CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Lethe]

It's not clear to me that peer to peer combat automatically requires larger drones. What they need more than anything else against a peer is survivability, and this is dependent entirely on stealth, not on size.

The drone also needs to be useful. For the ISR role that means considerable range/endurance (preferably 12+ hours) and a useful array of sensors (including high-end ESM gear) and perhaps ECM gear also. Particularly if active sensors are in the mix, that means a platform of considerable size (i.e. X-47 class and up).

For refueling and potential strike roles (these are more distant IMO, if only because J-15 already has considerable potential in these roles, whereas the ISR cupboard is pretty bare) there is obviously a direct connection between size and utility, particularly if one anticipates using the UAV to carry heavy munitions internally, i.e. those that cannot be carried by e.g. a navalised J-20.

 

[Iron Man]

The drone also needs to be useful. For the ISR role that means considerable range/endurance (preferably 12+ hours) and a useful array of sensors (including high-end ESM gear) and perhaps ECM gear also. Particularly if active sensors are in the mix, that means a platform of considerable size (i.e. X-47 class and up).

For refueling and potential strike roles (these are more distant IMO, if only because J-15 already has considerable potential in these roles, whereas the ISR cupboard is pretty bare) there is obviously a direct connection between size and utility, particularly if one anticipates using the UAV to carry heavy munitions internally, i.e. those that cannot be carried by e.g. a navalised J-20.

"Useful" is a subjective word. Where is it written that in order to be useful a naval UAV should have an endurance of "12+ hours"? Did you encounter this specific number in a manual? Why does an ISR/refueling drone need ECM gear? Why does it need a bomb bay? Trying to make this drone a jack-of-all-trades is not necessarily a goal of the PLAN, especially if the goal involves space savings on China's smaller carriers. Right now in order to refuel a J-15 another J-15 must be wasted by being turned into a flying gas can. J-15s also cannot conduct ISR. They could perform strike quite handedly, however, especially if launched off a cat. There is a good niche role for a lighter, smaller UAV that could fill both these roles of ISR and refueling, especially if it can be retasked to do one or the other by swapping out mission equipment housed in a mission bay for an extra fuel tank, for example, or vice versa.

 

[delft]

Matter of time scale. Eventually naval UAV's will be developed for use on full aircraft carriers, but smaller ones will arrive first and you don't want to deprive Liaoning from one or more J-15's to make room for these UAV's. It is not only the space for aircraft but also the maintenance needs that have to be catered for.

 

[Lethe]

"Useful" is a subjective word. Where is it written that in order to be useful a naval UAV should have an endurance of "12+ hours"? Did you encounter this specific number in a manual?

Because the ability to stay aloft and alert far longer than a human pilot is one of the major reasons for producing an unmanned aircraft in the first place. And because short endurance implies short range. When you are trying to defend the carrier group from opposing forces and attempting to locate an opposing carrier group, a DJI Phantom 4 is not really going to do the job. You will want a drone capable of operating 500 miles from the carrier and able to spend a considerable length of time there (again, unlike manned aircraft).

Why does an ISR/refueling drone need ECM gear? Why does it need a bomb bay? Trying to make this drone a jack-of-all-trades is not necessarily a goal of the PLAN, especially if the goal involves space savings on China's smaller carriers.

I never said anything about making a drone a "jack of all trades". Indeed I can envision at least two drone types on two different time scales: an X-47-sized ISR/EW drone in the mid-late 2020s, and a larger strike/refueling drone in the mid-2030s

There is a good niche role for a lighter, smaller UAV that could fill both these roles of ISR and refueling, especially if it can be retasked to do one or the other by swapping out mission equipment housed in a mission bay for an extra fuel tank, for example, or vice versa.

A smaller UAV implies a correspondingly limited fuel load. All things considered it might still be better than a J-15 at the task, but is it better enough when one considers that the J-15s themselves will, around this time, also experience a sharp reduction in their other assigned roles courtesy of the debut of a naval VLO fighter (J-20N or otherwise)? I would stick with the J-15s in the short-term and wait until a larger UAV arrives that can more comprehensively perform those tasks.

 

[Iron Man]

Matter of time scale. Eventually naval UAV's will be developed for use on full aircraft carriers, but smaller ones will arrive first and you don't want to deprive Liaoning from one or more J-15's to make room for these UAV's. It is not only the space for aircraft but also the maintenance needs that have to be catered for.

I don't think any of the medium or large UAVs can even be launched off the Liaoning or CV-17, so I am not talking about those carriers.

Because the ability to stay aloft and alert far longer than a human pilot is one of the major reasons for producing an unmanned aircraft in the first place. And because short endurance implies short range. When you are trying to defend the carrier group from opposing forces and attempting to locate an opposing carrier group, a DJI Phantom 4 is not really going to do the job. You will want a drone capable of operating 500 miles from the carrier and able to spend a considerable length of time there (again, unlike manned aircraft).

