Potential PLANAF Carrier Aviation Alternatives
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
I agree. The Su-33 currently is the best option for the PLAAF for an aircraft carrier aircraft to start its first carrier training. Though the PLAAF shouldn't rely on the Su-33 on the long run, using it as the mainstream for its carrier aircraft. The PLAAF shouldn't invest to much in the Su-33 maybe just two regiments for two carriers 50 Su-33 initially to train a carrier aircrew. And then stop the purchase and acquisation of the Su-33 and move on to their own designs for their indigenious catapault carrier instead of the ski jump. J-10B maybe
Ski Jump: Su-33
Catapault: J-10B
Su-33 should be the starting block for the PLAAF from present to 2015. 2015 onwards should be equipped with domestic carrier aircrafts.
Neutral Zone
Junior Member
Also, wouldn't the fact that PLANAF would be using basically the same aircraft as it's land based sister service make it easier to form a carrier wing as PLAAF pilots, already familiar with the Flanker's systems and characteristics could be seconded to PLANAF for carrier training? I read somewhere before that the only difference in the cockpits of a RuAF Su-27 and an RuN Su-33 are the switches for the wingfold and the tailhook. And unlike the experience of the Kuznetsov's air wing, a PLAN air wing won't be hampered by budget constraints and they'll be able to put in some very intensive training to become carrier qualified.
Once PLAN has an experienced core of carrier pilots, they will then find it easier to introduce advanced, indigenously designed carrier planes such as the twin engined J-10, (if it ever happens!)
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
Its not moreso the pilot situation that the PLANAF is worried about its more so the carrier itself that the PLAN has to worry about. Twin enlarged J-10 you are trying to refer to the Super 10 project aren't you. The first step thaet the PLANAF should take for a carrier aircraft is the twin seater J-10B increasing the thrust, changing the structure just a bit, TVC engines, improved avionics. The J-10B should be the first domestic carrier aircraft then the possible twin engine enlarged J-10. But overall the carrier is the main issue here. The aircraft has to suit the carrier or the carrier has to suit the aircraft.
Yes, I know this is the third attempt with the same question, but as here are more guys, which are more familiar with Chinese carrier developments and projects I try it here again !
Any idea what's that
[qimg]http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/9944/chineseplanfighter1gq8.jpg[/qimg]
Another one here:
Besides, at the Key-forum "TinWing" mentioned:
Another idea was a lightweight fighter concept maybe from Shenyang (maybe developed out of the original J-11 Mirage F1-look-alike, but as it had quite a different design and regarding the PL-8 on it's fin I'm not sure if this has to be a later design !
Regarding "No carrier fighter design" it clearly shows a tail-hook and folding wings !
Thanks in advance, Deino
Deino, I've no cloud, but to me it looks like one of the first J-10 phantasy products, added by a modeller's wet dream!
today jou should not have the aircraft fighters with only one engine .....
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
A possible carrier fighter with foldable wings and tail hook it well could be a early design from the 80's or the early 90's of a future carrier aircraft prospect for future PLA aircraft carrier. The design incorporates Mirage aspects within its appearance. Personally it seems like a project that has just gone dead. Another wild assumption could be a carrier fighter trainer aircraft for the PLAANF pilots.
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
Yes to the Su-33 but only for the existing Varag in the PLAN in Dailan. But the PLAN wants to build a fighter around their indigenous carrier suiting their requirments and needs. Though Rafale tecnology could enhance indigenous carrier aircrafts. Most likely would be a twin seater enlarged twin engine J-10.
A question about that twin-seater point. Should a navalized J-10 actually be a twin-seater? Though, I can see that two crew members might be helpfull in strike roles when there are more threads to identify and targets to classify. Is it possible that there are two very similar naval J-10s like the F/A-18 E/F, a single-seater for A2A combat and a twin seater for strike roles and EW?
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
Well the answer really depends on the PLAN needs either single-seater for A2A combat or twin seater for strike roles and EW or even both. The answer that personally will give won't be totally correct as I don't know the PLAN true ambitions and strategy. Though for starter the current non-operational naval aircraft carrier is the Varag which is a ski jump so the fighters equipped will mainly be for Air superioty or as you said A2A combat requiring only a single seater. So initially China's first 2 carriers including the Varag and the other indigenous ski jump carrier will to retain air superiorty requiring the single seater. But retaining air superiorty won't be enough in the future, and after retaining some knowledge in the initial carriers China would likely move foward for catapault carriers that can give aircrafts a full payload launch thus requiring two seater for strike roles and EW. The aircraft that was mentioned previously was the possible future J-10 for China's indigenous catapault aircraft carrier.