust, payload, and range because they were the most up front no nonsense stats you can use to compare aircraft. And finally, what do you think would win in an engagement, a point defence aircraft, or an air superiority plane?

[Blitzo]

Yes I know thrust does not determine if one aircraft is better than another, but it, along with range and payload are concrete specs which can be compared to one another. It would be pretty hard to compare the electronics for an aircraft..

[nevidimka]

These are artistic images.There are no real pictures.

Yes they are not real, as I have described in my posts. But the ships will look like that coz these pictures are from the shipyard that is actually building the carriers.

[Feanor]

Mig-29S is the new one with designation Mig-35

No. The MiG-29S is the original MiG-29 serial run for the VVS. The MiG-35 is the MiG-29M2 iirc.

[yasin_khan]

Yes they are not real, as I have described in my posts. But the ships will look like that coz these pictures are from the shipyard that is actually building the carriers.
When they release original pictures then post them.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Well, you are right about the geopolitical reasons for having a carrier, but being Chinese, I can tell you that me and my fellow chinese feel that an aircraft carrier is one of the last things we need to acquire to challenge the US, perhaps not now, but in the future. So really, it is a matter of national pride, almost.
A possible aircraft carrier will probably be used for protection of shipping lanes, which is crucial to china.

Depends on how you are planing to "take on" the US. If its in a nuclear exchange then you guys had better start building nukes. If its a shooting war over Taiwan then clearly a carrier would be useless. But realistically how likely is a real shooting war with the US? Hopefully (for all of us) not very.

If your plan to challenge the US's status as the worlds only superpower then PROC will have to match the global reach and influence of the US if it is to secure access to global markets and resources. If that "cold" confrontation is the objective then a carrier force will be invaluable. Carriers are tools of power projection, and unless they are escort carriers are practically useless for defending sea lanes. If PROC wants to take on US global supremacy then you will need the ability to project soft and hard power across the planet, and only a carrier force will allow you to do that.

And as for the Mig-29K vs. the Su-33; it is really hard to tell whether the electronics of one is more superior to the other. The most we can do is speculate unless one has actually built the electronics in both aircraft and can tell us. I gave information on thrust, payload, and range because they were the most up front no nonsense stats you can use to compare aircraft. And finally, what do you think would win in an engagement, a point defence aircraft, or an air superiority plane?

Well you could probably assume that most of the avionics (HUI, Info management ect) would be comparable. The major differences should be in payload, performance, size of the radar and cost. Clearly an advanced Su-33 would be more capable throughout the spectrum than a MiG-29 derivative. However the shear size of that platform means they are only suited to large carriers, and for a Kiev derivative or the like (aka Admiral Gorshkov) MiG-29K is perfect. After all 16~18 MiG-29K's are better than 10 Su-33's. Additionally the Flanker airframe is much more capable as a striker, the MiG-29K's limited payload capacity would constrain its strike options. So i guess it depends on the size of the carrier and th intended role as to which one is "better". One things for sure they wouldnt have a fly off to see which one would "win".

[Feanor]

Ozzy the MiG-29K of today is far newer then the Su-33. The Su-33's currently in service entered service in the early 90's (92-93), while the MiG-29K are rolling off the assembly line as we speak. The MiG-29K being sold to India today are far closer related to the MiG-35, then to the MiG-29S.

[funtz]

What is the status PLA-N order for Su-33s from Russia?
Thats one way they might be upgraded.
Upgrading the avionics of the plane should not take time(if they happen), the Russian industry has plenty of experience in upgrading the Su-27/30's to modern standards, even the Chinese industry has some experience(with J-11B).

If we talk in current terms the Su-33s will have a tough time in a comparison with the Mig-29Ks, the Mig-29Ks can carry a wider and modern variety of weapons (air to air, air to ground/sea), preform their missions with more efficiency.

Su33: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su33/lth/

Mig-29K: http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm

[Salty Dog]

yeah, this is just another article by Andrei Pinkov trying to link China to Russia somehow. I think at the moment, putting China's program together with Russia is a little too far of a stretch. It doesn't even seem like China is asking Russia for any help.

Whilst there are plenty of worthy discussions going on. Has anyone found what ties there are, if any, of Russia assisting China with their aircraft carrier programs?

[Bang-Bang]

post deleted .................

[Iam]

I think its better to chinese to be keep dreaming of a super power.

I had read in newspapers , that china's Estimated growth in 2009 is near to 8% . And India is up to that . so what you are thinking ???????

And can anyone tellme that when admiral gorshkov ( maybe spell mistake ) Gonna complete ???? 2014-2016 ???? .

We may be steering off the topic here.
Excluding the land mass sizes of both countries. 8% of ~3Trillion (china) compared to that of ~1.2Trillion ( India ) pretty much summarises what there is to the equation.

Few questions that come to mind with the Chinese using legacy russian carrier designs. I tried to search on the net but couldn't find much information on the below.

1) Does any one have any idea what power plant's these Chinese carrier's will use. I suppose it's not going to be those on their SSBN's ?

2) Is there any mention of active air defence hardware, if so which ones ?

3) I guess they have a few underwater assets to escort, which ones are they planning ?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Ozzy the MiG-29K of today is far newer then the Su-33. The Su-33's currently in service entered service in the early 90's (92-93), while the MiG-29K are rolling off the assembly line as we speak. The MiG-29K being sold to India today are far closer related to the MiG-35, then to the MiG-29S.

Mate i understand that the currently deployed Su-33 is a rather privative beast. However I'm sure any possible Chinese sale would come with the stock and standard Su-30 goodies. Probably even a BARS. Remeber i did say "Advanced".

IMHO if the carrier had the size to take a propper squadron, then a modern Su-33 would offer much more capability than a MiG-29K.

[yasin_khan]

No one liners.

[tatra]

When they release original pictures then post them.
Some more 'not real' images from
http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/news/2003/030710_cvn21_contract.html (CV21)
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConMediaFile.32031 (CVF)

[tphuang]

Whilst there are plenty of worthy discussions going on. Has anyone found what ties there are, if any, of Russia assisting China with their aircraft carrier programs?
some of the subsystems like arresting cable. They are definitely going to ask both Ukraine/Russia for help in training. And of course, the first batch of air wing will be Russian made like su-33 and ka-31.
Ozzy the MiG-29K of today is far newer then the Su-33. The Su-33's currently in service entered service in the early 90's (92-93), while the MiG-29K are rolling off the assembly line as we speak. The MiG-29K being sold to India today are far closer related to the MiG-35, then to the MiG-29S.
When su-33 does get pushed out again, it will definitely be to newer standards. Now, they can even eventually be upgraded to su-35 avionics standard, but China would go for that. It's getting 14 su-33s for training purposes and initial carrier operations. Doesn't need to be too amazing. Once the domestic naval flanker gets into service after that, it will be using the same avionics/weapons standard as non-naval J-11s. And when the avionics/weapons used as in the same generation, naval flankers are clearly superior to Mig-29Ks, which will probably be the least capable naval fighter when it joins service (assuming that harriers retire).
What is the status PLA-N order for Su-33s from Russia?
Thats one way they might be upgraded.
Upgrading the avionics of the plane should not take time(if they happen), the Russian industry has plenty of experience in upgrading the Su-27/30's to modern standards, even the Chinese industry has some experience(with J-11B).

If we talk in current terms the Su-33s will have a tough time in a comparison with the Mig-29Ks, the Mig-29Ks can carry a wider and modern variety of weapons (air to air, air to ground/sea), preform their missions with more efficiency.

Su33: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su33/lth/

Mig-29K: http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm
they will obviously not use the original su-33 avionics in the long run. For initial operational experience, they can probably live upgraded su-27 standard. Mind you, China has been upgrading even the Russian flankers it got.

[Feanor]

So the order for 14 Su-33's has been confirmed? DID ran an article on it, but the article was basically a maybe, rather then a definitive confirmation. And it has been confirmed that an upgraded Su-33 will be developed?

