Note: I read the article written by a Chinese analyst about the combat capability of the J-11. If I recall correctly someone called it a flopping fish. One word. Disinformation. Ski jumps have been used to good effect by the Russians, and the UK. Additionally the Canberra is even fitted with one. Too much work has been invested in the study of the ski jumps and how they affect aircraft performance. I'm not buying what the Chinese are trying to sell with regards to the J-11 being super inferior to what we have in the West. All photos via Chinese Military Review.
+j-15+16+17+18+19+j-20+j-31+z-8+z-9+z-10+z-19+z-15+z-16+z-17+aewc+pl-12+pl-98asr+10+bvr+c+(1).jpg)
+j-15+16+17+18+19+j-20+j-31+z-8+z-9+z-10+z-19+z-15+z-16+z-17+aewc+pl-12+pl-98asr+10+bvr+c8023.jpg)
+j-15+16+17+18+19+j-20+j-31+z-8+z-9+z-10+z-19+z-15+z-16+z-17+aewc+pl-12+pl-98asr+10+bvr+c+(1).jpg)
+j-15+16+17+18+19+j-20+j-31+z-8+z-9+z-10+z-19+z-15+z-16+z-17+aewc+pl-12+pl-98asr+10+bvr+c8023.jpg)
I read the report. It sounds like the J-11's range is compromised with any load heavier than a pair of A2A missiles and a pair of anti-ship missiles... Conveniently, a similar load-out to the F-35.
ReplyDeleteIt also mentions nothing about the possibility of in-flight refuelling after take off. This seems like a no-brainer to increase payload and range.
It's fairly well known that ski-jumps have serious shortcomings when it comes to conventional take-off aircraft. The primary advantage in using a ski-jump over a catapult is cost, not performance. A ski-jump equipped carrier is much simpler, and therefore cheaper, to build and operate than a ship equipped with catapults.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to remember that the British, Italian, and Spanish ski-jump carriers are all designed to operate the Harrier, which is a purpose built V/STOL aircraft and therefore requires a much lower minimum speed to take off with a full combat load versus the much larger, supersonic J-11. It is also important to remember that the Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier was designed primarily as fleet defense ship, with her primary role being defense of submarines and missile-carrying surface ships. The range limitations imposed by the ski-jump does not greatly hinder the Kuznetsov in performing it's primary mission, since it is not intended to be used as an expeditionary asset. This is a problem for the Chinese, however, since all indications from China's public statements on carrier development indicate that they desire a carrier with expeditionary capability similar to U.S Navy carriers, and for this to be realized the air wing must be capable of carrying a full combat payload to strike distant targets over land or sea. This is a role that the Kuznetsov-class carrier was not designed for and is not suited well to perform.
Doug is right that in-flight refueling would offset this disadvantage, but this would force the Chinese carrier to have to operate within range of land-based tankers. It could also utilize buddy refueling, but this has the disadvantage of not being able to offload as much fuel compared to a dedicated tanker, and also decreases the number of combat-capable aircraft the ship would be able to carry, as a portion of the already limited deck space would have to be taken up by tanking aircraft.
Patrick
DeleteDon't forget that STOBAR carriers can launch jets faster than CATOBAR carriers could.
What's hindering the Chinese STOBAR effort is the lack of powerful engine with a thrust/weight ratio of greater than 1. With the US F414 EPE engine and F110-GE-132 engines, STOBAR could actually work, and with naval PAK-FA too.
It is a bit surprising that the Chinese just "noticed" the limitations now! so yes, I would take it with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I still haven't seen one picture of either Russian or Chinese fighters taking off with a significant weapons load, wonder if it isn't just about payload/range/takeoff performance but how much stress does it put on the airframes/engines? Yeah, catapults aren't easy either on the airframe but were these airframes built strong enough to do repeated max takeoffs with weapons? You can't find anything showing that either the Russian,Chinese or for that matter Indians can really fully exploit their jets with ski-jump, you always just see them with no weapons and even lots of times, no fuel tanks, just clean wing configuration. How combat capable is that?
NICO,
DeleteSTOBAR is actually less stressful to the airframe than CATOBAR. For example, the BAE's proposed Naval Typhoon was STOBAR only, as strengthening the forward section to make it catapult compatible would add too much weight.
Its copy of soviet Su-33, a navalized Su-27 derivative. Whole Su-27 family share one of the 5th gen traits -- large internal fuel tanks, and yes Su-33(T-10 prototype was bought by Chinese from Ukraine) have air refueling system. Someone question Su-27 family combat potential?
ReplyDeleteTo operate(cost effectively) catapult you need nuclear reactor, if you don't have nuclear reactor on board you use ski jump or/and STOVL VTOL aircrafts.
You think the worlds largest manufacturer of fireworks won't develop Rocket Assisted Take Off solutions to get those J-11's into the air with a full combat load out? Heck the Brits were doing that back in WWII off of ski jumps. Give up one centerline hard point for a solid fuel rocket booster which can be jettisoned after take off, and I think you can pretty much get a brick to fly. I could be wrong, but this seems the simple solution to me.
ReplyDelete