China's new naval jet goes through carrier tests

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: grey580

Here are a couple comparisons/info about the SU33 family jets and the F18;

www.ausairpower.net...

defensetech.org...

[/

Sukhoi Flanker vs the Super Hornet


In assessing the Flanker against the Super Hornet it is clear from the outset that the advantage in firepower, speed, raw agility, range and manoeuvre performance goes to the Flanker. Given that operational Flankers span variants from B through H, and type designations from Su-27S, through Su-30s to Su-35s, there are a wide range of configurations possible.

IMO the Russians for many years now have made great flying aircraft. Where they and the Chinese have both been lacking has been in avionics/radars/command and control not to mention pilot training and tactics.. Nothing is static and anyone who thinks they are incapable of change may have a rude awakening.

F-4's and Thuds were being shot down by Mig 17s and 21s once upon a time for various reasons until American tactical planners pulled their heads out and made some changes "humm war; let's add a gun and get some missiles that actually do work"...Kind of thinking finally helped..

there's one factor that no-one has mentioned - numbers.

there are about 36 Su-33's, and 16 Shenyang J-15's.

Over 500 F18E/F's have been built.

Plus of course the F-18 design is 20 years older than the Su-33....

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I agree numbers are important. One big blast at an F-22 base and there goes a chunk of our 5 generation fighters which due to cost will have already been produced in limited numbers. The Chinese do not have their act together as of yet but they have devoted money and considerable thinking about their future security plans.. If Russia and China continue to be Buddy Buddy and decide to draw their line in the sand ( providing they don't go bankrupt in the process ) There will come a day ( around 2020 or 2025 ) where globally the once dominate American presence will be but a fading memory unless nukes are used... Hopefully the future leaders are not that stupid...but I do have my doubts sometimes..

a reply to: Sammamishman

That goes both ways. China can reportedly knock down aircraft carriers at range of 2000 KM using satellites or 1900 KM with China Flanker/YJ-12 combination. The recent event of a Chinese submarine surfacing in the middle of a US naval exercise undetected also raises concerns.

Perhaps all future wars will be fought with long range missiles and submarines. Aircraft carriers a legacy of WW2 thinking that are sitting ducks against today's missiles and supercavitating torpedoes.

Hi all, first post, great forum!

Do you think the lack of a steam catapult or some form of emals shows a significant technology gap between Russia and China vs. USA? If you don't have budget constraints like the UK or a VTOL aircraft in the pipe, why would you not add a catapult?

As Zaphod mentioned, dont they have to take off with limited weapons and air to air refuel immediately? This would limit their capability as a rival carrier group (stealthy F-35) could target the refueller and limit the launched enemy aircraft to defend their refueller?

I don't want to get into the whole aircraft vs. aircraft debate, but seek knowledge on just how capable these non catapult launched aircraft are with the take off limitations?

THANKS.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Sammamishman

That goes both ways. China can reportedly knock down aircraft carriers at range of 2000 KM using satellites or 1900 KM with China Flanker/YJ-12 combination. The recent event of a Chinese submarine surfacing in the middle of a US naval exercise undetected also raises concerns.

Perhaps all future wars will be fought with long range missiles and submarines. Aircraft carriers a legacy of WW2 thinking that are sitting ducks against today's missiles and supercavitating torpedoes.

Yep ! Carriers are great at projecting force on a third world country and even showing the flag to more capable countries.. Knowing if you dare attack our carrier it will be "game on and all out"..

If it ever comes down to a full blown all out war no one, nothing will be safe unless you are lucky enough to live in a well provisioned government sponsored underground bunker... Even then if you survive, to one day open the door, what will you gaze upon ?

Always reminds me of the planet of the apes scene around the busted statue of liberty .... without the apes and actors. What a waste as we destroy ourselves... Maybe just maybe it won't happen... I personally hope so for there will be no winners just losers.

a reply to: 727Sky Russia is reported to have a large number of bunkers, China who knows, so they probably see themselves as having the better hand if nudge comes to shove, but you are right, its an ugly scenario anyway you look at it.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Sammamishman

That goes both ways. China can reportedly knock down aircraft carriers at range of 2000 KM using satellites or 1900 KM with China Flanker/YJ-12 combination.

Yeah, that's all a bit optimistic really - it relies upon having a radar guided warhead on the ballistic missile - which means it is transmitting which means it can be homed on and destroyed itself - and/or jammed.

and you can bet the US is working on all that and more.

TBH the whole system sounds a bit desperate - a bit of plausible propaganda, backed perhaps by some highly selective "tests" to "prove the concept" and cerate the impression of a real threat.