[funtz]

Some of the subsystems like arresting cable. They are definitely going to ask both Ukraine/Russia for help in training. And of course, the first batch of air wing will be Russian made like su-33 and ka-31.

how long is the time line here before there are actual Su-33s or Chinese made naval flankers operating off a carrier?


When su-33 does get pushed out again, it will definitely be to newer standards. Now, they can even eventually be upgraded to su-35 avionics standard, but China would go for that.

It's getting 14 su-33s for training purposes and initial carrier operations. Doesn't need to be too amazing. Once the domestic naval flanker gets into service after that, it will be using the same avionics/weapons standard as non-naval J-11s.

And when the avionics/weapons used as in the same generation, naval flankers are clearly superior to Mig-29Ks, which will probably be the least capable naval fighter when it joins service (assuming that harriers retire).

The Naval flankers will be superior to the Naval fulcrums if you utilize them for strike, if they are for the same fleet air defence profile, its a different situation.

With a short take off medium to large sized carrier the strike component will have to be something else (long ranged bombers, submarines, ships) the Soviet/Russian way.

Well lets talk of upgraded naval flankers when we see them, for now they really are from a previous generation.


they will obviously not use the original su-33 avionics in the long run. For initial operational experience, they can probably live upgraded su-27 standard. Mind you, China has been upgrading even the Russian flankers it got.

If the first carrier comes out around 2015-20 from PLA-Ns the aircraft carrier program operational, PLA-N should go with options available in the market and then to a advanced fifth generation program, with options like F-35B/C becoming operational they might put the flankers and fulcrums in the irrelevant category in some scenarios. (the ones where they face each other).

[Feanor]

The fulcrum flankers comparison was in comparing the Indian Navy carrier, and the Russian Navy. I wasn't commenting on a potential Chinese Su-33 variant.

[kay_man]

The fulcrum flankers comparison was in comparing the Indian Navy carrier, and the Russian Navy. I wasn't commenting on a potential Chinese Su-33 variant.

The Chinese were also developing naval variant of the the J-10 if im not wrong. Has tht been scrapped?

[tphuang]

So the order for 14 Su-33's has been confirmed? DID ran an article on it, but the article was basically a maybe, rather then a definitive confirmation. And it has been confirmed that an upgraded Su-33 will be developed?
it's not confirmed, but that's likely what's going to happen. The domestic program needs some time before they can be trusted. They are already experienced at putting N-001VE radar + R-77 upgrade on su-27sk, so I'd imagine any su-33 they buy would be at least that level. And later they would get upgraded to be able to fire anti-ship missiles at least
The Chinese were also developing naval variant of the the J-10 if im not wrong. Has tht been scrapped?
that never left the drawing board.
how long is the time line here before there are actual Su-33s or Chinese made naval flankers operating off a carrier?


The Naval flankers will be superior to the Naval fulcrums if you utilize them for strike, if they are for the same fleet air defence profile, its a different situation.

flanker should be superior in both sense, but they can be used in so many more roles, could be used for a EW variant or buddy-to-buddy refueler or a mini-AWACS (pardon the incorrect terminology). They can do longer range strike missions, carry more missiles.

With a short take off medium to large sized carrier the strike component will have to be something else (long ranged bombers, submarines, ships) the Soviet/Russian way.

Well lets talk of upgraded naval flankers when we see them, for now they really are from a previous generation.


If the first carrier comes out around 2015-20 from PLA-Ns the aircraft carrier program operational, PLA-N should go with options available in the market and then to a advanced fifth generation program, with options like F-35B/C becoming operational they might put the flankers and fulcrums in the irrelevant category in some scenarios. (the ones where they face each other).
there is a military embargo still in place. They will probably use some naval flanker for a while and then have a stealth naval fighter afterward. But the naval flanker will remain part of the fleet for a while. After all, super hornets are not all going to be retired when F-35 join service.

[roberto]

If the first carrier comes out around 2015-20 from PLA-Ns the aircraft carrier program operational, PLA-N should go with options available in the market and then to a advanced fifth generation program, with options like F-35B/C becoming operational they might put the flankers and fulcrums in the irrelevant category in some scenarios. (the ones where they face each other).
2015-2020 is too far into the future. we dont know if Stealth will be even relvent. considering the advances in EW/Radar/Software/communication/space capabilities. Stealth aircraft are expensive to upgrade and modify for newer weopons.
Su-33 class fighter will still give PLAN ability to fire hypersonic antiship/Antiradiation weopons at long standoff ranges. with ability to carry external jammers.
and u still cant put bunkerbusting bombs inside a small stealth fighter which are essential against underground hardened or mountainous structures.

[Feanor]

VLO will always be relevant. The question is whether VLO will be largely still RCS dependent, or whether new factors affecting detection, tracking, and targetting will appear (for example more powerful OLS systems).

[roberto]

The difference between 15sqm and 1 sqm is largely irrevlent to current modern radar systems.
Stealth airplane has fixed shape for 40 years. The most it can be done is improving the paint. while detection technolgies. are constantly improving. Wait untill GaNs based AESA module becomes common in next 4 to 5 years. and there after Diamond based. The size of Globe to hide things are constant. but number of satellites and there ability is constantly increasing.

[Feanor]

No. Stealth airplane (as you put it) has not been constant for the last 40 years. When you compare the RCS of an F-117, to an F-22 the difference is phenomenal. Not to mention that once again VLO is more then RCS control. Keep in mind there are active measures for concealing things, like jammers, etc.

[roberto]

F-117 was developed when Semiconductor technlogy was at primitive stage.
The whole COTS revolution for Military started in late 90s.(hence exponential increase in capabilities/lower cost/quicker upgrades)
F-117 already become irrelevant in less than 10 years of service. See Serbia issue with 1960s era defence electronics/optics.
U cannot keep fixed design for 40 years. like F-22/F-35.

[Feanor]

F-117 was developed when Semiconductor technlogy was at primitive stage.
The whole COTS revolution for Military started in late 90s.(hence exponential increase in capabilities/lower cost/quicker upgrades)
F-117 already become irrelevant in less than 10 years of service. See Serbia issue with 1960s era defence electronics/optics.
U cannot keep fixed design for 40 years. like F-22/F-35.

Depends on who your enemies are. Most of the world will be flying 3-4 gen. for another 20 years. The only 5th gen. in the near future are the PAK-FA, F-35, and potentially a Chinese J-XX. I'm not sure if radar will evolve quickly enough to keep up with the RCS reduction techniques, but at this point this doesn't seem to be the case.

[swerve]

F-117 already become irrelevant in less than 10 years of service. See Serbia issue with 1960s era defence electronics/optics.
The shooting down over Serbia did not prove the F-117 was irrelevant. It demonstrated that if you are stupidly over-confident, & rely entirely on the stealthiness of an aircraft, to the extent of following exactly the same route, night after night, you make it possible for your opponents to work out what you are doing & lay a trap for you. Once.

[roberto]

The shooting down over Serbia did not prove the F-117 was irrelevant. It demonstrated that if you are stupidly over-confident, & rely entirely on the stealthiness of an aircraft, to the extent of following exactly the same route, night after night, you make it possible for your opponents to work out what you are doing & lay a trap for you. Once.
F-117 carried limited bombs with limited range. It is not easy to refuel stealth fighter in mid air or external fuel tanks without revealing it to airdefence systems.
Imagine if F-117 was facing 90s era S-300PMU system. Alot more would have shoot. so it is irrelevant.
Stealth fighter has limited ways of going from Point A to Point B and will take far more maintainance not easily deployable to primitive airbases like Gripen or what Taiwanese are doing.





