the prototype of Navy version of J11 roll out?

[ppgj]

You forgot corrosion resistance and increase in thrust for carrier operations mate. That is why Klimov and the MiG took 10 years to make that 21 ton aircraft to be a success. Read the Specs of the Sea wasp and the ordinary RD 33 engine and you will know the upgrades.That is why the RD 33MK is a better engine and smokeless compared to the earlier versions.

i do not dispute the facts wrt increased thrust or RD 33 as a basic version was smoking a lot (which was a combat weakness). and RD 33 in any case was outdated for today's environment. so russians, if they wanted to sell mig 29 as a land version or as a naval version had to correct that. so they were doing that in any case. i still think it has nothing to do with land or naval. point being if the engine has enough thrust,it can work in both roles. again i may be wrong. would be happy if you can detail me on that.
and the sea wasp development(ie. upgrading of RD 33) began in 2001.

Klimov :: Production :: Aircraft Program :: RD-33MK

The Sea Wasp is an upgraded RD-33 engine installed on Mig-29 fighters. Its development started in 2001 as the MiG aircraft-building corporation signed a contract to supply MiG-29K fighters.

 

[SATISH]

well,anyhow, SU33 can carry more missles than mig29.

Can it carry more missiles in a carrier configuration is the question. I place my bets on the MiG 29K as the IN has asked the MiG corp to make it possible and we got it. It carries 6 missiles altogether with a maximum combat load off a carrier as 5.5 tons. This is because the new RD 33 MK supplies a dry thrust of 11k lbs of dry thrust and 20k lbs thrust on reheat. The SU33 can carry 6.5 tonnes of payload from the carrier. eventhough it has 12 pylons the effective combat load is still decreased for the Su 33.

Courtesy of Specs: Globalsecurity.org

 

[SATISH]

i do not dispute the facts wrt increased thrust or RD 33 as a basic version was smoking a lot (which was a combat weakness). and RD 33 in any case was outdated for today's environment. so russians, if they wanted to sell mig 29 as a land version or as a naval version had to correct that. so they were doing that in any case. i still think it has nothing to do with land or naval. point being if the engine has enough thrust,it can work in both roles. again i may be wrong. would be happy if you can detail me on that.
and the sea wasp development(ie. upgrading of RD 33) began in 2001.

Klimov :: Production :: Aircraft Program :: RD-33MK

The Sea Wasp is an upgraded RD-33 engine installed on Mig-29 fighters. Its development started in 2001 as the MiG aircraft-building corporation signed a contract to supply MiG-29K fighters.

Klimov had very little experience nor did it have money to even upgrade the RD 33 so the Indian specifications included increase in thrust. This finally gave the Klimov a breather to develop on their most proven engine. The MiG 29 had to be further developed thus M1,SMT and Finally OVT came to be into existence. The Russians started experimenting again and ended up solving the smoking problem of the RD 33. They also installed the single crystal blades helping it to have more Thrust. this resulting in 11,000 pound thrust which is 7% higher compared to the 9000 pound thrust in the basic model. The sea wasp is also designed to withstand the rigors of carrier operation. The series 3 of RD 33 was a precursor to the sea wasp. So the sea wasp is the best of the bunch.

I guess we can stop it here and get back to how the Chinese are planning to test their prototype.

 

[badguy2000]

Can it carry more missiles in a carrier configuration is the question. I place my bets on the MiG 29K as the IN has asked the MiG corp to make it possible and we got it. It carries 6 missiles altogether with a maximum combat load off a carrier as 5.5 tons. This is because the new RD 33 MK supplies a dry thrust of 11k lbs of dry thrust and 20k lbs thrust on reheat. The SU33 can carry 6.5 tonnes of payload from the carrier. eventhough it has 12 pylons the effective combat load is still decreased for the Su 33.

