INS Vikramaditya (Adm Gorshkov) aircraft carrier

[HariPrasad-1]

MiG-29 of Both IAF and Navy are superior Technology wise as compared to your F-7/Mirage-3/Mirage-5.

During Kargil war our MiG-29s had BVR Superiority over your F-16s. F-16 of PAF today has an edge Against MiG-29 in BVR with its AIM-120C5 as compared to MiG-29's R-27/77 but later this too will be nullified when our MiG-29s start getting Astras after which we will have the edge in BVR. Only your JF-17s and F-16s are capable of Countering our MiG-29s.

In an exercise, Mig 29 could detect Rafale from 60m KM away which is good. We can put Uttam with 900+ module into Mig 29, Mirage 2000 and Jaguar Darin III upgrades. We have developed a state of art EW for Mig 29 in collaboration with Isreal. Mig 29 is now a proper 4 th generation plane with 4th generation electronics.

 

[Aditya Ballal]

Interesting. Initial batches of IN’s Mig 29K pilots and Landing Safety Officers (LSO) were trained in USN’s training institutions for Tail Hooking and LSO tasks respectively for operations on INS Vikramaditya.

 

[Super Flanker]

In an exercise, Mig 29 could detect Rafale from 60m KM away which is good. We can put Uttam with 900+ module into Mig 29, Mirage 2000 and Jaguar Darin III upgrades. We have developed a state of art EW for Mig 29 in collaboration with Isreal. Mig 29 is now a proper 4 th generation plane with 4th generation electronics.

When was an exercise held between Rafale and MiG-29 during which the MiG-29 detected the Rafale at a distance of 60kms? Could you pls pull me up a source on this, like show me a link, because this to me seems like some internet tabloid made up by you.

Now you say that the MiG-29 detected the Rafale at a distance of 60kms and according to you it is a good detection range. I will disagree on this simply because the Rafale will detect the MiG-29 before & not vice versa. The MiG-29 has a higher RCS and weaker radar than Rafale. I estimate that the Rafale will detect the MiG-29 at a distance of no less than 100 kms (I can even say 120 to 150kms). So simply put the Rafale will detect the MiG-29 before, will acquire a firing solution on the MiG with its air-to-air missiles like meteor. So like I said, even if there was some exercise held and a MiG-29 detected a Rafale at 60kms away then I would not consider it a good range.

 

[Super Flanker]

You forgot to mention another Junk called J15. Useless junk which can not carry more than 2 tons from an another piece of Junk called lioning.

Will you pls stop with this "Anything that is Chinese automatically equal to junk'? In the past you called various Chinese planes like J-20, J-15 etc junk. It's getting annoying at this point. You underestimate the Chinese a lot, that is not a good thing.

 

[Adm Kenobi]

Useless junk which can not carry more than 2 tons from an another piece of Junk called lioning.

Funny, it can take off with full fuel and around 4T payload from the long take-off position on board Liaoning/Shandong.
That's a lot better than MiG-29K.

 

[FactsPlease]

Funny, it can take off with full fuel and around 4T payload from the long take-off position on board Liaoning/Shandong.
That's a lot better than MiG-29K.

On top of that, you won't really want to compare the service records of so-called-junk Liaoning against Vikramaditya... ...

Liaoning sail in December (winter): https://news.usni.org/2023/01/02/ch...ast-china-sea-pla-drones-operating-near-japan

v.s. https://theprint.in/defence/why-ind...t-carrier-in-2-yrs-wont-anytime-soon/1191050/

 

[blackleaf]

Funny, it can take off with full fuel and around 4T payload from the long take-off position on board Liaoning/Shandong.
That's a lot better than MiG-29K.

That is much worse than what the F-18s, Rafale or F-35 can do from CATOBAR carriers. Being better than the MiG-29K doesn't mean It isn't junk. It likely also has the similar structural issues as the MiG-29K as both were converted from land based Soviet fighters. Converting a land based design to a naval fighter is almost always a bad idea.
On another note I wonder how much the F-18 or Rafale can do with the ski-jump?

 

[Adm Kenobi]

That is much worse than what the F-18s, Rafale or F-35 can do from CATOBAR carriers.
Being better than the MiG-29K doesn't mean It isn't junk.

Carrying less payload than SH/Rafale M/F-35C doesn't make it junk either, ~4T payload combined with 9.6T fuel is significant, Flankers don't have to carry additional bags like Rafale M/SH.
4T is more than enough to take off with the full air-to-air load and two AShM, no need for additional bags.

It likely also has the similar structural issues as the MiG-29K as both were converted from land based Soviet fighters. Converting a land based design to a naval fighter is almost always a bad idea.

You are right, naval flankers aren't "perfect", far from it, structural issues and a smaller bring-back load compared to SH/Rafale M.

