Well... not necessary. All that meant would be we will be having two competitors for stealth carrier-borne aircrafts. Even if J-31 failed in the competition, they might still be marketing this bird out to foreign countries.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Well... not necessary. All that meant would be we will be having two competitors for stealth carrier-borne aircrafts. Even if J-31 failed in the competition, they might still be marketing this bird out to foreign countries.
Surely force division and force concentration have both failed at various times in military history as well, that doesn't mean they're poor tactic under all circumstances. I see this as an innovative design that can maximally utilize current day technologies, applying a paradigm often used in construction (modularity) to military tactics. For the same reason that modularity allows quick and cheap replacements of outdated/damaged parts, this would allow quick and cheap replacements of damaged parts on a CV.
Of course, there would be many difficulties involved with this design, but I don't see the battle at 赤壁 to carry much relevance in this case.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
The problem is, the runway ships would need to communicate with each other effectively and have a centralized command. This means that connecting themselves would take a long time and not necessarily doable in combat situations. Secondly, a modular concept like this would almost definitely require the "modules" to be assembled in a particular order and even might require other support ships to help along with it. This would put the viability of the entire system at risk of a single point of failure since the thing would not work if any of those modules were ruined.
A "floating runway" was envisioned once before, but they are equally susceptible to enemy fire.
It would certainly NOT require the modules to be assembled in a particular order, as all of them would be same and interchangeable. That's the whole point of this design. At most, you'll need a propulsion module for every few of them in order to power the assembled modules. It may take a while to disconnect/connect them, but it'll be much quicker than sailing/towing a damaged ship to port for repairs, and certainly much quicker than building a replacement carrier.
Also, the goal is not to reduce the susceptibility to enemy, they would almost certainly be MORE susceptible to enemy fire; the goal is to make them expendable so you wouldn't mind losing a couple or a dozen. They'd have no catapults, a fully-automated landings/takeoffs system, no offensive weapons, no hangars, no radars, and only CIWS for self-defense and communications modules to coordinate movement.
Last edited:
And a fuel system that must itself be refueled and fire fighting equipment and ....
With that crooked logic. Then China should really stop all Navy, Airforce and Army development, those are only a waste of money since, no matter what they do now, they will be wayyyyy behind US.
What a load of BS.
The objective of having a military is not to overwhelm an adversary (unless it's the US), it's to deter an adversary from attacking. A smaller fleet will easily suffice to make a stronger adversary think twice before attacking.
Hahaha, next time if someone ask you who coined the phrase "一步到位" (Single Step To Goal), remember to answer "hardware from sinodefence".
Yes. And that is why I answer to Hardware, if you would look at my quote. Extremely crooked logic he had there... It was as if asking the chinese to resign to fate... no matter what the Chinese do, they would lag behind.
In a sense, the Chinese is lagging behind in term of military development as compared to the US, however having a weapon is as much to hammer your adversaries as was to prevent them to come in. And sometime a powerful 'enemy' will think twice before attacking you when they know you will give them a bloody bite in the backside even if it meant killing yourself.
- Status