PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Franklin said:

I don't understand this talk about a navalized J-10. China doesn't need a navalized J-10 the Flankers are just fine. The biggest problem is that the Liaoning doesn't go out to sea enough and there for the crew and pilots have very few chances to train. The Liaoning has been at sea for 22 days in june and now she is at port for 23 days.

Click to expand...

antiterror13 said:

Jeff, you are so good, knowledgeable and creative (and wise). If PLA wanted to hire you as a consultant, would you accept it ?

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Thank you for your kind words, antiterror. They are far too kind.

However, I work for the US Government. I am a member of the US Naval Institute. My father was in the US Navy. My son in law is in the US Navy. My roots go back to the 1600s in America and my acnestors and kin have fought for America in every war she has been engaged in.

I have great respect and admiration for the Chinese people. I never have had, and never will have any problem with the people themselves, and I pray that they all can live in peace and experience prosperity for themselves and their families.

However, I also freely took an oath to the US Constitution. That is an oath that never expires. Not when I retire, not when I take on other jobs. It is not an oath to a person, or to a political party. it is simply to the US Constitution which I personally belive is an inspoired document.

The Chinese government is a potential adversary to the United States, so I could never give any consultation or help to that government in any form that would directly result in their systems being capable of hurting the United States or its interests.

This does not mean the US is perfect by any means. Though the Constitution is (IMHO) probably the best written expose on law and liberty in existance, it is also administered by fallable humans. We need not look too far to see mistakes thoes people and leaders make, particularly under this administration which has been the worst foreign policy debacle in my life time...at least since Carter. We have seen other foreign policy mistakes under other Presidents, including Bush (both of them), Clintomn, etc. When that happens we have the means to work from within to change things...and we do.

None of this stops me from sharing my honest opinions on these matters, and on naval matters and technology. I do so here and really enjoy SD because it is one of the few places people from all countries can come and do so, and do so in a fairly moderated environment.

Anyhow, again, than you for your kind words.

Click to expand...

luhai said:

There is the new J-10C coming out, which appears to be a strengthened design. Let's see if it will have a naval version.

J-10 essentially had a new airframe from A to B, however B is held up for seeming no reason as it get delayed and delayed into production. And now C is coming out with a strengthened airframe to carry large weapon loads. Perhaps the Navy wants to the J-10, and it's the reason why B isn't deployed and C will serve as common airframe for PLAAF and PLAN? who knows.

Anyways, if J-10C don't have a naval version. Then J-10 will never have a naval version, one major airframe spin is enough with next gen fighter already in testing stages.

Click to expand...

kwaigonegin said:

Like myself and others who have served we swear allegiance to the Constitution and not to a specific party or group.

Click to expand...

kwaigonegin said:

You're a good man Jeff... Like myself and others who have served we swear allegiance to the Constitution and not to a specific party or group.

Below is a typical US military oath. If you personally do not believe in God you don't have to recite the last line but everything else you need to!

"I, ............. , having been appointed an officer in the Navy of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

anyway sorry for the OT

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

From a design and engineering perspective, they could navalize the J-10 design.

It would require that they do a number of things and would not be the type of thing where they would retrofit older planes. They would have to be new builds.

They would have to do the engineering to allow for, and then build into the aircraft the following:

1) A strengthened undercarriage and landing gear that could take the pounding.
2) An arrestor hook and the underlying structure to handle the traps.
3) An exterior coating that was resistant to and protected the aircraft and its innards from the salt water environemnt.
4) Appropriate changes if necessary for refueling.
5) Adding, if necessary folding wings to minimize space.

If the J-10 met their functional requirements in terms of payload, function, etc., and was projected to do so for a couple of decades into the future, thenn it would be cheaper to do these things than to design and build another aircraft from the ground up. The question is simply whether this is something the PLAN feels would meet its requirements and needs.

If not, then there is no sense considering it. If so, then they will (if they haven't already) take a hard look at it.

Not every country ahs the luxury that the US does to have purpose built aircraft purely for naval air operations. Even the Chinese J-15 is a derivitive of their J-11s.

The US Navy E2-C/Ds, the US Navy A/F-18C/D/E/Fs, the US Navy EA-6B Prowlers and E/A-18G Growlers are all current aircraft that are purpose built for the US Navy for carriers (and used by the Marines there too). In the past, aircraft like the A-4, the F-8, the A-6, the F-14 etc were too. The A-7 is an aircraft that was designed by the Navy and then adopted by the Air Force.

But, in other navies, where they operate their own aircraft, like the French now, you have the Rafael serving both needs but a variant, the Rafael M for the Navy which is not just an upgrade. It is a seperate build. Like the PLAN, the Russians used a variant of their SU-27 and made it the SU-33. The new Mig-29s are a navalized version of their air force Migs.

Not many people operate their own aircraft off of carriers. MOst buy them from others. The UK will operate the JSF, which was built to serve the needs of all three branches and are different variants of the same aircraft.

Will the PLAN develop and ever use a navalized J-10? I do not know. I know they could if they wanted...but it would not be a simple matter of upgrading existing aircraft. They would be new builds like the J-15s are, like the SU-33s were, like the Rafael Ms are, like the Mig0-29Ks are, etc.

Click to expand...

tphuang said:

there was a proposal to develop navalized version of J-10. PLAN had the choice of that or J-15 and they ended choosing the platfrom with longer range and greater payload.

I've always thought of J-15 as China's version of E/FA-18E/F/G/H series of aircraft. Which can still stick around for many years to compliment the second generation of naval aircraft like rhino does with F-35C.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

I agree that the J-15 is the best choice if there was only going to be one.

But I also believe that the PLAN would benefit from having a lighter attack aircraft also capable of air defense. It would give them more flexability, and allow more aircraft on the carrier.

So, if they carrier 18 J-15s instead of 24, they could probably also carry 12 J-10s and end up with three squadrons instead of two, and be able to respond more economically and in a more flexable fashion to a broad range of contingencies and circumstances.

I believe the J-15 is an aircaft that will be able to be used for 20+ years in the future. I also believe the J-10 navalized new builds could do the same.

The J-10 is really a decent attack and air defense aircraft...and considerably cheaper than other options.

If the PLAN decides it will produce the J-31 for the carrier, then there would be no reason for the J-10...depending on how quickly they can get it into service.

Click to expand...

thunderchief said:

One potential problem with navalized J-10 on STOBAR carrier could be its delta wing configuration . Delta wing is optimized for higher speeds and such aircraft usually have higher stall speed. STOBAR fighters (Su-33,J-15,Mig-29K ) require very low stall speed ...

Click to expand...