PLA Air Force news, pics and videos

Biscuits said:

The J-20 isn’t bulkier than the F-14 was. And it is much more pilot friendly.

A J-15 is essentially a navalized J-16. There won’t be anything wrong with it per se in a long time, except for not being stealth.

Click to expand...

I'm inclined to believe that twin engined medium weight fighters would be better for carrier operations than heavy weight ones. I only have my probably flawed logic of bigger jets being more susceptible towards structural failures than smaller ones due to the landing operations atop the deck.

Xsizor said:

I'm inclined to believe that twin engined medium weight fighters would be better for carrier operations than heavy weight ones. I only have my probably flawed logic of bigger jets being more susceptible towards structural failures than smaller ones due to the landing operations atop the deck.

Click to expand...

Smaller jets --> Fit more onto the carrier, easier to move around the carrier, easier to land, smaller RCS given same design
Larger jets --> Higher range, carries more missiles, bigger missiles (as long as catapult is powerful enough)

If you ask me to choose one, I prefer bigger jets because in naval warfare, greater range means you can start launching strikes against someone before they can launch at you, and greater payload means bigger, badder anti-ship missiles can be carried. More smaller jets kinda makes your carrier very good at unleashing a swarm to defend itself but carriers aren't really meant to be defensive weapons anyway. But on larger carriers, it's possible to carry a mix so you have offense squad and defense squad.

manqiangrexue said:

Smaller jets --> Fit more onto the carrier, easier to move around the carrier, easier to land, smaller RCS given same design
Larger jets --> Higher range, carries more missiles, bigger missiles (as long as catapult is powerful enough)

If you ask me to choose one, I prefer bigger jets because in naval warfare, greater range means you can start launching strikes against someone before they can launch at you, and greater payload means bigger, badder anti-ship missiles can be carried. More smaller jets kinda makes your carrier very good at unleashing a swarm to defend itself but carriers aren't really meant to be defensive weapons anyway. But on larger carriers, it's possible to carry a mix so you have offense squad and defense squad.

Click to expand...

Then why didn't USA consider a heavy weight fighter for its navy? Why didn't Russia continue producing Su-33? USA chose SuperHornet and Russia settled for Mig29K. The french has the Rafale-M. All of these are medium weight twin engined fighters. Don't you think it is a big risk for China to go off the beaten path ? Also, BVR fights are determined by better radars so lack of range can be covered by improved engine efficiency, better radar and longer range AA missiles.

Xsizor said:

I'm concerned for the J-31 rather than J-20. The J-20 is never going to be " thrown away" . It is a neat aircraft that'll ( or must) see into that China is "blessed" with a stealth fighter with 180 KN thrust engines. It is it's primary duty. China acquiring SU57 would be to deny India the chance for acquiring it or dent the confidence of India in the aircraft ( "if my enemy has the same aircraft, then i'm worried that he'll know my weaknesses" ). But J-31 is a concern. I've read that it isn't structurally or aerodynamically a great aircraft, relative to the flankers. I hope they iron out its defects so that they'll have a Hi-Lo mix of stealth fighters. Recently' Janes have reported on a J-18 Snowy Owl STOVL. Then there is the JH-XX and the H-20 etc. Too many programs, too high a chance that one or too would turn out to be cursed to live as museum pieces that present itself as fancy chinese X-planes.

Click to expand...

According to some statements made by "PUPU" recently, which are in the FC-31 thread, the FC-31 is being heavily redesigned into a new fighter called the J-35.

Biscuits said:

If the Su-57 is really considered, it could replace J-31 in the high low mix.

Regarding naval fighters, a navalized J-20 would sort of be ideal. Not sure how the design lends itself to navalizing though.

Click to expand...

Su-57 and FC-31 occupy different fighter niches. You can't interchange the two without having to rewrite your doctrine or their operational roles.