Courtesy of Specs: Globalsecurity.org

flankers are heavy bird while mig29s are just mid-size bird...

mid-size bird like mig29 is more fit for india mid-size AC.
mid-size AC+ Heavy birds has not appeared, I think..:stinker:

 

[ppgj]

Klimov had very little experience nor did it have money to even upgrade the RD 33 so the Indian specifications included increase in thrust. This finally gave the Klimov a breather to develop on their most proven engine. The MiG 29 had to be further developed thus M1,SMT and Finally OVT came to be into existence. The Russians started experimenting again and ended up solving the smoking problem of the RD 33. They also installed the single crystal blades helping it to have more Thrust. this resulting in 11,000 pound thrust which is 7% higher compared to the 9000 pound thrust in the basic model. The sea wasp is also designed to withstand the rigors of carrier operation. The series 3 of RD 33 was a precursor to the sea wasp. So the sea wasp is the best of the bunch.

I guess we can stop it here and get back to how the Chinese are planning to test their prototype.

as you wish satish. appreciate for bearing with me.

 

[SATISH]

flankers are heavy bird while mig29s are just mid-size bird...

mid-size bird like mig29 is more fit for india mid-size AC.
mid-size AC+ Heavy birds has not appeared, I think..:stinker:

Well large sized AC have appeared with Mid sized birds...Example F 18 and the Future F 35. World has moved on and I dont think China will stick to where it is. I would rather have believed if you had told a naval J 10 has been rolled out. China is yet to build a carrier so we must wait and see for the tonnage. I guess China will stick with J 10 when compared to the J 11 series which is more practical solution.

 

[smiling_scorpion]

Can it carry more missiles in a carrier configuration is the question. I place my bets on the MiG 29K as the IN has asked the MiG corp to make it possible and we got it. It carries 6 missiles altogether with a maximum combat load off a carrier as 5.5 tons. This is because the new RD 33 MK supplies a dry thrust of 11k lbs of dry thrust and 20k lbs thrust on reheat. The SU33 can carry 6.5 tonnes of payload from the carrier. eventhough it has 12 pylons the effective combat load is still decreased for the Su 33.

Courtesy of Specs: Globalsecurity.org

there's no point to compare the MIG29K with SU33.We should return to the original topic -"naval version J11",there's no doubt that J11 is very different from SU33.just as the comparsion of su27sk and J11.For a country,which type of plane should be chosen is not a simple issue.do you really think ,F14 is not better than F18 on the aspect of flying and fighting character?

 

[SATISH]

there's no point to compare the MIG29K with SU33.We should return to the original topic -"naval version J11",there's no doubt that J11 is very different from SU33.just as the comparsion of su27sk and J11.For a country,which type of plane should be chosen is not a simple issue.do you really think ,F14 is not better than F18 on the aspect of flying and fighting character?

F 14 was designed as a Interceptor/air Superiority fighter to take out Bears and the Backfires. It had a far better air superiority capability when compared to F 18. And I was just telling that even Russians were moving away from using heavy class fighters on their ship decks why would China want to use one? The J 11B still has to go through rigorous tests as Naval aircrafts take more punushment when compared to land based ones.

 

[smiling_scorpion]

Well large sized AC have appeared with Mid sized birds...Example F 18 and the Future F 35. World has moved on and I dont think China will stick to where it is. I would rather have believed if you had told a naval J 10 has been rolled out. China is yet to build a carrier so we must wait and see for the tonnage. I guess China will stick with J 10 when compared to the J 11 series which is more practical solution.

I can't deny there's a possibility that naval J10 will be rolled out ,but ,frankly speaking ,J10's delta wing shape and structure is not suitable for a AC version.the low speed stability is worse than J11.

 

[SATISH]

I can't deny there's a possibility that naval J10 will be rolled out ,but ,frankly speaking ,J10's delta wing shape and structure is not suitable for a AC version.the low speed stability is worse than J11.

Well Rafale is one with delta wing configuration?....All wing form has it's own advantage and disadvantages.