Dunno if PRC further developed the J-15T to fix these issues for their 003, but PLAN has shown confidence in it.
It's not junk if it's useful.

On another note I wonder how much the F-18 or Rafale can do with the ski-jump?

My estimates -
Rafale M - approx 4.7T fuel and >4T payload
SH E - 6.5T fuel and ~4T payload
from the long take-off position of >200m.
SH & Rafale M have to carry additional bags in that ~4T load.

 

[NutCracker]

Carrying less payload than SH/Rafale M/F-35C doesn't make it junk either, ~4T payload combined with 9.6T fuel is significant, Flankers don't have to carry additional bags like Rafale M/SH.
4T is more than enough to take off with the full air-to-air load and two AShM, no need for additional bags.

You are right, naval flankers aren't "perfect", far from it, structural issues and a smaller bring-back load compared to SH/Rafale M.

Dunno if PRC further developed the J-15T to fix these issues for their 003, but PLAN has shown confidence in it.
It's not junk if it's useful.

My estimates -
Rafale M - approx 4.7T fuel and >4T payload
SH E - 6.5T fuel and ~4T payload
from the long take-off position of >200m.
SH & Rafale M have to carry additional bags in that ~4T load.

I can smell bullshit in chinese claims.
I would like to see pic of j-15 flying with at least 1 payload. let it be a2a missile or fuel tank.

J-15 is a Naval replica of su33 which has nearly same empty weight 18T and MTOW 32T.
You want me to believe it can take off from long position with 31T ( 18T+ 9T +4T) ??

edit-
Rafale-M has empty weight of 10.5T and standard MTOW 24.5T.
now you are handicapping that 14T gap into 8.7-9T. But believe that J-15 can fly with full capacity as ground variant Su-33.
It doesnt sound intelligent calculation to me.

 

[Adm Kenobi]

I can smell bullshit in chine claims.
I would like to see pic of j-15 flying with at least 1 payload. let it be a2a missile or fuel tank.

I don't remember saying it was a Chinese claim
2 PL-12
2 YJ-83
2 YJ-91
Flankers don't carry fuel tanks.

J-15 is a Naval replica of su33 which has nearly same empty weight 18T and MTOW 32T.
You want me to believe it can take off from long position with 31T ( 18T+ 9T +4T) ??

Empty weight is >18T for both J-15 and SU-33.
I'm not saying it can take off with 31T from the long take-off position; instead, I'm claiming it's 32.8T.

edit-
Rafale-M has empty weight of 10.5T and standard MTOW of 24.5T.
now you are handicapping that 14T gap into 8.7-9T. But believe that J-15 can fly with full capacity as ground variant Su-33.

Yes.


The information about the MTOW of SU-33 (J-15 sharing the same body & engine) being 32.8T is not from some Chinese source but from a book written by ex-Soviet/Russian chief test pilots from Sukhoi, MiG, and Yak.
"АВИАЦИЯ ВМФ РОССИИ

и научно-технический прогресс

Концепции создания, пути развития, методология исследований"

	SU-33	SU-33	MiG-29K	MiG-29K
Length	100m	185m	100m	185m
0 knots	take off not guaranteed	27.3T	take off not guaranteed	19T
29 knots	30T	32.8T	19T	22.4T

Take-off is not guaranteed for Yak-44 in the 4 scenarios mentioned above.

SU-33 (& J-15) has a large wingspan and high lift-generating body.
It has a combined output of >25 Tonne Force.
32.8/25 ≈ 1.312 factor

MiG-29K doesn't have the same lift-generating capability as SU-33.
It has a combined output of ~18 Tonne Force.
22.4/18 ≈ 1.244 factor

TEDBF (20TF), high lift-generating body
26/20 = 1.3 factor
5.5T fuel & 7.5T load.

Rafale M (15TF), high lift-generating body
15×1.3 ≈ 19.5T MTOW
4.7T fuel & >4T laod.

Kuznetsov (& sisters), IAC-1, have a take-off runway that is longer than 185m.

You are free to believe whomever/whatever you want to. I have only posted about my views and the info I know of.

 

[blackleaf]

I don't remember saying it was a Chinese claim
2 PL-12
2 YJ-83
2 YJ-91
Flankers don't carry fuel tanks.
View attachment 194036

Empty weight is >18T for both J-15 and SU-33.
I'm not saying it can take off with 31T from the long take-off position; instead, I'm claiming it's 32.8T.

Yes.


