Via =GT at CDF

Xianglong box wing HALE UAV, finally a real prototype!

I can’t imagine IN would be willing to fork out the cash to reopen the Su-33 production line to procure what would inevitably be only a small number of Su-33s… Not to mention the additional development costs for such a “AEW” Su-33. And that’s assuming IN is willing to forgo the already rare real estate on the relatively small vikramditya and vikrant, for what would be a less than optimal AEW solution (better than Ka-31 probably, but still hardly top quality).
IN is better off asking Northrop Grumman for an STOBAR solution for E-2D.

An Su-33 equipped with brahmos would be formidable. However I don’t think Brahmos is very suitable for air launch, mainly due to its ungainly weight. 2.5 tons for an AShM means even the largest of fighters such as flankers, can only end up carrying one, maybe two at a stretch. For surface and submarine launch, you can make a missile as heavy as you want. But for air launch, and especially from aircraft carriers, a lighter missile is more desirable.

In that sense I will be curious as to whether J-15 will be equipped with the YJ-12, a similar supersonic missile with similar performance parameters to Brahmos, but with a lighter warhead and an overall lower mass at an estimated 1.5 tons. Even from an aircraft carrier, a flanker should be able to carry two YJ-12s with generous space aside for AAMs.
(I shudder to imagine if PLAN had purchased Su-33s from Russia, meaning the only supersonic AShM at their disposal would be the 4.5 ton moskit… eurgh)

Indian Mig29KUBs have better workload distribution with that second set of eyes in that rear cockpit

The benefits of a second seat aren’t to be dismissed, indeed, but in this day and age of high cockpit automation I wonder if a second seat is as necessary for the majority of tasks a plane will encounter. Certainly I don’t think either Mig-29K or Su-33/J-15 are expected to perform strike missions as heavily laden as F-15E or Su-34, Su-30MKK etc. I think I’d rather simply have a larger aircraft rather than add another seat in my medium weight aircraft.
In any case, J-15S (twin seater) exists as well.

India has purchased several of these for their AEW needs

[ATTACH=CONFIG]222640[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]222641[/ATTACH]

Actually, both China and India have.

China’s also developing the Z-8AEW. No one’s quite sure how far in development it is, but it’s been ongoing a few years now.

As carriers rendered battleship fights unlikely, so have modern submarines rendered carrier fights implausible. More relevant is which ship will function better for power-projection vs lower-tier advasaries. With the Mig-29K, I’d say the advantage goes to India in that regard since it makes better use of the STOBAR configuration than China’s Flanker-knockoff. The Indians also have more institutional depth in naval-aviation.

That’s a question worth addressing.

Not including crew proficiency, how would a Kuznetsov/Liaoning equipped with 24 Su-33s/J-15s compare with Vikramditya equipped with 24 Mig-29Ks in terms of sortie rate, but more importantly, aircraft take off weight (which naturally translates into range and payload)? Assume that the Migs and flankers hold equally modern avionics (that is to say, all parties can fire precision A2G munitions, have BVR, etc — the only difference is the physical aircraft and their engines)

I’ve heard it been stated that Mig-29K is supposedly a better carrier STOBAR fighter because of its lower weight compared to the naval flanker, but at the same time, Mig-29K would also have a proportionally lower thrust with its pair of RD-33s rather than Al-31s/WS-10s, meaning it doesn’t magically have the ability to carry more payload for its size and thrust. If anything there should be a relatively linear relationship between engine thrust and MTOW (and thus payload, fuel load, etc).

So the question of Mig-29K vs Su-33/J-15 is really a matter of each aircraft’s ski jump MTOW. Assuming that both types of aircraft can take off with full or near full MTOW under operational headwind, one would have to give an advantage to the naval flanker, imho, simply because it is indeed a larger fighter able to carry more and fly further. Mig-29K does have the benefit of hauling external fuel tanks, but that will cut into its external payload weight, limiting munitions. There is buddy air fuelling for Mig-29K — but for argument’s sake let’s consider that J-15 will adopt this as well. It is not a capability limited by airframe, as opposed to say, MTOW.
So then the question orients towards that age old conundrum of comparing heavy weight fighters versus lighter fighters. F-18E/F (or indeed, F-14!) versus F-18. F-15 versus F-16. Su-27 vs Mig-29. Is the long range and superior payload of a larger fighter achieved at greater financial cost or perhaps greater maintenance times and lower sortie rates?
More important for aircraft carriers, is whether a ship would be better served hauling X number of Su-33s, or 1.2X numbers of Mig-29Ks in its place?

Of course for a Vikram versus Liaoning comparison the last point won’t come into play, as both ships will probably only carry 24 Mig-29Ks (or LCA) and J-15s in their lifetimes, respectively.

I know people are entitled to their opinions but topic is about a “supposed” protest by China about the a FA-50 sale to Philippines. The bolded part could stir things up a lot.

Note: Blitzo, I guess you should have made your original post clearer. All it contains is link and no description. Either everyone missed it or didn’t bother reading.

Yeah, in hindsight I realized my attempt to rebut the claim in a deadpan manner evidently didn’t produce results.

Did I claim otherwise? If you read carefully, I used word prospect Regarding order or time lines etc. only future can tell us … lets see.

My comment was more related to the prospect of India exporting frigates, when their indigenous shipbuilding industry is still so slow paced, and that unless they can demonstrate that they can build hulls faster, any idea of a frigate export is premature.

apparently the Philippines came out with a response today
neither confirming nor denying what went on with China and Korea
but stated that the T-50 is not intended for the Spratley islands.

however I can imagine PLA-MKII coming in and saying
“of course China has every right to protest, the Philippines is bringing in a stealth fighter!! can they even afford it?”

Hypothetically, even if something went on between china and Korea regarding FA-50 sales to the Philippines, would they know anything to comment?

Anyway, Korea has said china made no such overtures, which should hopefully put this matter at rest.

Does anyone have the combat radii of FA-50 with a normal combat load? Being a fairly small aircraft I can’t imagine it’s too great.

China is funding the overthrow of the Phillipine government and has been funding it for decades. If anything the countries around the Phillipines should be lodging protests against Chinese interference.

…. What?

BTW …. This time, we should get ready for next cry from China :applause:

Philippines eyes 2 frigates from India

Good to see India’s prospect of exporting military hardware for first time. Salute to Indian Navy for taking the lead in developing indigenous systems. I hope Indian Army and Indian Air Force follow it.

Considering current Indian shipbuilding rates, it might take over a decade for two frigates to reach the Philippines after cutting steel.
If the Philippines are serious about buying frigates they should look to South Korea. I don’t think India has had experience in exporting warships before, certainly nothing as complex as a frigate