Depends on who your enemies are. Most of the world will be flying 3-4 gen. for another 20 years. The only 5th gen. in the near future are the PAK-FA, F-35, and potentially a Chinese J-XX. I'm not sure if radar will evolve quickly enough to keep up with the RCS reduction techniques, but at this point this doesn't seem to be the case.
Chinese has invested far more in S-300 and its clones than on Flankers. Similar case is with Russia now. It seems they are upto the job of staying current with Stealth technology. JSF/PAK-FA/J-XX are alteast 10 years away from operational deployment even in limited numbers. by that time goal posts would have moved far beyond than fixed shape aircraft. THe money invested in stealth aircraft is better invested in more standoff weopons/electronics.

[gf0012-aust]

F-117 carried limited bombs with limited range.


At the time of its employment it was a precision delivery system, they were tasked to kill niche targets. No other platform could do it under the same logistics burden. btw they flew the entire F-117 Wing across the atlantic ocean using mulitple refuelers, into Saudi Arabia and ran their first mission within hours of arrival.

It is not easy to refuel stealth fighter in mid air or external fuel tanks without revealing it to airdefence systems.

and yet prior to entering the delivery corridor they were refueled up to 6 times in complex space. Whats the point of arguing the AD network of 1991 and 1999 against today? Its why the platform has also been replaced.


Imagine if F-117 was facing 90s era S-300PMU system. Alot more would have shoot. so it is irrelevant.

and it's not in the ORBAT as it's no longer survivable in complex contested space in todays threat environment against a sophisticated opponent - so whats your point. We could also say the same about B-17's


Stealth fighter has limited ways of going from Point A to Point B and will take far more maintainance not easily deployable to primitive airbases like Gripen or what Taiwanese are doing.

Nonsense, look at the tac planning that went into the F-117's when they went into Bagdhad - it's not A-B mission planning at all. TAC route planning is far more complex. This was not the Korean War.

Primitive air bases in Taiwan? you do realise that the air bases where the F-s were based in Saudi Arabia were bare bones and did not even have SAM/GBAD in place? The entire F-117 wing was supported by USAF special forces air defence elements - you couldn't get an airbase any more primitive.

Stop making things up to make a point - its getting tiresome.

Just a small note, every manned LO/VLO platform employed by the USAF has used different sig management principles - they have not had the same maint issues between platforms. In fact, using the B as an example, they have now got its sig mgt maint down to 20% of what it was on first deployment. The F-22 maint procedures have also been halved since they first went to Elmendorf. The LO/VLO surface maint required by the F-117 isn't even used anymore. It's redundant tech.


Chinese has invested far more in S-300 and its clones than on Flankers. Similar case is with Russia now. It seems they are upto the job of staying current with Stealth technology. JSF/PAK-FA/J-XX are alteast 10 years away from operational deployment even in limited numbers. by that time goal posts would have moved far beyond than fixed shape aircraft. THe money invested in stealth aircraft is better invested in more standoff weopons/electronics.

I'm sure the chinese will appreciate your insight and wisdom into their future force planning.

[AegisFC]

F-117 carried limited bombs with limited range.

The F-117 had a very specific role, and it did that role very well as long as it was properly supported.

It is not easy to refuel stealth fighter in mid air or external fuel tanks without revealing it to airdefence systems.

You don't do inflight refueling inside the combat zone, at least not while there are any active air defenses.

Stealth fighter has limited ways of going from Point A to Point B and will take far more maintainance not easily deployable to primitive airbases like Gripen or what Taiwanese are doing.

What the heck are you talking about? The F-117's have consistently operated from fairly primitive air bases.

[AegisFC]

Stealth airplane has fixed shape for 40 years.

Yeah, because the Tactic Blue looks just like an F-22 or F-35. :rolleyes:
You really have no clue what you are talking about.

[roberto]

At the time of its employment it was a precision delivery system, they were tasked to kill niche targets. No other platform could do it under the same logistics burden. btw they flew the entire F-117 Wing across the atlantic ocean using mulitple refuelers, into Saudi Arabia and ran their first mission within hours of arrival.
niche targets in serbia. what were that in that needed F-117. It faced countries with no airforces or updated airdefence system. so there was no threat to its refuelling.



and yet prior to entering the delivery corridor they were refueled up to 6 times in complex space. Whats the point of arguing the AD network of 1991 and 1999 against today? Its why the platform has also been replaced.

As i said the losing sides didnot have airforce to intercept targets thousands of kms away. for MIG-31/Su-27 it does not make a difference whether it is Gripen or F-35.


and it's not in the ORBAT as it's no longer survivable in complex contested space in todays threat environment against a sophisticated opponent - so whats your point. We could also say the same about B-17's

I am saying the cost of development of Stealth platforms is huge so they are unlikely to be modified or introduced new platforms for next 40 years. So all this RCS techniques are meaningless. better invest money in standoff weopons whether from bombers or Submarines or fighters with large wing spans.


Nonsense, look at the tac planning that went into the F-117's when they went into Bagdhad - it's not A-B mission planning at all. TAC route planning is far more complex. This was not the Korean War.
yes they went of Baghdad dealing with crippled airdefence system.

Primitive air bases in Taiwan? you do realise that the air bases where the F-s were based in Saudi Arabia were bare bones and did not even have SAM/GBAD in place? The entire F-117 wing was supported by USAF special forces air defence elements - you couldn't get an airbase any more primitive.

No one has tally the cost of logistic transporting and running F-117 show.
lets wait how small countries with limited budget can maintain Stealth fighters let alone putting them on Carriers.

Just a small note, every manned LO/VLO platform employed by the USAF has used different sig management principles - they have not had the same maint issues between platforms. In fact, using the B as an example, they have now got its sig mgt maint down to 20% of what it was on first deployment. The F-22 maint procedures have also been halved since they first went to Elmendorf. The LO/VLO surface maint required by the F-117 isn't even used anymore. It's redundant tech.
Even MIG-29Bison uses different RAM paint than MIG-29K. u can do so much with techniques but basis shapes and its limitation remains the same. so all the money is going into standoff weopons. like Brahmos that can be used by tri-service and response is far rapid.



I'm sure the chinese will appreciate your insight and wisdom into their future force planning.
They have cost effective way of surrendering Taiwan by parking 1000 billistic missiles protected by S-300 ring. The whole planning seems to me to lure aircrafts into SAM trap.

[Feanor]

As i said the losing sides didnot have airforce to intercept targets thousands of kms away. for MIG-31/Su-27 it does not make a difference whether it is Gripen or F-35.


Because the primitive MiG-31 radar will detect the F-35, right? Never mind tracking or targetting data.... it will know the F-35 is there right? >.<

Don't get me wrong. I love the MiG-31. It's my favorite combat aircraft. The heavy, solid looking airframe, the insane speed, the very concept of a long-range interceptor, but we're talking about taking on a fighter that is more then a genenration ahead in sensors, avionics, and emissions control. I'm not sure emissions control, or RCS reductions were even in the requirements for the MiG-31. It didn't need penetration potential, or to remain undetected. It needed to take out enemy bombers at long range, and then pull out of the fight, all over friendly airspace, with GBAD, and ground-based radars to support it, as well as friendly AD fighters. Why you are trying to claim it can stand up to the F-35 is beyond me. In a heavily defended position, (tons of friendly SAMs, redundant radar coverage both ground and airbased of the airspace) the MiG-35, or something else around the 4.5 gen area could potentially compete with a 5th gen VLO platform. And yes then it becomes significant that the area in question is fairly limited, and thoroughly protected. And the VLO may have infinite directions from which it can come, but only one direction in which to go, towards the defended region. But that's not the situation you're describing.

yes they went of Baghdad dealing with crippled airdefence system.

They went in BEFORE the IADS was crippled.

Even MIG-29Bison uses different RAM paint than MIG-29K. u can do so much with techniques but basis shapes and its limitation remains the same. so all the money is going into standoff weopons. like Brahmos that can be used by tri-service and response is far rapid.

I'm assuming you mean the MiG-21bis. As far as I know it does not use any RAM. Do you have a source to the contrary?

