Ideal chinese carrier thread

[PrOeLiTeZ]

That is to say when the Flanker is extensively modified to take the massive force that catapaults act on the structure. Flankers structure aren't intended for that kind of force, so ski jump was suitable, though if catapault is to be chosen I would see that the Flanker should be undergoing serious structure change and strengthing. Personally the Flanker is too big and room consuming to be on a carrier. Its like F-15 launching of a carrier. But though the Chinese don't have anything between the heavey and light fighter category like the Americans do.

 

[bd popeye]

That is to say when the Flanker is extensively modified to take the massive force that catapaults act on the structure.

Arrested landings are, I think, more punishing on the airframes than a cat shot.

There is a film I saw while serving in the USN that was devoted to the engineering required to design an aircraft able to take the punishment of carrier life.

 

[tphuang]

other than that, you have to worry about erosion caused by sea water, wind and stuff like that. A naval fighter certainly has to have a lot stronger airframe than a land based on.

 

[planeman]

Chinese carrier aircraft options... to relative scale

The L-15 has two engines which is seen as a safety plus, but would have pretty much the same deck footprint as the J-10 or FC-1 with nothing like the capability, even in a single-seat version with radar.

The FC-1 is technically the smallest footprint of all the aircraft shown (assuming L-15 has same wingspan as Yak-130), but for only a fraction more you can fit a J-10 in and the capability gap is rather obvious. And at less than 10m wingspan you needn't even have folding wings. Single engine is obvious weakness but it wouldn't be the only single engined carrier fighter in service... F-35 comes to mind

By comparison Su-33s and JH-7as are massive. The JH-7a is a non-starter, being a relatively one-dimensional type that although good for strike, could hardly double as an air-defence fighter (at least not well) and is plainly less capable than the same sized Su-33 (assuming "modern" Su-33).

I think the answer is a mix of Su-33s (say 12) and J-10s, or even just J-10s. J-10 may not be quite as good as Super-Hornet or Rafale but no doubt it is in the same ball-park and could easily deploy in multi-role squadrons offering good power-projection capability.

 

[Sczepan]

great comparement planeman, where do you got the exact dimensions ...
and could you insert the scale in meter, please?

for safety I would prefer birds with two engines, and I am pretty sure,
the PLAN will start with a trainee aircraft first, and that is the L-15 (considering that and the development of L-15 could explain some little progress with the Varjag, there is no need to hurry)

 

[planeman]

I got the dimensions from wiki and the like. For the L-15 I assumed it has the same wingspan as the Yak-130.

So, for a navalised J-10 I'd suggest sticking with a single engine but adding CFTs. Avionics would be the best already available for J-10 so guess an IRST and relatively good air-ground capability, latest SRAAM and PL-10 etc. The neatest trick would be a folding tail .... I'm thinking double-stacking part of the hanger deck much like the "hoist-able decks" on some vehicle ferries. By that way of thinking height is more important than wingspan for maximising aircraft stowage.

Original CGI at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The air-wing would be:
12 Su-33s with modern avionics for main air-defence (to be replaced by J-14s from 2020 onwards)
24 J-10s for secondary air-defense and GP strike etc
4 fixed wing AEW assets
6 fixed wing ASW/MP aircraft
10-14 Z-9 ASW/GP helicopters (less height than Ka-27)

= 52 aircraft

Question for Popeye or Jeff:
Re the 90 aircraft capability of the USN's super-carriers. Are they all carried in the hanger or does that rely on flight-deck storage? If so, what happens in bad weather?

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

USN carriers have been designed since before WW2 to operate with at least half of their air wing on deck. In heavy weather those on deck would most likely be 'spotted' further aft to avoid any 'green' coming over the bows but they would still be on deck. With the currently reduced air wing size a larger percentage can be stowed below deck leaving fewer aircraft 'in harms way' on deck.

 

[planeman]

Thanks, sorry for directing that question at the USN guys, of course you and many people here are equally qualified to answer. Thanks again.

I think that the USN is making a compromise, which in their mind is optimum. But clearly if you can store 100% of your regular air-wing below decks that's a huge benefit. This also means that aircraft carriers like CDG and Admiral Kuznetsov can actually operate with almost twice the number of aircraft in "surge" capacity conditions such as war.

 

[bd popeye]

I think that the USN is making a compromise, which in their mind is optimum

The reason for the reduced air wings is the improved storie rates because of PGM..Prescision guided munitions. Fewer stories required to perform the same missions because of the PGM destroy targets with much more accuracy.

If need be the USN CVNs could operate with an air wing similar to one I deployed with on the USS America CV-66 in 1981.

CVW-11 as deployed on CV-66 in 1981

14ac= VF-114 Aardvarks F-14A(TARPS)
12ac= VF-213 Black Lions F-14A
12ac= VA-192 Golden Dragons A-7E
12ac= VA-195 Dam Busters A-7E
15ac= VA-95 Green Lizards A-6E/KA-6D
04ac= VAW-123 Screwtops E-2C
04ac= VAQ-133 Wizards EA-6B
06ac= HS-12 Wyverns SH-3H
10ac= VS-33 Screwbirds S-3A
01ac= VQ-2DET. Batmen EA-3B
02ac= VR-24DET. Lifting Eagles C-2A
92 total aircraft.

Given those numbers an Nimitz class could carry 30+ additional aircraft if need be.

The air wing may look like this..

72 F/A18 Hornets & Super Hornets
8 E/A-6B Prowlers or E/F-18G Growlers
4 E2-C Hawkeyes
6 SH-60 Seahawks variants
1 or 2 C-2 Greyhounds

That equals 91/92 aircraft.

 

[montyp165]

A naval J-10 should be twin-engined for the safety factor, as the J-10C variant is supposed to be equipped.