New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !

[Nilsen]

Maybe those that dont like China having alot of carriers should be happy instead. Would be far worse if they used all that money on even more high-tech attack subs and boomers.

[Russian]

It heavily resembles Kuznetsov. I wouldn’t brush off this threat (to Taiwan) just because its made in China. That ideology is ridicules. China has proven before that Zerg rush strategy works.

[Russian]

Here's some intersting reading about this topic

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2004/Winter/art6-w04.htm

[ASTAC]

Originally posted by Russian
It heavily resembles Kuznetsov. I wouldn’t brush off this threat (to Taiwan) just because its made in China. That ideology is ridicules. China has proven before that Zerg rush strategy works.

Thats because it was the Russian's 2nd ship of the Kuznetzov class..they never completed it and sold it to a "private" firm in china to be converted into a huge Casino..yeah right.

[lada]

Originally posted by Russian
It heavily resembles Kuznetsov.

i were about to lunch lomac and compare it to kuznetsov... its kinda similary

thx for saving my time

[Pooh21]

theres a Navy Cross waiting to happen.

[Rino]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
No see, really the deck is curled back like that because they put a biiiiiiiig-prettythang rubberband attatched to either side, put the plane in front of it and PUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLL it back until they lock it at the rear of the deck with the tailhook.  The bow is bent because the metal is just a little flexible...........

     I think maybe they just pulled into port a bit fast during sea
trials and bent the bow on the dock

[Swager]

Just a bigger target!!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sikboy
I'm pretty sure that the photographed ship is the Former Soviet ship "Varyag" Assuming that the Chinese were to come up with a similar design,  your question about "how effective can a combat aircraft be off a short take off span?" is answered by the Su-33. Not a bad plane all things considered.

Now, granted, we would still be talking about a single Carrier with a small compliment. But it's more of a threat than anything anyone else would be pointing at us.

-Sik

but how can ANY modern day A/C hope to take off from a short sloped deck carrier and have the Fuel/Ord. to compete with land based fighters.  Yes they would be a threat even if they carry ONE missle a piece.  

Think about it.  They can't carry much fuel cause they need the weight for Ord.   They can't stay up too long (fuel) unless they have tanker support (with out a cat. tanker support from a carrier is probably impossible)  They burn alot of their fuel on take off using Full AB.

This just doesnt seem to feasable.  Maybe it's not meant to stand off against a US carrier.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
but how can ANY modern day A/C hope to take off from a short sloped deck carrier and have the Fuel/Ord. to compete with land based fighters.  Yes they would be a threat even if they carry ONE missle a piece.  

Think about it.  They can't carry much fuel cause they need the weight for Ord.   They can't stay up too long (fuel) unless they have tanker support (with out a cat. tanker support from a carrier is probably impossible)  They burn alot of their fuel on take off using Full AB.

This just doesnt seem to feasable.  Maybe it's not meant to stand off against a US carrier.

I'm pretty sure that the fully loaded weight of an Su-33 is about the same, maybe a little more than the E/F Hornets. I don't know a damn thing about the physics of getting that bird into the air, but whether they use VooDoo or Magic, or luck, the Russians were getting them up.

I don't know what plans they would have for tanking, I would guess they would have to rely on Su-33s with buddy stores, though I don't know if such a mod exists. The more glaring problem is the lack of dedicated AWAC planes. The Russians were working on a variant of the AN-72 that was pretty cool, but they gave up on it. Instead they have to rely on Choppers.  Of course if it is operating in the most likely Geographic locations (Taiwan and say, the Spratlys) they will still be within range of land based support from long range Aircraft like the Tu-95s they are supposed to be looking at.

-Sik

[Sikboy]

But no... It's not meant to go toe to toe with one of ours. The small plane compliment attests to that.

-Sik

[Staga]

IIRC neither can US carrier fighters take off with full ordnance + fuel but they need to refuel when airborne.

Su-33 has two jets with 13300kg thrust = 26600kg and maximum weight is about 30000kg

For example Phantom II max weight is 28000kg and thrust ~16000kg with afterburners.
F/A-18A max 25000kg with ~14500kg thrust.
F-14A max 33700kg with 19000kg thrust.

I know those US carrier fighters are already old and new models have more powerfull engines but still Sukhoi's power to weight ratio is pretty nice. Put enough power to an aircraft and it can take off vertically.
Sukhoi built an lightweight model for breaking records and that aircraft had almost 2:1 power to weight ratio...

[Staga]

Sikboy are you talking about A-50 "Mainstay"?

radar has a detection range of up to 800 kilometers, and can track 200 targets simultaneously

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/a-50.htm

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Staga
Sikboy are you talking about A-50 "Mainstay"?  

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/a-50.htm

Staga, no that monster would never get off the deck I was talking about one that was carrier capable. I don't recall the designation, but the Nato codename was Madcap. I'll look it up.



[edit] Found it: An-71

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/an-71.htm


-Sik

[spitfiremkv]

I'm sure the Chinese will buy/build the navalized Flanker in the future. As a pure fighter, that thing kicks F18s ass, especially the big heavy Super Hornets.