Nothing you said requires a drone of 12+ hours endurance. Also, the ability to take the human risk out of the equation is another major reason for UAVs. BTW, an MQ-9 Reaper has a range of 1,200 miles and endurance of 14 hours at its MTOW of 4.8 tons. How's that for range and endurance?

I never said anything about making a drone a "jack of all trades". Indeed I can envision at least two drone types on two different time scales: an X-47-sized ISR/EW drone in the mid-late 2020s, and a larger strike/refueling drone in the mid-2030s

You required a hypothetical UAV in your previous post to perform refueling, strike, and ISR all in one platform. At least this was your implication:

For refueling and potential strike roles (these are more distant IMO, if only because J-15 already has considerable potential in these roles, whereas the ISR cupboard is pretty bare) there is obviously a direct connection between size and utility, particularly if one anticipates using the UAV to carry heavy munitions internally, i.e. those that cannot be carried by e.g. a navalised J-20.

A smaller UAV implies a correspondingly limited fuel load. All things considered it might still be better than a J-15 at the task, but is it better enough when one considers that the J-15s themselves will, around this time, also experience a sharp reduction in their other assigned roles courtesy of the debut of a naval VLO fighter (J-20N or otherwise)? I would stick with the J-15s in the short-term and wait until a larger UAV arrives that can more comprehensively perform those tasks.

Like I was saying earlier, no need to waste a J-15 as a tanker when you can put missiles on it instead. And I'm not willing to consider a navalized J-20 at this time or its implications for the alleged demise of the J-15 (a hypothetical built upon another hypothetical), unless somebody important on Chinese BBS starts whispering about it.

 

[Jeff Head]

And I'm not willing to consider a navalized J-20 at this time or its implications for the alleged demise of the J-15 (a hypothetical built upon another hypothetical), unless somebody important on Chinese BBS starts whispering about it.

IMHO, it's pretty clear that the J-15, and improvements to it, is going to remain the PLAN carrier strike aircraft of choice for some time to come.

With the upgrades for the new CATOBAR J-15 version, they have made that choice pretty clear IMHO.

 

[Lethe]

Please. China's pursuit of a naval 5G fighter to replace J-15 is as certain as anything else one might care to speculate about for the post-2025 timeframe, and the implications for future J-15 taskings are crystal clear (see: Super Hornet).

But then I guess no position is too absurd for the old boys club. Who can say that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that it has not already imploded and the end is <8 minutes away? I propose that all discussion of that mysterious realm known as "the future" be banned as purely hypothetical and undeserving of serious consideration.

 

[Iron Man]

Please. China's pursuit of a naval 5G fighter to replace J-15 is as certain as anything else one might care to speculate about for the post-2025 timeframe, and the implications for future J-15 taskings are crystal clear (see: Super Hornet).

But then I guess no position is too absurd for the old boys club. Who can say that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that it has not already imploded and the end is <8 minutes away? I propose that all discussion of that mysterious realm known as "the future" be banned as purely hypothetical and undeserving of serious consideration.

Your condescension is amusing even if totally unearned. Neither Jeff nor myself are saying that a "naval 5G fighter" is never going to happen. Your 'speculation' that a naval J-20 will relegate the J-15 to tanker role is what I find to be laughable to the point of not worth discussing, in as much as the Super Hornet is already being used as a tanker without the presence of the F-35C in the air wings. Also, perhaps you don't know this, but the F-35C will not actually be replacing the Super Hornet upon its entry into service; they will replace F-18Cs and will be serving alongside the E/Fs for quite a long time, forming 2 squadrons each of the F-35C and F-18E/F per carrier air wing. And oh wait, isn't the USN's UCLASS program being shifted from strike to refueling? I guess the USN is doing things ass backwards compared to your grand vision.

 

[morosini]

Hello everyone, i'm a new member and i'm pleased to have become part of this big family of enthusiasts of the Chinese military development. I read on PakistaniDefence forum a comment about 003 that quoted an insider who wrote that its displacement will be over 100000 ton at standard load and between 120 and 140 K ton at full load, well over Ford class. Do you think it'a a credible information?

 

[Blitzo]

Hello everyone, i'm a new member and i'm pleased to have become part of this big family of enthusiasts of the Chinese military development. I read on PakistaniDefence forum a comment about 003 that quoted an insider who wrote that its displacement will be over 100000 ton at standard load and between 120 and 140 K ton at full load, well over Ford class. Do you think it'a a credible information?

Hello, welcome to the forum.

to answer your question, no at this stage it definitely does not sound credible.