[roberto]

Because the primitive MiG-31 radar will detect the F-35, right? Never mind tracking or targetting data.... it will know the F-35 is there right? >.<

Don't get me wrong. I love the MiG-31. It's my favorite combat aircraft. The heavy, solid looking airframe, the insane speed, the very concept of a long-range interceptor, but we're talking about taking on a fighter that is more then a genenration ahead in sensors, avionics, and emissions control. I'm not sure emissions control, or RCS reductions were even in the requirements for the MiG-31. It didn't need penetration potential, or to remain undetected. It needed to take out enemy bombers at long range, and then pull out of the fight, all over friendly airspace, with GBAD, and ground-based radars to support it, as well as friendly AD fighters. Why you are trying to claim it can stand up to the F-35 is beyond me. In a heavily defended position, (tons of friendly SAMs, redundant radar coverage both ground and airbased of the airspace) the MiG-35, or something else around the 4.5 gen area could potentially compete with a 5th gen VLO platform. And yes then it becomes significant that the area in question is fairly limited, and thoroughly protected. And the VLO may have infinite directions from which it can come, but only one direction in which to go, towards the defended region. But that's not the situation you're describing.
MIG-31 is being upgraded to deal with low RCS targets. i have underlined the part. It is not the MIG-31 alone but whole Airdefnce network that is upgraded to track UFO type objects. So i cannot forsee any future for Stealth aircraft just like SUV had limited Run for Automobile Industry.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread293952/pg1
MiG-31 to Get Fifth-Generation Upgrades

Modernized MiG-31 interceptors will be fit to take on fifth-generation aircraft, according to chief commander of the Russian Air Force Alexander Zelin. He said that fifth-generation technology would be used when modernizing the planes, which will increase their military value by 1.5-4 times, depending on the nature of their task.
Modernized MiG-31 models will be able to strike a target at a distance of 200 km. Thanks to new radar and missiles, it will be able to detect and defeat stealth planes and low-altitude cruise missiles at greater distances. The MiG-31 will remain in use as a long-distance radar plane to manage the flights of other types of fighter jets, Zelin added.





They went in BEFORE the IADS was crippled.
you are assuming there was IADS in first place and it wasnt compromised in years and months ahead of time



I'm assuming you mean the MiG-21bis. As far as I know it does not use any RAM. Do you have a source to the contrary?
It is IAF MIG-21Bison. It does carry RAM and so does newer MIG-29K.


Russian Stealth Research Revealed
Russia shows solid progress in a variety of low-observable technologies
by Bill Sweetman
Jan. 1, 2004
In the paper, entitled "Stealth Technology: Fundamental and Applied Problems," Russian stealth researchers claim to have reduced the head-on radar cross-section (RCS) of a Sukhoi (Moscow, Russia) Su-35 fighter by an order of magnitude, halving the range at which hostile radars can detect it. The research group has performed more than 100 hours of testing on a reduced-RCS Su-35. According to other reports, the ITAE has demonstrated similar technology on a MiG-21bis, and it has been offered to India as part of a MiG-21 upgrade package. Similar modifications have been made to Western aircraft (such as the Have Glass package developed for the F-16), but it is not known whether they claim the same level of performance.

Russian investigators certainly have the basic scientific knowledge to apply stealth to aircraft. Some of the basic mathematical and optical theories that underlie stealth originated in Russia (such as Ufimtsev's theory of edge diffraction), and some of the most significant early work on reducing the RCS of military vehicles was carried out by Russian warship designers. The Kirov-class battlecruisers – with a 22° "tumblehome" angle imposed on normally vertical bulkheads, screens, and skirts to shield high-RCS components from radar, along with extensive use of radar-absorbent material (RAM) – were remarkably stealthy despite their size. "If you saw a big wake with nothing in front of it," British marine LO expert Peter Varnish has said, "you knew you'd found the Kirov."
There is also an LO strand in Russian aircraft design. The Tupolev (Moscow, Russia) Tu-160 Blackjack bomber is a reduced-signature design reminiscent of the B-1 Lancer. Sukhoi has designed a series of supersonic bombers with low-profile, highly blended configurations. In early 2000, Russian military leaders considered that a new, stealthy medium bomber would be the next major Russian military aircraft project, to replace the Tu-22M.

[AegisFC]

ome of the basic mathematical and optical theories that underlie stealth originated in Russia (such as Ufimtsev's theory of edge diffraction), and some of the most significant early work on reducing the RCS of military vehicles was carried out by Russian warship designers. The Kirov-class battlecruisers – with a 22° "tumblehome" angle imposed on normally vertical bulkheads, screens, and skirts to shield high-RCS components from radar, along with extensive use of radar-absorbent material (RAM) – were remarkably stealthy despite their size. "If you saw a big wake with nothing in front of it," British marine LO expert Peter Varnish has said, "you knew you'd found the Kirov."

Apparently you believe anything you read. That article is dead wrong.
The Kirov's do NOT have a tumblehome hull design, go look up the definition of tumblehome then go look at some pictures of a Kirov.:rolleyes:
There is absolutely no stealth features on Kirov, no significant use of angled bulkheads or clean deck features of a true low-RCS ship.

[funtz]

flanker should be superior in both sense, but they can be used in so many more roles, could be used for a EW variant or buddy-to-buddy refueler or a mini-AWACS (pardon the incorrect terminology). They can do longer range strike missions, carry more missiles.

The big plane is not easy on fuel, and will have drastically reduced range and payload than the land based version, they will never be able to carry enough bombs to be even relevant to long ranged air to ground missions, that is clear from the way Russian Navy operates them, flankers for air defence, submarines and bombers for attack.

As far as Fleet air defence role is concerned the radius of operation should not all that big, and the A-A missile load/EW pod should not be all that intensive on the fulcrum.

the radar on board the flankers will be huge, that is a big advantage, other than that the fulcrums will have to prove how effective they are in sea based operations.

I wonder how much space the Su-27/30 series has got left, have you seen a EW version in service with RuAF or PLA-AF, that would be very interesting.

I think buddy to buddy refueling can be done both to increase range, and both will have a data link connecting the planes so that they can share information.

Many things are required to be filled in, area of operation, EW equipment, AEW/AWAC/ELINT coverage, for example a fulcrum serving in the IN in the IOR will have the advantage of being backed up with long ranged electronic intelligence and surveillance aircrafts (P-8Is, A-50Is etc), however if they move out too far they will be essentially without this component.


there is a military embargo still in place. They will probably use some naval flanker for a while and then have a stealth naval fighter afterward. But the naval flanker will remain part of the fleet for a while. After all, super hornets are not all going to be retired when F-35 join service.

But the super hornet is thrown off a cat. it can serve its purpose as a strike aircraft. Unless the PLA-N program includes a catapult take off system in which case a airframe strengthened for arrested recovery should be an advantage.

I think with the resources that PRC has (in terms of manpower and money) they should start a parallel project with the fifth generation program for a naval variant, it makes the most sense.

[gf0012-aust]

niche targets in serbia. what were that in that needed F-117. It faced countries with no airforces or updated airdefence system. so there was no threat to its refuelling.

perhaps you need to look at the target and TAC profiles of the F-117 as opposed to the F-15's F-16's and Mirages. What is it that you don't understand specifically about TAC planning. it is getting tedious having chatter with someone who always drags in technical non sequitors as soon as they are shown to be systems knowledge poor.


As i said the losing sides didnot have airforce to intercept targets thousands of kms away. for MIG-31/Su-27 it does not make a difference whether it is Gripen or F-35.

and so by rote you are now saying that the Mig31 owned by Russia is on Swedens threat matrix. Thanks, I refer you to all the swedish and scandinavian posters who have been discussing this threat matrix in other threads.

btw, you do understand that warfighting is about visiting the most violence on the enemy at a time of your choosing. Remind me about any war in 5000 years of history where the parties waited for parity before commencing.

make the effort to be sincere. you are trolling - and its not just my view as a Mod

I am saying the cost of development of Stealth platforms is huge so they are unlikely to be modified or introduced new platforms for next 40 years. So all this RCS techniques are meaningless. better invest money in standoff weopons whether from bombers or Submarines or fighters with large wing spans.

ah yes, and thats why every manned and unmanned LO/VLO platform designed since 1959 has been technologicaly different in signal management concepts as well as shape management.

