J-15 carrier fighter thread

[kwaigonegin]

I would caution against using the precedent set after WWII as a reliable reference point. For most of the period between WWII and today the countries that had robust and sizable carrier ops were all on one side, and the one power that had both the pressing need to develop counters and resources to something about it only had to worry about how to counter carriers in the near seas as opposed to the far seas. This reference point also ignores the effect the development of sophisticated naval air and missile defense systems, and now also stealth aircraft and UCAVs, will have on naval tactics and strategies. The world and circumstances in which China has had to develop anti carrier group tactics and strategies is, for the most part, very different from what the Soviets had to contend with (at least for most of the Cold War, as I’ll get into a bit later). I’d argue that the way we’ve seen carriers used to effect the last half century has been more circumstantial than fundamental.

Think about this operationally and tactically. Let’s say you try to attack a carrier battle group with a group composed of cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and frigates, with the primary objective being to erode the battle group’s air and missile defenses enough to deliver a hard kill on the carrier with an ASBM. How are you going to be able to effectively defend against the carrier groups aerial strike capabilities as you’re trying to wear down its defenses enough to deliver your hard kill without your own airwing to neutralize close air threats? Lest we forget, an aircraft carrier’s air complement isn’t just for attacking land targets, but also ships. There’s a reason why when the Soviet Navy finally started to integrate carrier ops into their doctrine in the 80s their initial primary focus was to develop their carriers for CAP missions. This was not a coincidence.

I stand by my argument. Carrier battles in WWII was vastly different tactically and strategically than modern carrier warfare. Back then airplanes had to literally fly over and drop bombs, torpedoes etc on a peer rival’s carrier to destroy it. These days not so much. That alone would absolutely negate any similar argument about carrier vs carrier battles in a peer type confrontation.
In WWII the carrier was used as a tactical asset. These days carriers are looked and used more as a strategic asset. As such it’s used is far more effective and applicable over non peered rival.
in a near peer modern battle, I would posit that if a carrier were to be sunk or disabled, odds are the destructive blows came from other assets that did not originate from the opfor’s carrier aircrafts.

 

[Jeff Head]

I stand by my argument. Carrier battles in WWII was vastly different tactically and strategically than modern carrier warfare. Back then airplanes had to literally fly over and drop bombs, torpedoes etc on a peer rival’s carrier to destroy it. These days not so much. That alone would absolutely negate any similar argument about carrier vs carrier battles in a peer type confrontation.
In WWII the carrier was used as a tactical asset. These days carriers are looked and used more as a strategic asset. As such it’s used is far more effective and applicable over non peered rival.
in a near peer modern battle, I would posit that if a carrier were to be sunk or disabled, odds are the destructive blows came from other assets that did not originate from the opfor’s carrier aircrafts.

Having siad that...peer carrier groups have air wings that are strong enough to attack and destroy OPFOR carriers.

They have to have the assets to find them...but particularly with refueling capbilities, they have the range and the standoff weapons to make it happen, particularly when joined together with other members of the CSG and their LR anti-shipping weapons.

 

[latenlazy]

I stand by my argument. Carrier battles in WWII was vastly different tactically and strategically than modern carrier warfare. Back then airplanes had to literally fly over and drop bombs, torpedoes etc on a peer rival’s carrier to destroy it. These days not so much. That alone would absolutely negate any similar argument about carrier vs carrier battles in a peer type confrontation.
In WWII the carrier was used as a tactical asset. These days carriers are looked and used more as a strategic asset. As such it’s used is far more effective and applicable over non peered rival.
in a near peer modern battle, I would posit that if a carrier were to be sunk or disabled, odds are the destructive blows came from other assets that did not originate from the opfor’s carrier aircrafts.

As I said earlier, I don’t think carrier vs carrier battles will happen because the objective of one carrier is to sink another carrier, but because any means of sinking a carrier will require defense from the carrier’s air power, which would then require one’s own air power.

