Russia helps China build new aircraft carrier
- Thread starter yasin_khan
- Start date
There seems to be some confusion between the Kiev conversion (INS Vikramaditiya) and the Varyag which is a Kusnetsov class aircraft carrier. The Varyag does not need such an extensive flight deck modification.Thanks for the welcome feanor.
I read this topic since the beginning and I saw many people argue that varyag and the other kievs acquired in stripped down condition by china will help it get experience in operating an aircraft carrier. There was also talk of converitng varyag to a carrier with boilers et al.
My point here is that in it default configuration the kiev class is classified as a aviation cruiser and not even a proper aircraft carrier. Only aircraft capable operating from this class in its default configuration were the VTOL Yak-38 and the choppers(more commonly).There is no way su33 could operate from kiev even with zero weapons load. In fact the indian carrier length during mods has been increased to 283m from default 273m with runway length increase by ~140%.
All the equipment for launch and recovery of a/c were stripped from chinese hulks which can anyway not launch any big birds. Given these facts what help do you think these hulks will provide to chinese in their aircraft carrier program??
Somehow I doubt the recent news from chinese sources about converting varyag to a operational status. Given the time it would take to find and install the thousands of types of equipment back on it, extending the ramp etc sufficiently to allow decent carrier ops. I am not sure of the viability of the project. either as a refurbished carrier or as a trainer of any sort for future carrier operations if the chinese were hoping for it.
VARYAG TRANSFORMATION
I guess I mixed things up a little bit. Kiev and minsk are the original kiev class. Gorshkov/Baku/Vikramaditya is the modified Kiev class. While Varyag is the kuznetsov class, so I concede ur point that varyag doesn't need as much modification compared to gorshkov.
So lets get some stuff straight here the advantage a su-27 derivative like su-33 would have in a regular combat assuming full weapons and fuel load is its endurance and (marginally )greater weapons load. Mig-29K offers better avionics and marginally better short range performance. But in the scenario of a aircraft carrier operations a few additional factors comes in to play(with respect to a/c performance). One being the ideal runway length required for the aircraft to take off with full weapons and fuel load(without afterburners). In operations from land this is not a big consideration on land(except when operating from short or high altitude air fields) however in limited runway length of aircraft carrier this is crucial. If your a/c cannot operate with full fuel and weapons load given the runway length of the aircraft carrier you loose both the endurance and weapons load advantage.
So where do these two fighters stand with respect to the runway lengths provided by vikramaditya and varyag? I understand that the latter has a slightly longer runway then the former, did varyag also have arrested recovery like the one vikramaditya is being built for?
I also heard somewhere that both these a/c are not capable of catapult launches. I guess that rules out the chinese catobar plan speculation right?
There is actually a simple solution for for both carrier and land based aircraft. They take off with a full weapons load and partial fuel load. Once airborne they top off by IFR thus extending range and on station times.
USN carriers will conduct their own IFR from organic assets and these will go aloft when required. Land based IFR is nice to have, however is operating theater dependent.
In wartime steaming carrier aircraft are going to be aloft in CAP stations as well on deck ready-5. This can be maintained 24/7 with or without IFR.
Carrier organic IFR is practical and routine for the USN. For other navies, perhaps not.
USN carrier organic IFR.
If the refueling aircraft has been part of the same flight, then all that will do is provide one aircraft with greater range at the expense of the other.
buddy fueling is not an ideal solution for a number of reasons. it's done as a matter of course by larger militaries, but its usefulness and utility really depends on the mission set
if you look at the flow rates and onboard capacity issues it gets even uglier.
esp if the nominated refueling asset has lost hard points for wing tanks - it means that the flight loses weapons mounts as well (eg two buddy tanks will mean losing 4 weapons stations if based on weight and wing loading issues)
buddy fueling is not an ideal solution for a number of reasons. it's done as a matter of course by larger militaries, but its usefulness and utility really depends on the mission set
if you look at the flow rates and onboard capacity issues it gets even uglier.
esp if the nominated refueling asset has lost hard points for wing tanks - it means that the flight loses weapons mounts as well (eg two buddy tanks will mean losing 4 weapons stations if based on weight and wing loading issues)
buddy refueling might be helpful(though complicated) in scenarios where a carrier has to maintain a CAP over a large area then it is capable of normally with its fighter complement. But in those situations it would mean that for every a/c that is need to maintain CAP two will have to take off(approximation considering the limitation of the carriers in question assuming that the buddy even without weapons load won be carrying too many drop tanks loaded with fuel). It seems there would be the a serious drop in the ability of the carrier to deploy a/c with speed. The way I see it there would be two take offs for each aircraft to be deployed, and once the buddy has refueled the other guy, He would have to land back and refuel and take off before other a/c an deploy.all this would count as time wasted in crucial moments.
Mind you this won't be a factor in air defence of the carrier or fleet around it for obvious reaasons.
Still speed of deployment remains crucial IMHO. Consider both type carriers performance in a scenario where an asset is under threat some distance away from the carrier. In one case a carrier can deploy a/c with speed where they scramble, take off and intercept to protect the asset. On the other hand if the a/c won't have full fuel load at take off it will waste precious time in waiting for a refueling buddy to take off and then in refueling from it.
comments?
Mind you this won't be a factor in air defence of the carrier or fleet around it for obvious reaasons.
Still speed of deployment remains crucial IMHO. Consider both type carriers performance in a scenario where an asset is under threat some distance away from the carrier. In one case a carrier can deploy a/c with speed where they scramble, take off and intercept to protect the asset. On the other hand if the a/c won't have full fuel load at take off it will waste precious time in waiting for a refueling buddy to take off and then in refueling from it.
comments?
I agree with your point SkolZkiy,
Varyag class carrier in soviet fleet was used for fleet air defence and not for much else. But the scenario I suggested was also a part of fleet air defence and my point here was to try to figure out the places where a heavy fighter like su-33 may fall short on its role if it weren't able to take off with full combat load.
Soviet Navy may be one example but Indian Navy in contrast has had a history of using its medium/small aircraft carriers for active suppression roles. In 1971 war Indian navy's carrier INS Vikrant was in the Bay of Bengal and provided close air support to advancing Indian armed forces resulting in quick capitulation of opposing forces and resultant liberation of Bangladesh within 11 days of the conflict. If a relatively old Vikrant class carrier can provide such support, heavier keiv and kuznetsov classes should be able to do it. China has not operated a carrier yet so I can't say what chinese plans for it are, But I have read news that atleast the Indian Navy intends to use its carriers as a active force projection platform.
That being said neither Russia,China nor India are in a position to field a supercarrier of the class of nimitz and such for a long time to come.
However even lighter carriers have their uses. Most people agree that in Falklands war a light carrier around could have made a lot of difference for the British.
However even lighter carriers have their uses. Most people agree that in Falklands war a light carrier around could have made a lot of difference for the British.
I totally agree with you that for fleet air defence yes both aircraft would fulfill that role very well without any trouble. I am talking about relatively long range interception and force projection roles. The scenario is that there is a asset(ASW plane or a ship) under attack by a group of enemy aircraft protected by a fighter escort good distance away from the carrier. An a/c would be entering such a fight with a good combat load.
I am also getting a feeling that u compare mig29 unfavourably with the sukhoi 33. Note that according to most sources Mig29k is much superior to the original mig29 it is derived from. BR claims 50% increase in range and 4-5 times reduced RCS besides and much shorter take of times due to the powerful new RD-33MK engines.
The current MiG-29K is different from the original MiG-29K. The current MiG-29K is derived from the second-generation Fulcrum, the MiG-29M. There are two generations of fulcrums: MiG-29B upgrades and MiG-29M upgrades. The MiG-29K and MiG-35 are derived from the MiG-29M. The old MiG-29K, and the MiG-29SMT is derived from the MiG-29B. There are airframe differences, in addition to avionics and radar. The Su-33 was the contemporary of the old MiG-29K, and if it's production were to be restarted we should expect a modernization package for it before it sees any export orders. Possibly the Su-30MK2 or MKK avionics.
China self-sufficient?
I disagree with most of your analysis except for the part about power projection in regards to India.
I disagree with most of your analysis except for the part about power projection in regards to India.
Yes, and?? There are plenty of European countries with smaller Defence budgets than either India of China that have better power projection capabilities than China has at the moment. Spending large amounts of money does not give you results if you do not spend it wisely.