You are without doubt clueless by your persistence in trotting out such stuff as even resembling fact

yes they went of Baghdad dealing with crippled airdefence system.

No, bagdhad was crippled before non LO/VLO assets were deployed. How about reading up on the war before stating such nonsense. Welcome to combined and black arms. Everyone else read about it and learned post 1991. The russians and chinese deliberately changed and developed their own RMA accordingly. I guess they might be on to something....

No one has tally the cost of logistic transporting and running F-117 show.

doh! Saudi Arabia gave the US a bare bones base. ie they US deployed air supportable systems along with the Wing. (all in under a week) France, Israel, UK, Russia, China and a few others can do the same to relative scale.

lets wait how small countries with limited budget can maintain Stealth fighters let alone putting them on Carriers.

whats this got to do with anything? The next mass delivered LO platform is the JSF. Ever looked at the populations of all the partners? The JSF is a lower sig manager than all the partners current fixed wing combat element platforms.

Even MIG-29Bison uses different RAM paint than MIG-29K. u can do so much with techniques but basis shapes and its limitation remains the same.

Excellent. Please provide a source on this. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that RAM coatings are not applied to the entire aircraft - so can you please provide pics of the Mig29 and Mig21 RAM coatings as I've seen both platforms up close and don't recall seeing any.

Perhaps its worth your while to do some research on RAM coatings at the same time.


so all the money is going into standoff weopons. like Brahmos that can be used by tri-service and response is far rapid.

China is going to use Brahmos? Thats a first, I'm sure the Indians will be happy about that.

BTW, the Russians don't need Brahmos. Again, the history of that project was to ensure that the russians didn't breach MTCR - they don't have a range limitation requirement on their own missiles - Brahmos is a nugatory requirement for them.



They have cost effective way of surrendering Taiwan by parking 1000 billistic missiles protected by S-300 ring. The whole planning seems to me to lure aircrafts into SAM trap.


Gee, the Taiwanese won't have worked that out.


BTW. This is your last warning. Your style of engagement and the way that you trot out unrelated arguments has worn thin. The Mods agree that you're on your last chance. Change your approach or you'll be short lived.

[tphuang]

The big plane is not easy on fuel, and will have drastically reduced range and payload than the land based version, they will never be able to carry enough bombs to be even relevant to long ranged air to ground missions, that is clear from the way Russian Navy operates them, flankers for air defence, submarines and bombers for attack.

they operate only self defense versions, because they developed them when su-27 just came out and they were only capable of A2A missions. Their reduced range/payload was due more to ski jump and its limitations.

As far as Fleet air defence role is concerned the radius of operation should not all that big, and the A-A missile load/EW pod should not be all that intensive on the fulcrum.

the radar on board the flankers will be huge, that is a big advantage, other than that the fulcrums will have to prove how effective they are in sea based operations.

generally, flankers should be better in A2A combat, AShM, SEA missions and such

I wonder how much space the Su-27/30 series has got left, have you seen a EW version in service with RuAF or PLA-AF, that would be very interesting.

I think buddy to buddy refueling can be done both to increase range, and both will have a data link connecting the planes so that they can share information.

Many things are required to be filled in, area of operation, EW equipment, AEW/AWAC/ELINT coverage, for example a fulcrum serving in the IN in the IOR will have the advantage of being backed up with long ranged electronic intelligence and surveillance aircrafts (P-8Is, A-50Is etc), however if they move out too far they will be essentially without this component.

Having seen what they did to JH-7A in PLAAF, it's quite clear to me that an EW version of J-11 is in the works. flankers would be a lot more affective in buddy to buddy refueling due to its much larger fuel tank. And also, they can theoretically carry far more equipment for surveillance/C&C mission. Again, these are theoretic capabilities for flankers, Mig-29s simply can't do them.

But the super hornet is thrown off a cat. it can serve its purpose as a strike aircraft. Unless the PLA-N program includes a catapult take off system in which case a airframe strengthened for arrested recovery should be an advantage.

I think with the resources that PRC has (in terms of manpower and money) they should start a parallel project with the fifth generation program for a naval variant, it makes the most sense.
they are going to put a catapult on there. PLA is going for both naval flanker and a 5th gen variant.

[roberto]

perhaps you need to look at the target and TAC profiles of the F-117 as opposed to the F-15's F-16's and Mirages. What is it that you don't understand specifically about TAC planning. it is getting tedious having chatter with someone who always drags in technical non sequitors as soon as they are shown to be systems knowledge poor.

what difference does it make? considering the opposing forces.



and so by rote you are now saying that the Mig31 owned by Russia is on Swedens threat matrix. Thanks, I refer you to all the swedish and scandinavian posters who have been discussing this threat matrix in other threads.

btw, you do understand that warfighting is about visiting the most violence on the enemy at a time of your choosing. Remind me about any war in 5000 years of history where the parties waited for parity before commencing.

make the effort to be sincere. you are trolling - and its not just my view as a Mod
Time of chosing entirely depends on making standoff weopons and platforms that are independent of foreign bases and have speed to execute time sensitive targets.



ah yes, and thats why every manned and unmanned LO/VLO platform designed since 1959 has been technologicaly different in signal management concepts as well as shape management.

You are without doubt clueless by your persistence in trotting out such stuff as even resembling fact
We are no longer in 1950s. Cost of developing new platforms is such that F-35/PAK-FA/J-XX would be the last high performance platforms that can be deployed in certain quantities. You cannot compete against COTS industry of the World.



No, bagdhad was crippled before non LO/VLO assets were deployed. How about reading up on the war before stating such nonsense. Welcome to combined and black arms. Everyone else read about it and learned post 1991. The russians and chinese deliberately changed and developed their own RMA accordingly. I guess they might be on to something....
Baghad IADS was not indigenous. It was compromised way before the War. You dont need to start war to consider other airdefence as crippled. Iran case is different as they have managed to integrate themselves.



doh! Saudi Arabia gave the US a bare bones base. ie they US deployed air supportable systems along with the Wing. (all in under a week) France, Israel, UK, Russia, China and a few others can do the same to relative scale.

Russia deployed Blackjack in Venzuella in less than week of preparation with 100 men. It is not big deal to deploy stuff once you airlift entire support infrastrucutre.


whats this got to do with anything? The next mass delivered LO platform is the JSF. Ever looked at the populations of all the partners? The JSF is a lower sig manager than all the partners current fixed wing combat element platforms.
thats your assumptions. JSF is good platforms but not good enough for time period of introductions and money involved. Gripen is available and cheaper.



Excellent. Please provide a source on this. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that RAM coatings are not applied to the entire aircraft - so can you please provide pics of the Mig29 and Mig21 RAM coatings as I've seen both platforms up close and don't recall seeing any.

Perhaps its worth your while to do some research on RAM coatings at the same time.
you will not see them as they arent on export or airshow aircraft.




China is going to use Brahmos? Thats a first, I'm sure the Indians will be happy about that.
China will either develop itself or license from Russia just like YJ-91. No doubt they are going in this direction. The recently signed ITAR agreement with Russia.

BTW, the Russians don't need Brahmos. Again, the history of that project was to ensure that the russians didn't breach MTCR - they don't have a range limitation requirement on their own missiles - Brahmos is a nugatory requirement for them.
The problem is you start to believe Russian/India public statements. otherwise there wouldnt be Crynogenic engines in India or India Sub crew trained in Russia or exclusive rights to Glosnos Military signals.
Brahmos actual range is likely to classified. if Club (Iskander-M) ranged can be increased beyond 500km. how far will be Brahmos?

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/4-2008/item1/article1/
In November of 2007, the Commander of the Missile Troops and Artillery of the Russian Ground Forces, Colonel General Vladimir Zaritsky said that «at present the Iskander-M missile system fully complies with the conditions of the INF Treaty, but if a political decision were made to withdraw from the Treaty, we would increase the fighting capabilities of the system, including its range.»