 

[Yellow Submarine]

The assets you refer to (the DDGs, FFGs, etc.) emulate the CBG force structure of the USN because they're necessary for the protection of any naval vessel the caliber & importance of an aircraft carrier, not because the PLAN designed it in a way that purposely imitates an American CBG. That would be akin to claiming that the J-20 has all of its necessary bells & whistles because the PLAAF wants to emulate the F-22. This does not necessarily mean that the airwing composition, which reflects overall PLAN doctrine and long-term goals for its CVs, will be reflective of that of an USN carrier. In a way, the PLAN has already deviated from this path by settling with a heavyweight mainstay fighter (J-15) instead of a medium-weight platform like the Super Hornet.



Being capable doesn't mean it is necessarily suitable. If the Su-35K has a bigger range and kinematic performance than the J-11B, which it almost certainly does, then those are reasonable grounds upon which the PLAAF has purchased them.



Aside from the Falklands conflict, which wouldn't even be a good example, have there been any carrier vs carrier battles following WWII? Given the disparity between the projected PLAN CV groups and those of the current US Navy, I would be very surprised if the PLAN brass thinks that their carriers would be of any use against their American counterparts.

In the short-to-mid term, the PLAN won't be able to match the USN in an open sea battle, especially a carrier vs carrier engagement. They still have a lot catching up to do, particularly in areas such as aircraft carriers, naval aviation and submarine design. In the long term, the Chinese clearly intend to challenge the US for economic and naval dominance and to supplant the US as the world's leading power. Give it another decade or two and the PLAN will be able to field several carrier battle groups.

 

[Yellow Submarine]

The biggest constraint for both Chinese and American naval aviation will be cost. 5th gen aircraft are significantly more expensive to not only buy but maintain and operate. For the mid-term, the USN is only planning to buy enough F-35C's for each carrier wing to have one squadron apiece, with the remaining VF being filled out with Super Hornets. It's indicative that while the USN is continuing to procure F-35C's, it's also planning to buy an upgraded version of the Super Hornet starting next year. The PLAN will likely face similar constraints. When it's CATOBAR carriers begin entering service, they will probably operate a mix of J-15's and J-31's.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Having siad that...peer carrier groups have air wings that are strong enough to attack and destroy OPFOR carriers.

They have to have the assets to find them...but particularly with refueling capbilities, they have the range and the standoff weapons to make it happen, particularly when joined together with other members of the CSG and their LR anti-shipping weapons.

Definitely. A carrier air wing has enough firepower to destroy most things on earth including another carrier however in the context of the original post, the modern carrier’s strike capability as a whole is better utilized and far more practical to be used as a strategic asset against a lesser foe than it is in a carrier vs carrier type battle.

 

[Iron Man]

The assets you refer to (the DDGs, FFGs, etc.) emulate the CBG force structure of the USN because they're necessary for the protection of any naval vessel the caliber & importance of an aircraft carrier, not because the PLAN designed it in a way that purposely imitates an American CBG. That would be akin to claiming that the J-20 has all of its necessary bells & whistles because the PLAAF wants to emulate the F-22. This does not necessarily mean that the airwing composition, which reflects overall PLAN doctrine and long-term goals for its CVs, will be reflective of that of an USN carrier. In a way, the PLAN has already deviated from this path by settling with a heavyweight mainstay fighter (J-15) instead of a medium-weight platform like the Super Hornet.