 

[badguy2000]

Well large sized AC have appeared with Mid sized birds...Example F 18 and the Future F 35. World has moved on and I dont think China will stick to where it is. I would rather have believed if you had told a naval J 10 has been rolled out. China is yet to build a carrier so we must wait and see for the tonnage. I guess China will stick with J 10 when compared to the J 11 series which is more practical solution.

it is widely accepted by chinese cyberspace that Chinese AC in future will be " mid-size( 60000 tonnage)+bird catapult+ dual-engine bird"

 

[smiling_scorpion]

F 14 was designed as a Interceptor/air Superiority fighter to take out Bears and the Backfires. It had a far better air superiority capability when compared to F 18. And I was just telling that even Russians were moving away from using heavy class fighters on their ship decks why would China want to use one? The J 11B still has to go through rigorous tests as Naval aircrafts take more punushment when compared to land based ones.

maybe you are right,but China chose the heavy class flighter have our reason,first of all ,I don't think China have a suitable light flighter for Naval using.the J10's shape make it not very stable where being in low speed situation(CA landing) ,secondly.China prefer to build a stronger fleet with ships as less as possible.So ,our fleet is much more depend on the capability of the plane.

 

[badguy2000]

Well Rafale is one with delta wing configuration?....All wing form has it's own advantage and disadvantages.

J10 is sole-engined while J11 is dual-engined...
as a navy bird,J11 is more reliable than J10...:icon_salut:

 

[SATISH]

it is widely accepted by chinese cyberspace that Chinese AC in future will be " mid-size( 60000 tonnage)+bird catapult+ dual-engine bird"

Why do u want to ditch this sensible discussion? And where are u planning to get the catapult from?

 

[SATISH]

maybe you are right,but China chose the heavy class flighter have our reason,first of all ,I don't think China have a suitable light flighter for Naval using.the J10's shape make it not very stable where being in low speed situation(CA landing) ,secondly.China prefer to build a stronger fleet with ships as less as possible.So ,our fleet is much more depend on the capability of the plane.

Read about carrier landing first. The aircraft lands at 500 knots. if u consider it slow then it is hard for me to make you understand.

 

[smiling_scorpion]

Well Rafale is one with delta wing configuration?....All wing form has it's own advantage and disadvantages.

yes, Rafale is one success instance,but that not means the delta wing is good at low speed situation.truth can't be changed,USA have done much research on it.

 

[SATISH]

J10 is sole-engined while J11 is dual-engined...
as a navy bird,J11 is more reliable than J10...:icon_salut:

Yes but the AC carries lesser aircraft thus operational readiness is affected due to the size of J 11.

 

[SATISH]

yes, Rafale is one success instance,but that not means the delta wing is good at low speed situation.truth can't be changed,USA have done much research on it.

So is the F4 Phantom. The carrier aircraft does not depend on the wing shape or design. The Carrier aircrafts must carry a decent weapon load climb up fast and intercept the incoming threat be it by sea or by air. In case of India and China the Aircraft carriers are for fleet defense, Strike is secondary. So a delta wing is a far more compatibile design for quick climb and interception. smaller size and large number of decent aircraft are better.

 

[smiling_scorpion]

Why do u want to ditch this sensible discussion? And where are u planning to get the catapult from?

Catapult form?do you know that China have bought the Australian's retired AC "Melbourn" very long time ago(about 20 years ago ,I can't remember)?there's a Catapult on this AC,that means China have began to research the technology of AC built including the Catapult.you should know,Russia don't have catapult don't means China can't research it by ourself.In fact,China prefer to buy some weapons then absorb its technology and develop a new system.although it is difficult compare with buying straightly.I think it's lucky but also unfortunately for India you always can bought everything you want,but that is a little harmful to the military industry of yourself.

 

[SATISH]

Catapult form?do you know that China have bought the Australian's retired AC "Melbourn" very long time ago(about 20 years ago ,I can't remember)?there's a Catapult on this AC,that means China have began to research the technology of AC built including the Catapult.you should know,Russia don't have catapult don't means China can't research it by ourself.In fact,China prefer to buy some weapons then absorb its technology and develop a new system.although it is difficult compare with buying straightly.I think it's lucky but also unfortunately for India you always can bought everything you want,but that is a little harmful to the military industry of yourself.

Catapulting a 30 tonne aircraft cant be done that easily. You need to have the proper resources and materials for it. Absorbing a technology like catapult operation and maintainence is a totally different task. Okay the French and the Brits have built catapults long time back. Why should they buy American ones now?...think over it.