That is correct, and in this case China has spent its money far wiser than India. While India has been obsessed with becoming a military superpower while its infrastructure & manufacturing industry is far behind that of China, the Chinese concentrated first on developing their infrastructure and manufacturing industry. Only 15-20 years after the beginning of their economic reforms did they begin the plan to modernize their military in a major way. While doing that they first concentrated on acquiring military technology from China & developing indigenous weapon systems/platforms and military technology, only now are they planning to build aircraft carriers. Any one looking at the current situation & possible future scenarios would have to admit that so far the Chinese have played a far superior hand than India. One could say the Chinese are playing "go" while the Indians are playing "chess" and are therefore being outplayed.
No it isn't. And I would state Chinas lack of an Aircraft Carrier as a major deficiency in its power projection capabilities.
In this case you are correct India is does have superior power projection due to their aircraft carrier and the fact that unlike China there navy is not "contained" at this time compared to China which has to deal with the geographic barriers posed by Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, & Malaysia. Fact is though that apart from the aircraft carrier & their logistics ability, China's navy is superior in numbers (submarines, littoral surface warships, & major surface warships to India) and in quality (with 12 Kilo submarines, 20+ Song submarines, 2 Yuan SSNs, 40+ stealth catamaran missile corvettes, Aegis-type air defense stealth destroyers, Russian Sovremmeny carrier killing destroyers, Type 052B "Luyang I" Sovremmeny-type stealth destroyers, two classes of stealth frigates, SSBNs, JH-7 maritime strike aircraft, Su-30MK2 maritime strike aircraft, H-6 medium range bombers configured for maritime strike, & numerous anti-ship batteries equipped with the C-602 AShM with 200+ km range).
Self sufficient does not always equal better equipment and this is where India trumps China, because unlike China, India can scour the worlds Defence markets for the best available equipment for their needs.
True, India can "scour" the worlds markets for the best equipment out there unlike China but considering that China is forced to develop their own systems/technology or buy it from Russia I would have to say that the accomplishments of the Chinese far surpass those of India.
Via the acquisition of Russian military technology via arms purchases/licenses/espionage/unlicensed copying/Russian technical assistance and the acquisition of Western technology via dual-use technology (purchases/licenses/espionage/unlicensed copying/Western technicial assistance) the Chinese have developed the following weaponry which is equal or close to that of Russia (and in some cases to that of the West);
Catamaran-type missile corvettes (stealth) = which both India and Russia lack (either stealth & catamaran)
Type 054/054A "Jiangkai-I/I" frigates (stealth) = developed before India,
and which Russia lacks
Type 052C "Luyang II" Aegis-type air defense destroyers (stealth) = which neither Russia or India possess
Type 052B "Luyang I" Sovremmeny-type destroyers (stealth) = developed before India, and unlike Russia's version its stealth
Jin SSBNs = which are considered to be equivalent to Russia's Delta III class, and which India lacks
Shang SSNs = which are the equivalent to early Los Angeles class, and which India lacks
Yuan SSKs = equivalent to the Russian Kilos
J-11Bs = equivalent to Su-30 Flankers, indigenous copy (India has no indigenous copy)
J-10s = equivalent to either F-16s or the Eurofighter (depending on the source), superior to the Indian LCA which is not ready yet.
J-10B = equivalent or superior to the Eurofighter (depending on the source)
JH-7 = equivalent to the SEPECAT Jaguar but with a range superior to the Su-24 Fencer, & with glass cockpit/turbofans.
WZ-11 = equivalent to the Mongoose or Tiger attack helicopter (depending on the source), the Indian version not ready yet.
HQ-16 = superior to the Russian SA-11 & equal or superior to the Russian SA-17 medium range SAM (India has NO indigenous equivalent)
HQ-9 = equivalent to the American Patriot or the Russian S-300 Favorit (depending on the source), and India has no indigenous rival.
HQ-12 = equivalent to the American Improved Hawk but with phased array radar
ZTZ99 MBT = has features of both Russian & Western MBTs, is equivalent to the Russian T-90s MBT, and is superior to the Indian Arjun which has been having problems for decades.