Xsizor said:

Then why didn't USA consider a heavy weight fighter for its navy? Why didn't Russia continue producing Su-33? USA chose SuperHornet and Russia settled for Mig29K. The french has the Rafale-M. All of these are medium weight twin engined fighters. Don't you think it is a big risk for China to go off the beaten path ?

Click to expand...

Because by the time the Tomcat retired better engines meant the US could get a compromise between a smaller fighter and higher range + payload, which is how they arrived at the Super Hornet. There really is no one right answer to this. It depends on what your carrier doctrine is, and that can always change over time.

Xsizor said:

Then why didn't USA consider a heavy weight fighter for its navy? Why didn't Russia continue producing Su-33? USA chose SuperHornet and Russia settled for Mig29K. The french has the Rafale-M. All of these are medium weight twin engined fighters. Don't you think it is a big risk for China to go off the beaten path ? Also, BVR fights are determined by better radars so lack of range can be covered by improved engine efficiency, better radar and longer range AA missiles.

Click to expand...

There are still bitter regrets within the USN at the early forced retirement of the Tomcat and lack of an equivalent replacement.

The Russians went for the Mig29K because the Indians already paid for the development costs, whereas they would have had a pay for the development of a modernised Su33.

In addition, both the US and Europeans pretty much take air superiority as a given, whereas the PLAN expects to have to fight hard to gain that.

That is why the former are focused more on efficiency, whereas the latter finds raw capabilities more important.

The USN’s choice of the F35 is largely based on a assumption that they would not be facing hostile 5th gene in the Raptor class well into the latter life of the F35, if ever, by which point a far more capable US next gen fighter would already be flying in numbers.

Had the USN planners knew that they would be facing something like the J20 as early as they are, then I dare say they might have insisted on something a little bigger and with more kinetic capabilities.

The PLAN’s calculations are pretty straight forwards really.

Even within the Pacific itself, the PLAN carrier fleet is unlikely to be able to match, never mind outnumbered the USN in terms of carriers and carrier aircraft deployable.

When you cannot avoid a numerical advantage, the most obvious alternative strategy is to aim for a qualitative advanage. That is something the J31 is unlikely to offer against the F35.

That is why I have always favoured a carrier fighter based on the J20.

plawolf said:

There are still bitter regrets within the USN at the early forced retirement of the Tomcat and lack of an equivalent replacement.

The Russians went for the Mig29K because the Indians already paid for the development costs, whereas they would have had a pay for the development of a modernised Su33.

In addition, both the US and Europeans pretty much take air superiority as a given, whereas the PLAN expects to have to fight hard to gain that.

That is why the former are focused more on efficiency, whereas the latter finds raw capabilities more important.

The USN’s choice of the F35 is largely based on a assumption that they would not be facing hostile 5th gene in the Raptor class well into the latter life of the F35, if ever, by which point a far more capable US next gen fighter would already be flying in numbers.

Had the USN planners knew that they would be facing something like the J20 as early as they are, then I dare say they might have insisted on something a little bigger and with more kinetic capabilities.

The PLAN’s calculations are pretty straight forwards really.

Even within the Pacific itself, the PLAN carrier fleet is unlikely to be able to match, never mind outnumbered the USN in terms of carriers and carrier aircraft deployable.

When you cannot avoid a numerical advantage, the most obvious alternative strategy is to aim for a qualitative advanage. That is something the J31 is unlikely to offer against the F35.

That is why I have always favoured a carrier fighter based on the J20.

Click to expand...

Numbers are their own quality. Little point having greater quality if you lose by attrition.

Advantages of a J-20-based carrier fighter:
- Longer range
- Larger weapons load

Advantages of a FC-31-based carrier fighter:
- Less deck space
- Likely less expensive
- Less development/testing time
- More seasoned aircraft manufacturer (for naval jets)
- Lighter, allowing full use of catapult or even STOBAR operations

I doubt the FC-31 will be much cheaper. Simply because it will be dual engine.
Perhaps 25% cheaper or perhaps not at all. Especially when you consider the production numbers might turn out to be a lot lower.