Gee, the Taiwanese won't have worked that out.
[quote]
Even if they Taiwanese Know about what is awaiting for them. They can do nothing about it. It is capitalism baby. China has much more money and market and rest of the world is only interested in China.

BTW. This is your last warning. Your style of engagement and the way that you trot out unrelated arguments has worn thin. The Mods agree that you're on your last chance. Change your approach or you'll be short lived.

In this form every one is Mod and if some one does not conform to preconcieve notion it is consider trolling. At end only mods will be debating among themselves.

Having ignored repeated Moderator Warnings regarding the style and substance of ones posts, and then choosing to talkback following a Final Warning has resulted in a three month Banning. If you should return after that is over, make factual and on-topic posts. Your next Banning will be Permanent.
-Preceptor

[gf0012-aust]

what difference does it make? considering the opposing forces.

Are you serious? Of course it makes a difference. Warfare is about mass, timing persistence, projection, political management and manouvre. The countries that pick and choose the prosecution of warfare at their own choosing have an advantage.

Time of chosing entirely depends on making standoff weopons and platforms that are independent of foreign bases and have speed to execute time sensitive targets.

and in relation to this thread russia helping china build an aircraft carrier means what? Have a look at the status of the russian ship building industry - have a look at how long it takes to work up a carrier, work up a fleet and begin blue water training at fleet level. So whats your temporal point??

We are no longer in 1950s. Cost of developing new platforms is such that F-35/PAK-FA/J-XX would be the last high performance platforms that can be deployed in certain quantities. You cannot compete against COTS industry of the World.

COTS has been in military platforms since I was employed as a consultant in 1999. COTS is not the panacea for all ills - its relative to the system.

Baghad IADS was not indigenous. It was compromised way before the War. You dont need to start war to consider other airdefence as crippled. Iran case is different as they have managed to integrate themselves.

and this has what to do with Russia and China and the aircraft carrier?


Russia deployed Blackjack in Venzuella in less than week of preparation with 100 men. It is not big deal to deploy stuff once you airlift entire support infrastrucutre.

Oh, so now its not a big deal? What countries deploy intercontinental warfighting half assed? What is your point? The country that made the art of logistics stand out in 1861 has got nothing to do with a chinese aircraft carrier. It doesn't effect russian involvement either. The issue of logistics is a chinese issue for this thread.

thats your assumptions. JSF is good platforms but not good enough for time period of introductions and money involved. Gripen is available and cheaper.

oh for goodnes sake - the procurement teams who also include their own warfighters are the ones who made the decision - not you or me - and quite frankly they're a whole lot more involved that either you or I or any other internet jockey.

platforms are relative to requirements.

you will not see them as they arent on export or airshow aircraft.

so what? who cares? we're talking about export assets - eg an aircraft carrier - and AFAIK the Gripen isn't going on any chinese aircraft carrier

China will either develop itself or license from Russia just like YJ-91. No doubt they are going in this direction. The recently signed ITAR agreement with Russia.

meh? ITARs is a US Congressional restriction, when did Russia and China get involved with the US Congress and the US State Dept

The problem is you start to believe Russian/India public statements. otherwise there wouldnt be Crynogenic engines in India or India Sub crew trained in Russia or exclusive rights to Glosnos Military signals.
Brahmos actual range is likely to classified. if Club (Iskander-M) ranged can be increased beyond 500km. how far will be Brahmos?

this is really tiresome. a history of why the Brahmos was chosen and the MTCR implications has been clearly spelled out.

and for goodness sake - its GLONASS

In this form every one is Mod and if some one does not conform to preconcieve notion it is consider trolling. At end only mods will be debating among themselves.

It's not a matter of conforming - its a matter of getting rid of trolls. There are any number of conversations happening in here where Mods have opposing views - the issue is the quality of debate. We don't expect people to be SME's (as even those with the approp experience are always learning) - but we do expect reasonable behaviour.

If you don't like it leave. Better still, take a fortnight off and think about it yourself.

Edit. I Note that another Mod has made it 3 months - so take some time to think about why so many of us (and members) have issues with your style of engagement

You can think about the quality of your responses such as: building the plane to carry AWACS capability is more important than the development of the sensor suite - and your recent comments about Kirov being stealth. I suggest you look at a Lafayette, or something Swedish at the green water level before even remotely thinking that Kirov is ELV.

[funtz]

generally, flankers should be better in A2A combat, AShM, SEA missions and such

Having seen what they did to JH-7A in PLAAF, it's quite clear to me that an EW version of J-11 is in the works. flankers would be a lot more affective in buddy to buddy refueling due to its much larger fuel tank. And also, they can theoretically carry far more equipment for surveillance/C&C mission. Again, these are theoretic capabilities for flankers, Mig-29s simply can't do them.

The flanker and the fulcrum are two different airframes, the fulcrum will be used for fleet air defence in the 600-800km radius. With a limited secondary role of anti surface vessel.

The flanker in air domination role should have a lot of fuel, a lot of missiles and a big radar, along with all the required electronics, they will also have a large RCS and a lot of emissions.

The fulcrums are meant to respond to such threats within its operational radius.

It is not a strike aircraft and in the current carriers that are supposed to have it, it will require land based long ranged maritime patrol, AWACS/ELINT/ESM resources which will limit the operational radius the carriers can have in hostile times.

The flankers would be refueling other flankers, which require a lot of fuel to be effective.

The equipment for Surveillance and C&C missions is better carried on platforms that can use them with one or two guys in a plane its hard to imagine anything coming out of it.

A dedicated EW version taking off from a ship will be very impressive.

they are going to put a catapult on there. PLA is going for both naval flanker and a 5th gen variant.

That will take care of a lot of issues and make sure that the Flanker as the choice of aircraft is utilized effectively, however also delay the program as the development of these systems will take time.

[Feanor]

It's a shame roberto didn't bother to read the discussion that followed the article (on the MiG-31 modernization) he posted from another forum. He might've reconsidered trying to use that article as a source for anything. And just fyi there are currently iirc two modernized Foxhounds at the Lipetsk center. No serial modernization has been conducted to date.

[SkolZkiy]

AS I've read China has bought at least 4 Kirov class 3 from Ukraine one from Russia - 3 of this ships disappeared. =)

[AegisFC]

AS I've read China has bought at least 4 Kirov class 3 from Ukraine one from Russia - 3 of this ships disappeared. =)

What is your proof of this? All because you've "read" it doesn't mean you can go posting such obvious falsehoods.
Only 4 of the Kirovs were built. Two are currently in commission and one of those two are deployed. The other two are in reserve or slated for scrapping, if China acquired any of them it would be major news in defense circles. Ships of that size do not "disappear".

[kev 99]

What is your proof of this? All because you've "read" it doesn't mean you can go posting such obvious falsehoods.
Only 4 of the Kirovs were built. Two are currently in commission and one of those two are deployed. The other two are in reserve or slated for scrapping, if China acquired any of them it would be major news in defense circles. Ships of that size do not "disappear".

I think he's talking about the Kiev class.

[AegisFC]

I think he's talking about the Kiev class.

Even that doesn't make much sense, 4 were made but are pretty much accounted for.
The Kiev itself is in China as part of a theme park.
The Minsk is also in China but near as I can tell it is a museum.
The Novorossiysk was broken up in 1997 in South Korea.
And we all know the drama that is the Admiral Gorshkov.

[kev 99]

Even that doesn't make much sense, 4 were made but are pretty much accounted for.
The Kiev itself is in China as part of a theme park.
The Minsk is also in China but near as I can tell it is a museum.
The Novorossiysk was broken up in 1997 in South Korea.
And we all know the drama that is the Admiral Gorshkov.

If you consider that his assertion may be based on the fact that the Chinese now own 3 ex Soviet carriers (including Varyag) and then mixing up Kiev with Kirov you might be able to see how it could of gone a little pear shaped.