The recent event of a Chinese submarine surfacing in the middle of a US naval exercise undetected also raises concerns.

that's what subs are supposed to do - the Chinese will probably discover something similar when they start sailing on het high seas!!

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

You don't think missiles have passive tracking? If industry can make a plane invisible to radar then a much smaller missile with a frontal area of a sqaure foot or so, will be a peace of cake. In real life war ships haven't done well against even older subsonic exocet missile. China's new hypersonic missile might be a game changer. Perhaps the next aircraft carrier should be named the USS Sitting Duck.

I certainly cannot say I am an aviation expert, not even close. But, my expertise is in how to operate the sensors seats in certain older birds.

With that, I would speculate that attack and fighter aircraft that we presently have, would probably be untouchable by the J-15, or most any other aircraft. This is purely based on how long it typically takes for the US public to discover the replacements for our best aircraft.

I speculate that the replacements for the equipment I used to use probably looks more like alien tech in comparison. Would I be far off in the assumption that we are still able to hide a working fleet of highly advanced technology, like we were able to do in years past?

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

You don't think missiles have passive tracking?

No I don't - the article didn't suggest it, and the CEP for the initial guidance is in the order of 10km or more - so passive tracking is probably not an option.

If industry can make a plane invisible to radar then a much smaller missile with a frontal area of a sqaure foot or so, will be a peace of cake. In real life war ships haven't done well against even older subsonic exocet missile.

Actually the anti-missile systems of that time did fine - and they are much more common now - plus Aegis/Standard 3 already is designed as an anti-ballistic missile - it is also easy to understate the actual problems of using a BM in the anti-ship role.

China's new hypersonic missile might be a game changer. Perhaps the next aircraft carrier should be named the USS Sitting Duck.

hypersonic missiles aer much more of a threat than ballistic missiles IMO - but it is not like the US hasn't done a shedload of work on them too - Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar, Project Isinglass, Prompt Global Strike, Boeing X-51, and the DARPA Falcon Project

This thead got a bit busier since I went to sleep thanks again all for everyone's input. Zap you mentioned about not having a catapult system, I heard it had a ski jump ramp design to the carrier. Does this still not allow for the aircraft to take off with max weight etc ? Similar to the harriers in the Royal Navy

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

No, not even close. The area for their takeoff run is so short that they are extremely weight limited.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

The Aegis BMD system is designed for theater range systems, it won't be effective against the DF-21 or an ICBM system.

Let's not forget that the ocean is a big ass place. In order for China to even launch one of those missiles they have to find the carrier strike group first, then get past the F-18s and future uclass's, then past the AEGIS destroyers, cruisers, sub's etc, then past the carriers own defenses. It's not as easy as it sounds.

a reply to: boomer135

Unless you have an IRBM or ICBM level warhead which comes in sufficiently fast and high that it's almost undefendable, in which case, finding and not missing are the only required steps.

Read up on the capabilities of what's necessary for a terminal ballistic missile defense.

en.wikipedia.org...(missile)

The physics hasn't changed since then.

The lack of a catapult system also means that there won't be a carrier based tanker available if needed. This will restrict their operational area. They will have to stay either with in range of land based tankers or shore based runways.

When China starts doing blue water flight ops in bad weather, I'll start worrying about their carriers. Right now China is only a threat to those countries in close proximity to them.

a reply to: JIMC5499 can land based tankers support them ? Sorry for short question

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

Sure, in theory. But flying from China to the middle of the Pacific really cuts down on the amount of fuel available for the tanker to offload. Not to mention the strain on the fleet caused by the time spent in the air transiting back and forth. Now you need six or eight tankers available to keep people on station to deliver the same amount of fuel in the same amount of time provided by two tankers in "normal" refuelling operations somewhere closer.

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

No other country has the sheer tanker capability of the US (of course most don't NEED it either), but in terms of a mission like you are talking about that hurts China quite a bit.

I've launched two KC-135s with six fighters, and one of the tankers was coming back somewhere between the first and second refueling point. The remaining tanker then had enough fuel to take the fighters the rest of the way by itself.

The exception to this was the Harrier. They were thirsty beasts and required a lot of tanker support.

Navy carriers can launch either F-18s or EA-6Bs with external fuel tanks and buddy pods, as well as being supported by land bases launching tankers. The problem in the Pacific is sheer distance. If the carriers get pushed back, that means longer flights for strike aircraft, which means more tanker support. And if Guam and Okinawa get hit the nearest safe area is Japan, and at that point offensive operations with any kind of support besides tankers is done.