The information about the MTOW of SU-33 (J-15 sharing the same body & engine) being 32.8T is not from some Chinese source but from a book written by ex-Soviet/Russian chief test pilots from Sukhoi, MiG, and Yak.
"АВИАЦИЯ ВМФ РОССИИ

и научно-технический прогресс

Концепции создания, пути развития, методология исследований"

	SU-33	SU-33	MiG-29K	MiG-29K
Length	100m	185m	100m	185m
0 knots	take off not guaranteed	27.3T	take off not guaranteed	19T
29 knots	30T	32.8T	19T	22.4T

Take-off is not guaranteed for Yak-44 in the 4 scenarios mentioned above.

SU-33 (& J-15) has a large wingspan and high lift-generating body.
It has a combined output of >25 Tonne Force.
32.8/25 ≈ 1.312 factor

MiG-29K doesn't have the same lift-generating capability as SU-33.
It has a combined output of ~18 Tonne Force.
22.4/18 ≈ 1.244 factor

TEDBF (20TF), high lift-generating body
26/20 = 1.3 factor
5.5T fuel & 7.5T load.

Rafale M (15TF), high lift-generating body
15×1.3 ≈ 19.5T MTOW
4.7T fuel & >4T laod.

Kuznetsov (& sisters), IAC-1, have a take-off runway that is longer than 185m.

You are free to believe whomever/whatever you want to. I have only posted about my views and the info I know of.

Shouldn't ski jumps drastically reduce the payload and range of an aircraft? I have heard estimates of a reduction of 30%. Why did the US , France and China spend so much more on a catapult if the aircraft can take off with full load from a skijump?

 

[Adm Kenobi]

Shouldn't ski jumps drastically reduce the payload and range of an aircraft? I have heard estimates of a reduction of 30%.

Of course, it does. 4 is half of 8.

A normal flanker can carry twice the load of a SU-33/J-15 taking off from a carrier.

I am not sure about the 30% figure.

Why did the US , France and China spend so much more on a catapult if the aircraft can take off with full load from a skijump?

None of these aircraft takes off with the full load. An aircraft doesn't need to carry full load to carry out operations.

Catapult allows you to operate larger aircraft that don't have adequate thrust to take off from a ski jump. Allows you to operate an integrated air wing.
Aircraft like E-2 and future long-range multi-mission strike aircraft.
+ the obvious full load for fighter aircraft.

CATOBAR is the superior platform, but that doesn't make STOVL/STOBAR aircraft 'junk'.

 

[FactsPlease]

Well, to clarify (for myself), no one here claims that STOVL/STOBAR aircraft (carrier) is "junk". All past few posts started with someone (used to) call J15 & Liaoning "junk".

Like @Adm Kenobi said, even J-15 is incomparable to FA-18/Rafale in loading (a big if unless PLA reveals the real number), PLAN shows confidence in the platform by keeping development. E.g. J-15D the EW version and we may see it continues to serve on CV18. That's the point countering "junk".
-- In the end, it's a subjective evaluation. As long as it's enough to drop a leathal bomb on my head... ...

-- Off topic but, despite justified for morale/inspiration purpose, insulting your enemy/foe is one of the dumbest thing in the world: If you win, what honor/glory earned to beat up some "junk"? Or, worse... ...
---- Guess in the world so-called internet forum, people just want to show how long and sharp their tongues are (hope I won't get banned saying that ), instead real sense and basic logic...

 

[v952010]

 

[v952010]

 

[FactsPlease]

View attachment 196070

An coincidence? CV-16 Liaoning just started regular mainenance and its sister back from refit.
Aircraft carrier Shandong ready for far sea drills as Liaoning starts regular maintenance (pdnews.cn)

Hope Vicky catches up with service log soon.

- Sidenote, Japan (JSDF) observed a 320 taking-off and landing during the 14-days deployment of CV-16 - not a very big number as US a/c can do >180 per day. I look forward to learn R33 overtake that soon, too.
Chinese Liaoning Carrier Strike Group Now in East China Sea, PLA Drones Operating Near Japan - USNI News

 

[Cheran]

Time at sea is exhilirating,satisfying & precious. #Agniveers #WomenAgniveers experience first hand life at sea onboard #INSVikramaditya. For many,their first glimpse of the Indian Ocean.Their many questions answered by trainers,mentors & counsellors. Shaping future

via INS Vikramaditya twitter account

 

[jai jaganath]

View attachment 199784
View attachment 199785
View attachment 199786

Time at sea is exhilirating,satisfying & precious. #Agniveers #WomenAgniveers experience first hand life at sea onboard #INSVikramaditya. For many,their first glimpse of the Indian Ocean.Their many questions answered by trainers,mentors & counsellors. Shaping future

via INS Vikramaditya twitter account

When will Vikramaditya be operational
When

 

[binayak95]

When will Vikramaditya be operational
When

Shes in port refit trials.

 

[jai jaganath]

Shes in port refit trials.

Prabhu woh kitne din tak chalega
When can we expect it in service again