CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Gloire_bb]

There is one fantansy in this CG though, that is the J-20. Up till now there is no real indication of it being considered for carrier ops, not to mention how impractical it would be due to its size.

Tomcat was impractical?
But prospective Soviet naval fighter was heavy too.
Medium fighters on decks are actually a postCW trend, and it isn't capability-based.

So, j-20 based solution will be as appropriate as fc-31 based one.
Probably more mature at that.

 

[Gustaf Adolf]

Any one have any idea on how many type 002 China wants?
The rumour I heard was they were planning for two before starting on the type 003 another article I read said that they were planning on building two carriers at the same time. The article didn't mention which type of carrier though.

 

[Intrepid]

Any one have any idea on how many type 002 China wants?

The answer is very simple: we do not know.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Tomcat was impractical?
But prospective Soviet naval fighter was heavy too.
Medium fighters on decks are actually a postCW trend, and it isn't capability-based.

So, j-20 based solution will be as appropriate as fc-31 based one.
Probably more mature at that.

I will believe a naval based J-20 when I see it, which afaik has not progress beyond the speculative zone.
Comparing the J-20 to the likes of the Tomcat and the Su-33 ignores the fact that the latter 2 were built from the ground up as naval fighters. Whilst the J-20 need not consider the complexities of carrier operations during its design stage.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I will believe a naval based J-20 when I see it, which afaik has not progress beyond the speculative zone.
Comparing the J-20 to the likes of the Tomcat and the Su-33 ignores the fact that the latter 2 were built from the ground up as naval fighters. Whilst the J-20 need not consider the complexities of carrier operations during its design stage.

Su-33 wasn't either, and (as far as mig guys tell) was a much less throughout rebuilt than a mig-29k.
S-32, of course, was a completely different story.

But how it relates to their size?
With all pros and cons involved, larger fighter typically performs duty of a carrierborne fighter better. Simply due to tasks involved.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Si

Su-33 wasn't either, and (as far as mig guys tell) was a much less throughout rebuilt than a mig-29k.
S-32, of course, was a completely different story.

But how it relates to their size?
With all pros and cons involved, larger fighter typically performs duty of a carrierborne fighter better. Simply due to tasks involved.

Size will also have to be balanced with the number of fighters that a carrier is expected to carry (which is a serious issue as carriers has limited real estate to go about). Having the best carrier based fighter in the world would make little sense if you can't put enough of them on a carrier in any meaningful numbers.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

There is 2 ways how I look at this situation :
1) If China's CBG is not expected to go up against a opponent wielding a capable air force/naval air wing then it can get away with fielding a smaller fighter like that of the F-18.
2) If the CBG is expected go up a against such an opposition, then while it will be prudent to field bigger and more capable naval fighters. One must remember that any enemy capable of putting up a fight is most likely going to have the numbers to back it up as well. So the PLANAF can't just go all in to field the largest fighter possible on their carriers.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Si

Size will also have to be balanced with the number of fighters that a carrier is expected to carry (which is a serious issue as carriers has limited real estate to go about). Having the best carrier based fighter in the world would make little sense if you can put enough of them on a carrier in any meaningful numbers.

For now we aren't talking true light fighters. There has only been one after quite a while(oh Tejas), and it isn't something anyone wants to end up with. Certainly China doesn't plan to have one.

Medium fighters don't necessarily take that much less space than large ones do, depends on how you pack them. They're shorter and more convenient to maneuver on a deck, though.

On the other hand, number of aircraft in the air is limited, especially continuous one. The further out, the more limited it is.
Naval aircraft, apart from spotting, require range/endurance, low speed handling and payload carrying capacity. Being smaller only really helps the first.

PLAN already has J-15 family (which is by sny standard fresh), but may actually keep same troubles Soviet/Russian 33s did; we just don't know. While Chinese Flankers certainly lack 33s main conceptual flaw(they actually can perform a2g) - structural stuff is unknown.

P.s.Choice to kill Tomcat family and replace it with Superbugs wasn't a navy choice to begin with. Even if it was a right thing to do(IMHO)

 

[Intrepid]

J-15 is a high performance low speed handling aircraft and perfect for the learning decade.

 

[kurutoga]

There is 2 ways how I look at this situation :
1) If China's CBG is not expected to go up against a opponent wielding a capable air force/naval air wing then it can get away with fielding a smaller fighter like that of the F-18.
2) If the CBG is expected go up a against such an opposition, then while it will be prudent to field bigger and more capable naval fighters. One must remember that any enemy capable of putting up a fight is most likely going to have the numbers to back it up as well. So the PLANAF can't just go all in to field the largest fighter possible on their carriers.

One problem for Chinese military planners, is that after centuries' of relying on inferior weapons, they are over-compensating a bit. (the item comes to mind is the sniper grenade launcher)

LOL sometimes I think it is just a continuation of Qing's policy in the 1860s. This time it is well thought-out. We need a war to prove PLA is effective or just a paper tiger/dragon.