Actually, it IS akin to claiming that the J-20's bells and whistles are PLAAF's attempt to emulate the F-22, not necessarily in every part, but certainly taken as a whole. The F-22 is the trail-blazer and every stealth fighter that comes after it is some kind of attempt to emulate, or perhaps pay homage to, the F-22 and the stealth features it trailblazed. Similarly for the USN CBG and its air wing. It is essentially unquestionable that the PLAN's CBG and air wing will follow very closely to the USN's CBG and air wing, which leaves me puzzled as to why you are questioning it right now. All the pieces of the puzzle are in the same exact spirit if not the literal exact copy. The need for AEW (KJ-600), the need for stealth in air superiority (J-31), the need for EW specialists (J-15D). These are all features that are laughably unnecessary when bombing third world or second rate countries, but vital when fighting peers and near peers. The use of the J-15 is a total non-issue since that is what the PLAN had access to, and it worked with what it had; you also forget that USN has previously used far larger fighters than the F-18 on its carriers and still managed to achieve 70+ total aircraft on carriers the same size as the upcoming "Type 003". Similarly the J-20 doesn't have to be exactly the same as the F-22 to closely emulate the stealth concepts that the F-22 pioneered. And even if all else fails, the very existence of the "Type 003" is a clear indication of the PLAN's goals for its CBGs. This is the absolute fatal flaw in your claim that the PLAN will not emulate the USN as far as its CBGs are concerned. A large CATOBAR carrier like that is used for everything that the USN uses its carriers for, and nothing that it doesn't. When we only knew about the Liaoning and its sister carrier, you could perhaps have gotten away with your line of argumentation. At this point the uncertainty is absolutely gone.

Being capable doesn't mean it is necessarily suitable. If the Su-35K has a bigger range and kinematic performance than the J-11B, which it almost certainly does, then those are reasonable grounds upon which the PLAAF has purchased them.

Sorry, I don't buy your reasoning at all. Unless you can provide an official (or even semi-official) source claiming they specifically bought the Su-35s to escort the H-6Ks, of course. Outside of that, this sounds like a made-up reason to me.

 

[azesus]

Hey Iron woMan, China is not trying to emulate USA, its just USA already the first trail blazed figure out the best practice so the general principle is there but China's technique is lagging USA a bit, for example just because a wheel is round(general principle) looks similar, but the USA wheel is rounder because USA first achiever better technique. China's trying achieve self defense protecting Malacca Straight and Su-35 is to escort H-6K and secure South Sea. Their official don't have to nor need to tell nobody anything, stop trying to be a nosy know it all James Bond wanna be. China is not trying to duke it out with USA and start WW3 bring end of the world like this is some kind Boxing championship

 

[Deleted member 13312]

The biggest constraint for both Chinese and American naval aviation will be cost. 5th gen aircraft are significantly more expensive to not only buy but maintain and operate. For the mid-term, the USN is only planning to buy enough F-35C's for each carrier wing to have one squadron apiece, with the remaining VF being filled out with Super Hornets. It's indicative that while the USN is continuing to procure F-35C's, it's also planning to buy an upgraded version of the Super Hornet starting next year. The PLAN will likely face similar constraints. When it's CATOBAR carriers begin entering service, they will probably operate a mix of J-15's and J-31's.

While it is almost guaranteed that the PLAN will operate a mixture of both 4th and 5th gen aircrafts aboard their carriers, their reasons for doing so will most likely be much more different from the USN. For starters most of the J-15s are relatively new so they still have decades of service life in them, moreover suffice to say that the F-35's cost is more a result of mismanagement then actual realistic costs. The J-31 following a different design philosophy and procedure is most likely to cost less then the F-35C even if we factor in the differences of purchasing power in both countries.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

I stand by my argument. Carrier battles in WWII was vastly different tactically and strategically than modern carrier warfare. Back then airplanes had to literally fly over and drop bombs, torpedoes etc on a peer rival’s carrier to destroy it.

Then again ships back then don't go packing long ranged SAMs either. The arms race is not specifically limited to just one platform. We have no idea how modern carrier warfare will fare because frankly there have not been one on a scale that is worth analyzing.
But then again, I think this view on how carrier warfare will work is somewhat skewered. Just like in WW2, a carrier's main job is to prevent the other sides carrier air wing to achieve air superiority and then attack the carrier's own fleet. Having the other side have air superiority in a peer fight spells almost certain defeat. And with airborn AShM, a carrier can strike a enemy surface fleet that does not have carriers of their own no retaliation whatsoever. Even the largest ship mounted missiles does not have half the range of a J-15/F-18.
This is rings more true in a scenario where both sides can only rely on their naval assets like in the Indian Ocean or South Atlantic.