Even if you discount the Varyag by substituting Kirov with Kiev he's only one out (2 out of 4 as opposed to 3 out of 4).

[Salty Dog]

I seriously doubt Russia would have transferred any nuclear powered vessels to China.

[Blitzo]

I seriously doubt Russia would have transferred any nuclear powered vessels to China.
Umm, no Russia hasn't. And probably never will. What made you think that? Oh, right the Kirov. kk, never mind then.

[Blitzo]

http://www.sinodefence.com/research/aircraft-carrier/China_Aircraft_Carrier_Ambition.pdf
That pdf article I found is pretty useful, and gave me quite a bit of knowledge about possible Chinese aircraft carrier designs and uses. A few of you may have already read it (like me, if you are a follower of china's quest for a carrier:p:), but if you haven't, you should read it. It's pretty interesting.

[SkolZkiy]

Sorry guys my mistake KIEV not KIROV =)
In 1985 China bought old austalian carrier. Varyag also is in China.
http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2008/12/26/carrier/
this is that article. there is said about 4 carriers that chineese bought: Kiev, Varyag, Minsk and Melbourne
The Novorossiysk was broken up in 1997 in South Korea.
Novorossiysk went to Korea - but are you sure it is scrappled? THere is a quite big chance that even this ship is right now in China.

[Iam]

http://www.sinodefence.com/research/aircraft-carrier/China_Aircraft_Carrier_Ambition.pdf
That pdf article I found is pretty useful, and gave me quite a bit of knowledge about possible Chinese aircraft carrier designs and uses. A few of you may have already read it (like me, if you are a follower of china's quest for a carrier:p:), but if you haven't, you should read it. It's pretty interesting.

Apart from why china would like to build and use an aircraft carrier will be any defence analyst thesis, that article has several discrepancy's,( adventurist journalism, can't find the right word ) apart from the below.

"What we do know, and the real benefit to China, is that the development and
modernisation skills that will flow from this will directly assist future Chinese carrier
construction. Contrariwise, India is paying between USD$900 to USD$1350 million to have
their former Soviet carrier modified in a Russian shipyard, and it is not likely to be
operational until 201011."

India has been operating 2 aircraft carrier in past since long and thus the experience gained, it's lone aircraft carrier Virat is currently going a major refit, it's building it own carrier as we speak. So does china gain more knowledge by simply refitting a legacy aircraft carrier ? or does India gain more by building her own aircraft carrier ?

[Feanor]

Novorossiysk went to Korea - but are you sure it is scrappled? THere is a quite big chance that even this ship is right now in China.

I've heard rumors of the sort on Russian websites, but it's complete speculation. So when you say big chance, just keep in mind it's not all that big.

[Salty Dog]

Here's a website dedicated to the ex-Varyag:

VaryagWorld - Dedicated to covering the past, present and future of the Varyag CV (http://www.varyagworld.com)

[SkolZkiy]

May be Feanor but I think that this is very possible according to low prices of this ex-ships - VERY LOW PRICES.

[Blitzo]

Apart from why china would like to build and use an aircraft carrier will be any defence analyst thesis, that article has several discrepancy's,( adventurist journalism, can't find the right word ) apart from the below.

"What we do know, and the real benefit to China, is that the development and
modernisation skills that will flow from this will directly assist future Chinese carrier
construction. Contrariwise, India is paying between USD$900 to USD$1350 million to have
their former Soviet carrier modified in a Russian shipyard, and it is not likely to be
operational until 201011."

India has been operating 2 aircraft carrier in past since long and thus the experience gained, it's lone aircraft carrier Virat is currently going a major refit, it's building it own carrier as we speak. So does china gain more knowledge by simply refitting a legacy aircraft carrier ? or does India gain more by building her own aircraft carrier ?
Ah (why does everyone want to compare India to China?). Of course India has more experience currently in aircraft carrier operations, as well as currently building an aircraft carrier (albeit slowly, successfully? too early to tell I think). But as the analysis states, China has had a chance to study 4 aircraft carriers, one of which has formerly had a steam catapult (HMAS melbourne). The two kiev class aircraft carriers, with one class, the admiral gorshkov being re done to suit indian needs, and finally the varyag. out of all those the varyag is definetly the most important right now.
But it is also inevitable China will start to build her own aircraft carrier, as all military officials hint (google "chinese aircraft carrier news"). So really, currently India has more experience in Carrier operations and building them, and in the short term future too, but I am pretty confident that China will eventually be able to overtake and dominate (India, at least), most importantly in the use of nuclear powered and catapult carriers (search 085 project).
And finally, you say that China is refitting a "legacy carrier". True, probably for training purposes. But you also state India is making her own, now this aircraft carrier, if you wiki it is expected to have capabilites under the varyag anyway, in terms of aircraft, size, armnament, etc. This last paragraph is just saying that the way you talk (type?) suggests India's carrier currently being built is going to be better than the Varyag/Admiarl Kuznetsov. Which I find both amusing and suprising.
Sorry if my post was too long.

[Feanor]

It's not too long, it's just baseless. ;)

Overall I see no reason to suggest that China will overtake India in carrier operations within the next decade. India is planning for 2 operational carriers. China has yet to being construction of their first one. China is working it's way up to carrier operations, and preparing the necessary groundwork. But realistically, they are still a long ways off from an operating CVBG. India is already there.

[tphuang]

It's not too long, it's just baseless. ;)

Overall I see no reason to suggest that China will overtake India in carrier operations within the next decade. India is planning for 2 operational carriers. China has yet to being construction of their first one. China is working it's way up to carrier operations, and preparing the necessary groundwork. But realistically, they are still a long ways off from an operating CVBG. India is already there.

by the time India finally gets its IAC into service (who knows if Gorshkov will even get transferred), China will already have 2 operatioal carriers. Based on their current naval fighter program schedule, it's hard for this not to happen. A lot of this is on my blog.

India has experience operating a small, archaic carrier with no real escort fleets. That's different from operating a large, modern carrier with full blown escorts. At this moment, China already has all of the escort fleets ready and stationed in Sanya. 2 052C/2 054A/2 093/887. In many ways, it can theoretically practice long range operations with 071 (acting as some what of a expeditionary strike force).


India has been operating 2 aircraft carrier in past since long and thus the experience gained, it's lone aircraft carrier Virat is currently going a major refit, it's building it own carrier as we speak. So does china gain more knowledge by simply refitting a legacy aircraft carrier ? or does India gain more by building her own aircraft carrier ?

again, operating an old carrier with a limited number of STOVL plane off a ski-jump with no capable escort is different from operating a 60K tonne CATOBAR aircraft carrier with 30+ heavy naval fighter + fix winged AEW surrounded by modern escorts. They have thoroughtly studied multiple carriers, they are actually cutting their own steel, getting most of the components from their domestic suppliers and have far more capable shipyards.

[Abraham Gubler]

again, operating an old carrier with a limited number of STOVL plane off a ski-jump with no capable escort is different from operating a 60K tonne CATOBAR aircraft carrier with 30+ heavy naval fighter + fix winged AEW surrounded by modern escorts. They have thoroughtly studied multiple carriers, they are actually cutting their own steel, getting most of the components from their domestic suppliers and have far more capable shipyards.

So China might be better at building a carrier than India but they have a long way to go before they can operate it. The best thing China could do to promote their carrier 'program' would be to build a couple of basic helicopter carriers (LPH) and operate them at sea to develop some basic flight deck management experience. Since they aren't doing this I doubt their carrier 'program' is a serious one.

[Feanor]

by the time India finally gets its IAC into service (who knows if Gorshkov will even get transferred), China will already have 2 operatioal carriers. Based on their current naval fighter program schedule, it's hard for this not to happen. A lot of this is on my blog.


