J20!
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,748
- Likes
- 1,541
Pretty much sums up what you know about the subject at hand.lol. So what should we believe on the condition of PLA? Exactly what blog and sources? oh right. There crap all for transparency because China is ruled by a communist party whos sole purpose is party legitimacy. PLA is not a professional military. They are a private army for the CCP. But that doesn't prove anything I said. But no one rational believes the condition of PLA is as picture perfect as the pictures PLA propaganda brigade issues directly or indirectly. As for the carriers. Yea, Viky is small no where as capable as i could have been for its size expecially interms of use of deck space, ie look at the design difference between Viky and under construction Vikrant. The floating casino OTOH still has huge issues with its airwing. Just because there is an extra short take off runway does not make it super capable. The long runway on both Viky and the casino are nearly same distance. Ontop of this the Falcrum has a shorter takeoff distance and better performance. When the USSR choose between MIG-29K and SU-33 for carrier operations it was largely because the USSR had seriously bad electronics and radars the size of sedans!
Russia did not just go for Su-33 because of economics but rather also had India make the same choice because the the Su-33 is not ideal for carrier operations given its size with out catapults.
Write this down: "Flankers are NOT designed for short takeoffs!"
There were both technical and political reasons for the Soviet Navy selecting the flanker over the Mig 29K.
Both Andrei Comin's A Flanker Story and Yefim Gordon's SU 27 agree that the SU33 has a shorter take off distance and lower landing speed than the legacy Mig 29K. The Flanker has a SMALLER deck footprint than the Mig 29K(The metric here being folded wingspan, not length).
Either way, I believe no one here would try to argue that a Mig 29 is superior to the Flanker airframe. Once their both in the air, the Flanker has a better wing loading, higher operating ceiling, higher top speed, better maneuverability etc.
If the Mig 29K was that much more capable than even the legacy SU33, then why would the Russian Navy have produced more a2g deck based sorties via their legacy SU33's than they did with their Mig 29K's.
Vikramaditya doesn't have the deck space for high tempo flanker operations, plain and simple. The Russians couldn't have offered a modernized SU33 for Ex Gorshkov to the IN. The Kuznetsov does, as ive pointed out ad infinitum. Even operating the Mig, Vikramaditya cannot use both launch positions without halting operations of 1 of her 2 elevators.
Arguments to the contrary are the usual nationalistic leanings popular with Indians on the Chinese sub-forum.
Last edited: