PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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)

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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)

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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)

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

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

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?