Instead of just deferring us to your blog, would you mind actually substantiating on this claim? China has yet to begin construction of a carrier as far as I know. And there is little room to doubt that the Gorshkov will be transferred. The deal is too large, and both sides are too interested in it coming through.

again, operating an old carrier with a limited number of STOVL plane off a ski-jump with no capable escort is different from operating a 60K tonne CATOBAR aircraft carrier with 30+ heavy naval fighter + fix winged AEW surrounded by modern escorts.

What's your point here? China has no experience of operating a carrier whatsoever. You can call the Indian experience as too little, but in that case China with NO experience looks all the farther off.

[funtz]

by the time India finally gets its IAC into service (who knows if Gorshkov will even get transferred), China will already have 2 operational carriers. Based on their current naval fighter program schedule, it's hard for this not to happen. A lot of this is on my blog.

From no carrier to 2 by 2020?

IAC might be floating around but it will take time to get it operational.

IN had to go to USN for arrested recovery training on a aircraft carrier, the concept of an aircraft carrier seems to be more about a aircraft landing on a ship moving in all directions, more than the carrier ship.

The naval fighters(Mig-29Ks) will be here before the IAC.

India has experience operating a small, archaic carrier with no real escort fleets. That's different from operating a large, modern carrier with full blown escorts. At this moment, China already has all of the escort fleets ready and stationed in Sanya. 2 052C/2 054A/2 093/887. In many ways, it can theoretically practice long range operations with 071 (acting as some what of a expeditionary strike force).

I have not seen the 2 052C/2 054A/2 093/887 you mention operate in a aircraft carrier strike group, they might have to fit in once the aircraft carrier comes along, and the Indian aircraft carrier program is not an exclusive one, many programs will become operational along with the carrier.

Obviously its different and calling the ships in IN as no real escorts is a very cocky thing, especially in the region IN operates in.(No soviet fleet to sink).

again, operating an old carrier with a limited number of STOVL plane off a ski-jump with no capable escort is different from operating a 60K tonne CATOBAR aircraft carrier with 30+ heavy naval fighter + fix winged AEW surrounded by modern escorts. They have thoroughly studied multiple carriers, they are actually cutting their own steel, getting most of the components from their domestic suppliers and have far more capable shipyards.

Well this mythical 60K tonne CATOBAR aircraft carrier with 30+ heavy naval fighter + fix winged AEW that you mention is not going to serve with the IN in near future.

IN will operate a 37K STOBAR aircraft carrier with 12+4 medium air defence fighters and helicopters (30 aircrafts in total). The STO part as you mention is not new, and for BAR part IN is utilizing many resources from around the world.

How has PLA-N thoroughly studied multiple carriers and selected a design without operating one in its entire history, (cutting open ships seems like a different thing from operating them).

PLA-N should ask the French about the experience they had with a the current carrier, it will be immensely helpful. As its seems to me to be the only operational medium CATOBAR carrier with a modern fighter planes squadron, and AEW planes out side of the USN super carriers,

They had to get the CAT tech. from USA (USN Type C13 catapult) along with the AEW planes (E-2C Hawkeye) which would have saved them a lot of time and money. Even after installation resources from US were utilized
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=3766

Utilizing firms from other nations which have a lot of experience designing the type of ships IN is looking for is a good thing and not a disadvantage, sourcing parts from other nations is required, delays will happen if at any stage a supplier is unable to meet a deadline, however the effect on the program can only be known after the program is over, not before.

Comparison of IN and PLA-Ns aircraft carrier programs is an academic exercise(if PLA-N is indeed going for CATOBAR), both have different doctrines and both have different areas of operation.

[Iam]

by the time India finally gets its IAC into service (who knows if Gorshkov will even get transferred), China will already have 2 operatioal carriers. Based on their current naval fighter program schedule, it's hard for this not to happen. A lot of this is on my blog.

India has experience operating a small, archaic carrier with no real escort fleets. That's different from operating a large, modern carrier with full blown escorts. At this moment, China already has all of the escort fleets ready and stationed in Sanya. 2 052C/2 054A/2 093/887. In many ways, it can theoretically practice long range operations with 071 (acting as some what of a expeditionary strike force).


again, operating an old carrier with a limited number of STOVL plane off a ski-jump with no capable escort is different from operating a 60K tonne CATOBAR aircraft carrier with 30+ heavy naval fighter + fix winged AEW surrounded by modern escorts. They have thoroughtly studied multiple carriers, they are actually cutting their own steel, getting most of the components from their domestic suppliers and have far more capable shipyards.

Sorry to say, but your blog is something for you to express your own views and stick and paste articles that you concur.

2 052C/2 054A/2 093/887, please provide any evidence that is non blog related.

Building an aircraft carrier is quite different to operating one. China may have the steel and the expertise (thoroughtly studied multiple carriers, as you call it), but the real one is an operational one.

[aaaditya]

another area where india has benefitted is from its frequent interaction with us carrier task forces,the uk and french carrier task forces,as a part of the excercise malabar these have given indian navy a considerable knowledge of carrier based operations.

[Iam]

another area where india has benefitted is from its frequent interaction with us carrier task forces,the uk and french carrier task forces,as a part of the excercise malabar these have given indian navy a considerable knowledge of carrier based operations.

Hello Aaaditya, do you have any links as to why the Indian Navy chose that IAC design. I believe an Italian company was assigned this task, supposing that the Soviet/Russian designs would have been readily available to India.?

[tphuang]

So China might be better at building a carrier than India but they have a long way to go before they can operate it. The best thing China could do to promote their carrier 'program' would be to build a couple of basic helicopter carriers (LPH) and operate them at sea to develop some basic flight deck management experience. Since they aren't doing this I doubt their carrier 'program' is a serious one.
Or they can build both, which is what they will do. Richard Fisher mentioned a year ago while 071 was still ongoing that they were also going to build helo carrier.
Instead of just deferring us to your blog, would you mind actually substantiating on this claim? China has yet to begin construction of a carrier as far as I know. And there is little room to doubt that the Gorshkov will be transferred. The deal is too large, and both sides are too interested in it coming through.

What's your point here? China has no experience of operating a carrier whatsoever. You can call the Indian experience as too little, but in that case China with NO experience looks all the farther off.
let's see now, they bought 4 set of arresting hook from the Russians. They ordered switch boards for carrier. The steel has apparently being delivered by Baosteel (we will see about that). The new JiangNan shipyard at Changxin Location has the necessary docks for carrier construction. And one of the model pictures we saw from that yard showed a carrier.
http://www.sinodefence.com/research/new-facility-carrier-building/default.asp
Most of us expect to see pictures coming out from here soon.

They started a school for naval aviation recently and looking forward to the Ukrainians to help them train. They are looking to buy su-33 from the Russians right now to begin training. They also got T-10K from Ukraine. You can see Ukraine's help here.
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2008/12/05/ukraine_to_help_train_chinas_navy_pilots/4214/

They have a domestic naval flanker program going that looks to be ready by 2015. They had a deal for ka-31 from Russians a whle ago that later got delayed. They have a Y-7 AEW program going at about the same time. That's how we know they are definitely going for a full scale CATOBAR carrier. There was an article a few months ago that they were working on EMAL catapult.


Sorry to say, but your blog is something for you to express your own views and stick and paste articles that you concur.

2 052C/2 054A/2 093/887, please provide any evidence that is non blog related.

Building an aircraft carrier is quite different to operating one. China may have the steel and the expertise (thoroughtly studied multiple carriers, as you call it), but the real one is an operational one.

my blog is very heavily read.
As for 2 052C/2 054A/2 093/887, just go see some of the pictures on CDF. Check for any of the threads, you will see these ships next to each other in Sanya base.
Everyone knows its there. It's common knowledge who bothers to follow PLAN.
The crown jewel of PLAN is all stationed there with 2 052B, 2 052C, 2 054A, 093s/094s, 887, 071. In fact, they are sending 1 052B, 1 052C and 887 from this sea base to Somalia right now.

As I said, China may not have any operational experience and India does. However, when it comes to operating a full blown CVBG as some here have argued, neither have any experience doing it.