PLZ05 SPG = 155 mm SP gun that is superior to any indigenous Indian system
ZBD97 IFV = superior to any indigenous Indian system
PHL03 MLRS = equivalent to the Russian Smerch system, superior to any Indian system
DH-10 land attack cruise missile = with 2500 mile range, equivalent to US Tomahawk which India lacks
DF-31A mobile ICBM = can reach most of the US, deployed in small numbers but is also a system that India lacks (in fact they have no ICBMs) and more importantly is MRV capable & is completely mobile on a wheeled TEL)
AWACS = indigenous equivalent to Russia's Mainstay, several deployed while India in turn had to purchase some from Russia this year.
ASAT = indigenous mobile missile (on wheeled TEL) that can shoot down satellites (once again something India lacks)
Over-the-Horizon radar = the type that can cover the sea up to the Mariannas/Marshall islands and beyond (which India lacks)
In addition to the above systems/technologies China is known to be developing the following;
Directed Energy Weapons = radio frequency weapons, rail guns, lasers, particle beam, & electromagnetic pulse weapons (and are considered to have programs equal to that of Russia or getting close to it, while India is not considered to be a leader in any of these fields of future weaponry).
Stealth Fighters = depending on the sources they have 2-3 projects going on while India has only one (not including the one they bought into = Russia's Sukhoi project, reason the Chinese did not buy into it though it was offered was that there would be limited technology transfer and would have locked them into buying Russian systems for upgrades/maintenance). Chinese stealth projects are considered to be far ahead of that of India and either a few years behind that of Russia or at about the same stage.
Spaceplanes = have known projects while India has none.
Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile = have project that depending on source is in development or is ready.
Nanoweapons = in development per Newsmax (only source)
Electromagnetic armour = coils, in development per IEEE (only source)
NOTE: the online sources for the above are
Sinodefence
International Strategy & Assessment Center
Jamestown Foundation (China Brief)
China Defense-Mashup
China Military Power (annual reports by the Pentagon)
You need to provide evidence for your claims, because it just looks like country bashing for the sake off from where I am standing.
In terms of platform, there is no way mig-29 can compare itself to su-27. Yes, mig-29K is improved from the original Mig-29 with more advanced avionics, powerplant + missiles. But, these upgrades can be applied on Su-33 too. Does anyone here seriously think China will go with the original Su-33, in capable of performing multi-role task?
I always thought that China wanted a very small number of su-33s for two reasons.
1) to study a little bit for its own domestic naval flanker program
2) the domestic program is most likely not going to be ready by the time China needs it. I'm referring to needing these fighters for the naval school that recently just go established.
As for domestic naval flanker program, some of my views on this:
1) China is planning for at least 2 domestic carriers + Varyag in the near term (by 2020). It simply doesn't make sense for China to rely on Russia for providing at least 3 regiments (72 flankers)
2) China will be developing a naval version of the 5th generation fighter, so it needs experience first developing a 4th generation naval fighter.
3) The question could be why it went with flankers instead of J-10. And this is the same reason why I think flankers are a far better naval platform than fulcrum. Flankers simply can carry more weapons and have longer range. I think PLAN wants naval flankers to eventually replicate super hornets. I'm pretty sure there will be an EW version of naval flanker for PLAN in the future. Using flankers for buddy-to-buddy refueling is a possibility + maybe even as a mini-AWACS (I know, the term is not correct here, but I think you know what I mean).
They have some pretty interesting ideas right now for performing AEW mission. I've seen both a Y-7 AEW in development and also a Z-8 AEW.
Tiger1974, you liberally throw around the word stealth. I'm assuming you mean RCS reduction techniques. How effective would those be on a warship with several thousand tons for a displacement? Especially given other surveillance means... You also asses the developmental stages of top secret projects. To be able to tell whether Russian and Chinese 5th-generation fighter projects are at a comparable readyness level you would need to have insider information on both. Do you claim to have this info? Or are you pulling this out of thin air?
We do welcome new members, and discussion. However please realize that claims need support. You've made many claims but provided little support or elaboration.
Tphuang do you think China will be willing to purchase what has been stated as the minimal requirement of 24 aircraft?
We do welcome new members, and discussion. However please realize that claims need support. You've made many claims but provided little support or elaboration.
Tphuang do you think China will be willing to purchase what has been stated as the minimal requirement of 24 aircraft?